posted
For anyone who missed it, about a week ago was the first debate amongst the eight Democratic candidates for president that are still officially running. You can catch it, plus most of the post show on YouTube. My thoughts on it can be found here, but I'll make sure to add that I was pleasantly surprised by Mike Gravel, who I had never even heard of before the debate. He was a senator from Alaska...20 years ago. And though I didn't agree with some of the what I'd call hyperbole from him, the man was full of candor and honestly. He was a straight talker, bluntly, and I loved every word of it. I think this country is dying for some candor, and we're sick of talking points and scripted speeches.
The Republican debate is tomorrow night at 8pn on MSNBC, I plan to catch the replay and comment on it after tomorrow.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can watch the The Democratic Debate from the source (MSNBC) if you'd rather not go digging through Youtube clips.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought Dennis Kucinich did a fantastic job at the Democratic debate. He was the only Senator who spoke unequivocally about the need for a culture change. Gravel was a breath of fresh air, also. I don't know if I'd vote for him for president, but the U.S., and by extension, the entire world, would be a better place if he were a sitting Senator. Then there was Chris Dodd, whom I consider a class act, and Joe Biden, whom I consider a midwest version of Bill Clinton, for better or worse.
I feel about Obama the way Eleanor Roosevelt felt about Kennedy. I think the guy knows what courage is, and maybe even respects it in others, but he lacks it himself. Every time he opened his yap, I got the sense that he was trying not to tick off potential donors. I'm deeply disappointed in him.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dennis Kucinich needs a reality check. In a world where the President isn't the Commander in Chief, Kucinich might have a chance, but the guy is living in fantasyland when it comes to foreign policy.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I stand corrected. The link I gave only has clips, and the Youtube videos weren't hard to find.
Lyrhawn, I agree, and I'd put Gravel in that camp as well. I love Kucinich for his strong principles, but his views on foreign policy are simply out of touch with reality.
Gravel...wow...the guy sure is passionate. I also found his blunt approach refreshing, but also a bit annoying. We need an honest and passionate president, but we also need a president that can present his/her views in a clear, calm, respectful manner. He's exactly what the public wrongfully feared of Howard Dean.
Irami, Although I disagree with your assessment of Obama, I was disappointed as well with his lack of conviction. I expected more from him. He still tops my list, but not by much.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
edit: I reread my post, and to be clear, I only saw clips of the debate. It seemed too dull even for a political junky like me to watch. But from all accounts, the front runners didn't hurt themselves, and the second-tier candidates did little to break out of the pack. /edit
Irami, Biden is from Delaware. There's a midwestern congressman I'm always confusing him with (who I can't recall), that may be who you're thinking of. I like him, but I doubt he'll win the primary.
Obama is riding a tiger, and he's in danger of losing control. I may support him, I need to learn more about him.
At this point, I'm considering an "anybody but Clinton" stand for several reasons. I think she's too polarizing, and though she could easily win the primary I have doubts about her electability in the general election. Too many people hate her. Not me, though I have no love for her either.
One commentator called this debate "parallel press conferences." Another pointed out that attack politics benefits neither the attacker nor the target when there are three or more candidates, but the other candidates. So you tend to get these polite tea-party debates early on. Hopefully they'll mix it up more in later debates.
posted
Williams was trying to get them to mix it up a little, by dividing them on issues and giving them chances for rebuttals, but by and large they didn't take the bait.
They don't want a repeat of 04, when the candidates spent so much time beating up on each other that they ALL look tainted by the time one of them won the nomination. And I can't say I blame them, especially with such a stronger field of potential contenders.
Frankly I think we'll see more of the kind of mixing it up that you might want to see tomorrow at the Republican debate.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tommorow the Republican debate is coming? Hot dog!
I'm hoping to see Mitt Romney shine, as he badly needs to improve his recognition and image. Also, to a degree, he needs to win my vote -- I'm leaning towards him, but we'll see.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Williams was trying to get them to mix it up a little, by dividing them on issues and giving them chances for rebuttals, but by and large they didn't take the bait.
It got pretty mixed up at the end when the candidates outright ignored the questions Williams was asking so they could answer whatever question they didn't get to earlier.
And Gravel pretty much accused Obama of planning to nuke Iran. I thought that was going to far, but I did appreciate his stance on what is and is not appropriate action to consider. (nuclear weapons being totally inappropriate)
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Irami, Biden is from Delaware. There's a midwestern congressman I'm always confusing him with (who I can't recall), that may be who you're thinking of. I like him, but I doubt he'll win the primary.
I think I always confuse him with Harkin. I don't know why. They don't look alike, don't sound alike, but my mind always wants to put Biden as the Senator from Iowa.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just watched the Republican debates (well, at least the last 2/3 of it). Originally I was not that interested in Romney, even though I am LDS. However, during the last few days and after this debate, I am liking him more and more. I think his chances are good as a candidate, except for the fact that he's a Mormon.
I think he will do well if he actually gets the Republican nomination. The big problem I see for him is getting nominated. A large percentage of the Republican base is made up of Christians, especially in the South, who believe that Mormons are part of a cult. Even if Romney turns out to be the most promising Republican candidate, would that be enough for them to vote for him over other similar candidates who aren't LDS? I think they might vote for him if they were forced to choose between Hilary Clinton and Romney, but can he make it that far?
Is there anyone here who would let his being LDS alone stop them from voting for him (assuming you liked him otherwise)? Do you know people who would do this? Do you think this is as big a problem for Romney as I see it is? The media seems to be saying that McCain, Giuliani, and Romney are the top three contenders, but I wonder how much Romney will actually be contending when this large voter block goes to the polls.
Here is a link to an article that largely sums up what I am trying to say. What does Hatrack think?
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marlozhan, I think the chances of Evangelicals keeping him from becoming a viable candidate are completely wrong. My views are expressed and encouraged by Article VI Blog that says the Liberal MSM are the ones that are the real problem.
By the way, it seems that Ron Paul is the man of choice for the viewers who have left comments at the MSNBC message boards about who they think won. He sounds too "Democrat" about the war, but is very traditional Conservative on everthing else. At least, by what he said tonight. Tough choice between him and Romney.
posted
Romney wasn't afraid to talk about supporting the American family, over and over again. I'm curious about this, too, because from where I stand, prisons, joblessness, education, and suspicious hiring and work practices break-up families, and I'm not sure that the federal government can address these issues in a meaningful way and still remain "conservative."
I happen to think that helping convicted criminals earn a their GED and find gainful and dignified employment, as well as more extensive drug counseling and serious publicly supported home ownership, will lend more meaningful support to the American family than going after no-fault divorces, but that's me. It's easy to be pro-family when you when you have a job, land, or are connected.
In Romney's defense, he does have a great head of hair.
_______
As an aside, anytime I see a multimillionaire come out as enthusiastically vague about being "pro-family," as Romney, I hear, "Sex is for straight, rich families."
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay I watched maybe half of it, I couldn't find the whole thing online. I'll wait to see the whole thing before I blog about it, but here are my initial thoughts:
Michael Flatly couldn't have tapdanced as well as some of these guys did. Many of them were extremely non-committal, and answered direct questions with platitudes and chatter about how great America and the American people are (yeah it was full of that).
A lot of them scared the hell out of me when it comes to foreign policy. They were all (except one) very, very militant, aggressive, and confrontational, especially about Iran. I honestly think that if any of them becomes president, we'll be at war with Iran before their presidency is over. They kept saying they want economic and diplomatic solutions, but only got into specifics about had beat the drum about war.
Ron Paul was like a physical manifestation of old school 20th century Republican ideals. Small government, not being the world's policeman, redefining the role of government and the role of American in the world. I like what he had to say. Not that I would vote for him, I wouldn't, but I think I could live with him for a president. I'll be curious to see how 20th century Republican ideals stand up to the new Republican way. None of them really seemed to know how to fix Iraq, other than just staying there longer, and longer, and longer. McCain seems positive that this new surge will be a magic bullet.
Tancredo said that any threat against Israel is a direct threat to us, and he would more or less do anything to protect them. While I agree with helping Israel, I absolutely do NOT like tying our hands like that. It makes us vulnerable, and I think it's stupid. It's the type of entanglement that George Washington warned against.
All of them with the exception of Huckabee and Giuliani (who waffled a LOT during the debate) said that foreign born citizens should NOT be allowed to be president.
All of them would get rid of Roe v. Wade if they could, Tancredo said that 40 million Americans had been aborted thus far, which I find hard to believe. Giuliani waffled, and more or less said that he's okay no matter what happens. He followed that up by saying that he supported abortion "in New York," but that it might be different for different people in different places. Really no answer at all.
Tommy Thompson said that an employer should be allowed to fire an employee just because he is gay. It's up to the employer.
That's all I saw so far, I'll get more later. But I have to say that Chris Matthews was a lot more aggressive than Brian Williams in trying to wring answers out of the candidates, who were up to the task of avoiding the answers.
McCain I found wholly unimpressive, some of them downright scared the crap out of me, but I'm surprised to say that Mitt Romney struck me as extremely charismatic, earnest, smart, and presidential. I also liked Ron Paul. I'd be willing to give the two of them a chance, and I want to know more about them. All the others didn't define themselves well enough to really stand out.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought Romney was the most impressive in terms of composure and smooth answers. However, my opinion of him deteriorated further; there's something about him that turns me off, and I am finding it impossible to summon up respect for him. The number of times he mentioned "family" and how he worked in SLC made my skin crawl. McCain increased in my estimation; I thought he offered good answers and seemed well prepared for the debate. Guiliani stammered and stuttered his way through, but I believe he is the most electable because of his ability to gain the votes of moderates. It seems a lot of people are impressed with Ron Paul - if one thing came out of this debate, it's that now people are more eager to learn about him, me included. Congratulations to him. Unfortunately, the stage was so filled with old white men that I didn't know who anyone was except Romney, McCain, and Guiliani. Off to Ron's website and YouTube, now.
Posts: 12 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I don't like most of all about Romney's pro-family line is that he didn't hesitate to light into Hilary Clinton, even if you forget that she raised Chelsea well, she stood by her flagrantly lecherous husband. If you are a family first candidate, you could do worse than look at Clinton as an example.
posted
"A politician saying he's pro-family? What'll they think of next! A cop eating a doughnut?" -- Sawyer, more or less
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
well, I think the difference between Romney when he says "family" and other candidates is that he really means it. He is a Mormon who was married to the same wife for more than 30 years and raised a large family. It IS important to him in reality, if actions are at least as loud as words.
"she stood by her flagrantly lecherous husband" There are a lot of people who don't see that as pro-family.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I should expand on that. I want something really different in a candidate this time. I am hoping someone will run who is for a stronger America. It should be someone who will stand with working families, someone who has faith in America, who thinks economic growth is a good thing, and most of all it should be someone who wants to move forward. I *hate* those politicians who say we should go backwards.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: In Romney's defense, he does have a great head of hair.
*Chortle* There was actually an article on MSN that said his hair is too perfect. I'll see if I can find it.
Either way, I'm glad Ron Paul got some attention. I like the guy, I haven't seen the debate yet, but I was hoping that the debate would at least get him noticed, and apparently it did. Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: What I don't like most of all about Romney's pro-family line is that he didn't hesitate to light into Hilary Clinton, even if you forget that she raised Chelsea well, she stood by her flagrantly lecherous husband. If you are a family first candidate, you could do worse than look at Clinton for as an example.
I haven't seen the whole thing, did Romney lay into her during the debate?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's interesting that Brownback, Tancredo and Huckabee raised their hands indicating they don't believe in evolution.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I missed it (The Office, My Name is Earl, and Scrubs were more important - and adjusting the times on our possessed DVR to record the debate was too much of a hassle). I'd like to see it though. If anyone finds the whole thing online, please let us know.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It really bothers me that its a politically acceptable (and in some places politically required) position to say "I don't believe in evolution."
Its more or less like saying "I don't believe in gravity." I'd think this administration would have shown us the dangers of electing politicians who shove their ideology onto the world, even if its contrary to the facts.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
They're allowed to say what they feel. It's only politically acceptable if they end up being elected, in which case it is obviously a position shared by enough people to matter.
I'm more afraid of it being acceptable for them to lie to us in order to cajole a person to vote for them. At least that way I know what I am supporting or fighting against.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it's interesting that Brownback, Tancredo and Huckabee raised their hands indicating they don't believe in evolution.
I don't find it surprising, though. Brownback is from Kansas, and he's trying to cater to the half of this state that is still fighting to remove evolution from educational curriculum. Kansas has already fought this battle twice, via the State Board of Education. Hopefully, this will end his chances at the Presidency before they begin.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it strange that people would be asking politicians if they believe in evolution, anyway. Since they aren't running for Biologist in Chief. I think it shows that some people don't just want a President but also a cultural leader. Was that was Kucinch was talking about? I missed the debates, having no TV.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, actually. Anyone who shows unwillingness to confront someone who beats their spouse or continually shows a lack of respect for the marriage institution is showing anti-family tendancies themselves. It shows that YOU the non-offender respects the family by not putting up with the behavior. I know I have been very adamant about not getting a divorce and think too many get it for the wrong and selfish reasons. I have never said someone should stay married no matter what. Abuse and infidelity are the two (and almost only two) reasons I would agree a divorce is permissable.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "she stood by her flagrantly lecherous husband" There are a lot of people who don't see that as pro-family. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you're saying that the pro-family option in that situation would be a divorce?
quote: Yes, actually. Anyone who shows unwillingness to confront someone who beats their spouse or continually shows a lack of respect for the marriage institution is showing anti-family tendancies themselves. It shows that YOU the non-offender respects the family by not putting up with the behavior. I know I have been very adamant about not getting a divorce and think too many get it for the wrong and selfish reasons. I have never said someone should stay married no matter what. Abuse and infidelity are the two (and almost only two) reasons I would agree a divorce is permissable.
I agree. The whole "stand by your man, no matter WHAT happens" ideal that feminists constantly argue against (at least until Hillary did it, in which it was an admirable, brave choice) is, to me, a flawed argument. When one marriage partner shows such flagrant disregard for the marriage covenant, divorce is permissable. However, I am not the Clinton's marriage counselor (I pity the poor person that has THAT responsibility) and thus cannot and will not pass judgement on their own decisions. I'm just saying that their decision to remain married shouldn't be construed as a pro-family decision. Rather, it's a decision with both pro- and anti-family ramifications. Furthermore, I finde the whole idea of discussing a couple's marital decisions in the political arena to be an unpleasant trend.
IIRC, Romney didn't exactly "lay into" Bill and Hillary. The question was
quote:Seriously, would it be good for America to have Bill Clinton back living in the White House?
and his first response was
quote: You have got to be kidding
He then attacked Clinton's politics, for "a number of reasons" which he didn't specify. So his Clinton-bashing, to me, seemed rather mild and much more issues-based rather than ad hominum.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe I am missing something, but last I checked, evolution was a theory. There are a lot of facts that support it (and I am not arguing for or against it. I am religious, but I also accept the possibility that God uses evolution in one way or another), but it is not proof. I have no problem with it being taught in school, as long as it is not taught as fact.
It bothers me that some are bothered that our politicians might not believe in it. It is still an unproven theory, so if your religious beliefs lead you to think that there is a better, more religious method of creation that we simply don't fully understand scientifically yet, I see no problem with that.
One of my pet peeves is when science gets too full of itself, i.e. failing to remember that we still know less about the universe than we do know. There is still plenty of possibility for scientists to modify or completely change their view of evolution with new evidence.
So, again, I am not arguing against evolution, because there is a lot of evidence to support it. I am just arguing against the prevailing notion that it is a fact, because it is not. I meet many people who think that it is just as proven as gravity, or some other law (not that other laws are completely exempt from being changed with new scientific discoveries), and it bugs me.
Let's just accept it as a theory, and say it is the best scientific explanation we have at this time...but is it possible that we are wrong about this? Yes. So it's not hard-headed or ignorant of a politician to have a different viewpoint. It is not the same as saying, "gravity does not exist."
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:When one marriage partner shows such flagrant disregard for the marriage covenant, divorce is permissible.
and
quote:Anyone who shows unwillingness to confront someone who beats their spouse or continually shows a lack of respect for the marriage institution is showing anti-family tendencies themselves.
Make this position strange for me. I think that there is a distinction between someone who beats their spouse and someone who cheats, for the same reason I believe that there is a distinction between someone who lies and someone who assaults.
Granted, I'm a bit anti-marriage, as in, I think too many people marry heedlessly, but I do have an enormous respect for those spouses who swallow the shame and betrayal and breach of trust and take back cheating spouses, especially ones like Hilary Clinton who are financially solvent. It's easy to be pro-marriage in the good times, but she has showed that she will stick with him in the bad. I can't help but see that as the pro-marriage position.
__________________
As to the evolution question, I'd rather have the politicians expound on God's plan for Israel.
It's funny because I believe that evolution is a politically relevant topic, outside of education-- the same way that abortion is a politically relevant topic outside of education-- if Matthews choose to go there, I can think of some great questions that will divide and clarify the competing groups in this nation. Asking the candidates "Why are there only white men on this stage?" would be a good start.
posted
But Blayne, the religious right is waging a campaign to expunge evolution from education. In that environment, I think it's legitimate to ask where candidates stand on evolution.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Maybe I am missing something, but last I checked, evolution was a theory."
So is gravity. So is electricity. You posted this message by the power of a scientific theory.
In science, "theory" doesn't mean "guess." Nor does it mean "unproven." It means "Supported by numerous experiments that could falsify the theory, conducted by a variety of scientists over a period of time, and for which there is no contradictory fact. A theory is also accurately predictive, as well as descriptive, and be accurate for all known circumstances to which the theory applies."
"It bothers me that some are bothered that our politicians might not believe in it. It is still an unproven theory,"
Its as proven as anything gets in science.
"I have no problem with it being taught in school, as long as it is not taught as fact."
It is both fact, and theory. "Fact" means "data point" in science. It is something that is directly observed, and we have directly observed instances of evolution.
We also have the theory of evolution. As described above, a theory is a predictive and descriptive tool that is unfalsified by any evidence. And evolution is one of the most tested scientific theories we use.
"I meet many people who think that it is just as proven as gravity, or some other law (not that other laws are completely exempt from being changed with new scientific discoveries), and it bugs me."
Maybe not quite as much as gravity, but up there with the theory of the electron, certainly.
"Let's just accept it as a theory, and say it is the best scientific explanation we have at this time...but is it possible that we are wrong about this? Yes. So it's not hard-headed or ignorant of a politician to have a different viewpoint. "
Yes, its possible we are wrong. But the chance is so miniscule at this point, that saying you "don't believe in evolution" should be a sure fire indicator that you form your beliefs through some method other then analysis of the facts.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I rewatched the first republican debate, and I'm finding the creepiest moment as when Matthews asked the candidates how they felt about letting naturalized citizens run for President. The vote went 2-8, and all I could think of was, "These crackers still don't get it." You can't be a half-citizen in a universal democracy.
Despite favoring more open borders, I'm fine with letting only native-born citizens be president. And so is 67% of the country in the only poll I could find. So an amendment to the constitution making that permitted is impossible at this point.
A naturalized citizen is a half-citizen because of not being able to run for president? Maybe a 99/100 citizen. Is it truly that oppressive?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just finished watching the Republican debate last night, and Ron Paul stood out for me as well. He gave consistently straight answers when the others were doing everything they could to avoid that. I can't say that I was all that impressed by Romney, especially near the end on the "national ID" question. He and several others all said they were strongly in favor of it, but then when Paul and someone else (Gilmore? don't remember) vehemently opposed, he was quick to backpedal and claim that what he meant was a national ID card for immigrants, not citizens. If that's what he really thought, I think it was important that he should have made that distinction at the first.
It's still too early to decide which primary I'll be voting in (yay for being a registered independent), but at this point I'm leaning towards Republican because I'd really like to see more from Paul.
quote:The vote went 2-8, and all I could think, "These crackers still don't get it."
That doesn't surprise me in the least. I'm surprised it took you THAT long to mentally resort to the racial slurs.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Despite favoring more open borders, I'm fine with letting only native-born citizens be president. And so is 67% of the country in the only poll I could find. So an amendment to the constitution making that permitted is impossible at this point.
A naturalized citizen is a half-citizen because of not being able to run for president? Maybe a 99/100 citizen. Is it truly that oppressive?
It's not oppressive as much as it's morally casual and counter to the ideals of democracy. As to the 67 percent, the great majority of the world has come around on their opinion on one issue or another, one hopes that they will learn with time.
What is a shame is the way the question was asked, it wasn't a matter of practicality or feasability or even priority, but rather, as simple as, if a bill came across your desk, would you sign it? It was a tame soft ball.
I used the word cracker because it's that same landed cracker mind-set that kept this nation 150 years from civil rights parity.
quote:Marlozhan, I think the chances of Evangelicals keeping him from becoming a viable candidate are completely wrong. My views are expressed and encouraged by Article VI Blog that says the Liberal MSM are the ones that are the real problem.
Then the Article VI Blog is conspicuously looking for scapegoats. American Evangelicals are very very weird in relating to Mormonism, and they factor religion very very heavily -- primarily, even -- into their voting decisions.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I used the word cracker because it's that same landed cracker mind-set that kept this nation 150 years from civil rights parity.
Irami, that's like saying people use the word "nigger" because it's that same shiftless nigger mind-set that kept the nation from civil rights parity. Either way, it's revolting.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Possibly, but I think my statement is closer to true than yours. I think that every Presidential candidate who answered "No," to the question deserves the historical baggage than goes with the term cracker. And if it's hurtful, then the candidates should be hurt, and if other white people are hurt, then those other white people should take their candidates to task for showing themselves to be crackers.
Phanto,
I'm curious. How do you square barring a job based on ones birthplace with the ideals of a universal democracy? And how is this not second-class citizenship? We have checks and balances in the way of elections, if you don't trust naturalized citizens patriotism, then exercise your bigotry at the voting booth, but I can't abide by a system of government which bars citizens from even getting in the race.
quote:[Romney] was quick to backpedal and claim that what he meant was a national ID card for immigrants, not citizens.
What would the purpose of a national ID card be for it to be a useful thing for immigrants to have if citizen's do not? I don't get it.
<snip dialogue>
Yes, that was my point. A national ID card that is required for employment but only non-citizens need one, is useless. Although, going back and re-reading the transcript, it looks like Romney and Giuliani did actually make the distinction in the first place. My mistake. Here are the relevant bits:
quote: MR. MATTHEWS: I want to start with Mayor Giuliani, something you’ve come out for, I believe. I want you to explain it and defend it: a national tamper-proof ID card.
MR. GIULIANI: Yeah, I think that’s critical to having immigration security. Every single person in this country who comes in from a foreign country should be identified, should be in a database. It should be a tamper-proof card.
I probably have the most experience in dealing with security. I had to take a city that was -- had an outlandish amount of crime and reduce it.
So the very, very best way to sensibly create security is to have a tamper-proof card, a database. And then kind of back up from that, well how do we get there? That would allow for a fence, a technological fence, Border Patrol. Having people come forward, people who are paying taxes -- or who want to pay taxes --
MR. MATTHEWS: That’s time.
MR. GIULIANI: -- God bless them, let them pay taxes.
MR. MATTHEWS: Governor Romney, I think -- are you with him on that, a tamper-proof ID card?
MR. ROMNEY: Absolutely. I had occasion, as you know, following the great disaster on 9/11 to help organize the Olympic Winter Games, bring people from all over the world together in Salt Lake City, organize the first national special security event following that tragedy, and brought together law enforcement from all over the country, coordinated them in a way that we could communicate with each other.
There’s no question as we deal with the issue of immigration, having a national special card that indicates a person’s name, date -- birth date, biographic information, and an indication of their work status will allow us to know who’s here legally, who’s not, who can work and who cannot.
...
REP. PAUL: I am absolutely opposed to a national ID card. This is a total contradiction of what a free society is all about. The purpose of government is to protect the secrecy and the privacy of all individuals, not the secrecy of government. We don’t need a national ID card.
...
GOV. ROMNEY: ...And by the way, the national ID card, that’s for aliens, not for citizens.
MR. MATTHEWS: Oh, you don’t want a national ID card, for everyone.
GOV. ROMNEY: No. It’s for -- it’s for those that come here outside the country.
MR. MATTHEWS: Mayor Giuliani, you want it for everyone, right?
MR. GIULIANI: No, no. I’m talking about it for people who come into the United States, foreigners, people who come in as immigrants into the United States.
MR. MATTHEWS: Oh, okay. That --
MR. GIULIANI: It’s the only way in which --
MR. MATTHEWS: -- it’s going to be interesting how that --
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Maybe a 99/100 citizen. Is it truly that oppressive?
