GOP Primaries/Candidates thread

[NorthSideSox72]

Romney just body-slammed Huckabee on the Arkansas law regarding tuition breaks.

 

oooh, but, Huckabee with a pretty darn good retort.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Ron Paul wants to get rid of the Department of Energy. Can't say I agree with that one. Smaller government is good, but energy policy by nature needs to be federal.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

John McCain really dislikes Ron Paul.

 

[mr_genius]

John McCain really dislikes Ron Paul.

 

haha, yea it sure seems like it.

[WilliamTell]

I like Huckabee.

 

These some of these youtube clips are funny. I actually thought at first the animated Cheney was Thompson as well, just like Thompson did.

[mr_genius]

Romney just flip flops, again.

[mr_genius]

lol, look at CNN pulling this crap. not surprised, they really can't help themselves.

 

 

Wow, they are letting the audience berate the candidates. this is a GOP debate not a "give microphone to audience guy to scold the candidates".

Edited November 29, 2007 by mr_genius

[WilliamTell]

I think it's funny how the blue line went higher than the yellow line when gun control was a topic of debate, and when abortion was a topic the yellow line went higher. basically because blue is male and yellow is female.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think it's funny how the blue line went higher than the yellow line when gun control was a topic of debate, and when abortion was a topic the yellow line went higher. basically because blue is male and yellow is female.

yellow and blue lines? What are you looking at?

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Heh. White Sox mention in the debate. Funny.

 

[StrangeSox]

I came away from this really, really disliking Romney. Just seems like a slicked-up politician with canned responses that don't actually say anything.

 

I liked Rudy's, McCain's, and Huckabee's responses on some issues.

[WilliamTell]

yellow and blue lines? What are you looking at?

 

CNN had their voting going on, 12 men and 12 women whether they agreed with the candidate on a scale of 1-10. The graph kept moving all night long.

[Chet Lemon]

Ron Paul wants to get rid of the Department of Energy. Can't say I agree with that one. Smaller government is good, but energy policy by nature needs to be federal.

 

A lot of people have view Paul as over-the-top extreme, which he mostly is, but Dole also promised to scrap the Dept. of Energy if he was elected in '96. My Dad, a DOE employee, ironically still voted for Dole b/c he hated Clinton.

 

Rudy, I thought had a good response about how to cut federal programs.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

A lot of people have view Paul as over-the-top extreme, which he mostly is, but Dole also promised to scrap the Dept. of Energy if he was elected in '96. My Dad, a DOE employee, ironically still voted for Dole b/c he hated Clinton.

 

Rudy, I thought had a good response about how to cut federal programs.

Rudy's method for cutting spending - simply cutting all agency budgets by 5 to 10% - is counter-productive. That's why businesses don't do that unless they are going bankrupt or something. Think about what doing that would mean... for lousy agencies, they are STILL lousy, but with 10% less money to spend. For agencies that are providing critical services in a solid way, you just ensured that the people using those services will get 10% less of it. Its not exactly lose-lose, but I'd call it break even-lose.

 

Instead, I'd rather see what Thompson recommended - via the OMB or consulting firms or whomever, target the agencies that are most wasteful. If they are SO wasteful that they fail entirely, just axe them (and, I'd add, perhaps re-think and re-implement the intended service via other methods). If they are somewhat wasteful, then clean house or cut budget. Don't penalize everyone for some people's failures.

 

[southsider2k5]

Rudy's method for cutting spending - simply cutting all agency budgets by 5 to 10% - is counter-productive. That's why businesses don't do that unless they are going bankrupt or something. Think about what doing that would mean... for lousy agencies, they are STILL lousy, but with 10% less money to spend. For agencies that are providing critical services in a solid way, you just ensured that the people using those services will get 10% less of it. Its not exactly lose-lose, but I'd call it break even-lose.

 

Instead, I'd rather see what Thompson recommended - via the OMB or consulting firms or whomever, target the agencies that are most wasteful. If they are SO wasteful that they fail entirely, just axe them (and, I'd add, perhaps re-think and re-implement the intended service via other methods). If they are somewhat wasteful, then clean house or cut budget. Don't penalize everyone for some people's failures.

 

I know some people on here aren't going to like to hear this, but governments, but their very nature, are the most wasteful form of commerce out there. There is absolutely no incentive to be effecient, because they answer to no one. Knock the private sector all you like, but they have stockholders and investers to answer to, and if a company isn't preforming to par, they will remove those problems. In government it is the opposite, the longer someone has been working, the more entrenched they become, and the easier it is for them to do a bad job. Without a profit motivation, there is simply no way to force employees to work hard, because they don't fear losing their jobs.

 

Now say if you came up with a system that fired the bottom preforming 5% of employees in an agency annually, and gave bonuses to the top 5%, maybe that would change, because at least there would be a carrot and a stick involved. The candidates can talk all they want, but without involving the private sector, or some other real world incentive/decentive, the preformance of government is going to be ineffecient.

[EvilMonkey]

What, no mention of the fact that CNN let a Hillary operative ask one of the video questions, and be in the audience for a followup question? And CNN claims they didn't know who he was? 5 minutes on Google could have told them that.

[southsider2k5]

What, no mention of the fact that CNN let a Hillary operative ask one of the video questions, and be in the audience for a followup question? And CNN claims they didn't know who he was? 5 minutes on Google could have told them that.

 

Anderson Coopers reaction to Bennent saying that was hilarious.

 

"uh, uh, well, uh, if we would have known.."

 

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I know some people on here aren't going to like to hear this, but governments, but their very nature, are the most wasteful form of commerce out there. There is absolutely no incentive to be effecient, because they answer to no one. Knock the private sector all you like, but they have stockholders and investers to answer to, and if a company isn't preforming to par, they will remove those problems. In government it is the opposite, the longer someone has been working, the more entrenched they become, and the easier it is for them to do a bad job. Without a profit motivation, there is simply no way to force employees to work hard, because they don't fear losing their jobs.

 

Now say if you came up with a system that fired the bottom preforming 5% of employees in an agency annually, and gave bonuses to the top 5%, maybe that would change, because at least there would be a carrot and a stick involved. The candidates can talk all they want, but without involving the private sector, or some other real world incentive/decentive, the preformance of government is going to be ineffecient.

That's what I was getting at - if you reward no one and penalize no one (like now), or if you just penalize everyone (Rudy's plan), you will never ever have more productive government agencies. If on the other hand you actually reward high performers and penalize losers, you can maybe get a lot more out of those agencies.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

What, no mention of the fact that CNN let a Hillary operative ask one of the video questions, and be in the audience for a followup question? And CNN claims they didn't know who he was? 5 minutes on Google could have told them that.

Really? I haven't checked the news sites yet this morning, so I hadn't heard that. Which video question was a plant? Was it the gay General?

 

[southsider2k5]

Really? I haven't checked the news sites yet this morning, so I hadn't heard that. Which video question was a plant? Was it the gay General?

 

It had to do with gays in the military, and I think the story is even up on drudge now. Bill Bennet busted CNN out on the after part of the debate where they were talking to the six critics about what they thought of the debate.

[southsider2k5]

It had to do with gays in the military, and I think the story is even up on drudge now. Bill Bennet busted CNN out on the after part of the debate where they were talking to the six critics about what they thought of the debate.

 

Here is the link to Anderson Cooper talking about it after the fact.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

It had to do with gays in the military, and I think the story is even up on drudge now. Bill Bennet busted CNN out on the after part of the debate where they were talking to the six critics about what they thought of the debate.

OK. That was definitely an interesting segment though. Hillary plant or not, I think it was a solid question and situation to put to that group.

 

I'd recommend watching the videos of the debate if you haven't seen them - to anyone here. In particular, that segment, but also the opening sequence between Giuliani and Romney about illegal immigrants, and also the McCain-Paul exchanges over Iraq. Those were the three really interesting parts, IMO.

 

And when watching the responses to the gay Brig Gen's question about gays in the military... watch the candidates who answer, listen to their choice of words, and watch their facial expressions. If you see what I saw, you'll see one very hateful human being (Hunter), one very circumspect and unsure candidate (McCain) and one flip-flopping fish out of water (Romney). In any case, the answers to that question disappointed me more than any other. What a bunch of cowards. Have some spine. We teach these 18 year old kids to do all manner of unthinkable things for their country, but we're not sure that they can handle thinking that the guy/gal next to them might have different sexual desires than they do? What a bunch of homophobic losers.

 

[Heads22]

Huckabee is very good with a crowd. That's for sure.

 

Much like NSS, if we get Obama vs. Huckabee....I could handle that. Huckabee just kind of seems like a nice guy.

 

Thompson looks inherently evil.

[Chet Lemon]

Rudy's method for cutting spending - simply cutting all agency budgets by 5 to 10% - is counter-productive. That's why businesses don't do that unless they are going bankrupt or something. Think about what doing that would mean... for lousy agencies, they are STILL lousy, but with 10% less money to spend. For agencies that are providing critical services in a solid way, you just ensured that the people using those services will get 10% less of it. Its not exactly lose-lose, but I'd call it break even-lose.

 

Instead, I'd rather see what Thompson recommended - via the OMB or consulting firms or whomever, target the agencies that are most wasteful. If they are SO wasteful that they fail entirely, just axe them (and, I'd add, perhaps re-think and re-implement the intended service via other methods). If they are somewhat wasteful, then clean house or cut budget. Don't penalize everyone for some people's failures.

 

As I understood Rudy's response, he would limit gov't agencies by not having their vacancies filled as a result forthcoming retirements. That was in addition to spending cuts across-like Reagan-the board. Not that I necessarily accept that in full, but if you're courting conservative votes, how is that not a good response?

 

[NorthSideSox72]

As I understood Rudy's response, he would limit gov't agencies by not having their vacancies filled as a result forthcoming retirements. That was in addition to spending cuts across-like Reagan-the board. Not that I necessarily accept that in full, but if you're courting conservative votes, how is that not a good response?

I wasn't speaking for some specific group, I was speaking for myself - as a fiscal conservative, I think his spending approach is illogical.

 

His idea of not re-filling some posts via retirement, that's all fine and good.