Liveblogging the CNN/YouTube debate: “Edginess,” “elbows, “eh.” Update: Romney’s the Energizer candidate; Update: PLANT ALERT; The biggest stumble of the night award goes to…CNN; Update: The plants keep sprouting like weeds
Update: More plant excavation…Abortion questioner is a declared Edwards’ supporter… and the Log Cabin Republican questioner is a declared Obama supporter…and lead toy questioner is a union activist for the John Edwards-endorsing United Steelworkers.
Kevin Aylward takes apart Anderson Cooper’s mea culpa on the failure to vet gay military activist/Hillary-Kerry supporter Keith Kerr and marvels in disbelief:
Here’s Cooper’s feeble “we didn’t know” defense.
COOPER: “Bill Bennett earlier mentioned he was getting some reports from friends of his on the Internet that Brigadier General Keith Kerr, who asked a question about gays in the military during this debate, was on a steering committee for Senator Hillary Clinton. That was something certainly unknown to us, and had we known that, would have been disclosed by us. It turns out we have just looked at it. Apparently, there was a press release from some six months ago. Hillary Clinton’s office saying that he had been named to some steering committee. We don’t know if he’s still on it. We’re trying to find out that information. But certainly, had we had that information, we would have acknowledged that in using his question, if we had used it at all.
Anderson Cooper would have you believe that a network that could select this question, find that 13-year-old Romney quote, create the trap for Romney (which he fell face first into), and (presumably) fly Kerr to the debate, could not type “Keith Kerr, retired Colonel” into Google and find the link to the Hillary Clinton press release, which prior to the debate appeared in the first 10 results for that search?
***
Retired gay Brigadier Gen./Hillary-Kerry campaign mouthpiece Keith Kerr = Another CNN potted plant.
Kerr’s question:
The biggest stumble of the night award goes to…CNN.
Update 11:47pm Eastern. PLANT ALERT.
Via Allah, Adam Yoshida blogs about the gay retired Brigadier General questioner…who’s affiliated with the Hillary campaign–serving on her LGBT committee.
He was also on the steering committee of Veterans for Kerry.
I take back my compliment of CNN.
The politics of planting rules again.
Sheesh.
Glenn Reynolds’ advice to CNN: “Suckered by Hillary, again. Try Google, next time. It’s not that hard!”
*Debate vid highlights/lowlights will be here.*
So, who won?
Quick and dirty reaction: Romney looked strong and energetic, with one stumble on the Bible question. Huckabee didn’t harm himself, so he “wins” by not losing. McCain and Thompson were lethargic, with a few lucid moments each.
On the format: Expectations were so low of CNN, it wasn’t hard to exceed them. The questions were almost all coherent and well-framed. And no obvious “plants” that I could detect. If you uncover any, let me know. Another plus: No Suzanne Malveaux.
Update 10:09pm Eastern. Softball for Rudy. You are a lifelong Yankees fan. Why did you root for the Red Sox? I guess this is the equivalent of the diamonds-or-pearls question from the Dem debate.
Romney “elbows” a last baseball line into Rudy’s spotlight.
Update 10:08pm Eastern. Question for Ron Paul. Are you going to let America down by not running as an independent. “I have no intention of doing this. I am a Republican.”
rEVOLution!!!
Update 10:06pm Eastern. Infrastructure question. Ron Paul goes all nutroots. We’re paying troops to blow up bridges overseas while our bridges are falling apart at home!!!!!!
McCain ignores Paul. Promises to veto pork projects and Bridges to Nowhere.
Update 10:01pm Eastern. Question about the Confederate flag. Romney doesn’t recognize that flag. That’s not a flag I’d hang in my room. Reach out to all Americans. There’s one America.
Thompson: He’s free to do whatever he wants in his home. Doesn’t mean he’s racist. But in public, we don’t need to go out of our way to [offend some people].
Update 9:58pm Eastern. Why don’t black Americans vote for Republicans?
Giuliani: We haven’t done a good enough job of reaching out.
Update 9:56pm Eastern. A space question from a guy who wants us to go to Mars.
Update 9:53pm Eastern. Will you embrace support of Log Cabin Republicans? Huckabee says he’ll take all the support he can get. Would he take it? Yes. Would he change his position on gay marriage? No.
Update 9:51pm Eastern. Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr, a retired gay military officer, challenges candidates on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Cooper asks Romney about his past comments that he “looks forward to the days gay men and women can serve openly in the military.” Romney says not in a time of war. Kerr gets several minutes to lobby. Boos from the audience.
Update 9:33pm Eastern. Which candidate will make a permanent commitment to Iraq? From a blogger, Buzz Brockway. Thompson: “We shouldn’t be there any longer than we have to be.”
Paul: Get out of Iraq. Take care of America first.
McCain: Ultimate destination of jihadists is NYC. That is the challenge of our time. I believe we can meet it and defeat it.
Paul: We are the occupiers. Loud boos.
Dan Riehl: “Based on what I’ve seen so far, Huckabee is going to come out of this debate in the top tier. If nothing changes, that may be “the” story of this debate.”
Update 9:28pm Eastern. Waterboarding question from a student in Seattle. Romney doesn’t want to describe precisely what techniques we’ll use. Keep enemy combatants at Gitmo.
McCain lambastes Romney on waterboarding. Gets some applause. Romney and McCain go at it over Geneva Conventions.
Update 9:25pm Eastern. Yasmin from Huntsville asks how candidates will “repair America’s image” because of the Iraq war?
McCain: Fight the Democrats’ plan for a withdrawal timetable.
Duncan Hunter: “I will never apologize for the United States of America.”
Update 9:16pm Eastern. Do you believe every word of this book? (Holds up Bible.)
Rudy hesistates. Mike Huckabee: “Can I help you out?”
OUCH. Elbow Alert. Laughter and applause for Huckabee.
Rudy hesitates. So, yes, I believe it. Not every thing in the literal sense. Like Jonah and the whale.
Romney: I believe the Bible is the word of God.
Do you believe every word?
Romney: Uhhh. Yes. Well…
Hillary stumble alert.
Huckabee: Either you believe it or you don’t. Doesn’t mean you believe we should pluck out our eyes. As the only one here with a theology degree, I don’t comprehend all of it…
Update 9:14pm Eastern. Question for Christian conservative candidates. Where are you on the death penalty? What would Jesus do? Huckabee cites experience carrying out the death penalty. Gives an articulate answer on the difficulty, the thorough review involved. Cooper: What would Jesus do? Huckabee: Jesus was too smart to run for public office. Applause. Tancredo: I would pray to Jesus to give me the courage and wisdom to do the right thing.
Update 9:10pm Eastern. Abortion question. If hypothetically Roe v Wade was overturned and Congress passed a ban on all abortions and it came to your desk, would you sign it? Rudy: “I would probably not sign it. I would leave it to the states.”
Update 9:06pm Eastern. Black-on-black crime.
Romney: Best thing you can do for a kid is have a mom and a dad. Better education.
Giuliani: Cites NYC record.
Romney: Makes another veiled Bernie Kerik reference. “I was not a mayor. I did not have a police commissioner.”
Ouch.
Update 9:04pm Eastern. Question – tell us about your gun collection.
Thompson: I have a couple of guns, but I’m not going to tell you which ones and where they are.
McCain: I carried a .45 as a pilot. I know how to use guns. Don’t own one now.
Hunter: Family tradition.
Romney: I have two guns in my home owned by my son John. He buys expensive things for me. Huh?
Update 9:00pm Eastern. Question: “How do you feel about gun control?” Duncan Hunter: “I will strongly support the Second Amendment.” Applause.
Another gun question directed at Rudy Giuliani on his comments that gun owners should have to pass a test. “We have to be very aggressive about enforcing the gun laws that exist.” Rudy supports “reasonable restrictions” outlined by Parker opinion. Scattered boos. Decisions will be made on a state basis and will have to comply with the constitution.
Thompson and Giuliani having a civil discussion of Parker.
Update 8:53pm Eastern. Cooper runs a Thompson ad attacking Romney on abortion. Cooper asks Thompson: “What’s up with that?” Thompson is thrown off. Romney takes the offense again.
Update 8:50pm Eastern. A question about lead in China-manufactured toys. Tancredo ties it to trade with China. So does Hunter.
Update: 8:48pm Eastern. Cooper slips in a question about the Politico’s story on Giuliani’s Hamptons subsidies. Rudy deflects. Cooper moves on to showing a Tancredo immigration campaign ad.
Update 8:45pm Eastern. The questions so far are really good. I take back my “circus” remarks. Question about ethanol subsidies. Romney gives a practiced answer supporting ethanol “subsidies.”
Update 8:44pm Eastern. “Ordinary American” Grover Norquist asks candidates whether they’ll sign a pledge opposing tax raises during presidency.
Update 8:41pm Eastern. McCain takes a fair tax question and uses it to challenge Ron Paul’s isolationism. Mixture of boos and cheers. Sustained applause for McCain’s challenge.
Paul gets 30 seconds for rejoinder. McCain doesn’t understand difference between isolationism and non-intervention.
Update 8:37pm Eastern. What three programs would you cut?
Thompson: He mentions Social Security, but he denies that he’ll cut it. He won’t pick three.
Paul mentions cutting the Departments of Education, Energy, and Homeland Security–and the Department of Defense.
Huckabee targets the IRS. Red meat. Applause. Also agrees with revamping DHS.
Update 8:34pm Eastern. Question – What will you do to control national debt and spending? Softball for McCain. He mentions S-CHIP expansion, tobacco taxes. “I have a record of fighting wasteful spending.”
Update 8:31pm Eastern. Question – Does Ron Paul believe in CFR/NAU conspiracies? Paul: Yes.
Update 8:26pm Eastern. Good questions. A young woman asks about DREAM act. Huckabee says his illegal alien tuition bill wasn’t for “special” treatment.
Romney gets to respond to Huckabee. Listening to Huckabee reminds Romney of Massachusetts liberals. Great reasons for doing bad things. “Mike, that’s not your money.” Huckabee: “We’re a better country than punishing children for what their parents do.” Romney responds immediately: “It’s not about punishing…It’s about whether we should be using tax money for illegal immigrants.”
Update 8:23pm Eastern. Next question – an employer with H2-B asks how Tancredo will support guest workers. Tancredo says he won’t support more mass guest workers coming into the country. If I recall, I thought Tancredo actually supported an H2-B program. Checking.
Update 8:20pm Eastern. John McCain’s turn. He denies that shamnesty was amnesty. McCain cites “our failure in Iraq” as a reason people don’t trust the government to secure the borders. McCain complains about “demagoguing.”
Tancredo: “All I’ve heard is people trying to out-Tancredo Tancredo. It’s wonderful.”
Update 8:17pm Eastern. Another immigration question: Will you oppose shamnesty? Fred Thompson gets a chance to speak. “We get to decide who comes into our home. Enforce the border. Punish employers. Eliminate sanctuary cities. We have to cut off federal funding.
Ding! Ding!
Thompson disses Romney for initially supporting shamnesty.
“We’ve all probably had people we’ve hired that probably were bad decisions.”
[Bernie Kerik allusion.]
Update 8:16pm Eastern. Anderson Cooper wants to move on. Romney won’t let him. Romney cites his record opposing driver’s licenses for illegals, supported deportation training.
Update 8:11pm Eastern. Yes! The first question is for Giuliani about his support for sanctuary. Giuliani is giving his stock answer about how his sanctuary policy was not a sanctuary.
As I’ve said before: “Bulls**t.”
Romney is on Rudy like white on rice. Notes the federal lawsuit Giuliani waged. Applause.
Score: Romney.
Rudy follows up with the claim that Romney had a “sanctuary mansion” where illegals worked.
Romney: “You know better than that.”
Update 8:09 Eastern. Oh, geez. The first video is a guy with a guitar. Is there a question here? No.
Update 8:03pm Eastern. The candidates are being introduced. No “elbows” or “edginess” yet.
***
So I’ll start liveblogging the CNN/YouTube circus at 8pm and you can tune it to our live video stream simulcast at Hot Air. We may have a few special guest calls during the broadcast. Not Chuck Norris, unfortunately. In any event, we’ll stay on through the entire debate, which ends at 10, and do 30 minutes of post-debate chit-chat. Here’s your scene-setter:
The Sunshine State takes center stage Wednesday night in the race for the White House as eight Republican presidential candidates face off in the party’s first CNN/YouTube debate.
With five weeks and one day to go until the first votes are cast in the race for the White House, the stakes could hardly be higher. The candidates will be fielding video questions submitted by the public via the YouTube Web site, just as Democratic White House hopefuls did in July.
If you’ve noticed, and it’s hard not to, an edgy battle for the GOP presidential nomination has turned even testier the past few days. One reason for the bad blood is that the Republican race is still very much up for grabs, and the clock’s ticking. Rudy Giuliani’s the front-runner in the national polls, but the former New York City mayor is not the one leading the polls in most of the early primary states. That candidate would be Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts governor is ahead in state surveys in Iowa and New Hampshire. The Iowa caucuses, which will be held on January 3, kick off the presidential primary season. New Hampshire, which holds the nation’s first primary, votes five days later.
Add to that a new twist in Mike Huckabee. The former Arkansas governor is moving up in the polls in Iowa and is now within striking distance of Romney. “The GOP race is very much in flux right now. That’s why elbows are out,” said CNN Senior Political Analyst Gloria Borger.
Charles Johnson says, “Eh.”
Here are the latest numbers for you poll-watchers.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Romney gets Rick-rolled: Santorum sweeps Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado in 2/7 trifecta
February 7, 2012 07:24 PM by Michelle Malkin
245 CommentsMiddle Class Payroll Tax Cut Extension Comes Courtesy of Mortgage Fees on Home Buyers
February 6, 2012 01:36 PM by Doug Powers
34 CommentsSantorum’s got game
February 6, 2012 10:05 AM by Michelle Malkin
184 CommentsNevada Caucuses Open Thread; Update: Romney Wins
February 4, 2012 04:30 PM by Doug Powers
139 Comments
BlunderMitt: Let Them Eat Food Stamps; Plus: PPP results point to Santorum
February 1, 2012 09:44 AM by Michelle Malkin
122 Comments
Florida Primary Open Thread; Update: Romney Wins
January 31, 2012 07:24 PM by Doug Powers
163 Comments
Fly Them To the Moon. Please.
January 27, 2012 12:32 AM by Michelle Malkin
114 Comments
Categories: 2008 campaign,GOP,YouTube
Sister Toldjah
» Video: A president of the People, and for the PeopleJustOneMinute
» Oatmeal LaterPundit & Pundette
» Oh my: Santorum sweepsAmSpecBlog
» Thoughts on the Santorum SweepHot Air
» Video: The Obama 2012 fashion show!Riehl World View
» Santorum Kicked The Mitt Out Of Romney
After this debate, I still do not know who I will vote for……..I wish to goodness Newt had run.
Dang it.
Who is your favorite candidate at this juncture?
I like Duncan Hunter but whoever is advising him needs to update his fence speech.Make it shorter and add something else.Maybe more on bringing back our manufacturing base. Maybe that would bring over some Dems? Lots of them have lost jobs or wages in that sector.
re: #150. In answer to my own question, from
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/28/486161.aspx :
From NBC’s Lauren Appelbaum
Giuliani — 16:38, during 20 times
Romney — 13:18, during 19 times
Thompson — 12:16, during 12 times
McCain — 11:00, during 12 times
Huckabee — 10:00, during 11 times
Paul — 7:43, during 9 times
Hunter — 5:06, during 7 times
Tancredo — 3:49, during 7 times
I know I’m late to this and that everyone’s on the plant thread but I need to respond to this…
Just having black members in your cabinent does not qualify as “reaching out.”
If they really wanted to reach out they ought to be going to community meetings in shabby neighborhoods that are full of the broken promises of democrats.
None of the candidates have done this yet, but since it’s the primary season and the people who need “reaching out to” in urban areas are registered Republicans, I understand why they haven’t done it yet. I just hope come general election time, that they capitalize on the failures of the big dem citys like Baltimore, Philly, Chicago, Detroit, Camden, St. Louis, New Orleans, Washington D.C., Cleveland, Cincinatti, etc, etc etc.
So let me get this strait, the Dems will not do a debate on Foxnews, because they can’t plant questions like they do at CNN. Right?
# 205
Exactly.
Gettysburg was a mistake of colossal porportions on both sides. Buy a book and read about it. If Lee had had his Cavalry back (instead of Reb Stuart out roaming the countryside blindly) he’d have known where the Union positions were weak on the flanks and would have easily rolled them up. He had the advantage in numbers and held the high ground and the town at the start of the battle. The Union general Meade (I believe) acted stupidly in bringing the fight there, but lucked out in that he didn’t know that Lee’s troops were bottled up trying to get through town to the battlefield on the southern side of the town. Lee didn’t press his advantage because of not knowing Meade’s weaknesses (lack of Stewart’s cavalry again) at the end of the first day, when the Union forces were reeling backwards. Instead, Lee called off the fight, which allowed Union troops to dig in and reinforce positions that night. The next two days were fought as almost a stalemated “trench war” in a preview of the coming WWI. Each side held positions that the other couldn’t simply “sweep away” with the typical charge of men.
Had Lee fought a “containment battle” and retreated up the road, he could have taken Washington DC in a matter of a week, as there was NO ARMY between his forces and the city. Just filing the troops through the city of Gettysburg, which had but 3 narrow roads at that time, to form up on the other side would have taken a day or more for Meade. With Cavalry as an advance force, Lee could have marched straight to Washington. He fought stupidly there and basically cost the South the war at that point.
At the very least, Lee could have moved into the fields north of Gettysburg and used his superior numbers to his advantage. His positions severely limited his numerical advantage. Everyone forgets that Lee (Confederate)was NORTH of Meade (Union) at that point. He held all the cards and squandered them foolishly.
Hindsight is 20/20 though…
People also forget that in total, both sides fieled more men at Gettysburg than our entire contingent in Iraq and Afghanistan! 48k deaths in three days, and more from wounds later was still not a huge percent of either army. Lee lost a lot of cannon however, and without that advantage, couldn’t fight the set-piece battles he needed. The South lacked the manufacturing base necessary to replace his equipment rapidly. They never lacked manpower, only machinery and the railroad network necessary to deliver it where it was needed.
His army also “lost” for the first time, or at least hadn’t forced a Union retreat, and they became discouraged in the strength of the “Southern fightin’ man”. Not good when you have to make a long walk back through hostile territory to get back to your side of the Mason-Dixon line.
In short, Gettysburg and its losses, while tragic, cannot be compared to Iraq, Afghanistan, or the War on Terror in general. This is a completely different sort of warfare. Our losses thus far are not tragic, except on a case-by-case basis for each family involved. As a country they are heroic, and should be views as such by all.
OK, the following people all wrote something negative or presented misinformation about Ron Paul. I challenge each and every one of you to a debate.
Put up your candidate and their stance on an issue and I’ll give you Ron Paul’s position. We’ll see where the truth can be found.
The honor roll: Mr. Conservative Cat (I’ve debated you before), DesertLover, John Ansell, Boomer, Tacodawn, RedRepub, Backwoods, JosetheGuerilla, AJMontana and Ranten N. Raven.
Rule: Pick an issue, your candidate and present their stance and I’ll give you Paul’s views, not the views many of you seem to be misinformed on. No slander of each other…just the facts.
I do realize many of you are good at slander – whether it is Paul supporters or Paul himself (mostly unfounded). My point is those comments just show the poster lack of debating skills. Issue vs. Issue, lets go…
The second point is I don’t expect many of you to actually pick a candidate and support his stance. We’ll see.
“I will never apologize for the United Ststes of America”—That’s called being American.
Oops ,States.
Buehler? Buehler?
I thought I’d at least get one of you to respond…
Quite telling…
Fed Up,
You know, I was debating Flenser and he ran off the moment I posed a direct question to him he didn’t want to deal with, and while I’m busy, he said he was busy, too – for over 18 days, and he still hasn’t responded despite shooting his mouth off on the live blog debate thread. My point is that since you’re essentially coming up with the same scenario between us, I feel somewhat of an obligation to respond and take you up on your challenge.
I do have to say that I’ve recently decided to go less negative and alot more positive; maybe it’s because I feel that Rudy’s record of MANFEST TANGIBLE ACCOMPLISHMENT is much superior to those of the other candidates, so going negative is moot for me these days. I have, however, dished on Ron Paul generally so i guess you’re deserving. Fair is fair.
What are the terms and deadlines and rules of the debate? I’ll do it in theory depending on the terms. But I do insist on this one rule: Candidates’ positions are good as a starting point, but in whatever format you choose for the debate, the tangible, manifest accomplishements between Paul and (for my debate) Giuliani must be addressed and compared directly. Talk is too easy for politicians.
Anyway, I’m game in concept. What are the terms?
Maybe we can get Michelle to start a special thread for it.
Mr_Conservative_Cat,
Thanks for the response…
Of all the people I thought might respond, you came to mind based on a prior discussion you and I have had (on the legality of the war…if you remember).
In reality, I have put this challenge out on various forums and you are the first to take me up on it. Appreciate the opportunity to hash things out…in a friendly manner.
As far as rules, since I think you and I are on the same page in respect for each other, lets just pick an issue and state our candidates position, then wait for the other’s rebuttal. We’ll limit to two comments each to make our points as this will limit going off on tangents. I think we can handle it.
I’ll list the 5 top issues and you can list yours and we’ll take the top 3 that match to debate or preferably, all 5 or more. (Keep in mind I’m flexible on rules as it’s just a discussion on the issues that concerns me.)
Here are my 5:
1. The War on Terror, to include the Iraq War and the Republcan mantra of Islamofacism and Foreign Interventionism
2. Immigration
3. The Economy (to include economic policy, the dollar’s purchasing power, debts, deficits and future obligations to Medicare and Social Security)
4. Education System
5. Civil Liberties (to include the 2nd amendment right of gun ownership, property rights (eminent domain and gay marraige and the Patriot Act)
Wouldn’t mind debating abortion too if you are choosing Giuliani.
Also wouldn’t mind taking it a step further and debating why each candidate would be a better choice to defeat Hillary Clinton.
I do have 3 questions that I’d like to ask to begin with (just so I know a little more about you and you about me) and a statement:
1. Are you a Christian (I am)
2. Age (I’m 49)
3. Have you ever served in the armed forces? I haven’t.
Statement: I’ll also state that I have always voted Republican (you had accused me of being on the Left in a past discussion – far from it – I’m not a socialist). I already know you are a Republican, ha. Also, I’m on the West Coast, originally from Illinois and a die hard Cubs fan!
Look forward to the discourse…we can just do it here as no one reads or comments on these threads after a few days (for the most part).
Any other rules you want are fine with me.
We’ll alternate issues with you going first on the first issue and I’ll go first on the second and so on.
I’ll check in tomorrow morning. Didn’t check back here until 6:30pm PST and saw that you had replied.
Cheers!
Fed Up
Warning: forgive the typos. It’s late and I’m tired.
Honestly, I’m not sure that I remember, but thank you for remembering and if you were the extraordinarily polite guy I debated with, then I do remember…. and yes, the war is legal (sorry;-)
If you’re friendly, I’m friendly, that’s my motto. And I have to say that I’m not surprised that no one took you up, as Flenser didn’t keep his word to respond in that other thread. I think the reality is that people want to comment, not debate. People have the time, but they’d rather voice off on ten different subjects than spend the same time debating one. That’s fair, but it does tend to create a hit-and-run culture which is anything but politically productive.
I’ll go for this but with the following caveat: each needs to back up what their respective positions are by citing what the candidates have done. If they have done nothing but cite a position but have manifestly accomplished nothing, then the issue in question should be rendered moot and for want of a better word, “undebateable”. The reason is that we can each chase our respective tails in endless circles based on what the candidates said or say – today. I’m not being cute when I say i don’t know what accomplishments Paul has on a single issue, but if you’re good with that, then we’re good to go. Obviously, taking a Hillary-like approach of saying that any candidate “Said this in public” or “fought hard for that” with nothing happening on the back end doesn’t qualify.
That cracks me up, but I can certainly see why you’d want to. ‘ve always said that that’s where my guy Rudy falls down (but no one is perfect).
I will absolutely agree to this part.
This is hilarious because you and I are essentially within the margin of error for being identical.
Yes, absolutely.
2
I just turned 50 last month, you young whipper-snapper, you.
No, like you, the Vietnam war ended just a year or two before before my time would have come. Had we been in the current situation, then, even being somewhat liberal in my stupid youth, I feel quite sure, knowing my own mind, that I would have enlisted. Watching the towers come down should be enough for anyone.
.
Well, not to sound rude or arrogant, but in this environment I call ‘em as I see ‘em, albiet usually with erring on the side of caution, so you must have really convinced me at the time that you were hard left. What can i say? You may still convince me that you’re hard left, no insult intended.
East coast (obviously, I’ve said enough of my experiences of watching the towers come down, losing friends in there and watching both the ftermath as well as Ridy’s long-term turnaround of a city which had just about literally been written off, as incredible as that may seem today) and my only sports interest to speak of is Hockey. GO RANGERS! *TIED FOR 1ST PLACE AS OF THEIR LAST GAME AGAINST THE ISLANDERS!*
*Shrugs*
My prefered topics:
1. The war against crime, including organized crime (if you took organized crime out of the national equation, we’de have a budgetary surplus even with the war on terror).
2. Experience in managing large-scale economies.
3. War on Terror.
4. Experience in creating a bi-partisan environment in which republican values are acheived, not endlessly fought over (this is highly specialized, i know, but these days it’s an absolute necessity if pelosi and co stay in charge – God help us. And I do mean getting republican/conservative values realized, not creating the kind of bi-partisan environment I perceive mcCain as achieving, in which conservative values get watered down to nothing in the final analysis. Working with dems is something that Reagan did extraordinarily well, though we tend to only remember the applause-getting winning confrontations)
5. War on taxes.
Let’s hope someone reads all this. Not for the attention, but if you’re gonna spill your own blood on the debating floor, you’d hope that some of the info you’re fighting to have heard – again – does get heard…. again… and maybe has a little impact. the key to advertising, of course, is effective repetition, and I desperately want my guy Rudy to get the nod, on many levels, even if he isn’t ideal by our own lofty conservative standards. Having seen what he has done first hand over many years and countless political hurdles (the press was anything but gracious with him until 9/11) for the sake of our country we really need a tough fighter who can win the good fights. Honestly, I’m so disappointed with GW that I’m beside myself at this point.
Your turn.
Mornin’
Looks like we do have a bit in common.
Yes, I was the “polite guy,” ha…and I think you thought I was from the “left” because of my disagreement with the war and its legality…which if you go back and find that thread, I had added to it supporting this theory, hehe.
Anyway, we have discussed the legality enough and if you’d like to have the last word on that in the thread we last debated, please reply there.
We have some topics to debate in common:
War on Terror
Economic Policy
And other topics we need to come to agreement on:
War on Taxes
War Against Crime
Bi-partisanship Capabilities
Civil Liberties
Immigration
Education System
Abortion
Since we are both Christian, I believe Abortion should be part of the discussion. Is that OK with you?
If we each chose one topic out of the remaining list, we would then have 5 total topics. We could then utilize these topics to go to the next round in defeat Hillary (yes, I realize you may have an advantage with Giuliani and the NY connection – and personally, I think this is what the so called insiders want to have happen, so I’m glad you picked Giuliani).
For my last topic, it’s a choice between Civil Liberties, where Paul is strong and Giuliani is, well, more Liberal shall we say…. So I think both would do well against Hillary. So I’ll choose Immigration as the last topic.
You can choose one that you picked and that will bring us to a total of 5 (assuming you agree to all of the above – I’m flexible).
We won’t hit all the topics, but that’s how it goes on the Fox News and CNN debates anyway.
Since we have two topics in common, lets discuss those first. We can start with the less heavy topic of economics rather than the battleground of War on Terror. Wouldn’t mind saving it for last as this will be the biggest issue eh?
So if you’re in agreement, pick the last topic from your list, we’ll list the topics and go through them one at a time ending with the War issue. You can go first on Economics and I’ll go first on the next topic if that works for you (can’t really flip a coin!).
BTW, I’m disappointed with GW too…and I voted for him twice.
Fed Up
Just to let you guys know, I’m still reading this thread and plan to keep watching to see what you guys come up with. I decline the invitation to join in myself.
Fed Up, since you correctly identified me as being opposed to Ron Paul, I will state for the record that it has to do with his attitude toward foreign policy. When he mentioned (in an earlier debate) our bases in Saudia Arabia as one of the reasons Al Quaida attacked us on 9-11, he lost any chance he might have had of getting my vote. It seems to me his approach to dealing with our enemies is very much like Neville Chamberlain’s and I cannot support anyone with that kind of an attitude.
If you wish to rebut this statement, please feel free to do so.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ll retire to a neutral corner and watch you gentlemen go at it.
Gee whiz, this is getting kind of complicated, isn’t it, Fed Up?
I have no idea where that thread might be – seems like a lifetime ago. Suffice to say that my response to this is what it is to the impeach Bush crowd: Bush has so many hateful enemies that if anything illegal had been done, effective legal action would be happening like tornados in kansas. It isn’t. It won’t be. the war is legal.
We have some topics to debate in common:
Let’s start with abortion. I think I’m being good here, because to be a Rudy supporter and to start with abortion is like being a chess player and opening with your King. However, I want to get a feel for how this debate will play out. Here’s my first salvo, so to speak:
Rudy never championed abortion, but alas never championed against it. Naturally, trying to get anything conservative done in NYC where all the legislators and judges are essentially hard-left is tough, but I won’t make excuses. I will say this: he did indeed work out ways to make adoption easier and promoted it like crazy, and that included television advertising (for which he was brutally attacked by the left wingmedia in NYC, who saw his pro-adoption stance as an attack against ‘women’s rights” for casula abortion.)
The adoption arrangements and television ads were tangible things he did as a leader. When you explain Ron Paul’s voiced positions, please explain also what he did – tangible accomplishemnt – as a leader and let’s keep the tangible, manifest accomplishments part up front and center in our debate. Words are too easy, and I’m sick of believing in candidates who have nothing but words to offer.
I was going to suggest that you two take your interesting discussion off the board and turn it into an email exchange – until I saw BC’s comment about lurking.
My concern is that you are inadvertently keeping other people from commenting – and that the posts are wildly off topic. People might feel out of place interrupting your discussion.
Let’s play it by ear. But if I get a complaint, I’ll have to shut you down.
I understand your “chess” game analogy. I’m sure you would agree the abortion issue is typically a big one for Christians.
What Ron Paul has done to reverse the abortion trend in our country:
1. He authored and sponsored HR1094, the Sanctity of Life Act of 2007, which would declare that human life begins at conception
(http://www.prolifealliance.com/sanctity%20of%20life%20act.html);
2. He earned a 0% rating from NARAL (Planned Parenthood’s pro-abortion lobbying organization) for his votes in Congress in 2003;
3. He has consistently supported a majority of pro-life legislation over the past 10 years – if he is construed as voting against something that pro-lifers want, it is because Congressman Paul Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.;
4. In a 1996 questionnaire, he indicated that abortions should be illegal, except to save the life of the mother (http://votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=296#408) – also if you watched the last debate, he said that in his 30 years of delivering over 4,000 babies, he has never had to do a “medically necessary” abortion;
5. Paul is the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. This can be done without any Supreme Court Justice involvement, which I believe to be a brilliant idea.
6. Paul has also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.” Title X funds are currently being utilized by Planned Parenthood, which means our tax dollars are fudning the aborting of babies.
Quotes by Giuliani; “Ultimate decision by woman, her conscience & her doctor
I believe the best way we can have common ground in this debate that you’re hearing is if we put our emphasis on reducing abortions and increasing the number of adoptions, which is something that I did as mayor of New York City. But I think ultimately that decision that has to be made is one that government shouldn’t make. Ultimately, a woman should make that with her conscience and ultimately with her doctor.”
Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate Aug 5, 2007
And the biggie: Appoint constructionist judges, but no litmus test
Q: Would you personally be disappointed if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade?
A: I don’t think it’s a question of being disappointed or being happy about it. I think it’s a question of not wanting to make this a litmus test for judges, so that a judge feels free to listen to the facts, listen to the arguments, and come to the decision they think is the correct interpretation of the Constitution. Some strict constructionist judges are going to decide it was wrongly decided. Other strict constructionist judges may give more weight to the precedential value of it, the fact that it’s been the law for this length of time. You can see the tension there between these two things. And I think the court should be allowed to decide this.
Q: Would you nominate someone whose record shows that he opposes a woman’s right to choose?
A: If I thought that on 20 other issues they would be terrific, I might be able to, sure. I don’t consider it a litmus test.”
Source: Fox News Sunday, 2007 presidential candidate interviews May 14, 2007
More quotes found here which show his inconsistency which worries me more than any other issue because of the choosing of future Supreme Court Justices that Christians want as pro-life: http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Rudy_Giuliani_Abortion.htm
When Rudy first declared, he was interviewed on Sean Hannity’s radio show and was asked about abortion. Rudy’s answer was; “I’m against abortion but I’m for a woman’s right to choose.” Spoken like a true politician.
(Let me know if this style of debate works for you…I stated my candidates views and what he has personally done (accomplishements) and offered a critque).
Fed Up
(heading out to see a movie and will be back tomorrow)
No problem Rick…let us know and we’ll abide…
BC, sorry…didn’t see your post till Rick said something about lurking and I was trying to figure out what he meant…
I’ll be happy to discuss after the exchange with CC.
Fed Up
No biggie, Fed Up. And I also can understand if Rick needs to send this offline.
Rick,
I understand your concerns, but it seems to me that we can put them to rest right away:
ANYONE SHOULD COMMENT AND NOT FEEL INHIBITED BY THE SENSE OF A CLOSED DEBATE. FED UP AND AND I WILL SIMPLY IGNORE THE COMMENTERS AND KEEP THE DEBATE BETWEEN US, IF THAT’S OKAY WITH FED UP (I keep wanting to use Fed Up’s initials, but I can’t bring myself to address someone as “F U”).
Rick, if you get a complaint you’ll discuss it with us before shutting this down, right? My point being that any troller could complain between you and him or her just to be malicious.
Fed Up,
In my mind we need to iron this out a bit, because what you did was mostly quote the candidates. The one tangible, manifest thing that Ron paul seemd to have done is to author HR 1095 with which I am unfamiliar. Was it voted on?> presumably it didn’t pass, alas.
Everything else is more or less what I kinda didn’t want to debate, and that’s what they said, because every politician says one thing one day and then something else the next. Admittedly both candidates have remained firm on their stand on abortion, and I’ve always said that for me this was Rudy’s major weak point.
I’ll conciede this one to Paul, as I would to Romney (in his position today)or Huckabee. I think abortion should be illegal, Rudy thinks it’s a woman’s choice. Anyway, there is no perfect candidate, and I feel quite confident in continuing to feel that Rudy is perhaps the very best choice overall, enough for me to commit support, and Paul is nowhere near Presidential timber, and, no offense, his poll numbers show (and you don’t need alot of money – Huckabee is making quite a show for himself with a very limited budget).
Anyway, I’d rather not debate the minutia of what candidates “fought for” (talk about) or what they say yesterday and today. I’m at a big disadvantage in raising negatives about Paul as he’s an enigma to me, and I don’t want to go negative on him anyway just to bash the opposition into submission – we can save that for Hillary. Let’s keep this simple: you go positive on Paul, I’ll stay positive on Rudy, no negatives and only whay each tangibly accomplished. We could spend forever debating about just these two, and you have perhaps more motivation than I do, since Paul is way down and Rudy doesn’t need my help. But let’s keep this simple and direct, or as much as we can.
Anyway, first round to you on abortion, and while I appreciate Rudy’s position in a place like NYC, where talk about impeaching Bush is regarded as intellignet political discourse – but Paul and Huckabee and Romney win on this one regardless – like there was ever any doubt
CC,
Go ahead and pick the next topic out of the list so we have 5 total and I’ll do that topic next. The 3 you chose are:
War on Taxes
War Against Crime
Bi-partisanship Capabilities
I’ll do any of those next.
BTW, I agree….the Bush impeachment moveon.org is a waste of time and taxpayers dollars.
Fed Up
You go ahead and pick the next topic – I already chose abortion as a Rudy supporter in a selfless act of political self-flagilation.
In your debate post you chose lots of various quotes which in context elevated Paul and diminished Giuliani. But of course quotes run the gamut, and as a consequence that kind of debate is endlessly manipulative, and quite frankly it bores me as a participant. Once again I’d request that we stick more or less to what the candidates achieved in manifest, tangible ways, or with all due respect I’ll have to bow out of the debate.
Your turn. Pick a good one that favors Paul.
Not to mention no impeachable offenses, as is evidenced by the lack of lawsuit and credible impeachment proceedings by Bush’s political enemies.
No problem…I think we’re on the same page, but obviously this isn’t going to be a perfect debate for either of us.
Understand, that when you say tangible, you are trying to compare what Giuliani has done in the city of NY versus what Paul has done in his district, when in reality, Paul has been writing and trying to get bills passed on a whole array of issues that can’t be measured. So I’m not sure how this will go, but I’ll give it my best shot according to what you’re looking for in continuance of the exchange.
The next topic we’ll do economic policy…
I’ll post something tomorrow.
Fed Up
Fed Up,
I take your point, but rather than that situation being a flaw in the debate structure, it is, instead, my entire point about political debating in general. Most successful politicians can talk a good game, but what matters is if they’re really cut out for the job. Hillary strikes fear and distain into the hearts of many because what she says absolutely has no reliable bearing on what she will do as President.
What a candidate says can be important, too, of course, but what they say really has to be entirely secondary to what they have done, because A. it shows where they really tend to be despite what they say, B. it shows what they can do and C., – and this is where it applies more to Paul perhaps than the other candidates – it’s a measurable barometer of their actual leadership experience, or lack thereof.
Such a view might infuriate those people who support a candidate whose political experience is entirely legislative, but that too, is the point – being President is an executive job, not legislative one, and you always want a job candidate with the most relevent experience.
Specifically:
In my opinion this isn’t something to be forgiven about the candidate – in my opinion and with all due respect, when discussing the real and actual leader of the entire free world, then if his accomplishments cannot be measured, then he, along with many others, are simply not ready for prime time in this arena. If he has chosen a career path in which is talents for leading and getting things done as a President would cannot be measured, then he’s simply gunning for the wrong job. Otherwise, we’re electing people on their ability to simply talk us into electing them regardless of the evidence – or lack thereof – of their ability, and when discussing Presidents, that’s as bad a baraometer as can be imagined.
Show us what the candidates have done as leaders. If they can’t, then there’s no point in “promoting” them to the job of President.
CC,
By stipulating what a candidate “has done” and debating only with this guideline, you are trying to make irrelevant what Ron Paul, as an elected member to the House of Representatives, does for his country. He does not “govern” but rather, as a member of Congress, “make laws, introduces bills, and votes on bills.”
You want to discount this aspect of his experience as if it is irrelevant because your view of it’s not “leadership experience.”
To compare a Mayor and what he has accomplished for his city to a person who has years of experience at the House of Representatives level is comparing apples to oranges.
Ron Paul has introduced 100′s of bills in Congress and if they were adhered to, America wouldn’t be in the mess it currently is with over 9 trillion of debt, inflation (the hidden tax), that funds our wars and results in a weaker and weaker dollar.
Am I not to discuss Ron Paul’s views on the Gold Standard and a sound monetary system and how it can solve inflation or his adherence to Austrian Economics, which would result in truly free markets and limited government?
He’s had these same views he is espousing today since he was first in office in 1986. He is unchanging in his views. Is this consistency not to be commended?
Am I not to discuss Paul’s bills that he has introduced to solve the illegal immigration issues, abortion issues (as I did above) or the Iraq War? Is not the writing of a bill a “measurement” of accomplishment and his conviction? Is it Ron Paul’s fault that no one listens? He’s been crying wolf for 20 years and its time people listened.
But I do understand your trying to categorize the running of the city of New York an advantage over Ron Paul in the sense that you’re claiming that this experience trumps Paul’s Legislative experience in Congress where he has served 10 terms in the House as a Republican.
If you think this, then wouldn’t a governor be your most ideal candidate, not Giuliani? Or are you saying that running a large city like NY is equivalent to running a state like MA?
Personally I don’t think this way. I look at what my candidate stands for, his conviction to make a real difference for We The People; A candidate that can’t be bought by lobbyists or other politicians who wants a favor in return for a favor; A candidate that wants to eliminate Federal programs that aren’t working but are just driving our nation deeper and deeper into debt. A candidate that understands the fallacies of a Keynesian economic system and the benefits of the Austrian School of Thought that was purposefully left out of our University education (ask an Econ major what Austrian Economics is – they can’t answer it (http://www.mises.org/etexts/austrian.asp).
I want a candidate that is more in line with the Old Republicans who got us out of wars (Vietnam and Korean) and stood for limited government and sound fiscal policies. I want a candidate that secures our borders first before securing the borders of 130 different nations where our troops are stationed.
I want a candidate who loves our neighbor as ourselves.
The Republican Party has been hijacked and I believe only Ron Paul can bring it back to its roots.
I appreciate the opportunity to debate, but unfortunately I don’t think we can come to any agreement at this point as we can’t compare the candidates when they come from different walks of life.
As a Cubs fan, I’m used to the underdog scenario, ha…perhaps after 100 years the Cubs will win in 2008 and so will Ron Paul…
I’ll let you have the last word and am glad you handled the exchange in a most respectful manner. We “Paulites” don’t get that too often, lol.
Disclosure: I’m not a 9/11 conspiracy nut; don’t wear a tin foil hat; don’t play video games; only voted once in each televised debate poll; and am not a white supremist.
For those who don’t know much about Ron Paul, please look at what he has written on the issues for the last 20 years at http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/
Now compare that to any other candidate…
Peace,
Fed Up
Fed Up,
I appreciate the way we disagree more and more; think on this: if the rest of the world followed our good example, there would simply be no war, and not alot of arguements. That’s a good thing, and I thank you for that.
I didn’t say we couldn’t discuss what they say, but yes, the huge preportion of focus should be on what the candidates accomplished in a tangible way.
Like Reagan, I think Governors have the edge in relevent experience without question though in the case of the mayor of NYC….
It’s tougher, in my opinion. The congestion coupled with anonyminity leads to a very high degree of crime, often violent crime (Giuliani’s record on addressing that with results is staggering – it’s too bad so many people take it for granted). Giuliani presided over the third largest economy in the United States, and did a great job of it wile lowering taxes. Short of eliminating the IRS, that should make him a dream candidate to most conservatives on fiscal management. The list could go on and on.
Quite frankly, you aren’t alone: nobody wants to compare what Giuliani actually accomplished to what the other candidates actually accompished. There are obvious reasons for that and they greatly inform my confidence in Giuliani as the best man for the job.
Despite feeling that Paul can be amaingly unrealistic in my opinion, I never said you were anything of the sort. People who support candidates are always a mixed bag looking for who speaks to them on a variety of issues. I question Paul’s thinking alot, but you’re okay in my book.
Enjoy.