Posted on 10/10/2007 1:50:23 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at usadaily.com ...
Paul did well? His shrill podium-pounding tantrums caused me to question his sanity.
I agree. Look at my past posts by doing a search, and you will see that I was (maybe still am) a Fred Thompson supporter. In fact, I donated to his campaign. However, I think that Paul is getting an unfair shake. Is it because he tried being the "mavrick" like McCain and cosponsor liberal bills with Kennedy and Fiengold? No. Is it because he supported gun control and abortion like Giuliani did? No. Was it because he was a liberal governor of one of the most liberal states like Romney? No. It's only because he supports the Constitution as we conservatives are supposed to do, but the party can't stand anybody that would not embarrass us as Bush, et al, has. I'm really starting to lean strongly towards Ron now after witnessing the debate first-hand yesterday afternoon. We have a Constitution that is the supreme law of the land; without it we are subjects instead of citizens. So far, Ron is being hated for supporting it.
“You people that call him moonbat need to wake up. 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.”
Speaking for myself, I consider Ron Paul to be a moonbat and I’m sick and tired of the Ron Paul cultists trying to convinve me with their endless threads that Ron Paul is a great defender of the Constitution and the ‘only true conservative running’. Ron Paul is none of these things. The only Constitution that Ron Paul defends is his own peculiar version. He is not a ‘true conservative’. He is a libertarian and there is a difference. I do, however, find great amusement watching the Ron Paul cultists perform mental contortions on these threads trying to square their positions with reality.
“You people that call him moonbat need to wake up. I’m very curious as to why there is so much bitterness towards RP-I”
Here’s a thread that you might find enlightening. Pretty fair answer to your question.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1909346/posts?page=26
After reading that post I like him even more! Getting rid of the Patriot Act and Federal Reserve is best thing this country could do.
Romneys little exchange with Rudy showed me a few things. Both of them, Rudy and Mitt, looked like two little kids on the playground talking about the toys they have and whose is better. It's not about what you did with taxes THEN, what are you going to do for the country NOW. The exchange was petty and took the 'debate' nowhere.
“After reading that post I like him even more! Getting rid of the Patriot Act and Federal Reserve is best thing this country could do.”
Exactly what would that accomplish and why would want that?
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.