Wednesday Night Republican Debate

Discussion in 'Politics' started by AAAintheBeltway, Jan 30, 2008.

  1. McCain looked like a drooling idiot.

    Romney is curiously incapable of dealing with McCain's bullying. All he had to say was that maybe McCain wanted to write a blank check on Iraq but he intended to hold the Iraqi government accountable.

    Huckabee gave a great last answer, very inspiring, but he also sounds a lot like John Edwards.

    Ron Paul, in the short amount of time allotted to him, made more sense than all the others combined.

    Arnold, the increasingly left wing governator, has endorsed McCain. This is Bob Dole all over again. All the party hacks back the veteran Washington insider, who will be laughed off the stage by the Clintons. How can they be so lucky in the opponents they get?
  2. Did Mccain answer a single question?? All he does is name names of people he's worked with over the years and how "proud" he is to have worked with them. As if we're supposed to know who these people are? He seems like he's just filling his allotted time without any substance. They asked about his knowledge and leadership skills regarding the economy and he responds by talking about him leading a bunch of navy seals and extreme islamic fundamentalism. How can anyone support this moron?

    Huckabee is done. He doesn't have any money left. Just saw a huckabee commercial that went something like "i'm mike huckabee and I want to abolish the IRS". On his website a lot of his positions are similar to ron paul's yet they laugh at ron at these debates.
  3. looks like Huckabee has some financial help:

    <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
  4. <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
  5. AAA,

    You are nuts. McCain will clean house. There is a reason why Mac is the ONE candidate that the Dems did not want to run against. They have said this repeatedly on just about every political show out there. also has Mac winning a head to head vs any Dem contender now. All the other republicans get creamed.

    Why? cause he will carry most of the independents who love the guy, AND the conservatives who hate him, but hate him less than Hillary/Obama. That's 50% right there. Of course he will get all the Hillary haters also, unless Obama is the dude. Obama would be harder to beat in my opinion.

    Mac's main challenge is to not have a stroke before the election. He is an old son of a bitch. The guy is not my first choice, but definitely preferable over Hillary who is already imploding as it is.

    Your buddy Paul has ZERO chance regardless of how much money he has. He has been getting zero traction. Give it up already.

    Oh, and for you Hillary/Obama lovers out there. Both of these Einsteins have said they would raise cap gains taxes. Just what we need in a shaky economy.
  6. It pissed me off so much that they ignored Huckabe and Paul. Regardless of who you like or who may get the majority everyone in the race should be heard equally.

    Romney - pompous ass. I would like to drop kick him in the back of the head while drinking hot coffee. But he is probably the right choice for the economy.

    Mccain - chicken hawk tool of the military industrial complex. No way I vote for a lifetime soldier. The president should have a civilian mindset.

    Paul - realizes he has no shot so pushes his agenda in front of a national audience. I respect him but he needs to dumb down his rhetorich. Instead of saying "the fed is printing too much money and devaluing the $". He should substitute with "if you elect me your $ will buy more DVD`s and Mcdonalds"

    Huckabe - To nice to be running..or to fake. And way too openly religious for my tastes. To each his own.
  7. I think your reaction to Romney may be the reason he is not doing better. Honestly, I don't think it is a true reflection of him, but I also think his campaign has suffered from poor guidance.

    To me it seems like he is just way too respectful of McCain. McCain sits there and says he doesn't have the experience and judgment to be president, I think you have to react to that. How about responding, what about your judgment senator? You supported amnesty , were against tax cuts and wanted to ban political speech that criticized incumbents. He should also hit McCain on that waterboarding of terrorists issue and McCain's whole drive to close gitmo and bring them to the US for trial.
  8. Actually I think the democrats are giddy over the prospect of running against Bob Dole again. The liberals on CNN/MSNBC and the neo-cons on Fox don't seem to grasp that conservatives hate McCain. They are simply not going to vote for him. They will not go for that tired old republican line that at least he's not as bad as Hillary. The party hacks have the same problem. They feel like it is voters' duty to keep the party in power. That approach failed miserably in 2006 and it will fail again.

    Conservatives like Limbaugh see this election as more than a fight for the presidency, they see it as a battle for control of the republican party. If McCain wins, they will be totally marginalized.
  9. Ann Coulter says Hillary preferable to McCrazy:

    January 30, 2008

    The Democrats are trying to give away an election they should win in a walk by nominating someone with real problems -- like, for example, a first-term senator with a 100 percent rating from Americans for Democratic Action and whose middle name is "Hussein."

    But we won't let them.

    The bright side of the Florida debacle is that I no longer fear Hillary Clinton. (I mean in terms of her becoming president -- on a personal level, she's still a little creepy.) I'd rather deal with President Hillary than with President McCain. With Hillary, we'll get the same ruinous liberal policies with none of the responsibility.

    Also, McCain lies a lot, which is really more a specialty of the Democrats.

    Recently, McCain responded to Mitt Romney's statement that he understood the economy based on his many years in the private sector by claiming Romney had said a military career is not a "real job."

    McCain's neurotic boast that he is the only Republican who supported the surge is beginning to sound as insane as Bill Clinton's claim to being the "first black president" -- although less insulting to blacks. As with the Clintons, you find yourself looking up such tedious facts as this, which ran a week after Bush announced the surge:

    "On the morning of Bush's address, Romney endorsed a troop surge." -- The National Journal, Jan. 13, 2007

    And yet for the 4 billionth time, at the Jan. 5, 2008, Republican debate, McCain bragged about his own raw courage in supporting the surge despite (apocryphal) Republican attacks, saying: "I said at the time that Gen. Petraeus and his strategy must be employed, and I was criticized by Republicans at that time. And that was a low point, but I stuck to it. I didn't change."

    A review of contemporaneous news stories about the surge clearly demonstrates that the only Republicans who were so much as "skeptical" of the surge consisted of a few oddball liberal Republicans such as Sens. Gordon Smith, Norm Coleman and Olympia Snowe.

    They certainly weren't attacking McCain, their standard-bearer in liberal Republicanism. But even if they were, it was a "low point" for McCain being "criticized" by the likes of Olympia Snowe?

    In point of fact, McCain didn't even stand up to the milquetoasts. In April 2007, when Democrats in the Senate passed a bill funding the troops but also requiring a rapid withdrawal, "moderate" Republicans Smith and Chuck Hagel voted with the Democrats. McCain and Lindsey Graham skipped the vote.

    But like the Democrats, McCain thinks if he simply says something over and over again, he can make people believe it's true. Thus again at the South Carolina debate on Jan. 10, McCain was proclaiming that he was "the only one on this stage" who supported the surge.

    Since he would deny it about two minutes later, here is exactly what Mr. Straight Talk said about the surge: "I supported that; I argued for it. I'm the only one on this stage that did. And I condemn the Rumsfeld strategy before that."

    The next question went to Giuliani and -- amid great flattery -- Giuliani noted that he also supported Bush's surge "the night of the president's speech."

    Mr. Straight Talk contradicted Giuliani, saying: "Not at the time."

    Again, Giuliani said: "The night of the president's speech, I was on television. I supported the surge. I've supported it throughout."

    To which McCain finally said he didn't mean that he was "the only one on this stage" who supported the surge. So by "the only one on this stage," McCain really meant, "one of several people on this stage." OK, great. Now tell us your definition of the word "is," Senator.

    I know Republicans have been trained not to go prostrate at Ivy League degrees, but do we have to admire stupidity?

    Mr. Straight Talk also announced at that same debate: "One of the reasons why I won in New Hampshire is because I went there and told them the truth." That and the fact that Democrats were allowed to vote in the Republican primary.

    Even in the Florida primary, allegedly limited to Republicans, McCain lost among Republicans. (Seventeen percent of the Republican primary voters in Florida called themselves "Independents.")

    That helps, but why would any Republican vote for McCain?

    At least under President Hillary, Republicans in Congress would know that they're supposed to fight back. When President McCain proposes the same ideas -- tax hikes, liberal judges and Social Security for illegals -- Republicans in Congress will support "our" president -- just as they supported, if only briefly, Bush's great ideas on amnesty and Harriet Miers.

    You need little flags like that for Republicans since, as we know from the recent unpleasantness in Florida, Republicans are unalterably stupid.

    Republicans who vote for McCain are trying to be cute, like the Democrats were four years ago by voting for the "pragmatic" candidate, Vietnam vet John Kerry. This will turn out to be precisely as clever a gambit as nominating Kerry was, the brilliance of which was revealed on Election Day 2004.
  10. After last night's debate I decided that I might vote for Obama over McCain. I think Mac would do more damage. Most significant decisions that Mac has made on his own have been a disaster. Consequently he must simply blindly trust his "friends". I hate it when someone drops a string of names as if they are somehow intelligent by association.

    Mac was completely lacking any substance last night. Romney did all he could to point out Mac's sleaziness without resorting to what the DEM did a while ago.

    If you believe focus groups, Mitt rocked Mac all night, but Mac will still get the nomination. Mostly because Huck is still in the race. Mitt's only chance is to approach Huck and convince him to bow out and get behind him.
    #10     Jan 31, 2008