FRED VETS, SIGN UP TODAY AT:
Posted on 10/13/2007 9:16:40 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Edited on 10/13/2007 12:05:03 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Why?
What is your supporting evidence?
So, if you thought Fred didn’t win, who do you think DID win?
Certanly not Romney... Giuliani was glib enough, but short on substance... Paul was earnest, but the bats were on the loose in his belfrey... Hunter lost me forever with his kooky left-wing economic theories... Huckabee isn’t a conservative and that shone through loud and clear...
Tancredo was very impressive but he needs a few more horns in his orchestra... Brownback is a dead man walking...
So where are we?
I’ll go with substance. That’s Fred Thompson.
I think Hunter won the first half of the debate. Romney probably won the debate overall (I know people are upset about his lawyer comment but it didn’t really bother me in context). Giuliani probably came in third.
I think the main difference though is the way that we view the economy. I agree with Hunter that we need to protect our industries from countries like China that manipulate their currency, and allow the equivalent of slave labor. So, I listened to Thompson and heard the same platitudes about free trade that I hear from many of my republican friends - and was not impressed. You listened to Hunter and thought his ideas on trade were radical and socialistic. I guess at the end of the day our views probably had a lot to do with the way we saw the debate. That said, I think you would have to agree that both Hunter and Romney came off as more presidential and in control than Thompson did.
I am more or less with you rignt up to your conclusion. I agree that Hunter’s demeanor is Presidential, but Romney’s demeanor certainly was not in my view.
Romney was the big loser in this debate. The polling numbers since debate bear this out as he is giving back all the gain he made during September. I’d say the polling gives the debate to Giuliani and Thompson, as they have seen the largest boosts in their numbers. (Giuliani and Thompson plus 1% each, Romney minus 2% since the debate.)
Notwithstanding these numbers, which are small beans, I’d say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I thought Thompson did great, even with his first answer, which so many have panned. I thought Romney stunk up the place, and I thought Giulini was his usual practiced self.
By the way, my beef with Hunter’s economics has nothing to do with protecting our economy from predatory trade practices. Of course we should do that. Nobody disagrees about that.
What I don’t like is his insistence on government control over disposition of private assets. That is socialism, pure and simple.
“What I don’t like is his insistence on government control over disposition of private assets.”
This is news to me. Could you tell me a bit more about this?
The question was asked about investors from Dubai buying shares in NASDAQ, and Hunter said he would not permit such a thing as he “Didn’t trust them.” Presumably, he would be willing to use the power of government to prevent such sales, as that was the tenor of the question.
NASDAQ is a private company that owns and operates the NASDAQ share market in the Unites States and has major interests in share markets in several other countries, including the London Stock Exchange. Shares in NASDAQ are publicly traded.
If I owned shares in NASDAQ, I would want to be free to sell them to whoever I durn well please, whether it pleases Duncan Hunter or not. And I don’t want any more government interference in my financial dealings than the minimum required to collect taxes and protect national security.
I see Hunter’s easy acceptance that government ought to be able to control the disposition of private assets as very disturbing and contrary to conservative principles.
Thank you, I knew they had talked about that but I did not hear his answer on that. My internet streaming kept cutting in and out when trying to listen to it.
Most of my problems with Hunter have to do with economic issues.
Well, I am not a Romney supporter but I am a little surprised that you thought he did so poorly. Presidential may have been the wrong word for me to use to describe him -since Romney does comes across as a bit superficial. However, I certainly thought he did well in the debate: particularily with his joke about being afraid that the Gov. of Michigan would tax the debate.
Ok, I assume you are referring to his position on the sale of NASDAQ? I haven’t really thought through that issue all that much but my guess would be that Hunter would view it through the same lense as the Dubai Ports deal or existing laws which allow the government to place restrictions on what types of technology and production defense contractors can move to overseas manufacturing plants.
NASDAQ is a stock market holding company for crying out loud. It is a publicly traded company. It isn’t a manufacturer either domestically or overseas and it has nothing to do with military technology. It doesn’t operate sensitive ports.
Hunter overreached. Clearly, his instincts are very suspect.
To me, Romney comes across with all the sincerity of Hillary Clinton, but without her charm. ;>)
Wow - thats harsh.
FRED VETS, SIGN UP TODAY AT:
Go Fred!
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.