First Republican Primary Debate

[TrueBeaver]

The first debate of the 2012 presidential election cycle was tonight, although without many of the big names leading most of the polls. Participants were Ron Paul, congressman from Texas, Herman Cain, former Kansas City Fed chair and CEO of Godfather's Pizza, Tim Pawlenty, former governor of Minnesota, Rick Santorum, former Congressman and Senator from Pennsylvania, and Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico. The debate was held in South Carolina and as such included a lot of social questions, despite fiscal issues being at the forefront of the campaign.

 

Personally, I thought Herman Cain "won" the debate from a nationwide perspective. Entering the debate with the lowest profile of any of the participants he answered very confidently and concisely, a refreshing change from most politicians who dance around issues. Rick Santorum probably did the best for himself in South Carolina. He's been at the forefront of conservative social issues for much of the past two decades and wasn't shy about saying that. With social issues a big deal in the Bible Belt, his strong record and answers tonight will probably give him a big boost in the South Carolina polls. Considering no Republican has ever won the nomination without winning the South Carolina primary that could be huge for Rick Santorum, who also reminded everyone that he's beaten three high-profile Democratic incumbents during his political career.

 

The two libertarians, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, turned some heads for their answers regarding gay marriage, drug legalization, and abortion which probably won't help them in South Carolina, but is consistent with their records. Tim Pawlenty came in as a rising star, someone who governed a primarily Democratic state fairly successfully for two terms, and made it out without helping himself out too much but also not hurting himself. He still seems kind of robotic, as if he's trying to remember all the coaching he's receiving for the campaign. I think he'd do better to look more at ease and be himself like Herman Cain did.

 

Overall, nothing too big happened. I wish some of the higher profile candidates had been there, especially Donald Trump. That would have been some television.

 

Who would you like to see win the Republican primary? Who do you think will win? Who has the best/worst chance to defeat Obama in a general election? Will Ron Paul finally emerge from the fringes after all these years?

[sees_all1]

Since Herman Cain won the debate, I expect him to get into the national spotlight and do very well this election cycle, either second or third place. That will put him in a good position for 2016 or 2020, assuming he runs again. I don't expect him to win the primary, but that's because of a few other candidates that I've got my eye on:

1. Allen West

I know he hasn't said anything about running, but I like this guy. If not a candidate, would make for a good running mate. Biggest problem is lack of experience, and name recognition.

 

2. Mitch Daniels

Current Governor of Indiana, has not decided yet whether to run or not. Since his good friend Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour announced he wasn't running, makes it seem more likely that Mitch Daniels will run instead. Governor Daniels has tons of experience with balanced budgets, having been adviser to George W. Bush.

Biggest problem is his lack of charisma, and ties to Bush.

I need to get one of his shirts, My Man Mitch.

 

3. Mike Huckabee

I know with a name like Huckabee you can't take him seriously, but he seems like a genuinely nice person. Unfortunately, I don't think he'll give up his position at Fox News.

 

As a conservative, I don't want:

1. Donald Trump

2. Mitt Romney

3. Newt Gingrich

 

The Donald and Newt carry wayyyy too much baggage. Trumps given more money to democrats over the years than republicans, has some crazy ideas when it comes to foreign policy, and generally speaking is disliked by more than half of America.

Newt Gingrich is very well spoken, and sometimes has half decent ideas, but once again his baggage is enormous. Investigating Bill Clinton on his affair while having your own? :blink: Neither of these two can run on "family values".

 

I say no to Mitt Romney because of Romneycare. One of the biggest targets on Obama is Obamacare, and Romney is probably the only candidate that can't aim for it without getting hit by his own flak. That, and some incident on an airplane last year that made the news. No idea if it was his fault, but you'd better believe he won't receive fair treatment on it.

[TrueBeaver]

Strong agreement with most of your post. Trump wants to put a 25% tariff on Chinese imports if they keep playing funny with their currency; can't support that. I want him to run simply for the fact that he's hilarious. Romney is way too moderate for my tastes. If he wins the nomination (seems likely to me) we'll have a repeat of 2008 and Obama will win a second term. Gingrich has way too much baggage as you said. I think he's pretty solid on the issues but he's been inside the beltway for too long and seems like an insider, at least to me. I'd rather have a Cain who has never held elected office, or even Santorum who's been out of politics for 4 years. I'd also like our nominee to be a former governor or similar executive experience. I'd love to see Mitch Daniels run. He messed up when he called for a truce on social issues, but his intentions were good. I like Pawlenty but he seems like he's trying too hard. Huckabee seems too 'soft' to make an effective president to me. I can't see him staring down President Asif Ali Zardari accross the negotiation table and holding his own. Allen West would be a great addition to any ticket. His principles are sound and his military experience would make him valuable on foreign policy.

 

A few others I'd like to see are:

Bobby Jindal (governor of Louisiana) - I'm really surprised he hasn't announced his candidacy. He seemed to be positioning for a run earlier this year. He has been an effective governor with strong principles.

John Bolton (former UN Ambassador, Fox News contributor, among other things) - I wouldn't like to see him take the nomination, but he's probably my favorite VP nominee. His foreign policy views are solid and no-nonsense. I don't think he could beat Obama in a presidential race because domestic issues will dominate the election but he would tear apart Biden in the VP debates and if we nominate someone who's solid on the economy we'd be golden.

Jeb Bush (former governor of Florida) - My man. If he ran he would immediately have my vote. He influence in Florida politics is similar to Reagan's in national Republican politics. He completely turned around our education system, cut taxes, and got support from the Latino vote (he's lived in Mexico, married a Mexican, and speaks fluent Spanish). Obama would likely carry California and New York, but Bush would carry Texas and Florida without a challenge, giving Obama a run for his money. The obvious detriment is that he's the brother of George W. Bush, but after a successful book tour and some rose-tinted glasses Dubya is making a rebound in the polls. Jeb's also very different from his brother and was considered the more likely future president when they were both governors. He doesn't seem to be looking at running, but I can hold out hope. A Bush/Bolton ticket would make me cream my pants. In fact, be right back.

 

Complete the dynasty - Jeb Bush 2012.

[obfuscator]

No Sarah Palin?

 

I do like Ron Paul actually, although I'm not too familiar with some of his policies.

[obfuscator]

No Sarah Palin?

 

I do like Ron Paul actually, although I'm not too familiar with some of his policies.

 

He is libertarian, essentially what that means is agree with the tea party movement on economic issues but with liberals on social issues (I dont follow him personally to see how true this is for him but it should be fairly accurate)

 

Interesting. Everything I've seen from him so far (mostly foreign policy) I thought was pretty good. But me, not american anyway.

 

But do we know why Sarah Palin wasn't participating? Has she decided not to run?

[Dietrich]

But do we know why Sarah Palin wasn't participating? Has she decided not to run?

I'm sure she realises that she has no hope of beating Obama, assuming she even manages to become the Republican Nominee (which I can't see happening). Palin isn't terribly bright, but people don't give her enough credit; she's been milking this whole ordeal for all it's worth, and has made plenty of money in the process. Of course, it probably hasn't been too difficult for her considering how her Tea Party constituents just lap up everything she says. :mellow: I suspect that she was never really interested in the Presidency in the first place, to be honest.

 

 

It's not quite on-topic, but I doubt that any Republican candidate has a realistic shot at taking on Obama. With the rifts in the GOP and clowns like Trump grabbing all of the attention, they're practically defeating themselves. :unsure:

[obfuscator]

But do we know why Sarah Palin wasn't participating? Has she decided not to run?

I'm sure she realises that she has no hope of beating Obama, assuming she even manages to become the Republican Nominee (which I can't see happening). Palin isn't terribly bright, but people don't give her enough credit; she's been milking this whole ordeal for all it's worth, and has made plenty of money in the process. Of course, it probably hasn't been too difficult for her considering how her Tea Party constituents just lap up everything she says. :mellow: I suspect that she was never really interested in the Presidency in the first place, to be honest.

 

 

It's not quite on-topic, but I doubt that any Republican candidate has a realistic shot at taking on Obama. With the rifts in the GOP and clowns like Trump grabbing all of the attention, they're practically defeating themselves. :unsure:

 

I was just wondering if there was any official announcement.

 

It depends who the republican candidate is. If it's a TP'er, then no, I think they don't stand a chance. They need someone more moderate, but diplomatic enough to bring the TP voters into the fold.

[TrueBeaver]

Awhile back Palin said she would only run if there were no other 'good' candidates (candidates she agrees with, I suppose) or something along those lines. Plus, many candidates haven't filed to run yet. Trump is waiting until at least June because he has a television show and as soon as he becomes a candidate NBC can't run it. Gingrich, Huckabee, and Bolton (among others) are all Fox News contributors and by not announcing their official candidacy can travel around and de facto campaign on Fox News's dime. However, Gingrich and Romney are supposed to officially announce their candidacies soon. So there's still time for Palin to run.

 

Ron Paul is in many ways a radical. He's called for a 50% cut in the federal budget, including the deletion of the Department of Homeland Security and the Fed. He routinely votes against things like raising the deficit ceiling, war spending bills, etc. On social issues he wants to leave them mainly to the states. He would have no federal laws on gay marriage, drugs, or prostitution and let the individual states decide what to do with them. He's a non-interventionist, meaning he doesn't think we should send our troops off to foreign countries to fight. He wants to eliminate all or nearly all foreign aid. He's really the origin of the Tea Party movement. If you're interested you can find his stances on issues on this fan site.

I agree with Ron Paul on a lot of things, abolishing the Fed, decentralization of power, etc, but to be honest I'm kind of scared he's serious in what he says and will follow through as president. Also, I disagree with his foreign policy to some degree.

 

Also, I disagree with the notion that only a moderate has a chance at beating Obama. Obama crushed a moderate in the 2008 election and after two years of governing from the left he's done pretty well to 'triangulate' a la Clinton. Obviously a far-right candidate would alienate centrists but a solid conservative with a good economic plan has the best shot in my mind to take out Obama. If unemployment doesn't drop in the next year, voters are going to peel away from Obama and toward a Republican alternative. Further, a sizable amount of the young and black votes will probably stay home after the novelty of Obama wears off, especially if they feel he's disingenuous after all the broken campaign promises we are sure to hear a lot about in the coming months. 2012 is a long way off, but I think Obama is certainly beatable - by a Tea Party candidate or not.

[Sly_Wizard]

He is libertarian, essentially what that means is agree with the tea party movement on economic issues but with liberals on social issues (I dont follow him personally to see how true this is for him but it should be fairly accurate)

 

That is quite a bit of an oversimplification, really.

[RpgGamer]

 

As a conservative, I don't want:

1. Donald Trump

 

 

As a fan of Steven Colbert, I do want Donald Trump.

 

Honestly I think voting in the primary's is more important than voting for the presidency. That being said, it's all just a contest for lesser of all evils.

[sees_all1]

 

As a conservative, I don't want:

1. Donald Trump

 

 

As a fan of Steven Colbert, I do want Donald Trump.

 

Honestly I think voting in the primary's is more important than voting for the presidency. That being said, it's all just a contest for lesser of all evils.

You're fired.

[RpgGamer]

As a conservative, I don't want:

1. Donald Trump

 

 

As a fan of Steven Colbert, I do want Donald Trump.

 

Honestly I think voting in the primary's is more important than voting for the presidency. That being said, it's all just a contest for lesser of all evils.

You're fired.

 

i hope when he gets elected he tries to fire Congress

[Myweponsg00d]

I just can't believe some of the crap that comes out of Santorum's mouth.

 

If you can publicly be a bigot towards gay people, why not just get it over with and say that you're in support of reinstating slavery? The land of the free...the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Oh wait, except if your idea of happiness involves starting a family with another man.

 

What a jackass.

[TrueBeaver]

I just can't believe some of the crap that comes out of Santorum's mouth.

 

If you can publicly be a bigot towards gay people, why not just get it over with and say that you're in support of reinstating slavery? The land of the free...the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Oh wait, except if your idea of happiness involves starting a family with another man.

 

What a jackass.

Love when people compare gay marriage to slavery. Gives me a good laugh every time.

 

i hope when he gets elected he tries to fire Congress

He may not have to if public opinion stays similar through next November. 21 Democrats, 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats, and only 10 Republicans are up for election in the Senate. A lot of them may already be fired.

[Myweponsg00d]

I just can't believe some of the crap that comes out of Santorum's mouth.

 

If you can publicly be a bigot towards gay people, why not just get it over with and say that you're in support of reinstating slavery? The land of the free...the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Oh wait, except if your idea of happiness involves starting a family with another man.

 

What a jackass.

Love when people compare gay marriage to slavery. Gives me a good laugh every time.

 

I'm comparing the opression of blacks to the opression of gays. Slavery too much? Fine, then how bout I compare it to telling the black people to ride in the back of the bus?

 

Is that civil opression close enough for you?

 

Love when people say "Love when..." sarcastically because they can't address the actual issue.

[TrueBeaver]

I just can't believe some of the crap that comes out of Santorum's mouth.

 

If you can publicly be a bigot towards gay people, why not just get it over with and say that you're in support of reinstating slavery? The land of the free...the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Oh wait, except if your idea of happiness involves starting a family with another man.

 

What a jackass.

Love when people compare gay marriage to slavery. Gives me a good laugh every time.

 

I'm comparing the opression of blacks to the opression of gays. Slavery too much? Fine, then how bout I compare it to telling the black people to ride in the back of the bus?

 

Is that civil opression close enough for you?

 

Love when people say "Love when..." sarcastically because they can't address the actual issue.

Oppression of gays - not allowing this:

 

Oppression of blacks:

 

If you equate those two things you're either a troll or incapable of a reasonable discussion. Either way I see no reason to waste my time addressing any issue.

[Giordano]

More like, this actually. You're going far into the extreme on one side and not the other.

 

[hide]

[/hide]

[TrueBeaver]

Well, that's kind of my point. There is no correlating extreme on the gay side. When gay people have a march to voice their opinion the worst that happens is some bigots heckle them. They don't get hosed down in the street or beaten by authorities. If that's oppression then by the same standard we're oppressing the military since bigots heckle them at funerals and speeches.

 

You can make a case for gay rights without connecting it to a straw man. When you do that I see it as insulting to the people who went through all that real oppression and especially to those who died fighting it. Like when Pelosi mimicked Civil Rights leaders on her way to the health care vote. There's no reason to connect the two things except for the cheap tactic of demonizing your opponents as anti-Civil Rights Act even though it's completely unrelated.

[Myweponsg00d]

Well, that's kind of my point. There is no correlating extreme on the gay side. When gay people have a march to voice their opinion the worst that happens is some bigots heckle them. They don't get hosed down in the street or beaten by authorities. If that's oppression then by the same standard we're oppressing the military since bigots heckle them at funerals and speeches.

 

You can make a case for gay rights without connecting it to a straw man. When you do that I see it as insulting to the people who went through all that real oppression and especially to those who died fighting it. Like when Pelosi mimicked Civil Rights leaders on her way to the health care vote. There's no reason to connect the two things except for the cheap tactic of demonizing your opponents as anti-Civil Rights Act even though it's completely unrelated.

 

Probably because theres no modern day equivilent for all of the stuff that happened 60 years ago, because people are now concerned with being politically correct.

 

I mean, they don't hang signs outside marriage liscense offices that say "No gays allowed". But basically, they may aswell.

 

Think about it. Would it make sense to stop Mexicans from getting married? So why can we just stop gays from getting married? It is just another group of people.

[TrueBeaver]

If you acknowledge that they aren't the same why would you connect them?

Fine, then how bout I compare it to telling the black people to ride in the back of the bus?

 

Additionally, I haven't made one comment about whether or not gay marriage should be legal. My objection was your analogy. In fact, I acknowledged there's an argument for gay rights in the post you quoted. However, if you want to play these straw man games: gays have the same rights as anyone else. Gay males have just as much a right to marry a female as straight males do and straight males and gay males alike can not marry other males. I feel indecent just typing that out, but it's the same fallacy you're making.

[Myweponsg00d]

If you acknowledge that they aren't the same why would you connect them?

Fine, then how bout I compare it to telling the black people to ride in the back of the bus?

 

Additionally, I haven't made one comment about whether or not gay marriage should be legal. My objection was your analogy. In fact, I acknowledged there's an argument for gay rights in the post you quoted. However, if you want to play these straw man games: gays have the same rights as anyone else. Gay males have just as much a right to marry a female as straight males do and straight males and gay males alike can not marry other males. I feel indecent just typing that out, but it's the same fallacy you're making.

 

Jesus christ, it's not like I said "Denying gay marriage is exactly like slavery, and slavery was abolished, so therefore gay marriage should not be denied as I have undeniabley proven"

 

I was just saying that I see all cases of descrimination based on race, sex, or sexual preference as being unacceptable. Far be it from me to embellish on my language to exaggerate my feelings.

[TrueBeaver]

Jesus christ, it's not like I said "Denying gay marriage is exactly like slavery, and slavery was abolished, so therefore gay marriage should not be denied as I have undeniabley proven"

 

I was just saying that I see all cases of descrimination based on race, sex, or sexual preference as being unacceptable. Far be it from me to embellish on my language to exaggerate my feelings.

 

Understood. But your embellishment was completely out of line. Lately our public discourse has become increasingly hostile, with the right calling the left socialists, communists, and anti-American and the left calling the right racist and anti-Civil Rights Act while both adhere to Godwin's Law. By exaggerating your feelings to equate the opposition of gay rights to the opposition of civil rights for blacks you're only contributing to that hostile discourse. We both know that this is a ridiculous comparison and contributes nothing to the point you were trying to make, that Santorum is a bigot for being anti-gay rights, as evidenced by the last like 7 posts being completely unrelated.

[Myweponsg00d]

Jesus christ, it's not like I said "Denying gay marriage is exactly like slavery, and slavery was abolished, so therefore gay marriage should not be denied as I have undeniabley proven"

 

I was just saying that I see all cases of descrimination based on race, sex, or sexual preference as being unacceptable. Far be it from me to embellish on my language to exaggerate my feelings.

 

Understood. But your embellishment was completely out of line. Lately our public discourse has become increasingly hostile, with the right calling the left socialists, communists, and anti-American and the left calling the right racist and anti-Civil Rights Act while both adhere to Godwin's Law. By exaggerating your feelings to equate the opposition of gay rights to the opposition of civil rights for blacks you're only contributing to that hostile discourse. We both know that this is a ridiculous comparison and contributes nothing to the point you were trying to make, that Santorum is a bigot for being anti-gay rights, as evidenced by the last like 7 posts being completely unrelated.

 

 

He said that strong families aren't gay families.

 

You seriously think this isn't outrageous? It angers me greatly...

[TrueBeaver]

I don't find it nearly as outrageous as it seems you do. That statement, like most dichotomic statements, does not always hold true but even with everything else being equal the social stigma attached with gay families could possibly have negative effects on the child(ren). And that's overlooking the problems associated with adoption, which would account for a significant portion of gay families.

 

However, my point is that nothing he has said is even remotely near what the Jim Crow leaders were doing. I completely understand how people like yourself find things he says extremely distasteful and bigoted. I'm just saying that you can make a solid argument without making blatantly stretched analogies that benefit nothing.

[Myweponsg00d]

I don't find it nearly as outrageous as it seems you do. That statement, like most dichotomic statements, does not always hold true but even with everything else being equal the social stigma attached with gay families could possibly have negative effects on the child(ren). And that's overlooking the problems associated with adoption, which would account for a significant portion of gay families.

 

However, my point is that nothing he has said is even remotely near what the Jim Crow leaders were doing. I completely understand how people like yourself find things he says extremely distasteful and bigoted. I'm just saying that you can make a solid argument without making blatantly stretched analogies that benefit nothing.

 

I think he is doing the modern equivilant. Of course, if anyone took a fire hose and sprayed gay people it would be totally outrageous. But such behavior was not seen as blatantly socially unacceptable in the days you mention.

 

Today, of course, it is not blatantly socially unacceptable to call gay families inherently weak families, because we are still unfortunately fighting for gay rights. But I think that 50-60 years down the road from now (just like when we look back at black rights) the current oppression towards gays will seem just as inconsiderate and bigoted as racism towards blacks now seems.

 

It is all a matter of framing. He is pushing his descrimination to the highest tolerable level in today's society. He might not be making straight-only water fountains, but he's doing the modern-day equivilant.

 

And again, it wasn't an argument or an analogy. It was me vocalizing how ridiculous I feel this man is. I didn't lay down a dissertation that presented a series of logical arguments that relied on gay-bashing being identical to slavery. There was no argument. I just think the man is a fool and wanted to vocalize this in an overt way.