Posted on 05/05/2011 7:51:34 PM PDT by Triton42
"So who won the debate? In a political debate, of course, there is no such thing as "winning the argument." Instead, candidates aim to achieve certain goals. In this case--even for Pawlenty--the goal was to attract media attention. The debates also present an opportunity for the candidates to prove their rhetorical ability. So who succeeded?
No candidate performed in an outstanding way. Two candidates, Santorum and Johnson, performed poorly. But Cain, Paul, and Pawlenty each achieved what they set out to do...."
(Excerpt) Read more at elephantwatcher.com ...
...and Gary Johnson had his “this is what a feminist looks like” t-shirt on. He had a tough choice between that shirt and his La-Raza shirt.
Nice, ready-made cliche.
public service experience
Nice euphemism. Gummint bureaucrat, as I said!
I expected Gary to wear a hemp shirt tonight.
How did u know???....lol..../s
Are you serious?You would let the color of his skin bother you?The man is one rockribbed conservative and self made.No affirmative action crap.I didnt see a sarc tag after your post.
“and a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago in 1968”
So Dr. is correct.
and a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago in 1968
Herman Cain won hands down. Very articulate and true-blue conservative.
So damned true.We have too self serving senators for sure.
So damned true.We have two self serving senators for sure.
Pizza has already been perfected. There are a wide variety of choices out there. I have no interest in going into the pizza business and I don’t want a pizza delivery guy as my president.
Agreed.Just who in the hell is pushing this guy?
Precisely. So Cain's success with Godfathers in such a competitive industry fails to impress you why exactly?
Ron Paul is someone who, out of respect for his stature, depth of integrity and value, and wisdom, is sort of like the Rabbi in the room, where you walk into the room of family, neighbors, friends, and even if you cannot totally agree with him, when he speaks, you stop and you don’t say anything. You listen. You then contemplate what he had said. You certainly don’t argue with him, in that first off you cannot go one on one with him anyway and besides you sort of have this gut that he is right anyway even if you are not going to do what he said.
So that is what Ron Paul is to me. I don’t agree with, for example, his stand on legalization of drugs – yet I listen with total respect to what he has to say, and I consider that I may be wrong on the issue. But, the problem, to me, with his candidacy is that, even if he were to win the Presidency, he represents a deep, and foundational, principle of human politics that could only succeed if his ENTIRE package is implemented, and not piece meal. That is the problem. It would be a grand, historical, success beyond our wildest dreams for not only our nation, and the world, but it would only be successful if it were fully implemented, that liberty as he represents was entirely implemented according to the principles he stands for. And, unfortunately, I believe what would happen is only bits here and there would be implemented – for example legalization of drugs – but not the entire program, the entire package of liberty ... and thus it would fail. I am sorry. I respect him so much. I could only wish that he would become President and that the Congress and the nation would understand and fully engage his agenda of freedom, but I think it would not.
Of course I respect, and will continue and always respect him. I will listen and not argue (with him). I will take time to think about what he has to say. But I think that is the best I can do at this time in regards to his candidacy, because like it or not, I guess I am a life-long Republican. And perhaps not a total libertarian, and in my own shame perhaps really do not mean totally what I say when I say I support liberty.
Of the remaining candidates, they were all very, very impressive. As a Republican, I am proud of their affiliation with the Republican Party. I suppose when I am dead, they will say, here is Brian, he’s dead. He was a Republican.
I suppose it would be better if they were to say, he was an American. But, in reality, what they are probably going to say is, he was a husband, and a Republican.
I think I have less respect at this juncture for those who did not show up to the debate. It is not true that this was about South Carolina. No. The audience was all of America, and certainly all Republicans. It would not have mattered if it were in Greenville or Los Angeles. I would not have mattered to me. I wanted to see them all.
Of those who came, I really liked what businessman Herman Cain and Rick Santorum had to say, and their demeanor and presence. But having said that I was impressed with their message, what I was also thinking was, “Which of these can defeat Obama?”....
My conclusion is that Herman Cain can defeat Obama. He take him on one on one, both in stature, message, presence, delivery. And watching Santorum, I believe he can also defeat Obama.
To me, this is also important.
So at this juncture, I am supporting these two. Cain, whom I knew nothing before tonight, and Santorum, whom I have known for some time.
Sounds like he earned a Doctorate to me.
No, not fair. Race is not what lies behind Cain’s appeal. I back Palin, and will do so all the way to the ballot box in November 2012, but I will credit Cain where credit is due. He is a professional talk show host and has had years to perfect both his listening and his delivery skills. If he is an expert communicator then that’s what he is and you can’t diminish that by trying to divert attention to race. And if you combine his considerable communication skills with his generally conservative outlook, you have someone who will, regardless of race, be able to generate plenty of support if they can get the exposure.
As for public service experience, the main difference between that and Cain’s private executive experience is this: In public service you’re spending money you didn’t earn and don’t have to worry about not getting more of if you handle it badly. Whereas someone like Cain (and Palin, BTW), will treat your money like spending it wisely matters, because in private business you learn you can’t waste what you earn. All other aspects of public service versus private service are interchangeable, more or less. Leadership is leadership. The rest you can do with borrowed expertise, whether financial, military, foreign policy, or otherwise. Palin/Cain is not unthinkable.
Cuzins muh A Q idn’t mahch bigguh en muh hat siyaz...
Agree! He’s also a former member of the Federal Reserve Board and said in a speech that he didn’t see a need for an audit of the Fed. That’s all it took for me to mark him off my list!
Truthfully, he’s got no more experience than the Community Organizer that’s currently in the WH.
I’ve always liked Santorum. He is really intelligent and took a lot of heat for his strong comments about the Texas homosexuality case and didn’t back down. He said something about it being a slippery slope that would open the door to polygamy and other types marriage.
It’s been a long time. I think that I had better look that one up if Santorum is going to run for president. It could be important.
Santorum made only one slip in his career, supporting Arlen Spector in an effort to be a good party man and he paid for it. No matter what he did, he couldn’t make it up to the voters. I think that he learned his lesson. - Be true to yourself first.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.