****The Republican Debates****

[auditor0007]

Romney is the man. The others are just there to make him look good...

I think Jon Huntsman kicked ass. Romney was a close second.

I heard a guy on the radio say this today....don't take it personal i just saw huntsman and wanted to share. Also it doesn't mean I agree because I dont.

"People who support Huntsman are liberals who would rather have a white president than a black one" This guy said some other wackadoodle stuff too but when he said that I though "i need to post it on the forum when given the opportunity" so here it is

Romney, Huntsman, and Obama are all centrists. The only thing conservatives get completely wrong is saying that Obama is a far left wing Socialist. It's the furthest thing from the truth. Most everything he has done, has fallen in line with what any Republican would have done, other than the Healthcare legislation. Obama went along with extending the Bush tax cuts as well as pushing forward even more tax cuts. The problem is that they didn't work or at least did not work to the extent everyone had hoped. Cutting taxes is not always the answer.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I find it sad and odd that Rick Santorm and Herman Cain could be there
but they excluded Buddy Roemer ?

That's not right.

To tell you the truth I didn't even know he was a candidate so he must be polling even worse than Gary Johnson. But I checked him out and he indeed is a candidate so should be added to the mix:

Buddy Roemer, former banker and former Congressman from Louisiana.

Apparently, if you're polling below 1%, you don't get debate space.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I think Jon Huntsman kicked ass. Romney was a close second.

I heard a guy on the radio say this today....don't take it personal i just saw huntsman and wanted to share. Also it doesn't mean I agree because I dont.

"People who support Huntsman are liberals who would rather have a white president than a black one" This guy said some other wackadoodle stuff too but when he said that I though "i need to post it on the forum when given the opportunity" so here it is

Romney, Huntsman, and Obama are all centrists. The only thing conservatives get completely wrong is saying that Obama is a far left wing Socialist. It's the furthest thing from the truth. Most everything he has done, has fallen in line with what any Republican would have done, other than the Healthcare legislation. Obama went along with extending the Bush tax cuts as well as pushing forward even more tax cuts. The problem is that they didn't work or at least did not work to the extent everyone had hoped. Cutting taxes is not always the answer.

There isn't much difference between progressives as far as the ones with an R or a D go .


Bush and obama are both progressives so its no suprise that obama has continued many of bush's policies

(what do i think was progressive from bush? Patriot act, medicare part d, budget defecits/ debt)

 

[Foxfyre]

I think Jon Huntsman kicked ass. Romney was a close second.

I heard a guy on the radio say this today....don't take it personal i just saw huntsman and wanted to share. Also it doesn't mean I agree because I dont.

"People who support Huntsman are liberals who would rather have a white president than a black one" This guy said some other wackadoodle stuff too but when he said that I though "i need to post it on the forum when given the opportunity" so here it is

Romney, Huntsman, and Obama are all centrists. The only thing conservatives get completely wrong is saying that Obama is a far left wing Socialist. It's the furthest thing from the truth. Most everything he has done, has fallen in line with what any Republican would have done, other than the Healthcare legislation. Obama went along with extending the Bush tax cuts as well as pushing forward even more tax cuts. The problem is that they didn't work or at least did not work to the extent everyone had hoped. Cutting taxes is not always the answer.

I'm sorry, but if Obama is 'centrist', I am the Queen of Sheba. Obama went along with extending the Bush tax cuts because that was the ONLY way he could further any of his real agenda which is to push Keynesian components to strengthen goverment. I believe his long range plan is to impose a Marxist Socialism defined in the 'urban dictionary' as a concept in which the strong, the capable, and the powerful will support those too weak to support themselves until communism can be achieved. This philosophy, created by Karl Marx, was meant to be a fundamental building block to eventually arrive at a utopian society in which all private property would be abolished and all would share everything equally. I don't think Obama intends to get to communism but does intend to put the government in total power over everything.

So now we have a President who will give in on the inconsequential issues for which he holds no personal convictions in order to keep promoting his long range game plan to bring down the rich, weaken private commerce and industry in order to make a bigger and stronger central government appear more necessary to the people. So far Obama has come up with next to nothing that recognizes unalienable rights, promotes individual liberty, or empowers the private sector to move forward. He has promoted or consented to almost everything that hinders that.

That is why any one of those gentlemen or the lady in that GOP debate would be heads and shoulders above what we now have.

The one thing the debates have convinced me of is that any one of those folks would do better than what we have had in the past two administrations and we need fear none of them.

 

[edjax1952]

Last night was the third of a series of scheduled Republican debates with I believe two more scheduled over the next two or three weeks. I don't know that these are helping us know how any of the candidates might govern, but they are helpful in letting us get a glimpse of the style and a bit of the substance.

As much as it pains me, I think MSNBC ran the best of the three so far. There were fewer 'gotcha' questions than came from either Fox or CNN and more questions that the people really want to be asked.

It is probably a pipedream, but I would like this to be an ongoing thread through the remainder of the campaign to evaluate how well the candidate's handled themselves and whether the debates are making a difference in our perception and evaluation of the candidates.

Currently those participating are:

Michelle Bachmann, Congresswoman from Minnesota
Herman Cain, Business Executive most recognized as former CEO of Godfathers
Newt Gingrich, Former Congressman from Georgia; former Speaker of the House
Jon Huntsman, Former Governor of Utah; former U.S. Diplomat
Ron Paul, Congressman from Texas; physician
Rick Perry, Current Governor of Texas
Mitt Romney, Businessman and former Governor of Massachusetts
Rick Santorum, Former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania

(Gary Johnson, former contractor and Governor of New Mexico is still a candidate but has been dropped from the debates due to him only polling at 1% or less.)

So are you watching? What is your impression of the candidates? Are the debates making a difference to you?

(P.S. I don't expect everybody to like the candidates or the GOP or have an intention of voting for any of them. But if we could keep this as civil as possible, it would be much appreciated.)

I appreciate the opportunity to review the opinions on this thread. I have not been able to properly keep up with the candidates, so far, and I do hope this thread contunues to be a valid source of opinions so that I can formulate a proper conclusion for myself.

I do think that we will not have a 'savior' running in 2012, the problems are too vast to correct it with any one administration. We must however be vigilant to turn the current tide back toward an administration that will be financially healthy for not only our future but the future of the next generations. Not to mention changing the attitude that government should be the protector of the downtrodden at the expense of everyone else.

I beleive that the Federal Government should:
Defend our borders from foriegn intrusion, provide an infrastructure to promote productivity and offer a basic set of laws to prevent chaos.
Any other functions should be considered out of the realm of Federal Government.

We have venutured far off of that simple path. To return to anywhere near that will be a monumental task.

 

[hortysir]

I liked Cain's specific ideas he presented ( 9-9-9). he was stern and and firm.

Perry, as much as others might say he "fumbled", I think did great by standing his ground. He's not moving to the center. A true conservative republican, IMO.

I thought Paul did get too extreme.

Bachmann was a yawner.

Huntsman might have scored a couple points but he is the definition of 'vanilla' or 'whitebread'.

Romney just seemed like he was appeasing and too centrist.


Ranking?

1. Perry
2. Cain
3. Newt
4. the rest.......

 

[Foxfyre]

I liked Cain's specific ideas he presented ( 9-9-9). he was stern and and firm.

Perry, as much as others might say he "fumbled", I think did great by standing his ground. He's not moving to the center. A true conservative republican, IMO.

I thought Paul did get too extreme.

Bachmann was a yawner.

Huntsman might have scored a couple points but he is the definition of 'vanilla' or 'whitebread'.

Perry just seemed like he was appeasing and too centrist.


Ranking?

1. Perry
2. Cain
3. Newt
4. the rest.......

Did you mean Perry was too appeasing and centrist? Or did you intend to put another name there? (I do that a lot which is why so many of my posts have edits on them. )

 

[Avatar4321]

I was disappointed in the debate. same old same old from everyone.

Well, once they've said it, and if they believe it, what can they do but keep driving the same points home? Do you object to what they are saying/proposing?

Personally I think one of the GOP's problems has been that they don't focus on the most important isues and keep hammering that home until people understand it and get behind it.

I object to some of it. Mostly because it's not true. I want someone who is dedicated to the truth and going to appy the truth to good policies. I hear alot of pandering. There are just too many of them pandering to the big government crowd.

I like them all in one way or another. But none of them is really inspiring me as a good leader. It's like no matter what good thing they have going for them they have a bunch of toxic crap we have to swallow to get that good thing.

They are all superior to Obama. But what the heck. Perry used an executive order to force girls to get a controversial immunization? How is that small government. Romney is good but Social security hasn't failed? It clearly has. Paul is great emphasizing local power but the man is as articulate as porky pig and acts like a nervous rambling wreck anytime he is asked a question, not to mention his foreign policy is not something that can be implimented as quickly as he seems to think. I like Bachman, Cain, and Santorun but they really aren't showing any sort of leadership qualities. Heck, the most leadership Ive seen is from Newt and he has flirted way too much with the left, not to mention has a pretty crappy record in his personal life.

I can support them. But then I have to put up with stuff that's clearly wrong. But partially right is better than Obama's totally wrong.

We have a very human group of candidates when we need a super human candidates. I can't pick between a good, but flawed group of people right now when we need so much more from a President.

I don't pretend to know the future. The Lord hasn't revealed alot of it to me. But I do know we are currently in one of the most trying times in our nations history. I will support whomever we elect whenever they are right on issues. But I don't really have hope that any of them will make a serious difference. The real leaders of this nation aren't going to be in office. They are going to be outside fixing the problems. They are going to have to be us.

And if we don't step up, our nation will fall into the dustbin of history. And if that happens, there will be unspeakable violence about to come upon this world. It may be too late.

Perhaps what we need to do is forge a new nation in the midst of our current one.

I know I got off the topic. Perhaps ill make a decision on whom I will support soon. But I know I will not support Barack Obama. I'm tired of his corrupt administration.

 

[Foxfyre]

Last night was the third of a series of scheduled Republican debates with I believe two more scheduled over the next two or three weeks. I don't know that these are helping us know how any of the candidates might govern, but they are helpful in letting us get a glimpse of the style and a bit of the substance.

As much as it pains me, I think MSNBC ran the best of the three so far. There were fewer 'gotcha' questions than came from either Fox or CNN and more questions that the people really want to be asked.

It is probably a pipedream, but I would like this to be an ongoing thread through the remainder of the campaign to evaluate how well the candidate's handled themselves and whether the debates are making a difference in our perception and evaluation of the candidates.

Currently those participating are:

Michelle Bachmann, Congresswoman from Minnesota
Herman Cain, Business Executive most recognized as former CEO of Godfathers
Newt Gingrich, Former Congressman from Georgia; former Speaker of the House
Jon Huntsman, Former Governor of Utah; former U.S. Diplomat
Ron Paul, Congressman from Texas; physician
Rick Perry, Current Governor of Texas
Mitt Romney, Businessman and former Governor of Massachusetts
Rick Santorum, Former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania

(Gary Johnson, former contractor and Governor of New Mexico is still a candidate but has been dropped from the debates due to him only polling at 1% or less.)

So are you watching? What is your impression of the candidates? Are the debates making a difference to you?

(P.S. I don't expect everybody to like the candidates or the GOP or have an intention of voting for any of them. But if we could keep this as civil as possible, it would be much appreciated.)

I appreciate the opportunity to review the opinions on this thread. I have not been able to properly keep up with the candidates, so far, and I do hope this thread contunues to be a valid source of opinions so that I can formulate a proper conclusion for myself.

I do think that we will not have a 'savior' running in 2012, the problems are too vast to correct it with any one administration. We must however be vigilant to turn the current tide back toward an administration that will be financially healthy for not only our future but the future of the next generations. Not to mention changing the attitude that government should be the protector of the downtrodden at the expense of everyone else.

I beleive that the Federal Government should:
Defend our borders from foriegn intrusion, provide an infrastructure to promote productivity and offer a basic set of laws to prevent chaos.
Any other functions should be considered out of the realm of Federal Government.

We have venutured far off of that simple path. To return to anywhere near that will be a monumental task.

Thanks Edjax. I think most people closely following the debates are probably pretty much on the same page as you.

So far as any influence the debates have had on me:

1. I like both Romney and Perry much better than I did before.
2. I have a better sense of who Jon Huntsman is. Prior to last night I didn't have a clue. I don't dislike him but haven't 'warmed up' to him yet.
3. I was hoping Bachmann would be as good as she was in the Fox debate, but alas she was not. She was disappointing. But she has plenty of time to redeem herself but will have to do better in order for me to regain my enthusiasm.
4. I am liking Herman Cain better all the time.
5. I have the same impression of Gingrich as I have had. He is centered, on point, and has a clue re how to get something done, but Newt is Newt and you either love him or hate him.
6. Paul remains near the bottom of my choices since I think he doesn't seem willing to ease into some of the policy changes he proposes and that remains of some concern to me.
7. Santorum is the biggest disappointment to me. I like him personally, but he has not inspired confidence in any of the debates thus far.

 

[Avatar4321]

Romney is the man. The others are just there to make him look good...

I think Jon Huntsman kicked ass. Romney was a close second.

He's the new Tim Pawlenty. Boring, bland, and very very nice!

I didnt think Pawlenty was that bad. I would have considered supporting him if he actually stayed in the race long enough to take a vote. I dont understand this dropping out before anyone ever votes bullcrap.

 

[edjax1952]

I was disappointed in the debate. same old same old from everyone.

Well, once they've said it, and if they believe it, what can they do but keep driving the same points home? Do you object to what they are saying/proposing?

Personally I think one of the GOP's problems has been that they don't focus on the most important isues and keep hammering that home until people understand it and get behind it.

I object to some of it. Mostly because it's not true. I want someone who is dedicated to the truth and going to appy the truth to good policies. I hear alot of pandering. There are just too many of them pandering to the big government crowd.

I like them all in one way or another. But none of them is really inspiring me as a good leader. It's like no matter what good thing they have going for them they have a bunch of toxic crap we have to swallow to get that good thing.

They are all superior to Obama. But what the heck. Perry used an executive order to force girls to get a controversial immunization? How is that small government. Romney is good but Social security hasn't failed? It clearly has. Paul is great emphasizing local power but the man is as articulate as porky pig and acts like a nervous rambling wreck anytime he is asked a question, not to mention his foreign policy is not something that can be implimented as quickly as he seems to think. I like Bachman, Cain, and Santorun but they really aren't showing any sort of leadership qualities. Heck, the most leadership Ive seen is from Newt and he has flirted way too much with the left, not to mention has a pretty crappy record in his personal life.

I can support them. But then I have to put up with stuff that's clearly wrong. But partially right is better than Obama's totally wrong.

We have a very human group of candidates when we need a super human candidates. I can't pick between a good, but flawed group of people right now when we need so much more from a President.

I don't pretend to know the future. The Lord hasn't revealed alot of it to me. But I do know we are currently in one of the most trying times in our nations history. I will support whomever we elect whenever they are right on issues. But I don't really have hope that any of them will make a serious difference. The real leaders of this nation aren't going to be in office. They are going to be outside fixing the problems. They are going to have to be us.

And if we don't step up, our nation will fall into the dustbin of history. And if that happens, there will be unspeakable violence about to come upon this world. It may be too late.

Perhaps what we need to do is forge a new nation in the midst of our current one.

I know I got off the topic. Perhaps ill make a decision on whom I will support soon. But I know I will not support Barack Obama. I'm tired of his corrupt administration.

Without an active and vocal voters voice after the election, none of these candidates will be able to make strides of progress. After we elect whoever is elected, that person will need a vocal, public backing from the voters to combat the left wing politicians. (notice the link on my signature to contact politicians) I use them and we all should use them more often.

 

[saveliberty]

...Palin wasn't there...

 

[hortysir]

I liked Cain's specific ideas he presented ( 9-9-9). he was stern and and firm.

Perry, as much as others might say he "fumbled", I think did great by standing his ground. He's not moving to the center. A true conservative republican, IMO.

I thought Paul did get too extreme.

Bachmann was a yawner.

Huntsman might have scored a couple points but he is the definition of 'vanilla' or 'whitebread'.

ROMNEY just seemed like he was appeasing and too centrist.


Ranking?

1. Perry
2. Cain
3. Newt
4. the rest.......

Did you mean Perry was too appeasing and centrist? Or did you intend to put another name there? (I do that a lot which is why so many of my posts have edits on them. )

You're right.... I meant to say Romney

 

[Foxfyre]

I was disappointed in the debate. same old same old from everyone.

Well, once they've said it, and if they believe it, what can they do but keep driving the same points home? Do you object to what they are saying/proposing?

Personally I think one of the GOP's problems has been that they don't focus on the most important isues and keep hammering that home until people understand it and get behind it.

I object to some of it. Mostly because it's not true. I want someone who is dedicated to the truth and going to appy the truth to good policies. I hear alot of pandering. There are just too many of them pandering to the big government crowd.

I like them all in one way or another. But none of them is really inspiring me as a good leader. It's like no matter what good thing they have going for them they have a bunch of toxic crap we have to swallow to get that good thing.

They are all superior to Obama. But what the heck. Perry used an executive order to force girls to get a controversial immunization? How is that small government. Romney is good but Social security hasn't failed? It clearly has. Paul is great emphasizing local power but the man is as articulate as porky pig and acts like a nervous rambling wreck anytime he is asked a question, not to mention his foreign policy is not something that can be implimented as quickly as he seems to think. I like Bachman, Cain, and Santorun but they really aren't showing any sort of leadership qualities. Heck, the most leadership Ive seen is from Newt and he has flirted way too much with the left, not to mention has a pretty crappy record in his personal life.

I can support them. But then I have to put up with stuff that's clearly wrong. But partially right is better than Obama's totally wrong.

We have a very human group of candidates when we need a super human candidates. I can't pick between a good, but flawed group of people right now when we need so much more from a President.

I don't pretend to know the future. The Lord hasn't revealed alot of it to me. But I do know we are currently in one of the most trying times in our nations history. I will support whomever we elect whenever they are right on issues. But I don't really have hope that any of them will make a serious difference. The real leaders of this nation aren't going to be in office. They are going to be outside fixing the problems. They are going to have to be us.

And if we don't step up, our nation will fall into the dustbin of history. And if that happens, there will be unspeakable violence about to come upon this world. It may be too late.

Perhaps what we need to do is forge a new nation in the midst of our current one.

I know I got off the topic. Perhaps ill make a decision on whom I will support soon. But I know I will not support Barack Obama. I'm tired of his corrupt administration.

I don't think you're off topic and here I can even empathise with what you are saying. Not being willing to vote for a pretty face and/or empty rhetoric is why I haven't picked a candidate to get behind yet. I want to be convinced I'm getting the pig I bought before they put it in the poke so to speak.

But you're not going to find that super human you hope for. He doesn't exist. Never has at least for more than 2000 years. The stories of the Bible are 100% consistent in that God called imperfect, flawed people to do his bidding. The pages of our secular history are no different. Imperfect people with checkered pasts and feet of clay have been raised up to accomplish great things. There are none who have not sinned and fallen short.

The best we can hope for is somebody with the best understanding, vision, conviction, patriotism, and ability to be responsive to the people to lead this nation. This person will have made mistakes in the past, perhaps has had to live down a scandal or two, and has hopefully failed at something more than once. I don't want somebody we don't know whether he or she is capable of getting up after being knocked down.

Do these guys and/or the lady mean what they are saying? I'm studying whether they stay on message and whether their track record backs up the rhetoric. If it does, then I think we have to trust them.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Last night was about what I expected it to be. More tongue wagging with little or no real talk of what exactly they would do to correct the problems. It's way too early to pick a favorite because I don't believe the field is completely full yet. I think there are more who will jump into the ring before the deadline arrives. I liked some of the things that all of them had to say but I still find myself leaning towards Newt. Newt knows how Washington works and can get things done. I doubt if he will get the GOP nod though because he isn't "trendy" and has a few skeletons in his closet. I am fearful of Perry and Romney. For some reason, they give me the shivers... I like Bachmann's strong beliefs and the way she defends herself. Herman Cain has some good points but every time I have heard him speak it sounded like a Martin Luther King rally re-run. I don't like his style. I think the strong horses in this race, and in no particular order, are Newt, Bachmann, Perry, Romney and possibly Cain. I think everybody else can pack up and go home. Every time I hear Ron Paul speak, I am more certain that he needs some mental help. As I said, it's too early to be making bets on the "horses".