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 ...
That's ironic, because most of the people grasping at straws on this issue support Fred Thompson who aligns himself with the democrat-controlled lawyer lobby and opposes tort reform.
The GOP platform, GWB, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, among others, all support tort reform.
---->The biggest obstacle to real tort reform is that the trial lawyers, a wealthy special interest group, has the Democratic Party in their pocket (and, ahem, some Republicans).
"You can have affordable health care and a good environment for jobs. Or you can have rich trial lawyers filing frivolous lawsuits. Not both." ~~ Newt Gingrich
"Last year, U.S. corporations spent more money on tort claims than they did on R&D. If innovation is the key to our long term leadership, then some tort lawyers are cashing out our country's future....tort lawyers are ok with state reform, but not national reform. You know what state level tort reform means - it means that as long as there is one lawsuit-friendly state, they can sue almost any major, deep-pocketed company in America. No thanks, America needs national tort reform." ~~ Mitt Romney http://www.freerepublic.com/~unmarkedpackage/#spending
"The current system of litigation is too expensive for America, fails to provide justice for Americans and is being made steadily worse and more expensive by increasingly predatory trial lawyers who have more and more resources devoted to gaming the system to enrich themselves at the expense of individual Americans and American society. This is especially true in the healthcare system. Doctors are more important to our nation's health care system than trial lawyers. In order to ensure the availability of doctors it is important to create and/or maintain hard caps on non-economic damages in medical liability cases." ~~Newt Gingrich http://www.senatorfredsmith.com/content/Pages/show/id/12
Oh yeah? The Lawyer remark did sink him. Sheesh.
“It only takes half the House to defund the war. The Dims won’t do it. MoveOn knows it.”
AH, but *why*?
The Democrats fecklessness on Iraq after previous defeatist campaigns is a part of their “politics above patriotism” ethic. For them Iraq is just another issue, and the reason they did not follow through on the threat to cut off funding is that - ultimately - they don’t want to pay the political price for defeat in Iraq.
In short: Political cowardice trumps national security cowardice.
It has nothing to do with showing moveon.org the finger, and they would continue to pander to them until the cows come home -— just so long as it was politically advantageous to do so.
For Iran, likewise, there is NO POLITICAL ADVANTAGE TO DEMOCRATS IN HELPING PRESIDENT BUSH BE BOLD AGAINST IRAN. none. it will only remind voters of the dangerous world and highlight Republican strength in defending America. And bipartisanship would undercut years of Democrats’ cultivating the opposite partisan hardening of views on foreign policy.
So they won’t help him, because it won’t help them politically.
QED
“Lawyers are not well respected in America”
“That’s ironic, because most of the people grasping at straws on this issue support Fred Thompson who aligns himself with the democrat-controlled lawyer lobby and opposes tort reform. “
Good point!
I wasn’t as put-off by Romney’s lawyer answer as apparently some of you are although, having read the comments in this thread, I can understand the point made. It’s unclear to me whether Romney thought he was answering scenario 1 where we are not in imminent danger or scenario 2 where we are. Under the first scenario, consulting lawyers (as well as generals, world leaders and Congress) is appropriate.
Under the second scenario, I would have said “If the nuclear threat is imminent against our country or any of our allies, I would act with all haste to eliminate that threat. When it comes to defending this country, I would rather ask for forgiveness than ask for permission. I would be willing to take the action and suffer the consequences alone if necessary.”
‘Duncan Hunter if given a chance like the top 3 would out shine all of them....and it would be apparent he is what the USA needs..’
Hunter has had multiple chances, but he simply doesn’t have the skill set to take advantage of a debate setting.
I really like the guy, but he was shorted when they passed out oratory and charisma ‘skills’.
Damn shame, he’d be a good President.
>>>Coming from a supporter of the Precious one, the irony is staggering.<<<
Perhaps you’re just learning that you’re black today.
Clearly, if necessary, action will be taken:
"And it is unacceptable to this country to allow that individual to have he control of launching a nuclear weapon. And so we will take the action necessary to keep that from happening. And I think each person on the stage, certainly in my case, I would make sure that we would take the action necessary to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon." – Gov. Mitt Romney (CNBC, Republican Presidential Candidate Debate, Dearborn, MI, 10/9/07)
Romney has made very strong, unequivocal statements about decisive action in the face of an imminent attack in prior debates.
--->Paul Mirengoff, at Power Line, discussing what he calls a "Faux Gotcha Moment," defends Governor Romney against an "over-the-top" attack and puts his record on Iran in context in the following post.
Here's the key quote:
"… no candidate has been more forceful or specific than Romney in insisting that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. Romney was perhaps the first announced candidate to stress this position, doing so in a January 2007 speech to a gathering in Herziliya, Israel. I haven't seen a better statement on the subject since …"
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2007/10/018716.php
Thank you. I have been here for many years and just never used that button.
It’s the right answer to the question of “do you have authority to launch a pre-emptive attack without Congressional authorization?”
...
People forget - these are Chrissie’s trick questions...
say ‘yes’ and you are a blocthirsty despoiler of the laws, say ‘no’ and you are weak-kneed pantywaist.
The right answer was to say “obviously the president of the United States has to do what’s in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat.” - which Romney said.
But his authority? It depends. Rudy has deflected that with similar elocutions in the past:
“It really depends on exigency of the circumstances and how legitimate it is, that it really is an exigent circumstance. It’s desirable, it’s safer to go to Congress, get approval from Congress.”
You need to point out at the same time that you would act within your legitimate authority. Romney’s lawyer comment was a way to say that. Well, Romney’s gotten mixed reviews on his comment, since it sounds (but is not) like putting decision in the lawyers hands (but is not, its merely checking on legal authority, something Reagan and Bush and Clinton all did) but
here are some comments from the swamp on the matter ...
http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/romney_all_business_well_have.html
Even Ron Paul went on to say that there were certain exceptions if it times sensitive. I for one am not sure what legally qualifies. Don’t you think we could use a President who is at least Cautious about doing something illegal? He had the best answer of them all.
Posted by: Wes | October 10, 2007 4:13 AM
“Beyond the question of the war’s legality under international law”
THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT! Is it legal or not to act unilaterally? Matthews didn’t give enough specifics to make that determination. Why in the world would you potentially commit treason and war crimes without checking with your Attorney General?
Posted by: Wes W | October 10, 2007 4:46 AM
I think Romney’s comments about consulting lawyers was very refreshing. For the last two terms we’ve had a president who has started to trample over our personal freedoms. I am tired of a president who “shoots from the hip”. I welcome a more measured, responsible, and business-like president who will bring stability back to the office.
Posted by: Larry | October 10, 2007 8:53 AM
Interesting, overall Romney showed a strong understanding of the issues and how to deal with them. I thought the lawyer comment was weak, but one weak comment out of a pretty strong night for Romney seems rather ridiculous for the Swamp to focus on. But then objectivity and fairness are not the aspirations of most Swamp reporters.
Posted by: John D | October 10, 2007 8:58 AM
I believe Mitt Romney’s comment about consulting with his lawyers was a reassurance to the American people that he would not violate U.S. or international law.
We are in a time where the spoken criticism of the Bush administrations misuse of power and the possible misuse of power of yet another Clinton administration is on the minds of the American people.
I think only an idiot would interpret his comment as a lack of his knowledge of the constitution.
Posted by: Katherine | October 10, 2007 9:12 AM
1. If circumstances — whatever they might be — demanded it, if the national security threat was immediate and urgent, the President has the authority to launch pinpoint or strategic military action on his or her own.
2. Both would prefer to get Congress’s permission — and, in fact, anticipate that if the scenario comes to pass, they would, of course, go to Congress.
3. Giuliani and Romney do not agree that the Congress MUST be consulted or given veto power over every military action the president has the means to executive. The contours of this disagreement are probably best worked out by lawyers, like Ted Olson.
4. Romney and Giuliani disagree with Fred Thompson, who believes that legitimacy is crucial to the success of any military endeavor and would always seek authorization from Congress before acting.
5. Romney is sensitive to what many in the world community and even many Republicans believe was a failure of diplomacy before the Iraq war; he reasons that America’s national security might be harmed by another wave of blowback unless the American President can convince allied countries and the world of the nature of the threat.
6. Giuliani does not seem to share Romney’s sensitivity and instead favors a stick-and-stick approach — world opinion, in the short term, be damned if there are threats to our security.
7. The general consensus of Republican political strategists is that it is unwise to betray, in the context of national security, any care in the world for what other countries might think. If that consensus correctly interprets the opinion of Republican voters, then Romney’s careful, intellectually honest answer might well be used against him later.
Howdy! Duncan Hunter & Fred Thompson stand identical on the issues. I’d like Hunter to get more attention, but the MSM have their druthers, and it ain’t him!
Good point! :-)
Hiya, sweetie. Yep, they do seem to agree on the issues, at least the one’s I’m most concerned about.
No they don't.
--- Hunter signed the No New Taxes Pledge. Fred did not.
---Fred opposes tort reform. Hunter supports it.
--- Fred opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment. Hunter supports it.
---Hunter supports the fence. Fred has said he isn't sure bricks and mortar are necessary.
--- Hunter supports the Human Life Amendment. Fred does not.
So on and so forth.
Duncan Hunter, Mitt Romney and the GOP Platform agree on these things.
I’ve heard Thompson address border security and illegal immigration too many times to buy that, sorry.
Haven’t reviewed Thompson’s stance on tort reform, can’t address it.
I do know he’s against raising taxes.
Especialy ironic considering the fact that Nixon was the one who limited the air campaign in Viet Nam contributing to our defeat there.
IOW, Nixon was full of crap when he said that.
Then there was that Pancho Villa guy who attakced us as well, but he doesn't count does he? Our response was the first air combat campaign in US history.
wiki
Cross-border attack on New Mexico On March 9, 1916, Villa ordered 1,500 (disputed, one official US Army report stated "500 to 700") Mexican raiders, reportedly led by villista general Ramón Banda Quesada, to make a cross-border attack against Columbus, New Mexico, in response to the U.S. government's official recognition of the Carranza regime and for the loss of lives in battle due to defective bullets purchased from the United States.[7] They attacked a detachment of the 13th US Cavalry, seized 100 horses and mules, burned the town, killed 10 soldiers and 8 civilian residents, and took much ammunition and weaponry. Villa's forces suffered the loss of 80 dead or mortally wounded and 5 captured,[8] mostly from US machine gun emplacements.[9]
[edit] The Hunt for Pancho Villa Main article: Pancho Villa Expedition United States President Woodrow Wilson responded to the Columbus raid by sending 6,000 troops under General John J. Pershing to Mexico to pursue Villa. (Wilson also dispatched several divisions of Army and National Guard troops to protect the southern US border against further raids and counterattacks.) In the U.S., this was known as the Punitive or Pancho Villa Expedition. During the search, the United States launched its first air combat mission with eight airplanes.[10][11] At the same time Villa, was also being sought by Carranza's army. The U.S. expedition was eventually called off after failing to find Villa, and Villa successfully escaped from both armies.
Thompson on a path to citizenship: “[B]ecause we allowed ourselves to wait until we woke up one day and found 12 million illegals here, there’s no easy solution. And I think that you have to realize that you’re either going to drive 12 million people underground permanently, which is not a good solution. You’re going to get them all together and get them out of the country, which is not going to happen. Or you’re going to have to, in some way, work out a deal where they can have some aspirations of citizenship, but not make it so easy that it’s unfair to the people waiting in line and abiding by the law.” (Fox News’ “Hannity & Colmes,” 4/3/06)
On the problems with cracking down on employers: “We haven’t enforced the law, in terms of employers. … For 20 years, we’ve not enforced the law, and that’s a part of the problem. You can’t enforce it all on the backs of the employers. People falsify information that they give employers and all that. That’s not a solution to the problem.” (Fox News’ “Hannity & Colmes,” 4/3/06)
-----> On his skepticism of a brick-and-mortar border fence: FOX’s ALAN COLMES: “You don’t put up a fence, either, do you? Is that bad neighbor policy, put a fence up?” THOMPSON: “If it would work. I mean, I don’t know – that’s a technical problem. In this day and age, I would not think you would have to use bricks and mortar to get that job done. But we ought to do everything that we can to get it done to the extent that we can and then, as I say, I think people would be willing to take a look at the rest of the problem, what we do with the problem that we created.” (Fox News’ “Hannity & Colmes,” 4/3/06)
On enforcement first: “We woke up one day after years of neglect and apparently discovered that we have somewhere between 12 million and 20 million illegal aliens in this country. So it became an impossible situation to deal with. I mean, there’s really no good solution. So what do you do? You have to start over. Well, I’m concerned about the next 12 million or 20 million. So that’s why enforcement, and enforcement at the border, has to be primary.” (Fox’s “Fox News Sunday,” 3/11/07)
On not rounding up illegal immigrants: “You know, if you have the right kind of policies, and you’re not encouraging people to come here and encouraging them to stay once they’re here, they’ll go back, many of them, of their own volition, instead of having to, you know, load up moving vans and rounding people up. That’s not going to happen.” (Fox’s “Fox News Sunday,” 3/11/07)
---->I do know he’s against raising taxes.
He is on record as saying he believes it would be wrong to absolutely rule out a gas tax increase as part of any major energy package, or a tax increase of some sort as part of major reforms designed to shore up Social Security.
Thompson aides say such answers simply meant that no president can expect good-faith negotiations if he or she rules things out before any conversations with others, but Thompson rivals suggest they show a candidate open to raising taxes.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/08/thompson.debate/
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.