GOP debate in shadow of Reagan

I kept waiting for the commentator to ask.....
WOULD THE REAL RONALD REAGAN ..PLEASE STAND UP!

I kept waiting for the commentator to ask, "Which of you is most likely to cut and run like Ronnie did in '82 from Beruit?"

Who's "Osama bin Laden"? We thought the mastermind behind 9/11 was Saddam Hussein.

They compare themselves to Reagan all the time
How about coming with who you really are?
All a bunch of old men with old ideas
Democrats in 08

All of the candidates are very articulate. Governor Romney, in particular, made an excellent impression.

Hey Chicago Tribune, wake up and smell the coffee...as usual you media types are way behind how Americans feel and take the easiest path you think is possible to make a story.

But the reality is you don't even have Ron Paul listed on your page here and he stole the show yesterday. I have been following Paul and the Libertarian stances for a while now because I feel the Republican Party has abandoned myself and many others.

Ron Paul is causing a ground swell of interest and not only that but he might be the only one of the repubs that could pull over a number of dems in a general election.

Your flat out missing the boat and behind the curve. By next debate, Paul will have more interest and will steal the show again. He is legitimately who he comes across to be and people will find this out in time.

Ron Paul is now and will be the fatest rising star out there whether repub or dem.

Get with it Trib...wake up, the work week isnt over yet.

I can't wait for John Stewart's "Reagan Montage".

A bunch of old white guys, how 18th century of us. We're supposed to be such an advanced nation, yet only the Democrats have a woman, african-american and hispanic running.

I think McCain decided that kissing up to the Christian Taliban wasn't working, so he's trying to tack back to the middle. He sounded reasonable on stem cell and evolution, so he doesn't have a chance in the White Trash Party. Think he's already setting himself up to run as an independent?

Mitt looked like a mannikin. He sort of resembled Reagan the way his head movements didn't always match his body movement. Still, you got to give him points for hair. The Hillbilly Party's rank-and-file like phonies, so he may have done OK.

Tacredo is freaky. He talks like a snooty head waiter, or maybe the butler in a haunted house.

Brownback seemed like another Bush, only maybe not quite as deranged. He seems like an assistant principal who likes to twist little boys' ears as he takes them to detention.

Rudy was crashing and burning. Must be hard for a New Yorker to act like a redneck.

Tommy Thompson should just go home.

Duncan Hunter's just fooling himself, though I liked what he said about the country's disappearing industrial base.

Ron Paul. Ha ha ha.....

Thank God that Rudy Giuliani is finally speaking for moderate Republicans. The Neo Conservative and Christian Coalition's hold on the Republican party will soon be at an end. The party can finally return to the principles and optimism of Ronald Reagan. Rudy is head and shoulders above the rest.

Like the Dem debate last week....who cares?
At this stage there are so many candiates
Let's let the field of Dems and Rep thin out first.

Besides these debates NEVER give you anything new...we just watch to see if some candidate will goof up and self destructs....kind of like rubbernecking at a car crash.

After the debate each candidate's managers start spinning.

After the dabate EVERYONE talks about how GREAT their guy was.

Toward the end of the campaign season the question of smoking/not smoking/drinking/not drinking/snorting/not snorting comes up....THAT'S how you know that the election is near.

Same Old Same Old

GIULIANI--HE IS THE WINNER IN THIS DEBATE
NEXT ROMNEY
MCCAIN -- HE TRIED TO IMPRESS THAT HE KNOWS
EVERYTHING --BUT FAILED
MCCAIN-- MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED--HE IS ANOTHER BUSH--NO THIRD TERM TO BUSH

The unimpressive line of of middle-aged and old white men so clearly defines the Republican Party. The only one who offered any real ideas was Tommy Thompson and even he tripped over himself, along with the rest, trying not to alienate the religious right wing of the party.

With minor exceptions couched in pitiful caveats, yes to the war but no to embryonic stem cell research and no to abortion under any circumstances. Congratulations on being out of step with most Americans on every count.

The only person in the room with the Republican candidates with any kind of character or charisma was the ghost of Ronald Reagan, who must have found the whole thing hilarious. They are all a bunch of dull clods who have nothing to say that smacks of creativity or imagination. They must have really been high on Reagan's ectoplasm because his name was mentioned more than any of them.

Tis the season for Political butt kissing. It is interesting to watch a person answer a question for 5 minutes and not say one perinent word in response. These "events" are as scripted as the WWE. Useless, pointless and a disruption of good TV.

Gotta agree with J W. Ron Paul was the only one up there with a grip on reality. We stood down the Soviet Union with how many nukes pointed at us, and now we are running scared at a few terrorists and letting them steal our freedoms. Smell the coffee people, the war on terror is a big government program that should be handled like police work. Keep it a state issue like true Conservatives want.

With apologies to Charles Dickens, "A Tale of Two Debates":

Dem presidential debate, April 26th--6 "Swamp" articles that day on the Dem candidates and their debate, only 1 on a GOP contender.
GOP presidential debate, May 3rd--3 "Swamp" articles on the GOP candidates and their debate vs. 7 on the Democrat contenders.

Don't you wish just once, by accident or anything, the "Swamp" would give equal time to Republicans and Democrats?

j w,

It's up to the candidate to make news, draw crowds and produce good poll numbers - in short it's not the Tribune's job.

Speaking of poll #s: Too what place to the right of the decimal point does Mr. Paul poll?

There is more than just the war to focus on! We need a President that can lead this great country on all the issues. We can not vote for someone based soley on the fact of where they stand on the war in Iraq. Yes, the war is a major issue, but do we not care anymore about education for our children, Social Security, health care, the economic state of or country! We must vote for the man who is best qualified to lead on all the issues.

Please spend a bit more time on the opinions of the lesser known candidates. As you are aware, most Republicans are not happy about any of the party annointed candidates. I think we all pretty much know where THEY stand - same old, same old... I agree with a previous post about Ron Paul and other minor candidates. I wish the media would make more of an effort to cover them and give us a REAL choice.

GOP: THE REAL ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT
While the majority of Americans remain duped by the Anti-American Empire Movement cloaked in pacifist wool, the true creed of anti-war was extolled by the Republican presidential candidates. The genuine anti-war movement continues to purse and condemn Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda, not the current president of the United States.

Let's clarify what a "Reagan Republican" really is. Those on the far right claim that title based on Reagan's conservative views. However, the true Reagan Republicans are those MODERATES whom he persuaded to vote Republican in his landslides because of his moderation, leadership skills, and refusal to be held hostage by the far right. If the far right Republicans want a win in '08, they should abandon their severe ideology and embrace the only candidate who can appeal to the swing voters who will decide this election in Ohio and Florida--and that is Mr. Guiliani.

If you don't believe this, compare today's Republican party to the Democrats in the 80s. Their continual genuflection at the altar of Kennedy and Jesse Jackson turned off MODERATE voters, allowing Reagan to capture these voters. The Republican party is now doing the same by allowing itself to be held hostage by the far right.

Not one of these candidates are anything like Ronald Reagan. Not even close. None of them are even qualified to be President of the U.S. They are phoney bunch of jokers.

They set the bar pretty low by invoking Reagan. But then, he was the last GOP president who could form a sentence (but only three days a week, and rarely after 3 pm).

I am sick of the media mentioning every canidate except the one no true American hates. Ron Paul is the only canidate on all party lines worthy of a vote. I hate the media.

I wish I could believe that Tom Tancredo or Mike Huckabee will win this primary and the Presidency, but every Republican primary that comes along, I always see the "most broadly acceptable" candidate get chosen. I didn't pick Bush in the last primary, but he won. I can already see that this will boil down to Guliani, McCain, and Romney. I hope Romney isn't the closet liberal that I keep hearing he is. McCain is very unreliable as a conservative (sometimes less than even Senator Bird), and Guliani, while he deserves a huge amount of honor and respect for the way he handled 9/11, is not my ideal choice for President either.

I wish one of the more staunch conservatives would win. I can already tell they won't.

Republicans had a good debate last evening. Governor Romney and Congressman Hunter did very well.
I find it ironic that all the Republicans showed up on MSNBC, not a friend to the Republican party; and the Democrats ran tail between the leg from two debates on Fox News.
If the Democrats cann't face questions from Brit Hume how are they going to stand up to; Assad, Putin, The Communist in China and the Islamofascists.

Republicans had a good debate last evening. Governor Romney and Congressman Hunter did very well.
I find it ironic that all the Republicans showed up on MSNBC, not a friend to the Republican party; and the Democrats ran tail between the leg from two debates on Fox News.
If the Democrats cann't face questions from Brit Hume how are they going to stand up to; Assad, Putin, The Communist in China and the Islamofascists.

Why aren't these contenders aligning themselves with Bushonian phIlosophy? Ya know...stay the course?

Why would the GOP want to take a new direction now?

I thought it was great revisionist history when Rudy said all it took was for the Iranians to take one look into Reagan's eyes and they gave up the the American hostages. That's a nice spin on the the arms for hostages that actually took place. So dishonest only a robot would believe that Rudy was telling the truth.

I really liked how Gulianni conducted himself yesterday. Romney was ok and McCain will live or die with the Surge. So far Guliani is the front runner for President. He is ahead of all democrats and his lead gets even bigger in swing states like OH, FL, NV. If he could get the nom he has a great chancec of winning. I just fear that the GOP will be to stupid not to nominate him. He is the only true moderate in this election. I like Richardson on the Democratic side. Obama is from the most corrupt gov in the country and all his I didnt know or i wasn't aware garbage sounds all too familiar here in IL. Hillary is ok but everyone will be guining for her and she may be damaged goods by the election, but I could at least consider voting for her.

All these problems caused by Bush & none of them offered any solutions. Worst still, they try to compare themselves to Reagan, another looser who did no good for this country.

Can republicans get any more pathetic?

All the headlines today about how Rudy stood out on abortion, but he was waffling on his abortion stance. Is he pro Roe v. Wade or against it? Why the deafening silence about the only Republican against the war in Iraq, Ron Paul? Did these reporters actually watch the debate? We'll I will be voting for Paul this time around for sure.

Tancredo's the best choice...he's got the strongest conservative background and stance

And so it begins -- we're being bombarded with rhetoric, not a definitive reassurance in the bunch ... and I'm talking about both Dems and Republicans. Quit kidding yourselves people, there's not a single candidate conservative or liberal who can solve the mess this country is in.
And don't give me the "lesser of two evils" argument. Nothing changes. They promise and never deliver.

Rudy Giuliani is history: "It would be OK to repeal it. It would be OK also if a strict constructionist viewed it as precedent." Flip-flop, flip-flop. He talked himself out of being a serious contender in the Republican primary.

The McCain candidacy died in the Baghdad market.

The videos of both of these have already been edited into attack ads by the Mitt Romney campaign.

Funny how these guys are crashing so early . . .

A bunch of middle-aged white men trying to impose their will on a woman's right to choose. And Mitt Romney with his holier than thou family values routine. Guiliani was as out of place as a fish out of water; truly showing why he is unacceptable to the right wing; and Old McCain trying to do the macho strut. Surely we Dems can bet any of these antedeluvian losers.

So the ossified, sclerotic, demented Republican Party appropriatley held their debate-cum-prayer meeting yesterday at the Reagan Temple, er, library. All YOU need to know:

When asked if any of the would-be presidents did not believe in evolution, three hands shot up. Poor John McCain confessed to belief in the Darwinist heresy, but allowed as how God still must have had a hand in it. (I somehow don't think that will be quite enough for James Dobson, et al.)

It looked like a chamber of commerce meeting for the red necktie industry.

I'm a definately votin' for the guy with the white hair that doesn't like brown people.

Thirty plus years ago I once considered my self a Republican, when Illinois sent Dirksen and Percy to the Senate. On a cold, dark and gloomy fall day when he was running for the senate, I had the opportunity as a senior high school to speak with Charles Percy at length regarding his view on the failing Vietnam War. That was then but not now. Now the GOP has become the party of Nixon, GWB, and the Christian right not a voice for moderation and reason.

I watched the debate. They were not playing to me, or to most of the country. It was phony and sad. They were trying to the the next Reagan. Why? As far as Ronnie Reagan is concerned, he was the second-worst president (the current Bush being the worst) this country has ever had. He gutted Social Security and he closed mental facilities and half-way houses across the country. When you see a poor homeless soul wandering around, you can call him one of the "Reagan Homeless." I hope he is now paying for the harm he did to this country. As long as these candidates want to be thought of as Reagan clones, I want nothing to do with them.

We have had enough Hillbillies in the Whitehouse.

Why does anyone care? It's just a Viagra commercial in the making. All of them but Ron Paul got there by kissing the Chistian Taliban asses. If you want to ensure 4 more years of fighting, 5,000 more dead soldiers, no resolution, and more attacks vote Republican! Their motto should just be "Want more of the same - vote Republican! We're fresh out of anything intelligent to say!"

Looks like politics is and politicians are the same all over the world after all. Saying what you think people want to hear and assuming you are smart enough to deceive majority of voters.

Not an original thought in the bunch. They were all trying to play Reagan but most have flip-flopped so much, not sure they even know who they really are.

Doug Zook,

"...It's up to the candidate to make news, draw crowds and produce good poll numbers - in short it's not the Tribune's job...."

Stick around Doug, the numbers will be coming out soon and we'll see who shakes out where.

Huckabee? Hunter? Gilmore? Stick a fork in them. These guys set the world on fire and outperformed Ron Paul last night?

Nope.

I see on other such sites (such as the website of the station that hosted the debate) the
post-debate numbers are rolling in and Ron Paul BY FAR had the biggest swing in positive opinions about him.

Out of the 10 candidates Ron Paul has the most favorable ratings. Not sure where that puts him decimal point wise, but I know that makes him numero uno regarding favorable ratings Douggie boy.

But hey, what value does 58,000 plus responses of people compared to your one opinion?

All I see is people clamoring for more info on Ron Paul and as I look up at the links to the candidates on the top right of this page the tribune is missing the info...if the trib wants to be taken seriously regarding blogging last nights debate and its candidates then they should get up to speed. Right triblets?

They must be out at Wrigley.

It was kind of funny to watch a dozen grown men try to out-crazy one another.

At least we can now write off 3 of the Republican candidates for failing a very simple intelligence test. Brownback, Huckabee, and Tancredo all raised their hands when asked if the didn't believe in the theory of evolution.

Did anyone count how many hands went up when asked, "Who does not believe in Evolution?"

Half of them reflexively raised their ignorant hands; and they're supposed to lead the world on global warming! Science!! ... be damned.

Tom Palmersheim
Seattle, WA

Was it a split screen or were all those guys clones. Everyone the same. I have to hand it to Ron Paul, he's on the right track. The rest forget about it.

I don't know why there's all this negativity about the GOP candidates here.

These guys are the BEST that (special interest) MONEY can buy!

Come on, people! These guys have sold their souls to get this far in politics. What MORE do you want from them?

Ron Paul is the smartest and most trustworthy candidate. VOTE FOR RON PAUL! Wake up fellow Republicans. Do the research yourselves since the media does not want to talk about him.

Sneer all you like, you sinners, but to a lot of Americans the three GOP statesmen who confessed to that they think Evolution is a commie conspiracy to make America gay were obviously chosen by the Almighty to save this Christian nation from liberals, tree-huggers, men who take their white socks off during sex, and the wachos who don't enjoy killing a deer with an machine gun. As for me, I most appreciated Tommy Thompson, though I must confess that I liked his remarks more in the original German.

This is so disingenuous of the mainstream media. GO TO MSNBC GOP CANDIDATES PAGE AND SEE WHO THE PEOPLE ARE CHOOSING!!! The people obviously want to give Ron Paul a chance, the only one living in reality and in it for the less fortunate. While everyone else was busy validating the status quo and constucting their responses, RON PAUL PUT HIMSELF AND HIS BELIEFS/VALUES on the table for everyone to see. About time we have someone speak truth to the people!

When the 10 Rich White Men compared tallywhackers backstage, did any of them measure up to Ronald Reagan?

Apparently not.

figuers. ron paul walks away leading in the poles and not a word about it.
whats the problem? cant find any dirt on ron paul.
i would like to stop hearing abou tronald regan and start hearing about ron paul.

the media needs to go back and listen to some of jfk's speeches about them.

you are doing your country a GREAT disservice...... i know i know you only do what your told...... then quit......readers will follow you.they certainly arnt following mainstream media any more..... WAKE UP....

What a bunch of losers, hacks and robots.

This must be why the GOP is clamoring for that b -list Hollywood actor Fast Freddy Thompson to "act" for them like the Republicans have something new to offer America.

There is no mention of Ron Paul? He was voted the most popular canidate, and is obviously the only canidate worth voting for. The money interests of our country do not want us to know about Ron Paul, because he stands for change. Abolishing the Federal Reserve, curbing our debt, and improving our economy by lowering taxes and removing the unconstitutional tax.
He is the only canidate that was against going to war, and is still the only canidate trying to bring our troops home immediately. THE ONLY CANIDATE-- AND YOU DIDN'T EVEN MENTION HIS NAME!... Why?
Look for yourselves and join us in the real change and improvement of our country: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18421356/

Ron Paul is speaking for the majority of intelligent voters in this country. Mitt Romney is polling high because of the powerful christian right. Ron Paul is the one we need!

It would be nice if our government adhered to the constitution. Ron Paul is the only candidate in both parties who advocates doing precisely that.

This is neither old fashioned nor impossible to do. All it will take is the right person in the White House. Until we return to constitutional authority for all three branches of government, none of us common folk (Dem. or Repub.) will have a true voice in government and we'll continue to lose our civil liberties.

Regardless of what "side" of the fence you're on as far as social or moral issues, the power elites will continue doing what they want until we get them out of office. There really is only one choice there, and that's Ron Paul.

I will probably vote Dem. That being said, I went and checked the clips from the Repub debate.

I read the above posts.
I am sick of holier than thou Christians pushing their values when so many are hypocrites.

I really was intrigued by Ron Paul.
I dont care if he is from Texas.

He sounded sane and unscripted and could give a rats @ss about the mighty Christians and the even mightier chickenhawk current "my way or the highway you terrorist loving non-patriot" administration.

George Bush was against nation building before he was for it! All in the name of 9/11.

Last quiz question today: Name the nationality of of any of the 9/11 attackers?

Answer: Not Iraqi.

I plan on looking into Ron Paul more. Very refreshing for a modern day Republican- no talking points! I bet Rush hates him.

As a conservative Christian voter, I can't vote for any of these candidates. I can't trust any of them to pursue policies that protect the life of the unborn in all cases, returns Biblical teachings to our schools, protects the sanctity of marriage, and denounces homosexuality for the sin that it is. None of them are suitable leaders of our country.

I tortured myself by watching that snoozefest a second time and I think Ron Paul was the most impressive. Rudy will most likely get the nod though. The whole evening was a Ronald Reagan Butt kiss-a-thon!!! Even Rudy couldn't resist getting on the bandwagon. Wow, what a bunch of freaky old white dudes. Ron Paul excluded.

I kept waiting for the commentator to ask, "Which of you is most likely to cut and run like Ronnie did in '82 from Beruit?"

Posted by: Bud McFarlin | May 4, 2007 6:35:58 AM

Yep, the party of cut and run.

The Latest Propaganda: Are you falling for it?

With the support for the "War on Terror' and this administration waning daily, it is clear that to regain support, a propaganda war must be set into high gear. Even if you are a Republican who opposes the war, you will be shamed by being called the childish name of "defeaticrat". It doesn't matter what your political leaning, if you oppose this war, you will be ridiculed by this administration as if you were on the playground in the third grade. And if you are a Republican, they'll call you the worst possible slur. A Democrat.

A propaganda operation at the hands of the Bush Administration and its supporters is underway as I write this. The intention is to manufacture consent in the continuance of a great national purpose*. To do this, the propaganda must manipulate, confuse and ultimately assist in the defeat of the great enemy. The enemy is all around you. It looks like you. It IS you. That's right, the American people are the enemy. The propaganda is aimed at you and it is about you. This propaganda effort is about smearing the opinion of the majority of Americans as mere politics and "defeatism".

*Great National Purpose is not about the nation so much as about the elite that own it and run it. And it’s not so great either, really. But it is purposive, certainly.

The divisiveness that this propaganda war creates is obvious. Yet another "You're either with us or you're against us" ploy to shame anyone who would dare oppose this war. Unfortunately, this kind of thing works. American people don't like to be called names.

The gauntlet is being thrown down. Pick your side. Either support this war or be called a name. It's a tough choice, I know.

ROFLMAO! OMG so talk about 10 Empty Suits all
standing in row! Yep 10 more good old all big
hat and no cattle George W Bush Republican Clone,
and all falling over each other to read their
copies of Karl Roves GOP Presidential Talking
Points as well! And The Republicans and the
media call this a "2008 Republican Presidential
Candidate Debate?"...LOL ..Ain't going get my
vote and neither will the Dimwit Democrats and
Madame Nutty Nancy Pelosi if both Liar in Chief
George W Bush and Deranged Draft Dodger Dirty
Dick Cheney are not Impeached by Election Day
2008 and all US Troops out of Iraq!

3 republican candidates do not beleive in evolution.There was no follow up question to these three.If they said they didn't beleive in gravity would the questioner just let that go? Who are these people appealing to? I hope when I read my Trib there is something said about their answers by the editorial staff.Please do not brush over their stupidity.

As an undecided voter I really looked forward to this debate to see what each had to say. I am not a person who follows politics day to day, so I really was looking for something or someone that would catch my eye. I compared what I saw last night to what I believe a good president from either party could be. I found that in my own opinion only 3 candidates really impressed me, the average intellectual guy. The qualities that I looked for were preparedness, intelligence, friendliness, and a voice and character that would be easy to follow or back as a president. In my opinion only 3 candidates looked, sounded and displayed those characteristics. Sam Brownbeck, Tommy Thompson, and Rudy Gulianni. Sam Brownbeck impressed me with his easy to understand speech and his ability to think on his toes. He also showed more of a caring demeanor and sincerity about his beliefs than some of the other candidates. In my opinion Tommy Thompson seemed the mst prepared. He had direct answers and backed each of his answers with meaningful data just like Gulianni did. However, Thompson seemed to be more of a powerful person. He had a presence that seemed to demand respect and in the wars we are involved in we need a president who will be able to stand tall and proud like he did on stage. He also had a detailed step process for several things in his answers. The american public I believe likes to have a detailed easy to understand process of where we are going. So I give him credit for that. That is also why i liked Sam Brownbeck. He seemed to be able to relate or seemed to be a person who could relate more to the ameican public unlike our urrent president. Lastly Rudy Gulianni to me seemed to have more viable experience and knew how to speak about what needed to be said. This is important for a president because , as we know, thy typically are responsible for holding information. Gulianni has impressed me with ability to turn New York around and his ability to work with the other party is important for a united future of America. As an educated individual who has been through graduate school I believed that Gulianni seemed the most intelligent. He also has had the most experience in my opinion of publically being able of respond during a crisis. In this day and age I believe that is extremely important.

So as you can see, 3 candidates stuck out in my opinion. The others each had bad qualities on the stand that I deemed were not pleasant or just seemed to not be from a stand point a leader of the greatest nation in the world should have. I am certain that more than likely only Gulianni will remain after the first rounds due to his populaarity in the polls, but i believe that these others should be given more limelight to showcase what could or could not break their back.

As a conservative Christian voter, I can't vote for any of these candidates. I can't trust any of them to pursue policies that protect the life of the unborn in all cases, returns Biblical teachings to our schools, protects the sanctity of marriage, and denounces homosexuality for the sin that it is. None of them are suitable leaders of our country.

Posted by: Joshua | May 4, 2007 3:37:45 PM

Joshua, I think your problem is that you're not looking for a President, you're looking for a theocrat. We don't have those in the United States.

"As a conservative Christian voter, I can't vote for any of these candidates. I can't trust any of them to pursue policies that protect the life of the unborn in all cases, returns Biblical teachings to our schools, protects the sanctity of marriage, and denounces homosexuality for the sin that it is. None of them are suitable leaders of our country.

Posted by: Joshua"

We are searching for the next President of the United States, not the next radical christian church preacher.

Wow. There sure are a lot of left-wing trolls posting here. I love the kooks who claim that Reagan was a "moderate". I lived through the Carter (and subsequently the Reagan) years. Reagan had to deal with a Democrat Congress during all 8 years of his presidency. That is the only thing that tempered his SCOTUS picks as well as his ability to dismantle the federal nanny state.

And the label of the Republican Party as the White Trash Party is itself laughable, for who votes Democrat if not for illegal aliens, felons, deadbeats, union thugs, welfare crack addicts, and the whole spectrum of pro-government parasites that can't get a job in the private sector. Oh, and lets not forget that dead people often end up mysteriously voting Democrat. Voter fraud anyone?

I lived through the Reagan years, and like to think I'm astute when it comes to politics and relevant world issues, but several questions:
When was Reagan elevated to sainthood?
He was an actor / performer all his life - His presidency was no different!
Why are Americans so snowed by Ronald Reagan???
I think we need to look to the future, not at the seemingly rosy past of an actor.
No wonder the rest of the world laughs at us...

MSNBC must stop their insanity of using the likes of Chris Matthews as a moderator of any candidate debate.

He's only interested in "gotcha" politics, and frankly, his line of questioning Thursday evening was on par with something you might find in junior high boys still fighting in the sandbox.

He is so immature, mainly interested in impressing his fellow pundits, and watching himself on the TV monitor.

Shame on the media for NOT addressing this issue.

We no longer have the Howard K. Smiths and Walter Cronkites who knew how to ask questions with integrity, thoughtfulness and real concern for the issues facing the nation.

MSNBC and Fox News are on this silly rivalry that compares to something out of the movie "Mean Girls."

With Chris Matthew's performance Thursday evening, it appears that MSNBC may implode on its own.

Amen to many of the responses to the Trib. Of course Romney, McCain and Giuliani are "the big three" if newspapers like this one never cover the others. Ron Paul is the only principled man I saw on that stage. He has never waffled on issues that he has felt strong about for 30 years. Who would not want a president that would keep the US out of wars, cares about liberty and our rights under the constitution, would dramatically shrink the size and scope of government and would enforce immigration laws?

Ron Paul so clearly won the debate and I wish that the mainstream media would stop ramming Romney, Giuliani and McCain down our throats.

retiree makes a good point.

but perhaps he is too old in this era of personalities.

the republicans likely loved having chris matthews ask the questions. 1. he helped draw a television audience. 2. he is moderate enough, even while he seems to lean left. 3. getting questions from the left helped the candidates attack the left in front of their home crowd (which makes you ever wonder why we want to take on extremists on the road, but that's another question for another day).

If the questions were asked by a relative unknown or by someone hiding behind a curtain, the television audience would not know how to react.

It would be nice to know where the candidates stood on little things like:
Do you believe global warming is a threat? Do you think it is man made? What do you think we should do about it?
Do you believe we need to improve our health insurance coverage? How would you deal with the number of Americans who ado not have adequate health insurance?
There are probably twenty or thirty other questions that should be asked and answered, but as we are dealing with the truly simple folk, I guess we don't want to confuse them with too much at one time.

The only candidate who was bearable to listen to in the debate was Ron Paul. His non-pandering, forthright and candid addressing of the real problems facing this country was a breath of fresh air from the otherwise univerally flawed GOP candidates. Though I agree with only some of his proposed solutions, his adult intellect and refusal to spew soundbites will hopefully levitate the Republican campaign above its current reliance on endless cliches and non-sequiters.

The three men who denied the Theory of Evolution are by definition unfit to lead a great nation in the 21st century. People, there really is no question that Darwin is 100% correct. That we are still fighting this battle on any level in the year 2007, 82 years after the Scopes Monkey Trial, is utterly embarassing and a waste of our collective energy.

Of the big 3, Romney was probably the sharpest. McCain's smile after delivering his Al Qaeda punchline was eery, and I really don't see him "surging" back to his former front-runner position. I had always assumed Senator McCain to be the natural heir to Bushism, but in reality I believe that candidate is Rudolph Giuliani.

Mayor Giuliani's divisive, slash and burn, my way or the highway, ends justify the means politics that played a part in turning around America's largest city probably will play well with those who believe if America just shoots off enough guns (metaphorically, lest we devolve to a 2nd Amendment argument) we can solve the terrorism problem. I don't care how partisan one is, it is not only completely baseless but ghoulish to state that if a Democrat becomes president, we will be attacked, but if a Republican wins, we will be safe. Give me a break. What exactly has President Bush or Mayor Giuliani EVER DONE to fight terrorism? Seriously? Giuliani wouldn't have been walking around lower Manhattan with a bullhorn had he chosen, as he was advised, to locate his command center in Brooklyn, where it is now located in the wake of the SECOND attack on the World Trade Center. And, Bush, of course, was busy reading My Pet Goat to schoolchildren and then flying from base to base like a chicken with his head cut off. I wonder what Republicans would have said had President Gore behaved in the same manner.

I really don't understand how Republicans can say that they are better at fighting terrorism. George Bush was president and Rudolph Giuliani was mayor on 9/11. Neither of them did anything whatsoever in the year 2001 to prevent the complete success of the attacks of that day (Giuliani has limited options in the regard, Bush's inattention is far more troubling). Yet each has gained politically from their association with that total break down of American security, Bush propelling himself to a second term by invoking the spector of Osama Bin Laden despite the fact that he had failed to effect the attacks or bring the planner of 9/11 back "dead or alive," and Giuliani vaulting to front-runner status as a direct result of his coincidental association with that horrific event.

For whatever you want to say about the events of September 11, it was undoubtedly the greatest security breakdown in American history. Not enough attention has been paid to this. The whole narrative, as Condoleeza Rice stated, that we just couldn't know that planes could be used as missiles to attack U.S. targets is a bold-faced and provable lie. Threats of just such an attack against the July 2001 G8 Summit forced authorities to ring the summit grounds with anti-aircraft missile batteries in the case of a credible threat. Further, NORAD and the American air defenses WERE designed to prevent terrorist hijacking attacks.

Operation Vigilant Guardian, though originally scheduled for October, began one week before September 11, 2001: Lieutenant Colonel Dawne Deskins, mission crew chief for the Vigilant Guardian exercise currently taking place (see (6:30 a.m.) September 11, 2001), later says that initially she and everybody else at NEADS thought the call [refering to a "real-world hijacking] was part of Vigilant Guardian. [Newhouse News Service, 1/25/2002] Although most of the personnel on the NEADS operations floor have no idea what the day’s exercise is supposed to entail, most previous major NORAD exercises included a hijack scenario. [USA Today, 4/18/2004; Utica Observer-Dispatch, 8/5/2004]" http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=vigilant_guardian
We were failed miserably on that day and it astounds me that any candidate would gain traction based on their association to that catastrophe.

Once again, I was fascinate by Ron Paul and though I don't necessarily believe in his philosophy, it is by far the most rational and reality-based discourse from any politician of either party in the Bush years. I'd like to see him debate Dennis Kucinich. Both men are very far from the center, but speak with a secure faith in the power of their ideas, refusing to pander and insisting on candor. Neither will be president. But both provided much needed air to an otherwise suffocating election campaign.

Josh,

As a conservative Christian voter, I can't vote for any of these candidates. I can't trust any of them to pursue policies that protect the life of the unborn in all cases, returns Biblical teachings to our schools, protects the sanctity of marriage, and denounces homosexuality for the sin that it is. None of them are suitable leaders of our country.
Posted by: Joshua | May 4, 2007 3:37:45 PM

It fascinates me the issues that you have selected as the most important ones this nation faces. You want to protect the sanctity of marriage? First of all, that is treaditionally a state issue, of which the president should have little influence. Besides that though, which of the candidates is making no-fault divorce their biggest campaign issue? Senator Brownback? Protect marriage: ban divorce. My best advice to maintain the sanctity of marriage would be to move to a Blue state. The bluest 13 states have the 13 lowest divorce rates, and the 9 reddest states have the 9 highest divorce rates. Maybe those "g-dless liberals" are onto something. Of course you may have a gay neighbor if you do so, but then again you may also have one now. Love thy neighbor as thyself, friend.

I'd like to nominate in place of the aforementioned "problems" that the next president will face-

the Iraq War and its subsequent drain on American resources, prestige and morale; homeland/ border security (Al Qaeda), American competitiveness/ trade/ China, environmental degradation/ global warming, health care, the imbalance between increases productivity and stagnant wages, the military/ industrial complex and corruption.

We need a serious man or woman to reunite this country, and lead it back to its rightful place as the Land of Opportunity. Its time to elect a leader who is going to tell it how it is, and not only what we want to hear. Paying for the ongoing costs of American empire and expanding availability of health care while still maintaining economic growth is going to be an enormous challenge, and it is going to require the type of REAL sacrifices that George Walker Bush has refused to asks for. Unfortunately, I don't think America is ready for that type of candor. Most people don't think the credit card will ever come due, so why burden ourselves with any unpleasantness of sacrifice if we can just go on spending more than we make?

Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and interestingly John Edwards, of whom I'd never before been much of a fan, are the only candidates who are really willing to talk about sacrifice. The other candidates have not yet shown the willingness to do so, and therefore are not speaking truth.

"It's up to the candidate to make news, draw crowds and produce good poll numbers - in short it's not the Tribune's job.

"Speaking of poll #s: Too what place to the right of the decimal point does Mr. Paul poll?"

Posted by: Doug Zook | May 4, 2007 8:20:27 AM
---

Paul polls about the same as Huckabee, Hunter, Tancredo, and Gilmore - that is, around 1%. See http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm

In terms of money raised, in Q1 Paul outraised Huckabee, outraised Hunter, outraised Gilmore, and outraised Tommy Thompson. See the "Finance" links at http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/

In terms of sheer human interest or newsworthiness...isn't being an antiwar Republican newsworthy? Especially when 70% of the country wants this war over with?

It certainly is the Tribune's job to select the candidates for the Tribune's own list of candidates -- and the Tribune must be using a very odd set of criteria to determine that Mr. Paul is not worthy of being listed but that these others are.