68
   

The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

 
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 06:30 pm
@realjohnboy,
Everyone agrees Obamacare should be repealed. Romney comes out unscathed for his version in MA. The focus was on Obama.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 06:36 pm
@realjohnboy,
Will hear any details on job creation?
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 06:48 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I am not hearing anything new. There is less mention of Obama then I thought and there is little criticism of one candidate vs another then I expected.
Romney and Perry are laying low. Bachmann is Bachmann and Paul is Paul. Huntsman will go nowhere, but he made a few good points.
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 06:59 pm
@realjohnboy,
Perry repeats that SSAE is a monstrous lie. A Ponzi scheme.
Romney questions that, while acknowledging problems, and seems to believe that reform is still possible.
Paul and Bachmann and Romney attack Perry almost by name on parental rights.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 07:20 pm
@realjohnboy,
If I remember correctly, the audience clapped when one of them mentioned SS had to be terminated, and replaced by personal savings.

That's real funny, because Americans do not save for retirement. Most have less than $100,000 when they retire. I guess they'll end up all republicans - like dead.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 07:31 pm
@realjohnboy,
It's a big field of candidates so there is not a lot of time for anyone to shine...or not. I would say that Perry and Romney come out unscathed while Bachmann is sinking into insignificance.
Romney says we need a president who "loves America."
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 07:45 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

It's a big field of candidates so there is not a lot of time for anyone to shine...or not. I would say that Perry and Romney come out unscathed while Bachmann is sinking into insignificance.
Romney says we need a president who "loves America."

Perry and Romney are the only two that matter, and this is Perry's to lose unless someone else gets into the race.
realjohnboy
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 07:49 pm
@hawkeye10,
Perry defends the 230 executions during his tenure. Applause.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 07:50 pm
@realjohnboy,
Quote:
Romney says we need a president who "loves America."


Oh great! More war crimes coming up!?

US sponsored right wing brutal dictators listen up - start increasing your suck up time with Uncle Sam, maybe put in an order for some military hardware, some WMDs, some chemical weapons that you can use on your citizens.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 08:04 pm
@realjohnboy,
Sensitivity for life? The legal system in Texas must be a perfect one.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  3  
Reply Wed 7 Sep, 2011 09:01 pm
Here is a synopsis of the questions MSNBC asked of the candidates:

To Rick Perry: "Why do you hate old people and isn't Governor Romney a jackass?"

To Michelle Bachmann: "Why don't you just admit you are an idiot because we're going to ask Governor Huntsman and he's probably going to tell us you are...in Chinese!"

To Mitt Romney: "Why do you hate Mexicans and isn't Governor Perry a moron?"

To John Huntsman: "Which one of your fellow candidates is a ignorant Flat-Earther? Is it Governor Perry?"

To Rick Perry: "Who is you favorite scientist?"

To Ron Paul: "Why do you hate the poor? LBJ loved them you know?"

To Rick Perry: "How can you sleep at night knowing your state has executed over 200 innocent people?"

To Newt Gingrich: "How can we ignore you so that you don't point out again what we are up to?"

Kudos to Newt for calling them out. Unfortunately his fellow candidates, with the exception of Michelle Bachmann, just couldn't resist attacking one another.

Why do these candidates (and the Democrat ones as well) buy into the notion that they have to attack one another in vying for their party's nomination? Obviously it makes the Media happy, but it only diminishes them.

I'm not going to vote for any of these people because they aggressively attack the other ones. In fact, the more they do it, the less likely I am to support them.

Grades:

Rick Santorum: B- He didn't make any gaffes, but he didn't make an impressive showing either.

Ron Paul (R - Crazytown, TX): D- I was glad he challenged Williams on his notion that because Paul doesn't want the federal government throwing around money he has no compassion, but his Crabby Old Kook avatar took the stage a couple of time: Once when he prattled on about air-conditioned tents in Iraq and the other when he warned us that a fence on the border is just as likely to keep us all in!

Newt Gingrich: A He did what all of them should have done...talk about issues and refrain from playing the MSNBC/Politico Game.

Michelle Bachmann: B I give her points for not attacking her fellow candidates but I can hardly remember any of her answers.

John Huntsman: C He's trying way too hard and he blathers. The bit about talking to the Chinese in their own language was a riot. I don't think he's a RINO but he's convincing a lot of others that he is.

Herman Caine: B+ No gaffes this time and good answers, except that his choosing clever names for his proposals is getting gimmicky.

Mitt Romney: B+ I think he pretty much stuck with his Front Runner strategy and running against Obama and that it worked pretty well. I would say he was the clear winner as far as the candidates for whom winning or losing actually means something to their chances.

Rick Perry: B- Considering he was the favorite target of the moderators and Ron Paul, I think he actually did pretty well for his first debate. Some of his answers were a bit muddled, but he made no gaffes, and he served himself well by bluntly sticking to his guns on several issues. Also he gets some extra credit for pointing out the Obama either has no clue about what is happening on the Texas borders, or he's a liar. He needs to stop pointing out other candidates with a flick of his thumb though.

Silliest gimmick of the night: Bringing on someone from Telemundo to ask illegal immigrant questions. I guess that's the only issue Hispanics care about.

Most hypocritical moment of the night: The tribute to Ronald and Nancy Reagan by MSNBC


hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2011 01:18 am
Quote:
Going into Rick Perry's first presidential debate the question was whether he would play it safe or shoot from the hip. He did neither. He used both hands and took careful aim. He went after Mitt Romney for his jobs record, Ron Paul for his lack of support for Ronald Reagan, Karl Rove for being over the top, Dick Cheney for defending the bankrupt Social Security system, and President Obama for being everything from a big-government meddler to an "abject liar."

The Republican race has suddenly gotten intense and exciting. Tonight's debate at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, Calif., revealed disagreements—some ideological, some personal—about how to fix health care, the talents required to revive the economy, and the best way to transform Social Security. Throughout, the candidates debated which attributes—candor, restraint, or reason—make the best conservative leader and whether such a leader could get elected in a general election.
Perry kept shooting, sometimes hitting his targets and sometimes missing. For a first debate performance, he did pretty well, but that doesn't count for much. He's the front-runner, which means he was expected to be on top from the very first question. He clearly came prepared not just to offer his smaller-government pitch but also to deliver opposition research about his opponents. Almost immediately, the debate turned into a fracas between Romney and Perry over their jobs records. "Michael Dukakis created jobs three times faster than you did, Mitt," Perry said. His defense of his doubts about global warming and the death penalty in Texas will delight conservatives. (When Brian Williams of NBC mentioned that 234 people had been executed in Texas, the audience applauded—which they did not do when Perry credited Obama with ordering the operation to kill Bin Laden.

http://www.slate.com/id/2303264/

The only losers here are those ignorant yahoos who insist that Perry could not possibly get elected, who for the record for the most part are the same ignorant yahoos who were saying before Perry got in the race that Romney had nothing to worry about with Perry.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2011 05:36 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Here is a synopsis of the questions MSNBC asked of the candidates:

To Rick Perry: "Why do you hate old people and isn't Governor Romney a jackass?"

To Michelle Bachmann: "Why don't you just admit you are an idiot because we're going to ask Governor Huntsman and he's probably going to tell us you are...in Chinese!"

To Mitt Romney: "Why do you hate Mexicans and isn't Governor Perry a moron?"

To John Huntsman: "Which one of your fellow candidates is a ignorant Flat-Earther? Is it Governor Perry?"

To Rick Perry: "Who is you favorite scientist?"

To Ron Paul: "Why do you hate the poor? LBJ loved them you know?"

To Rick Perry: "How can you sleep at night knowing your state has executed over 200 innocent people?"

To Newt Gingrich: "How can we ignore you so that you don't point out again what we are up to?"

Kudos to Newt for calling them out. Unfortunately his fellow candidates, with the exception of Michelle Bachmann, just couldn't resist attacking one another.

Why do these candidates (and the Democrat ones as well) buy into the notion that they have to attack one another in vying for their party's nomination? Obviously it makes the Media happy, but it only diminishes them.

I'm not going to vote for any of these people because they aggressively attack the other ones. In fact, the more they do it, the less likely I am to support them.

Grades:

Rick Santorum: B- He didn't make any gaffes, but he didn't make an impressive showing either.

Ron Paul (R - Crazytown, TX): D- I was glad he challenged Williams on his notion that because Paul doesn't want the federal government throwing around money he has no compassion, but his Crabby Old Kook avatar took the stage a couple of time: Once when he prattled on about air-conditioned tents in Iraq and the other when he warned us that a fence on the border is just as likely to keep us all in!

Newt Gingrich: A He did what all of them should have done...talk about issues and refrain from playing the MSNBC/Politico Game.

Michelle Bachmann: B I give her points for not attacking her fellow candidates but I can hardly remember any of her answers.

John Huntsman: C He's trying way too hard and he blathers. The bit about talking to the Chinese in their own language was a riot. I don't think he's a RINO but he's convincing a lot of others that he is.

Herman Caine: B+ No gaffes this time and good answers, except that his choosing clever names for his proposals is getting gimmicky.

Mitt Romney: B+ I think he pretty much stuck with his Front Runner strategy and running against Obama and that it worked pretty well. I would say he was the clear winner as far as the candidates for whom winning or losing actually means something to their chances.

Rick Perry: B- Considering he was the favorite target of the moderators and Ron Paul, I think he actually did pretty well for his first debate. Some of his answers were a bit muddled, but he made no gaffes, and he served himself well by bluntly sticking to his guns on several issues. Also he gets some extra credit for pointing out the Obama either has no clue about what is happening on the Texas borders, or he's a liar. He needs to stop pointing out other candidates with a flick of his thumb though.

Silliest gimmick of the night: Bringing on someone from Telemundo to ask illegal immigrant questions. I guess that's the only issue Hispanics care about.

Most hypocritical moment of the night: The tribute to Ronald and Nancy Reagan by MSNBC





Laughing That's pretty damn funny and accurate.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2011 06:07 am
WASHINGTON (AP) — When Mitt Romney and Rick Perry thumped their chests over their job-creation records as governor during the Republican presidential debate Wednesday night, they left the bad parts out.

Yes, employment has grown by more than 1 million since Perry took office in Texas. But a lot of those jobs are not well paid.

True, unemployment dropped to 4.7 percent when Romney was Massachusetts governor. But the state's employment growth was among the nation's worst.

A look at some of the claims in the debate, and how they compare with the facts:
___
PERRY: "Ninety-five percent of all the jobs that we've created have been above minimum wage."

THE FACTS: To support the claim, the Perry campaign provided federal statistics for December 2010 showing only 5.3 percent of all jobs in Texas pay the minimum wage.

But those figures represent all workers, not just the new jobs, for which data are unavailable. And that does not account for low-wage jobs that may be barely above the minimum wage. According to the Texas Workforce Commission, 51 percent of all Texas workers make less than $33,000 a year. Only 30 percent make more than $50,000 a year. Nationally, Texas ranked 34th in median household income from 2007 to 2009.

About 9.5 percent of Texas hourly workers, excluding those who are paid salaries, earn the minimum wage or less, tying Mississippi for the highest percentage in the nation.
___
ROMNEY: "At the end of four years, we had our unemployment rate down to 4.7 percent. That's a record I think the president would like to see. As a matter of fact, we created more jobs in Massachusetts than this president has created in the entire country."

THE FACTS: To be sure, 4.7 percent unemployment would be a welcome figure nationally. But Romney started from a much better position than President Barack Obama did. Unemployment was only 5.6 percent when Romney took office in 2003, meaning it came down by less than 1 percentage point when he left office in 2007. Obama inherited a national unemployment rate of 7.8 percent.

___
PERRY: "Michael Dukakis created jobs three times faster than you did, Mitt."

ROMNEY: "Well, as a matter of fact, George Bush and his predecessor created jobs at a faster rate than you did, governor."

PERRY: "That's not correct."

ROMNEY: "Yes, that is correct."

THE FACTS: Romney was correct.

Romney accurately stated that George W. Bush — even without his predecessor — saw jobs grow at a faster rate during his 1994-2000 years as governor than Perry has during his 11 years governing Texas. Employment grew by about 1.32 million during Bush's six years in office. Employment during Perry's years has grown about 1.2 million, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

As for Perry's claim about Romney's record and that of Dukakis, he was at least in the ballpark.

Democratic Gov. Dukakis saw Massachusetts employment grow by 500,000 jobs during his two divided terms, 1975 to 1979, and 1983 to 1991, a rate of more than 41,000 jobs a year.

Romney, governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007, saw employment grow from 3.23 million to 3.29 million, growth of about 60,000 jobs, or a rate of 15,000 a year. That means Dukakis' job growth rate was nearly three times Romney's.
___
MICHELE BACHMANN: "Obamacare is killing jobs. We know that from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, but I know it firsthand from speaking to people. We see it this summer. There are 47 percent of African-American youth that are currently without jobs, 36 percent of Hispanic youth."

THE FACTS: The health care law that Obama pushed and Congress passed last year has long been labeled a job killer by Republicans, who often cite a Congressional Budget Office analysis to buttress their claims. But the CBO at no point said the law would result in job losses. Instead it made the more nuanced assertion that fewer people would chose to work.

"The legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by a small amount — roughly half a percent — primarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply," the CBO said in an analysis. That's not job-killing, that's workers choosing not to work because of easier access to health care. The budget office said some people might decide to retire earlier because it would be easier to get health care, instead of waiting until they become eligible for Medicare at age 65.

The Minnesota congresswoman also states the percentages of unemployment among minority youth. But there is no evidence that the health care law is responsible for that level of unemployment. In fact, the health care law is still largely unimplemented, with some of its key provisions not taking effect until 2014.
___
PERRY: On global warming, "The science is not settled on this. The idea that we would put Americans' economy at jeopardy based on scientific theory that's not settled yet, to me, is just, is nonsense. ... Find out what the science truly is before you start putting the American economy in jeopardy."

THE FACTS: The scientific consensus on climate change is about as settled as any major scientific issue can be. Perry's opinion runs counter to the view of an overwhelming majority of scientists that pollution released from the burning of fossil fuels is heating up the planet. The National Academy of Sciences, in an investigation requested by Congress, concluded last year: "Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused primarily by human activities, and poses significant risks to humans and the environment."
___
BACHMANN: "It's wrong for government, whether it's state or federal government, to impose on parents what they must do to inoculate their children."

THE FACTS: She was correct that Perry supported mandatory immunization of girls to reduce future risks of cervical cancer, although the measure was blocked by Texas lawmakers and parents would have had some ability to file a conscientious objection to the requirement. Perry signed an executive order in 2007 directing his state health department to make the human papillomavirus vaccine available to "mandate the age-appropriate vaccination of all female children" before they enter sixth grade. Texas would have been the first state to require the immunizations.
___
PERRY: "What I find compelling is what we've done in the state of Texas, using our ability to regulate our clean air. We cleaned up our air in the state of Texas, more than any other state in the nation during the decade." He specifically mentioned successes in reducing nitrous oxide emissions by 58 percent and ozone levels by 27 percent.

THE FACTS: Texas has reduced emissions as Perry described, but most of those reductions were required under the federal Clean Air Act. However, the Environmental Protection Agency recently rescinded the state's authority to grant some air pollution permits because the state did not comply with federal regulations. Texas, home to America's oil and gas industry, still emits more carbon dioxide — the chief greenhouse gas — than any other state in the country, according to government data. Several metropolitan areas in Texas still violate health-based limits for smog, and the county that is home to Houston is one of the biggest emitters of hazardous air pollution in the country. The Texas Legislature also passed, and Perry signed, a law that will delay enforcing stiffer clean air regulations by two years.

source
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2011 06:14 am
@revelette,
revelette wrote:

WASHINGTON (AP) — When Mitt Romney and Rick Perry thumped their chests over their job-creation records as governor during the Republican presidential debate Wednesday night, they left the bad parts out


Are you saying they never mentioned Obama?

Are you serious?
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  0  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2011 06:56 am
Doocy Claims Perry Might Have Explained How To "Fix" Social Security If He Had "Gotten Another 30 Seconds"


From the September 8 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

video
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2011 06:59 am
@revelette,
Quick.. someone give Perry 30 seconds.

Oh? He had 2 hours and wasn't able to tell us how to fix it?


Maybe if Perry had 30 seconds with Doocy he could fix stupid.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2011 08:05 am


The token black guy offered the best solutions and he is the only non-career politician.

It's a damn shame that the media is ignoring the black guy and preordaining another old white guy.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2011 08:24 am
Perry showed himself as the true ass he is on stage last night - which probably lead watchers from the GOP to like him even more. But the guy is truly dumb and can't properly structure an answer to a question. He instead simply repeats his 'principles' over and over, instead of providing information about specifics or anything with nuance. Only a fool would think that his answers had any substance at all.

Hard to see Perry carrying Florida by continually calling SS a 'ponzi scheme.'

Cycloptichorn
revelette
 
  0  
Reply Thu 8 Sep, 2011 08:58 am
excerpts from an article in NYT

Quote:
Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, assailed the federal government and President Obama in particular for what he said were overbearing regulations on oil drilling, coal mining and nuclear energy.

“We are an energy-rich nation and we’re living like an energy-poor nation,” he said, asserting that Mr. Obama had halted offshore drilling, blocked construction of new coal plants, slowed development of nuclear plants and failed to develop natural gas trapped in shale formations.

But those claims are largely untrue. While Mr. Obama declared a moratorium on deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico after the BP spill in 2010, the government began granting permits again earlier this year and activity is approaching pre-spill levels. The administration recently announced a major lease sale in the western Gulf of Mexico and gave provisional approval to a Shell project in the Arctic off the coast of Alaska. And while a number of utilities have canceled plans to build new coal plants, that is largely because demand for electricity has slowed, not because of new federal regulations.


Quote:
Some of the sharpest language of the night came when Mr. Perry laid into Social Security, saying, “You cannot keep the status quo in place and call it anything other than a Ponzi scheme.” But that metaphor is misleading. Government projections have Social Security exhausting its reserves by 2037, absent any changes, but show that the payroll tax revenues coming in would cover more than three-quarters of benefits to recipients then.


Quote:
Criticizing Mr. Obama’s health care law, Mrs. Bachmann said the measure was eliminating jobs, citing a study from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. But the claim, which Mrs. Bachmann made in more specific terms at the last Republican debate, overstates the conclusions of the study, which said the law would have a “small” impact on the overall labor force because it might cause some workers to reduce their hours or retire earlier.


Quote:
Representative Ron Paul criticized Mr. Perry for once writing what he described as “a really fancy letter supporting Hillarycare,” referring to the health care legislation that was the top domestic priority of the Clinton administration and Hillary Rodham Clinton when she and Bill Clinton arrived in Washington in 1993.

Mr. Perry did write to Mrs. Clinton, who then led the administration’s task force on overhauling health care, in April 1993. But Mr. Paul’s characterization exaggerates what Mr. Perry said and wrongly implies that Mr. Perry, then the agricultural commissioner of Texas, supported the particulars of a health care proposal that did not emerge in full until months later. In the letter, Mr. Perry wrote: “I think your efforts in trying to reform the nation’s health care system are most commendable.” But his main purpose in writing was to ask Mrs. Clinton and the task force to consider the needs “of the nation’s farmers, ranchers, agriculture workers, and other members of rural communities.”

Such communities, Mr. Perry wrote, “have a high proportion of uninsured people, rising health care costs, and often experience lack of services.” He closed by describing Mrs. Clinton’s efforts as “worthy” and encouraging her to contact him. But Mr. Perry did not recommend or endorse any particular proposal.


source

Interesting Governor Perry supported government health care help in 1993. I am beginning to think all you tea partiers are going crazy over a pig in a poke out of lack of electable alternatives.

Quote:
Currently, Rick Perry seems to be the media darling for the Neo-Cons at Fox News, and he seems to be winning the support of the Tea Party. However, Perry’s political past also contains serious Conservative credibility issues. In 1988, Perry vigorously endorsed Al Gore’s campaign for President. Perry defends this association with the liberal Democrat due to Al Gore’s supposed endorsement of Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative. However, Gore started distancing himself from this defense proposal in 1987, just before announcing his campaign for President. Gore repeated this opposition to the defense plan in interviews from January and April 1988.

Perry’s credibility problems don’t stop with his 1988 endorsement of Al Gore for President. In 1993, while serving as Texas Agriculture Commissioner, Perry wrote a letter to Hillary Clinton supporting her health care plan. He praised her efforts as “commendable”, and lobbied Clinton to ensure farmers in Texas would be covered proposal. Though Perry claims he didn’t know about the details of the Clinton plan, this written expression of gratitude calls into question his sincerity of revoking Obamacare. Another area of inconsistency trapping Perry is his handling of federal stimulus funds while Governor. Even though Perry condemned the passage and legitimacy of this excessive spending legislation, he happily accepted $17 billion of the bill’s money for Texas. If Perry is so opposed to big government stimulus packages, it seems the better fiscal option was to cut wasteful state-level spending, and not to rely on the Federal Government to help balance the budget. If this Presidential candidate has endorsed Universal Health Care, and willingly accepted stimulus money that exponentially increased debt levels in the United States, is Perry truly the Constitutional Conservative the Neo-Cons at Fox News portray him to be? Or, does he simply agree with the big government policies of the Democrats and Obama?


source

 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 06:51:06