GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate - September 17

Don't let your friends vote for a wrong president

Mark the date! September 17, at 7:30 p.m. Eastern. The Values Voter Presidential Debate held in Fort Lauderdale will be streamed live by the American Family Association.

Dear Kinman,

Next Monday�s Values Voter presidential debate is going to be different from any other. No fluff, no dancing, no spinning. The candidates will be asked direct questions related to abortion, immigration, marriage and other issues Values Voters consider important. If you want to see where they stand on the traditional, pro-family issues, don't miss this debate!

Debate moderator and WorldNetDaily Editor Joseph Farah said, "So often in presidential debates, questions are asked and answers don't address the questions. When that happens, I'm going to try to persuade the candidates to focus more precisely on what was asked."

 

---

Learn the Truth about Christian Persecution
In many nations around the world Christians have few or no rights. Yet they boldly proclaim the Gospel. AFA encourages you to learn the truth about Christian persecution with a subscription to The Voice of the Martyrs award-winning monthly newsletter. Please follow the link below to subscribe today.
http://etools.780net.com/a/jgroup/bg_... target="_blank">Subscribe to The Voice of the Martyrs free monthly newsletter.

---

Â	Take Action Live video or audio streaming will be available online at http://www.afa.net" target="_blank">http://www.afa.net on the day of the debate. We want you to watch and... we want your friends to watch! Forward this e-mail message to people who would not normally get this message.	Â

Sincerely,

Donald E. Wildmon, Founder & Chairman
American Family Association

P.S. Please forward this e-mail message to everyone on your list and encourage them to watch this historic debate!

Is this the debate all the Rino's are not attending?

That's correct - Giuliani, Thompson, McCain, and Romney won't be there, at least as of this date.

May I offer this link to register for the streaming video of the debate? http://www.afa.net/debate/registration.asp

---

How refreshing someone is offering a debate other than Hannity and company, Fox. What prudes. I will spread the word.

 

Awesome debate!  No wiggle room, everyone had an equal shot.  I do not care for Brownback, something about him reminds me of algore.  Certainly not the rhetoric, but I don't trust him.  Alan Keyes is something we have not seen (or heard) in this country in many years: a true orator.  No doubt he could bring a crowd to its feet.  I liked Huckabee better than before, but he remains near the bottom of my list of choices.  It tickled me that individual questions were asked of the four mainstream candidates who did not choose to occupy their podiums.   Their empty podiums were focussed on for a moment as if to await a reply.  Ron Paul often went against the group in his answers, not always the popular answers but true to himself and his beliefs. He does not mold his responses to the audience.  Hunter and Tancredo were both impressive.  Cox was okay, I would place him above Brownback and Huckabee, but I don't think he measured up to the others. 

 

---

I agree with you, nwind.  What I could see and hear of it.  No doubt Huckabee was the best speaker, being a minister he knew how to play to the sponsors of the debate.

I liked that one fella who asked a question of Mitt Romney and said "It looks like you have lost some weight."

He pointed out how Mitt has flip flopped on gay marriage, abortion and immigration.  COOOOOOOL!

 

---

I should pay attention better, I didn't notice this thread and started a new one on the reactions...dag-nab...sorry!

---

CW that was a nice writeup on the other thread.  You could go in and delete it and copy it over to your last post here. 

This was a good debate.  The format needs a little tweaking i.e. part two yes or no went a little long.  But overall I thought it was pretty worthwhile. 

I wish the Huckster wasn't such an illegal alien apologist.  If he had the same position as Tancredo on immigration and knowledge of the military as Hunter I could really like him.  The line he gave after being told he had four minutes to conclude was too funny.   He said something like with four minutes we have time to lift an offering.   Oh boy...

The greatest living woman in America was not ready to endorse anyone much less the Huckster, interesting.  Is someone else joining the race?  Did she not want to help her favored candidate out or has she just not settled on one? 

I am going to have to send a note of thanks to Janet Folger with a fact sheet on Gov Huckabee and illegal immigration.   I know she wants to get everyone behind one candidate and no doubt she means well but does she know that the Huckster has never met an illegal he wouldn't give sanctuary to and he has path to legalization written all over him?  

The path leads to mexico not legalization.....

SovereignMan

The organizer's really did "punish" the supposed "top tier" folks that do not share the values.

 I disliked the "yes"  and "no" segment because there was little difference and if there was you did not hear "why". 

 Overall I think that the religious right needs to understand that as Paul mentioned many things they would like to do as to "controlling" people can also be used the opposite way (an opening of pandora's box)....so as America becomes more and more immoral and hedonistic the ruling "representatives" will take the liberty to "push" their agenda as to what is supposedly correct "behavior" (and it will be a unpleasant backlash....this has already reared its ugly head in the area of "equal time" on Radio and TV and potentially as far as the imagination can take it)

the "value voters" and candidates (except for Keyes) don't really relay the fact that our GREATEST ENEMY is OURSELF (the many that would spurn our Constitution and rule of LAW to indulge themselves as they work night and day to do so currently pressing for ENVIRONMENTAL thought to justify "world governance" and the eradication of private property and liberty.  They pose much more serious threats to our very lives than the Islamists. Keyes was the one who demonstrated that our own acceptance of murdering the unborn here makes us like the crowd that was going to stone the adulturous woman...(in fact the death toll to this prolific American evil dwarfs exponentially the total sum of all casualities from ALL the US wars ever waged!!!  Think about it......

---

SM--definitely send that note to Janet Folger with the fact sheet on Huckabee and illegal immigration--just might open her eyes a bit as well as change her declaration of Huckabee as their man.  Huckabee knew the crowd and what to say and not say, and he was pretty much mute on illegal immigration.

I watched the whole debate.I think Tom did a fine job.Hunter was surprisingly stronger than usual,but I still dont quite trust him completely,as Im getting the feeling that he is closer to Bush than he lets on.Ron Paul voted no more than the others,but he was simply sticking to his non-intervention policy on other countries.I actually liked John Cox,but I dont like businessmen and he has less chance than most of the others.I like Alan Keyes also.Brownback was the only one that voted no on an immigration question,as he still insists we need a guest worker program!Huckabee is not being honest about illegal immigration,and yet is still pretending that he is against it,when I know that our country might have had one less mexican consulate if he had not invited them to locate in Arkansas.Most of them had about the same answers other than the no from Brownback,and from Ron Paul.Watching the line up of questioners,I see why the so called top-tier didnt attend,they would have all flopped miserably,but I would have had a few laughs at their expense.They have no real values,so they didnt show up!

Reenie said:Ron Paul voted no more than the others,but he was simply sticking to his non-intervention policy on other countries.

 

yes he was....just as our founders warned...He mentioned a key fact too which I never hear the "conservatives" respond to:

our current INTERVENTIONIST policy is costing us nearly 1 Trillion dollars a year!!!

He was the only guy who mentioned we are in a financial crisis and have to "pull the plug" on just "printing more money"/borrowing/raising taxes....

Alot of folks including me are afraid we are going to become a third world nation from the influx of illegals BUT MAYBE we may get there another way too!!! by the coming financial crises.  IN all of D.C. who do you ever hear advocating actually seriously chopping down the Federal Gov????  There is not many.....Paul is the only Candidate in 2008.

PULL the PLUG on BIG GOV.

---

Hey SM, thanks for sending Janet the info on Huckabee.  One thing I do know is that at the Tancredo fundraiser I attended in June, there was a speaker from Eagle Forum - Phyliss Shafley's organization.  See www.eagleforum.org.  She is all over this illegal immigration issue as you can see from her website - opposition to the DREAM ACT is right there. 

---

"SovereignMan - CW that was a nice writeup on the other thread.  You could go in and delete it and copy it over to your last post here."  Sounds good, here is the repost for those interested...CW

 -------------------

I'm not sure how many watched this debate, it was an interesting event.  The questions were at times interesting, the second round of Yes or No went on too long (IMHO) and third round was fairly interesting with questions for all the candidates including the four not there...after their questions the camera focused on the empty lecterns setup for them.  The closing amount of time depended on how well the candidates conserved their '2 bonus minutes' leaving some a full 4 minutes and others the allowed 2 minutes.

On many of the issues there was unison, a few brought some differences of opinion.  During the Y/N 2nd round Ron Paul had several 'No' votes while the rest had 'Yes' and it was a glaring difference of thought processes. 

Ron Paul was also the only one in the 1st round to say he would not support a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and woman.  He claimed another amendment was not the answer; we depend on this legislative approach to morals too much while the issue needs to be handled by individuals and, at the highest level, States. 

Right to Life had many saying they would support a Constitutional Amendment supporting the right as well as requiring judicial nominees to support overturning Roe v. Wade.  RP did not want another amendment but felt the same could effectively be accomplished faster through the passing of the Sanctity of Life Bill he has sponsored.  Tancredo was the only one to actually use the verbiage of a litmace test but all others supported the idea while avoiding the actual verbiage.  Huckabee actually stated the Right to Life issue was ‘the’ reason he entered politics.

The war on terror didn’t bring to light any new ideas from the main candidates that have been debating and Hunter still was able to spin Paul’s stance with the idea of Paul simply blaming America first.  Paul seemed defenseless against the attack.  Hunter also was nearly sickening in his constant comments about ‘his’ fence but it worked as even Brownback started calling it Duncan’s fence.  Cox, the businessman at his first debate, wanted to kill all the bad guys and spread prosperity to the world.  He felt if we made the world prosperous it would make the world peaceful.  Keyes felt there was a need to enlist the help of all people everywhere who had any moral view of the importance of life.

It was Keyes and Cox first time at one of these debates.  Both were solid orators and presented their views succinctly.  Cox focused on the fact the Federal Government was a $3 trillion dollar corporation and it was time to put a business man in the White House.  He felt he was the only one who stood a chance against Hillary since he is a true outsider.  Keyes was extremely animated and his remarks were delivered with the fervor of a fire and brimstone preacher.  For this audience it was probably effective although at times it was a bit over the top for my personal tastes.  No matter, he is strong in the skill of oration, as was Cox and Huckabee.  Tancredo wasn’t bad and Hunter sounded solid, if not repetitive.  Brownback seemed to be a well oiled Soundbite machine, delivering his comments with strength but with comments you’d expect from a 30 second stump speech.  Paul again showed his skills as an orator to be the main challenge for him and with his ideas so very different from the field this must improve.  He may have great constitutionally founded ideas but he must be better and explaining them, I think he lost this audience on this ability alone.  Brownback described the country as a plutocracy which was the first time I had heard this term from a candidate yet it seems quite fitting.

At any rate, from the cheap seats my wife and I were in agreement with our thoughts on the outcome.  Overall we felt Huckabee shined the brightest and connected the best with the crowd assembled.  This may have been expected with his presentation skills and the fact he use to be a pastor and appeared to feel quite at home.  Alan Keyes promoted himself the best with countless references to his website and approaches the rest of the way.  He said he was only asking for everyone to visit his site, clearly see his stance on the issues and then give just $5 and get 5 friends to do the same, evoking the idea of a network marketing approach to victory.  Tancredo continued to have an impressive message but still seemed to not be able to gain any traction.  Cox was articulate but the lack of any recognition may be too much even though he continually insisted he was ‘just like you!’  Hunter and Brownback were predictable and steady yet Hunter seemed much more a hawk than in the past debates.  Paul stuck to his guns and tried to really clarify his message but there just continued to be a lack of ability to articulate it clearly in this format.  He does better with his stump speech and interviews.

At any rate, that is my simple view...agree or not if you saw it I’d like to hear what you thought.

---

That is an excellent evaluation, CW. If you could toss Brownback and Huckabee [for his weakness on borders] out, I can see where any of these candidates would have a shot at improving our situation here.  I wish there had been some pointed questions about the NAU, the SPP and the use of executive orders to sidestep the law.  I agree that Ron Paul is not strong in this format, but I beleive that he is the only candidate who would really take an ax to these massive federal bureaucracies and return the land to the rule of the people.  He did not effectively get that message out.  I love Keyes passionate oration and hope his campaign develops enough steam for the nation to hear his message.  It needs to be out there.  I appreciated his speaking on the corruption of the U.N. but again, only Ron Paul promised to withdraw us from it completely.

---

I was pleasantly surprised that there were questions specifically referencing the SPP and NAFTA superhighway! It was refreshing NOT to have to listen to Giuliani, Romney, McCain and Thompson! Please call your Senators again today and remind them to vote NO on Senate amendment 2237 (Durbin's Dream Act). No amnesty! NO on the Skil act - increasing H-1B and H-2B visas!

---

Thanks for the reminder on the Dream Act call Tanc4prez. 

Nwind Tancredo has said every chance he has had that he would cut the Dept of education and others out.  Perhaps he would not go as deep and wide as Paul but I think it is clear he would shrink the size of organized tyranny. 

SoCal perhaps when I put a note together for Janet Folger I will post it along with her contact information so others like yourself will send something to.  It is probably best to wait a few days and let her office settle down.  But if enough of us do that perhaps it will register and at least cause the question to be asked. 

I want to drill it home for Janet Folger that all else can be good but I am not voting for amnesty, massive guestworker plans or paths to legalization so if a candidate does not spell out how they are going to cut taxpayer funded benefits out, punish employers hiring illegals, end birthright citizenship, chain migration and build that fence along with a path back to mexico I will not vote for them. 

Just wait until the voice is in spanish and you have to press 2 for English.... 

SovereignMan

 

I want to caution voters on voting single issues alone. Before you vote make sure these folks has a history, of pro life and the the other issues we support.

I have noticed that the weakening of out country has taken place by: outsourcing our industry, opening our borders, legal immigration as well as legal immigration. All these issues were not initiated by Mr. Bush, but they sure have been excelerated by him. He professed to be pro life, anti gay marrage, a values president.

Has anyone seen any MSM coverage?  This morning my wife and I surfed many different news programs and read through the scrolling bars and listened for any commentary but it was all quiet and we didn't even hear the debate mentioned.  I know the MSM's four wonders weren't there but I didn't expect a total shutout...curious if anyone else saw anything.

---