Was a headline on Yahoo this morning. Do you agree? And do you decide on candidates based more on how well they debate or do you prefer to look at thier record and campaign promises?
I look at record to decide on a candidate. Debates and promises are just empty words. Look how many promises Obama has broke since he was elected.
Gitmo open?
Troops in Iraq?
Fix unemployment?
But others must like debates, in fact some say if Perry doesn't ace the next debate, Romney will have the nomination. Really? We haven't even had our first primary or caucus.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
I look at what I think they will do. The most common argument I see for needing a strong debater is that it toughens them up and helps vet them.
The hard core r's do not want their candidate to lose a Presidential debate or get eaten up by Catie Couric.
Haha! Broken campaign promises? Obama has kept nearly 3 times as many as he's broken (
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... /obameter/
). As a one-time Obama supporter, I'm still disappointed and frustrated by the broken promises as I expected better of him.
Problem is that all of the Repub candidates all seem to be coming from the idiot fringe and/or are as disingenuous as every other politician I've seen in my lifetime. I think the Repub debates at this point are little more than a circle jerk. None-the-less, I don't think there are too many of them as each one highlights the craziness of the flavor of the week candidate. Let 'em self-destruct and implode. Works for me.
Yeah, it toughens them up for those hard Catie Couric questions, like "What do you read?" ... or... "What other Supreme Court cases besides Roe v. Wade do you disagree with?"
In case you forgot:
PALIN: Well, let's see. There's --of course --in the great history of America rulings there have been rulings, there's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are -- those issues, again, like Roe v Wade where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know -- going through the history of America, there would be others but--"
COURIC: Can you think of any?
PALIN: Well, I could think of -- of any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a Vice President, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.
Yep, let's have some more debates... Perry can try to explain how many jobs were created for burger flippers and illegal aliens.... Why, heck, some day we might even get to hear what Joe-the-unlicensed-plumber thinks about something....
All these debates so far have been good for is the Libtards to decide who they want to try to talk us on the right into voting for, like that's going to happen.
Nmysys wrote: All these debates so far have been good for is the Libtards to decide who they want to try to talk us on the right into voting for, like that's going to happen.
It's not as though you all are having much success deciding for yourselves.
Seems like after each debate a new 'flavor of the week' pops up ahead in the polls.
So who is gonna be the "Chosen One" for the GOP this next week? Please don't tell me Cain Mania has run its course already.....He has soooo much potential as a reoccuring SNL character.
Nmysys wrote: All these debates so far have been good for is the Libtards to decide who they want to try to talk us on the right into voting for, like that's going to happen.
Nmysys, "Libtard"? Not you too?
We are not trying to talk you into voting for anyone. We are just highlighting their faults so that you can make a better informed decision.
