Author Topic: First Republican presidential debate postponed (Read 891 times)

blacken700 · « **on:** March 31, 2011, 04:34:23 AM »

Source: Reuters

First Republican presidential debate postponed
WASHINGTON | Wed Mar 30, 2011 10:56am EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The first scheduled debate of the 2012 Republican presidential nominating race has been postponed from May to September because of a lack of candidates.

The May 2 debate at the Ronald Reagan presidential library will be moved to September 14 to allow time for Republicans to enter the race for the right to challenge President Barack Obama in 2012.

The Republican campaign has been slow to begin, with a large field of potential candidates gauging their prospects but few jumping in. Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty last week became the first major contender to take a formal step toward running when he formed a committee to explore a bid.

"Although there will be a long and impressive list of Republican candidates who eventually take the field, too few have made the commitment thus far for a debate to be worthwhile in early May," said John Heubusch, director of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation in Simi Valley, California.

hahahaha they know right now all they have is a bunch of nuts ,not to good for t.v. viewing

'
,

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #1 on:** March 31, 2011, 04:36:47 AM »

These things are too long anyway. These debates are also a sham.

Obama anyone?

Well strike that - we have pplenty of youtube clips now to hammer him with.

240 is Back · « **Reply #2 on:** March 31, 2011, 05:19:51 AM »

Without the debates - rudy would be preseident right now.

it's the debates that allow us to see candidates as they truly are, and how they react when they're not reading a stump speech. They have to make decisions and take positions on the fly. Otherwise, it's just "the best speech reader wins".

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #3 on:** March 31, 2011, 05:23:27 AM »

Rudy would be better than bama.

240 is Back · « **Reply #4 on:** March 31, 2011, 05:28:24 AM »

Quote from: 333386 on March 31, 2011, 05:23:27 AM

Rudy would be better than bama.

thanks captain obvious.

without the debates, the best speech reader would win.

Besides - I think it's REALLY obvious to all the candidates that the tea party is gonna wreck this 2012 nomination. Everyone's screaming about who hates muslims most, and who doubts the birth cert most. It's turning into a mess for 2012. Not professional at all. Romney/Rudy both lost in 2012 cause they screaming 'lib!' at each other for 7 months. Only mccain, who stayed quiet and dignified, was the GROWN UP on the stage by the later debates.

Maybe the best repubs are doing the same. Avoiding the screechy "you totally want to kiss muslims, dude" debates. Let bachmann and trump and palin wreck each other, then step in later.

Or, maybe it's obama's and it's already won, and they know it. Beating an incumbent is just too tough without a 3rd party interfering. hasn't happened in what, 32 years?

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #5 on:** March 31, 2011, 05:32:23 AM »

Bama won because he was the best speech reader of the bunch.

240 is Back · « **Reply #6 on:** March 31, 2011, 07:19:13 AM »

Quote from: 333386 on March 31, 2011, 05:32:23 AM

Bama won because he was the best speech reader of the bunch.

he didn't beat hilary in the majority of their 20 or 22 debates?

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #7 on:** March 31, 2011, 07:25:21 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on March 31, 2011, 07:19:13 AM

he didn't beat hilary in the majority of their 20 or 22 debates?

Not hard to do when you lie your ass off every second and and you have a largely white guilt ridden media covering up every screw up, lie, misstatement, contradiction, mishap, flip flp etc.

But of course you admire politicians who lie to your face with a smile on and think the better they lie to you the better they are. So no wonder you love obama so much.

Straw Man · « **Reply #8 on:** March 31, 2011, 09:17:59 AM »

Quote from: 333386 on March 31, 2011, 05:32:23 AM

Bama won because he was the best speech reader of the bunch.

Obama won because the majority of the country thought the alternative was horrible

simple as that

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #9 on:** March 31, 2011, 09:19:53 AM »

Quote from: Straw Man on March 31, 2011, 09:17:59 AM

Obama won because the majority of the country thought the alternative was horrible

simple as that

What was horrible about McCain compared to Obama? And in retrospect - everything you feared about McCain - you got anyway. LOL.

blacken700 · « **Reply #10 on:** March 31, 2011, 09:21:03 AM »

palin

Dos Equis · « **Reply #11 on:** March 31, 2011, 09:26:19 AM »

Quote from: 333386 on March 31, 2011, 05:32:23 AM

Bama won because he was the best speech reader of the bunch.

That certainly played a huge role. He's average-to-bad in debates. Not very good without his teleprompter.

240 is Back · « **Reply #12 on:** March 31, 2011, 09:36:09 AM »

Quote from: Beach Bum on March 31, 2011, 09:26:19 AM

He's average-to-bad in debates

I dunno....... an unknown who toppled both the clinton and rovian/gop/FOX/mccain empires?

I couldn't call him "bad" in debates. He was above average. Not great... but didn't fluster even when his answers were downright silly, such as agreeing to meet foreign leaders. To many swing voters, it was the delivery that mattered more than the message. Hilary was 100% right on not meeting leaders - but Obama looked calm and in control, and she was complaining about not getting fair treatment the whole time.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #13 on:** March 31, 2011, 09:38:00 AM »

No, the media refused to call him out of his blatant lies and it allowed him he appearance of knowing what he was doing. He is a media creation and a fairy tale like Clinton said.

and people still supporting him now in light of everything are even worse than him.

Fury · « **Reply #14 on:** March 31, 2011, 09:38:04 AM »

Quote from: 333386 on March 31, 2011, 05:32:23 AM

Bama won because he was the best speech reader of the bunch.

Also because the MSM threw Hillary to the wolves and threw their allegiance behind Obama.

blacken700 · « **Reply #15 on:** March 31, 2011, 09:40:44 AM »

Quote from: BerzerkFury on March 31, 2011, 09:38:04 AM

Also because the MSM threw Hillary to the wolves and threw their allegiance behind Obama.

i agree with that, he was the news favorite

240 is Back · « **Reply #16 on:** March 31, 2011, 09:41:33 AM »

Quote from: 333386 on March 31, 2011, 09:38:00 AM

No, the media refused to call him out of his blatant lies

Does the media include FOX?

Cause they claim to be #1 in cable news... yet are somehow excluded from dirty tricks "the media" pulls?

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #17 on:** March 31, 2011, 09:42:32 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on March 31, 2011, 09:41:33 AM

Does the media include FOX?

Cause they claim to be #1 in cable news... yet are somehow excluded from dirty tricks "the media" pulls?

Yawn. More spin and denial of the obvious from you.

240 is Back · « **Reply #18 on:** March 31, 2011, 09:43:22 AM »

Quote from: 333386 on March 31, 2011, 09:42:32 AM

Yawn. More spin and denial of the obvious from you.

you didn't answer the Q. You attacked me instead. They should have a word for that.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #19 on:** March 31, 2011, 09:45:26 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on March 31, 2011, 09:43:22 AM

you didn't answer the Q. You attacked me instead. They should have a word for that.

You act as though Fox News is the media. GMAFB, especially considering that dem primary voters are not huge Fox News viewers. So again, more bs and spin from you.

240 is Back · « **Reply #20 on:** March 31, 2011, 09:47:42 AM »

Quote from: 333386 on March 31, 2011, 09:45:26 AM

You act as though Fox News is the media. GMAFB, especially considering that dem primary voters are not huge Fox News viewers. So again, more bs and spin from you.

33, is Fox News part of the media? yes or no?

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #21 on:** March 31, 2011, 09:50:56 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on March 31, 2011, 09:47:42 AM

33, is Fox News part of the media? yes or no?

Of course they are part of it, but in trms of overall influence on dem primary voters - they were irrelevent.

240 is Back · « **Reply #22 on:** March 31, 2011, 09:59:28 AM »

Quote from: 333386 on March 31, 2011, 09:50:56 AM

Of course they are part of it, but in trms of overall influence on dem primary voters - they were irrelevent.

Um,

46 Percent of FOX viewers not Republicans
http://politicalintegritynow.com/2009/10/46-percent-of-fox-viewers-not-republicans/

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #23 on:** March 31, 2011, 10:04:05 AM »

240 is Back · « **Reply #24 on:** March 31, 2011, 10:13:11 AM »

You said FOX had no influence over dem viewers.

I'm often described as a shitstabbing, kenyan slurping kneepadder, and I watched an assload of FOX news during the debates. Also, I delivered a stat showing 46% of fox viewers ARE NOT REPUBLICANS.

Do you take it back, reverting to eye rolls cause ya just have no comeback?