What debate? (analysis: Romney, McCain given preferential treatment)

RenewAmerica.us ^ | May 7, 2007 | RenewAmerica staff

[redgirlinabluestate]

Correction -- Mitt gave brilliant and thorough answers to loaded questions.

BTW Romney DOES oppose embryonic stem cell research. He already vetoed state funding for it in Massachusetts and, like President Bush, supports further research on Altered Nuclear Transfer as a Morally Acceptable Means for the Procurement of Human Embryonic Stem Cells.

While he prefers storage or adoption of embryos, he does make an exception for those "parents" of embryos who refuse to allow them to be adopted or stored and choose to give them up for research, but without using any federal funds. This is a rare exception made for those discarded or damaged embryos slated for destruction.

It is not anyone's first choice, but is the lesser of two evils - destroyed for nothing or destroyed for research. I loathe both. In a perfect world, there would be no IVF and everyone would adopt and this would not be an issue. However, we live in the real world and leaders have to make tough decisions.

[George W. Bush]

Anyway, in all fairness, many didn't have much to say or were stumbling or stammering (Tancredo/Rudy/Thompson).

There were a couple of times that candidates didn't use more than a few seconds, almost like they didn't like Matthews or the format so much that they didn't want to speak at length. Tancredo, for instance, was on one of the Sunday shows and really did well. But he was lousy and close-mouthed at the debate.

Some candidates are not good debaters. Maybe they say less because they know they aren't good debaters. I thought a few of these candidates were having an Admiral Stockdale moment ("What am I doing here?").

[TAdams8591]

Hey, redgirl. I also thought Romney and Hunter were the best (and have already said so), and in that order. : )

[Gelato]

BTW Romney DOES oppose embryonic stem cell research.

That is misinformation. You should stop spreading it.

MR. MATTHEWS: And you won't take any from these fertility clinics to use either.

MR. ROMNEY: I'm happy to allow that -- or I shouldn't say happy. It's fine for that to be allowed to be legal. I won't use our government funds for that. Instead, I want our government funds to be used on Dr.Hurlbut's method, which is Altered Nuclear Transfer.

By the way, Altered Nulcear Transfer involves cloning genetically-disabled embryos.

[WestSylvanian]

I’d say Romney was at a DISADVANTAGE compared to the other candidates. When Matthews was going to ask each candidate the same question, he always started with Romney. The other candidates were given much more time to formulate their answers. Romney had to have an answer ready immediately. He did a very good job, and I’d say he clearly won because he was relaxed, good-humored, and on message, and his answers were clear and succint. He was actually laughing at Chrissy’s stupid questions. And his response about what Catholic bishops should be allowed to do about Catholic politicians who don’t uphold hold church teachings—”They [the bishops]can do whatever the heck they want!” was the most spontaneous of the evening.

[PghBaldy]

Not for sexual orientation. Even thoough many or most of the questions were very biased, they were a good way to test the candidates. The Dems may have done something helpful for us. The candidates are going to be asked all kinds of tough push-poll type questions over the next few months. Doesn’t hurt to learn how to handle them, OR, fail, and show us who “deserves” the nomination (not sure if any of these men do).

[The_Eaglet]

Thanks for posting this, Gelato.

[cva66snipe]

Romney may have gotten more time but sustenance or lack of it from him equaled it out :>}

[PhilCollins]

I agree that Romney lacked sustenance. When he was asked what he dislikes about America, he gave a poor answer. He should have said, “I dislike high income tax rates, and I want to decrease them” or “I dislike hearing a leader of the U.S. Senate say that we lost a war.” I’m glad that Romney did poorly because I support Tommy Thompson.

[cva66snipe]

I’m looking for someone outside the Ford/Bush circle IOW a definite change in direction in the GOP. The GOP has been out of control since 1996. The GOP congress as a whole only acted like Conservatives for one year. Ron Paul has not played along with their liberalism and is my first choice. Tom Tancredo is second. They are the two most vocal about addressing and changing the wrong direction the GOP is headed in.

[PhilCollins]

I agree that too many Republicans are too liberal. In 2004, I thought that Bush was too liberal, and I voted for Michael Peroutka, of the Constitution Party.

Tommy Thompson says that he’s conservative. He says that, while he was governor, he proved that he’s pro-tax cuts, pro-welfre cuts, pro-life, pro-capital punishment, pro-gun rights, and anti-gay marriage. He says that he wants to deport as many illegal aliens as possible, as quickly as possible. He has a good chance of winning the nomination and general election. Two of the last three republican presidents were governors, and Thompson was a governor almost as long as Huckabee and Romney, combined. No one has been elected president while the candidate was a U.S. rep.

[cva66snipe]

No one has been elected president while the candidate was a U.S. rep.

Not absolutely sure on that but the highest office held by Lincoln was U.S. REP. He later made bids for the senate and did not win. His highest state office was Assemblyman.

[PhilCollins]

Lincoln was a U.S. rep., 1847-’49, and he was elected President in 1860. Rep. Tancredo wants to be elected President while he’s a U.S. rep., although it hasn’t been done before.

[The_Eaglet]

Paul has not played along with their liberalism and is my first choice. Tom Tancredo is second.

Paul deserves to be rewarded for that. I pray that he will also be rewarded with support from likeminded citizens and other public servants to whom the oath of office is more than a ceremony.