News Republican Debate

  • Thread starter BobG
  • Start date

BobG

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
110
80
Who did you like? (and notice I used two words in my title since "one word titles may be deleted" :rofl:)

Pawlenty, Bachman, Santorum, and Romney performed well, regardless of whether I agreed with them or not.

Cain gave me absolutely no reason to take him seriously and Paul appeared as out of touch as ever.

Gingrich gave the most bizarre answer when following up Cain's comments about having Muslims on his staff. Gingrich seemed to feel the Joe McCarthy era was a good thing, which is something you don't hear very often.

And one of Romney's answers sounded very strange. He was saying the bailout of car industries was a bad thing and that going through bankruptcy was a better solution, then summed up his argument by saying instead of government getting involved, Obama should have let the car companies solve their own problems the American way. The American way as in declaring bankruptcy? Is that the new version of the American dream? (I know he didn't mean it that way, but it was a strange way to sum up his argument.)

Being unknown seemed to be an asset. Bachman seemed poised and reasonably sane, which was a shock to me. Santorum and Pawlenty made good overall impressions. While Romney did well, it was just hard to shake the image he built in 2008 - an image of being even shallower and possessing less character than even Bill Clinton.

Given that I won't vote for Bachman or Santorum, I think Pawlenty came out impressing me the most.
 

mege

Overall - it was nice to see the candidates showing unity against President Obama. There wasn't the internal fight that you sometimes see this early, that was a nice refresher. I'll admit that the debate was on in the background while I was doing housework - so I didn't catch everything, but here's my thoughts on the individual candidates:

The more I see Herman Cain, the more I'm dissapointed. I don't know if it's nerves, or if he's too cocky, but I had high hopes for him early on - unfortunately his public poise has been horrible. I think he's going to be fading away pretty soon unless he can pull it together.

My yearly ad hoc 'scratches' have been Gingrich and Ron Paul for a long time, and it's not going to change this cycle. From a strategic standpoint, they're both too ugly and too wierd. Neither can be a serious party-supported candidate for president imo. However, since Ron Paul seemed to have the 'consensus' answers and fostered few disagreements with his policy ideas; in a technical manner I think he won - however I still don't like him :p

Romney perpetually reminds me of John Kerry for a multiple reasons, foremost: he keeps wanting to give non-answers (this debate, and the example you gave, were no different). I want to support Romney as I grew up in Michigan, but unfortunately there is little substance I like behind that awesome hair (another Kerry trait).

I came in a little biased thinking Pawlenty has been saying the right things so far, and I generally like him and what he did in MN (even before the debate, one of my favorite candidates). I think he is still saying the right things and isn't stirring the pot, yet. Overall, he was a non-entity, he didn't say anything memorable either way - and that's a good thing at this stage. There's still a year of primaries, do you want folks to be tired of talking about you next march? He talked a bit about his experience which I think is going to be importaint to go against an incumbant President. While I don't think he 'won' the debate, I think his performance and poise keep him stationed as a legit candidate.

Santorum kept a pretty neutral image like Pawlenty, but I don't think this debate showed any of the negatives of Santorum. Not that it ever really came out during this debate, but I feel his legislative history is too agressively socially conservative for the Tea Party-marbled Republican party. For this debate specifically, he's probably somewhere in the middle of the pack because of his poise in giving party-line answers.

Bachmann is going to have the same problem as Palin during the election, and thus is un-nominatable by the GOP, she's too honest. She did very good at articulating some of the budget issues, and in a debate setting that's great, but in the long run that honesty is going to kill her. I think the stark reasonable answers get her a 2nd place at the debate in my mind (or maybe first if I discount Ron Paul as a sheep in a tie-dye shirt). She spoke the most clearly and gave the most 'sane' opinons of the group.
 
107
0
When Romney said "everyone on this stage would make a better President than Barack Obama" - he revealed the base Republican strategy of the 2012 cycle. There's no reason for the candidates to shred each other. The subtle differences will emerge and the debates will help form a final package - positioned to defeat the President. Again IMO - marketing 101.
 
Who did you like? (and notice I used two words in my title since "one word titles may be deleted" :rofl:)

Pawlenty, Bachman, Santorum, and Romney performed well, regardless of whether I agreed with them or not.
didn't see a lot of it, but was surprised to see Romney in better form than ever

Cain gave me absolutely no reason to take him seriously and Paul appeared as out of touch as ever.

Gingrich gave the most bizarre answer when following up Cain's comments about having Muslims on his staff. Gingrich seemed to feel the Joe McCarthy era was a good thing, which is something you don't hear very often.
but did you read it that way before David Gergen gave his spin on it? i'm guessing not. because he really didn't say what Gergen said.

And one of Romney's answers sounded very strange. He was saying the bailout of car industries was a bad thing and that going through bankruptcy was a better solution, then summed up his argument by saying instead of government getting involved, Obama should have let the car companies solve their own problems the American way. The American way as in declaring bankruptcy? Is that the new version of the American dream? (I know he didn't mean it that way, but it was a strange way to sum up his argument.)
i think the American Way here is to simply use the legal structure that is already in place. we already have rule of law and courts to take care of these situations in an orderly way. getting politicians involved is actually a way of subverting due process and choosing winners and losers by fiat.

Being unknown seemed to be an asset. Bachman seemed poised and reasonably sane, which was a shock to me. Santorum and Pawlenty made good overall impressions. While Romney did well, it was just hard to shake the image he built in 2008 - an image of being even shallower and possessing less character than even Bill Clinton.

Given that I won't vote for Bachman or Santorum, I think Pawlenty came out impressing me the most.
i thought Bachmann was terrible. she can speak in complete sentences, but the depth of her argument about Libya was that Obama was ceding authority to the French. that was an appeal to the lowest common denominator, and i can no longer see her as anything but a knuckle-dragger. the reality is that it isn't really our war to fight, nor our national interests, but europe's. the fact we only played a supportive role instead of doing it all for them is a good thing.
 
107
0
i thought Bachmann was terrible. she can speak in complete sentences, but the depth of her argument about Libya was that Obama was ceding authority to the French. that was an appeal to the lowest common denominator, and i can no longer see her as anything but a knuckle-dragger. the reality is that it isn't really our war to fight, nor our national interests, but europe's. the fact we only played a supportive role instead of doing it all for them is a good thing.
Isn't her point valid in the context of the cost to, and involvement of, the US?
 
Isn't her point valid in the context of the cost to, and involvement of, the US?
no. do you really want to own it and be there for the next decade?
 
107
0
no. do you really want to own it and be there for the next decade?
Of course not - but do you think the French (or any other NATO member) cares how much this costs the US?
 

BobG

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
110
80
but did you read it that way before David Gergen gave his spin on it? i'm guessing not. because he really didn't say what Gergen said.
Yes, I did. Actually, I was surprised it took so long for someone to comment on it.

What Gingrich said, along with the discussion that led up to his comments to provide some context. It may not have been totally clear what Gingrich meant by "we did this in dealing with the Nazis and we did this in dealing with the communists", but Joe McCarthy's Red Scare and loyalty oaths were the first thing that popped into my mind from Gingrich's comments.

(And this was one of Romney's better moments, as he resisted the chance to pander to the Muslim fearing fringe elements.)


MCELVEEN: Thank you.

While we're on the topic of faith and religion, the next question goes to Mr. Cain. You recently said you would not appoint a Muslim to your cabinet and you kind of back off that a little bit and said you would first want to know if they're committed to the Constitution. You expressed concern that, quote, "a lot of Muslims are not totally dedicated to this country."

Are American-Muslims as a group less committed to the Constitution than, say, Christian or Jews?

CAIN: First, the statement was would I be comfortable with a Muslim in my administration, not that I wouldn't appoint one. That's the exact transcript.

And I would not be comfortable because you have peaceful Muslims and then you have militant Muslims, those that are trying to kill us.

And so, when I said I wouldn't be comfortable, I was thinking about the ones that are trying to kill us, number one.

Secondly, yes, I do not believe in Sharia law in American courts. I believe in American laws in American courts, period. There have been instances -

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

CAIN: There have been instances in New Jersey -- there was an instance in Oklahoma where Muslims did try to influence court decisions with Sharia law. I was simply saying very emphatically, American laws in American courts.

KING: So, on that point, Governor Romney let me come to you on this.

What Mr. Cain is saying that he would have -- my term, not his -- a purity test or a loyalty test. He would want to ask a Muslim a few question or a few questions before he hired them, but he wouldn't ask those questions of a Christian or Jew.

CAIN: Sorry. No, you are restating something I did not say, OK? If I may, OK?

KING: Please let's make it clear.

CAIN: When you interview a person for a job, you look at their -- you look at their work record, you look at their resume, and then you have a one-on-one personal interview. During that personal interview, like in the business world and anywhere else, you are able to get a feeling for how committed that person is to the Constitution, how committed they are to the mission of the organization --

KING: When I asked -- I asked this question the other night, though, you said you want to ask a Muslim those questions but you didn't you have to ask them to a Christian or a Jew? CAIN: I would ask certain questions, John. And it's not a litmus test. It is simply trying to make sure that we have people committed to the Constitution first in order for them to work effectively in the administration.

KING: Should one segment, Governor -- I mean, one segment of Americans, in this case, religion, but in any case, should one segment be singled out and treated differently?

ROMNEY: Well, first of all, of course, we're not going to have Sharia law applied in U.S. courts. That's never going to happen. We have a Constitution and we follow the law.

No, I think we recognize that the people of all faiths are welcome in this country. Our nation was founded on a principal of religious tolerance. That's in fact why some of the early patriots came to this country and we treat people with respect regardless of their religious persuasion.

Obviously, anybody who would come into my administration would be someone who I knew, who I was comfortable with, and who I believed would honor as their highest oath -- their oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States.

KING: Mr. Speaker, go ahead.

GINGRICH: I just want to comment for a second. The Pakistani who emigrated to the U.S. became a citizen, built a car bomb which luckily failed to go off in Times Square was asked by the federal judge, how could he have done that when he signed -- when he swore an oath to the United States. And he looked at the judge and said, "You're my enemy. I lied."

Now, I just want to go out on a limb here. I'm in favor of saying to people, if you're not prepared to be loyal to the United States, you will not serve in my administration, period.

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: We did this -- we did this in dealing with the Nazis and we did this in dealing with the communists. And it was controversial both times, and both times we discovered after a while, you know, there are some genuinely bad people who would like to infiltrate our country. And we have got to have the guts to stand up and say no.
 
Last edited:

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
This comment from Pawlenty about had me throwing rocks at the tv.

Well, the protections between the separation of church and state were designed to protect people of faith from government, not government from people of faith.
http://sotimpawlenty.com/celebritynews/religion-references-new-hampshire-republican-debate [Broken]

Thank God I have the Constitution to protect me from people like Pawlenty.

Imo, Romney had the best night. By far he looked and sounded the most presidential of them all. However, the notion that this won't be reduced to a dog fight is nothing but wishful thinking. It is normal for people to hold back and show some unity while its this early in the game.

I have to admit, the term "Obamney Care" was pretty clever.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BobG

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
110
80
i thought Bachmann was terrible. she can speak in complete sentences, but the depth of her argument about Libya was that Obama was ceding authority to the French. that was an appeal to the lowest common denominator, and i can no longer see her as anything but a knuckle-dragger. the reality is that it isn't really our war to fight, nor our national interests, but europe's. the fact we only played a supportive role instead of doing it all for them is a good thing.
Well, your criticisms of her have to more to do with substance than presentation. She may be appealing to the lowest common denominator, but I already knew that before the debate.

The worrying thing is that she did it very well. I consider her a much more serious threat than I did before the debate. Before the debate, I considered her to be a loon on the fringe, more a circus act than a serious candidate. After the debate, I think you're looking at the best chance Tea Party/social conservative candidate and that she'll go into Iowa, a state she's lived in, with a good chance to push right into the mix for the Republican nomination.

I can see her now, celebrating an Iowa win with all 23 of her foster kids on the stage with her.
 
107
0
Well, your criticisms of her have to more to do with substance than presentation. She may be appealing to the lowest common denominator, but I already knew that before the debate.

The worrying thing is that she did it very well. I consider her a much more serious threat than I did before the debate. Before the debate, I considered her to be a loon on the fringe, more a circus act than a serious candidate. After the debate, I think you're looking at the best chance Tea Party/social conservative candidate and that she'll go into Iowa, a state she's lived in, with a good chance to push right into the mix for the Republican nomination.

I can see her now, celebrating an Iowa win with all 23 of her foster kids on the stage with her.
By "lowest common denominator" are either of you referencing the average American tax payer?
 
Of course not - but do you think the French (or any other NATO member) cares how much this costs the US?
actually, was reading something recently where this war was really driving home just how unprepared, and unable, some of these countries are to fight a war. because they simply don't have the equipment to do it anymore. that makes me very happy that we were dragging our feet in the beginning. europe will either have to fund development of their own war machine, or depend on us for even small regional wars. i wonder if business taxes would continue to be so low there?

Yes, I did. Actually, I was surprised it took so long for someone to comment on it.

What Gingrich said, along with the discussion that led up to his comments to provide some context. It may not have been totally clear what Gingrich meant by "we did this in dealing with the Nazis and we did this in dealing with the communists", but Joe McCarthy's Red Scare and loyalty oaths were the first thing that popped into my mind from Gingrich's comments.

(And this was one of Romney's better moments, as he resisted the chance to pander to the Muslim fearing fringe elements.)
fringe is a good point. this is nothing at all like the Nazis or Communists, is it? compared to them, the muslim lunatic fringe is a mere nuisance.
 
107
0
fringe is a good point. this is nothing at all like the Nazis or Communists, is it? compared to them, the muslim lunatic fringe is a mere nuisance.
When Iran creates an inventory of nuclear warheads - won't they be more powerful than Nazi Germany?
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
When Iran creates an inventory of nuclear warheads - won't they be more powerful than Nazi Germany?
Perhaps in terms of destructive capacity but not in terms of destructive capabilities. Unlike Hitler, Iran's leadership knows we could turn their country into a glass parking lot in an hour. Even in a worst case for us, MAD still applies. We didn't have this to counter threats before WWII.
 

Office_Shredder

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,734
99
When Iran creates an inventory of nuclear warheads - won't they be more powerful than Nazi Germany?
Germany had a puncher's chance of taking over the whole world... do you really think Iran will be able to do that? Power has to be considered relative, not absolute
 
12
9
Not that I'm a Republican or anything but I think Romney got it right on that, it isn't about the particular form of superstitious nonsense they chose it is the way of thinking that counts. Backwardness like Sharia has no place in America.
 
107
0
Perhaps in terms of destructive capacity but not in terms of destructive capabilities. Unlike Hitler, Iran's leadership knows we could turn their country into a glass parking lot in an hour. Even in a worst case for us, MAD still applies. We didn't have this to counter threats before WWII.
How many Muslims would be enraged world wide if Iran was turned into a "glass parking lot in an hour"?
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
How many Muslims would be enraged world wide if Iran was turned into a "glass parking lot in an hour"?
If we are ever forced to engage in a nuclear war, do you really think we will care? When push comes to shove, we are still the biggest kid on the block. Our power is only artificially limited in conventional warfare.
 
107
0
If we are ever forced to engage in a nuclear war, do you really think we will care? When push comes to shove, we are still the biggest kid on the block. Our power is only artificially limited in conventional warfare.
That is a great question Ivan. I think it depends upon the circumstances leading to an engagement. IMO - there are three scenarios whereby we might engage Iran.
1.) They launch an attack directly unto our personnel or a ship.
2.) They launch an attack on Israel.
3.) They take credit for (or can be linked without question to) a nuclear terrorist attack in the US.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
I don't know what would push us over the edge but I would expect that we would only use nukes as a response to a nuclear attack, or perhaps to a biological or chemical attack of sufficient consequence.

However, if that line is ever crossed, I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of US retribution. Once the lid comes off I think it will be all but impossible to contain the situation. We in the US have all lived with the threat of mutually assured destruction with the Soviets, and more recently with the Chinese, for decades. The minor threat posed from places like Iran are nothing new and pale in comparison to the reality we accepted long ago.

What concerns me the most is that radical muslims understand this. In the end, we are fatalists and incredibly powerful - our policy of MAD shows this. I think many young people abroad fail to understand just how much power we really have; and that we are willing to use it if we must.
 

Ryumast3r

One thing that Yamamoto knew very well, and I think many other people around the world could learn, is that the U.S. is filled with in-fighting, and makes us appear rather weak, however, if you are on the outside looking in, and you piss us (as a country) off enough, we will set aside everything we have and care for to make sure that you have nothing left.

Our policies throughout history, most recently being M.A.D. definitely shows this. The United States has more than enough nuclear weaponry to deal with any one, and a significant amount of our warheads aren't even in our mainland (we have a ton of submarines and other things around the world). We've used them before, and I doubt there's much stopping us from using it again, with the exception of our own internal feelings on the issue.
 

BobG

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
110
80
Not that I'm a Republican or anything but I think Romney got it right on that, it isn't about the particular form of superstitious nonsense they chose it is the way of thinking that counts. Backwardness like Sharia has no place in America.
What Romney said:

ROMNEY: Well, first of all, of course, we're not going to have Sharia law applied in U.S. courts. That's never going to happen. We have a Constitution and we follow the law.
I guess there's more than one way to interpret what he said (which is typical Romney), but I think the point of his comment was that Sharia law was a silly issue to get spun up about because it wasn't a realistic possibility. I don't think he was boasting that he wasn't going to let Sharia law happen in the US.

And Romney is right. You can ask the social conservatives that want to insert Christian law into the courts. (Wait, I don't think Romney wants his comment interpreted that way.)
 
That is a great question Ivan. I think it depends upon the circumstances leading to an engagement. IMO - there are three scenarios whereby we might engage Iran.
1.) They launch an attack directly unto our personnel or a ship.
2.) They launch an attack on Israel.
3.) They take credit for (or can be linked without question to) a nuclear terrorist attack in the US.
4.) we claim they are harboring terrorists, or financing or supplying terrorists.
 

Al68

This comment from Pawlenty about had me throwing rocks at the tv.
Well, the protections between the separation of church and state were designed to protect people of faith from government, not government from people of faith.
Why? The first amendment's wording specifically protects religious freedom from government infringement, not the other way around. The other way around doesn't even make any sense in the context of the constitution.

So little sense that I'm at a loss to understand how Pawlenty's comment could even be controversial. What am I missing?
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Thank God I have the Constitution to protect me from people like Pawlenty.
And Romney is right. You can ask the social conservatives that want to insert Christian law into the courts.
Yes, this Sharia law business is much ado about nothing. It is only a question of ratings, not law.
 

Related Threads for: Republican Debate

  • Posted
2 3 4
Replies
89
Views
9K
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • Posted
6 7 8
Replies
176
Views
23K
  • Posted
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • Posted
Replies
24
Views
3K
Replies
35
Views
4K
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • Posted
2
Replies
30
Views
4K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top