:thumb:

 

That was really my only knock on Huckabee last night...I thought the sending her to Mars joke was funny and I get the feeling he did it more to play up to the crowd and show some humor, but I still think it might have been a better move to just leave it alone.

.

I agree a cheap shot that a Christian shouldn't take.

Another Democrat's opinion here:

To me this was a contest of one-upsmanship to see who could seem the most socially conservative. I loved how Romney wouldn't define torture while arguing with a man who knows first hand what torture is.

Huckabee sounded like a talking points memo in a suit.

 

Worst part of the night was when people booed the retired general who happens to be gay and the candidates trying to defend their stance on gays in the military. Hunter's defense of that policy was just assinine.

 

To me, McCain won with Thompson coming in second. When I first registered to vote I was Republican b/c I wanted to vote for McCain in the Ohio primary. I changed promptly when W got the nomination. I won't vote for McCain b/c of his Iraq stance, but if he became president I wouldn't be as upset as I would be with any of the other GOP alternatives.

 

I wanted to watch a debate, not some retired general defending gay rights. They were calling time on candidates all night and then they let that guy ramble on. Plus, I was a bit irked when he said he didn't get an answer from any of the candidates. I'm pretty sure Hunter and Huckabee gave him an answer. It just wasn't the one he wanted.

That is not what Romney did. And I cannot believe I am defending him. He said he does not think it is wise for a Presidential CANDIDATE to define torture in the election process so that this country's enemies know what can and cannot be done.

 

He did not say he would not define torture, just not in the public setting for the information to be given to this country's enemies.

 

Now whether you want to debate whether that is a logical position or not, is fair. But it was not simply, he wouldn't define torture.

 

I agree on Hunter's stance. It did not sound good at all. I thought McCain handled that question the best.

 

I can bet that Huckabee's Fair Value Tax nor his view of the children of illegal immigrants are not a Republican talking point.

 

Love it...on the bolded.

 

As for the torture thing, I agree with you. I think McCain was trying to attack Romney for something that wasn't there. Romney answered the question well, I thought. McCain should have left it alone.

I wanted to watch a debate, not some retired general defending gay rights. They were calling time on candidates all night and then they let that guy ramble on. Plus, I was a bit irked when he said he didn't get an answer from any of the candidates. I'm pretty sure Hunter and Huckabee gave him an answer. It just wasn't the one he wanted.

 

Agreed, I wouldn't boo him, but he was a little out of line.

Also, did Romney used to be a Democrat or what?

Here's my take:

 

Pretenders

 

Tancredo and Hunter did a pretty good job I thought, but realistically, they just don't have a chance, IMO.

 

Ron Paul will be the first man out...at least, he should be. I'm still not sure he's a republican.

 

 

Contenders

 

Romney - Maybe better than I expected, but several things still bother me. I still get the impression he tries to tell people what they want to hear at times. I don't like the fact that he was once pro-life (although I thought he did well in saying that he was wrong and when it came right down to it, he couldn't do it). Also, he seems to try to dance around questions sometimes and not give a flat out answer.

 

Huckabee - I thought he did well...although I am a Huckabee fan. I thought he answered pretty much everything straight forward.

 

Rudy - I thought he did pretty good, other than the little spat about sanctuary city.

 

McCain - He was alright. Nothing great, nothing that bad. I like McCain alright, I just wouldn't want him as president.

 

Thompson - Kinda like McCain...had a few good moments, but overall nothing really stood out to me. I could handle him as president though.

 

 

I'm not much of a political guy, so you can take my analysis with a grain of salt. My mind is pretty much already made up, so my view is skewed.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-11-28-gop-debate_N.htm

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. — Eight Republican presidential contenders clashed Wednesday over immigration, interrogation techniques for terrorism suspects and the Iraq war in a sharp-elbowed debate filled with pointed and personal attacks.

 

The debate came at a crucial time and in a crucial state. Romney is ahead in the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, the states where the first of the presidential eliminations will be held in January. But polls show him trailing Giuliani in Florida, the first big state that will cast ballots in the presidential contest. Florida's primary is Jan. 29.

 

And now Romney, who has been portraying himself as the conservative alternative to Giuliani, is getting some competition on his right flank. An Insider Advantage poll taken this week showed Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas, moving into second place in Florida, with 17% of the vote to Giuliani's 26%. The poll put Romney at 12%.

 

On Tuesday, Huckabee won the endorsement of a key Florida conservative, state Senate Majority Leader Daniel Webster.

The gays in the military issue was handled badly by everyone IMO. But, I was appaled at the crowd booing the general.

 

.

 

I would disagree for two reasons.

 

1. the base they are playing to

 

2. The fact that almost everyone of them couched it with "from what the military leaders say.."

 

You may not have liked the answer in that they weren't 100% for gays in the military but I don't think you can say they handled it poorly.

 

Booing, in general, is unacceptable to me.

I wanted to watch a debate, not some retired general defending gay rights. They were calling time on candidates all night and then they let that guy ramble on. Plus, I was a bit irked when he said he didn't get an answer from any of the candidates. I'm pretty sure Hunter and Huckabee gave him an answer. It just wasn't the one he wanted.

 

Agreed. It was a fair question to ask. However, don't say they didn't answer the question asked when they were very clear in their responses.

I thought the absolutely STRONGEST statement of the night was McCain's that US military did not lose the Vietname War, public perception at home changed.

I thought Guiliani looked solid, really did.

 

Romney rubs me the complete wrong way, seems like he as flipflopped on most issues at least once in his career and it bothers me. I didn't like that line about how people are coming after him because he is out in front. I think his plan was to sink money into NH and Iowa and then convince Republicans that no one else can beat Hilary.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-11-28-romney-abortion_N.htm

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Republican group that backs abortion rights will start an ad campaign this weekend in Iowa and New Hampshire portraying Mitt Romney as a flip-flopper and drawing attention to a questionnaire he filled out in 2002 endorsing legal abortions.

 

Stockman and other members of the group's board have donated to the presidential campaign of former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, an advocate of abortion rights. Stockman contributed $2,300 to Giuliani's campaign last May.

 

But Stockman said the group itself has not endorsed a candidate in the presidential contest. She stressed that the Republican Majority for Choice and the Giuliani campaign have had no discussions regarding the ad campaign.

 

Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, has won the backing of some key religious conservatives but is still dogged by suspicions about his stance on some social issues. He has said he changed his view on abortion in 2004 during debates over stem cell research. He said he became convinced he could not publicly support abortion rights while being personally opposed to abortion.

 

Romney spokesman Kevin Madden said Wednesday, "The political group that is attacking and distorting Governor Romney's position is desperately trying to destroy the Republican Party's position on the issue of protecting life, while also supporting Mayor Giuliani and his pro-choice position that is at odds with grass-roots conservative Republicans."

It seems that the General works for Hillary's campaign. It will be hard for CNN to avoid damage on this one. Either they knew who he was and they purposely failed to identify him as a partisan or they should have known but didn't.

Overall, I really can’t put my finger on an outright winner, so I’ll just tier them. I also broke it down by a few issues. On another note, I caught the end of Lou Dobbs before this aired, and he may have lost his mind.

 

Not Cold

I think this was Huckabee’s first debate as a leading candidate, if I’m not mistaken, and he did well with the spotlight on him. Romney didn’t do badly either. He didn’t do anything to put him above the rest, but he didn’t hurt himself either.

 

Cold

McCain was probably the best last night, he has thee distinct advantage of not mincing words when he speaks as he doesn’t have to worry about something being construed to hurt him in the polls. He’s certainly the voice of reason on the stage for the Republicans and for him to be booed for being honest and realistic is ridiculous. Ron Paul apparently has a lot of supporters. He also got mired into answering some technical questions and having to explain his conspiracy theory. A few more primetime questions where he could make his points would help him. Thompson is fading out. He’s a great comedian but there wasn’t much substance behind it. If he wants a real shot he’s going to have to start sinking his teeth into some issues. Guiliani didn’t do much; he took the brunt of a lot of mud slinging and seemed flustered at times. I think he struggled to articulate what he meant sometimes and really never settled into a groove. I don’t see him winning. Hunter falls in here as well. I think he had a few reasonable answers but didn’t get enough spotlight. Additionally, he lacks the charisma to grab that spotlight, as soon as he starts talking I start thinking about whatever he isn’t talking about.

 

Deep Space Cold

Tancredo. The Republicans’ Kucinich.

 

Immigration

I found this part particularly frustrating to watch, as I don’t share the Republicans’ disillusioned view on immigration at all. If it weren’t for McCain I may have watched something else. Romney and Guiliani started it off with a personal argument that was better suited for a schoolyard. Romney, by default, came out on top because Guiliani looked shaken up a bit and stuttered through answers when he needed a powerful comeback. Either way, none of their points stuck, the “sanctuary cities” fell off of them as soon as they hit. McCain is the only one who made any sense by saying that the issue was much deeper than “no amnesty” and that the bill earlier in the year wasn’t an amnesty bill, but was booed. Huckabee avoided the fray, coming in at the end and was only pressed when Romney forced him to defend some school program that gave illegal immigrant children merit scholarship opportunities. He did well enough. Huckabee will enjoy not having polarized anyone over immigration. And Tancredo is an idiot.

 

Spending

Huckabee was a big hit here with the IRS. He really had the crowd into it and was effective. Thompson had another comedic quip but then rambled about nothing. Paul used this to talk about Iraq, saving money by not funding a war. Paul articulated a great point later about how everyone wants to cut taxes, but spending must be cut as well. McCain again made sense when he clearly bested Paul on Iraq and was booed. The farm subsidy program was brought up and all the candidates tip-toed around it as to not anger Iowa farmers. It was amusing to see small government Republicans crawfishing around about unnecessary subsidies. Tancredo is an idiot.

 

Abortion/Death Penalty

Romney squared his past stance on it very well, he did excellent here. Ron Paul also had a solid answer. Huckabee was articulate here, but he still dodged the issue with his long speech about signing death warrants. Guiliani and Thompson hammered the usual states rights approach. Tancredo is an idiot.

 

Foreign Policy

McCain is the class of the group here. Everyone but him came off a bit middle of the road. Someone is going to have to step up and really battle with McCain here. Tancredo is an idiot.

 

One of the best questions of the night, I thought, was the black father and son from Atlanta asking about inner-city violence. Romney got the chance to answer, and he did well talking about family values. But his best point was saying the education system has failed the inner-cities. I really wish this one was asked off all the candidates, besides Tancredo.

It seems that the General works for Hillary's campaign. It will be hard for CNN to avoid damage on this one. Either they knew who he was and they purposely failed to identify him as a partisan or they should have known but didn't.

 

Got a link to the story?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/7085.html

 

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071129/NATION/71129002/1001