Debate Tonight!!!!! Sponsored by the Tea Party!

CH156378

Unfortunately i'll be watching football.

Although it would be fun to see the republicans try to out teabag each other.

mikepegg44

CH156378 wrote:

Although it would be fun to see the rupublicans try to out teabag each other.

that is an interesting thought...how will Bachmann compete?

Godfather.

mikepegg44 wrote:

CH156378 wrote:

Although it would be fun to see the rupublicans try to out teabag each other.

that is an interesting thought...how will Bachmann compete?

in a swim suit

Godfather.

Jason P

I thought you were bullshitting us, but the Tea Party Express is sponsoring the event along w/ CNN. Hopefully the moderators actually have a spine and force the candidates to answer their questions ... the MSNBC coverage was a debacle.

unsung

Hopefully they give each candidate the same amount of questions and airtime. This isn't a Perry vs Romney debate. I'm sick of the media determining who we get to vote for.

CH156378

Jason P wrote:

I thought you were bullshitting us, but the Tea Party Express is sponsoring the event along w/ CNN. Hopefully the moderators actually have a spine and force the candidates to answer their questions ... the MSNBC coverage was a debacle.

i think wolf is moderating. he usually asks straight forward questions.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjzZYZe4dr0

81

isn't it just a little early to be having debates....

it's more than a year away.

fuck me.

CH156378

unsung wrote:

This isn't a Perry vs Romney debate.

It's not?

cincybearcat

unsung wrote:

Hopefully they give each candidate the same amount of questions and airtime. This isn't a Perry vs Romney debate. I'm sick of the media determining who we get to vote for.

Personally, I hope Perry gets to talk a ton... that way he will be out of this race sooner.

unsung

Ha yeah good point. The scary thing though is some people buy into that crap.

RFTC

Jason P wrote:

I thought you were bullshitting us, but the Tea Party Express is sponsoring the event along w/ CNN. Hopefully the moderators actually have a spine and force the candidates to answer their questions ... the MSNBC coverage was a debacle.

agreed re. msnbc, they shit the bed, just caught final 40 min of the cnn and it definitely seemed more lively and off script. may have to catch the replay of first hour...

Grandma

Somehow I doubt if MoveOn was sponsoring the debate it would be televised.
How did this (&% tea party get all this power so quickly? They were even given a rebuttal chance for the State of the Union -- wtf??

I'm beginning to think 24 hour news is destroying our system - they need something to cover.

unsung

Perry sure stuck his foot in his mouth tonight.

ledvedderman

unsung wrote:

Hopefully they give each candidate the same amount of questions and airtime. This isn't a Perry vs Romney debate. I'm sick of the media determining who we get to vote for.

I don't think that's how it is. It's a chicken or the egg type of situation. Does the media pay attention to candidates with higher poll numbers? Yes. Sadly the media is a business that wants ratings, so they're going to focus on the newsmakers.
I'll also say that in all of my years on campaigns, the sign of weakness comes in the "blame the media" card. It's your job as a candidate and as an organization to get your message out, not to rely on media to do your job for you. This is especially true in the modern age of facebook and other media outlets.
Blaming the media just makes no sense to me. They're doing their job in doing what makes their viewers tune in night after night, it's up to the campaign to get your message in line and peak their interest so that the media does take notice. (and don't give me the whole, "Ron Paul has billions of supporters" mumbo jumbo. He doesn't. If he did, he would be in the White House and he sure isn't going there in 2012)

PS-what a turd of a debate. I know the rule of thumb is to run to the fringe in primaries, but I think Mitt should run center. When everyone else is out on cookoo pasture, running down the middle makes and not pandering to an extreme makes someone a much stronger general election candidate.

unsung

Don't blame the media?

Go to the CNN homepage. They are doing a poll right now asking who will win the nom. They are giving us three choices.

unsung

Rick Perry, "I am always going to error on the side of life".

Tell that to the 230+ people who had your signature on their death warrant.

gimmesometruth27

unsung wrote:

Rick Perry, "I am always going to error on the side of life".

Tell that to the 230+ people who had your signature on their death warrant.

and what about continuing needless wars and occupations? death occurs there every day...

cincybearcat

I watched a good chunk but not the whole thing, some thoughts.

Ugh. Perry is an idiot.

I liked Mitt some last time around and I'm liking him some again this year. He certainly has a good shot against Obama if the debate is about the economy.

Ron Paul didn't come across as well last night, neither did Huntsman, in my opinion. But those 2 guys are great and it's a good thing they are on that stage. Even if Huntsman doesn't get to talk much at all.

I gotta say this, even though I don't like her position on some things, I thought Michelle Bachmann did very well for herself. She seems to be moving away from batshit crazy pretty fast in my opinion. Must be the prepared dialogues versus more off the cuff campaign stops. I honestly thought she had no shot, despite Iowa Straw poll, but now I'm wondering if Perry entering the race has made he up her game.

I really wish this campaign and future debates was between only 4 candidates. Romney, Bachmann, Paul, and Huntsman. I think that Sarah Palin is waiting to see if Perry falls down (which he should) and whether or not Bachmann has a legit shot. Actually, I wouldn't mind 5 candidates, with Newt being number 5. Not going to vote for him, but I like what he adds to the debates.

mikepegg44

cincybearcat wrote:

I watched a good chunk but not the whole thing, some thoughts.

Ugh. Perry is an idiot.

I liked Mitt some last time around and I'm liking him some again this year. He certainly has a good shot against Obama if the debate is about the economy.

Ron Paul didn't come across as well last night, neither did Huntsman, in my opinion. But those 2 guys are great and it's a good thing they are on that stage. Even if Huntsman doesn't get to talk much at all.

I gotta say this, even though I don't like her position on some things, I thought Michelle Bachmann did very well for herself. She seems to be moving away from batshit crazy pretty fast in my opinion. Must be the prepared dialogues versus more off the cuff campaign stops. I honestly thought she had no shot, despite Iowa Straw poll, but now I'm wondering if Perry entering the race has made he up her game.

I really wish this campaign and future debates was between only 4 candidates. Romney, Bachmann, Paul, and Huntsman. I think that Sarah Palin is waiting to see if Perry falls down (which he should) and whether or not Bachmann has a legit shot. Actually, I wouldn't mind 5 candidates, with Newt being number 5. Not going to vote for him, but I like what he adds to the debates.

I think debates should be the only campaigning allowed. There should be one once a week. All the candidates answer the SAME questions and allow people to make up their own minds. Then when it becomes the general election same thing happens. I am so sick of people paying millions upon millions of dollars to win even though someone who probably has better ideas and has zero fundraising ability has no chance. What we do now is a silly way to pick a leader.

cincybearcat

mikepegg44 wrote:

I think debates should be the only campaigning allowed. There should be one once a week. All the candidates answer the SAME questions and allow people to make up their own minds. Then when it becomes the general election same thing happens. I am so sick of people paying millions upon millions of dollars to win even though someone who probably has better ideas and has zero fundraising ability has no chance. What we do now is a silly way to pick a leader.

Yeah, that does sound good. You would have to change the debates to have less topics and allow time for each candidate to answer too.

If Rick Perry gets the nomination for the GOP I will be voting write-in. Or hell, maybe I'll vote Obama just to try and send my 1 vote message to the GOP. But I did that once and I'm not sure it worked and looks like I may have just hurt myself.

Jason P

cincybearcat wrote:

I really wish this campaign and future debates was between only 4 candidates. Romney, Bachmann, Paul, and Huntsman. I think that Sarah Palin is waiting to see if Perry falls down (which he should) and whether or not Bachmann has a legit shot. Actually, I wouldn't mind 5 candidates, with Newt being number 5. Not going to vote for him, but I like what he adds to the debates.

Trade one Bachmann for one Herman Cain and we have a deal. One month ago I thought Cain was nuts, but he is the only one who is clearly not a politician and he is making sound points in the last two debates.

Newt has brought his smack-down hammer and seems more concerned with making sure the legitimate GOP candidates do not start tearing themselves apart too much.