A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

ican711nm wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Republican Primary elections permit write-in votes.

So who do we write in and how do we convince everybody to write in the same name?

Write in your own name as a protest against all the official Republican candidates, if you do not have a particular preference among them. That would be equivalent to voting NONE OF THE ABOVE.

But! Be sure and vote for House and Senate Republican [primary] candidates.

On the otherhand, if you know someone you think would be better than any of the current Republican candidates, please name her or him.

And then we won't be any better off than we were when had a field of 12 to pick from.

Unfortunately us conservatives are so much independent thinkers, it appears we have a tough time falling into step behind any leader. I do hope we can get our act together before we wind up with two or three more Stevens or Breyers or Ginsburgs on the Supreme Court though. I'm pretty sure I'm not an option though. I haven't slept in a Holiday Inn Express all week.

A debate on Fox News?

It's just an opportunity for them to try and get as many gaffes which can be used against them later in the generals.

'Tell us, what exactly is your plan for losing the war?'

'Detail your position on partial-birth abortion'

'Just how high do you want to raise taxes?'

et cetera

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

A debate on Fox News?

It's just an opportunity for them to try and get as many gaffes which can be used against them later in the generals.

'Tell us, what exactly is your plan for losing the war?'

'Detail your position on partial-birth abortion'

'Just how high do you want to raise taxes?'

et cetera

Cycloptichorn

Well, Hello, cyclops, those are legitimate questions. Are you pretending to stick your head in the sand so that you can ignore these things. Why do you think level headed people are so frustrated out here? We are accused of being extremists, but to this day, not one person on this forum can describe anything that us conservatives are extreme about. It is you guys that need to be exposed for what you are. It has not been the Republicans that have refused to debate anything and everything, but somehow your holier than thou Democrats are somehow above the rest of us.

I am tired of scripted debates to try to make the Democrats look good. They are coddled and fawned over so much, it is hard to watch. Its about time they answer some specific questions, and we get to hear something of substance, beyone the normal argument about change, whatever that means.

Lemme ask you something, and be honest, Okie: would you throw your opponent ammo in a firefight?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Lemme ask you something, and be honest, Okie: would you throw your opponent ammo in a firefight?

I'm certainly not Okie, but this is a debate I'd really like to see.

It would be a great opportunity to see who can really think on their feet, who can hang on to their game face. A much better test than their previous set of pop debates.

I dunno, Obama's good at the "quick on his feet" stuff. He's been very, very careful about directing it at Hillary, but he's good with a comeback (think about his immediate responses re: Romney and Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama at the last debate) and it might help him if he could direct a scathing remark at a moderator instead of getting called "mean" et al for directing it at Hillary.

What I'm saying is that I think he might actually be able to do better in this kind of debate than he usually does -- if he's able to have some sort of an adversary that doesn't cost him points if zinged. (As in, while he'll be debating Hillary, the Fox moderator(s) might serve as an adversary.)

But I take your point about gaffes. Or not even gaffes per se but compelling an answer that is politically ouchie. I'm not sure if I see Obama hurt more by that though.

Anyway, not sure what I think of the idea (having a debate on Fox), just musing.

Lemme ask you something, and be honest, Okie: would you throw your opponent ammo in a firefight?

Get real

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Lemme ask you something, and be honest, Okie: would you throw your opponent ammo in a firefight?

Get real

Cycloptichorn

You get real. This is not a firefight, it is a presidential election, and legitimate and tough questions are essential, unless you don't believe in free speech. Republicans are subjected to tough rhetorical questions, daily, they are tough enough to take it, so why coddle the Democrats? Are they some kind of protected species or what? After all, this is not supposed to be state sanctioned press, or party sanctioned press, I thought we had a free press, but I am beginning to wonder if the Democrats believe in one.

A debate on Fox News?

It's just an opportunity for them to try and get as many gaffes which can be used against them later in the generals.

'Tell us, what exactly is your plan for losing the war?'

'Detail your position on partial-birth abortion'

'Just how high do you want to raise taxes?'

et cetera

Cycloptichorn

On the subject of raising taxes, it's funny how the republicans are trying to scare the populace by repeating that old refrain that liberals will raise taxes and provide more for Americans - who happens to be the taxpayers vs the republicans who cut taxes and increase the federal deficit to be paid by our children and grandchildren. Bush prefers to fund the wars in Iraq and Afganistan over benefiting America and Americans with our children's schools, maintenance of our roads and bridges, and providing heatlh care for Americans. What's wrong with this picture?

Interesting argument about a McCain/Huckabee ticket, but I just can't see McCain doing it - a bridge too far. Fred Thompson is far more likely.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Lemme ask you something, and be honest, Okie: would you throw your opponent ammo in a firefight?

I'm certainly not Okie, but this is a debate I'd really like to see.

It would be a great opportunity to see who can really think on their feet, who can hang on to their game face. A much better test than their previous set of pop debates.