Republican Presidential Debate Showcased Impressive Candidates

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by AAAintheBeltway, May 4, 2007.

  1. I watched most of the first republican debate last night, and I must say I was pleasantly surprised. I was dubious that MSNBC would run a proper debate, but those fears were totally unsubstantiated. As much as I criticize Chris Matthews, I thought he did an outstanding job. He was respectful, fair and kept things moving. At times he did a masterful job of cross examining candidates who were trying to deflect questions.

    As for the candidates, I thought they all did a very credible job. Romney was solid and did nothing to disappoint his supporters. Guiliani was far more impressive thanI have ever seen him be. I left the debate thinking I could vote for him after all. McCain did the worst of the front runners in my view. He seemed to be less focused and engaged in way too much of the dreaded Senate-speak, bragging absurdly about working with democrats on legislation. Still, he made some very good points about overspending and pork.

    Of the second tier candidates, the three that impressed me were James Gilmore, former governor of Virginia, Tommy Thompson, former Wisconsin governor and Congressman Tom Tancredo. Gilmore and Thompson stressed their impressive accomplishments running their respective states and solid conservative credentials. Tancredo made a strong case for true immigration reform and made it tough for the top tier candidates to weasel around the issue.

    The democrat party bosses must have found the night to be depressing. None of their candidates would have fared well against the likes of Romney, Guiliani, Gilmore or Thompson. And we still have the imposing figure of Fred Dalton Thompson waiting just off stage.
  2. I thought Romney was the most poised and articulate. He has a game show host like quality to him. McCain seemed awkward.
  3. You have to seriously question the intellect of someone like Romney if he is not able to realize that mormanism is a fraud in light of all the evidence we have that Joseph Smith made it all up.Do we really want another president who would put faith ahead of evidence?
    Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet is a biography of the formative years of the founder of Mormonism written by author Dan Vogel.[1] The book covers the period of Smith’s life up until 1831. Vogel casts Smith in the role of a magician, who perhaps believes in his own ability to perform magic while using fraud to support his position: a charlatan that came to believe that he was called of God.
  4. I really wonder sometimes if people like you ever get tired of being the way you are. It's incredibly tiresome. I mean really, what is the real problem with romeny being a mormon? Are you really that prejudiced to not vote for someone soley on the grounds that his belief in god differs from yours?

    BTW, many would argue that there is more evidence supporting Smith's claims than there is on the opposing side.
  5. Agreed, Romney is by far the strongest candidate in terms of experience, ability, presence, and speech. He's very articulate and not afraid to admit that he can change his mind in light of better evidence rather than stubbornly holding onto something he doesn't believe, simply for the sake of not being called a flip-flopper.

    Let's face the facts too. There hasn't been a president elected from the senate for what... 50 years. There is a reason for that. When it comes down to it, senators are very good at debate and rhetoric, but have no proven ability to govern. A vast majority of candidates on both sides are senators with no governing experience. Rudy is a hero but his experience and ability fall very short of being able to be the president.
  6. It matters. If a man such as romeny can not look at the ironclad evidence that joseph smith was a fraud and come to the conclusion that what he has been told is not true do we want to trust him to lead this country and make war and peace decisions?
    Have you even researched the morman story?
  7. Romney is a car salesman. Rudy and McCain are one trick ponies riding on their past glory days. If not for 9/11, Rudy would be, Rudy who?, and McCain without his P.O.W. status is just another no name senator. The rest are un-electable under any circumstances. Under current conditions the next prez will be a democrat, and will be elected in a landslide.
  8. LOL. You know, you're right about Romney. I couldn't put my finger on it, but he does have that game show host quality about him. And there was something a bit awkward about McCain. Not auspicious for him. He doesn't need people wondering if maybe he is too old after all.

    I think some combination of Romney, Guilani or Thompson would be an awfully strong ticket.
  9. <img src=>
  10. I'm starting to wonder if you have truly researched the mormon story, beyond the typical one sided anti-mormon hate material. The evidence against it is anything but ironclad when presented without bias. There is no more evidence that mormonism is a farce than there is that christianity is general is a farce.

    That said, the evidence for it is not iron clad either. That is the whole intent of mormonism. Every member and convert without exception is taught to "study it out in their mind" whether these things be true, and then make their own decision. The mormon church is not trying to prove its truthfulness, nor does it need to.

    In terms of whether being mormon disqualifies someone from the presidency, you'll have to provide an example of what he might do as president that wouldn't be good for the country as a result of being mormon.
    #10     May 4, 2007