Who do you feel won Thursday night’s Republican Presidential candidate debate and why?
Montgomery County Ohio GOP Blog
A place for discussion, debate and input concerning party events and happenings.
-
Recent Comments
Zug on Worst Next President THEBIGDAWG on Worst Next President J Todd on Worst Next President JR on Worst Next President Mick on Worst Next President
May 4, 2007 at 5:39 pm
I am still praying that Senator Thompson will declare his candidacy for President of the United States; however, I was pleased with Govenor Mitt Romney’s answers and preformance. I wish he would take a tougher stand on illegal immigration; as well as defend President Bush’s war on terrorism more strongly. I was very impressed with Mitt Romney’s response to separation of church and state in regards to his own faith and religious practices. “I do not listen to the Catholic Bishops”! I do think Senator McCain did a good job; however, I feel he has compromised with the Democrats too much and does not realize the consequences on illegal immigration. If anything, Mayor Rudy G. lost the debate. He came across as being weak and I do not like his stand on abortion, homosexual marriages, or his ethics. I cannot help but remember he has been married three or four times. In conclusion, I wish the Republicans would become more forceful on the war on terrorism, which includes the War in Iraq, and stop running from President Bush. Yes, President Bush has not been forceful on illegal immigration, and I realize the National Dept has increased. On the other hand, President Bush has had to deal with more National Disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina, 9-11, a military that had been decreased in every way, and World Disasters than any other President since Lincoln. Yet, President Bush needs to be more forceful and quit allowing the Democrats to “BULLY” him. So, where is our Law and Order Senator Thompson?
May 4, 2007 at 6:33 pm
There really was a difference between the GOP debate and the Dem debate of last week. The GOP debate had 10 winners on the stage. Each one had their own strengths, and each one showed what is at the heart of America – optimism.
Overall, however, I think the winner was Mitt Romney. He was direct and presidential. He showed he would not back down. And, he made his name more known. I really liked his answer to the question “what do you dislike most about America” (which must have come from a dem). His response that he could not find anything wrong with America, that it is the greatest country on the face of the earth reminded me of President Reagon.
I am uncertain if I will finally end up voting for Romeny (I am excited about Fred Thompson joining the race). But if the primary were this coming week and I had to make a decision based on MSNBC’s GOP debate, I would vote for Romney.
May 4, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Mit Romney looked very good. After Chris Mattehw got through trying to assasinate our front runners and ignoring Guiliani, Guliani looked good. McCain looked better. I think that most of them did quite well with very limited time to address VERY complex issues and in spite of the format.
May 4, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Mitt Romney. Because he presented himself and spoke “Presidentially”. He spoke clearly, convincingly and with ease and compassion for the American people, much like Pres. Ronald Reagan. I’m not sure I would vote for him if former Senator Fred Thompson was included in the debate as a declared candidate.
May 4, 2007 at 9:41 pm
There were three winners in my book. First and foremost was Ron Paul. But, of course, since the principles he espoused were merely Constitutional he hasn’t a pig’s chance at the slaughterhouse of coming out of the debates as a viable candidate. He is beyond a doubt one of the very few in all of Washington, D.C. who understands our Constitution and the Founders’ intents.
The other two winners, in my book, are Tom Tancredo and Mike Huckabee. Both of whom brought up the FairTax proposal. Because the FairTax issue is the only initiative in D.C. that would truly deliver a great deal of power out of the hands of Congress and back into the hands of those who pay for Government – you and I. In fact, at this point, I would throw my support behind a communist monkey convicted of sodomizing goats if the critter would actively support the FairTax proposal – complete with repeal of the 16th Amendment. I might even swallow really, really hard and hold my nose while voting for a Democrat, if he or she would whole-heartedly support and push for the FairTax!
The winner over all? Tom Tancredo – because of his additional stance on border security.
Shayne
May 5, 2007 at 1:48 am
I’m not sure if I am as ardent in my opinion as Shayne regarding the Fair Tax (voting for communist monkeys or democrats…same thing, right?), but I definitely agree that Tom Tancredo came out further ahead than he was going in for his border security and tax positions. Same for Duncan Hunter. I think maybe more than anybody else, Mike Huckabee gained the most. Giuliani flopped around like a dying goldfish out of water over abortion, and Romney could have said that he disliked liberalism when asked what he disliked about America (it reminded of me of the 2000 New York Senate debate when Hillary said she was for New York in a football game between the Jets and Giants). Brownback reminds me of Al Gore somehow.
What bugs me about this process is that the media kingmakers are successful in pushing front runners like Giuliani and McCain over solid conservates who would dismantle Hillary or Obama on issues like immigration, tax policy, and ethics in general. The solid conservatives like Tancredo and Hunter won’t be given a chance, though. Just not enough money to keep the campaign sustained.
May 5, 2007 at 3:13 pm
I agree that Gov. Romney was good. I am glad he answered in the positive about what he did like about America. I, as most, got irritated with Matthews interrupting a multi-million times about “time” when a candidate was answering.
By the way gentlemen, anything method between the two proposed for taxation is better than the current system. Let’s get it on and not only debate every election cycle with nothing passed in the legislature.
May 7, 2007 at 9:32 pm
I did not see the debate. I read a transcript of the debate over the past weekend. Therefore, some of the “impact” of actually seeing the debate on television may be lost on me.
From what I’ve read of the transcript: I like Romney and Huckabee.
Full disclosure: I’m the self appointed “campaign chairman and committee of one” to draft Fred Thompson into the Republican presidential primary.
The more I read of Fred Thompson (especially his written word or commentary) the less enthusiastic I become for the established and current field of candidates for the GOP presidential nomination.
What I’m told is Fred Thompson’s “stump speech” can be found here:
http://abcradio.com/article.asp?id=402282&SPID=15663
Not too bad, but more specifics will be called for in the future.
In answer to the MC GOP (Robin Lehman’s) question posed above: Who won Thursday’s GOP debate and why? I’d answer, Fred Thompson. Why? Because Fred wasn’t harmed by NOT engaging in the MSNBC sponsored debate. Fred kept his powder dry until a future date. Not all of the candidates can say the same.
May 9, 2007 at 7:21 pm
I didn’t get the chance to see it but I’ve heard that several made some strong stands, especially on illegal immigration.
May 14, 2007 at 1:06 pm
This had to be the most irritating, if not infuriating, excuse for a debate, that has ever been on national TV. Matthews is a hack who is in love with the sound of his own egotistical meanderings. At times he blurred into the SNL-parody of himself played by Darrell Hammond, interrupting candidates with bombastic questions not designed to elicit information but rather to score points in some fantasy contest between the Matthews and the candidates. His goof-ball partners John Harris and Jim VandeHei alternately sat at a computer and read bone-headed questions from on line submissions to politico.com or traipsed across the stage–literally upstaging presidential candidates–to ask questions in several different (confusing) formats and then interjected with follow-up questions that seemed random at best.
May 14, 2007 at 1:19 pm
I agree that Romney looked about the most polished of any of the “1st tier” contenders (Huckabee is entertaining to listen to isn’t he?). Candidates should learn to slow down and use fewer words with greater impact and better delivery — even in the ham-handed format that MSNBC thrust upon them. Here’s to thinning the field.
I do look forward to Thompson’s entry to the race and perhaps also Gingrich’s. Conservatives (especially the Christian set) should remember, however, that it is not a candidate who will “save” the party or the country. It is ideas and actions. And it is voters and activists who must continue to make their voices heard on so many issues. I believe it is for this reason that Republicans must not nominate Rudy Giuliani, no matter how much it looks like he might be the most likely to win — he would destroy a central defining idea of what it means to be Republican: standing unequivocally and unapologetically for the lives of the innocent unborn. The agenda for life is vital to the health of the party. Not only because it is right and just. But also because it animates much of the base and gives much of its reason for tirelessly engaging in battle. It would be the ultimate Pyrrhic victory to nominate a waffling pro-choice wannabe even if he won the general election. It would set the party back decades.