Reply With Quote
Yeah I must say I agree with boutons on this as well. It's sad that we don't demand more from the people running for the most powerful office in the country.
Holy . This is the best post Boutons has ever made.
Yeah I must say I agree with boutons on this as well. It's sad that we don't demand more from the people running for the most powerful office in the country.
From what I saw, but I didn't see everything...
Romney owned the room when he talked! Remember, this is a republican debate. Rudy was the better liberal and Romney was clearly the better conservative.
I'm sorry, but I believe the opposite from what I have heard.
It was democrats who discovered how to cheat the electronic systems without a paper trail.
Statistics show the democrats cheated for Kerry in the 2004 elections. The optical scan and punch ballots were primarily for president Bush, and the paperless systems in place were overwhelmingly for senator Kerry. It’s a good thing they didn’t have enough in place to change the election results. If Diabold = system manipulation, then system manipulation = democrats!
Do ented accounts of democrats cheating during elections are far higher than republicans cheating.
Yep, governmental indoctrination…
I agree with you here too. Children are molded into what they are suppose to believe, especially with all the ‘feel good’ ideas.
What’s wrong with us?
We agree…
None of this is as bad as the democrats canceling their CBS debate because of the Writer's Guild strike.
It is all scripted?
Republicans are just better at not getting caught. No party is better than the other when it comes right down to it.
Then why not just post their resumes and quit all this ing back and forth? I guess I just see the debates differently than you and Manny. Yeah, I know they are out to say what is best for their campaign and gives, at least to me, a more personable understanding of the candadates. That is why employers don't normally just look at a resume and do the hiring. That is why they go through the interview process to get a feel for the prospective employee.
I don't consider it a huge waste of time at all. I find them to be very entertaining at times. I was hooping it up when Mitt and Rudy were going at and saying, "There you go Hickabee!" during the debate.
You can say that posting your opinion is a waste of time since all one has to do is look at a candidates' career, votes and accomplishments and base your decision on just that.
Go Obama!!!! Exit, stage left.
They both tripped over and deflected every question of substance given to them. Romney danced around the waterboarding issue here. http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qk6CQVvMtNU
Not to mention how rudy almost exploded when asked if the bible was true. And He did even worse on the gun control question.
Except employerrs choose the questions, not the other way around.
If you take time and think about it, Romney answered the issues correctly unless we have a difinitive definition for water boarding. We do not indicate to our enemies our tactics. It it amounts to disclosing classified information. Water boarding is not defined as torture, and there are some who think it should be. I too, am one that is on the fence on water boarding. I tend to see it not as torture, but I could just as likely see it as torture should I learn enough about it.
"Water boarding is not defined as torture"
a ing lie. Ashcroft and Gonzo define whatever head wants defined. They are in-house lawyers,not defenders/enforcers of the law, esp not international laws and conventions which Repugs disrespect fundamentally.
OK, give me a valid source that has the USA legal authority to define it as torture, and I will concede to your otherwise stupidity.
I take it personal being called a liar without good evidence, and it shows your intelligence level because you will not find a valid source.
I show flexibility in my response, yet you say as fact that I lie?
I hope you are not so stupid as to wonder why I attack people like you.
Doesn't the fact that president Bush is the 'executor' of law give him some authority to interpret the grey areas?
Like I said, where is your evidence. You are such an asshole with you constant name-calling just because you don't like someone. That is pretty childish when you have no clear evidence.
I just don't know why Republicans are always characterized as heartless, brutal xenophobes.
Dialing the Republicans
Posted by Joe Klein | Comments (65) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This
I attended Frank Luntz's dial group of 30 undecided--or sort of undecided--Republicans in St. Petersburg, Florida, last night...and it was a fairly astonishing evening.
Now, for the uninitiated: dials are little hand-held machines that enable a focus group member to register instantaneous approval or disapproval as the watch a candidate on TV. There are limitations to the technology: all a candidate has to do is mention, say, Abraham Lincoln and the dials go off into the stratosphere. Film of soaring eagles will have the same effect. But the technology does have its uses.
Last night, for example, it was apparent from the get-go that Rudy Giuliani was having a very bad night. Mitt Romney clearly got the better of him in the opening debate about illegal immigration. Romney's dial numbers hovered in the 60s (on a scale of 100) while Giuliani (40s) seemed defensive, members of the focus group later said...and they thought Romney seemed strong, even when defending his Sanctuary Mansion. (I mean, if you care about illegal immigrants--which I don't understand in the first place, because I don''t--shouldn't you check the people working your lawn and, if you have doubts, hire another company?)
In the next segment--the debate between Romney and Mike Huckabee over Huckabee's college scholarships for the deserving children of illegal immigrants--I noticed something really distressing: When Huckabee said, "After all, these are children of God," the dials plummeted. And that happened time and again through the evening: Any time any candidate proposed doing anything nice for anyone poor, the dials plummeted (30s). These Republicans were hard.
But there was worse to come: When John McCain started talking about torture--specifically, about waterboarding--the dials plummeted again. Lower even than for the illegal Children of God. Down to the low 20s, which, given the natural averaging of a focus group, is about as low as you can go. Afterwards, Luntz asked the group why they seemed to be in favor of torture. "I don't have any problem pouring water on the face of a man who killed 3000 Americans on 9/11," said John Shevlin, a retired federal law enforcement officer. The group applauded, appallingly.
They also hated anything that Ron Paul said (high 30s to low 20s), especially on the war in Iraq.
They tended to like Huckabee a lot (60s to 80s anytime he opened his mouth), but afterwards most said he was too extreme, religiously, to be President. Really, they did.
So who won? Romney walked in with 8 members of the group leaning his way and left with 14. The group thought he looked and sounded like a leader. Fred Thompson went from 3 supporters to 7--and I noticed a clever trick he used: he started almost every answer with a joke and the dials would go up and stay up as he meandered through his nondescript answers.
Giuliani lost. He came in with 12 supporters and left with 6. People thought he came off as too much of a ...New Yorker. McCain had one lonely supporter going in and coming out--but the group was just crazy livid about his stands on immigration and torture.
The members of the group were overwhelmingly white. There were two Latinos. They seemed nice, concerned, relatively well informed and entirely intolerant citizens. This level of anger--the topic of my column below--seems likely to be exploited disgracefully by the Republican candidate in the general election campaign, especially if it's Romney. I hope the nativists lose, as they almost always have in American history. But I'm worried that they may not.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions