Here Today... Gone To Hell!

The Republican debate will take place tonight at 8:00 EST on MSNBC.  Will be interesting to see who makes a fool of themselves.

Pray they dont cheat...again.

After 8 -- any updates?

I think I heard one of them say something about Ronald Reagan.

I caught the end of it.  I forget half of their names, I knew Guiliani, McCain and Romney. The others I really diddn't know.

Haha. ?That's got to be the understatement of the century.


The major difference I saw this week was that the GOP candidates weren't gunning for each other -- yet, like the Democratic ones did. ?Guiliani got slammed a few times I thought, but I expected that to happen. ?I have to say I was very impressed with Romney as well as McCain. ?Although I like Ron Paul's stance, I don't think he would be an effective leader. ?There's still 18 months left to decide, but Romney gained major points in my book - enough to jump to 2nd place. ?Guiliani dropped to 3rd while McCain leaped to number one. ?If Guiliani would have taken a stand and not wobbled like Obama did last week, he'd still be my pick. ?I want someone that at least says their stance with conviction.

Romney is the biggest phony, flip-flopper of them all. A total flake. He is in favor of gay rights, he is against gay rights, he is pro-choice, he is pro-life...and although he is a member of the NRA, he's been hunting less times than Guiliani has been married.

Such a flake, it's so transparent.

The top-tier didnt gun for each other, it was only Kucinich and Gravel gunning at them.


McCain came across as a right-wing Mike Gravel.  Romney did a fairly good job.  Giuliani didnt do well at all, though he surprised me with his Sunni/Shi'ite answer.  I think this debate is a portent: Romney will continue to perform well in debates and increase his profile while Giuliani will continue to hurt himself.

Mike Huckabee did a good job as well; its a bit odd his campaign isnt doing better.   

I hope the Republicans do run Romney.  Well then see how principled they are when it comes to flip-flopping. 

That's not going to happen. The Christine-right isn't going to come out and vote for a Mormon the way they did for Bush.

That true? i read Edwards took some shots at Hil-Dog about her vote for the war....

Not necessarily true.  Some influential Christian leaders (including Falwell, I believe) have indicated that theyre open to supporting Romney. 

What is true is that theres a sizable segment of evangelical Christians that wont vote for him under any circumstances.  However, I doubt thats enough to sink his chances. 

God help us all if he's the next President.

There will be fire works in the Holy Land if so, although I don't think you have much to worry about.

I'm probably the only loser who recorded it on DVR so I could watch it tomorrow.  :no:

polls got romney winning and giuliani in second...no one else had much of an impact...

OK...I've now watched the debate, so here are my thoughts.

#1) Should he fail in his bid for the Presidency, I'm certain that Mitt Romney would fit right in as the next host of, say, Wheel of Fortune or Love Connection.  Seriously, the guy seems like a game show host to me.  Though he did do one of the better jobs during the debate.

#2) After his initial answer on Iraq, I was quite impressed (surprisingly) with Tommy Thompson.   :)  Then he said someone should be allowed to fire a gay employee.  :(  He has since apologized, stating that he misinterpreted the question.  I HOPE that he is being honest about his misinterpretation.

#3) With the exception of his ability to smile at inappropriate moments (McCain: "We must win in Iraq. If we withdraw, there will be chaos; there will be genocide; and they will follow us home."  ;D  <----- McCain's shit-eatin' grin), his answers on evolution and stem cell research lead me to think that, like Darth Vader, there's still good in him.

#4) I thought Ron Paul was from the libertarian wing of the Republican Party.  I wasn't aware that he was a full blown libertarian, running as a Republican for its electoral advantages.  As someone who's generally for smaller government, I find full blown libertarianism irritating, because it's so radically different than what we have that people pay no attention to its redeeming qualities.  "In my first week, I'd eliminate the income tax."  Uh-huh. 

#5) Most of the social moderate/liberal candidates did a decent job of explaining their abortion flip-flops.

#6) If I could pick and choose different ideas from these candidates, I might be able to assemble a Republican I'd be excited about.

whats wrong with being republican in the end we are all americans

Are you referring to something I said?

If you have to do damage control and apologize the day after, the debate didnt help you much.


I agree, but I thought he did a good job explaining himself and its refreshing to see a genuinely principled candidate on a major stage, like Mike Gravel was last week.


Who were the social moderates?  There was Giuliani who looked embarassingly weak with his Roe V. Wade response.  Going down the line: "Yes, it should be overturned," "Roe V. Wade being repealed would be the most glorious day in American history," "I guess that would be okay."  Some leadership.  And Im not even sure what answer he gave on public funding for abortion.  But I do know that he hates, hates, hates it.  Hates it.  Has hate for it.

I cant imagine people are really convinced by another pre-election Romney conversion, but at least he had pretend conviction and didnt try dodging it like Giuliani.  It almost seemed like he thought that if he answered the Roe V. Wade question as quickly and innocuously as possible, nobody would notice.


What characteristics do you feel the Democratic candidates lack that makes you so desperately want to like a Republican one?

Agreed.  My real thought is that I hope he really DID misinterpret.  He didn't do well, but I'd rather him be a bad debater than a "let's fire the gays" kind of guy.


I'm just so tired of libertarians being thrown into things to make others seem more rational, which is what they usually do, because they have no concept of change at anything other than breakneck speed.


Social moderates...as in the ones who have socially moderate views, even if they're hiding them during primary season. 

I also hate abortion.  It's a generally reprehensible practice, and I strongly encourage people to make other choices, such as giving unwanted children up for adoption or preventing unwanted pregnancies through safe sex.  That said, I recognize that my morality might not be everyone else's, and that government's mandates don't belong in the womb.   


My desperation to like a Republican candidate comes from growing up in Indiana, where things were good and Republicans were in charge.  I'm very disheartened by the direction they've gone over the last decade or so.  But, you misread me.  If anything, I watched the debate with only two expectations: 1.) that it would confirm that I'm probably not going to vote for any of them, and 2.) to better get a comparison of the two debates, for the purposes of blathering on about them with you.  :hihi:

In regards to #2, I thought the format of this debate was more distracting than the Dems debate.  Chris Matthews prowled the stage, rather than standing behind a podium, a la Brian Williams, and the other guy who asked questions, when it was his turn, came tromping in from stage left.  It took away from the debate, in my opinion.

Also, the debates had a very different feel to them.  The Dems debate had two themes: attack Bush (usually on Iraq) and talk about your new social programs.  The GOP debate had different themes: try to find a middle ground between loving and hating the war and defend the party's biggest controversial stances (abortion, stem cells, etc.).  If the Republicans have ANY chance of winning this thing, they need to go on the offensive, and get some ideas across about how this country should be run.  But it's hard to do when you've been so wrong, so often, as the GOP has been of late.

You can't label Romney a flip flopper anymore than you can with Clinton, Edwards and every other candidate who voted for the war.  You give Edwards slack for "apologizing" for his vote, but think Romney is in a different category.  Please don't compare Ron Paul with Gravel.  Gravel came across as a nut job and has no credibility.  While I don't think Paul has a chance, the latest MSNBC polls show him taking a staggering lead - Gravel can't claim that. 

The biggest difference in the debates is the requirements on the candidates for each party.  The Republicans are the status-quo so they simply need to highlight what they're doing right.  The Democrats represent change, so they each need to show how they represent change the most and go against the grain - meaning they have to dog each other.  I'm not saying the Republicans wont' become cut throat in th primaries, they'll save that for the general election, but not nearly to the extent the Democratic candidates will have to be with each other.

The reason I won't vote for any Democratic candiate is the basis of what they believe government is and their desire for Iraq.  Democrats believe in cradle to grave policies and a more intrusive policies.  Not to say certain Republicans don't echo this, but the base values of the party are against this.  Democrats want to lose the war in Iraq; calling the war lost before it's even over is asking to lose- Al Qaeda is using Reid's latest comments in recruitment videos - Democrats don't hurt the troops in anyway with their comments  ::).  I don't believe Abortion to be the issue some make it to be, I am pro-choice and pro stem-cell research and don't see either being banned.

The Republicans have given us a record breaking economy and unemployment rates.  I've truly become to believe that Iraq is such a huge issue becomes the Democrats have nothing else to bitch about.  If they can assure failure in Iraq, they can blame Republicans for years to come.  For a nation that collectively has sacrificed nothing to very little to be so anti something they overwhelmingly supported a few years before shows how fickle the people are.  Romney hit it on the nail when he said a President/leader doesn't listen to popular consensus of the day.  Every single candidate with the exception of Paul agrees that Iraq was minmanaged, but we have a responsibilty to the Iraqi people, but more importantly for our own safety, to make sure Iraq doesn't become a fascist and terrorist state that must be dealt with later.  As a service member and the one who actually will make the sacrifices, this is the defining issue for any candidate.

Yes, I can.  The war is a very different kind of issue and it is one issue.  Mitt Romney has flip-flopped on nearly every fundamental issue: championing himself as a defender of gay rights (moreso than Ted Kennedy) when it was politically convenient...you havent seen him chasing those gay group endorsements lately, have you?  In 1994, Romneys views didnt "line up with the NRA."  Now hes a "lifelong" hunter with a lifetime NRA membership.  Then it came out that the lifelong hunter had only gone hunting twice.  He voted for Paul Tsongas in 1992 because he favored his ideas over Bill Clintons...or was it because he wanted to help elect the weakest Democrat?  Maybe you can tell me.  His political hero is Ronald Reagan, yet he wasnt trying "to return to Reagan/Bush" as a senatorial candidate.  He attacked Hillary Clintons "It Takes A Village" slogan...of course in 1998 he said "Hillary Clinton is very much right, it does take a village, and we are a village and we need to work together in a non-skeptical, no-finger-pointing way."

And of course theres abortion.  You could take his word, that all through his adult life and political career as a Massachusetts politician he supported Roe V. Wade and a womans right to choose, before conveniently seeing the light right before becoming a national Republican candidate for president - thats a really fortunate epiphany for him to have.  But in light of the evidence, I think youd be naive to do so.  However, Im glad to see that you and your fellow Republican voters have become more understanding of flip-flop charges since 2004. 


Your own opinion on Gravel, as well as your point about a poll, has nothing to do with what I said. 


No?  Not even if one or two more Alitos become Supreme Court justices?

Please, you can't compare being lied to/misled about the war to a 25+ year old supreme court ruling or gay rights or any of the other issues Mitt has flopped on.  The fundamental issues for aborition/gay rights etc have not changed while every reason we were given for why we HAD to go to war has proven to be total BS that was RAMMED down our throats.  Unlike gay rights and aborition, if you disagreed with the people in charge about Iraq, you were called unpatriotic, anti american and anti-troops.

Its amazing how my opinion of the Repub nominees has changed since we first started talking about 2008 here.  I sincerely thought it'd be a win-win regardless of the party so long as the top candidates in either party won.  Oh how times have changed.

Is McCain even remotely the same person he was in 2000?

The light is finally being shone on Rudy and all i see is Bush 2.0

Off Topic - surprised nobody is talking about Obamas F up with the net roots/bloggers over the myspace stuff.