Tonight, Wednesday 11/28/2007, a Republican presidential debate will be aired on CNN at 8p ET (7p CT). I'll be watching hoping to see Ron Paul mop the floor with everyone else. Hopefully the audience is more balanced than it's been in the past.
Me either. Anderson Cooper couldn't keep the candidates in check. :dis: Pretty much a waste of my life there.
I thought it was nice of CNN to allow a member of Hillary's gay steering committee to not only ask a question, but to invite him to the debate and give him a 2 minute rant after the candidates answered the question to his dissatisfaction. CNN response? Oops.:huh: Thompson looks really old and tired. He has to look down at his notes to respond to every question. He's toast. I don't get the Ron Paul support. He's an idiot. Don't like any of the candidates and debates with more than 2-3 people are useless. I thought Huckabee did the best, tho.
I really don't think he is an idiot. I think he's thought longer and harder than most candidates on the issues. I thought this wasn't his best debate, in part because he got little time to speak. Huckabee and McCain looked pretty good, IMO, last night. But I still stand firmly behind Paul. I feel like he is the only one speaking about some very serious issues. It was good to see Huckabee adopt some of Paul's stances, though. I think most people who don't like Paul don't like him because he isn't falling in line with the current direction of the republican party. I think independent thinkers mostly embrace Paul.
First, he makes Bush sound smart and well-spoken. 8 years of a President incapable of intelligent communication is enough for me. More importantly, his foreign policy scares the crap out of me. He blames our foreign policy for the 9/11 attacks and for islamic radicals. His views are not only naive, but very dangerous to our country.
Romney- Never wants to make a decision but always wants to go ask people for advice. Guiliani- Always wants to attack people and make outrageous statements with no facts. Thompson- His mouth moved but nothing came out. Huckabee- I though did a decent job, put seemed like he was preaching McCain- The guy acts like an old father with an iron fist. The guy has not one compassionate bone in his body and thinks that fear will cure anything. Paul- Got 2 minutes.
I can't believe your first statement. Are you flipping kidding me? Wow. Paul is actually a fairly good speaker, but he was given little opportunity to express that in the debate. As far as Paul blaming the foreign policy of the US as playing a part in the 9/11 attacks, I guess Paul is in the wrong along with most everyone who has researched this in depth. The CIA pointed this out in their study of 9/11. Paul is not saying the terrorists were justified, and he supported taking action against Al-Queda after 9/11. He is not a pacifist, he believes in strong defense and action when the time has come (specifically, when the congress declares war). What Paul doesn't believe in is having a presence around the world. It isn't necessary for intelligence and it isn't necessary for national security. Paul doesn't think we should demonize Muslims (demonizing Muslims ain't Christian) and he doesn't believe in pre-emptive strikes, based on Christian guidelines for war. He realizes the world can be a tough place - he heavily supports the right to bear arms and personal responsibility (both individually and nationally). He is by far closer to Reagan than any of these other pretenders that don't want to tell it like it is for fear of rocking the boat. I sincerely believe we would gain respect around the world under a Paul administration without losing an ounce of security. In fact, I believe we and the rest of the world would be much better off in general. Paul is the most principled candidate we've seen in quite some time and is well versed across the board. Seriously. Paul and Miles have something in common in the stones department, IMO. :shock: He isn't compromising his principles to be elected. I think if he were to be elected we'd think of him as one of the greatest presidents of the modern era, if not of all time. I think Paul actually got 7 minutes, but it was very sparse. I guess that is kind of warranted in CNN's eyes based on the polls. I thought both Huckabee and McCain did a pretty good job, Paul was given very little opportunity to get into the conversation, Ghouliani looked petty and Romney looked like he was trying real hard to say the right thing. Thompson was kinda neutral and the other two guys, like Paul, got very little of the limelight.
Sorry he got 3 min..: Romney -- 7:03, during 9 times McCain -- 5:09, during 4 times Giuliani -- 5:08, during 9 times Thompson -- 4:38, during 4 times Huckabee -- 4:14, during 5 times Paul -- 3:27, during 4 times Tancredo -- 2:20, during 4 times Hunter -- 2:16, during 3 times
What you're linking is for the first half of the debate. It does say that Paul wasn't asked a question until over 30 minutes in, though. Check: http://freepoliticsdotus.blogspot.com/2007/11/nov-28s-republican-debate-and-time.html
