Published on May 16, 2007 By Island Dog In Republican

As you may know, last night there was a debate between Republican canidates for President in South Carolina.  This was hosted by Fox News and featured 10 republican canidates which turned out to be interesting to say the least.  I wanted to give my brief take on the debate as I saw it.

John McCain - McCain didn't impress me at all last night.  I will give him credit for standing by his answers even though they will not get him the ticket.  When he started talking about how the "world" will think of us regarding Gitmo, that pretty much assured me he won't get close to the nomination. 

Mitt Romney - Romney is what I call a "TV President".  He has a presidential look, speaks some good game, but ultimately that is what does him in.  He is the John Kerry of the GOP.  He made some good points explaining his "switching" of issues, but overall he has a pattern of changing positions that even I am not comfortable with.

Mike Huckabee - Huckabee had an interesting take on the IRS, put a "going out of business sign", and made mention of a fair tax.  I really haven't formed an opinoin on him yet, so I don't have much to say, but I think he did OK at the debate last night.

Duncan Hunter - Hunter tried his best to come out as the "real" conservative of the canidates.  He was very vocal about not leaving Iraq, putting up a border fence, and not giving up on the war on terror.  That likely pleased many in the GOP base.  He put on a fairly good presentation last ngiht, and I will definitely keep an eye out for him, but it's highly unlikely he will get the nomination.

Ron Paul - Paul was definitely the biggest goof of the night.  His assertions that we caused Sept. 11 and his "blame America" attitude were just ridiculous, and that's pretty much the end of the line for his campaign, at least on the GOP side. 

Rudy Guiliani - I have to honesty say he impressed me the most.  I was never a big fan of Rudy for President as I don't care much for his more liberal social policies, but he did a great job at explaining and standing by his beliefs.  He gained the most applause last night while calling out the goofball Ron Paul for his remakrs about Sept. 11.  He also seemed like the only one that was comfortable on the stage last night, and actually seemed to enjoy it.  I think Rudy will be the man to be for the republican nomination as of right now.

I know there several more canidates, but none of them did anything that impressed me to write about them.  The big three of the debate was McCain, Romney, and Guiliani, and I think Rudy won the debate last night hands down.  What was your opinion of the debate?

 


Comments (Page 1)
on May 16, 2007
I did not see it.  My candidate has not declared yet.
on May 16, 2007
I also thought Giuliani came off best as "I am leader, strong, tested by fire".
on May 16, 2007
my comments here ...

Link

on May 16, 2007
Let me guess, Ron Paul saved the day and Fox News was bad somehow.....
on May 16, 2007
not quite, but thank you for your cynicism.
on May 16, 2007

not quite, but thank you for your cynicism.

.  "Not quite"?  What about the fact that you talked about Paul most and pointed out the applause lines and Paul being allowed to be attacked?  ..too funny.

on May 16, 2007
not quite, but thank you for your cynicism.


what about the part where i said ...and i quote...

The best part of the debate was Fox's handling of it. Which was outstanding for the most part. The pace was great, and the format was effective in getting the candidates to engage with each other much better than Chris Matthews and MSNBC managed to a couple weeks ago.

and...

the debate was highly entertaining and much more informative than their previous "meet and greet."

not to mention...

And a big chunk of the credit goes to Chris Wallace.

and let's not forget...

It was refreshing to see a little tighter control of the debate which made the candidates actually step up to the plate instead of offering non relevant bumper sticker slogans.


as far as my commentary on Paul, I called it how I saw it, just like I called it how I saw it pertaining to the coverage.

and does "not quite" mean something like "not exactly" or "YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG!" ??? i bellieve it means "not exactly."

so what was wrong with the statement...???

not quite, but thank you for your cynicism.


as it was pretty darn accurate.


oh,,,the hate...that's too funny.
on May 16, 2007

Fox News was bad somehow.....

not quite, but thank you for your cynicism.

what about the part where i said ...and i quote...

You just read what you want to read, don't you?

You praised Paul (hence.."Paul saved the day")

You criticized Fox twice (hence..."Fox News was bad somehow")

So, where is his comment "not quite" true?  He didn't say that Fox was completely bad, did he?  He said that you would say they were bad "somehow".

on May 16, 2007
My comment was based on my past readings of your "faux news" rants, and your praising of Ron Paul, who was a complete idiot last night. I'm glad Rudy called him out and showed how Paul is a spineless "blame America" liberal in a GOP debate.
on May 16, 2007
He said that you would say they were bad "somehow".


but i did not say that. i was "fair and balanced" and pointed out 1 indescretion in their coverage, the use of applause. but how can you possibly read that and not see that i gave Fox an absolute great review? puhLLLEAAsssseee...

and my headline and commentary was more about how he "shook things up" more than he "saved the day"

and i'm bettin the only reason this article got featured, after my article was published, was to drown my article out. how bout some balance? put my article up there...let the people decide if i gave fox a bad review. you really want to stick to that story?
on May 16, 2007
My comment was based on my past readings of your "faux news" rants, and your praising of Ron Paul, who was a complete idiot last night. I'm glad Rudy called him out and showed how Paul is a spineless "blame America" liberal in a GOP debate.


now that's fair...and honest...i can respect that. totally disagree, but at least that 's a straight answer.

on May 16, 2007
while we're on the subject...ron paul's statement on the debate, released about 20 minutes ago...



May 16, 2007
Press Release
Why Hasn’t Rudy Giuliani Read the 9-11 Commission Report?


May 16, 2007

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

ARLINGTON, VA – During the "First in the South" GOP debate in South Carolina last night, one thing was made clear: Rudy Giuliani does not understand how to keep America safe.

When Congressman Ron Paul, who has long served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, explained how 50 years of American interventionism in the Middle East has helped compromise our national security, Giuliani interrupted saying he had "never heard anything so absurd." This statement is particularly troubling coming from the former mayor who tries to cast himself as a security expert, since Dr. Paul's point comes directly from the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission Report.

"Rudy Giuliani has tip-toed around the issues of abortion, guns and marriage. The only issue he has left is security, and he doesn't even get that right," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "It is clear from his interruption that former Mayor Giuliani has not read the 9-11 Commission Report and has no clue on how to keep America safe."



on May 16, 2007
If that's the best that Ron Paul can do is make a general reference to the 9/11 hack commission, then once again, he's a goof.
on May 16, 2007
oh, it's the hack commission now?
on May 16, 2007
" oh, it's the hack commission now?" When was it not? The 9/11 commission was hardly bi-partisan, and their "finding" have always been questionable.