This is pure BUNK shame on America and thee media for manipulating our election.
This is a Tea Party debate??? Oh really? CNN and the Tea Party Express? The Tea Party Express should now be viewed as hostile to our movement, do not support it, stick to your home groups. Shame on you and the rest for believing this is actually a Tea Party debate.
A tea party debate should be for true tea party candidates.
Mitt Romney is an immoral liar, and Huntsman is is a Rhino plus he is way behind in the polls and yet they allow him in the photo but exclude Santorum who has character and morals.
Any Tea Party group knows that Romney is a globalist and being built up as the candidate only so when the presidential election comes he will easily get defeated by Obama. Wake up and quit drinking the tea. Toss is back into the harbor.
Protect your mind from such nonsense, watch the debate with guarded eyes. Do not believe all you see and or hear. Its a sham!
Carey Masci
phil. 4:7
Tampa, FL -- The eyes of the political world will once again be on Tampa Monday when the eight leading Republican candidates for president square off in a national debate from the Florida State Fairgrounds.
Scheduled to participate in the "Tea Party Debate" sponsored by CNN and the Tea Party Express are Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann, businessman Herman Cain, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, Texas Representative Ron Paul, Texas Governor Rick Perry, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum.
The event will be moderated by CNN's lead political anchor Wolf Blitzer, who says the toughest part of his job is to make sure the candidates all get equal time.
"When you have eight candidates up on a stage you try and be fair, you want to make sure all of them get as much time as the others," Blitzer said.
But unlike other debates, the moderator will not be the only one asking questions on Monday. Audience members will also be allowed to quiz the candidates. Plus, questions will be taken from Tea Party members at debate watch parties in Arizona, Ohio and Virginia.
In addition, Blitzer says people at home will be able to submit questions online through Facebook, Twitter or www.CNNPolitics.com.
"When I interviewed President Obama in Iowa a few weeks ago, I got a lot of good questions from my Twitter followers. When I interviewed D*** Cheney in Los Angeles, I got a lot of good questions from Facebook or Twitter, so this interaction with people out there is really great."
Subjects expected to be discussed on Monday include the size of government, social security, taxes and, of course, the economy.
Blitzer adds his hope is that voters come away informed.
"My hope is that people will emerge from the debate a little bit smarter and have a better educated vote than they would before.
Monday's 2-hour debate begins at 8 p.m. and can be seen on CNN. Share Twitter Facebook
Showing posts with label cnn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cnn. Show all posts
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Sunday, June 19, 2011
My thoughts on the second Republican presidential TV debate on CNN
My thoughts on the second Republican presidential TV debate on CNN.
First I like to bring up the moderator was extremely annoying with his grunts trying to hurry up the candidates he wanted to rush. Secondly, those lame little questions - deep dish or thin crust pizza. Who cares. The dumbest question by John King was when he said that Cain wanted to ask certain questions to Muslims but not to Christians or Jews. Why was that so hard for John to understand? Who are we at war with? Newt finally spoke up on this issue explained why and put the question to rest. And lastly the last few minutes of the debate was stupid and a waste of time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One candidate that gets no review other than my thoughts on him, is Mitt Romney. Everything from Mitt's placement in center, the longer time given to answer questions and it even seemed he got more questions than the others is set up for him to take the prize.
Mitt has changed his stance and opinion on a quite a few issues. Mitt at one time said he would do more for the gay agenda than Teddy Kennedy but now he is for a Constitutional Amendment that defines marriage as between a man and woman only. He seems too packaged, too prepared and will say anything to get elected. Enough on him. Don't trust him.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The candidate I was surprised to see finally given recognition was Ron Paul. Usually they have him placed on the flank and he is hardly ever shown. He has worked his way into the lime light or maybe I should say his supporters got him there. Either way its good to see. He hasn't wavered in his views or opinions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was glad that the issue of an amendment defining marriage was raised. Santorum, Bachman, Pawlenty, Romney and Newt were for it and gave excellent reasons why. Paul blurted out his answer but I couldn't understand it, still don't know if he would support the amendment or not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pawlenty had some good moments but at times sounded to much like a politician with little substance. His recognition of the vet who had asked a question had no merit, Mitt had just thanked the same person. To politician like, just not needed, seemed to canned.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gingrich's intelligence and grasp of issues was superb, as was Paul's knowledge.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So who was the winner? I thought four came out on top. These four looked presidential and gave solid answers. In no particular order they were Gingrich, Bachman, Santorum and Paul. Cain was also very close in the running.
Looking at this crop of candidates I don't find much weakness. I like this field of candidates way better than the ones who ran in '08. And compared to what the Dems are offering this is a far more moral and qualified group. Pick one and we should be OK.
Santorum gave the key sentence in the debate when he said ..you need to look at the authenticity of a candidate and looking at their record over time of what they fought for.
And that's where we come in. If we expect this country to turn around we best research each candidate to insure we get the right person elected as its up to us to educate and inform people of who is the correct choice because if we leave it up to the media they will give us another Obama or an unstable moderate that America may never recover from.
Carey Masci
First I like to bring up the moderator was extremely annoying with his grunts trying to hurry up the candidates he wanted to rush. Secondly, those lame little questions - deep dish or thin crust pizza. Who cares. The dumbest question by John King was when he said that Cain wanted to ask certain questions to Muslims but not to Christians or Jews. Why was that so hard for John to understand? Who are we at war with? Newt finally spoke up on this issue explained why and put the question to rest. And lastly the last few minutes of the debate was stupid and a waste of time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One candidate that gets no review other than my thoughts on him, is Mitt Romney. Everything from Mitt's placement in center, the longer time given to answer questions and it even seemed he got more questions than the others is set up for him to take the prize.
Mitt has changed his stance and opinion on a quite a few issues. Mitt at one time said he would do more for the gay agenda than Teddy Kennedy but now he is for a Constitutional Amendment that defines marriage as between a man and woman only. He seems too packaged, too prepared and will say anything to get elected. Enough on him. Don't trust him.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The candidate I was surprised to see finally given recognition was Ron Paul. Usually they have him placed on the flank and he is hardly ever shown. He has worked his way into the lime light or maybe I should say his supporters got him there. Either way its good to see. He hasn't wavered in his views or opinions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was glad that the issue of an amendment defining marriage was raised. Santorum, Bachman, Pawlenty, Romney and Newt were for it and gave excellent reasons why. Paul blurted out his answer but I couldn't understand it, still don't know if he would support the amendment or not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pawlenty had some good moments but at times sounded to much like a politician with little substance. His recognition of the vet who had asked a question had no merit, Mitt had just thanked the same person. To politician like, just not needed, seemed to canned.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gingrich's intelligence and grasp of issues was superb, as was Paul's knowledge.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So who was the winner? I thought four came out on top. These four looked presidential and gave solid answers. In no particular order they were Gingrich, Bachman, Santorum and Paul. Cain was also very close in the running.
Looking at this crop of candidates I don't find much weakness. I like this field of candidates way better than the ones who ran in '08. And compared to what the Dems are offering this is a far more moral and qualified group. Pick one and we should be OK.
Santorum gave the key sentence in the debate when he said ..you need to look at the authenticity of a candidate and looking at their record over time of what they fought for.
And that's where we come in. If we expect this country to turn around we best research each candidate to insure we get the right person elected as its up to us to educate and inform people of who is the correct choice because if we leave it up to the media they will give us another Obama or an unstable moderate that America may never recover from.
Carey Masci
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)