| Sep 27, 2007 @ 9:39 AM |
The Presidential Debates!
|
|
MusicMonster
Posts: 2,954
|
A lot of interesting things were said in the democratic presidential debates last evening. Some good, some not so good, depending on your perspective.
Overall the commentators seemed to feel John Edwards may have made the most headway and probably will get a bump in the polls. The overall feeling seemed to be that Obama was less than effective, and that it was neither his or Hillary's best showing, although Hillary was judged as doing better. There was more opposition than there has been, among them. Gravel of Alaska is always entertaining. 
Sadly though, with regard to Illegal Immigration, they barely touched on it, but those that did still do not recognize the term "Illegal" in Illegal Immigration. It was said that we are a nation of "immigrants" and should not deny that to others who also want to be. That's true, we are that, but what seems to be hard for some to realize, we are not a nation of "ILLEGAL" Immigrants. There is all the difference in the world! And we allow for Legal Immigration in very generous ways, more than all other countries in the world combined. I don't see how candidates can take that approach and not recognize they are lying to themselves.
Several though, unfortunately never got a chance to express their views on this crucial issue. Oddly enough, it didn't seem as though Tim Russert (the host) wanted to go there very much either. That question came from someone in New Hampshire.
As for universal medical care for all Americans, that seemed to be a pretty common viewpoint, although the methods of achieving it varied, and just about everyone wanted out of Iraq, at least before 2013.. Some much sooner than that. They also wanted to do a lot better job of guarding our borders.
-MM 
|
|
  |
|
| Sep 27, 2007 @ 1:05 PM |
The Presidential Debates! |
|
Bj864
Posts: 4,238
|
As for universal medical care for all Americans, that seemed to be a pretty common viewpoint
I hope you realize that all the major candidates are not talking about National health care for everyone. They are talking about a different way to use the same insurance companies we have now.
Dennis Kucinich is the ONLY one that has a real National Health Care program. It is simply extending Medicare for all people. That eliminates the profit for the insurance companies and should bring the cost of medical care down, for the people and their employers.
I did not like the Hillary Clinton I saw last night. I thought she showed arrogance more than once and she laughed when it was very inappropiate. I think they decided to start going after her last night and it worked. Her yes vote on the first step toward war with Iran was not what the people wanted to hear. I was glad that Gravel brought that up. I hope she is on the way down. It is obvious that she is going to keep us in ongoing wars, just as she helped get us into this one.
|
| |
|
| Sep 27, 2007 @ 1:27 PM |
The Presidential Debates!
|
|
LipGlossQueen9
Posts: 11,182
|
The more I am exposed to Bill Richardson and Mike Gravel, the more I love them. Too bad they won't win.
|
|
| |
|
| Sep 27, 2007 @ 1:52 PM |
The Presidential Debates! |
|
MusicMonster
Posts: 2,954
|
Well, Edwards health plan is reportedly very different than is Clinton's. But I don't have the precise details and they were not elaborated on last night to any degree because of time constraints. .
Clearly Edwards went after Clinton to form a gap between them, and separate himself from her in an effort to gain position, and he apparently did that. Another thing Hillary said that wasn't terribly well received, was that she would keep a certain amount of troops in Iraq over the long term, similar to Korea. That surprised me. And yes, she did laugh at some rather inopportune times, as well as coming across as a little too much 'in charge' already, as well as being a bit combative with Russert.
I think Biden came off pretty well all-around too, which I didn't necessarily expect. Although 2nd tier, he may still be gaining some ground as well.
Kucenich is a very wise fellow in many ways, and I like some of what he says. But he is also one of the ones who said we are all immigrants and should welcome all people with open arms. Never separating "illegal" from "legal", or anything about tolerable numbers of influx, in any way. As mentioned above, that misrepresentation is very troubling for me. There are very big differences.
-MM
|
| |
|
| Sep 27, 2007 @ 1:56 PM |
The Presidential Debates!
|
|
LipGlossQueen9
Posts: 11,182
|
The problem I have with Barack Obama, and I'm not the only one...
Is that he is the runner up to Clinton right now (though about 20 points behind) and he won't attack or go for the jugular...he seems very weak. Chris Matthews said Barack should just drop out because he's going to fade into the background if he keeps going the way he's going. I am starting to agree.
At least Edwards is making every effort to separate himself from Clinton.
|
|
| |
|
| Sep 27, 2007 @ 7:47 PM |
The Presidential Debates! |
|
Bj864
Posts: 4,238
|
Never separating "illegal" from "legal", or anything about tolerable numbers of influx, in any way. As mentioned above, that misrepresentation is very troubling for me. There are very big differences
They are all in agreement on the illegal immigrant issue. If you go to their websites, you will see that they all want to give the illegals a way to become citizens. Sad, but true. That is the one thing I do not like about Kucinich. Otherwise, I think he is the best of the bunce.
|
| |
|
| Sep 27, 2007 @ 9:46 PM |
The Presidential Debates!
|
|
Designingwoman
Posts: 120
|
Johnny B. Goode!!
Go Johnny Go Go!!! 
|
|
| |
|
| Sep 27, 2007 @ 9:58 PM |
The Presidential Debates! |
|
eastham
Posts: 8,145
|
Newt Gingrich, among others, has criticized the Republicans for their failure to partipate in the recent PBS debate hosted by Tavis Smiley and the Hispanic debate on Telemundo. Gingrich and several other state Republican party leaders have lamented that Republicans think they can win without any minorty vote or worse don't want the votes of minority groups. What gives? I'm not sure I understand why any major candidate would walk away from any debate, regardless of format (online debates) or the hosts.
|
| |
|
| Sep 27, 2007 @ 10:07 PM |
The Presidential Debates!
|
|
LipGlossQueen9
Posts: 11,182
|
It pisses me off, that's all I have to say.
|
|
| |
|
| Sep 28, 2007 @ 8:11 AM |
The Presidential Debates! |
|
kjac
Posts: 8,163
|
It's called elitism eastham. You'd think you'd be used to it by now. At least, I hope that's what it is. The alternatives are even uglier.
|
| |
|
| Sep 28, 2007 @ 9:08 AM |
The Presidential Debates!
|
|
youaremissed
Posts: 1,158
|
I think it was the list of questions that were on agenda to ask...Though many were tough questions, the candidates that went answered them very well...This was a racial minority debate and frankly I think the no shows were intimidated by that for fear they would be held accountable for their records in voting...
I will say that after watching Tim russert and the way he handled and ran the debate on wednesday, FOX should never ever be allowed to do anymore debates...Russert was professional and accountable in his attempt to elicit the same levels of the candidates at task...Both the recent rep and the dem debates were professional and what I believe should set the level of how a debate should be run...I enjoyed watching them both for just that reason...
Illegal immigration and the negative effects it has on black and hispanic minority americans came up several times...I felt all the present candidates did very well in answering the questions... Keyes is a very learned and articulate man and would make a better congressman than a president IMHO...While he brought up a fresh perspective and at times very good points, he is too theatrical to be president...I think the top three at last nights debate were ron paul, tancredo and huckabee...
I honestly was not impressed with any in the dem debate...I will add to that, that likely is because I have followed their votes on key issues and totally do not agree and at times question their agenda, the same also holds true for the vast majority of rep candidates which ironically were the no shows from Morgan U...
|
|
| |
|
| Sep 28, 2007 @ 10:33 AM |
The Presidential Debates! |
|
LipGlossQueen9
Posts: 11,182
|
I will say that after watching Tim russert and the way he handled and ran the debate on wednesday, FOX should never ever be allowed to do anymore debates...Russert was professional and accountable in his attempt to elicit the same levels of the candidates at task...Both the recent rep and the dem debates were professional and what I believe should set the level of how a debate should be run...I enjoyed watching them both for just that reason...
Yeah but Russert's good and has been since I've been watching the news...
I agree with you though, the FOX debates that I've seen have been terrible.
|
| |
|
| Sep 28, 2007 @ 6:21 PM |
The Presidential Debates!
|
|
MusicMonster
Posts: 2,954
|
FOX should never be allowed to have debates because they are so openly politically biased, and don't usually even try very hard to hide it. FOX made major campaign contributions to the Bush campaign for example, and very little they do is NOT about slanted politics.
Frankly I feel the same about other very slanted organizations like La Raza and Telemundo, and Moveon.Org as well. They are all about bias and special interests. Very little about America as a whole.
There needs to be an element of neutrality and a vision of the "big picture" for someone to host political debates. Having FOX do it is almost exactly the same as hosting a presidential debate at the offices of Moveon.Org. I doubt very many would be interested in that. Certainly not the existing administration.
-MM 
|
|
| |
|
| Oct 8, 2007 @ 9:23 PM |
The Presidential Debates! |
|
MusicMonster
Posts: 2,954
|
Just in case anyone hasn't heard yet, who wants to know.. (I only found out by sheer chance today)
The next phase of Republican debates are tomorrow (Tuesday the 9th) on CNBC at 3:00PM CST and MSNBC at 9:00PM CST. Don't know how that is supposed to work with the time split etc, or if it's a repeat or what. But that's how it's announced.
This is the debut for Fred Thompson in debating, and some say could make or break his candidacy, because even though he is a Tennessean, he hasn't exactly set the world on fire since his announcement on late night TV. And he;s fallen under some criticism for not being up to what was pretty much expected. I haven't been able to get very excited about him either, although at one time I thought I might.
Time will tell. Oh, Mitt Romney is staunchly anti-illegal immigration in recent times, although I'm not quite sure where he stood before. That is likely to serve him well against Giuliani (the sanctuary-wing-it-pro-Bush guy with the plastic ever-present smile) at least. Maybe this will be an opportunity for Hunter or Paul to move up the scale a notch or two also? Hard to be sure.
Should be pretty interesting stuff and worth a look-see!
-MM
|
| |
|
| Oct 8, 2007 @ 9:36 PM |
The Presidential Debates!
|
|
MusicMonster
Posts: 2,954
|
Ooops! That's 8:00PM CST for the second schedule.. MSNBC. 9:00PM EST.
Not sure how it ties in with CNBC at 3:00PM CST. 
-MM 
|
|
| |
|
| Oct 8, 2007 @ 10:44 PM |
The Presidential Debates! |
|
youaremissed
Posts: 1,158
|
What's up Tuesday: Republicans debate economics
Republicans gather for a debate on economic policy tomorrow in Dearborn, Mich. It's the first time Fred Thompson will be onstage with his rivals since he declared his candidacy on Sept. 5.
Read Frank Newport's pre-debate warmup at Gallup Guru. His headline: "Republicans won’t be 'shocked' if they detect liberal bias among debate moderators on Tuesday."
The two-hour debate starts at 4 p.m. ET. It will be broadcast live on CNBC and streamed live on CNBC.com. You can see it on MSNBC at 9 p.m. ET. And we will be live-blogging it right here at On Politics.
Moderators for the debate are CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo and MSNBC's Chris Matthews.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/10/whats-up-tues-1.html
|
| |
|
| Oct 9, 2007 @ 8:01 PM |
The Presidential Debates!
|
|
MusicMonster
Posts: 2,954
|
So.. What conclusions did we come to as a result of this one?
And what did you all think of Thompson's performance, arriving late in the game and playing catch-up?
Not suggesting it's a good thing or a bad thing, but they sure took a lot of shots at Hillary.. Obviously her Democratic prevalence is widely felt by all..
Not really a word about Edwards or Obama as I recall. And hardly anything about Bush. Unfortunately though, most of them, like McCain, are pro-war, with no real conclusions to it in sight. The exception being Paul, and I'm not quite sure about Hunter or Tancredo.
Giuliani, McCain and Thompson are largely pro-Bush as well. I'm not sure that would have been the case some 60-90 days back. It would seem the Republican candidates are finding GWB somewhat less toxic these days.
-MM
|
|
| |
|
| Oct 9, 2007 @ 8:06 PM |
The Presidential Debates! |
|
LipGlossQueen9
Posts: 11,182
|
Thompson is a dud. No amount of money in the free world, or anything for that matter, could convince me to throw my support behind that man.
And Giuliani? I am convinced he's just trying to play to the conservative base....as I've said...I refuse to put a man who has crossdressed and is for civil unions in the same category as Mitt Nasty and George Bush.
|
| |
|
| Oct 9, 2007 @ 8:11 PM |
The Presidential Debates!
|
|
eastham
Posts: 8,145
|
Speaking of Thompson, today the National Archives released information on references to Thompson in Nixon's Watergate tapes (I'm not sure which reporter made the FOIA request). Nixon said that Thompson seemed like a friendly guy, but was dumber than a box of rocks.
|
|
| |
|
| Oct 9, 2007 @ 8:13 PM |
The Presidential Debates! |
|
LipGlossQueen9
Posts: 11,182
|
but was dumber than a box of rocks.
Yeah, I knew that the first time I heard three consecutive syllables exit the man's mouth.
As I said, he is a dud and I am surprised he is in second place in Iowa. Seriously...conservative values are one thing but when the hell are conservatives going to stop electing and attempting to elect people they want to have a beer and burgers with?!?!?!?
|
| |
|
|