www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Poll: Who won the Republican Debate tonight?

Ron Paul is a smart guy, but no way did he look stronger than Mitt yesterday. Just no way.

FTW = For The Win.

Father Deacon, you don't play WOW do ya?

I don't think Senator Thompson has the stage presence (even though he is an actor) to become elected.

Governor Romney won't be elected because of his religion (Al Smith anyone?)

I think the real contenders are Mayor Giuliani and Senator McCain.

BTW, I had some friends who had a network in one of their basements and it looked like NORAD down there! They used the computers to play video games against each other. They're probably all millionaires by now!

Considering the fact that Governor Romney was elected in the Peoples Republic of MA and the fact that there is no other Anti-Abortion, Anti-Gay Marriage, Pro Family alternative who can also beat Hillary, Mitt actually has a good chance to get the Evangelical vote.

Hold up a picture of Romney and the Evangelical crowd may Boo it

Hold up a picture of McCaine and Giuliani and they will scream in protest.

Hold up a picture of Hillary and they all faint.

In these conditions Mitt is the clear cut winner.

Add to the fact that he is Brilliant and can turn pretty much any argument or attack into a reason why he should be elected and you have the President of the USA in 2008.

Tancredo is probably the most Christian-based value guy of all...Pro-Life, Pro-Family, PRO-America (meaning anti-illegal immigration abuses). Very strong patriotism and family-values without any compromises.

Of course it's the ones that are the very best for Judeo-Christian values that are the least known thanks to Media who seem to pour more attention to the ones we Christians don't care for such as pro-Abort McCain & Guiliani.

Brownback is Kansas Senator (of my State) and I do not like him one bit even if he's Pro-Life.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

Be that as it may the only 3 people who have a good chance of beating Hillary are Rudy, John and Mitt.

Tancredo was weak in his performance...he was asked simple questions and seemed to stumble and stammer. A leader needs to appear articulate and confident. (We've had 6 years of the latter, not the former.) Unfortunately for Tancredo and his supporters, he was neither of those.

Guliani will not get a pass on social and moral issues from true conservatives. Could I see him in the VP slot? It is possible...a Romney-Guiliani ticket could be very appealing. If I had a slot for him I would have said AG. He would be perfect there. Certainly better than what we have.

Ron Paul had some interesting ideas, but he does not exude any manliness I think we want our friends and our enemies to see. Apart from the fact that he stammered as well.

I'm willing to give Sen. Fred Thompson a chance when he announces. But if I had to guess from last night, I would go with Romney. He could go toe-to-toe with Hilary and make her look even more shrill and overly-prepped.

Brownback, Thompson, McCain and even Huckabee (whom I like personally, but let's face it - there will never be a President Huckabee) and the rest did not have the same presence on stage that a leader needs.

God bless,

Gordo

Yeah!

What Gordo said

So does it require for one to be articulate to become the President of the United State? Or does it require good leadership platform? Which one?

What if I want to become the President? So you won't vote for me simply because I may not speak as well as a hearing person or based on my platform?

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

With regards to leadership, clear, consistent, credible and convincing communication is key. Leadership often is about influence, and a person who has a good message but is unable to communicate it effectively will not make a good leader as President of the United States.

Shane, you brought up the situation with someone who is hearing impaired. I certainly would not avoid listening to someone or vote against them because of their impairment, or even a speech impediment. If anything, I think people would be very understanding and accepting of that - SO LONG as the person cold communicate well. If a person could ony use sign language or speak through interpreters, however, I do not think such an individual could successfully run for president.

I did not see the debate, but this morning on NPR, they had a story on Fred Thompson, the former senator and Law & Order actor. I think he would be a much more formidable candidate for the Republicans than some of those who are running now. If anyone can put a warm face on conservatism, Thompson can.

Here is a video of Mitt Romney on Iraq from QubeTV:

http://www.qubetv.tv/videos/detail/110

What a guy...

Gordo

Hi, Lance!

I agree, if he decides to run. He has a sort of Dr. Phil, understanding yet matter-of-fact way about him. "How's that workin' for ya, America?"

Gordo

Excellent video Gordo, thank you for posting it.

I think as the American people begin to be introduced to Mitt Romney more and more, He will receive a tremendous gain in support.

I truly hope that His Religious affiliation won't disqualify Him from the presidency.

This is a man that inspires confidence and strikes fear into the hearts of those who want to destroy us.

From the bits and pieces I heard on the radio none of them deserve our vote. The questions I heard were all sophomoric and for that matter it wasn't really a debate at all. I wish primaries could be eliminated and the conventins chose the candidates. For that matter I'm in favor of a Catholic Monarchy but the next best thing would be for the parties to choose their own candidates about two months before the elections. Then the candidates would be forced to actually say something knowting that they had a limited time in which to say it.

CDL

Carson,

I disagree. Apart from the fact that we have an open media which would start reporting potential candidates long before the 2 month window, I think the candidates would have two months to say very little - and it would turn into a charm contest, not a debate about ideas. I do favor getting to know them and their views for a longer period (not a LONG period, mind you). The idea that we are starting already on 2008 is a little annoying, but is testament to the level of frustration some folks feel about President Bush PLUS the desire of the Democrats to keep the momentum of their 2006 victories going until the presidential election.

God bless,

Gordo