|
Post by dino on Aug 11, 2011 6:47:30 GMT -5
Should be a real yawner tonite in Iowa.
Some say make or break for Pawlenty.
|
|
|
Post by raphael on Aug 11, 2011 8:58:05 GMT -5
I'm sure my man will bring some. ;D But I'm sure they will ask him stupid bs social issues which IMO the federal government should not even be involved with. Here's 10 "pre-game" questions.............. www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45450I'm so glad Rick Perry is in this thing. IMO it will take the wind out of Romney sails! Whoops I'm not seeing him on this debate list. Not yet but I'm pretty confident he will enter soon.
|
|
|
Post by dino on Aug 11, 2011 9:04:43 GMT -5
I don't see how Romney can dig his way out of his quagmire....and Perry is Michele Bachmann in pants.
Also if you dissect the poor poll numbers that congress is getting you'll see a lot of it on the GOP side....the TP has lost support since the debt ceiling debacle.
|
|
|
Post by raphael on Aug 11, 2011 9:21:22 GMT -5
Some of the tea party is just the GOP dressed in drag IMO! ;D
I've also said and will say it again that whatever the GOP does is just a waste of time because regardless of how low Obama has sunk he will win again in 12.
|
|
|
Post by dino on Aug 12, 2011 6:43:59 GMT -5
I actually watched most of it...mainly because it became entertaining when Pawlenty and Bachmann began going at each other. The best part was seeing Bachmann's wild claims, lies and misrepresentations torn to shreds. She has no grasp on reality whatsoever.
Santorum would make a good activist, that's about it. If he were president we'd be at war with Iran.
Romney still the most 'presidential' and did better than I expected.
Cain, totally not ready and basically had to admit it.
Newt knew how to drill Obama's administration and didn't espouse any crazy ideas as he often does which helped him tremendously. However he has zero credibility and no machine to get elected. Totally dodged and deflected questions directly aimed at his problems...he knew in a debate setting such as that he could filibuster the questions and not be pressed to answer.
Ron did a good job on his platform...loved how he smacked Santorum on Iran.
Huntsman...he didn't really knock anyones socks off. Prolly too much of a Washington insider to be affective.
Pawlenty was very aggressive knowing he needed to be remembered...and what better way than to attack Michele.
I don't know who won...the object of these debates is not to lose..and if I had to pick a loser I'd say it was Cain or Santorum, who seemed desperate. Michele only survived by standing up to Pawlenty and that's if you don't do any fact checking... which most rightwingers will just swallow what she says.
|
|
|
Post by cvhs67 on Aug 12, 2011 6:45:10 GMT -5
I don't know Raph, Bama's disapprovals keep climbing, seems that everybody has had enough of him.
In the debate I liked Bachman, Romney, Cain, and Santorum...
Newt said some good things but you just know he's too willing to 'compromise'.
Ron cam across as a grumpy old man and scary
Pawlenty and Huntsman were a dissappointment.
|
|
|
Post by manlyman on Aug 12, 2011 8:37:34 GMT -5
I find these political debates to be a big yawn-fest. Very short on facts. Very long on BS. "He sucks. You suck. They suck." Rarely is there any "If I'm elected I will [insert specific agenda and how to accomplish stated agenda]."
This goes for ALL debates, not just this particular one.
|
|
|
Post by dino on Aug 12, 2011 10:05:01 GMT -5
These results echo those of a separate question in the new survey showing that, by 20% to 14%, more Americans strongly oppose the Tea Party movement than strongly support it. Bottom Line The Democratic Party may be better positioned today to win seats in the 2012 congressional elections than it was leading up to the 2010 midterms that resulted in its loss of 63 House seats and majority control. However, the Democrats' advantage is currently not as strong as that seen in 2006, when they regained majority control from the Republicans, or in 2008, when they maintained it. To re-establish a more favorable positioning with voters, the Republican Party will have to deal carefully with the national Tea Party movement. While most Republicans say Tea Party endorsements either make no difference to their vote or increase their likelihood of supporting a candidate, at this point the effect on the all-important independent vote is more negative than positive.
|
|
|
Post by raphael on Aug 12, 2011 11:49:51 GMT -5
I second both Dino and Manlyman on their thoughts. Pretty much sums it up. A dog and pony show! Lol! I still maintain that even as low as Obama gets he will still get reelected. It would be interesting if the Dems throw up a candidate to run against him though and that might change some dynamics. You gotta admit though they were really going after RP. Must be something in the air! LMAO!
|
|
|
Post by raphael on Aug 12, 2011 12:37:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Aug 12, 2011 12:48:11 GMT -5
I think these early debates serve, primarily, as a mechanism to seed out the weakest links. Cain, Bachman and Pawlenty should fall by the wayside pretty quickly. They're just not Persidential material. Paul will hang in a little longer but it's primarily because he has a cadre of truly rabid supporter that will skew all polls and hound the establishment into including him in later debates. If he makes the primary ballot, I'll vote for him again but I don't have any illusions about him becoming the nominee.
|
|
|
Post by dino on Aug 12, 2011 13:17:04 GMT -5
The Party's cringe when their candidates go after each other... but they should embrace the display of contrast between them as well as the other sides opponent.
|
|
|
Post by raphael on Aug 12, 2011 13:21:07 GMT -5
I think the same way Fredo. RP pretty much owns the internet but he has no real chance with mainstream media stacked against him and IMO most Americans listen to the Limbaugh's Hannitys Mathews etc etc and therefore he will only be able to get a certain percentage.
He won almost all the online debate polls...............
|
|
|
Post by dino on Aug 12, 2011 13:37:53 GMT -5
RP lost a lot of people when he said it's okay for Iran to have nukes.
|
|
|
Post by raphael on Aug 12, 2011 14:56:20 GMT -5
RP lost a lot of people when he said it's okay for Iran to have nukes. Then let them send their kids and money for war over there but not mine! Hell I'd worry more about the Russians and Chinese or North Koreans before I would that third world country. So bye bye brainwashed neocons don't let the door hit your arse on the way out the door. Lol!
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Aug 12, 2011 15:04:11 GMT -5
RP lost a lot of people when he said it's okay for Iran to have nukes. It's a little startling the first time yu hear it but once you think about the fact that we endured the Soviets with thousands of nukes, Iran with a couple seems like a pretty small thing. If he'll keep talking common sense defence, freedom and personal liberty he'll be unstoppable. Unfortunately, he tends to divert into end the fed, monetary policy and Iran in '53. As the campaign wears on and he gets both physically and mentally exhausted he'll revert to the old schpiel and that will be his undoing.
|
|
|
Post by dino on Aug 12, 2011 15:42:30 GMT -5
It's really pretty different because all the jebus freaks would rather see the USA blown to bits than one scratch on their mecca, Israel.
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Aug 24, 2011 11:39:37 GMT -5
I still maintain that even as low as Obama gets he will still get reelected. It would be interesting if the Dems throw up a candidate to run against him though and that might change some dynamics. i think there are two ways the dems can solidify a win in the next presidential election... run hillary against obama or have an obama/hillary ticket.
|
|
|
Post by Fredo on Aug 24, 2011 12:55:33 GMT -5
One good thing about an Obama/Hillary ticket: The life expectancy of Obama would be dramatically shortened. Seriously, would you want to be the one between her and the oval office? I wouldn't.
|
|