posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 03:58 PM
I watched the entire debate on FNC last evening and instead of playing politics and saying this one won or this one lost, I thought I would give my
impressions on the debate and on each of the eight contenders.
I thought that the way the debate was conducted was unfair and extremely biased. My experience in debates allows every participant to answer
one question before another was presented. This did not happen.
Tancredo, Paul and Hunter were afforded far less opportunity to voice their campaign views then those presented as "main stream" by the media.
This in my opinion shows blatant bias on those conducting the debate.
Having said that from what I was allowed to see these were some thoughts that I took away from the debate.
It appears that no matter the question thrown at him, he will remind you that he was the strong NYC mayor who most citizens recognize as
someone who handled the 9/11 attacks in a professional manner. As a citizen of the US, his name will forever be tied to those events, why does he
feel that we need to be reminded? I thought he held up well in the aftermath of 9/11, and while I am not a New Yorker, I can give him credit for
helping turn around the city. This alone would never gain my vote for POTUS.
This is the candidate that after seeing his appearance, has me confused, how in the world could this guy even be considered a candidate? He reminds
me of that computer head dude that used to appear on videos. His answers were without substance, well let's just say to me he is a fake.
Out of the panel, McCain came across as honest and not afraid to say things which may not be popular. It was a surprise to me how well he came
across, definitely credible, someone who knew how to answer the questions.
Another surprise, I haven't heard too much from him, though I got the impression he would be very good at selling you a used car. He was a little
overboard as being a nice guy
Reminded me of Gore, no chance, immediate turn off, said nothing of significance to me.
He can't win the office on the basis that he claims responsibility for the border wall south of San Diego, and his bold claim that the 870+ mile
border fence would be finished within 6 months of his taking the oath. Did he forget how Washington works?
I liked everything he said until he said he would condone forms of torture to extract information from an enemy. Believe me, I know that it is a
probablity that some methods may be used, but you can never have the POTUS, spouting off that he condones these methods. He lost me there.
The most emotional and it appeared that there was laughter from the others when Paul was getting ready to speak. He was definitely different but he
spoke of the Constitution, which others did not. While some of what he said struck me as "out there", I have to wonder if politics in our country
has gotten to the point that laughing at someone who speaks of the Constitution is normal.
It was an interesting debate (if you could call it one), while it was fresh on my mind I wanted to make a post.
I would love to hear others reflections on how they viewed this debate.