Guest EXPAT Posted January 8, 2012 Posted January 8, 2012 I'm sure I'm the only one who watched both debates this weekend. ABC had their debate in New Hampshire Saturday evening and NBC had their Facebook debate Sunday morning during "Meet The Press". I find watching them both entertaining and very educational in order to argue with any republican friends (not that I have that many republican friends, but my sister is a republican. . .) The ABC debate was a disaster. George S should be fired after that debate. His questions were ridiculous and he hounded them for 15 minutes on a subject that will never happen and while it might have been a good discussion on the right of privacy but to discuss what if a state were to outlaw contraception just seemed unnecessary given all of the relevant topics they could have been talking about. And why they constantly ask these candidates about gay rights amazes me. I guess the media wants to see how they dance around the subject I guess. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/08/rick-santorum-mitt-romney-gay-rights-gop-debate_n_1192345.html And then of course SNL did a spot-on intro with Santorum: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY3inxnt8PI Quote
Members TampaYankee Posted January 9, 2012 Members Posted January 9, 2012 Romney has turned out to be a pathetic candidate. He really is just an empty suit when it comes to vision and principle. The only thing he has suited for a president is 'burning ambition'. His handlers have given him America The Beautiful verses to focus his comments at campaign stops. What a joke!! Have you seen these stops. They have forbidden him any more ad-libs like those that produced 'corporations are people too and incessant flip-flopping from one stop to another as he tries to field questions and be all things to all people. His brain's speech center is connected to his memory and thought centers only loosely. There is no discipline or organization by principles and history record. He reels knee-jerkingly among facts and talking points -- old defunct as well as new rehearsed talking points in a mish-mash causing embarassing follow-up questions to clear up the confusion. I really cannot see how the right wing conservatives can support him, now or later. Gingerich made one really penetrating point about Romney when he asked what one conservative accomplishment has Romney ever implemented in his political life. He talks big but has no record can back it up. These Tea Party wackos are going to vote for him??? If they do then it betrays their raison d' etre. In their beginning the Tea Party was as pissed about Bush II's profligate spending every bit as much as anything Obama did. They hated TARP that Bush II started and the auto bailout which Bush II also started. They hated the unfunded prescription drug program Bush forced down the throat of a GOP COngress. They wanted no more 'conservatives' like Bush II. Now they are going to vote for Romney??? They are going to vote for Romney because he is not Obama? Neither was Bush Obama. Would they vote for him again? They actually think Romney will be to the right of Bush II??? Ok, so Romney is better than Perry who seems incapable of coordinating his speech, memory and thought centers to make a coherent statement longer than "oops". But Romney is only one step up in my opinion -- reciting verses to America The Beautiful at every stop. Santorum can actually make a coherent speech and make his points cogently most of the time. He only gets in trouble when he tries to soften edges on his harsh extreme views. To his credit he doesn't do that much and lets his extreme side flourish proudly. He's got the faculties to actually have amounted to something if he wasn't a wacko's wacko and hadn't compiled a record that he cannot hide. The GOP has fielded one lame set of candidates this time and the establishment is left to embrace Romney of all people as their standard bearer. The second time in a row, as McCain was pushed on them last time. The possible candidates with real gravitas eg. Mitch Daniels, Christy, Thune, Jeb Bush, etc. all chose to bow out this time whether because they thought Obama was a winner or that they could never satisfactorily placate the right wing of the GOP, or their name was tarnished by a relative, or all of the above. I would not be surprised to see a third party candidate on the right this go-round. I nominate Jim Demint - a choice, not an echo!! Quote
Members seattlebottom Posted January 9, 2012 Members Posted January 9, 2012 In their beginning the Tea Party was as pissed about Bush II's profligate spending every bit as much as anything Obama did. They hated TARP that Bush II started and the auto bailout which Bush II also started. They hated the unfunded prescription drug program Bush forced down the throat of a GOP COngress. They wanted no more 'conservatives' like Bush II. Now they are going to vote for Romney??? Can you point to some article relating to the Tea Party starting out as a group hating Bush policies? Quote
Members Lucky Posted January 9, 2012 Members Posted January 9, 2012 I can only be glad that I missed the debates! Quote
Members TampaYankee Posted January 10, 2012 Members Posted January 10, 2012 Can you point to some article relating to the Tea Party starting out as a group hating Bush policies? I suppose I could if I rummaged around cyberspace. Instead I recall the numerous interviews conducted by the news media when the Tea Party broke the surface. They were having none of Obama or Bush, time after time after time. If you recall the TP spokespersons and rank and file embracing Bush and his policies then you might offer up some articles to that effect. Quote
Guest EXPAT Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 I suppose I could if I rummaged around cyberspace. Instead I recall the numerous interviews conducted by the news media when the Tea Party broke the surface. They were having none of Obama or Bush, time after time after time. If you recall the TP spokespersons and rank and file embracing Bush and his policies then you might offer up some articles to that effect. This is a sample article on why Perry wanted to distance himself from Bush when addressing the Tea Party. The main reason is the excessive spending to get into two wars without finding a way to pay for it. It's still amazing to me that there was not more outcry about that. But they really played up the "need for war" even though I agree with Ron Paul that they were both illegal wars. http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/08/perrys-tea-party-strategy-incl.html Quote
Guest EXPAT Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 AFter the final push in New Hampshire yesterday the candidates pounced on a Romney statement that "he likes to fire people". But of course the full context is that he likes the free market and if a service provider doesn't do what he wants or doesn't provide good service, he likes the idea that he can fire them and hire someone else. But they all jumped on the statement, "I like being able to fire people" and made ringtones (Perry) and other posters (see attached). Quote
Members KYTOP Posted January 10, 2012 Members Posted January 10, 2012 I have been watching many of the GOP debates because I am sincerely searching for an alternative to Pres Obama. With him, HOPE is now disappointment and frustration. I too find some, if not most of the questions asked to be so stupid and just trying to stir some headline shit from something that does not exist. The ECONOMY is the people's number one concern and the debate moderators seem to almost ignore that issue and fail to push the candidates on any real plans to correct the problem. Saying your going to help create jobs is one thing but they need to push them, in detail, as to how they can do that. The George S question was just so out there it was stupid. Quote
