GOP debate tonight fantastic--very STRONG candidates

[Cecilie1200]

Liberals and the left wing media have been telling us that this field of GOP candidates are weak--no one is interested in them--yada--yada--yada.

If you watched the debate on CNN tonight--June 13, 2011--the message could not be clearer. This entire field is STRONG. In fact the strongest I have seen in decades. Not a John McCain in the bunch--LOL. Every one of them had several home runs--they were articulate--gave direct answers--and are more than ready to take Barack Obama and his policies on.

In fact--after listening to them speak--any one of these candidates would cut through Barack Obama like a hot knife through butter. Why? Because they made SENSE. On the economy--on Jobs--and on the Deficit.

Michelle Bachmann announced that she is running for POTUS tonight during the debate--and she was great. Ron Paul got a lot of applause--he did great. Newt Gingrich--when everyone thought he was done--is not done. Of course Mitt Romney--Palenty--Herman Cain--and Santorim.

It was so good--I still don't have a favorite. I am going to have to watch several more debates before I can come to any conclusion.

Did any of you watch it?

It would be really nice to go into the GOP primary feeling like we're good no matter who wins.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Ron Pauls answer to every question began with our dollar is devalued abolish the fed. Right or wrong having a 1 issue platform is a loser just as he has been and will continue to be. I doubt I will ever see a libertarian elected in my life. They are too extreme on nearly every issue. Plus he looks to much like a frail old man.

 

[Avatar4321]

It would be really nice to go into the GOP primary feeling like we're good no matter who wins.

Honestly, I think we are pretty good no matter who wins. I could easily be wrong. But right now all the candidates are impressing me on some points. I think they have the general idea on how to fix the problems. I just dont know if they have the skill necessary to do it.

 

[rightwinger]

Oh, Sallow. Please don't misquote people in order to score points. You're better than that.

Cain openly fears and hates Muslims. It would affect his ability to lead fairly and would destroy relations with 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide

He is a nice niche candidate for those who fantasize about a businessman cleaning up our country....but he will be a historical footnote once the primaries start

Cain doesn't openly hate Muslims. He chooses not to have any in his administration and at a time like this, that is not all bad. I for one admire his non pc attitude and honesty. It doesn't mean I totally agree with him but we need brave men that stand up for their ideas and not for potential votes.

It is certainly better than those that change their speeches to match their audiences. I like this man.

No.... Cain has issues with Muslims

He feels that since he can't tell the terrorists from the peaceful muslims, he wont have anything to do with them

 

[candycorn]

Ron Paul is the only strong candidate. The others are weak and don't stand for anything except maybe Santorum (but I disagree with his stances).

Most of them pandered to please the crowd but said nothing substantial. They all said bs like "we need to boost the economy to fix our problems" "we need to energize the economy" "we need to bring more places of employment into the U.S." and other vague bullshit answers.

Ron Paul is the only guy to take a stand and specifically explain HOW to boost the economy. He outlined that we need to stop the Federal Reserve, stop devaluing our currency, stop exporting jobs, stop foreign aid, stop militarism, stop funding the military industrial complex, and stop wasting money on government social programs that don't work.

.

I agree...they all sound like winners. Everybody vote for Ron Paul.

 

[JamesMorrison]

Personally, I thought the debate format left something to be desired. Thirty second answers to question such as: How would you tackle entitlements or How would you grow the economy? Really? Maybe there might be a little more time allotted for such questions and less for those inane "This or That" questions. Is this CNN's take on an unserious or attention deficit afflicted citizenry? Coke or Pepsi? Also what was that extremely annoying grunting emanating from King? Perhaps, next time King might spare us all and just wear an adult diaper. Then he could just follow King of Queens Doug Heffernan's advice and just “…let it go!!"

Seriously though, it does appear that all those on the stage pretty much obeyed Reagan's 11th commandment... Pawlenty, apparently, to a fault. As of now, he is the conservative candidate to highlight and beat Mitt's RINOism. Why he didn't follow thru on his TV characterization of 'Obamneycare' when King gave him the opening is beyond me. Santorum had no problem reminding all listeners of Romney's flip-flop on the abortion issue and forthrightly connected it to the principle and character issue regarding candidates. Instead Pawlenty pulled his punch. This is exactly what many watching this race for the GOP nomination have been critisizing T-Paw for: a lack of passion that, mixed with a good conservative political record, might allow him to pull away from Mitt. Contrast this with Newt's clear and lucid answer to the Islamic jihadist problem.

Newt gave an absolutely stellar performance and proved he was the smartest guy in the room, but his discipline problem has killed his candidacy. For those listening his explanation of the "right wing social engineering" crack was spot on (unlike Obamacare passage, legislators should consult the American people on big social legislation) but the damage has been done and we can be sure that the Dems, now in full demagogic mode, will use his sound bite to label Ryan’s attempt to save Medicare (it goes south in 2036 I believe) as radical.

Bachmann came across as, well, Bachmann. Her strengths are that she not only talks the talk but walks the walk, both in Congress and in her personal life. Biological and step Mom, small business owner, and congressional committee member that knows deeply about American involvement in the world and congressional spending. Betcha she would have answered that question about Romneycare with out pulling any punches. She gave a good firm answer on the debt ceiling thing.

Santorum has excellent answers to many difficult questions but is generally perceived, as is Ron Paul, an also ran. Cain just seems to be struggling to stay relevant with his parsing of problems into multiple problems...or something. Foreign policy is a mystery here and the Muslim hiring thing was an unforced error.

My question is: Now that Bachmann is in does that argue against Palin jumping in as well? My argument for Palin’s relevance has always been her role in pulling the GOP to the right. With Bachmann in does Palin need to run? I say No. That goes double if Perry jumps in.

An aside here: Missourian, I believe has the right take on the starting of our country as originating in a succession. That carrot top rascal Jefferson also hinted that succession might be remedial given what he said, and a large number of his group signed in 1776, to wit:

"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

But in all seriousness the GOP is not talking secession. This is not much different than the left's suggestion a conservative pointing out the fact that the number of people in America on food stamps has increased under Obama indicates, somehow, racism! Newt had the right description for this characterization: Bizzare

JM

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

My question is: Now that Bachmann is in does that argue against Palin jumping in as well? My argument for Palin’s relevance has always been her role in pulling the GOP to the right. With Bachmann in does Palin need to run? I say No. That goes double if Perry jumps in.

Neither ‘need’ to run – it’s more a matter of the GOP Old Guard taking its party back and kicking out the radical rightists.

An aside here: Missourian, I believe has the right take on the starting of our country as originating in a succession. That carrot top rascal Jefferson also hinted that succession might be remedial given what he said, and a large number of his group signed in 1776, to wit:

Interesting but moot, per Texas v White.

But in all seriousness the GOP is not talking secession.

Agreed – as they shouldn’t – given it’s moot.

 

[JamesMorrison]

My question is: Now that Bachmann is in does that argue against Palin jumping in as well? My argument for Palin’s relevance has always been her role in pulling the GOP to the right. With Bachmann in does Palin need to run? I say No. That goes double if Perry jumps in.

Neither ‘need’ to run – it’s more a matter of the GOP Old Guard taking its party back and kicking out the radical rightists.

Well, the 'Old Guard' New England establishment GOP started to be less relevant when Goldwater ran for president. The old guard/Wall street/Banker types that most liberals still associate with the Republican Party are those like George H.W. Bush, probably the last of this critter. The 'radical right' of the GOP mostly started with the Goldwater candidacy and Ron Reagan's election to the presidency. Presently, the conservative element of the GOP comes from the Southern and Southwestern area of the country while the Midwest is becoming increasingly stronger in its support of conservatism. The former Northeastern stronghold of the GOP (G.H.W. Bush and his father) has now been turned mostly blue due to GOP candidates turning into 'moderates', Romney being the classic example. That is simply the result of GOP candidates compromising their conservative values in exchange for favorable election results; observe the Maine Senators. But the current mood in the U.S. is trending towards a libertarian conservatism that espouses smaller less intrusive government. Instructional is the fight to pass Obamacare and Scott Brown's election to fill Sen. Ted Kennedy's old seat. The term 'radical right' manifests not only how far America has drifted to the left over the last 100 years in its expectation of government largess and safety nets but the, now diminishing, power of the mainstream media whose bias is only beginning to be noted by previously politically ignorant citizens. However, Fox News and the internet have changed the media landscape.

The conservatism of the 'radical right' is merely the classical liberalism of the founder's revisited. Thus, we now see the present questioning of the constitutionality of various laws and scope of the Federal Government. The recent legislation and regulations emanating from the Democratic Party are from its left most elements that have now taken that party over (note the irrelevance of both pro-life and Blue Dog Democrats in the 111th Congress; their Obamacare vote there decimated them in the 2010 mid-terms) and whose main principle is to seize and maintain political power for power's sake.

An aside here: Missourian, I believe has the right take on the starting of our country as originating in a succession. That carrot top rascal Jefferson also hinted that succession might be remedial given what he said, and a large number of his group signed in 1776, to wit: the Declaration of Independence

Interesting but moot, per Texas v White.

Examining the meaning of 'moot', I'm not sure exactly which definition of moot you are referring to here but then it might just be an irrelevancy. Your cited case dealt with a state that was back under the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. When a state secedes from the union it does so with the implicit (if not explicit) understanding that it disagrees with the laws from that union and that it will make and be under the jurisdiction of only its own laws, not that union's. Therefore, a seceding state or entity does not consider itself under the jurisdiction of SCOTUS and any ruling emanating from that body can be properly ignored. Further, the fact that the U.S. Supremes find that secession is unconstitutional is mere hand waving to a seceded state. It is in this context that I viewed Missourian's point as well taken.

JM

 

[Cecilie1200]

Rick Perry is radioactive. I'd love him to run.

His traitorous secessionist stance is a true winner.

Best endorsement for Perry I've heard so far.

Should be.

You guys seem to like treasonous types like Jefferson Davis and Ronald Reagan. Or radical dry drunks like George W. Bush..the only man convicted of anything prior to be elected to the office of President.

Good on you.

DAVIS, Jefferson . . . elected as a Democrat to the Twenty-ninth Congress and served from March 4, 1845, until June 1846, when he resigned to command the First Regiment of Mississippi Riflemen in the war with Mexico; . . . again elected as a Democrat to the United States Senate and served from March 4, 1857, until January 21, 1861, when he withdrew; seat declared vacant by Senate resolution on March 4, 1861.

http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=D000113

Great-Grandpa was a Democrat, son. And just for the record, he was no more "treasonous" than the Founding Fathers who fought the American Revolution.

The rest of your hate-filled, incoherent rant warrants no response.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I can't wait to see both Perry and Romney aside one another in the next debate, you know if that happens,we will be looking at the dream ticket,,,either combination! Perry/Romney 2012!! I am praying!

I'm hoping for a Palin/Cain ticket. And dont think for one second they couldn't win it. Just because the lame stream media says they couldn't win it doesn't mean the rest of America would not vote for them. Fuck the media, vote your heart and vote for who will constitutionally run this country. We are fighting socialist/progressives, we need to vote with the constitution, not against it.

Funny you trot out the Constitution and Herman Cain in the same sentence.

Cain has said he would never appoint a person who follows the Muslim faith to any government position.

Exactly how do you think that sits with the Constitution of the United States?

Just fine. The Constitution prohibits LAWS discriminating against people, and it allows for the President to nominate anyone he wants, based on whatever his personal preferences for the job happen to be. You think Democrat Presidents don't go into office determined not to nominate anyone who's a conservative Christian? Cain's just more honest and upfront about what his personal preferences happen to be.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There's nothing to run away from.

The cited moment played out after an Associated Press reporter, Kelley Shannon, asked Perry after the 2009 rally if he thought the gathering reflected a national movement. Perry answered that it could be. He said people feel strangled by spending and taxation and they want help, according to an AP recording we reviewed in April 2010.

Shannon then asked Perry about some associating him with the idea of secession or sovereignty for Texas. “Oh, I think there’s a lot of different scenarios,” Perry replied. “Texas is a unique place. When we came in the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that.

“You know, my hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention,” Perry continued. “We’ve got a great union. There is absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what may come out of that? So. But Texas is a very unique place and we’re a pretty independent lot to boot.”

Rick Perry threatened to secede​

PolitiFact Texas | Bill White says Rick Perry threatened to secede​

​

And bob's your uncle.

And bob's your uncle? What are you talking about?


Not only does he say nothing about secession.

Instead, he says that "there is ABSOLUTELY no reason to dissolve" the United States.

Only Liberal logic can construe that as traitorous.

Liberals aren't very good at the meanings of words. They're still puzzling over "is".

 

[Cecilie1200]

Haven't slandered Perry in the slightest. I'd play you the clip..but it's in enough places on this board.

He can't run away from those words.

If the worst thing you can say about Perry is to lie that he is a secessionist then he is a lead pipe cinch to win.

Not lying about anything.

And it's nothing new that conservatives would back traitors.

Like Benedict Arnold, John Wilkes Booth, Jefferson Davis and Ronald Reagan before him.

Go team!

John Wilkes Booth? Seriously? An ardent supporter of slavery who assassinated the first Republican President was a conservative?

Ass clown, please. You're reaching so far now, it's a wonder your arm hasn't detached from your body entirely.

 

[California Girl]

Secession is pure and simple treason against your country the treasonous south attacked the US Garrison at Ft Sumter

There are no provisions for states to leave the union.

Not according to the US definition of 'treason'... but please, don't let facts get in the way of your bullshit.

Sure it is..

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them

Secceeding from the Union is not levying war against it. Unless that state declares war on the Union... of which there has been no mention. Your hysteria and spin is entertaining, but it remains hysteria and spin... with no substance in fact.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I saw the debate.... No one brought anything new to the table. Just the standard republican repeal everything obama, more tax cuts for the rich, and less regulation so corporations can further screw us. Same crap different toilet.

If you like'd the Enron scandal, vote republican...no regulations for business at all just regular bail outs.

Enron? So you're saying that deregulation causes businesses to break the law? But wait, if there's no regulation, how could there have been a law for them to break?

Your point is very confusing and obscure. Please explain to us, in detail, how deregulation caused Enron's lawbreaking.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I saw the debate.... No one brought anything new to the table. Just the standard republican repeal everything obama, more tax cuts for the rich, and less regulation so corporations can further screw us. Same crap different toilet.

Just how do corporations screw YOU, please explain that to me.

Ask those who work for ENRON and were there before 2000. Oh yeah; you can't. They were all fired when the company went bankrupt due to accounting irregularities...Good to see that the corporate bosses made out so well though.

So one corporation is now ALL corporations? Hmmm. So by that token, because Mary K. Letourneau fucked her student, that means ALL female teachers are pedophiles? Interesting "logic" you have going there.

By the way, fool, the "corporate bosses made out well"? A whole crowd of their executives went to prison, dumbass. Kenneth Lay only escaped prison because he DIED. How is that "making out well"?

 

[Cecilie1200]

That's incorrect.

Question: Would you be comfortable with a Muslim in your cabinet?

Cain: No. I will not. <Begins Rant>

It's pretty clear. He goes into an extended hate filled rant about creeping Sharia law in Europe. That's pretty nuts. You want this guy dealing with Merkel?

What is it with this 'rant' shit? He explained his view and his concern about Muslims quite clearly and without 'ranting'. This obsessive need to deliberately overblow every sentence by anyone you disagree with is laughable.

I would be far happier with Cain representing us than some asshole who thinks we owe the world an apology.

This is just fucking bullshit.

and i'd be happier with someone who's rational and isn't a corporatist wingnut.

fancy that.

but then again, i tend to be allergic to racist scum like cain. i particularly am allergic to it when it comes from people who've been subjected to racism.

And we ALL know how important the ability to appeal to leftist halfwits is for conservative/GOP candidates, right? Oh, wait, it's not . . . so making you UNHAPPY is actually a desirable goal.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Liberals and the left wing media have been telling us that this field of GOP candidates are weak--no one is interested in them--yada--yada--yada.

If you watched the debate on CNN tonight--June 13, 2011--the message could not be clearer. This entire field is STRONG. In fact the strongest I have seen in decades. Not a John McCain in the bunch--LOL. Every one of them had several home runs--they were articulate--gave direct answers--and are more than ready to take Barack Obama and his policies on.

In fact--after listening to them speak--any one of these candidates would cut through Barack Obama like a hot knife through butter. Why? Because they made SENSE. On the economy--on Jobs--and on the Deficit.

Michelle Bachmann announced that she is running for POTUS tonight during the debate--and she was great. Ron Paul got a lot of applause--he did great. Newt Gingrich--when everyone thought he was done--is not done. Of course Mitt Romney--Palenty--Herman Cain--and Santorim.

It was so good--I still don't have a favorite. I am going to have to watch several more debates before I can come to any conclusion.

Did any of you watch it?

Where were all these supposed "hot knife through butter" solutions "on the economy--on Jobs--and on the Deficit" during the Bush Administration when the Republicans enjoyed contol of the 3 centers of elected political power in America - the White House, the House and the Senate?

Palenty, Cain, Santorim, Perry and Paul are not exactly household names outside of conservative circles and while Bachmann, Gingrich and Palin may enjoy more national name recognition - its for all the wrong reasons.

Mitt Romney, the only candidate capable of attracting moderates/independents and challenging Barrack Obama for the political center, is increasingly out-of-step with the Republican faithful - whose ideological center has long since abandoned the Ronald Reagan's "big tent" winning formula by shifting farther and farther to the right.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but neither former President Bush nor "the Bush Administration" are running, so could you possibly tell me what the fuck they have to do with any ideas presented in THIS campaign and their validity or lack thereof?

Also - and again, please correct me if I'm wrong - but isn't becoming "a household name" sort of one of the PURPOSES of campaigning? Did I miss something about the campaign process?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Lol. So any country that declares war on the U.S is committing treason? Secession is not treason because secession in its self does not mean war. The north forced war on the south by continuing to send troops and supplies to a sovereign country. The states joined the union voluntarily and can leave if they so choose...

Secession is pure and simple treason against your country the treasonous south attacked the US Garrison at Ft Sumter

There are no provisions for states to leave the union.

And nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of the union of the states being permanent.

But the SUPREME COURT said so!! What difference does the actual, written law make next to THAT?!