Republican Debate #8 Sat, 2/6, from NH on ABC

[CID1990]

Thank god people are going after Rubio. The guy is the Republican version of Obama. First term Senator that looks pretty and gives a nice speech. If you think GWB was bad Rubio would be GWB on steroids.

On the one hand its erie the Obama-Rubio comparisons.But at least Rubio is a lot more qualified than Obama was at this point in 2008.

Obama: 8 years state legislator, 2 years in the US Senate when he declared his candidacy for president at the age of 45. Law degree, taught law classes, spent time practicing law.

Rubio: 9 years as a state legislator, 4 years in the US Senate when he declared his candidacy for president at the age of 43 (now 44). Law degree, taught law classes, spent time practicing law.

But here is where they differ: Obama spent a large portion of his time in the Illinois state legislature voting "present". Rubio was elected majority whip in 2000 at age 29, house leader in 2002 at age 31, and speaker in 2005 at age 35. A meteoric political rise. Obama had nothing like that in the Illinois state legislature.

Erie is a town in Pennsylvania

[Ibanez]

I've had it with Christie. What we needed is for him to go after Trump. Instead he goes after Rubio. I once said there is no way I'd ever vote for him after he sucked Obama's cock during the Sandy afternath. I'd softened some. But after he did what in that debate, no way. I wouldn't vote for him if he were running against Al Sharpton. Dick head.

The guy had not shot and he still has no shot. If he was going to try to tear somebody down he should've been going after the guy that's the biggest problem. And that ain't Rubio.

You're precious. You know how to beat the loudest guy in the room?








Take away his ability to speak.

[DSUrocks07]

Apparently JSO feels that everyone else on the stage should have attacked Trump and play up how great Rubio is.

I'm sure thats what the GOP fantasy land looks like right now.

[CAA Flagship]

What Christie did (attacking the POTUS qualifications of Senators), will flow seamlessly against Sanders or Clinton, too.

Rubio was a deer in the headlights. He clearly could not think on his feet.
However, as POTUS, thinking on your feet is not all that important, IMO. Nearly everything is prepared. It's just a matter of preparing well before hitting the podium.

[Ibanez]

What Christie did (attacking the POTUS qualifications of Senators), will flow seamlessly against Sanders or Clinton, too.

Rubio was a deer in the headlights. He clearly could not think on his feet.
However, as POTUS, thinking on your feet is not all that important, IMO. Nearly everything is prepared. It's just a matter of preparing well before hitting the podium.

I think an important question for candidates is, Who will you seek counsel from? Presidents don't just hear a problem or review a situation and then make a decision. Who will be influencing the candidate? That, to me, is almost equally important.

[BDKJMU]

What Christie did (attacking the POTUS qualifications of Senators), will flow seamlessly against Sanders or Clinton, too.

Rubio was a deer in the headlights. He clearly could not think on his feet.
However, as POTUS, thinking on your feet is not all that important, IMO. Nearly everything is prepared. It's just a matter of preparing well before hitting the podium.

Yep. #1 qualification for POTUS is the ability to read a speech written by someone else off a teleprompter while looking and sounding good doing. Yeah the press can question you at press conferences, but they can't come after you like in a debate.

Reason I don't watch convention speeches (haven't since 04'), inauguration speeches (haven't since 89') or SOTUSes (haven't since 06'). All they are are speeches written by someone ekse read off a teleprompter full of lofty rhetoric, platitudes, themes, generalties, and Santa Claus pronouncements lacking specifics and details. They say what they are going to do but don't tell you how they are going to do it. Bottom line if its read off a teleprompter I don't want to hear it. But I do watch the debates- no teleprompters..

[AZGrizFan]

What Christie did (attacking the POTUS qualifications of Senators), will flow seamlessly against Sanders or Clinton, too.

Rubio was a deer in the headlights. He clearly could not think on his feet.
However, as POTUS, thinking on your feet is not all that important, IMO. Nearly everything is prepared. It's just a matter of preparing well before hitting the podium.

Yep. #1 qualification for POTUS is the ability to read a speech written by someone else off a teleprompter while looking and sounding good doing. Yeah the press can question you at press conferences, but they can't come after you like in a debate.

But should that be your ONLY talent? Because that's the only one Obama's got.

[BDKJMU]

Yep. #1 qualification for POTUS is the ability to read a speech written by someone else off a teleprompter while looking and sounding good doing. Yeah the press can question you at press conferences, but they can't come after you like in a debate.

But should that be your ONLY talent? Because that's the only one Obama's got.

Of course not. But in today's day and age unfortunately that is #1.

[BDKJMU]

What Christie did (attacking the POTUS qualifications of Senators), will flow seamlessly against Sanders or Clinton, too.

Rubio was a deer in the headlights. He clearly could not think on his feet.
However, as POTUS, thinking on your feet is not all that important, IMO. Nearly everything is prepared. It's just a matter of preparing well before hitting the podium.

I think an important question for candidates is, Who will you seek counsel from? Presidents don't just hear a problem or review a situation and then make a decision. Who will be influencing the candidate? That, to me, is almost equally important.

Yep. That would be #2 most important qualification. The ability to pick the right people to serve in cabinent and advisory positions..

[CAA Flagship]

What Christie did (attacking the POTUS qualifications of Senators), will flow seamlessly against Sanders or Clinton, too.

Rubio was a deer in the headlights. He clearly could not think on his feet.
However, as POTUS, thinking on your feet is not all that important, IMO. Nearly everything is prepared. It's just a matter of preparing well before hitting the podium.

I think an important question for candidates is, Who will you seek counsel from? Presidents don't just hear a problem or review a situation and then make a decision. Who will be influencing the candidate? That, to me, is almost equally important.

I agree. But it is too easy, at this point in the process, for any candidate to NOT answer that question. I think some key people may be standing next to them on the debate stage. Kasich may be a good candidate to help with the budget. A former Gov. would be a wise choice for VP by Trump/Rubio/Cruz. Walker and Jindal come into play here.

[AZGrizFan]

I think an important question for candidates is, Who will you seek counsel from? Presidents don't just hear a problem or review a situation and then make a decision. Who will be influencing the candidate? That, to me, is almost equally important.

Yep. That would be #2 most important qualification. The ability to pick the right people to serve in cabinent and advisory positions..

So, a gigantic swing and miss from Obama on that one.

Among his closest advisors: Clinton, Kerry, Holder, Emmanuel, Rice, Jarrett, Browner....good lord, the list just goes on and on. Idiots, all.

[CAA Flagship]

Yep. That would be #2 most important qualification. The ability to pick the right people to serve in cabinent and advisory positions..

So, a gigantic swing and miss from Obama on that one.

Among his closest advisors: Clinton, Kerry, Holder, Emmanuel, Rice, Jarrett, Browner....good lord, the list just goes on and on. Idiots, all.

It takes a whole team of bad players to lose that many games.

[CAA Flagship]

I think an important question for candidates is, Who will you seek counsel from? Presidents don't just hear a problem or review a situation and then make a decision. Who will be influencing the candidate? That, to me, is almost equally important.

Yep. That would be #2 most important qualification. The ability to pick the right people to serve in cabinent and advisory positions..

This is one of the things that hurts Christie. The bridgegate scandal was handled correctly by him firing them immediately. The problem is, he handpicked some of them.

[Grizalltheway]

Yep. That would be #2 most important qualification. The ability to pick the right people to serve in cabinent and advisory positions..

So, a gigantic swing and miss from Obama on that one.

Among his closest advisors: Clinton, Kerry, Holder, Emmanuel, Rice, Jarrett, Browner....good lord, the list just goes on and on. Idiots, all.

All smarter than you.

[kalm]

I think an important question for candidates is, Who will you seek counsel from? Presidents don't just hear a problem or review a situation and then make a decision. Who will be influencing the candidate? That, to me, is almost equally important.

I agree. But it is too easy, at this point in the process, for any candidate to NOT answer that question. I think some key people may be standing next to them on the debate stage. Kasich may be a good candidate to help with the budget. A former Gov. would be a wise choice for VP by Trump/Rubio/Cruz. Walker and Jindal come into play here.

Kasich...

Walker and Jindal...

[CAA Flagship]

I agree. But it is too easy, at this point in the process, for any candidate to NOT answer that question. I think some key people may be standing next to them on the debate stage. Kasich may be a good candidate to help with the budget. A former Gov. would be a wise choice for VP by Trump/Rubio/Cruz. Walker and Jindal come into play here.

Kasich...

Walker and Jindal...

What's so funny?

[Ibanez]

Yep. That would be #2 most important qualification. The ability to pick the right people to serve in cabinent and advisory positions..

So, a gigantic swing and miss from Obama on that one.

Among his closest advisors: Clinton, Kerry, Holder, Emmanuel, Rice, Jarrett, Browner....good lord, the list just goes on and on. Idiots, all.

Rove and Wolfowitz weren't any better.

[dbackjon]

Kasich...

Walker and Jindal...

What's so funny?

Anyone that thinks Jindal was a good governor is clueless, frankly. Even his own party wanted him out at the end. He destroyed Louisiana worse than a dozen Katrinas could

[dbackjon]

So, a gigantic swing and miss from Obama on that one.

Among his closest advisors: Clinton, Kerry, Holder, Emmanuel, Rice, Jarrett, Browner....good lord, the list just goes on and on. Idiots, all.

Rove and Wolfowitz weren't any better.

Rove, Wolf, Cheney et al were far, far worse.

[Ibanez]

Rove and Wolfowitz weren't any better.

Rove, Wolf, Cheney et al were far, far worse.

Of course you justify it that way.

[CAA Flagship]

What's so funny?

Anyone that thinks Jindal was a good governor is clueless, frankly. Even his own party wanted him out at the end. He destroyed Louisiana worse than a dozen Katrinas could

What metric(s) are you using? And don't call me frankly.

[93henfan]

Trump-Christie 2016!

...aaaaaaand BUMP.

[SDHornet]

I agree. But it is too easy, at this point in the process, for any candidate to NOT answer that question. I think some key people may be standing next to them on the debate stage. Kasich may be a good candidate to help with the budget. A former Gov. would be a wise choice for VP by Trump/Rubio/Cruz. Walker and Jindal come into play here.

Kasich...

Walker and Jindal...

This. A Rubio - Kasich ticket would be interesting. Rubio would take a significant portion of the Team Brown vote away from hillary, and both would be from states that will determine who wins the WH which I would think would increase their odds of winning those states. Plus of all the candidates, I like Kasich the most aside from my brown brother. He seems genuine and is well spoken and claims to have a solid track records as gov (I haven't bothered to fact check any of the accomplishments he has claimed in the past debates).

[CAA Flagship]

Trump-Christie 2016!

...aaaaaaand BUMP.

"Morning Joe" had Christie on this morning. They did a word association thing:
Trump - "Friend"
Rubio - "Not ready"
Hillary - "Loser"

[AZGrizFan]

Rove and Wolfowitz weren't any better.

Rove, Wolf, Cheney et al were far, far worse.

Negative, ghostrider.