09 October 2007 at 11:24 AM EST

Debate tonight in Michigan!

Posted by SecPress in Debates | Comments (16) | Permalink

The debate, sponsored by CNBC, MSNBC and The Wall Street Journal, and hosted by the Michigan Republican Party and University of Michigan Dearborn, will be held at the Ford Community & Performing Arts Center in Dearborn, Mich., a suburb of Detroit. CNBC will broadcast the two-hour debate beginning at 4 p.m. EST on Oct. 9, with MSNBC re-broadcasting the event at 9 p.m. the same evening

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Comments

We're praying that Tom's participation in this debate will rally and stimulate more people to join the ranks of the tancers. We know that Tom will face the opposition and let them have it today as we know he is completely aware of the financial situation in this country and all the implications it involves.

We're pulling for you all the way Tom, and will make more comments later.

Give it to em Tanc!
Hope you get a fair and balanced debate for a change. I'm so tired of the lopsided debates.

Tom, nice to see you in Iowa last Friday. You are a magnet anywhere you go, people congregate to you. Thank you for leading us in prayer last Friday.

Your Tanc Iowa supporter,
Caree


Darn! I had the tv on the wrong channel and missed the first 5 minutes.

Bobbie,

No worries, C.T. Didn't get a question until about 14 minutes in. He had a great answer slamming John McCain on his weak immigration stance.

Tom did a great job during the debate! For all of the excitement around Fred Thompson, what a bore he is! Nothing exciting about him at all. (Besides, Thompson is CFR and pro NAU.) ...I love how Tom slammed McCain! Go Tom GO!

Tom lost me with the "drill everywhere" response to our energy problems. Drilling in the Last Great Places in our country WILL NOT solve our long-term energy problems nor provide us with energy independance in the short term. I am horrified by his response, and now must question my support for his campaign at all. It was such a short sighted response as to indicate that he has not taken any time to study the issue and instead choses the big business "drill, drill, drill" response. I had supported him this entire campaign, making three, albet modest, contributions over the course of the last three months.

Take your pick, Todd. National Sovereignty or recovering oil in ANWR. You do know that the media selected top tier are all members of the Council on Foreign Relations don't you?

I thought the whole thing was just a dog and pony show for Rudy McRomsom.

Tom did well and I was pleased he got more response time than in the past "debates"

Todd A. Elliot, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, that you don't know Tom's full position on this and that this is why you would make such an ignorant post.

Tom - in the long run - is not for all of this drilling. The point is, we MUST reduce and eliminate our use of foreign oil, particularly from Islamic Middle Eastern countries. This IS justification for drilling everywhere and anywhere, while we develop alternative energy sources.

In other words, we will increase our security by defunding the Islamic Middle Eastern (OPEC) countries so that they cannot fund terrorism (at least to the extent that they are) and second, we will develop alternative sources of energy.

Quite honestly, whether Americans at large will ever understand, we can NEVER stop using oil. It's not just used for refining to produce gasoline. It is used in making plastics and all kinds of things.

Tom is very big on expanding nuclear energy and I believe I have even heard him refer to electric cars. Someone can point to that reference, if they know where.

Is it possible that Todd A. Elliott isn't even a true supporter of the campaign and never was? That's my guess.

Horrified at what? He was direct and as honest as he could be with the time given. He certainly meant areas that were prime for drilling, not just picking an area like pin the tail on the donkey. He also would, I'm sure, consider the vast coal reserves in this country as fuel sources, as well as other alternatives. Remember, he has but a few seconds to answer with no chance for any follow up. He was not exactly given hours to elaborate his position on the subject, or any of the other seven questions he was asked for that matter.

If we are to have any kind of independence from Middle Eastern countries and the oil there, we have to explore and tap other areas within our own geographical region.

Surely you can't believe that the oil from these countries is not going to end some day, or not be rationed to us at the cost of caviar, or bargained for like a hostage? Remember they're pretty much the bad guys, and we need to protect ourselves with our own abundance of resources. You have to have an edge when you are dealing with the Middle Eastern mindset, or we'll be forever at their mercy, which we pretty much are already in more ways than one.

Believe me, Tom Tancredo would not purposely harm an endangered area. He would investigate first, as he does everything else, and he would find alternative sources as well as utilize new technologies and promotethem in the marketplace. If areas are left untapped and other energy sources are not developed, people will simply have to go to rationing, limiting their driving habits, driving hybrid vehicles, riding a bicycle, taking a bus, or walking. It's called sacrifice. We can't have our cake and eat it too. The old adage of Americans and their love affair with their cars is going to come back to bite us, unless there are some real concessions made on the part of all Americans and pressure put on the powers that be to develop those alternative sources NOW, not in the next generation. This will also give competition to the huge oil companies to give back more to consumers, rather than raking in huge profits. With that kind of money, they can develop the alternative sources, rather than shoving the ideas in the closet.

Tom was good tonight, and he played bookend again with his usual patience and good will, but he was feisty as well in answering and, again, gave us a clear view of the real American that he is.

Welcome Todd to the blog.

It takes a Tanc to lead our country!

I am very glad to be on the blog and to have encouraged almost as many comments as Mr. Tancredo performance. And James from the Northeast, I have been a true supporter and donor to Mr. Tancredo's campaign, but thank you for the speculation. James also apparently knows Mr. Tancredo's position on this better then Mr. Tancredo knows it himself, or at least what he could articulate -- I commented on what he said -- words from the man's mouth, not some policy statement written by his staff. He did not have long to make his point, and I am sure his over all position is more nuanced then his statement -- but what he said is drill everywhere. And while James and I have probably read everyword on his web site -- most have not, and he has 30 seconds to make a point -- and he failed in that attempt on this issue in my opinion.

I understand the energy issue as well. And his response was, and remains, unacceptable to me -- but I do respect the opinions of Karen, James, and Bobbie. And Caree Iowa Team Tancredo Campaign Staff, this is not my first post to the blog, I have posted positive, supportive comments during/after previous debates, but thank you for the welcome.

During this race, I think it foolish to accept less then steller answers by our chosen candidates. To say we should not provide oil found off the coast of Louisiana to Florida because we are not drilling off the coast of Florida -- you truely think that was a thoughtful response? That was so out of left field that even McCain had to comment in response.

The point is -- drilling everywhere left in our great country WILL NOT provide energy independance. Additionally, the time to make new sights off of Florida or California productive is about the same timeframe that we could make alternative fuels viable if we would simply put the focus on them. Destroying what little is left unspoiled in our country in search of oil that will not solve our energy problems is shortsighted and poor policy.

Overall, I agree that Mr. Tancredo's views are sound and his policy stances are supportable. But, yes, his reponse to this question horrified me -- mostly because I expect more thoughtful statements from him.

The oil funding terrorism issue has been real for many years -- yet even after 9/11, we are still not serious about energy independance. Still not one nuclear license issued, still not a serious effort at bio-fuels (yet we still are paying farmers NOT to plant crops). Terrorism is being funded by our dependance on oil, and drilling off of Florida or ANWR is not going to change that -- not in the near term, not in the long term, not ever.

I wish the debates would be managed more fairly, and that the media appointed top 3 (or is it 4 since Law & Order entered the race) did not get all of the speak time. But that makes it even more important for Mr. Tancredo to answer strongly and thoughtfully. None of the other candidates tripped on this question as badly. Overall, he did an okay job given the circumstances of hardly ever getting a question, and he is dead was dead on on spending, trade and immigration. And I thought it is proper to withhold a statement of support for the eventual nominee. But I don't agree with his position on drilling, and I never will -- it simply is not the solution -- and that is why I am happy that there are still so many candidates from which to choose.

Maybe Mr. Tancedo could add clarity on this topic by making an "on the issues" entry here on his campaign site.

Maybe some folks would be happy if the oil companies would quit drilling anywhere...

Who needs oil anyway, we could just make this a leg power and gravity society. Then the "environmentalist" could be ecstatic.

As for me, bring on the nuclear power,and drill off of Florida, California, and ANWR.
While also extracting the oil shale in Tancredo's home state of Colorado, as well as Wyoming and Utah.

Good luck with the Leg power and gravity, energy alternative.

We definitely need other sources of fuel and I hope Tom will push this hard. I also hope he will remind everyone that 20 to 38 million illegal aliens need to go back to their own countries - our resources are dwindling.

Would you believe in LA, Mayor Villar wants people to use 10% less water - if all his illegal alien amigos would head back to their countries of origin, this problem wouldn't exist inasmuch as we're in an 8 year drought.

In early October Tom was granted a lengthy 2-part interview with the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin in which he plainly stated his position on oil and energy:

CF: Shifting to a contentious issue: oil. How do we wean ourselves off our dependency of volatile Middle Eastern oil, and are you in favor of opening up the Arctic (ANWR) for drilling?


TT: Yes, absolutely. I believe in developing every single resource we have within the continental United States and off our continental shelves. That includes shale in Wyoming and Colorado, where there are 1.2 trillion barrels of oil. You also have coal liquification and coal gasification. With technology developing to the point where we can think about sequestering carbon, the fact that we have some of the largest coal deposits in the world makes it very attractive, especially as alternative sources to the petroleum that we import from other countries. Markets help move these things. They work to shift resources to where they are more appropriately used. Let them work. I don't believe in subsidies.
GM lost its prominence as the number one automaker in the world to Toyota for one reason: the hybrid Prius. Markets work. So yes, we must fully use all the resources in our country.


To read his unhurried response to other issues go here:

http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.cfm?newsid=18870783&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=6

http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.cfm?newsid=18864067&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=6

Todd A. Elliot, you said:

"And James from the Northeast, I have been a true supporter and donor to Mr. Tancredo's campaign, but thank you for the speculation. James also apparently knows Mr. Tancredo's position on this better then Mr. Tancredo knows it himself, or at least what he could articulate -- I commented on what he said -- words from the man's mouth, not some policy statement written by his staff. He did not have long to make his point, and I am sure his over all position is more nuanced then his statement -- but what he said is drill everywhere. And while James and I have probably read everyword on his web site -- most have not, and he has 30 seconds to make a point -- and he failed in that attempt on this issue in my opinion."

My comment was not intended to offend, but rather to challenge. There seems to be an "edge" to your comments. It makes me question your loyalty to Tom. I am sure other's have picked up on this too.

Your comment, for instance, "James also apparently knows Mr. Tancredo's position on this better then Mr. Tancredo knows it himself" comes across as slightly offensive and condescending of Tom. You're not going to get any traction with the Tanc supporters by saying stuff like that.

I have heard Tom speak in person and know him personally. I have heard probably nearly all of his campaign speeches and have read stuff he's put in print. I am telling you Tom's position accurately.

Quite honestly, I am tired of these environmentalists being "horrified" by us drilling everywhere we can. Grow up!

We are all for responsible, clean drilling. We are all for keeping the oil industry accountable. And we are all for securing America and that means whatever it takes. That is Tom's heart and that is the heart of the true Tanc supporters.

Again, I question whether you are a true supporter.

...by the way, I usually sign James in the Northeast. So, this last comment from me (James) was mine. :-)

The comments to this entry are closed.