Clearly, Mitt Romney Won the Republican Debate in Florida
…with Huckabee coming in a very close second; and the fact of the matter is that most all of the Republican candidates (except Ron) would be a far better President than any of the Democratic nominees; and I am not a Republican either.
Why Mitt? Well, number one…he admitted he was wrong with the abortion issue. Not too many politicians have the courage to admit that they are wrong on national television. Many have called Mitt a flip flopper but I have to disagree. A flip flopper to me is someone who goes back and forth about the issues. As Mitt said…”He changed his mind”; and many of us do as we get older and wiser. It wasn’t too long ago I considered myself a Democrat and agreed with abortion. Read the full transcripts of the debate here.
…and on the topic of:
– Illegal Immigration, he won.
– Taxes – he won.
– Crime in inner cities, he won.
– Abortion, he won.
– Death Penalty, he won.
– Religion, he won.
– Foreign Policy, he won.
– Torture, he won.
– Power of the Vice President, he won.
Key takeaways from the debate:
The Good
- Hucakabee’s comment about Hillary being on the first rocket to mars; classic!
- Mitt finally took the gloves off and showed that he can stand toe to toe with tough talking New Yorkers.
- Huckabee impressed me with his debating style and sense of conviction for what he believes in; and even though I didn’t necessarily agree with his view on immigration – he is slowly growing on me.
- Loved McCain’s comment about taking out the “old veto pen that Ronald Reagan gave me, and I’d veto every single pork barrel bill that comes across my death. I’d make the authors famous.” But don’t all politicians say this?
- Totally impressed with Hucakabee’s answer about Jesus and abortion.
- Kudos to Giuliani for his comment about being on the “offensive” against Islam Fundamentalists; and his comment about Democrats putting their head in the sand and being afraid to offend the fundamentalists.
The Bad
- Is anyone else sick of Giuliani constantly reminding us that he reduced crime in New York?
- I wasn’t too impressed with Fred Thompson; even though I was pulling for him a while back. He is much better on Law & Order than he is on stage and in person.
- Giuliani totally dodged the abortion question; although he does agree with parental consent before minors can have an abortion – so good for him.
The Heinous
- Rudy made a fool of himself when he tried to attack Mitt with the “sanctuary mansion” comments.
- Ron Paul sounded a lot like Kucinich with his conspiracies
- Ron Paul doesn’t know the difference between the Kurds and Shiite Muslims and he is an idiot!
Overall, I was pleased with the debates. One thing I did notice was the CNN definitely chose some questions (I think) in an effort to make Republicans look bad, but what else is new.
So, who cares what I think! What do you think? And, please try and refrain from name calling — and tell us why you agree/disagree!
Technorati Tags: youtube debates, CNN/Youtube debates, republican debate in florida, mitt romney, fred thompson, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo
Share this post
Oh hell no. RON PAUL for PRESIDENT!!!
I think all of your non-Ron Paul friends either don't exist or don't read. You call this journalism? I would destroy you in a face-to-face debate you idiot. There's not much use arguing with a kool-aid drinker because you guys are the type to look the other way at overwhelming evidence, but what the hell are you talking about, "Ron Paul sounded a lot like Kucinich with his conspiracies." Are you retarded? The question was posed in a way that no matter what he answered, even if he didn't answer, he would look like a crazy conspiracy theorist. He was asked about the REAL plans for a North American Union. You know, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America? Building a North American Community, as they say (www.spp.gov)? This is real, admitted, and documented. As for another "conspiracy" topic, I don't think it was mentioned last night, but RP isn't afraid to talk about it: The New World Order, why did George Bush Sr. talk about it repeatedly in his speeches? What did he mean? Seriously, I would like an answer to that.
"Ron Paul doesn’t know the difference between the Kurds and Shiite Muslims and he is an idiot!" The debate response gave absolutely no indication that Ron Paul doesn't understand the difference, and it's preposterous to assume so. You should know, that it was actually GW Bush who didn't know the difference up until 2 months before the 2003 invasion. This was admitted. We all also know that it was the chairman of a US congressional intelligence committee, Rep. Silvestre Reyes who, in 2006, did not know the difference. Ron Paul wins every debate despite whatever attacks and attempts at character assassination the mainstream media outlet tries. Whoever actually buys into their bias and disinformation is either naive, or willfully ignorant. Which on are you? Hear no evil, see no evil? I'm just another conspiracy loon, though, right? Whatever you have to tell yourself.
"I think all of your non-Ron Paul friends either don't exist or don't read. You call this journalism?"
You are right schmuck, this ISN'T journalism. It's my fuckin opinion! And, if you don’t like it, don’t come back! Or how about this Rizzlemizzle….how about we all think/act/vote/talk/shit/bitch/complain exactly like you! Would you like that Mizzle? That way Ron Paul can get elected and out beautiful country will fall, just like Rome did.
I welcome the opportunity to debate you anytime/anywhere – idiot!
oh, and the Ron Paul supporters are not my friends. It's all one person posting with different names (same IP address). It's probably you!
OK, I'm the only RP supporter, but on your bulletin you mentioned: "Chime in now people, before the Ron Paul supporters bombard the blog." ?? That didn't make much sense then, for you anyway.
You started with the name calling. ("Ron Paul is an idiot.")
You didn't address one single thing that I mentioned except the hostility of it. Kind of pisses you off to get called names, huh? Makes you come back with some hostility, eh?
All empires fall because of economics, not conquest. They stretch themselves too thin and they can't maintain their empires. Empires fall due to collapse of their financial system, this is an absolute, non-debatable fact.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
-Abraham Lincoln
oh yes, becasue everytime I post something...several of his followers bombard this blog like here:
http://www.urbanconservative.com/2007/11/28/you-decide-who-won-the-cnnyoutube-republican-debate-in-florida
No, I didn't address your points because you pissed me off. I didn't call you names...I called Ron Paul an idiot; and if you aren't him, why does it offend you?
Oh yes, New World Order....the Illuminati. If this is all true, we are all doomed anyway; so who cares who wins the Presidency.
I believe you did a very thoughtful review of the debate and I concur with your opinions. I like Mitt a lot.
For the benefit of your troll, I began to get uncomfortable when Ron Paul had his senior moment trying to remember that Al Sader was a Shiite and the Kurds were in the North. By the way the Kurds have built a nice shopping mall complete with escalators and stores that sell high heel shoes for ladies. It is not all dust and ruins up there.
I think your troll is pretty typical of the juvenile bunch that infect the web. Most of them do have multiple identities, online.
At least this one doesn't abuse the Caps Lock key like some of the others.
Mitt Romney is the best qualified and most intelligent man running for President in a very long time. This guy is simply amazing. If he were and other Christian denomination other the LDS, he would e winning the polls by leaps and bounds. After last night debate, I've now heard McCain won, Giuliani won, Thompson won, Huckabee won, and of course Romney won. It exasperating to read this stuff. Like you, it seems like he was right on on every single issue. It's a shame that the evangelicals are so bigoted. For anyone to act as if Huckabee is a smart, qualified, or as honest as Mitt Romney is simply asynine. Sure, he's a former Baptist minister, but sorry, that doesn't buy anything for me. I look at the record. This man was brought up on ethics charges 14 times as Governor and convicted of 5 of them. Since when is it ok to steal 70K bucks worth of furniture. Since when is it ok to destroy all disc drives on all government computers as you leave??? GRRRRR This guy wreaks of corruption almost as much as that weasel Giuliani.
Actually the winner was Huckabee. I am an Independant. As an Independant, I see with both eyes and hear with both ears. Mitt was confused many times during the debate. If I had to vote for one of the people on the stage - Huckabee EARNED my vote. Rudy and Mitt were childishly fighting on stage.
In world affairs, one needs a calm person who can formulate their thoughts in a rational way. Huckabee never had to shout or play dirty politics. He made his point without insulting anyone.
If you still think that Mitt won... I have a bridge in New York City that I can buy from me.
E Gomez,
The only reason it appeared to you that Huckabee won was because he avoided giving substantive policy answers to most of the questions. His witty one liners were funny, but I'm not voting for a comedian.
Romney's policy is not only agreeable, but he couldn't have performed any better under the circumstances, i.e., all candidates' attacks were on him, Cooper was toughest on him, and the selected video questions aimed squarely at him.
Most of the comments here sound as though there was a huge difference in what was said by each of the candidates. With the exception of RP's Iraq "solution", everyone sounded pretty much the same.
However, there were distinct differences in delivery. Huckabee wins the "aww, shucks" vote, Mitt takes "presedential appearance/presence", Guliani & Mcain tie for "hey, look! I'm passionate about what I'm saying."
The rest might as well cut their losses - the fat lady has sung for them.
Mitt Romney subsided my hatred a little of him after this debate. But I'm still suspicous. I'm prolife first, libertarian second. I think war is bad, taxes suck, and the government needs to stay out of our lives.
If Mitt said he'd support abolishing roe v wade and replacing it with a constitutuional ban on abortion. That'd be great, and if he combined that with leaving states to decide the punishment for women/doctors involved in illegal abortions. Well.. then I guess he wouldn't be acting very republican lol! He'd be acting libertarian. (Wish the libertarian party would learn this)
But I think a republican would sastisfy me just fine, even if they just put more legal and financial restrictions on abortions.
You idiot! Just kidding, I'm not really calling you names. Romney is a giant ball of mormon puss. Just kidding.
How dare you list him above Huckabee? At least Huckabee believes in a real religion! Romney doesn't even believe in the BIBLE, and then he lies about it!
Last night Mitt looked like a confused and out of place little Hitler. Mitts solution is to punish all Americans for what a few do. He was doomed by his hiring of illegals claiming he didn't hire them,but he then says death to the employers that do hire illegals. Mitt exposed the Mormons and set them back years to where they belong.
I don't see it that way at all. Romney couldn't answer a straight on question. The abortion issue is clearly a flip flop. He was for it when he wanted to be governor, now he's against it because he wants the Republican nomination. Same for gays in the military. No real stance, just whatever he thinks he has to say. BTW: what exactly does the president do for "Family values" as part of his job anyway? Something to "say" in order to get votes only. Torture? He didn't even answer a direct question. That same old played out BS quip about not divulging "enhanced interrogation techinques" (i.e. torture) because we don't want to disclose that we waterboard! Don't you see the absurdity in the statement. We are discussing it in the debate. It's not much of a disclosure, is it? So why not just answer yes or no. I find it disturbing that the so-called Christian, religious right has no moral objections to torture. As long as the candidates of either party just say what they think we want to hear, and not really take a stance on anything, I find it difficult to believe they are going to win the national election. Being a Republican this time around (after the debacle of the W. era) is going to make it harder to be credible. Nominating the least credible (Romney) is unwise.
Noelle,
Being President is not an easy job. Getting angered at simple questioning is akin to someone making fun of your mother and you trying to beat them up. You fall into the trap all the time. Mitt and Rudy both showed the capability and ability to fall into such traps. A good President cannot allow themselves to ge into that position. As a world leader, they must be an adult. Everytime that Huckabee spoke - he sounded and acted like a good parent. The other acted like children.
Do you really want another G.W. Bush?
Gomez, you completely missed my point.
Being passionate and spirited is a necessity--in any role--and does not make one childish. I'm not sure which debate you were watching. I'd be extremely concerned to watch a stoic candidate incapable of emoting. Romney is the front runner for very specific reasons, one of which is his ability to communicate. If you've watched ALL the debates, and did other research, it would not be possible for you to disagree. During this debate, he was fielding questions from all types of angles, so it was challenging to be as articulate and deliberate as he normally is.
Huckabee got great one-liners in, but got mostly softball questions and got a pass for his one-liners. I'd really like to know the answer: Would Jesus support the death penalty and abortion? The point is that we still don't know Huckabee's response, but yet no one accuses him of evading the questions.
And I don't see any relationship of what we discussed to a potential desire for another GW.
Noelle,
Yes, I've seen most of the debates - both Republican and Democratic. Mitt, as many good Governors are, is a good compromiser. He has to be. In the same way that a President has to be. Huckabee was also a Governor. Rudy had to do the same on New York City. I have seen Mitt at work in the other debates. Do I think he is better than Rudy or Huckabee - of course I do.
But in THIS debate he did not impress me. Outside of the debate area (on the internet and in the news) I have seen him slammed by others in many ways. His religion and his sometimes liberal ways (Governors have to work both sides of the isle to get things done) are stickng issues to many people. It is not to me.
Debating is not a forte for many people. Look at Obama - he is lousy in that area. It is unfortunately the only way most people can see a candidate in action. In this case he wasn't that great. If you can, look at his body language and facial features. His confidence was shot as soon as Rudy attacked him early in the debate. Rudy has studied Mitt. He knew which buttons to push. As the 'front runner' he should get tougher questions. He did not prepare. So I do not see it as unfair for him to get these questions.
As for one-liners, Reagan was the champ of one-liners. I believe it was a way of tension release when he was under stress.
No, Huckabee got this one. Maybe the next will go to Mitt. It was a stupid format. I wish there could have been more questions asked.
Gomez,
Let's review to make sure we're on the same page. You initially stated that Huckabee won the debate and EARNED your vote. I never insisted that Romney won the debate, just that he could not have performed better under the circumstances (in fact, I believe it was here that I posted my opinion that Romney dominated just the first half). I also stated that the reason it may appear to some that Huckabee won was because he had great one-liners and that he was evading the questions, and ultimately got a pass on them. Because you stated that Huckabee likely EARNED your vote (in contrasting his debate style versus Romney's), I naturally assumed you felt he's a better speaker/debater than Romney overall, and challenged you on that point. Now you say "Do I think [Romney] is better than Rudy or Huckabee - of course I do."
I'm really confused--what exactly are you saying?
I, too, am an independent.
He is slammed by the media because they know he will wipe the floor with Hillary when he goes toe-to-toe with her AND he is even good enough to get democratic support, hailing from MA. He basically bamboozled MA liberals into voting for him and then governed as a Republican. (Now before you cite this as dishonesty, consider for a minute that perhaps the man simply knew how to pick his battles.) On the internet, for every Romney diss you produce, I can produce twice the support.
The media gives Huckabee glowing reviews because he has just recently registered enough popularity to warrant a "strip search", the phase where they tear you down.
For you to suggest Romney did not prepare for this or any other event points squarely to your lack of knowledge on him. This man, by all accounts, possesses intense intellectual curiosity and his mind never stops working. Rudy did NOT know which buttons to push; if he did, the last laugh would not have been on him. Rudy's attack came off as a desperate attempt by all accounts, and voters booed him as a result.
Huckabee's 15 minutes will last for about two more weeks, at which point he will fade into oblivion.
Romney will take the GOP nomination. He is the only candidate with the qualifications, the smarts, the plan, the organization, AND the cash to make it happen. Watch it happen.
The CNN debate that got some questions from Youtube is an interesting topic. The definition of debate is being expanded. It now also means, "getting a few people together who share a zero sum goal and have people who hate them embarrass them and verbally abuse them while everyone there foolishly pretends they are engaged in a serious and honest enterprise." CNN says it is a news organization but seems more interested in presenting entertainment and working out their hate for Republicans. The fact is that these candidates continue to regularly place themselves in a no win situation that makes them look like fools. It seems they will sell their self-respect for a little air time. I have come to question the values and judgment of every one of them. And if the Republican party had much judgment or self-respect none of them would tune in to CNN and thereby reward CNN's dishonest spitefulness. You might say that CNN just never vetted the questioners. And I reply that an actual news organization would have vetted the questioners. An actual news organization would not have even thought about it: they would have just done it.
Noelle,
Let's get it clear, when the gates first opened up on the campaign trail, I sized candidates up, without really knowing why. I rated Mitt on top with no particular number 2. I started hearing and reading and historically seeking info on all the candidates. As I did this, Huckabee surfaced as number 2 (this had nothing to do with religion). I saw the distance narrow between Huckabee and Mitt. And as this debate came up, Huckabee over took him. Yes, from the start Mitt was the better candidate. But if the vote had taken place after the debate, Huckabee would have gotten my vote.
I'm not new to the campaign trail myself. I guess over the years, I have volunteered for some 10 national campaigns. I know how easy it is to get myopic about a candidate. I also, unfortunately know, what a candidate will do and say to get elected. This year, I decided to be just a voter. I keep my options open.
I am waiting on some issues. The question of healthcare has yet to be answered by the candidates. Mitt had a good system in MA, but he now seems to be distancing from it. Or at least doesn't talk about it any more. Why? Is it too Democratic? It is up to Mitt to win back my vote. He certainly has the credentials. It is his to lose and to me, he seems to be doing it. Let's see how he does this Thursday when he explains Mormonism. I be analyzing him on my site...
Gomez, agreed on all points, except...when the gates opened for you was probably not when the gates opened up for the nation. No one knew who Romney was at the beginning, and I can remember his numbers being similar to Tancredo, Hunter, and Jim Gilmore. Who was Jim Gilmore? Exactly my point. Whereas others have dropped out, Romney rocketed to the top of the food chain. He's now gone through the strip search phase, and is at the home stretch. Don't forget, by overwhelming consensus, Romney won most of the first debates.
Romney had the most astute plan to focus on the early states first. If he takes Iowa and New Hampshire, the nomination will be his, as no GOP candidate who won Iowa and New Hampshire went on to lose the party nomination in modern times. Anything can happen, but he'll have history on his side.
Romney is a terrific speaker AND strong on policy. I've yet to hear anything substantive about Huck's policies. The people of Iowa may vote for Huck because they connect emotionally, but if they do then we don't deserve any better if we are blinded by emotions.
I really feel Romney has so much in store that we have not seen. He will time each event meticulously.
Noelle,
Mitt is taking a big risk this Thursday. Let's see how he does.... South Carolina must be taken in order to win. McCain found that out.
Gomez,
I think it's the right move. I think you believe it's a big risk because you assume the speech will get into Mormonism 101. I think he will use the opportunity to deplore religious bigotry, and remind us of the first amendment. I hope so.
He's an incredible speaker, writes his own material, and according to reports, does not have anyone on his staff with the title of "speechwriter". I'm betting on Mitt.
John McCain's two sons serve this country. As a pilot, McCain's proudly served. He undeniable loves the United States. He respects the rule of law and understands the complexities and dangers facing our world. I, for one, will sleep a lot better at night knowing that President John McCain's steady hand is at the helm.
Let's give him a chance. He's earned it.
And while our country is going bankrupt, from a war that the US entered into illegally, you'll soon be sleeping on the streets if McCain wins the nomination. Remember, he and Liberman have said this is a 100 year war. No one is coming home anytime soon. None of the candidates have a solution except Ron Paul. "Let me see if I get this right. We borow $10 billion from China, then we give it to Musharraf, who is a military dictator, who overthrew an elected government. And then we go to war, we lose all these lives promoting democracy in Iraq. I mean, what's going on here?" Ron Paul quote taken from the Republican Presidential debate in SC, Jan. 10, 2008
_____________________________________________________________
I have also acted to protect the lives of Americans by my adherence to the doctrine of "just war." This doctrine, as articulated by Augustine, suggested that war must only be waged as a last resort--- for a discernible moral and public good, with the right intentions, vetted through established legal authorities (a constitutionally required declaration of the Congress), and with a likely probability of success.
It has been and remains my firm belief that the current United Nations-mandated, no-win police action in Iraq fails to meet the high moral threshold required to wage just war. That is why I have offered moral and practical opposition to the invasion, occupation and social engineering police exercise now underway in Iraq. It is my belief, borne out by five years of abject failure and tens of thousands of lost lives, that the Iraq operation has been a dangerous diversion from the rightful and appropriate focus of our efforts to bring to justice to the jihadists that have attacked us and seek still to undermine our nation, our values, and our way of life.
I opposed giving the president power to wage unlimited and unchecked aggression, However, I did vote to support the use of force in Afghanistan. I also authored H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage aggression against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation.
On September 17, 2001, I stated on the house floor that "…striking out at six or eight or even ten different countries could well expand this war of which we wanted no part. Without defining the enemy there is no way to know our precise goal or to know when the war is over. Inadvertently more casual acceptance of civilian deaths as part of this war I'm certain will prolong the agony and increase the chances of even more American casualties. We must guard against this if at all possible." I'm sorry to say that history has proven this to be true.
I am running for president to restore the rule of law and to stand up for our divinely inspired Constitution. I have never voted for legislation that is not specifically authorized by the Constitution. As president, I will never sign a piece of legislation, nor use the power of the executive, in a manner inconsistent with the limitations that the founders envisioned.
Many have given up on America as an exemplar for the world, as a model of freedom, self-government, and self-control. I have not. There is hope for America. I ask you to join me, and to be a part of it.
Sincerely,
Ron Paul
Back to the main Articles page
Home l Update l Media l Endorse l Articles l Forums l Links l Legal l Contact Us
Copyright © 2007 ChristiansforRonPaul.com