<p>I saw no China bashing. I saw them acknowledge that China holds the mortgage to far too much of our Nation’s economic interests, and there are obvious serious implications to that fact. They also stated the truth: Unless the rapidly emerging economies of China and India were to get on board with global initiatives to curb the growth of greenhouse gases, anything we do will be in vane.</p>
<p>“McCain seemed like a tired cranky old man who is a one trick pony. We get it. He was a prisoner of war. What else does he have?”</p>
<p>A nasty attitude and a truly annoying habit of calling everyone “my friend.” I’m not a Romney fan, but I was more impressed by him last night. As much as I want to support McCain and do admire him, I can’t get past immigration, particularly after his visit to Russert on Meet the Press.</p>
<p>Anyone hoping to get elected this time needs to embrace Change. And “Change” appears to be defined by Democrats and (tacitly) by Republicans alike as no more Bush and no more Cheney. See your point #5.</p>
<p>Me too. It’s getting ridiculous. They inject his name into some lines even when it makes no sense to do so. Do they think we are so stupid that we will automatically think they’re the candidate for us because they invoke Reagan’s name?</p>
<p>We get it - Republicans liked the Reagan years - now move on!!!</p>
<p>“We get it - Republicans liked the Reagan years - now move on!!!”</p>
<p>I adored Reagan and I find the invoking of his name really annoying. It makes me scream at the TV “You’re not him you loser!” I’d think they’d be smart enough to know that they don’t fare well in comparison.</p>
<p>I agree. McCain really turned me off, while I actually was sort of impressed with Romney! Romney seemed more versed on the issues than before and seems to be doing his homework. I especially was turned off on McCain when he was asked about his credentials regarding the ECONOMY and all he could talk about was the MILITARY. WAR, WAR, WAR - that’s all McCain is about!</p>
<p>McCain really seemed obsessed with nitpicking that one statement. Romney’s explanation that McCain took it out of context seemed plausible. Who knows. </p>
<p>As always, Ron Paul rose above the fray and pointed out their silliness. He wanted to discuss substance. And, as usual, he wasn’t given much time to do that (neither was huckabee). But I was very happy that CNN gave him a longer interview afterwards! They scored points for that! </p>
<p>I found it amusing that they were all tossing around Reagan’s name.</p>
<p>Here are some quotes from Ronald Reagan about Ron Paul:</p>
<p>The debate was in the Reagan Library/Museum, Nancy Reagan was sitting in the front row, several questions that were asked directly referenced Ronald Reagan. You expected them to not reference Ronald Reagan?</p>
<p>“The debate was in the Reagan Library/Museum, Nancy Reagan was sitting in the front row, several questions that were asked directly referenced Ronald Reagan. You expected them to not reference Ronald Reagan?”</p>
<p>Oh, of course, but I’m not just talking about one debate. My husband and I place little wagers in every debate about which candidate will invoke Reagan first and most frequently.</p>
<p>fundingfather - I’m not just talking about last night. You can’t watch a speech from any of them without the candidate inserting how Reaganesque he is. It is bordering on the absurd, and frankly, I find it a turn off.</p>
<p>We could start a drinking game - every time a candidate says Reagan, you have to take a shot (although I’m much too old for those sorts of shenanigans)</p>
<p>McCain came across as a total nutcase. “100 Year War” - reminded me of “Thousand-Year Reich”. (The Huckster looked surprisingly sane sitting at the same table.)</p>
<p>Which brings me to the Second Defenestration of Prague…</p>
<p>Actually, the one time that I expected Reagan’s name to be used and it was not was related to the question of managerial competence to run the economy. Romney pointed to his executive experience in both the private and public sector which is fine. </p>
<p>However, McCain started strong talking about the difference between leadership capabilities and managerial skill. He then went on to reference his leadership of the largest squadron in the Navy which to me is pretty ho-hum. He would have been much better off by noting that Ronald Reagan was not noted for his managerial skills - he delegated that (just as McCain implies but doesn’t say). Reagan was more noted for his leadership and vision. If McCain were astute, he would point out that just as with Reagan, leadership and vision trumps managerial/executive savvy. (Yes, I know that Reagan was also a governor, but no one would claim that his hands-on managerial skill was his forte.)</p>
<p>“McCain came across as a total nutcase. “100 Year War” -”</p>
<p>That’s true only if you enjoy picking apart what people say in an attempt to discredit them versus understanding what they mean. But, mini, that seems to be your favorite sport so it must really thrill you.</p>
<p>Also, the other day I heard McCain and he seemed to be bumbling a bit. We heard him read a speech not too long ago where he could barely read through it. I am beginning to believe that he is just too old, which has nothing to even do with the issues.</p>
<p>He has elaborated a number of time what he means by that. Of course, just as in your use on Madeline Albright’s one-time mistatement, you will continue to seize on this regardless of its actual merits.</p>
<p>For all of those you who are thinking of voting for Romney … please check out the Mass Republican primary on Tuesday and think about how Massachusetts Republicans regard Romney … Republicans who have seen and heard Romney the candidate and then Romney once he’s in office. (FYI - Boston’s conservative paper had an article today discussing how much of a negative impact Romney losing the primary in his home state might have … it apparently is going to be close).</p>