GOP Debate: No Clear Winner, Romney and Paul Did Well

USA Daily ^ | October 9, 2007 | Hugo Mann

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Candidates sparred over economic and domestic issues and at times showing differences on the issue of trade and war.

CNBC fumbled on the debate allowing Giuliani and Romney much more time than the other candidates followed by Thompson and McCain, which was a disservice to the voters watching that actually were watching to hear what all of the candidates had to say.

It was most likely not the intent of the network, but the apparent favoritism with the amount of questions asked and the time allotted to certain candidates gave the impression that they were attempting to manipulate the results.

While the network seemed to reign in Chris Matthews since the last debate he is just way to partisan to be a debate moderator. It would be like having Pat Buchanan moderate a Democratic debate. The pundits serve a purpose but are not generally very good as moderators.

Most of the Republican’s failed to properly address the home mortgage crises which is the worst foreclosure crises since the great depression. Fred Thompson may have been an example of that when he answered his first question by saying, “There is no reason to believe we’re headed toward a recession’ and that the short term economic outlook is ‘rosy’ but that long term ‘we’re spending money we don’t have’.

Thompson said that with regards to Iraq, “the policy we’re now engaged in is a good one” saying that at first we weren’t prepared for the war effort. We are in a “fight by forces of civilization against the bad guys” Thompson emphasized at a latest point in the debate.

Thompson did not overly hurt his campaign but he may not have met the high expectations that had been created.

[mnehring]

I'm very curious as to why there is so much bitterness towards RP-I can understand why the media squelches him(because he speaks the truth), but why supposed 'conservatives' on FR try to degrade him for being pro American and pro constitution really amazes me.

The same reason there is so much towards other RINOs and Liberals. Ron Paul is a moderate libertarian, not a Conservative... he only talks the talk but he cares more about symbolic votes than he does actual substantial changes. Just look at his comments last night, half of which could have been made by John Edwards and you wouldn't know the difference. Look at his voting record. Voting against putting the military on the border at least four times, voting against reducing the waiting period for a gun, voting to allow people to sue gun companies, voting against banning human cloning, voting against making it a crime to harm a fetus in the commission of a crime, voting against making it a crime to take a minor across State lines to get an abortion...

As we say in Texas, Ron Paul is all hat, no saddle.

[mnehring]

Don't be fooled.. Paul is no Conservative.

Ron Paul's Voting Record (ya, ya, I know, there is an excuse for all of these, state's rights are more important than stopping abortion and fixing the border, Ronnie is making a statement, or everyone else was voting against it and he was just playing the game, yadda, yadda, yadda)

Here are some more ‘Conservative(sic)’ votes by Paul:

Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes.

Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research.

Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion.

Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons.

Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime.

Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism.

Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror.

Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools.

Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy.

Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy.

Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump.

Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects.

Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding.

Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations.

Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers.

Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers

Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse.

Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1.

Voted NO on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Voted NO on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill.

Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers.

Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers.

Voted NO on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients.

Voted NO on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks.

Let's also not forget Paul's Pork Projects (that he voted for before he voted against when he calls them unconstitutional but he is just playing the game when he submits them because everyone else does it.. yadda yadda yadda..)

[mnehring]

..oh, and btw, those aren’t misquotes, they are cut and pasted from the debate transcript.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119196048730753698.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Line item veto analysis here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1909398/posts

[mnehring]

..actually, one of your quotes summarizes Paul perfectly.

..He’s just a fraud opportunist trying to cash in on liberal sympathies...

[tobyhill]

Any mention of lawyers is enough to make most Conservatives cringe. I know what he was trying to say but it just didn’t work as an answer and that’s just the way it is. It’s a short lived flub but a flub none the less. Thompson had a couple but the expectations of the first debate were a bit less than Romney who’s been through a few. I was hoping the candidates would target Matthews, not for his questions but for his new proclamation of being Independent.

[SnakeDoctor]

I’m not a Giuliani fan ... but the line-item veto is simply not Constitutional barring a Constitutional Amendment. It may be perfectly constutitional under the Massachussetts Constitution for the Governor to use the LIV ... but it is not a federally granted power of the executive branch.

Congress drafts, negotiates, adapts and officially adopts the language of legislation ... and the President must sign it in its entirety, or veto it in its entirety. That’s the law according to the U.S. Constitution.

Romney’s hitching his wagon to the wrong horse here.

H

[DangerDanger]

Interesting Intrade. Thanks for sharing it!

As a Thompson supporter, I was neither turned on or off by his debate performance though, to be honest, I expected him to be a bit more aggressive. I look for him to improve as debates continue.

A friend of mine who is way, way, high up in the Rudy Brain Trust was positively giddy today over Romney’s implosion regarding “checking with the lawyers before going to war” comment. They were also quite taken with Thompson’s slap at Romney concerning Mitt’s “acting.”

[DangerDanger]

Interesting Intrade. Thanks for sharing it!

As a Thompson supporter, I was neither turned on or off by his debate performance though, to be honest, I expected him to be a bit more aggressive. I look for him to improve as debates continue.

A friend of mine who is way, way, high up in the Rudy Brain Trust was positively giddy today over Romney’s implosion regarding “checking with the lawyers before going to war” comment. They were also quite taken with Thompson’s slap at Romney concerning Mitt’s “acting.”

[Navy Patriot]

The media are terrified of Fred.

[Norman Bates]

For one, his tone is strident and does no service to his cause. Second, I do not agree with an isolationist foreign policy. Third, his message is primarily libertarian and not conservative (he was even the libt. cand. for POTUS in ‘88). Last, I do not think he has the credentials for POTUS; a mere House member is not going to cut it.

[SHEENA26]

“I though Romney did fairly poorly - and Paul’s a crazy SOB”

WRONG. Romney was the clear winner. Smart, articulate and had all of his facts straight. He absolutley does not sound rehearsed...how could he, when he answered all questions so quickly and without pause nor facial twitches like the rest of them. I question whether you actually watched the debate.

[SnakeDoctor]

>> I question whether you actually watched the debate.

Is it entirely impossible that someone could watch the same debate, and come to a different conclusion than you did?

Generally speaking, condescension is unbecoming.

>> WRONG. Romney was the clear winner.

The only people I’ve seen that said Romney was the “clear winner” ... were already Romney supporters. It doesn’t bode well for you that the author of the original article also thought Ron Paul was good ... Ron Paul is clearly a raving lunatic.

Nonetheless, it is clearly not the responsibility of the White House Counsel to determine whether the U.S. goes to war ... so that was a HORRIBLE answer. The line-item veto is also clearly unconstitutional ... so that, too, was a HORRIBLE answer.

The two biggest mistakes of the evening were Romney’s ... hardly the makings of a clear victory.

>> He absolutley does not sound rehearsed...how could he, when he answered all questions so quickly and without pause nor facial twitches like the rest of them.

I question your objectivity.

This is merely a stylistic complaint - I like Romney, and would certainly vote for him were he to be nominated. However, my wife, who isn’t particularly involved politically, watched some of the debate with me last night. She commented specifically on the fact that Romney looked far too rehearsed and polished ... he looks and sounds like a slick politician from central casting.

Thompson and Giuliani appeared to answer honestly, and extemporaneously ... Romney looks like he’s delivering lines from a teleprompter. Thompson and Giuliani look and sound like real people, speaking from the heart and mind. Romney looks like he’s been practicing for this since he was in high school, and he’s robotically going through the motions ... adding emphasis precisely where it should be added, working in scripted Law & Order references, etc.

Mitt Romney reminds me a bit of John Kerry. He’s an erudite Massachussetts politician, excessively handled, very slick, and entirely overscripted.

I like Romney, but he needs to work on that particular image problem if he intends to win this thing.

H

[Nervous Tick]

>> WRONG. Romney was the clear winner. Smart, articulate and had all of his facts straight. He absolutley does not sound rehearsed...how could he, when he answered all questions so quickly...

So I guess what you’re saying is, if Mr. Romney gets elected POTUS, we will be governed by whatever lawyers he surrounds himself with. In other words, he means exactly what he said, since he’s smart and articulate and unrehearsed.

Thanks for the insight. That helps me make my mind up.

[restornu]

Looks like another Fred hit piece.

***

So that means if the tiltle was “Fred and Paul did well” it would be a hit piece on Mitt?

[Nervous Tick]

>> USA Today complaining about favoritism?

Not USA Today... USA *Daily*. Whatever that is.

Check out their homepage; it looks like they might consider themselves a “constitutionalist” mouthpiece.

http://www.usadaily.com/index.cfm

Ron Paul has clearly captured their online candidates’ poll! 89%! LOL That probably tells you something right there.

[Politicalmom]

The guy can’t even use correct grammar and punctuation.

I’m not going to bother reading his blather.

[Caipirabob]

Ron Paul sounded insane from the clips I listened to. Specifically about "No imminent attack". Who cares if it's a nation or a terrorist group with multiple basis of operations? I guess in his world, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 didn't happen. At least I didn't hear him attempt to qualify his statements during the debate, so if there's more, please let me know.

[Caipirabob]

we will be governed by whatever lawyers he surrounds himself with

Then our nation can be run like an episode of "Law and Order" instead of just having an actor from the series run it.

[ejonesie22]

Shenna, I think you are in love...