posted
A candidate crying is a pretty big deal. It really says a lot about someone and how they deal with emotions.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Believe me if Romney, or Obama had broken down and started crying for any reason other then happiness we would be talking about it JUST as much.
Romney has cried publicly a number of times during his campaign. It's been noted in the media, but a big deal hasn't been made of it.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The pollsters themselves have been scratching their heads, wondering how their predictive models could have been so far off on the Democratic side, while still being accurate on the Republican side. Maybe it was just the unusually good weather bringing out more of the older voters (especially women) who would tend to favor Sen. Clinton.
Since Sen. Obama is not on the Michigan ballot, while Sen. Clinton is, it will be interesting to see how much Hillary crows about her "victory" in Michigan, despite the fact that the national Democratic party has said it will not seat the delegates from Michigan. Voters here in Michigan are being continually cautioned that they cannot write in Obama--any write-ins will invalidate the ballot. Anyone who wants to vote for Obama (or at least have their vote counted against Clinton) must mark "uncommitted."
The Democrats really shot themselves in the foot in regard to Michigan. They're going to look like a bunch of clowns, while Republicans are having a normal, orderly primary. It will be interesting to see if Sen. McCain, who carried Michigan in 2000, can beat native son Gov. Romney. And how well will Gov. Huckabee do, in a state with more Evangelical voter strength than New Hampshire?
I live in Michigan, and I have to admit, right now I still am not sure which of the three I will vote for.
I am close enough to all of them in their positions--maybe with a slight edge to Huckabee. Some people don't like the fact that he is an ordained minister, but Romney is a bishop in the Mormon Church, and no one is complaining about that. I did like McCain enough to contribute money to his campaign in the 2000 campaign. Some say he is too old (he is 71, and if elected would be 72 when he takes office). But his mother is 95 and still going strong, and he seems to have a continuing high level of energy. (I mean, Red Bull will only carry you so far!)
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
About Clinton crying, I've only heard the clip and not seen it, but it was my impression that she got choked-up and didn't actually cry. And it seemed she was talking about an issue that she cared a lot about. I liked it because to me it conveyed passion and honest emotion, not weakness or an inability to deal with pressure.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to note, while the way i phrased it may have been clip, I mean the question seriously. She was behind in the polls, was she pushed over the edge with a late hour show of emotion?
Also, what's been getting me about all the talk of a Hillary come back and how huge of a victory this was for her, is the fact that a month ago she had a double digit lead in NH! Everyone seems to be forgetting that. I realize spin is part of the game, but the fact that she won with such a tiny margin would have been huge news and a victory for Obama a month ago. But with what happened in Iowa, suddenly it's all flip-flopped.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that, to the extent the tears had any impact, it was because it was the first time (at least for me) it didn't seem to be all about her. She expressed her distress at what was happening to the country. That resonated.
I think she still fails to get that there is a problem with how politics is done in this country, though.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the tears helped her, but I don't know how much. While the moment definitely resonated with me, it's not enough by itself to get me to vote for her. And there were certainly people who saw the moment as calculating and dishonest, but I don't know how many of them would have voted for her to begin with.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Just to note, while the way i phrased it may have been clip, I mean the question seriously. She was behind in the polls, was she pushed over the edge with a late hour show of emotion?
It's one possible factor, but I think far from the only one. Another comment I heard from an analyst on NPR this morning pertained to Bush's recent statements about Iran and the issue with their navy. Basically he said it's been proven that if people are scared about war they shift towards more "established" candidates and more toward the right. So that may have had two effects: undecided Dems breaking for Hillary over Obama on the experience issue, and Independents who would have supported Obama voting for McCain in the Republican primary instead.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Believe me if Romney, or Obama had broken down and started crying for any reason other then happiness we would be talking about it JUST as much.
Romney has cried publicly a number of times during his campaign. It's been noted in the media, but a big deal hasn't been made of it.
I think crying because someone died (as one clip showed Bush doing) or because one is moved by profound emotion (as Romney did in his faith speech) is different from crying because you feel you are right and others are wrong (which is what Hillary was talking about at the time).
Granted, in the clips of movies they show at the Oscars, the best actors are often crying while the women are emoting anger. We simply have different expectations of what constitutes a strong man or woman. I can't imagine Margaret Thatcher crying because she's falling behind in an election.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The way Hillary cried struck me as even more fake than everything else she has done in the campaign. Listen carefully to the way her voice rumbles, and look closely at her eyes. Tired and exhausted aside, this was a desperate strategy designed to win female votes. And it looks like it worked.
The thing I liked about Hillary most was that she didn't usually try to use emotions when justifying herself, basing her ideas on reason and fact. Now that's gone, so I hope very fervently that she does not get the nomination. By the way, after I've been doing a lot of research on the candidates last week, I decided that Obama is just about the best hope for America fixing up its glitches and reestablishing its title as the world's beacon of freedom and justice. There are other good choices out there, but my number one favorite is Obama.
I'm going to watch closely to see how Obama reacts to the narrow defeat. Perhaps then I can better assess who I should support the most.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just wanted to pop in and say that I had an Obama research day the other night, after watching that really moving speech. I read everything I could about his positions, watched some speeches, and compared him to a couple other people I could see myself voting for.
I don't know what I didn't see in him before, but it's there now, and I'd like to admit my mistake. I'm supporting him all the way and hope he gets it Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reason I don't want Hillary is that Rush Limbaugh and the conservative machine has been firing up their troops against Hillary, using her as a devil in pumps to stir up the conservative troops since the day she left the White House. I think it would be much more difficult for the loud mouth conservatives (compared to normal people who are conservative) to scare people into voting against the Democrats if it was anyone but Hillary.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I sincerely hope that Clinton wins over Obama. Obama looks nice and presidential but he is no where near her in terms of experience and political know how, which is why Limbaugh and the conservative machine seem more afraid of her than they are of Obama.
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the_Somalian: I sincerely hope that Clinton wins over Obama.
Because you're a Republican? Seriously, Clinton won't win in the general election, and nominating her would indicate that Democrats have learned nothing from Kerry's defeat (not to mention Dukakis's.) It shows a thorough lack of awareness of just how much mid-America and the South despise her. For me, as someone who wants to undo what I perceive to be the damage done to our country over the last eight years, a Clinton nomination is just about the worst thing that could happen. If she does get nominated, I hope she runs against McCain, because I can't take the idea of a President Huckabee or a President Romney.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I said that the Republicans will be having a "normal, orderly primary" in Michigan. Actually, the Republican party will only recognize half the delegates selected by the election, while the Democratic party says they will not recognize any. So the Republican side of the primary is not entirely normal. But it still matters enough that it could virtually end Gov. Romney's candidacy if he does not win.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's certainly looking that way Ron. I didn't think Romney would drop out that early, even if he lost here, but, that's what the pundits are saying, especially given he doesn't have much of a chance in South Carolina, where it looks like Huckabee will win. Thompson will be out I think after he loses in South Carolina.
Ick, you don't think Hillary could take Huckabee? I do. I think McCain could probably take her, but I think she'd mop the floor with Huckabee. I don't think it's fair to say she won't win the general. The south won't vote for a Democrat anyway, and the states she'd need to win in the Midwest would probably go for her. Other than that, the people that hate her are mostly grouped together in states that won't go Democrat regardless. Time will tell, but I don't think she's automatically shot down by any means.
Anywho, Bill Richardson is out.
The best thing that could happen for Obama right now is for John Edwards to drop out. Hillary will get some, but the bulk will go to Obama. It's hard to say when he'd do that though, maybe after HyperTuesday.
I think there's a lot to be said, in New Hampshire, for the polls convincing a lot of independents and young people that Obama would sail to victory, and a lot of them either stayed home or went to McCain, thinking he was fine. It's impossible to tell, but I think there's a lot to that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right, Lyrhawn, Independents went to Obama in Iowa, but to McCain in New Hampshire.
Though I think part of the deal with New Hampshire is they don't like to do the same thing Iowa does.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That MIGHT be a bit of a mischaracterization, maybe. It's quite possible you're right though, but I'll say this:
Generally Iowa has gone for the establishment candidate. This year that didn't happen with either party. Generally New Hampshire has gone for the NON-establishment candidate, which I think they thought they did with McCain, and in doing so I think Hillary snaked it out from Obama. It's a bit screwy. I don't think they voted in a way to spite of Iowa, I think the polling pushed people to McCain because he has that history from 2000 as being the maverick.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Time will tell, Lyrhawn. Or hopefully not. Up in Michigan, I think you misunderestimate how much the heartland hates Clinton.
It's not automatic that the south always votes Republican. That certainly was not the case with Bill Clinton. I think Obama could carry a lot of states in the South.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, we're midwesterners too. Or at least we're oft referred to us as midwesterners. But then we get called a lot of names.
I too think that Obama could carry states that in the last two elections Democrats have been unable to capture, notably in the south. I think he'd have an extremely good chance of carrying South Carolina, which is trending Democrat anyway, along with Virginia (also trending Democrat much more heavily). But I think Hillary would have a good chance of picking up most of the states that Gore won in 2000, and Kerry won in 2004. Add to that the recent gains Democrats have made in a number of states and I think she stands a good chance of winning, not necessarily because she is personally strongest, but because waves are pushing Democrats towards victory anyway, and I think she'd ride them well enough. Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, New Hampshire, Florida and South Carolina. All of them have signs of being extremely vulnerable to a Democratic victory, all of them went Democratic in 2000, and of them, only New Hampshire went Democratic in 2004. Add to that list Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, and Missouri as potential western states that might go the other way with the right prodding (Iowa went Democratic in 2000 but not 2004). Several of those are powerful enough to swing the election all by themselves, even if everyone else goes Republican.
I think Obama could walk away with ALL of those states, potentially, creating a Democratic landslide, but do I think Hillary could maybe take one big one like Ohio? Yep. Would that be enough? Yep. That's just to give you an idea of where my thoughts are coming from.
Edit to add a little bit of news:
After weeks of gathering information, Bloomberg will spend the next week or two analyzing that info and then will decide if he will run or not. The man could literally fund his own race, he's worth more than an estimated $12 BILLION dollars. That makes the $20 million Romney lent to his own campaign look like chump change. Bloomberg has already spent a few million getting this info together, and read the article, the kind of information he is compiling is friggin scary. I've never seen a campaign look at a run through THAT level of analysis. Frankly I'm more freaked out by the fact that he can even GET that info. It'd be the biggest, best third party push I think since TR.
Romney is pulling funding from ads in Florida and South Carolina and funneling it all into Michigan. Again, let me toot my own horn to say "Yay! Michigan matters!" And from the looks of things, at least the way pundits and experts are talking, Michigan might be do or die for Romney. If he has another second place or worse showing here, he might drop out many are saying. Personally I think that's premature, but from the looks of things, he has burned through too much cash too fast without much to show for it. Which I guess proves you CAN'T buy an election in America, so hooray for that. He's pinning a lot on a win here, but he's going to have tough competition from Huckabee, and maybe even McCain, with some even from Giuliani. Thompson is apparently putting everything into a last ditch effort to win South Carolina, which he will NOT win, after which I expect him to drop oit. Michigan will be important to Romney, and we'll see in a week just how important. And if drops out, we'll see where his votes go.
posted
Ok, I hear a lot about Bloomberg possibly running, that he is rich and that he has switched party affiliations. But what does he actually stand for?
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where will Romney's votes go? This is an extraordinarily interesting question. While I have called some Mormons who display backlash against the Republican party bitter, I have begun to feel it to. But I like Obama well enough that I wouldn't consider it pure bitterness.
I'm far from a control sample- I had no preference for Romney until that Christmas Card trick in South Carolina. Dirty tricks make me really mad.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm not really sure, but if he decides to run, you'll find out soon. He's a Democrat turned Republican turned Independent. I think his policies will come out looking like Giuliani's.
pooka -
It's interesting indeed isn't it? I think his votes will get split between McCain and Huckabee, I don't see Giuliani getting a lot of them, but so much depends on who actually wins Michigan. I think the winner of Michigan, if not Romney, will suck up the larger share of his votes when and if he drops out. Even with him out, it's still nowhere near over, but McCain starts to look reaaallly good.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting poll numbers over at Slate's Election Scorecard (yeah, like we should pay attention the THEM after NH) in Florida and Michigan on the (R) side:
In Michigan, Huckabee leads Romney for the first time; McCain's bump isn't showing up yet.
In Florida, Huckabee shoots past Giuliani. To me, this is big news if it bears out. All I've heard is how Giuliani has FL, CA and NY essentially locked, and while I don't see anyone beating him in NY, his lead in FL has (evidently) evaporated over the past two weeks, and his lead in CA is taking some serious hits.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry if I missed it and if someone already handled it. However, the section "Romney is pulling funding from ads in Florida and South Carolina and funnelling it all into Michigan.... Personally I think that's premature, but from the looks of things, he has burned through too much cash too fast without much to show for it. Which I guess proves you CAN'T buy an election in America, so hooray for that" makes me curious.
Is there a nicely organised place where you can lookup how much money each candidate has received, how and where they have spent it, and who gave that money to them in the first place?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nicely organized? I'm not sure. CNN has a money tracker that tells you how much they have raised total and how much they have spent, but not where they got it and where it went. I'm sure the information is out there, as I know the campaigns publish their donor info, but I'm not sure where you'd get a breakdown like that. I'd love to see it though.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a little disappointed that Guiliani isn't doing more to challenge the "Iowa and New Hampshire are so very important" narrative. As far as I can see, this is only true because people accept that it is true.
You can even sell this as a compliment to the other, larger states in a sort of "With all respect to Iowa and New Hampshire, I find that far too much attention is given to these contests which takes away from some of the attention that the other states deserve. So, I'm going to skip them." This, if done well, could turn the him having no chance of winning to a weak call towards primary reform, which is an important issue for a lot of the later states.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My mistake, things have changed since I previously checked. About a quarter of the Democratic superdelegates have pledged their support to a specific candidate. The tally of those superdelegates is 3to1 in favor of Clinton over Obama -- 159 for Clinton, and 53 for Obama -- with Obama leading Clinton 25to24 in delegates selected through the primary&caucus process.
posted
I have to say that the whole "superdelegates" thing is pissing me off. It is completely undemocratic and gives "the party elite" way too much control. It is designed to be undemocratic. It is just wrong.
From a practical standpoint, I think that, because they are the "party elite" they are going to pick the nominee (Clinton) to whom they owe favours (or at least favours to her husband). I think that they will determine that Clinton is more electable and they will be wrong.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I have to say that the whole "superdelegates" thing is pissing me off. It is completely undemocratic and gives "the party elite" way too much control. It is designed to be undemocratic. It is just wrong.
Looked at another way, though, these are the people who have shown dedication to "the cause" year after year, instead of a bunch of Johnny-come-latelies. It may not be democratic, but from a theoretic standpoint I don't see it as being an inherently flawed voting mechanism.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is lovely for people who want the status quo - for the people who have power to continue to have power. The problem with any organization is that eventually, the people who have power in th organization start to believe that the organization exists to provide them with power.
The organization itself becomes "the cause".
If there are enough "Johnnys" who care enough to make a difference, we should make it easier for them to shake up the entrenched elite, not harder.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Is there a nicely organised place where you can lookup how much money each candidate has received, how and where they have spent it, and who gave that money to them in the first place?
I linked to such a website earlier, in the Iowa thread, I think. If you don't feel like digging for it, I'll go look.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not necessarily party elite. A large chunk of them are Democratic governors and congresspeople, who, while all Democrats, vary widely in how long they've been in office.
The people actually inside the party apparatus, the DNC members that get votes, well there's your argument I think, but the random Democrats who get votes, I think they could go either way. John Kerry just endorsed Obama, there's a vote. Besides, if the people really, really want a particular person for their candidate, you can't win it with Superdelegates alone, there's still more than a thousand state delegates that must be won, and superdelegates can always change their minds right up to the convention.
I'll add though, that I personally am not a big fan of the superdelegates, but they aren't all powerful, and they don't vote as one mind.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know. And they likely won't make a big difference. Still, in principle...
We complain that it is always politics as usual, then we have this group of people whose function it is to maintain the status quo. "Well, we wouldn't want the electorate to nominate someone who is too extreme..." (She annoyed me.)
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still don't see it as a bad thing. If the Johnnys who want to change the world invest themselves in the process, eventually they will be able to make that change. But if they only care enough to cast a vote, or knock some doors or make some calls in a single election, well...I would rather listen to someone who invests themselves a bit more.
But, then, I'm an ideological conservative, so maintaining the status quo doesn't bother me so much.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I'm not. So it does. I think that power needs some redistribution every once in a while. I prefer it to happen in an orderly fashion.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They COULD make a difference, they COULD be kingmakers if the states split their votes enough. But it's hard to say. A lot of them just want to win. They don't care about status quo or fresh blood, they care about the big W. Honestly that's what I think. They're pushing for a win, and despite what a lot of people say, Hillary IS a viable candidate in the general, maybe more so than Obama, maybe not, but perception is everything right now.
They back the horse they think will win. Now that Obama is showing serious life, he's starting to get superdelegate attention. It's about momentum, and it's about winning, much, much more than the status quo.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And I'm not. So it does. I think that power needs some redistribution every once in a while. I prefer it to happen in an orderly fashion.
I agree; I think we just differ on what constitutes "once in a while" and "an orderly fashion."
I think there should always be a track for changing things; I just think that track should be difficult enough to counterbalance the inevitable fads and whimsies that lead to vacillation.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I missed it, but does anyone have any comments from the Republican debate last night? I've heard mixed reviews, but mostly that there weren't really any losers, Thompson played well to the home crowd, and McCain came out slightly on top. I've got some news I'll post tomorrow after I get some sleep and work a bit tomorrow.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not really Primary news, it's actually General news, but I know the people of Hatrack will enjoy knowing about the move to create a Presidential Debate on Science. You can support the debate at the link, and even pose potential questions for the debate. The idea is to get the candidates talking about science, technology, and the future of both in America, subjects that have been largely ignored thus far with the exception of wedge issues like Evolution, often used more to divide Americans than to have an honest debate on the subject. It seems to have pretty broad ranging support in the scientific and academic communities, but it remains to be seen of the candidates themselves will rise to the challenge (you know, once they are picked).
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm kind of debated out. But I've had a pretty weird week and I made up my mind a long time ago.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well what with the dozens of debates amonst the primary contenders, I'm debated out too, but this wouldn't take place for months, probably not even until August, or the Fall even.
It could have the potential to change my vote. Some of the issues they are focusing in, if I heard the right things and the wrong things, could lead me to change my vote, even to vote for a Republican (unlikely but I won't rule it out). It's important stuff that no one is talking about really.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hard to pick ONE topic. I'd say energy policy and energy independence. The candidates pay lip service to it, but none of them really have a plan. Energy independence should be the number one issue right now, and it's not. Energy independence is uniquely and inextricably tied to the economy, national defense and the environment (to say nothing of healthcare). It's the single greatest issue at the moment that we face, and other than saying we need energy independence once in awhile, none of them are really pursuing it. They need to lay out an aggressive WWII type Manhatten project or Apollo project to get our energy infrastructure up and moving.
If I had to pick one though that was getting NO attention paid to it, I'd say access to freshwater supplies. Droughts are only going to get worse, and we're burning through our natural underground aquifers faster than they can be replenished. What happened in Atlanta this summer is a taste of things to come. Water conservation needs to be a major issue in the US, right alongside energy conservation and efficiency. We take it for granted, but the good ole days are over.
If I had to pick a runner up? American infrastructure. The bridge collapse in Minnesota is also a shape of things to come. This country is more than 100 years old and it's falling apart. We always expect the lights to come on and the water to come out of the faucet but we never want to pay for it. Roads, sewers, pipes, electrical T&D, it all needs updating, and that'll cost serious cash. If we don't do it now, we're in for some REAL pain in the future.
We've been taking too much for granted for too long, it's time to rebuild the country for the 21st century. Right now we're living on borrowed leftovers from the end of the 19th century.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing that appeared abundantly clear from the five-candidate debate on Fox News last night was what a complete nut case Ron Paul is. Several times the audience gasped and snickered at some patently absurd comment he made about foreign policy and the situation in the world. If he had been president when Iraq invaded Kuwait, he would have just left it to the nations in the region to sort matters out for themselves. He would have us take a completely hands-off approach to the Middle East, and quit favoring Israel, so that if the Arabs attack again, America would leave it all up to Israel to find some way to survive, and if they go under, too bad. He sounded like he was willing to side with Iran in the recent confrontation in the Straits or Hormuz between three U.S. Navy destroyers and some Iranian swift boats. He seemed to have no interest in protecting the freedom of the seas. He would bring all our troops home from everywhere in the world. But his radio ads assure us that he would be "strong on defense" because he would not close any of our domestic military bases. The man is a closet isolationist!
McCain suggested Ron Paul had been reading too many of the press releases by the Iranian president. Paul snarled something like "Play on, buddy!"
Huckabee said that if the Iranians tried to threaten U.S. ships again, they should be "introduced to the gates of hell." I guess he was a "fire and brimstone" Baptist preacher, back in the day.
Thompson said in the same situation he would introduce the Iranians to the "seventy virgins" they are looking forward to.
I like Huckabee's idea of a "fair" tax, inwhich a national sales tax based on consumption would replace income tax, so you can keep everything you earn, and only be taxed on what you spend. I think the moon will turn green before anything like that actually happens, but it would sure be nice. The problem is that if you let the federal government charge a sales tax, it would only be added on to all the other taxes, and would not replace anything. Democrats would see to it.
Other than Ron Paul, I would agree there were no real losers in the debate. All of them seemed to do quite well. None of them seemed discomfitted or forced to waffle.
Someone asked Huckabee how much of an impact his religious beliefs would have on how he governs as president. He said, "It thought we agreed that religion should not be injected into these debates, and yet when religion does come up, the questions are always addressed to me!" He said it with a smile, and there was a lot of audience sympathetic laughter. He then said that he did not impose his views on anyone else as governor, nor would he do so as president, but for himself, he would live by the principles he believes in. This brought much applause.
Most of the candidates claimed they had different ideas about immigration and illegal aliens, but they all sounded very similar. Virtually all agreed those illegal aliens who have committed crimes should be expelled and sent back to their home countries.
Guilliani noted that as New York Mayor, he had designated thousands of illegal aliens who had committed crimes and should be deported, and the Department of Naturalization and Immigration said they could not handle such a large number.
McCain said while he agreed with the idea that most illegals should be told to return home and "go to the end of the line" and wait their turn for legal immigration, he would also be humane, and not deport the wife of someone fighting in Iraq, even if she were an illegal.
McCain and Romney and Giulliani and Thompson were sure that an effective fence could be built, and supplemented by a sufficiently expanded border patrol, to ensure that our borders would be effectively sealed. Ron Paul did not think such a fence was viable. He complained that most of our border patrol was off fighting in Iraq. That was one of the few statements he made that the audience liked.
[ January 11, 2008, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd just like to let the records show that I completely disagree with Ron's assessment of Dr. Paul's performance in the debate. I've never agreed with a candidate more than Ron Paul, and I think the interpretation of him being a "closet isolationist" is obviously taking his position too far. He just doesn't think we should be policing the world.
Edited to add: Even the Fox news poll taken afterwards showed 35% of people thought Ron Paul was the best debater, which was highest by far. It's not like he isn't popular.
posted
Did anyone else see or read about Guilliani's plan for "the biggest tax cut" in US history? Apparently he talked about it in a speech earlier, but I just saw the CNN Ticker blurb about his new commercial in Florida featuring his tax plan.
quote: Giuliani's multi-trillion dollar proposal, unveiled in a speech earlier this week, would reduce the capital gains tax from 15 percent to 10 percent, preserve President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, lower the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, permanently eliminate the estate tax, and give taxpayers the option of choosing a simplified tax form with three tax brackets with a maximum bracket of 30 percent. It would also index the alternative minimum tax to inflation — and eventually repeal it entirely.
From that summary, it sounds to me like it's another case of huge cuts for the rich and maybe a little cut for working class people to get them to go along with it. It strikes me as especially irresponsible to focus so much on a trillion dollar tax cut without saying anything much about where the spending cuts would come from to pay for it. Anyone else's thoughts? Will people go for this just because they like any tax cut no matter what?
posted
That will never, ever get through Congress in that form. Besides, even if it did, theoretically, there's absolutely no way that he can get that AND the big increases in the military that he wants. I don't get these Republicans. They want to cut billions in taxes and spend billions more on all these things, when obviously that results in the sort of deficits that we have right now. At least Democrats are up front about what they want to do.
Ron, I disgaree on Paul's debating. He made several good points about our foreign policy and the way that we engage ourselves the wrong way in the wrong places when taking a step back would probably be best. When everyone else on stage was pumping up the macho "kill the Iranians!" rhetoric, he was urging caution, and they, AGAIN, taunted him for it. They're warmongers and idiots, and Paul is proving that more and more with every debate. Usually I think these debates are useless, more or less, except to draw out gaffes, but the Republican debates have been eye opening.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the first national polls since New Hampshire, McCain has rocketed to the head of national polls. In a stunning 21 point jump, he's vaulted to the lead of the Republican fold with 34% support nationally. Huckabee is in second with 21% and Giuliani follows in third with 18%. Romney has been sunk to 14%, and no one else registers above the single digits. Before these numbers came out I wouldn't said it, but I think Michigan is do or die for Romney. If he can't take it, a big manufacturing state (let alone the one he was born in), then he doesn't have a chance on HyperTuesday, and for that matter, he's not taking South Carolina. Romney lives or dies in Tuesday. He's out of cash.
I think by January 29th It'll be a three way race with Ron Paul in the background trying to keep them honest. Thompson will drop out after South Carolina.
McCain is the man to beat now, and he has a big lead. It's not over, not by any means, but he's cookin.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
