Skip to comments.The Transcript of the GOP's Univision Debate
Posted on 12/09/2007 8:37:28 PM PST by Ultra Sonic 007
click here to read article
He obviously does here. And you and I both know there is no such court ruling, there never has been a ruling regarding the children of illegals.
Freddy made a big, big mistake by showing up here, and an even bigger one opening his mouth and hedging.
Thanks for a better format.
Why the Republicans are so afraid to be strong on this issue because Hispanics won't vote for them is a mystery to me. Most Hispanics WANT the border under control and DON'T want amnesty.
Fred really doesn’t have much room to maneuver, either. By hedging on Federalism for abortion and the 14th amendment on immigration, he alienates conservatives. He’s basically asking conservatives to care about poll results and liberal poll worshippers to care about conservatism.
Thompson is currently trading at 1.5 on Intrade to win the Iowa caucuses, just 0.4 ahead of the field (Hunter).
Winner of 2008 Republican Iowa Caucus
Mike Huckabee to Win M 70.0 75.7 70.0 762 +4.4
Mitt Romney to Win M 22.3 32.6 23.3 733 -6.9
Rudy Giuliani to Win M 0.4 2.4 1.5 375 -0.3
John McCain to Win M 0.1 1.6 0.5 130 0
Fred Thompson to Win M 0.5 4.0 1.5 215 0
Newt Gingrich to Win M - 0.1 0.1 0 0
Chuck Hagel to Win M - 0.1 0.1 0 0
Field (any other individual) to Win M 1.1 4.4 1.1 241 0
All In (Fred Thompson moves to Iowa)
Weekly Standard ^ | 12/7/07 | Stephen Hayes
Posted on 12/08/2007 4:06:27 PM PST by cotton1706
Des Moines, Iowa FORMER TENNESSEE SENATOR Fred Thompson has decided to take his campaign and virtually all of its resources to Iowa in an all-or-nothing attempt to register a strong showing in the caucuses here on January 3.
“Hunter hit it out of the park again! He just gets better and better!”
Just what I was thinking. I think he’s our Babe Ruth.
Romney: “And when Republicans act like Democrats, America
It’s late, I’ve got a toothache, I’ve scanned 2 transcripts. Am I reading this right...the moderator introduced each of the candidates except Hunter? Tell me I’m wrong, please.
You can learn a language by immersion, to be sure, but you rarely fully understand the nuances of that new language, and can always understand it better if you can hear it in your first language.
I believe your estimate of 6% Hispanics is low, but be that as it may, I don't think the Republicans should act as if they are not needed. With the country the way it is today, EVERY vote is welcome.
You contend that the candidates yielded to some sort of extortion by attending the debate. I don't agree. The candidates wanted to make sure the the citizens for whom Spanish is their FIRST language, heard and understood exactly where they stand on the issues. That's a far sight better than not campaigning among Hispanics, and having the Democrats frame the Republican candidates' stands, instead. As for your railing about how the Hispanics are going to take over, since you sneer at their political clout, being only 6%, how do you propose they're going to do that?
I don't like illegals coming into this country anymore than you or anyone else, but I'm not speaking about them. I'm speaking about citizens who happen to have come from Spanish speaking nations because they DO understand that this country is unique in the world in offering freedom and liberty for them and their children. The adults won't speak English that well, but their children will, just the same as ALL first generation immigrants to this country. My Italian great grandmother knew English, but she hardly ever spoke it, because it wasn't her native language. Her son, on the other hand, was able to speak Italian with his mother, but thought in English, because he learned it along with the Italian he learned at home. The same thing happened with Germans, Poles, Chinese and any other immigrant who came to America as an adult. Many have been here for years, but still converse better in their native tongues than in English. I would never fault them for it, nor look down upon them. They took the chance to uproot their lives and try to make a better one for their families, as legal immigrants, and I welcome them.
Oh, and your snide comment that I'm weak because I 'think like a woman' would get a hugh guffaw from my husband, who knows the exact opposite. I'm about as far from a feminine thinker as a woman can be. Believe me, honey, this gal doesn't think with her ovaries.
moderator introduced each of the candidates except Hunter?
***I dunno, because, also — Ive got a toothache; recovering from a root canal. Maybe that’s the problem: Hunter supporters are more susceptible to tooth decay. ;-)
I don't think the kids explain the temper. They weren't all in the house at once.
The first three he had with the wife he dumped after he came home from Vietnam. The last one is a little girl they adopted not very long ago. So I guess he and Cindy had three together.
He hasn't alienated me, because I understand what he's proposing. He's not looking to pander to conservatives or Christian voters by making nice noises about Constitutional Amendments that he, and those who ARE making those noises, know will never happen in our lifetimes, if ever. Instead of talking about the issue, he wants to actually DO something.
Accepting the fact that, up til now, the courts have allowed 'anchor babies' doesn't necessarily mean that he wants that practice to continue. It sounded to me like he was talking about the ones who are already here. I don't think it will take a Constitutional amendment to change the anchor baby practice. I believe it can be done by a vote of Congress. Of course that will be challenged, and it will likely go to the Supremes, but it would be a good way to open the practice up to debate, which hasn't happened yet.
He’s not looking to pander to conservatives or Christian voters by making nice noises about Constitutional Amendments that he, and those who ARE making those noises, know will never happen in our lifetimes, if ever.
***Hunter sees things the same way evangelical christians do, so he ain’t pandering, but when we see a Thompson supporter saying that it’s pandering for her own candidate to support a pro-life position, it shows he’s gone off into the weeds.
Instead of talking about the issue, he wants to actually DO something.
***I get the opposite impression. I get the impression that he wishes the issue would go away and he attempts to nuance his position to appear centrist.
Posted on 04/11/2007 11:11:59 PM PDT by FairOpinion
On Abortion: “Government should stay out of it... The ultimate decision must be made by the women... Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own.” — Fred Thompson, July 1994
Thompson said he opposes making early-term abortions a crime, as some Republicans would like to do with a constitutional amendment. “But I don’t think you should bolt on one issue. I’m still not convinced platforms are a good idea. We know what we believe in and I don’t think we need to write it all down in a document,” Thompson said. (AP, 8/6/96)
Furthermore, I’m adding this from the American Spectator posted just a few days ago:
In the interview, Thompson was asked: “Some conservatives got flustered by your comments on abortion and Roe vs. Wade. Would you like to explain your position on abortion?”
Thompson answered: “Government should stay out of it. No public financing. The ultimate decision must be made by the woman. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own.”
Interesting tidbit from the poll on Univision’s website:
¿Tienes pensado votar por algún candidato del Partido Republicano en las elecciones del 2008?
Todavía no lo sé 4%
65% of the respondents say they are thinking about voting for a Republican in 2008.
I read a good part of the first transcript. I noticed he did not introduce Duncan Hunter. I scanned the second transcript and noticed the same thing. I wondered if there was some mistake and it was n’t added to the transcript. There are introductions for all candidates but Hunter. It could just be the typical marginalizations of Hunter, though. It was frustrating to scan it and see Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, McCain, and to an extent, Thompson, getting the bulk of the questions and more time to speak. I commend Duncan Hunter for doing a great job with the questions asked to him and in the time alloted.
Thank you so very much for posting this!
Thanks for posting the transcript!
Hunter was very good. Impressive. Glad he went and glad he got his message out.
Lots of people who never heard of him could hear him without the MSM ignoring him. As it is, CNN and others just cut him out, but in outakes and photographs.
I am glad he could be there to communicate. I would hope it picks up some votes for him from new, legal American immigrants voting for the first time, who are DISGUSTED at all the illegal immigrants making demands but not doing it the legal way like they should have. Duncan did not compromise on this and I think he was respected as a result. He certainly did not get booed.
He engaged, was not scared, went straight into it, without altering his position.
I would like to see him start picking up Tancredo support, from those who might be wobbling between Tanc and him.