Tonight's Republican debate.

archer wrote: Were we watching the same debate? What I mostly saw was candidates debating against Obama, not each other. Hardly a fair fight when the candidate you are debating against isn't even in the room. I did hear some good stuff....a little from each candidate, If I could take those good things from each and roll them into one candidate you might have a winner. But everyone of the candidates seemed to shoot themselves in the foot on some single issue...Cain on the muslims in his cabinet, several of them really flubbed the separation of church and state issue......I was amused on the states rights issue....all argued passionately about states rights until gay marriage came up and suddenly they were for the feds telling the states what to do. Ron Paul has the best ideas on foreign policy....just get us the hell out of everywhere.....none of them gave much of an answer on immigration except Romney......kinda funny that no one wanted to touch the question...."if the 5 yr old son of illegal immigrants shows up in the emergency room, should we treat him"?

Michelle Bachman certainly is more media savvy than Sarah Palin and presents herself better, but her role tonight seemed more cheerleader than anything else. She will probably get better at it as time goes by, but her Tea Party allegiance I think will hurt her in the end. She is rabidly to the far right and mainstream America rarely votes for the extremes of either political leaning.

There was a lot more in the debate....but little of it served to distinguish between the candidates. I get it that they hate Obama....but I need more than that to sort them all out.

Really no different than the last election when all the Democrat hopefuls were debating a man who was ineligible to run for the office again. I also think that Obama's election, not to mention Reagan's, FDR's, Clinton's, LBJ's and a host of others, would tend to disprove your sentiments regarding how American's vote for an extreme of either political leaning. If that were true, then McCain would have won easily. He was certainly more centrist and further away from either political extreme than Obama was, or is for that matter. Reagan was hardly a centrist either. No, the voters have shown that they are a lot less concerned with the ideology of someone than they are in punishing the party of the person they are currently angry with. Their punishment of Ford gave us Carter, the punishment of Carter gave us Reagan, the punishment of Bush 41 for his tax hikes gave us Clinton, the punishment of Bush 43 gave us Obama. Voters vote based on emotion, not reason archer. I think our recent history pretty much establishes that.

I disagree PS......most presidents in recent history have had fairly moderate views, the US has a large independent voting block, and if a candidate can't appeal to them they can't get elected in a national election. Even Reagan had some fairly moderate views, and he was no where close to being as far right as the tea party. They don't have to be centrist.....just not rabidly right or left....it's why Kucinich and Paul don't make it through the primaries.....too far one way or the other. I will agree that voters tend to vote on emotion, but that emotion includes not voting for anyone they think is too extreme, unless they themselves are extreme.

And Huntsman announces today, while Perry is waiting in the wings. Looks like if they have another debate, they will need a bigger stage.

In the age of gotcha, maybe they should just have a Republican candidates Jeopardy checking who knows what about US and world history, US and world laws, etc.

GOP New Hampshire Debate
What seven candidates got wrong -- and right -- in a nationally televised debate.
June 14, 2011

Summary
In the first New Hampshire debate among 2012 presidential hopefuls, we found a number of incorrect, misleading or shaky factual claims:
Pawlenty was wrong when he boasted that he was "one of the few governors" to respond to a Bush request to send guardsmen to the southern border. In fact, all 50 states participated in that border operation.

Romney claimed that "we didn't raise taxes in Massachusetts" to pay for his health care law. In fact, his successor imposed a $1-a-pack tax increase on cigarettes to pay for the new law.

Santorum claimed a Medicare advisory board created by the new federal health care law will result in a rationing of care for seniors. The law specifically says the board “shall not include any recommendation to ration health care.”

Santorum was wrong when he said the Obama administration is "against any kind of exploration offshore or in Alaska." The administration has approved 296 new permits for new offshore oil wells since taking office, and it is considering granting the first permits in Alaska since 2004.

Bachmann claimed the Congressional Budget Office "has said that Obamacare will kill 800,000 jobs." That's a distortion. CBO said some Americans would work less or leave their jobs if they can get health insurance outside the workplace.

Pawlenty said that "[if] Brazil can have 5 percent growth, then the United States of America can have 5 percent growth," showing his economic plan is not unreasonable. But the fact is, World Bank figures show Brazil has failed to achieve 5 percent growth for 23 of the past 30 years.

Gingrich again tried to rewrite history by claiming that his words "right-wing social engineering" were "totally taken out of context." In fact, he called Paul Ryan's plan "too big a jump" and "radical" change as well.

So, I guess Mr. Paul, & Mr. Cain are the MOST truthful...

Rep. Ron Paul made this stark claim:
Paul: We haven't developed any new jobs in the last decade. Matter of fact, we've had 30 million new people and no new jobs.
And it's true that on a net basis, the U.S. has fewer jobs now than it did a decade ago. BLS figures for total nonfarm employment (seasonally adjusted) show a loss of 1.1 million as of May, compared to the same month in 2001. Paul was a little off on the population figures, however. According to Census Bureau estimates, the U.S. population is now 26.5 million more than it was in mid-2001.

And I know they said 7 so, I must assume that Mr.Cain was totally truthful.
http://factcheck.org/2011/06/gop-new-hampshire-debate/

Who won the debate?....Barack Obama... :thumbsup:

It let the American public, and especially the MIDDLE of America, see this year's crop of losers.

Let's explain the coming lights on the train....

In about 5 years there will be approximately 50 million Hispanics in America... And they will be one of the largest voting blocs, if not THE largest voting bloc in the country. (Insert standard crap about how many of them are "illegal" here: __________________________) But the fact remains that the illegal ones can't vote, and the Hispanic citizens are going to eat the GOP's lunch. What do the conservatives do? They insult, belittle, demean, put-down at every turn. No matter how many years they've been here, or how well they speak English (and/or Spanish), they will be accused of being illegal... Yep, just keep doing what you're doing...

How about the African-Americans? Oh, there are few righties, but the largest number of them are Democrats... (Why else would the Republicans go to such lengths to try to disenfranchise them, and make voting as difficult as possible? Insult them over "affirmative action", even if they don't need or never used it? Yep, just keep doing what you're doing...

How about women? Oh, there are some righties, and soccer-moms that the GOP will get, but keep telling them that they have no right to a choice over their own reproductive decisions; that you want to get rid of health clinics because they MIGHT talk about birth-control or abortion. Watch your numbers dwindle....Yep, just keep doing what you're doing...

How about the GLBT group? Keep fighting DADT; keep hiring lawyers ILLEGALLY with misappropriated funds in the House to fight DOMA; keep watching the cases from California and New York in their inexorable path to unconstitutionality in the courts... How many of those do you figure will vote Republican in the future? Yep, just keep doing what you're doing...

How about the young people coming out of college who will be the voters of the next decade? Well, there's already a push in some states to try to deny them the right to vote because they have a student ID... (The GOP figures they'll prevent some Democratic votes that way...) Have you seen the numbers lately? That age-group totally rejects the notion that cutting off services to the elderly, and women, and the hatred toward gays is acceptable. They recognize the "compassionate conservatism" crap for what it is... Good luck with that... Yep, just keep doing what you're doing...

So, what's left? Older, white, racist, misogynist, angry white guys... And you're dying off faster than you're being replaced by new Kool-Aid drinkers... In 10-15 years, you will no longer have the clout to take the Party-of-Selfish to your desired outcome. That's why there is such a push now to try to amend the holy Constitution at every turn. You guys don't like the 1st, 4th, 5th, 14th, 17th amendments, and you want to add balanced budgets, marriage, and anti-gay amendments into it... Because the window of opportunity is passing you by, and if it doesn't get done in the next few short years, the electorate is going to be much more liberal, and they aren't going to buy the hateful Kool-Aid you're selling.

Look at Wisconsin...Yep, the Governor won the battle...but he's going to lose the war. He's eligible for a recall election in January, and the money is already being raised; and the grassroots organizations are already being formed. And they only need THREE (3) state senators thrown out and replaced by Democrats to reverse every bit of legislation that's just been passed...And there's already SIX (6) recall elections going for Republican candidates, (and 3 for Democrats, and the projections are that NONE of the Democrats will be replaced...) So, it's very likely that within 12 months the fanatics will be out of office, and everything they've tried to cram down the throats of the voters is going to be reversed. Surveys are already showing that 62% of the people that voted for Scott Walker now regret their vote, and will vote for his recall...and he didn't win by that much in the first place... So, basically he's a "dead man walking."

Yep, just keep doing what you're doing...

Obama won the debate... You guys are just too blind to see it.

LadyJazzer wrote: Let's explain the coming lights on the train....

In about 5 years there will be approximately 50 million Hispanics in America... And they will be one of the largest voting blocs, if not THE largest voting bloc in the country. (Insert standard crap about how many of them are "illegal" here: __________________________) But the fact remains that the illegal ones can't vote, and the Hispanic citizens are going to eat the GOP's lunch. What do the conservatives do? They insult, belittle, demean, put-down at every turn. No matter how many years they've been here, or how well they speak English (and/or Spanish), they will be accused of being illegal... Yep, just keep doing what you're doing...

Ironically, the vast majority of Hispanics who are citizens are just as, if not more, outraged about the illegal immigrant problem than the rest of us and are pretty upset with the Obama administration and their recent activities that have allowed lots of guns to be sold to people they knew would be transporting them into Mexico where they would be used to commit crimes against other Hispanics. Don't be looking, or hoping, for the same block of support that Obama enjoyed the last go round because it won't be there. And, as you mentioned, the illegals can't vote without the complicity of ACORN, so as long as the illegals are not made legal, the Democrats don't get to add them to the list of likely Obama votes.

LadyJazzer wrote: How about the African-Americans? Oh, there are few righties, but the largest number of them are Democrats... (Why else would the Republicans go to such lengths to try to disenfranchise them, and make voting as difficult as possible? Insult them over "affirmative action", even if they don't need or never used it? Yep, just keep doing what you're doing...

Now that the novelty has worn off, the support enjoyed in 2008 will evaporate as well as the black population looks at the policies of Obama instead of only his skin color. Oh, the Democrats will still enjoy their historical advantage, but not the additional one evidenced in the last election.

LadyJazzer wrote: How about women? Oh, there are some righties, and soccer-moms that the GOP will get, but keep telling them that they have no right to a choice over their own reproductive decisions; that you want to get rid of health clinics because they MIGHT talk about birth-control or abortion. Watch your numbers dwindle....Yep, just keep doing what you're doing...

Here again, the number of women who support abortion is shrinking, not growing, thanks to the extremism of folks like NOW and Planned Parenthood. More and more legislatures are passing more and more restrictions and the only folks decrying it are the rabid leftists who wouldn't consider voting for anyone other than Obama anyway.

LadyJazzer wrote: How about the GLBT group? Keep fighting DADT; keep hiring lawyers ILLEGALLY with misappropriated funds in the House to fight DOMA; keep watching the cases from California and New York in their inexorable path to unconstitutionality in the courts... How many of those do you figure will vote Republican in the future? Yep, just keep doing what you're doing...

Keep talking about taxing the rich disproportionately and they might not be voting Democrat for much longer given the median income for homosexuals and homosexual households are higher than the national average. All DOMA says is that the states get to decide for themselves and that the decision of one state is not included in the Full Faith and Credit clause contained in Article IV Section 1 of the Constitution and is therefore not enforceable on another state. No one, not even the GLBT groups, are challenging Section 2 of DOMA in the courts. Congress is allowed to defend its laws before the courts LJ, that is not an illegal action. Simply because the executive, one of the 3 equal branches of government at the federal level, makes a decision on how it will proceed, that doesn't mean that the executive gets to decide conclusively on the constitutionality of the laws which Congress enacts or that the Congress is in any way restricted as a result of that decision. Obama is the head of the executive branch, not the entire federal government.

LadyJazzer wrote: How about the young people coming out of college who will be the voters of the next decade? Well, there's already a push in some states to try to deny them the right to vote because they have a student ID... (The GOP figures they'll prevent some Democratic votes that way...) Have you seen the numbers lately? That age-group totally rejects the notion that cutting off services to the elderly, and women, and the hatred toward gays is acceptable. They recognize the "compassionate conservatism" crap for what it is... Good luck with that... Yep, just keep doing what you're doing...

Temper that with the mountain of debt the indoctrination they have received regarding social justice and collective salvation results in that they will have to shell out of their pockets when they have to buy their own cars, cell phones, iPads with the money the government hasn't already taken from their paychecks and that too will change pretty quickly. It's amazing how easy it is to spend other people's money and how quickly it changes when it is your money being spent.

LadyJazzer wrote: So, what's left? Older, white, racist, misogynist, angry white guys... And you're dying off faster than you're being replaced by new Kool-Aid drinkers... In 10-15 years, you will no longer have the clout to take the Party-of-Selfish to your desired outcome. That's why there is such a push now to try to amend the holy Constitution at every turn. You guys don't like the 1st, 4th, 5th, 14th, 17th amendments, and you want to add balanced budgets, marriage, and anti-gay amendments into it... Because the window of opportunity is passing you by, and if it doesn't get done in the next few short years, the electorate is going to be much more liberal, and they aren't going to buy the hateful Kool-Aid you're selling.

Look at Wisconsin...Yep, the Governor won the battle...but he's going to lose the war. He's eligible for a recall election in January, and the money is already being raised; and the grassroots organizations are already being formed. And they only need THREE (3) state senators thrown out and replaced by Democrats to reverse every bit of legislation that's just been passed...And there's already SIX (6) recall elections going for Republican candidates, (and 3 for Democrats, and the projections are that NONE of the Democrats will be replaced...) So, it's very likely that within 12 months the fanatics will be out of office, and everything they've tried to cram down the throats of the voters is going to be reversed. Surveys are already showing that 62% of the people that voted for Scott Walker now regret their vote, and will vote for his recall...and he didn't win by that much in the first place... So, basically he's a "dead man walking."

Yep, just keep doing what you're doing...

Obama won the debate... You guys are just too blind to see it.

What you fail to mention is the low thresh hold needed to trigger a recall in Wisconsin - 25% of the votes cast in the last election. Given that voter turnout was somewhere in the 50% range on average and about half the votes originally cast were for the loser, what you end up with is needing a little more than half the number of the people who voted against the person to begin with to sign the recall from a party that has twice as many folks registered in it than showed up to vote on election day - hardly an overwhelming task to accomplish in any district. I'm pretty sure the Democrats in Park County could come up with the 2,000 signatures needed to recall Massey at any point they decided to put forth the effort to do so. Not that they could get him replaced in the election mind you, but I don't think forcing another election would be a difficult endeavor for them. Foolish yes, but not difficult. The Republicans will still control the Assembly in Wisconsin regardless of what happens in the recall elections as none of them are being targeted for recall, so it is unlikely that the law that set the public union members off (which incidentally was ruled valid by the Wisconsin Supreme Court yesterday) is unlikely to be revisited as a result of the recall elections. The 2 year budget will also be in place before the recall has any effect upon that as well, and given, as mentioned earlier, that the Assembly will remain firmly in Republican control there are not likely to be changes to that either once it is passed.

The final nail in the coffin for the public sector unions will come if/when the current law is changed once again to allow the conflict of interest that is inherent in public sector unions collectively bargaining for wages and benefits once more. When the citizens of Wisconsin are faced with the massive tax increases that will be necessary to pacify the union demands they will once more ask the Republicans to fix the problems the Democrats created.