In summary:
Ron Paul came off as a deaf reactionary. Brit Hume nailed his counter question to Paul with regards to the Strait of Hormuz incident. Why the over-reaction? Every other candidate counseled confidence in the reaction of the captain. Ron Paul is simply a Moonbat and I couldn’t care less who disagrees with me. He is one frightening man — to even consider putting Presidential power in the hands of Ron Paul is a shocking proposition. He seems to think that, for example, when one makes a “friend” of a nation, that nation should stay a US friend for life. Times change. Administrations change. Leaders change. Demographics change. Motivations change. One consistent? Ron Paul, truthfully, scares me. He appears primarily thoughtless.
Fred Thompson had a number of proper and appropriate observations and responses to questions posed. He doesn’t speak so well extemporaneously; many “uhs” and whatnot, but he provides the air of a man who is assured of his stance, who doesn’t particularly care what others think of his positions, and who doesn’t mind going his own way.
When Mitt Romney told Congressman Paul that he’d been reading too many of Ahmadinejad’s press releases? Ab-so-fucking-lutely classic.
McCain was just off. He smiles inappropriately, as if on cue. He makes verbal mistakes and gaffes. I actually wonder about his mental capacity.
Huckabee didn’t particularly impress or disappoint.
Giuliani seemed off his game. I expected more forcefulness. More decisiveness. More insistence, more interruptions, more New York attitude. I didn’t get it.
Immigration?
McCain is not believeable. He “seems” to have “come around” on illegals? I don’t believe him for a microsecond.
Romney: too slick to grasp firmly. He is too covered in oil. Too perfect. “He’ll tell you what you want to hear when he thinks you want to hear it.” He is, in my opinion, the GOP equivalent of Hillary Clinton. Another perfect hack.
Thompson spoke the truth and brought about unaddressed issues. Thompson didn’t couch his answers in euphemisms.
Paul: they undermine our tax system (I agree with him on this one point).
Huckabee: we need a period of time for people to go to their home country. When people come here, they should be here with their heads up. We should have the assumption that everyone here is legal, not illegal.
Giuliani: I allowed children of illegal immigrants to go to school. I had 70,000 children; what was I to do? We need to change behavior. We have only 14,000 Border Patrol agents; we have 12 million illegal immigrants.
Winner?
Fred Thompson, by a large margin. He was sarcastic, honest, truthful. You had to listen to his words, not his presentation.
Loser?
Ron Paul. In five words: he’s still a fucking Moonbat.
BZ
He hasn’t bowed out. He’s still considered. Fred Thompson has MY vote.
BZ
If he gets the nomination, I’ll support FDT, no doubt about it, and regarding Paul, I have been called a ton of names in the Digg comments… I am LMAO, they are telling each other how to dupe their text votes to make Paul look good… Damn good thing the Paulies can’t DO electronic voting…
It is about time that he started to really stand out. He has been the best candidate for a long while.
I couldn’t agree with you more, BZ, and Fred did an outstanding job last night!
I believe Ron Paul had that blimp flying around to store extra hot air just on the off chance that he would run out. Fat chance of that happening. Even if he weren’t battier that all get out, can you imagine having a president with that squeaky, whiny voice? Sheesh!
As for Romney, I don’t know what he stands for. I can’t listen to him. His greasy hair is too much of a distraction.
There are now two on the R side that I see no different than any on the D side: Paul and Huckabee.
McCain does not understand that ‘defense’ includes the borders and that is part of the oath of office he has ignored for decades. And that lots of taxes and trying to restrict freedom of speech in politics are both *wrong*, the first for economics and the second for the constitution. One issue right, the rest dead wrong.
Thompson, Giuliani and Romney, then… and I have problems and severe ones with each. The best they can hope for is that HRC wins on the D side and they can get my vote by default.
And I think a lot of folks are looking at it that way, especially the younger Obama followers who would have problems with HRC if she does win. Many of those will walk out on HRC and the D party, and a few will cross-over in spite. Possibly more than a few.
The R party could capture a lot of votes on an anti-corruption/law ‘n order/make sure the current conflicts resolve successfully platform. But that does mean clearing out the pigs from the trough…
He did OK, I’m please.
Now I just have to get pass that his real name is George W. Thompson.
I for one do not want, “Four More Years.”
Ron Paul is Lyndon LaRouche with a trunk, tusks and elephant ears. I am hoping for Thompson but I’m not hopeful.
Fred rocked at the debate, I just wished he had done something like this much earlier and much more often.
I agree with so much of what you write, which makes me surprised you are such a Ron Paul hater. I figure you are probably just old. Nothing wrong with that. Its just, old people don’t seem to understand Paul’s message. Which is ashame.
Conservatives who look to Thompson for salvation need to pause and consider his record—a record that includes these votes:
♦ FOR restricting the rights of grassroots organizations to communicate with the public. See ACU’s vote 3, 1998.
♦ FOR allowing the IRS to require political and policy organizations to disclose their membership—a vote against the constitutional rights of free association and privacy. (The Clinton Administration used such IRS intimidation against conservative groups that opposed them.) See ACU’s vote 11, 2000.
♦ AGAINST impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, specifically the reappointment and reauthorization of managers (drawn from the Republican membership of the House Judiciary Committee) to conduct the impeachment trial in the Senate. See ACU’s vote 1, 1999.
♦ AGAINST an accelerated elimination of the “marriage penalty.” See ACU’s vote 10, 2001.
♦ FOR handouts to politicians, specifically taxpayer funding of presidential campaigns. See ACU’s vote 6, 1995.
♦ FOR handouts to politicians, specifically congressional perks such as postage and broadcast time funded by taxpayers. See ACU’s vote 13, 1996.
♦ AGAINST restraints on federal spending, specifically the Phil Gramm (R-TX) amendment to limit non-defense discretionary spending to the fiscal 1997 levels requested by President Clinton. See ACU’s vote 6, 1997.
♦ FOR affirmative action in federal contracts. See ACU’s vote 9, 1995.
♦ FOR the Legal Services Corporation, the perennial liberal boondoggle that provides political activism disguised as “legal services” to Democratic constituencies. See ACU’s vote 16, 1995, and vote 17, 1999.
♦ FOR an increase in the minimum wage, which, of course, increases unemployment among the young and poor. See ACU’s vote 16, 1996.
♦ FOR President Clinton’s nomination of Dr. David Satcher as U.S. Surgeon General. Among other things, Satcher opposed a full ban on partial-birth abortion. See ACU’s vote 1, 1998.
♦ FOR open-ended military commitments, specifically in regard to U.S. troops in Kosovo. See ACU’s vote 8, 2000.
♦ FOR corporate welfare, specifically the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). See ACU’s vote 23. 1999.
♦ AGAINST worker and shareholder rights, specifically the Hatch (R-UT) amendment to require unions and corporations to obtain permission from dues-paying members or shareholders before spending money on political activities. See ACU’s votes 4 and 5, 2001.
♦ AGAINST property rights and FOR unlimited presidential power, specifically by allowing President Clinton to implement the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, which he established by executive order, without congressional approval. See ACU’s vote 20, 1997.
♦ FOR restricting the First Amendment (free speech) rights of independent groups. See ACU’s vote 23, 1997.
♦ FOR the trial lawyers lobby, and specifically against a bill that would put common-sense limitations on the medical malpractice suits that increase health costs for all of us. (Of course! He’s been a trial lawyer himself for some three decades.) See ACU’s vote 18, 2002.
And, last but not least:
♦ FOR limitations on campaign freedom of speech, by limiting contributions to national political parties to $2,000 and limiting the rights of individuals and groups to participate in the political process in the two months before elections. See ACU’s vote 7, 2002.