Fox News is presenting the first debate for the Republican Presidential hopefuls. Although the field is short on pizzazz, there should be no shortage of opinions. I plan to watch, if only to see if all of these guys disagree on anything. I want to see how Ron Paul does against Pawlenty. The rest are johnny-come-latelys and don't merit any attention, IMO.

My question to all of you is this:

Why have all of the "big name" R's passed on this? My guess is that no one wants to look bad early so the prevailing thought is to ignore it. Sooner or later, though, they'll have to show up or drop out.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/04/gop-hopefuls-ready-rumble-2012-presidential-debate/

stlouiedipalma;759971 wrote:Fox News is presenting the first debate for the Republican Presidential hopefuls. Although the field is short on pizzazz, there should be no shortage of opinions. I plan to watch, if only to see if all of these guys disagree on anything. I want to see how Ron Paul does against Pawlenty. The rest are johnny-come-latelys and don't merit any attention, IMO.

My question to all of you is this:

Why have all of the "big name" R's passed on this? My guess is that no one wants to look bad early so the prevailing thought is to ignore it. Sooner or later, though, they'll have to show up or drop out.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/04/gop-hopefuls-ready-rumble-2012-presidential-debate/

I might slip by the show. But it is too early in the cycle for this debate, IMO.

Ron Paul 2012.

sleeper;760007 wrote:Ron Paul 2012.

I might actually vote Republican if that was on the docket.

I'm going to vote for him anyway, I don't care if he's not on the ballot.

That will do a whole lot.

People are so selfish that this election will again be decided on jobs, how much does it take to fill me tank and the economy in general.

Con_Alma;760165 wrote:People are so selfish that this election will again be decided on jobs, how much does it take to fill me tank and the economy in general.

As opposed to what other measure? The U.S. is at a tipping point with young people not having the opportunities that their parents and grandparents had. The effects of this will cascade upwards, with lower tax revenue, deflationary hard assets and inflationary commodities. Like it or not entitlements will have to take a hit.

I wouldn't call someone 25 years old, unemployed and no hopes of employment selfish at all, I'd agree with them being pissed off. The U.S. economy sucks the big one for our future, the baby boomers are the most short-sighted and greedy of any other generation in modern history.

Manhattan Buckeye;760169 wrote:As opposed to what other measure? ...

A person's political ideology being reflected of your own.

Possesses the skills to be Commander-In-Chief.

An ambassador and world representative of the United States.

Of high moral Character giving the belief they will be a defender and follower of the constitution.

One who has shown the ability to forge momentum with others towards a common working goal.

I understand that creating a domestic policy direction and leading towards it is paramount but at the end of the day if it's the economy that you want to vote based on look towards congress. At the end of the day it is the house that impacts our wallets more.

A person's political ideology being reflected of your own. (doesn't matter when you don't have a job and can't afford a family)

Possesses the skills to be Commander-In-Chief. (doesn't matter when you don't have a job and can't afford a family)

An ambassador and world representative of the United States. (doesn't matter when you don't have a job and can't afford a family)

Of high moral Character giving the belief they will be a defender and follower of the constitution. (doesn't matter when you don't have a job and can't afford a family)

One who has shown the ability to forge momentum with others towards a common working goal. (doesn't matter when you don't have a job and can't afford a family)

The economy is THE issue for most young Americans. They'd vote for Spongebob Squarepants as long as they have a future, this is the darkest we've seen since the great depression - no bullshit. The executive office certainly can make policies that help/hurt the job market, the current one has elected for the latter.

The great thing Manhattan is that we can disagree regarding the criteria to base our own individual vote on.

I do indeed disagree with you. Even without a job those above things matter..a great deal. For example, an ideology reflective of my own if in place will ultimately create an environment that enables me to become employed.

It's my view that electing a President isn't about me, it's about us. What's best for us may not be ideal for me at this time. I liken it to decisions that I make for my family. What I want for me at this moment may not be ideal for my family. I make my decisions based on what's best for my family. I think it would be selfish to do otherwise.

I take the same view regarding the President and who I vote for. I think it would be selfish to do otherwise because it's not about me. It's about us.

"...The executive office certainly can make policies that help/hurt the job market, the current one has elected for the latter. "

I don't dispute that at all but hold the premise that it being the only thing or even the greatest thing would be shortsighted to solely base my vote on. The position is much bigger than that.

Candidate #1 Tax break!

Candidate #2 Lower taxes!

Candidate #3 Cut spending!

Candidate #4 Outlaw abortion and Obama sucks!

Candidates 1 2 3 in unison.......You win, we quit!

stlouiedipalma;759971 wrote:The rest are johnny-come-latelys and don't merit any attention, IMO.

I'm thinking Obama doesn't agree.

It just won't be any fun without Newt, Mitt, The Donald, Huck, Michelle and any one of many who bailed on this.

I do agree that jobs and the economy will be the driving forces in determining who gets votes. I always felt that Americans voted their pocketbooks and wallets in a Presidential election. You know, the old "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" stuff.

Of course, it's a long way off and any number of things can change by next year. Damn, I still wanted to see the "Prime Time" candidates mix it up. Sooner or later we'll get our chance.

Sorry, but it's waaaay too early for this, which is probably why there is so little interest.

Con_Alma;760174 wrote:A person's political ideology being reflected of your own.

Typically, the economic and employment stances are important elements of a person's political ideology. Thus, this issue of "jobs" will likely not trump their political ideology. Instead, it will simply emphasize that element of their already-established political ideology.

Con_Alma;760174 wrote:Possesses the skills to be Commander-In-Chief.

Honestly, I see this as basically being willing and able to listen to good intel, and make decisions based on that intel.

Con_Alma;760174 wrote:An ambassador and world representative of the United States.

We live in a globalized era, so I think this is important. Still, I think it rests on a "second tier" of important, under any and every trait that has to do with actually getting things done here at home.

This is, really, just likeability.

Con_Alma;760174 wrote:Of high moral Character giving the belief they will be a defender and follower of the constitution.

Upholding the Constitution is of high importance. As for "moral character," I'm not as hard-standing. So long as the president is not doing his job unethically, I don't care about his morals for his personal life.

Con_Alma;760174 wrote:One who has shown the ability to forge momentum with others towards a common working goal.

This sounds like a team-building seminar at a progressive workplace.

Con_Alma;760174 wrote:I understand that creating a domestic policy direction and leading towards it is paramount but at the end of the day if it's the economy that you want to vote based on look towards congress. At the end of the day it is the house that impacts our wallets more.

Provided the President will use his signing pen and veto stamp in such a way as to not thwart Congress, yes. That isn't, however, a foregone conclusion.

Thread Bomber;760326 wrote:Candidate #1 Tax break!

Candidate #2 Lower taxes!

Candidate #3 Cut spending!

Candidate #4 Outlaw abortion and Obama sucks!

Candidates 1 2 3 in unison.......You win, we quit!

lol'd.

Having an expanded opinion on just a few of the items I offered enforces my opinion that making such a decision on just one's personal economic situation is the wrong manner in determining with whom one should place their vote.

It's my view that electing a President isn't about me, it's about us.

It is a shame that our elected representatives don't think this way.

Prescott;760592 wrote:It is a shame that our elected representatives don't think this way.

Boy, isn't that they truth.

O-Trap;760031 wrote:I might actually vote Republican if that was on the docket.

psst...don't tell anyone, but depending on his running mate, I may too!

O-Trap;760561 wrote:Honestly, I see this as basically being willing and able to listen to good intel, and make decisions based on that intel.

See, I see things totally different.
I wouldn't want some cocktail waitress being the head of a neurosurgery dept., acting on just what people told her. Or because she read 2 books and wrote a paper on them.

I know that practical experience isn't the only thing that makes a good President. But I think it would be a nice little lagniappe all the same.

CenterBHSFan;760959 wrote:See, I see things totally different.
I wouldn't want some cocktail waitress being the head of a neurosurgery dept., acting on just what people told her. Or because she read 2 books and wrote a paper on them.

I know that practical experience isn't the only thing that makes a good President. But I think it would be a nice little lagniappe all the same.

First, I have to be honest. I had to look up the word "lagniappe." Nice.

And make no mistake, something like military experience is a BONUS, but I don't see it as a primary criterion for presidency. I put it similarly to if Ron Paul was to become president. I would consider a president having a doctorate as a "lagniappe," but certainly not a fundamental criterion.

Wow! I can't tell you how many times I had to tell myself that this was really happening. I say that because it had the look and feel of a skit on Saturday Night Live. I almost spit up my coffee when I saw that Cain guy and the graphic on the screen said "Former CEO of Godfather's Pizza".

Some observations:

Roger Ailes can do better than that collection of softball-lobbing stiffs who served as moderators. I suppose no one else at Fox wanted the gig and he had to use somebody.

No ideas or suggestions on how each candidate would do things differently, just a marathon Obama-bashing. No surprise there.

Pawlenty had better get beyond the Tea Party suck-up and do more than provide talking points if he expects to get anywhere next year. No substance from him at all, just bombast.

Johnson will be labeled as a RINO before the year is out. Stick a fork in him.

Cain...what can I say. Stick to pizzas. No, wait, his pizza chain never caught on, did it?

Santorum. Not worth even commenting.

I kept looking for the "star trek" emblem on Ron Paul's lapel, because this performance proved to me that he needs to be beamed up. How did this man get elected to the House? Is his constituency a bunch of nitwits or what? He's clearly gone off the reservation. I predict if he manages to get nominated he'll make Goldwater in '64 look like a close race.

stlouiedipalma;761172 wrote:Wow! I can't tell you how many times I had to tell myself that this was really happening. I say that because it had the look and feel of a skit on Saturday Night Live. I almost spit up my coffee when I saw that Cain guy and the graphic on the screen said "Former CEO of Godfather's Pizza".

Some observations:

Roger Ailes can do better than that collection of softball-lobbing stiffs who served as moderators. I suppose no one else at Fox wanted the gig and he had to use somebody.

No ideas or suggestions on how each candidate would do things differently, just a marathon Obama-bashing. No surprise there.

Pawlenty had better get beyond the Tea Party suck-up and do more than provide talking points if he expects to get anywhere next year. No substance from him at all, just bombast.

Johnson will be labeled as a RINO before the year is out. Stick a fork in him.

Cain...what can I say. Stick to pizzas. No, wait, his pizza chain never caught on, did it?

Santorum. Not worth even commenting.

I kept looking for the "star trek" emblem on Ron Paul's lapel, because this performance proved to me that he needs to be beamed up. How did this man get elected to the House? Is his constituency a bunch of nitwits or what? He's clearly gone off the reservation. I predict if he manages to get nominated he'll make Goldwater in '64 look like a close race.

Not really a surprise that you got this out of this "debate". I have been a Ron Paul supporter ever since the last election. The man knows the issues, has clear cut plans and never dodges a question. That being said, i was surprised with Herman Cain. After the debate a panel of 30 or so GOP voters overwhelmingly stated he was the winner of this debate. The man is intelligent and charismatic; I'd like to see more of what he plans on doing.

Political experience means nothing to me at this point. Hell, no political experience may be a bonus in my eyes. These clowns in office have things so fouled up, I'd vote a dog in over some incumbents.

dwccrew;761182 wrote:Political experience means nothing to me at this point.

Barrack Obama