Republicans Debate In Iowa
By California Yankee Posted in 2008 — Comments (65) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The announced Republican presidential candidates debated at Drake University this morning. Giuliani won this debate. Romney and McCain also did well. Hunter demonstrated he would make a good vice presidential candidate.
My favorite moments:
Talking about Obama's statement that he would be willing to meet with the leaders of Cuba, North Korea and Iran in his first year in office, and that he would order military action to capture terrorists in Pakistan if that nation's president did not, Romney said, "He's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in the space of one week."
When Ron Paul said there had never been a good reason to go to war, Romney asked, "Has he forgotten about 9/11?"
In the initial dustup over an Iowa robo-call paid for by the Brownback campaign attacking Romney's abortion positions, Romney got the upper hand saying, "I get tired of people that are holier than thou because they've been pro-life longer than I have."
McCain remains firm on the war, "I firmly believe that the challenge for the 21st century is a challenge against radical extremism."
Giuliani took the Democrats to task on the war, "In four debates, not a single Democrat said the word, 'Islamic terrorists.' Now that is taking political correctness to extreme."
McCain was funny on the role of the vice president, "The vice president has only two duties - to break a tie vote in the Senate and to inquire daily about the health of the president."
What's your take?
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Cooking, Cleaning, Child Bearing, And Silence: The Only Things Women Are Good For — Comments (13) »
Republicans Debate In Iowa 65 Comments (0 topical, 65 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
they should've let the homeless guy with Tourette's in, too. His point of view is just as "different" as Paul's.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Why are you wasting your time here?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Streiff, I would expect you to be the last person in the world in favor of silencing the candidate favored by those republicans serving the country in the armed services.
Money talks, other stuff walks
-exits
For anything about silencing anyone.
And I am looking in yours for any evidence that you know which candidate Republicans serving in armed forces tend to favour.
Don't see either.
I too would expect Streiff to be the last person to favour silencing such a candidate. Bet he would too.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
On the first point: I interpreted his comment about Tourettes as an indication that he didn't think that Paul belonged in the debate. If I misinterpreted his comments, my sincerest apologies to Streiff.
On the second point: for the quarter just closed, of the donations made to the top 5 GOP candidates for president by members of the armed services, Ron Paul received just barely under 50% of them. I think that this number is too striking to be ignored.
-exits
I interpreted his comment about Tourettes as an indication that he didn't think that Paul belonged in the debate.
I interpreted his remark similarly. I see nothing in it about silencing anyone. I wasn't invited to participate in the GOP debate either, but I have not been silenced. An invitation to a debate is a judgement. You will note that Fred Thompson was not there. I don't suppose John Cox was either.
FWIW, I think Ron Paul should be in the debates for the moment. Though it might be worth having a separate debate for the three or four frontrunners as well as debates that include a wider range of candidates.
for the quarter just closed, of the donations made to the top 5 GOP candidates for president by members of the armed services, Ron Paul received just barely under 50% of them. I think that this number is too striking to be ignored.
That is a striking figure. I happen to think that donations represent an interesting metric of support, but one which needs to be reviewed intelligently, alongside other indicators such as polling and judgement. Do recall that the number of people making donations to any campaign is very small, and the type of people who make donations to campaigns are atypical. I would seriously doubt that Paul is even a frontrunner among service personnel, let alone the frontrunner. I doubt that polling would put him in the top five, let alone first place.
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
I interpreted his remark similarly. I see nothing in it about silencing anyone
Hmmm. The suggestion wasn't that Streiff wanted Ron Paul's first amendment rights abridged. I thought it was clear from context that we were talking about his participation in the debate. If there was genuine confusion on this point, then my apologies.
I wasn't invited to participate in the GOP debate either, but I have not been silenced
Lamentably, neither was I. It's probably worth pointing out though that neither of us is running for the GOP nomination.
I doubt that polling would put him in the top five, let alone first place. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
You've essentially presented pure specualtion and asked my to provide evidence to the contrary. That seems backwards, no?
-exits
and can find NOTHING outside of the claims on a BLOG that Paul outraised everyone else with the military.
According to the FEC filing, he raised something on the order of $2 million that quarter, a princely sum I will admit, but I could find NO breakdown that suggested that sum was collected from our military.
No doubt, you HAVE the proof you claim, but I cannot find it. Would you care to provide a link to a government or FEC source, rather than the blog source you link to?
I am not questioning your honesty, merely your veracity.
Here is the raw data from the FEC:
and here it is in summary form:
I crunched the numbers from raw data for Paul, McCain and Romney and the numbers jibed (or were very, very close at least)
-exits
You made the initial claim that Ron Paul is the favoured candidate of most Republicans in the armed forces. I am asking you to provide evidence for your proposition. My 'speculation' is merely my expression of doubt as to a contentious proposition you have put and failed to justify.
Your point about donations is a useful indicator. But it is not evidence for the much broader claim that you make. Unless, of course, you are saying that a majority of Republicans in the armed forces have made a donation to Ron Paul's campaign. I suspect the actual numbers are much lower. What donations tell us is which candidate is favoured by the very small number of people who make donations.
For evidence, I cite the general donation figures. Mitt Romney is securing more money from more people than any other GOP candidate. Yet his national polling figures have failed to break 10%. Ron Paul's are lower than the margin of error.
It may be that Paul's figures are higher among service personnel. But you made the claim. You justify it.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
for a nicer reply than I could have managed. Want to provide a cite for the claim that Republicans serving in the armed forces prefer Ron Paul?
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
me would be anything other than nice? In any event, there is no polling of members of the armed services specifically (or at least none I've been able to track down) so obviously I can't provide numbers which don't exist. What about the campaign contribution numbers though? Do you just discount them entirely?
-exits
RonPaul™ has no more place in a POTUS debate than Mike Gravel. The two of them would serve us best by strolling hand-in-hand over the rainbow.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I think Ron Paul NEEDS to be in the debates, as wacky as he might be. That's because he's the only candidate from either party who debates from the first principle that the power of the federal government is strictly limited by the Constitution. The other candidates all seem to start from the basic premise that we have some very serious problems in our society and I'm going to use the power of the federal government to solve them. Whether that's an appropriate or even constitutional role for the federal government to begin with is never addressed. The problems they cite and the solutions they propose may differ, but they all implicitly agree that federal power is the first recourse.
I heard Mitt Romney give a speech the other day in Iowa where he asked the question, If you had to boil the essence of the Republican Party down to one single word, what would that word be? After a dramatic build-up, he said the answer is "strength." My heart dropped. In 1995, Newt, Armey, Phil Gramm, etc. would have answered "freedom." Strength and freedom suggest VERY different ways of looking at the world, and sadly I think that most GOP candidates agree with Mitt. But Ron Paul would say freedom, and that's why his voice needs to be heard.
we could state freedom first, but they aren't. I too value Paul's strict constructionist view in domestic affairs, but his foreign policy views are not conservative. They are suicidal.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
as I have for Dennis Kucinich and a bit less than I have for John Kerry. I think he's a fraud as well and doof and I don't have time for niceties with people who actually think this guy is serious.
I discount campaign contributions as a measure of anything other than a measure of campaign contributions.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
I discount campaign contributions as a measure of anything other than a measure of campaign contributions.
I guess we'll have to leave it here then. I do think though that if and when the number we are speculating about becomes available, you are going to be *very* surprised.
-exits
Geez, the *one* time I didn't bother to preview ...
-exits
As it turns out, that particular foible is easy to fix.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I honestly don't see why we conservatives should have a problem with Ron Paul. He's pro-life and anti-illegal immigration, which makes him more conservative than any of the current frontrunners. As much as you may hate to admit it, his claims about 9/11 being the result of blowback are supported by the 9/11 commission report and Michael Scheuer, an ex CIA agent.
If we are going to excuse anybody from the debates, let it be Giuliani. He is as conservative as up is down, and Giuliani nomination will ruin the Republican party's reputation as the party of social conservatives and family values.
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling
exclude the front runner!
I'll tell you what, though. Why not have two debate series? One with Rudy, Fred, Mitt and maybe McCain; you can have all the other guys in a separate debate. Make you happy?
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
with RonPaul™'s points of view. He's welcome to 'em. I happen to like large portions of the libertarian platform a whole bunch.
My problem is with Paul. The guy is a complete fraud. He's been in Congress for 20+ years and has accomplished exactly NOTHING. Not only has he never passed even one piece of legislation reducing the size of government, he hasn't even been able to find so much as one ally to work with him.
In 20 years, his record is one of nothing but opposition. He has never offered a plan to implement any of what he purportedly believes. He simply speechafies and votes "no".
If you actually support Paul's POV, go find a candidate who can work with others to build a coalition, develop a plan and actually accomplish something. Paul's not it. He is a pathetic excuse for a worthless politician. He should have stuck to writing books, newspaper articles and giving talks to paid audiences. People like that aren't expected to accomplish anything.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Congress has plenty of members willing to compromise at the drop of a hat. That's probably why we have a 3-trillion-dollar budget and a 9-trillion-dollar national debt.
What Congress doesn't have, except for Ron Paul, is an advocate for pure Constitutional freedom. It's not surprising that most of his proposed legislation has not been enacted -- most Republicans and Democrats in Congress are not interested in shrinking the size and power of government.
I understand that many conservatives differ with Ron Paul on the Iraq war, but on domestic issues, having a president who wouldn't compromise with a Democratic Congress would be a huge advantage. How many times have conservatives lamented GWB's failure to use the veto pen throughout his entire first term?
Even though I absolutely disagree with his moonbat foreign policy.
My problem with RonPaul™ is that the guy is a completely incompetent fraud. He's been in Congress over 20 years and has yet to accomplish ANYTHING. Hell, he hasn't even tried to accomplish anything. He uses his office as a platform to make speeches, period.
In over 20 years, he has not been able to enlist even ONE other CongressCritter to support his FISCAL policies. He hasn't had a floor vote on a single piece of legislation that would advance even ONE of the things he purports to support, like abolishing/replacing the IRS, eliminating government agencies, etc. He hasn't even been able to offer a PLAN to implement his beliefs.
Dennis Kuchinich and Cynthia McKinney both have better records of accomplishment than RonPaul™. The guy is a failure and a complete fraud.
Libertarian positions have much to praise. Go find a candidate who can promote a real plan to accomplish something and he'll find significant support from the Republican Party.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
See this para from today's Wall Street Journal:
the Congressman disclosed his requests this year for about $400 million worth of federal funding for no fewer than 65 earmarks. They include such urgent national wartime priorities as an $8 million request for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to fund shrimp-fishing research.
He believe strictly in the Constitution and in limited government - but not in his district.
An honest libertarian who achieved little in actual votes but kept others on their toes by making them at least pretend to justify the policies in terms of the Constitution would have a valuable role. I naively thought that this is what Ron Paul was doing. Sorry. Got that wrong.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Not only has the nutroots created this "Ron Paul Support Farce" at these debates, but take a quick peek over at Drudge and see who has over 40% of the vote for winning this morning's debate!
It seems to me that if us Republicans didn't have full time jobs, families to enjoy and spend time with, and actual hobbies, we could have amassed an amazing "Elect Kucinich" campaign that would see Hillary getting booed at debates, and Barack Obama in the single digits.
and never say a word, and the Nutroots would claim that he had won the debate hands down.
Come to think of it, if he stood there and never said a word, I would give him high marks, too!
classic! :-)
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
This is exactly the sort of unfortunate racial smear tactics the American left has been employing against conservatives in general for three decades.
-exits
HAHAHAHAHA!
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
I'm not making this up. Ron Paul, thanks in no small part to the, er, eclectic writing in his own political journal that he's published over the years, is LOVED by the, er, people over at stormfront.org.
I've read the main Ron Paul thread over there. They hype those online polls to no end, and literally send the stormtroopers to boost Paul's numbers.
I discovered the site via a google search right after my last post. It's an unfortunate site chock full of unfortunate posters, there is not doubt about that. The fact remains though that unless you have some evidence that Ron Paul is a white nationalist, sympathetic to their views on white nationalism or even that he's reached out specifically to them in some way, then conflating his name with their group is nothing but the sort of racial smear the American left has been practicing since the 1960s.
-exits
When did I ever say that "Ron Paul is a white nationalist, sympathetic to their views on white nationalism or even that he's reached out specifically to them in some way?"
If you're going to misrepresent what I say, then I suppose you can twist ANYTHING I say about Ron Paul into a lefty-style smear on the man.
All I said was that Stormfronters, like radical lefties, stuff polls to support their guy in our race. That's all.
Settle down, heh.
Sorry, but the tactic you're using is called "guilt by association", and it's a logical fallacy.
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
because here comes Fred.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
You know, three or four months ago I was ready to stand in line for hours to give blood for Fred Thompson's campaign. Now, not so much.
Fred simply waited too long. And if he EVER joins the race, he'll find himself somewhere down in the pack between Guiliani and McCain.
It reminds me of a basketball team on a run of 16 straight points against an opponent that then calls their own time out.
Fred could have joined the race with a polling figure of 38% but no, he waits and waits and waits and now he'll join (will he?)with somewhere around 25% and in six months from then he'll be somewhere around 18%.
In the Dem and MSM rush to marginalize President Bush, the 2008 campaign began the day after the 2006 midterm election.
Now both parties have front loaded the primaries to the point that the nominees will be selected by mid-February, while the American public will not become engaged until September and October 2008. (as usual)
The next election will be one of the most important in our nation's history, with such looming issues as Social Security collapse and National Universal (bankrupting) Healthcare, and of course the Global War on Terror. And yet...
by the time the election rolls around the American people will be SO turned off by the campaign that never ends, I predict a low turnout due to complete voter burnout!
"he'll find himself somewhere down in the pack between Guiliani and McCain." And who will be at the top of the pack?
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
That used to be a cute notion, but it's baloney.
www.mymanmitt.com
www.race42008.com
Member of Romney for President Faith and Values Steering Committee-an unpaid advisory position, that does not require an endorsement.
http://www.preciseNews.us/pt/preciseTruth/entry/20070805
http://www.preciseNews.us
Breaking Every Few Minutes (24/7)
Enough of the debates already. Too many, too soon!
http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://OsiSpeaks.org
With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see right.
makes them look like they are Gladys Knight's PipsIf you're going to float images in a comment, please put something like this at the end of your comment:
<p style="clear: both;"/>
Thank you!
I'm a newbie to this. I also didn't quite set the pics together like I saw them on the Drudge site. I added your tip to the other ones I saved that you posted here at RS.
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
I really don't think Giuliani distinguished himself. Actually the abortion section likely hurt him. Romney didn't get off to the best start, but he didn't hurt himself either.
This was one of Brownback's better debates, but it won't be enough to help him. McCain's statement on pork barrel spending was good, and I wish more was said about how to cut spending.
I'm glad no one was in favor of S-CHIP, and I'm disappointed in my Senator for supporting it. I know many will disagree with me, but oh well - I think that Huckabee was the strongest on the domestic issues (health care, taxes, infrastructure). As far as I'm concerned just getting rid of the death tax is enough. It is a good start, but there needs to be more reform.
I didn't really see anybody distinguish themselves on Iraq (with the exception of Ron Paul - does anybody else find his voice annoying?).
I really can't say anybody won though. I'm looking forward to next weekend with the Ames Straw Poll though.
Shane Vander Hart
Check out my blog - Caffeinated Thoughts.
My only problem with Rudy the RINO is that he's Rudy the RINO.
bc3
I am persuaded by your wit and eloquence.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
If you want to take shots at people, why don't you take aim at that group of dangerously foolish clowns who are masquerading as serious candidates for the Democrat party nomination for POTUS? Rudy's a RINO??? Judas priest!!
Although I at this point wouldn't point to a clear winner. Regarding the 2nd tier, I think that Hunter and Huckabee both improved their stock. I'm in Romney's camp, but each time I hear both those individuals speak I come away impressed. Brownback and Tommy Thompson did nothing in my view to improve their standing, but I don't think they did anything to hurt themselves either. Tom Tancredo once again has proven he doesn't belong. He was and is thoroughly unpresidential, and I'm looking forward to a debate without him.
Well, actually you didn't say to exclude Tancredo, but if there is no Tancredo at the debates, then the strongest voice for conservative immigration reform is gone. That would leave more time for those who support amnesty -- McCain, Giuliani -- to pretend as though they don't, and would remove any chance at all for a decent discussion on legal immigration.
Anyone find his voice absolutely annoying? Romney's response "did he forget about 9/11?" was awesome.
Shane Vander Hart
Check out my blog - Caffeinated Thoughts.
Giuliani won? How? Because Stephanopoulos didn't call him on his claim that he is pro-Second Amendment? Do you think he would have let it pass if Rudy had said he was pro-First Amendment, but had shut down a few New York papers and said freedom of the press should be decided by states and cities?
Huckabee did well, as always, but always seems to be overlooked. Fortunately for him, Brownback's lack of charisma should give Huckabee the social-conservative lead after the straw poll. Tommy Thompson had his first good performance in four tries, but it's probably too little, too late. Hunter and McCain were fine, but Tancredo probably finished off what little chance he had.
Ron Paul gave his strongest performance so far, but it's an open question how many Republicans are willing to admit that the Iraq war was a huge mistake, had nothing to do with 9/11, and will sink the party's chances in 2008 if we continue to defend it.
Romney was the biggest loser of the debate. He claimed Brownback's ad was untrue, but was entirely unconvincing in trying to refute it. He doused any enthusiasm that was building for him online, following up his derisive comments about the YouTube debate by questioning the veracity of information on YouTube, even when it is a video of Mitt Romney, himself, speaking. He served up a few golden video clips as well, on his flip-flopping on abortion, and on democracy not being about voting.
The low point for Romney was trying to pull a Rudy by interrupting Ron Paul, asking "What about 9/11?" just moments after Ron Paul had stated there was no al Qaeda in Iraq, and no weapons of mass destruction. Paul stiff-armed him into silence, and Stephanopoulos kicked him to the curb, moving on to the next question.
certainly lines up with every story I've read. They all say that RonPaul™ was the clear winner.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Well, the article asked for my take on who won, not whether or not I agreed with the majority of the articles in the mainstream media.
From a pure debate standpoint (as someone who is a trained speech contest judge), I think the strongest performances yesterday were turned in by Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee.
I happen to agree with most of what Ron Paul says, and realize that a lot of conservatives disagree with him on foreign policy, but I think he made a very strong case for his viewpoints.
It's too bad they didn't ask the only doctor on the stage about health care (again), and that they didn't ask the "Taxpayers Best Friend Ever" (according to the NTU) about the Fair Tax.
It's also too bad that most people look to the polls to help them decide which candidate to support, when the polls reflect the collective judgment of people who know very little about most of the candidates.
Everytime Ron Paul screams about how we're "losing in Iraq," a bunch of liberals clap and cheer.
We let the dems have their debate.
Why won't they let us have our debate?
Should we send a healthy contingency of conservatives to sabotage their next debate?
Romney/Thompson 2008