Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Republican Debate

  1. Jun 13, 2011 #1


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 14, 2011 #2
    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.
  4. Jun 14, 2011 #3
    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.
  5. Jun 14, 2011 #4
    didn't see a lot of it, but was surprised to see Romney in better form than ever

    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.

    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.

    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.
  6. Jun 14, 2011 #5
    Isn't her point valid in the context of the cost to, and involvement of, the US?
  7. Jun 14, 2011 #6
    no. do you really want to own it and be there for the next decade?
  8. Jun 14, 2011 #7
    Of course not - but do you think the French (or any other NATO member) cares how much this costs the US?
  9. Jun 14, 2011 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.)

    Last edited: Jun 14, 2011
  10. Jun 14, 2011 #9

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This comment from Pawlenty about had me throwing rocks at the tv.

    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: May 5, 2017
  11. Jun 14, 2011 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.
  12. Jun 14, 2011 #11
    By "lowest common denominator" are either of you referencing the average American tax payer?
  13. Jun 14, 2011 #12
    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?

    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.
  14. Jun 16, 2011 #13
    When Iran creates an inventory of nuclear warheads - won't they be more powerful than Nazi Germany?
  15. Jun 16, 2011 #14

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
  16. Jun 16, 2011 #15


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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
  17. Jun 16, 2011 #16
    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.
  18. Jun 16, 2011 #17
    How many Muslims would be enraged world wide if Iran was turned into a "glass parking lot in an hour"?
  19. Jun 16, 2011 #18

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
  20. Jun 16, 2011 #19
    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.
  21. Jun 16, 2011 #20

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Discussions: Republican Debate
  1. The debate (Replies: 10)

  2. Republican or Democrat (Replies: 30)

  3. Vote Republican (Replies: 176)

  4. Republican Crossover (Replies: 10)

  5. Republican Debate SC (Replies: 89)