Last nights GOP debate

[Richard Simmons]

Who watched it and what did you think?

I watched until 10:40pm then hit the rack for an early start at work today. The candidates that caught my attention most with their comments and replies were:

Cain
Gingrich
Santorum
Bachman

Going into the debate I'll admit I had little to no interest in Gingrich and I'm not saying I'd vote for him after last night but a lot of his responces really struck home for me and seemed sensible and prudent.

What I didn't like was Romney prefacing every answer, not that he really answered that many questions, with a litany of what Obama has or hasn't done. Look, as a conservative American I already know what I don't like about Obama and the things he's done. I don't need Romney to remind me. What I want and need to hear is:

A. What is he going to do differently and

B. What is he going to do to fix what Obama and the Dems have done.

That's it. The facts and nothing but the facts.


I also didn't care for the exchanges between Bachman and Pawlenty. Too early in the process for those kind of exchanges. Let me hear what you're going to do now and after the herd gets thinned they can take on each others records.

[Focused Gunfire]

Did not watch it, but heard very good things about it. Lot of good responses had to some tough, but fair questions.

[O.S.O.K.]

Gingrich called them (Fox) for asking "gotcha" questions and suggested that they be asked about just what they were going to do about things instead and got a raucus applause from the kids in the audience. I thought he was the "winner" of the debate.

The question asked of Bachman about being "submissive" to her husband (Christian context) was so out of line that I couldn't believe it was a Fox debate - my wife flipped out over that. Really a stupid question.

Ron Paul stuck by his principles as usual and ended up sounding like a loon a couple of times because of it... like his stance on pulling all military personnel back home and not caring if Iran gets nukes or not... he is sticking to his priniciples to a fault... which is why he can not get elected.

Now, we need to see one of these without Huntsman (RINO) and with Perry - who probably will get the nod if he gets going. He's got more positives to talk about than any of the other candidates in terms of his own recent record in Texas, which is blowing and going in a recessionary economy. We don't have an income tax either and I would be very hopeful (want to hear him say it) that he would insist on a fair tax reform.

Once again though, just as with the last debate, I would be excatic to have any one of these candidates in place of obummer. Any one of them would be a 10X improvement over that idiot.

[sevlex]

I saw part of it.....

Santorum struck me a little as the conservative Joe Biden. Just a little smarter, though. He made some good points (when they let him talk), then would shoot himself in the foot.

Bachmann looked pretty good. She handled the "submission" question pretty well. I was annoyed by the question at first, but then realized it's better to have it come up in a "friendly" environment now than later in a hostile situation.

Paul....well...is Paul. Had some good points but still comes across as an rigid isolationist kook.

Romney really needs to man up and admit his Romneycare experiment is a failure. It worries me when someone just cannot admit an obvious mistake. Reminds me of Austin Powers saying "That's not my penis pump".

Pawlenty should hang it up. He simply didn't inspire any feelings in me - positive or negative.

Cain came across really well. He would make a good VP.
:coffee:

[mriddick]

When asked if they would not accept a deal that would go 10-1 cuts to revenue increases and all of them raised their hands I was surprised, I figured atleast someone would of been smart enough to go against the tide on that one.

[yankeedog]

From what I saw Obongo doesn't have to even have a campaign to win against them.

[blacksheep]

From what I saw Obongo doesn't have to even have a campaign to win against them.

I think a box of shit could beat " the one" now.

[Richard Simmons]

When asked if they would not accept a deal that would go 10-1 cuts to revenue increases and all of them raised their hands I was surprised, I figured atleast someone would of been smart enough to go against the tide on that one.

So if there is an agreement to cut 9 government programs by $1 billion each in exchange for one tax increase of $100 billion you'd go for it? Before anyone should agree to an increase in taxes of any kind for me personally I want to see complete reform in SS disability payments to weed out the freeloaders, real inroads made on waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid, elimination of duplicate tasking and or downsizing of all government agencies by 30% with the exception of the Armed Forces, overhaul of all federal employee union pensions to include contributions by the employee as well as deductibles for their healthcare, firing of all Czars and their staff, reform of the tax code to a flat tax and last but not least, seal the borders and make the harboring of an illegal alien a mandatory life sentence. Do all that and if we really need a tax increase we'll talk about it.

Do all that then IF

[mriddick]

So if there is an agreement to cut 9 government programs by $1 billion each in exchange for one tax increase of $100 billion you'd go for it? Before anyone should agree to an increase in taxes of any kind for me personally I want to see complete reform in SS disability payments to weed out the freeloaders, real inroads made on waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid, elimination of duplicate tasking and or downsizing of all government agencies by 30% with the exception of the Armed Forces, overhaul of all federal employee union pensions to include contributions by the employee as well as deductibles for their healthcare, firing of all Czars and their staff, reform of the tax code to a flat tax and last but not least, seal the borders and make the harboring of an illegal alien a mandatory life sentence. Do all that and if we really need a tax increase we'll talk about it.

Do all that then IF
First off I read the question as 100 billion in cuts to 10 billion in revenue (tax) increases. Being anything that generates revenue is considered a tax increase it really opens up the question...

What I'm saying it might be wise to separate yourself from other 8 rather then appearing to be going with the group thought. Also I'll grant you can easily make up situations where it wouldn't be worth it although you can probably just as easily make up several that might, rejecting everything out of hand like that comes across as rather simplistic.