Posted on 10/09/2007 9:05:40 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
Fred Thompson may have been the buzz candidate coming in and he held up well but Mitt Romney was as sharp as he’s ever been tonight. It was Mitt Romney's night.I’ll have more on Romney in a moment. First, let’s talk about Thompson.
Thompson’s performance was measured and pretty strong. He spoke faster which helped him appear more in control and presidential. He didn’t offer up a whole lot of specifics but he did answer questions directly and forcefully. And he displayed a keen sense of humor too when asked about his entry into the race. What people wanted to see tonight is whether Thompson belonged on stage and if other candidates would make him look bad. They did not and he proved that not only he belongs but he is a force that is not going away.
Now, as for Romney, man he’s a good debater. I must say Mitt Romney is truly a human power point presentation…and I say that in a very positive way. It was on display in that first answer. Fred Thompson gave a somewhat generic answer to the first question about what he will do to “ensure economy vibrancy in this country”. But then Romney followed with statistics, solutions, and a forward looking agenda. I mean, my goodness, he hit it out of the park. Later, he talked about section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. He even threw in some humor about Fred Thompson’s appearance. He had it going. Very impressive indeed.
While the headlines in Dearborn may have been about Fred Thompson’s first debate appearance, it was Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney who decided to finally mix it up. No “baloney”. They really did.
The fierce email exchange between the two campaigns over who’s more fiscally conservative boiled over onto the debate floor.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbn.com ...
CP - I’ve learned that those that use such infantile language are only hiding their lack of intelligence. How sad...
The reason that Mitt’s lawyer answer was laughable is that a president should know about whether going to war in a particular case is constitutional. If he doesn’t know, he is unfit for the job. Mitt should take some time off to read the Constitution.
“The Indians will win the World Series and Mitt Romney will be our next president!”
I must humbly disagee - Red Sox win the World Series, Patriot’s win the Super Bowl and Mitt Romney will be our next President! ;)
I thought the lawyer answer was brilliant. You don’t consult with lawyers in that instance, you let them hash it out and provide an opinion.
The reason that is brilliant is because of the time frame. There is no time to have a Congressional debate (and expose the intent to the enemy). There certainly is 24-48 hrs to have counsel confer and provide an opinion as to whether or not the Constitution gets trampled.
It is a debateable thing. The Iraq war authorization vote does not explicitly extend to other countries. An opponent could reasonably ask . . . if you try to extend to Iran and rationalize that, why not extend to North Korea, too, on the same rationale that the Congressional Iraq vote allows it?
The Constitution is too valuable to risk a trampling like that. Get a legal opinion. It may be judged invalid later, but with one you are acting in good faith. And it’s also wise to recognize that the entire legal team may declare NO, you are not authorized to extend war because the Constitution forbids unilateral, whimsical war by a President.
It was the best answer of all provided.
Bravo! Your entire post was extremely well said.
Romney made a HUGE mistake. I live in Louisiana, and lost my home to Katrina. (Unlike many, I left 2 days early, and was well-insured. And I now live 100 miles inland!) Romney's words were almost IDENTICAL to the idiot Ray Nagin's response about 2 days before Katrina hit, when he was asked if he would order a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans. He replied that he'd have to consult with the city attorneys to see if such an order was legal! I saw this live, and it was a stunning display of incompetence and lack of leadership.
Nagin's public image went downhill from there, and he started shoving his foot firmly in his mouth ever deeper, again and again.
Faced with catastrophic circumstances as impending attack or hurricane, the only valid responses are DEFEND MY COUNTRY and GET THE HELL OUT NOW, respectively, not "I'll check with my lawyers."
Your desperation is showing.
It looks like nothing of the sort.
I agree. I was impressed with Brownback, and IMHO less impressed with Huckabee. I think maybe becaues Huckabee is not a real fiscal conservative, and it showed. And Tancredo sometimes sounds inarticulate, but his anti-pandering message and several other points were spot on.
Hmmm. The Fed is chartered by the Govt, and I am thinking Ben Bernake pulls a Govt paycheck. Am I wrong? It’s politically and institutionally independent from other Governmental entities, but still part of the Govt.
Don’t count Fred out yet. It’s by no means too late.
I’m just saying he needs to kick it into gear, do better image stuff, better presentation, better debate and speech prep.
Fred’s got time. We may as well keep our powder dry until we approach an actual primary. What’s the rush, eh?
Romney said he would consult the lawyers about legality, BUT of course he would do whatever necessary to defend the U.S. The first part of his statement was in response to all those with their foot on the brake. The last part told what he would do. He would uphold his oath to defend the U.S.
I find in so many responses to Romney, his detractors are “hair trigger” ready to find something to harp about."
Hit the nail on the head. Well said. I also suspect that if Fred T's comment about Bin Laden getting 'due process' came out of Romney's mouth, the Mitt-detractors would be criticizing that statement too.
“Lawyers are not well respected in America”
Yeah, this is why the Lawyer Fred Thompson, the lawyer Rudy Guiliani, the lawyer Hillary Clinton, and the lawyer Barack Obama are doing so poorly in the polls. Not!
Mitt Romney is the only real executive in the bunch, and he is willing to fight the GWOT in ways some of these other lawyers (like Hillary) has said they wont:
- Governor Romney: “[T]here’s no question but that in a setting like that where you have a ticking bomb that the president of the United States – not the CIA interrogator, the president of the United States — has to make the call. And enhanced interrogation techniques have to be used – not torture but enhanced interrogation techniques, yes.” (Fox News Channel, Republican Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/15/07)
“You should be demanding that Bush attack now. But if he does, he will consult his lawyers and probably get a go-ahead from Congress. If it’s strictly an air campaign, he might go it solo. But if any boots are put on Iranian soil other than reconnaissance, he’ll seek Congress’ authorization.”
... which he wont get from Pelosi, more scared of moveon.org than the terrorists.
Did anyone every answer you? I wanted to know how that baised, full of it, Matthews comported himself? Did he act slanted as usual?
I really liked Thompson back in the Clinton days, When I 1st got into politics I remember watching the Ruby Ridge trial, I thought Fred was awesome. His quick answers in the debate did do well for him. Came across to me like he did not have a vision he wanted to bring out. example:
Rudy message - You don’t want Hillary or liberal ideals. I like the way he makes the regular people understand liberal ideals are not good for our country
Mitt - ??
Fred - ??
That is pretty far from the truth as Romney has consistently demonstrated that he does NOT subscribe to Clinton's appeasement policies whatsoever and plans a pro-active offensive. As others have pointed out (see post #194), in case of an imminent attack, Romney will do whatever it takes to protect and defend the Untied States.
Also, he has been discussing, for quite some time, the OSS-type actions McCain was describing during the debate last night and has presented a very pro-active approach to foreign policy and defeating the terrorists.
Some examples:
Governor Romney Will Create The Special Partnership Force (SPF) To Mobilize All Elements Of Our National Power In Contested Areas To Defeat Jihadists.
To meet today's challenges, we must mobilize and integrate all elements of national power in unstable areas where traditional civilian agencies cannot operate effectively and traditional military power alone cannot succeed. The Special Partnership Force will integrate all elements of national power under a new force with leadership drawn from a core group of our Army Special Forces trained to work with civilian governments and intelligence personnel to form a new capability that is:
• Focused On Locally-Targeted Efforts To Win Support In The Community While Identifying, Isolating And Eliminating Terrorist Elements.
• Highly Integrated And Able To Mobilize All Elements Of National Power, Including Humanitarian And Development Assistance And Rule Of Law Capacity Building.
• Closely Coordinated In Partnership With Local Governments.
• Intelligence Driven.
• Agile And Flexible In Its Operations.
• A Sustainable Effort In Contested Areas And Sanctuaries Of Jihadist Groups.
The SPF Will Build On A Long History Of Successful Efforts Against Terrorists And Insurgent Groups. While a new capability, this force draws on the lessons learned from a long history of successful efforts against terrorist and insurgent groups, including U.S. efforts under the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) in World War II, post-9/11 efforts in Afghanistan, and recent Special Forces efforts in the Philippines.
From a retired U.S. Army Major:
"Another interesting aspect of Romney's SPF is its heavy reliance on recently updated Army counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine. The Army COIN Field Manual 3-24 was developed under the watchful eye of General Petraeus during his tenure as Combined Arms Commander at Fort Leavenworth, KS. Just more evidence of Mitt's deep understanding of the issue. If I were still on active duty, I'd be excited to have him as my Commander-in-Chief."
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.