Republican hopefuls in TV debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
irishpatrick said:
Santorum is the only person during the debate to speak about the importance of the family.
Click to expand...
‘Family issues’ are there, but the presidency is an administrative position, and admistering people’s families isn’t central to the position. I don’t think there’s all that much to say. ‘Do you suppoert this or that.’ Yes or no, and why. That’s it. Politicians aren’t our priests or counslors, and while it’s good to know what their moral positions are, I’m more eager to see them ‘get down to business,’ so to speak, enumerate their plans regrading the economy, health care, and foreign policy.

I prefer Romney to the others as much as ever, given that Hunstman does not seem to stand much of a chance at the moment.
 
Raskolnikov said:
‘Family issues’ are there, but the presidency is an administrative position, and admistering people’s families isn’t central to the position. I don’t think there’s all that much to say. ‘Do you suppoert this or that.’ Yes or no, and why. That’s it. Politicians aren’t our priests or counslors, and while it’s good to know what their moral positions are, I’m more eager to see them ‘get down to business,’ so to speak, enumerate their plans regrading the economy, health care, and foreign policy.

I prefer Romney to the others as much as ever, given that Hunstman does not seem to stand much of a chance at the moment.
Click to expand...
I liked what Huntsman said about taxation. Other than that, he was comic relief. “I thought 9-9-9 was the price of a pizza.” 😃
 
Raskolnikov said:
‘Family issues’ are there, but the presidency is an administrative position, and admistering people’s families isn’t central to the position. I don’t think there’s all that much to say. ‘Do you suppoert this or that.’ Yes or no, and why. That’s it. Politicians aren’t our priests or counslors, and while it’s good to know what their moral positions are, I’m more eager to see them ‘get down to business,’ so to speak, enumerate their plans regrading the economy, health care, and foreign policy.

I prefer Romney to the others as much as ever, given that Hunstman does not seem to stand much of a chance at the moment.
Click to expand...
I say this with all respect, yet your attitude is precisely why the family is under assault, and why marriage is being attacked, and why babies continue to die through legal abortion. 😦
 
irishpatrick said:
I say this with all respect, yet your attitude is precisely why the family is under assault, and why marriage is being attacked, and why babies continue to die through legal abortion. 😦
Click to expand...
I say with all respect, that you’re wrong. We’ve been hearing politicians talk about the same subjects for 2 decades. That they talk about it is no indication of doing anything about it. Legal abortion continues, and in my opinion probably will continue indefinitely, as long as there is only one party nominally opposed to it, and both tacitly accept it as part of the status quo.
 
Raskolnikov said:
I say with all respect, that you’re wrong. We’ve been hearing politicians talk about the same subjects for 2 decades. That they talk about it is no indication of doing anything about it. Legal abortion continues, and in my opinion probably will continue indefinitely, as long as there is only one party nominally opposed to it, and both tacitly accept it as part of the status quo.
Click to expand...
We are one vote away on the SC, one single vote and George Bush got us there! In addition to that, there were hundreds of things Bush did to help the prolife cause, and Obama has managed to nearly wipe all that out.

With that said, you did not understand my point. If decide these things are not important, than there really is NO hope. AS Catholics, we should literally NEVER get to a point where we do not thing family, marriage, faith and life, is not worth an effort to protect. Sure, we have not yet won the struggle regarding abortion, but we have made huge progesss and the nation is nearly split with the issue–ten years ago 62% of people thought abortion should remain legal, today number has dropped 11-12% depending on what survey you read. It is just a matter of tim, but if we stop yelling for change, then the unborn suffers.
 
He_Man said:
I’m not sure how they determine who gets asked the questions in which order, but they did a terrible job. Romney and Cain got probably 66% of the questions. Rebuttals are one thing, but Santorum, Paul, Bachmann, and even Hunstman were marginalized thanks for bad moderators.

I thought Santorum did a great job considering this, and as usual thought Gingrich came off as the smartest guy in the room.
Click to expand...
I agree. It seemed that the moderators made up their minds as to the front runner and gave Cain and Romney all the questions. CAin had more time due to everyone bringing up the 9-9-9 plan, and his opportunity for rebuttal. Perry looked like he needed a nap and Michelle was on the edge of her seat waiting to get her 6-6-6 jab at Cain. All in all there was nothing new under the sun. Huntsman made a lot of sense but no one is listening to him.
 
Raskolnikov said:
‘Family issues’ are there, but the presidency is an administrative position, and admistering people’s families isn’t central to the position. I don’t think there’s all that much to say. ‘Do you suppoert this or that.’ Yes or no, and why. That’s it. Politicians aren’t our priests or counslors, and while it’s good to know what their moral positions are, I’m more eager to see them ‘get down to business,’ so to speak, enumerate their plans regrading the economy, health care, and foreign policy.

I prefer Romney to the others as much as ever, given that Hunstman does not seem to stand much of a chance at the moment.
Click to expand...
No. The presidency is not just an administrative position, its a leadership position - at times moral leadership. Santorum was correct in pointing out the relationship of the strength of families to prosperity - the health of the family and the health of the economy. Obviously there is much more to a strong economy than just strong families, but that is a component, and its good for a presidential candidate to speak out on that. And to speak out on this topic isn’t “administering families” as you wrongly imply. A president’s moral or ethical values are an important part of their positions on the economy, healthcare, and foreign policy. Obama’s social liberalism totally shapes his stands on healthcare for example.

Moral relativism pervades much of our popular culture and society. It would be nice to have a president who believes that moral virtues have a role in shaping a successful, prosperous society.

Ishii
 
Yes, did you hear the person yelling out something about gays when Santorum was talking about mothers and fathers and stable families?
 
Cider said:
Yes, did you hear the person yelling out something about gays when Santorum was talking about mothers and fathers and stable families?
Click to expand...
I heard what sounded like a heckler when Charlie Rose was asking a question of Michelle Bachmann. I hadn’t noticed any yelling when Santorum was speaking.

Ishii
 
Prague said:
Gary Johnson wasn’t there. Has he dropped out? He certainly doesn’t have any chance. Just wondering.
Click to expand...
He’s still in the race. I think he’s in until New Hampshire where he’s spending most of his time. He’s only been in 2 debates because of his polling. He calls it the “Gary Johnson Rule” of Exclusion since in certain polls he polls at the same percentage as some of the candidates on stage or is left out of the choices for the poll. The problem is that you can’t poll well unless you are in the debates and you don’t get into the debates unless you poll well.

Honestly, with Johnson I think it’s a little unfair. During the second debate, he wasn’t invited, but Michele Bachmann was invited. She wasn’t even a declared candidate when she was invited. Seriously? The thing is, Johnson was a very successful two term governor in a state that was 2 to 1 Democrat and left the state with a budget surplus. He started a one man handy-man business and grew it to have 1000 employees. So he’s very successful in the private sector and in government. I think that he has a lot to offer.

As far as the debate goes, Dr. Paul is still my first choice. Cain was my second choice, but the sales tax and his comments on the FED bother me. Cain moved down to my third choice and Johnson moved up to my second choice. I’m also liking Newt more and more.

I think Perry had his 15 minutes and is moving down. And Romney will eventually be the nominee, for better or worse. But until Dr. Paul wins the election or drops out, I will be supporting him.
 
Pirate_Talker said:
I agree. It seemed that the moderators made up their minds as to the front runner and gave Cain and Romney all the questions. CAin had more time due to everyone bringing up the 9-9-9 plan, and his opportunity for rebuttal. Perry looked like he needed a nap and Michelle was on the edge of her seat waiting to get her 6-6-6 jab at Cain. All in all there was nothing new under the sun. Huntsman made a lot of sense but no one is listening to him.
Click to expand...
Pirate Talker, do you honestly think someone who was Barack Obama’s ambassador to China would be listened to by many of today’s 21st century Republican voters?
 
CMatt25 said:
Pirate Talker, do you honestly think someone who was Barack Obama’s ambassador to China would be listened to by today’s 21st century Republican voter?
Click to expand...
That’s a very minor concern amongst conservatives. He’s too moderate - even more so than Romney. He’s also been dismissive of conservatives - lousy political move when you’re running in a primary.
 
rlg94086 said:
That’s a very minor concern amongst conservatives. He’s too moderate - even more so than Romney. He’s also been dismissive of conservatives - lousy political move when you’re running in a primary.
Click to expand...
Well yes relatively speaking in comparison to the rest of the GOP field he’s moderate. But so is much of America moderate. 🤷
 
rlg94086 said:
Gosh, I’m really sorry the GOP primary process is boring you. Who do you plan on voting for in the GOP Primary?
Click to expand...
None of course. But what I find interesting though Rig is that conventional wisdom seems to be saying Romney is doing so well in all of these debates. But still I hear a sizeable number of evangelicals don’t like that he is a Mormon. I’ve seen Catholics right here on CAF voice reservation about him being a Mormon. I hear Tea Party folk thinking he’s not conservative enough. So I’m enjoying the GOP process in that regard. And I’m wondering if Romney gets the nod and a more conservative non-Mormon runs 3rd party, how many votes they will decipher away from Romney from all these folks not happy with Romney.
 
CMatt25 said:
None of course. But what I find interesting though Rig is that conventional wisdom seems to be saying Romney is doing so well in all of these debates. But still I hear a sizeable number of evangelicals don’t like that he is a Mormon. I’ve seen Catholics right here on CAF voice reservation about him being a Mormon. I hear Tea Party folk thinking he’s not conservative enough. So I’m enjoying the GOP process in that regard. And I’m wondering if Romney gets the nod and a more conservative non-Mormon runs 3rd party, how many votes they will decipher away from Romney from all these folks not happy with Romney.
Click to expand...
Personally, I don’t think it will happen.

If Romney gets the nomination, I think he will pick Cain for VP.

If anyone tries running third party it’s going to upset a lot of people, including myself. I don’t want Romney to take it, but if he does I’ll vote for him regardless.

Anything to get rid of Obama. The only good thing I’d ever do for Obama is help him pack and move back to Chicago.
 
bbarrick8383 said:
Personally, I don’t think it will happen.

If Romney gets the nomination, I think he will pick Cain for VP.

If anyone tries running third party it’s going to upset a lot of people, including myself. I don’t want Romney to take it, but if he does I’ll vote for him regardless.

Anything to get rid of Obama. The only good thing I’d ever do for Obama is help him pack and move back to Chicago.
Click to expand...
I agree, and I think a Romney/Cain pairing would be great - two businessmen for the price of one!
 
bbarrick8383 said:
Anything to get rid of Obama.
Click to expand...
Be careful what you ask for. When you abandon principle for efficiency and expediency, the results are dreadful.

I find the whole Romney nomination laughable. Remember 2008? Every blog, pundit, and conservative swore that they would not let “it” happen again. They would not nominate another democrat-light as they did with McCain. Next time there would be no compromise with the establishment and the pollyannish “system” folks. They would only get behind a real conservative and let the chips fall where they may.

Now it’s 2012 and where are all those folks? They’re buckling under the same tired and damning arguments from 2008. “What’s important is beating Obama. What’s important is choosing the most electable person. What’s important is not emphasizing social issues when economic issues can grab more progressive voters. As long as the Republican wins, we’ll all be great.”

Bush was horrific. Obama is horrific and will remain so. Romney is a hybrid of Bush and Obama. In fact, most of the candidates in the debate are all “system” folks. They backed Boehner when he raised the debt ceiling. They backed the bipartisan Bush/Obama bailouts. They backed the Patriot Act. They backed the new and incredibly wasteful cabinet position of Homeland Defense (I thought conservatives were about shrinking government). They backed the spending on foreign countries as opposed to here (half a zillion dollar embassy anyone?).

What happened to principle? What happened to finding someone that was really conservative? The establishment squashed that idea with it’s media influence and huge sums of money. Chris Christie was the answer? Really? Another Romney/Bush clone. No thanks.

It’s quite sad that so many buy into this game. The tea party is correct; there is a big problem with progressive government, spending, and its role in the nation. Leftists attacked the tea party. The wall street protesters are correct in their main point (not talking about the new hippies). Wall street and big business is crooked and essentially buy politicians who look out for only their interests. The bailouts were a great example. Fox News attacks the wall street protesters.

And if you mention moral issues, you are viewed as naive and unresponsive to the real problem: the economy. Christ and the Apostles (and the Old Testament) teach something different. Israel didn’t prosper because they had great economic policies. They prospered and fell based on their adherence to the moral law (God’s law). Our founders knew this too. The reason we have economic problems is because we made horrific choices. We made those horrific choices because of a philosophical and immoral mindset. Until you treat that, which includes morality and religion, you will never “fix” the economy.

If you end up with a Romney vs Obama race, the only really “wasted vote” is the one cast for either of them because they are 2 sides of the same corrupted coin.
 
CMatt25 said:
I wouldn’t put too much emphasis in general election polls for an election 13 mos away just yet. Most of America is not yet tuned in and have not the insight into the GOP candidates as well as many of us CAF members do.
Click to expand...
Romney has been campaigning for 8 years, I think most people probably know his record, but in terms of Perry and Cain doing better than Obama in this general election poll, and it is true most probably don’t have the insight into them that many at CAF do, yet people are so discouraged by Obama even those two who people don’t know very well are still doing better. I think this poll speaks volumes about how people feel about Obama.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top