tonight's republican debate/Fred enters the ring
 

any thoughts?
Mine:

• Damn, Romney looks like a robo candidate; his suit fit better than anyone, and his answers, while not enlightening, seemed to be well spoken and crafted by a committee of Hollywood movie writers.
• speaking of which- boooh thompson- none of these candidates are that great, and everyone is hoping for someone to stand out, but the way he handled tonight I thought was in poor taste.
• McCain looked old, his answers were contradictory to his earlier statements, but everyone is so deferential to him and FOX News spun it as a McCain victory
• "So, Giuliani, what do you have to say about abortion/Iraq/immigration?" "When I was mayor of the largest city in America, I reduced crime dramatically"
• I really enjoyed huckabee vs. ron paul- they both seemed the most genuine despite their differences on the iraq war- you could tell that that was exactly the firmly held conviction of each of them and it was not polished political soundbites
• hunter, brownback, and the others... kinda scary at times, and no chance.

I'd be happier if they decided to "serve their country" some other way, say, volunteering at the soup kitchen.

-- McCain looks old because he is.

-- Giuliani's answer is essentially the same as Bush's. Doncha know, he's mayor of 9/11? Giuliani has a good track record of selling fear to white liberals who might otherwise vote Democratic. I wouldn't count him out.

-- Nixon called Thompson an idiot, and looking over Thompson's record in the Senate, i'm inclined to go along with Tricky Dick's assesment. His candidacy seems based on the idea that because he was on TV he's like Ronald Reagan. That might have worked for Schwarzengger or Clint or -- urp -- Sonny Bono, but they played much better characters. Freddy's character/TV persona is just not that appealing.

Very little substance anywhere on that stage...they do not in any way inspire me to return to the republican fold.

Eight old white men, with no new ideas, who:

* support continuing the failed Bush policy in Iraq (except for Ron Paul) but would rather invoke the name of Reagan than Bush

* express their moral superiorty by supporting rights for the unborn but not for gays

* have yet to address the health care crisis that affects a growing number of Americans

I agree, very little substance.

I am not sure if there is no substance because of the format of these debates or because of the candidates. I suspect some of the candidates are very intelligent and they certainly have records of accomplishment and therefore could possibly offer more substance. However, I wonder if substance is what is needed to be elected President, my guess is that it is not.

I know some will point criticism directed at Republicans however, I see very little difference between either party in terms of substance being offered in these debates.

Given the lack of substance, my decision is going to be more in line with character, principles and an understanding of how the candidate makes decisions. Given that criteria, I still like Huckabee.

Agreed.
It's like going to the buffet and finding nothing but different consistancies of bean soup.

So far, I have not been overly impressed by anyone being offered up by either party. I have not seen one contendor that just stands out and beams presidential caliber. The closest that I see now is McCain.

I thought Chris Wallace was being a smarmy little jackass when he gave Ron Paul the loaded followup question about taking his marching orders from Al Queda. Although I thought McCain "won," I still got highly annoyed at all the giggling and cackling from the other candidates everytime Ron Paul got a question. I hope he continues to stir the pot.

It seems like Ron Paul against the Republicrats.

It was interesting how some seem to have backed off their illegal immigrant amnesty position mostly by just not mentioning it and instead emphasizing strong border control. Probably because of the recent murders in the news.

The live mike that you heard the cackling from was Hannity. He seems to have a huge problem with Paul's popularity in their polls. Sean isn't intelligent enough to look into the reasons why this continues to happen, so he resorts to school yard ridicule. It doesn't take much to figure it out, given how Fox chooses to collect the polling data. :rolleyes:

Well, that makes sense, because I noticed that Ron Paul was the winner of Hannity's text message poll, and then he turned right around and declared the results invalid because of "spam." ???? NOW it all makes sense.

Spam despite the fact that you can only vote once per number.

Anyway, did anyone else get a shudder when they saw Guiliani smile when he was introduced? That was so creepy.

People using text messaging tend to be a younger demographic and that group as a whole favors Paul over the other candidates. If Fox changes the method of voting, it is likely they will see different results. $.02.

But Hannity would still be a putz. :)