GOP Presidential Debate 15 May 2007

[onedomino]

I think that Giuliani did very well tonight. Paul was exposed as an extremist flake. McCain said he would be the "last man standing," fighting terrorists in Iraq. Romney was very polished and gave good answers; he is a very effective speaker. Hunter was stong in his limited responses. Who do you think "won?"

I think Giuliani's performance stood above the others.

 

[red states rule]

I think that Giuliani did very well tonight. Paul was exposed as an extremist flake. McCain said he would be the "last man standing," fighting terrorists in Iraq. Romney was very polished and gave good answers; he is a very effective speaker. Hunter was stong in his limited responses. Who do you think "won?"

I think Giuliani's performance stood above the others.

So in the end, the candidate who made a big move, who came out of nowhere to win new name recognition was…Ron Paul. But it’s probably not the sort of name recognition Republican presidential candidates want. “Wow,” said one adviser to a rival campaign after listening to Paul’s blame-America lecture. “I haven’t heard anything like that this side of Rosie O’Donnell.”

So much for the Libertarian candidate

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDBkMzQ2MTJmOTFmZWM4NjJhYjg3MTY1MzRhMGU0Y2Y=

 

[red states rule]

One other good thing - Fox News held the debate

No stupid questions like we got from Chris Matthews

 

[red states rule]

Rudy Giuliani has a big decision today: How to thank Ron Paul for helping him win the Republican debate last night.

Paul did it by feeding New York's former mayor a big fat slow pitch right down the middle of the plate, and Giuliani promptly smashed it out of the park.

Home run, debate over.

Paul, the old-timey Texas crank in the 10-man field, certainly didn't mean to help anyone. Pushing his line that true conservatives should oppose an expansive foreign policy, Paul suggested that 9/11 was a direct result of our policies in the Mideast.

Bingo. Giuliani, who had mostly been on the defensive over his support for abortion rights, gun control and gay rights, quickly jumped to respond. His face taut and fairly bristling with anger, said, "As someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11," he had heard many absurd things about 9/11, but nothing like Paul's idea "that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq."

The crowd at the University of South Carolina loved both the answer and the genuine outrage. As soon as the applause stopped, Giuliani wisely turned the heat back on Paul by asking the "congressman to withdraw that statement."

Paul didn't, of course, but that's his problem. Giuliani got exactly what he needed - a chance to change the subject and get back on the terror turf. He's been trying to do that ever since he muffed his answers on abortion in the first debate two weeks ago. Since then, he went a long way in clarifying his position in a well-received speech in Houston and has clearly decided he's not going to waffle.

But being pro-choice won't win him the nomination. The best he can do is hope that it doesn't lose it for him. Last night he put on a clinic about how to maximize your strengths so that your negatives are diminished by comparison. He's still pro-choice, but he's tough and certain on terror, and that's his ticket.

The other top contenders were not as successful in the lively exchange, which was well-staged to let the candidates do most of the talking. John McCain struggled to maintain his upbeat, can-do demeanor and looked momentarily rattled when Mitt Romney criticized McCain's position on immigration and campaign financing. McCain seemed to be biting his tongue at the audience applause and answered with a broadside against money that included the phrase the "corruption of our own party." That could be a loser in South Carolina, where McCain is not beloved to begin with.

Romney had another solid performance, and it's easy to see him gaining modest traction with each appearance. He's quick and smart and has made a good impression in both debates.

Still, some GOP regulars demand fresh faces. Former Sen. Fred Thompson, who's best known as a TV actor in "Law & Order," has been flirting around the edges for months, but still hasn't gotten in. And Newt Gingrich is making noises again about running, saying there is a "great possibility" he, too, would join the fray.

Hey, come one, come all. Just don't try to exclude Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani's new best friend.


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/col/goodwin/index.html

 

[red states rule]

I think that Giuliani did very well tonight. Paul was exposed as an extremist flake. McCain said he would be the "last man standing," fighting terrorists in Iraq. Romney was very polished and gave good answers; he is a very effective speaker. Hunter was stong in his limited responses. Who do you think "won?"

I think Giuliani's performance stood above the others.

Matthews Rips GOP Candidate’s Edwards Jibe: ‘Stupid' and 'Embarrassing'
Posted by Scott Whitlock on May 16, 2007 - 17:46.
Proving that he's not a fan of Republicans, "Hardball" host Chris Matthews slammed 2008 GOP contenders on Wednesday for running a "mordant," "negative campaign." Sounding like a Democratic activist, he appeared throughout the day on MSNBC and, at one point, bitterly complained about former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee’s jibe that Congress spends money "like John Edwards at a beauty shop."

Mr. Matthews condemned the line, which was delivered during a May 15 presidential debate, as "stupid," "embarrassing" and "pandering." (Is it surprising that a Republican would play to his Republican audience?)

Video (1:22): Real (2.25 MB) or Windows (2.54 MB), plus MP3 (1.22 MB).

The "Hardball" host showed up in the 2pm hour of "MSNBC Live" to trash Governor Huckabee for daring to make fun of John Edwards. Responding to a question by host Contessa Brewer about whether Huckabee prepared the line in advance, Matthews could barely contain his contempt:

Chris Matthews: "Of course. You think he thought that up on the spot? Yeah. It’s, it’s, it’s hokie panokie. (SP?) It's Mickey Mouse. So what. And what a stupid thing. What did it have to do– John Edwards paid the price for his haircut weeks ago, to bring that up in front of that audience was pandering. Let's face it."

In an early morning interview with Imus replacement David Gregory, Matthews attacked Republicans as "desperate" for looking to former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson. He dismissed the Tennessean as just too old:

Matthews: "Certainly if Fred Thompson is their idea of a hero, they are desperate. He is not Ronald Reagan. He seems to be uninterested in the campaign. I, I think his first campaign pledge for something would be, ‘Will somebody get my slippers?’ I mean, he looks like a guy about to retire, not about to enter a race for president."

Appearing on the newly minted "Gregory Live" show (MSNBC has been cycling through various possible replacements for the fired Don Imus), Matthews asserted that the only reason Republicans are supporting the war is because George Bush is part of the GOP:

Matthews: "They wouldn’t be with this war for a second if it was Bill Clinton’s war. They would say this is a crazy, ethnic war. What are we doing over there in the middle of all these nuts, nutty behavior? What, what are we doing there? But they are very loyal to their president and the leader of their party, George Bush."

The "Hardball" anchor also expounded on a question about GOP themes in ‘08. After citing Hillary and Bill Clinton as issues to run on, Matthews snarled that the Republicans are "going to try to really scare the country about the dangers of that and they’re going to use that as their rallying and unifying point."

http://newsbusters.org/node/12800

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Paul, the old-timey Texas crank in the 10-man field, certainly didn't mean to help anyone. Pushing his line that true conservatives should oppose an expansive foreign policy, Paul suggested that 9/11 was a direct result of our policies in the Mideast.

Bingo. Giuliani, who had mostly been on the defensive over his support for abortion rights, gun control and gay rights, quickly jumped to respond. His face taut and fairly bristling with anger, said, "As someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11," he had heard many absurd things about 9/11, but nothing like Paul's idea "that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq."

Looks like Benito Giuliani has exposed himself as a colossal ignoramus of the highest order. Never heard of the theory of blowback? Hahahaha. Christ, it's right there in the 9/11 commission report. Acknowledging that america's sanctions and bombing might have fueled the desire for revenge is about as controversial as saying that the Versailles treaty led to WWII.

 

[red states rule]

Looks like Benito Giuliani has exposed himself as a colossal ignoramus of the highest order. Never heard of the theory of blowback? Hahahaha. Christ, it's right there in the 9/11 commission report. Acknowledging that america's sanctions and bombing might have fueled the desire for revenge is about as controversial as saying that the Versailles treaty led to WWII.

What are you smoking?

 

[JeffWartman]

I really wish that people who aren't Conservatives, which is almost the entire U.S. Republican Party, would stop calling themselves Conservatives.

Let's have small government. Now. The Republicans obviously don't want it...George W. Bush has increased government by an unacceptable margin. Can we nominate a real Conservative, please?

 

[pegwinn]

I really wish that people who aren't Conservatives, which is almost the entire U.S. Republican Party, would stop calling themselves Conservatives.

Let's have small government. Now. The Republicans obviously don't want it...George W. Bush has increased government by an unacceptable margin. Can we nominate a real Conservative, please?

No objections. But I prefer a right sized .gov that is efficient.

 

[red states rule]

I really wish that people who aren't Conservatives, which is almost the entire U.S. Republican Party, would stop calling themselves Conservatives.

Let's have small government. Now. The Republicans obviously don't want it...George W. Bush has increased government by an unacceptable margin. Can we nominate a real Conservative, please?

Rudy and Fred would be a great ticket

 

[William Joyce]

Paul was exposed as an extremist

As one said, "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

 

[red states rule]

As one said, "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

Paul is a nut and he will be gone quickly

 

[zappaneese]

Paul is a nut and he will be gone quickly

He is the only Repub that is talking sense therefore he will be gone.

 

[red states rule]

He is the only Repub that is talking sense therefore he will be gone.

he is a nut who will be tossed aside - as he should

Yea, the US is to blame for the 9-11 attacks - now why would that make anyone NOT vore for him?

 

[zappaneese]

he is a nut who will be tossed aside - as he should

Yea, the US is to blame for the 9-11 attacks - now why would that make anyone NOT vore for him?

brilliant. where did Paul deny that the terrorists were to blame? do you really think that the only motive behind what they do or have done is that "they hate our freedom"? i'm pretty sure there are other places that have freedom. what is wrong with examining the motives of terrorists? do you not think that what happened on 9/11 was a politically motivated attack?

 

[red states rule]

brilliant. where did Paul deny that the terrorists were to blame? do you really think that the only motive behind what they do or have done is that "they hate our freedom"? i'm pretty sure there are other places that have freedom. what is wrong with examining the motives of terrorists? do you not think that what happened on 9/11 was a politically motivated attack?

Rudy hit a homer when Paul tossed a slow hanging curve ball towards him

What motitives? I do not give a damn why they did it

Now all that is left is to capture and/or kill the bastards - not give them a psych exam

 

[zappaneese]

I do not give a damn why they did it

that is so dumb it is a little scary. you can have the desire to see the terrorists skinned alive and you should STILL want to know why they did it. are you going to wipe out every single current "terrorist" and wipe out all potential future ones as they leave the womb?

if you burned your hand on the stove as a child would you have not learned that you could avoid the pain in the future by not touching the stove while it is hot. or did you just take the stove out back and blow it up and order a new one?

 

[red states rule]

that is so dumb it is a little scary. you can have the desire to see the terrorists skinned alive and you should STILL want to know why they did it. are you going to wipe out every single current "terrorist" and wipe out all potential future ones as they leave the womb?

if you burned your hand on the stove as a child would you have not learned that you could avoid the pain in the future by not touching the stove while it is hot. or did you just take the stove out back and blow it up and order a new one?

We are talking about 3000 dead on 9-11 and countless others in other attacks- not a Hate America protest in the streets


While you want to sit down and undertand the bastards I want them dead or locked up for life

 

[zappaneese]

We are talking about 3000 dead on 9-11 and countless others in other attacks- not a Hate America protest in the streets

EXACTLY! The makes it all the more important to understand the motives. Do you want to see it happen again or something???

While you want to sit down and undertand the bastards I want them dead or locked up for life

This has to be a case of you not fully reading my post or just having a basic comprehension problem. Why are killing the bastards and understanding their motives mutually exclusive?

 

[red states rule]

EXACTLY! The makes it all the more important to understand the motives. Do you want to see it happen again or something???



This has to be a case of you not fully reading my post or just having a basic comprehension problem. Why are killing the bastards and understanding their motives mutually exclusive?

You may continue to coddle them in a lame attempt to melt their bombs and bullets with hugs and understanding

Here is all you need to know about terrorists