GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
From RCP:
Romney said the May 3 debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library — co-sponsored by The Politico and MSNBC — proves that Republicans “have a lot more courage of our convictions,” because they are willing to take questions from a moderator who earlier in his career worked as an aide to Democratic politicians. Democratic presidential candidates have refused to take part in two debates co-sponsored by Fox News, arguing that the network is slanted toward Republicans.
“Why is it that the Democrats wouldn’t even go on Fox, but we Republicans are happy to sit there and have Chris Matthews of the Carter administration, former chief of staff to (ex-House speaker) Tip O’Neill?” asked Romney, in a Tuesday evening interview here with The Politico. “We’re happy to sit there and have him dish questions to us, but they won’t even go on Fox.”
Democrats have backed out of debates co-sponsored by Fox with the Nevada Democratic Party and the Congressional Black Caucus Political Education and Leadership Institute amid strong pressure from liberal online activists who contended that Fox has a pro-conservative bias.
Yes the Demo’s are wimps, we saw it last night. Actually last night seemed like a game of softball. I wouldn’t blame it on the moderator necessarily, but rather the short amount of time given to answer questions. Makes me glad SC is considering limiting the number of GOP candidates in their debate. I do give Kucinich points for pointing out he lived in the same house he bought long ago for $20,000- a good jab at Edwards.
April 27th, 2007 at 8:31 am
Democrats are being savvy. They can get away with a lot on MSNBC and the other networks that few independents or republicans watch. On FOX independents and republicans would have seen how radical the democratic field is and that would have hurt the party’s chances in November.
April 27th, 2007 at 8:54 am
It actually looked pretty radical to me anyway, but I’m sensitized.
I think this debate shows that folks who expect Romney to make a huge showing in the debate are in for a disappointment. No one can dominate a debate with 10 people. There’s just not enough time.
April 27th, 2007 at 9:18 am
You have got a good point HH, no candidate’s can really run a 10 person debate where people are asked to answer with a raise of hands.
April 27th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Mitt’s starting to show he’s got some real backbone. I’m impressed. The more he stands up and fights, the more he can appeal to people like me. He may never be my first choice, but I won’t hold my nose to vote for him if he can prove to me he’s a leader.
Last night was a black eye for demmy’s in the long run. They came across as weak, except Biden. Obama was out of his league, Edwards looked like he was o Prozac, and Hillary looked like Hillary, in happy mode.
April 27th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Re Kucinich: Houses in Cleveland, where he’s from, probably haven’t even appreciated in value since he bought his home. Cleveland is a textbook example of what happens to a town when tax rates are through the roof and government regulates business to distraction. (I grew up in a suburb outside Cleveland.)
April 27th, 2007 at 9:50 am
I want a Gravel/Kucinich ticket from the demmys!
April 27th, 2007 at 9:56 am
just kidding
April 27th, 2007 at 10:10 am
Speaking of Gravel: “We could think of only one thing while watching his obscene rants: Cho with a suit, a tie, and gray hair. Scarrrrrry.
http://www.political-buzz.com/
April 27th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Tommy #4,
I believe you will find that Romney is a man with considerable backbone. You cannot succeed as he has done without it. It is just that he prefers to lead calmly, cooly with his head, not his fists.
I, myself, prefer the Grant type of leadership shown by Romney, versus the Patton type of leadership shown by Giuliani and McCain. I am not knocking Patton. He accomplished great things. When things required the stick, he was superb — perhaps the best we had in WWII. Unfortunately, when things required the carrot, he failed miserably. Grant could handle both.
A President has to be able to handle both the carrot and the stick.
April 27th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Patton rocks.
April 27th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Grant’s a stud.
April 27th, 2007 at 11:37 am
If McCain’s a Patton and Romney a Grant, is Hillary a Hooker?
April 27th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Obama’s McClellan.
April 27th, 2007 at 11:38 am
BTW, marK, I presume you are drawing the analogy to Grant the General, and not Grant the President?
April 27th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Whoops! Probably should have hyperlinked Hooker, but you knew that.
April 27th, 2007 at 11:46 am
While we are on the subject, take a close look at the Great Seal of the United States. Look closely at what is in the eagle’s talons. His right talon holds an olive branch symbolizing peace. His left holds a bundle of thirteen arrows symbolizing war. In heraldry, the right is always stronger than the left. To emphasize the point, the eagle’s head is turned to the right. Our President needs to be primarily a man of peace, but must be able to effectively handle war when needed.
Of the top men being considered for the GOP nomination, I feel this description best describes Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. I am well aware of the fact that my impressions of Thompson are largely cast by the roles he has played in the movies, but he still projects that aura of a man of peace with a backbone of iron.
April 27th, 2007 at 11:54 am
LOL, fredo. You just made my day with that Hillary pun. Oh man, I am still laughing.
Yes, I was referring to Grant as General as opposed to Grant as President. Though Grant was not really that bad of a President. He did serve two terms at a time when such a thing was very rare. It wasn’t until Teddy Roosevelt that another President was reelected for a 2nd consecutive term. If it weren’t for Grant’s overly trusting nature that got him into trouble, he would have been considered one of the better Presidents we’ve had.
April 27th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Nice one fredo,
Thanks for the laugh..
April 27th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
LOL, fredo!
April 27th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
I shall address the issue as to whether or not Hillary is a Hooker. (Stay with me, Guys.)
Hooker was a conniving General who schemed and maneuvered his way to the top. He surrounded himself with a number of political cronies. He did his best to undercut his brother officers on his way up. He was always quick to Monday-morning-quarterback whenever they failed. (And in the first three years of the war, there was plenty of that.) At one point, he even made it known that he felt that the country needed a dictatorship.
When he was in command in Virginia, his headquarters were described by one as a “bar-room and a brothel” Sound familiar?
When Lincoln gave him command of the Army of the Potomac, he sent Hooker a letter. Here are some excerpts:
That bit about tearing down the commander for his own personal ambition is Hillary — and nearly every other Democrat. As for the dictatorship, Hillary and Bill did much during his tenure to advance corruption in the White House — FBI files, Travel Office, renting out the Lincoln Bedroom, jsut to name a few. Why would anyone want to revisit the Clinton era again?
April 27th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Mark,
This is not meant as a topic for discussion, because it requires quiet thought and research.
But I challange you to take the time to read Mr. Starr’s conclusion regarding the “scandals” of the Clinton white house, and then to go off and research the annals of the most corrupt administration in history (by any objective measure). Then you might seriously consider the question of why anyone would want to look to recreate that Reagan administration.
While you are at it, you could also research the efforts of Republicans to “tear down the commander for [their] own personal ambition”, as it played out throughout the nineties.
April 28th, 2007 at 9:42 am
The Reagan administration was the “most corrupt in history by any objective measure”? You are–I mean this kindly–insane.
April 28th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Henry,
I have said that a number of times…