GOP Debate: Who Won?

If people were really listening, and not just looking for status quo, then Ron Paul won by far.

Jamie

 

I grew weary of the Reagan references quickly. I hated the moderation, candidates had to sneak in answers to questions they knew they'd never be asked.

I hate to say this, but Dr. Paul looks a little frail, and that is never good. I think Tancredo came off well, and a Paul/Tancredo ticket would make me very happy.

 

We'd have fewer federal employees, fewer welfare generations, fewer gun restrictions, more state's rights......

 

==None. The debate was too short, and there were too many debators, to have a meaningful discussion of the important issues. Just like the Democrats debate from one week ago, this debate was nothing more than shallow sound-bites. At this point in time I am not convinced that any of the candidates, in either party, are ready to be trusted with the Presidency of the United States of America. I agree with many things Ron Paul has to say about the war, the irs, and the size of government. However at this point in our history I am just not sure that such actions are possible. If Mr. Paul was to become president he would, most likley, be a lame duck from day one. I like Huckabee and Brownback but, again, they just don't seem to be ready for the highest office in the land. I cannot, and will not, support Giuliani since he is a democrat with an R beside his name. Romney reminds me of a sickening mixture of George W Bush and John Kerry, and I think John McCain is emotionally unstable. Having said all of that, if the election were today I would vote for John McCain.

However, let me now make some remarks on the modern Republican Party.

This Republican Party has become the party of big government, nation building, and waste. In a sense the modern Republican Party is worse than the Democrat Party. Why? Because we know where the Democrats are on most issues, they don't try to hide it. Many modern Republicans go around lying about their belief in small government and conservative principles. The fact is they don't believe in small government and true conservative principles. They oppose large government that supports liberal beliefs but they support large government that supports conservative beliefs. I support NO large government. In this I agree with the governmental philosophy of Thomas Jefferson when he gave us the idea that the government that governs the least governs the best. We need to stop wasting our money, our resources, and our lives trying to be the world's police. We need to end the war in Iraq as soon as possible so that our troops can end their stay there, end our government's financial support/aide to all the nations we now give money to, allow all international treaties to expire without being renewed, withdraw from the United Nations, build up the security at our borders and ports, and focus on America first.

As our first President, George Washington, once said:

"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one the most baneful foes of republican government...The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop...It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements." -Washington's Farewell Address

 

You and I are in total agreement, brother. :thumbs:

The only problem might be having two Congressmen. Paul might have to pick a senator with foreign policy credentials or a governor to be his running mate.

 

With that display of, I don't even know what to call it, I'd say the Democrats won that debate hands down.

 

I have to agree somewhat with you, Jack. Other Ron Paul the other 9 GOP candidates were not impressive to me at all. The other 9 were basically just Democrat Lite(except for Tom Tancredo) and would continue the expansion of the size, scope, and reach of the federal government.

 

I thought Dr. Paul looked very forceful and on target. He sounded more forceful/powerful than the other candidates.

I was disappointed with Tancredo, especially his first few responses. He sounded confused and flustered.

Did anyone else think the Sunni/Shiite question to Giuliani was staged?

As far as the "big 3" candidates go, Romney was the best by far. Being in the first position, and having the most time to respond to questions, does have its advantage.

I wish for the "round" questions they would have started with different candidates instead of Romney each time.

When and if a few candidates would drop out, the others will have better opportunities, and more time hopefully, to get their points across.

I think Dr. Paul has a lot of new fans after last night.

 

That would be the best combination of a ticket of those up there, Paul and Tancredo.

I also have to agree with Martin. People expect the democrats to tax, spend, and advance their social agenda. They do not expect the republicans to act as they have since 2001. In a warped sort of way, the people perceive the democrats as more honest than the republicans.

It is hard to pinpoint what happened to the republican party. If we remember back to January of 2001, we had a majority in the Congress and the Presidency. The government could have done great things to turn things around. This has got to be the greatest squandering of 7 years and power in our history. Not only did the republicans fail to aggressively pursue what they promised the American people, they gave only token opposition to the aggessive agenda of the democrats.

If one thinks about it, it is really tragic. The democrats are so bankrupt of ideas, it takes a totally leaderless and lack of vision republican party to put them in power.

We should all be praying that our next leader, wherever he or she comes from, knows how to lead, and puts us back on a path God would have us to be on.

 

OK, President Paul, Vice President Tancredo, and to play the inaugural ball, Rhonda Vincent & the Rage. I don't think you can start 4 years in a better way.

 

Add Carrie Hassler & Hard Rain and let's call it a deal.

 

Chris Matthews and the leftists.

 

On the msnbc poll, with over 82,000 votes, Ron Paul has 38% positive, 36% no opinion, and just 26% negative opinion.

The closest candidate is Mitt Romney with 27% pos, 36% n/o, and 37% neg.

Why then is Ron Paul not considered with many major pollsters?

From this, Ron Paul should be easily in the lead for the Repub nod.

 

CONSERVATIVE TRUTH 05/07/07
The Debate That Wasn't
By Tom Barrett
[email protected]

All those red neckties. All that jockeying to see who could position himself as
most like Ronald Reagan. All those "friends" of President Bush trashing his
conduct of the War in Iraq. All that joking intended to show that they were
"regular guys," not stiff politicians in $3,000 suits. But where, pray tell,
was the debate in all of this?

Ten guys. Ninety minutes. Hmmm. Nine minutes per guy who wants to be president.
Would that be enough time for each of them to tell us just a little about who
they really are? Possibly, if it weren't for Chris Matthews. You know Chris.
The "tough guy" (in his dreams) on one of the most liberal networks on
television, who claims that he plays "hard ball" with his guests.

The only time Matthews throws out "hard" questions is when he has a guest who
is even slightly conservative (which is seldom). Then he is rude, obnoxious,
and unfair in his questioning. Normally he has only liberal apologists on his
show, and he fawns over them. Strictly "softball" treatment for liberals,
including every Democrat presidential hopeful he has interviewed.
During the "debate" Chris and his henchmen took up most of the time with stupid
questions that were designed to show all of the Republican candidates in the
worst possible light. "How would you feel about Bill Clinton being back in the
White House?" What a ridiculous time-waster! Everyone (even viewers from other
countries) knew the answer to that question. Yet Chris (control freak that he
is) insisted that each and every one of the candidates answer his asinine
question.

He had about half a dozen questions (most of them equally stupid) where he went
"down the line," as he called it, making each one answer the question, and
cutting them off when he didn't like their answers. He announced the rules at
the beginning, which included giving each man sixty seconds to answer each
question. But when he went "down the line" he gave them only a few seconds to
answer, in violation of his own rules.

Another stupid Chris Matthews question, which he insisted each candidate
answer. "Should President Bush pardon Scooter Libby?" With all the important
issues on which voters would like to know their views, why did Matthews waste
time on Scooter Libby? I believe he wanted to get them all on the record in
case one of them was faced with a decision to pardon Libby in the future. In
other words, instead of hosting a debate, he was playing prosecutor.

Nine of the candidates meekly answered the question. But I was pleased that Tom
Tancredo used this as an opportunity to get in a plug for justice. He said,
"Yes, but only AFTER he pardons Compean and Ramos." These are the two Border
Patrol agents who were unjustly imprisoned for apprehending an illegal alien
who was running drugs. The extremely liberal Matthews was clearly unhappy with
his answer.

The GOP should never agree to a moderator as liberal as Mathews.

 

Article continued:

This was the antithesis of a debate. This was the "I'm Chris Wallace - Look at
me - I'm running a debate" show. For the life of me I cannot understand why the
Republican candidates agreed to having the debate on a far-left network, and
have the debate hosted by Howard Dean, Junior. I'm sure they all regret this
decision. But the damage has already been done, to their images and their
credibility.

Here are several accepted definitions of the word debate:
* A debate is an argument about a topic or resolution. It is conducted
according to a set of rules designed to give each side a fair chance.
* A discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing
viewpoints.
* A formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition
are advocated by opposing speakers.
* Deliberation; consideration.

I defy anyone to demonstrate using any of these definitions how Friday's show
featuring the ten Republican presidential hopefuls in any way qualifies as a
debate. There was no exchange of ideas. There was no demonstration of anyone's
skill at articulating an idea or position and defending it. Instead, what we
saw was Chris Matthews on the offense, and the ten "debaters" on the defense.
Chris fired questions at them designed to make them look like far-right
ideologues, and seldom gave them adequate time to respond.

There were also numerous questions from viewers via the Internet. Some of them
rivaled Chris Matthews own questions in the stupidity department. One viewer
wanted to know if the candidates would support amending the Constitution so
that Arnold Shwartzeneger (who was not born in this country) could become
president. What does that have to do with this election? Another asked a
candidate if he had watched Al Gore's propaganda movie, "An Inconvenient
Truth." Who cares?

Another viewer stated that women were the fastest growing segment of prison
populations, and wanted to know what the candidate would do about the problem
of "mothers in prison." What can a president do? If people (including mothers)
break the law, they should go to prison. But the most ridiculous question was,
"What is your greatest weakness as a candidate?" What politician is going to
answer a question like that? What an enormous time-waster. If they are going to
take questions from viewers, they should be screened for relevancy.

There was no real debate in this "debate." Matthews tried to generate some
controversy, but that is not the same as debate. He attempted to get the
candidates at one another's throats. He challenged Giuliani by saying that
other candidates were criticizing his stand on abortion. And he told Romney
that another candidate had challenged his faith. He quoted Sam Brownback as
saying that Romney had stated his faith would not influence his decisions.
Brownback clarified his statement by saying that if a man had a deeply-held
faith, it would be impossible for his decisions not to be influenced by that
faith.
Romney, a Mormon, replied, "We are a nation of faith, but we don't choose our
leader based on the church he attends." That was the closest thing to debate in
the whole "debate."

The "debate" degenerated into a series of sound bites by the candidates. There
were many references to Ronald Reagan and to God. But in spite of Chris
Matthews and the way this "debate" was formatted, we got few tiny glimpses of
who some of the candidates were.

Mitt Romney came off as slick and rehearsed. The candidates were not allowed
notes, but it was clear that Romney had memorized the answers to hundreds of
potential questions. People just do not speak as clearly and concisely (with
all the adverbs and adjectives in exactly the right places) as he did when they
speak extemporaneously.

Rudy Giuliani appeared not to be taking his candidacy very seriously. He
fumbled the questions regarding abortion, hemming and hawing with his answers.
As the only pro-death candidate on the stage, he and his staff had to have
known he would be hit with abortion questions. But he was strangely unprepared
for them. He basically said that was personally against abortion, but he
supported a woman's "right" to kill her baby at any stage of pregnancy.

Rudy and John McCain also came out strongly in favor of embryonic stem cell
research, a position that will not endear them to the Republican base. Senator
Sam Brownback made the point that adult stem cells are producing the same
results as those from embryos, and do not require killing a baby to obtain
them.

McCain also bragged about his ability to "work with Democrats". He has
certainly done a lot of that the past few years. In fact, it has often been
difficult to distinguish him from a Democrat. He is particularly proud of his
partnership with Senator Diane Feingold, which produced the McCain-Feingold
Act. Feingold is a notorious Socialist. If I were McCain, I would be
downplaying that association.

When asked about a "woman's right to choose," Tom Tancredo, who is well-known
for his work in protecting unborn children, had a great reply: "The right to
kill another person is NOT a right." Mitt Romney was extremely pro-death when
he was the governor of ultra-liberal Massachusetts. But now that he is a
national candidate, he has had a convenient change of heart, and now claims to
be pro-life. He did not do a good job of explaining this sudden change of
heart.

Ron Paul got in some licks for abolishing the IRS and establishing a national
flat tax that would be fair to all.

Finally, Sam Brownback espoused a position that I articulated in my 2005
article, "Iraq - Three Nations"
(http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=3020). What we call Iraq is
actually three nations that were forced by the British to become one, with
disastrous results. Brownback echoed my solution, with a twist. The thinks
there should be separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shi'a states, but he wants Baghdad
to be a federal city.

 

Conclusion of article:

Nothing said by the other candidates caught my attention. It was the usual
scramble to say something without really saying anything. They seemed to want
to be seen as having opinions, but at the same time they were loath to be
controversial.
Overall, I was underwhelmed by this group of candidates. They did show some
diversity of opinion, as opposed to the Democrats in their recent debate. The
Dems marched in such lock-step that one suspected they were all from Stepford.

But I did not see a viable leader who could both take the nomination and win a
general election. And I think most Republicans agree with me. Two men who are
not declared candidates consistently place in the top four in the polls when
their names are included. They are former Senator Fred Thompson and former
Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. In most polls they are in double-digits,
below Giuliani and McCain, but above Romney and all the second tier candidates.

I think either of these men would make a great Republican candidate, and either
could win against Hillary, Obama, or whatever left-winger the Democrats might
nominate. They both have strong conservative credentials. Unfortunately, the
front-runners, McCain and Giuliani, fail miserably in this department. Some of
the second-tier candidates appear to be solid conservatives, but they only
generate low single-digit poll numbers. They just don't have the name
recognition that would allow them to be viable candidates.

I recently had the opportunity to have my picture taken with Newt. As the
photographer was focusing in on us, I said to him, "I sure hope you run." He
just smiled. But he didn't say no.

Fred Thompson is holding back. He says he will watch the field and see if he is
needed. From my point of view, the answer is, "Yes, we need you."

With over a year to go, a lot can happen. But based on what we can see right
now, the Republican field is very light. This election is far too important for
any of us to sit back and "see what happens." All of us need to be involved.
Please spend time in prayer that a godly candidate will emerge who will defend
the Constitution and lead this nation on a righteous path.



THE BEST OF THE BEST: For great conservative commentary, visit our website to
see what our outstanding conservative authors have to say about what is
happening in our world. Below are previews of the new articles that are posted
every Monday morning. To read the complete articles, visit our website,
www.ConservativeTruth.org.

A good place for conservatives to peruse like minded peoples writings.