McCain is living in a fantasy land. His "they will follow us home," rhetoric is baseless. They aren't going to hop in a rowboat armada and follow us home en masse, they're already planning to attack us, and we'll stop them or we won't based on our intelligence and policing skills. His excuse on why the surge hasn't worked yet is because only four of five brigades to be deployed have actually arrived. Is he on crack? ONE brigade is the lynch pin of the entire operation? He sounds almost worse than Bush does. I have no faith in his handling of foreign affairs.
Tommy Thompson actually makes sense with his plan for Iraq, though I have no idea how he's going to 'make them do it.' Bush hasn't really gotten them to do ANYTHING. This is where the Democratic plan to tie benchmarks to progress makes a lot more sense.
But Thompson never answered the question of how he would make them. And Giuliani never answered the question of whether or not he would make Iraq an open-ended commitment.
At least Tancredo is saying that we shouldn't be there policing their civil war, but also that we shouldn't leave the region entirely. Ron Paul's pragmatism is impressive as well. He saw ahead of the war to what Iraq would be like, and I like that he tried to get the Congress to declare outright war. More and more I view him as an old school Republican.
I'm not sure Hunter wants to make too big a deal about Armed Forces credentials, he'll actually give quite a bit of credence to Hillary. She's easily the most pro-military and most knowledgable of military matters in the Democratic party, probably even more so than 8 or 9 of the Republicans as well. It gives her more status.
Huckabee dodged the question on whether or not he would send more troops to Iraq if the generals requested it. Lots of dodging thus far in this debate. And I never knew before that Huckabee supported the FairTax, that's news to me.
Giuliani pledged to basically cut the number of people working for the Federal government in half, that's an interesting statement. Who is going to lose their job?
I'll get to more later.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
" More and more I view him as an old school Republican." Yea, an old school Dinosaur Republican. He doesn't have a chance. Polls show it. The current Republican leadership show it. He would be better off as an Independant, other than he gets to go to these things.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is, I believe, why he is running as Republican. If I remember correctly he used to run on the Libertarian ticket.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I learned a bit about the candidates starting from the hypotheticals, when the discussion turned on the question, what was more important, our American lives or our American ideals, and to a man-- with the exception of McCain-- they all landed on the side of our American lives. That's the mentality that makes me nervous because I think that mentality displays our most unbecoming priorities; it's that smash, grab, anything to win Republican ethic that I find unfit for our nation.(That nobody mentioned that countenancing torture runs the very real danger of offending humanity such that it precludes the possibility of a just peace is worrisome.)
It's as if they are worshipping a false god. We are married to our principles, and it's not a marriage of convenience; rather, it signifies a profound commitment that we hold true, even in our darkest times.
Other than that, Guiliani, Romney, McCain, and Huckabee all acquitted themselves well. Especially Romney and Guiliani, except Romney admitted to wanting to abolish the US department of Education in '94, and has now changed his mind. See, this is the argument for diversity. Somehow, this guy raised his kids and made a fortune, yet still made it through such a large portion of his life wanting to abolish the US Department of Education. How does that happen? Ten rich white guys in a room can really do some damage when they start thinking they are right because they agree, and they've insolated themselves from anyone who'll tell them they are wicked. At the time, he was a 50 year old multi-millionaire "family man," who, if he had had his way, would have wiped out the Department of Education with a smile. It goes to show, when these cats start talking about tightening their belts, it's often someone else getting the squeeze.
quote:Ten rich white guys in a room can really do some damage when they start thinking they are right
You can remove the words "rich" and "white" and replace them with the more useful word "powerful" and the sentence retains all its meaning.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a cultural homogeneity that goes along with being rich and white in America that can't be said of the powerful.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hrm. I would disagree completely. In fact, I would say that there is a homogenity that comes with being powerful, and that rich, white people appear occasionally homogenous because it is often easier for them to be powerful.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I learned a bit about the candidates starting from the hypotheticals, when the discussion started turned on the question, what was more important, our American lives or our American ideals, and to a man-- with the acception of McCain, they all landed on the side of our American lives. That's the mentality that makes me nervous because I think that mentality displays our most unbecoming priorities;
While I don't...quite...agree with the mentality you're discussing, it seems to me that there is a valid point involved. Ideals and freedoms mean nothing to the dead--they're dead. They "have no more part in anything that happens under the sun." It's not that I think there is nothing at all more important than lives...but there's precious little, and it generally involves a larger number of lives.
quote:It goes to show, when these cats start talking about tightening their belts, it's often someone else getting the squeeze.
True enough...but someone's getting the squeeze now, too. The money that goes into government programs--even important ones like the Department of Education--doesn't spring from nowhere, nor does the government produce it. It's taken out of someone's pockets. Sometimes that's worth it, and sometimes it's just another form of injustice.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The nation has been living beyond its means for years, and the squeeze will probably hurt the poor more than the rich (probably obvious), but if we don't do it now, the squeeze could become deadly later in life.
Better to feel a little pain now to prevent a lot later.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I read the next debate, I'm going to drink a beer every time Tommy Thompson mentions Wisconsin. It's only fitting, considering one of the three times I saw him speak in public he was... slightly intoxicated.
Posts: 3932 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ron Paul's pragmatism is impressive as well. He saw ahead of the war to what Iraq would be like, and I like that he tried to get the Congress to declare outright war. More and more I view him as an old school Republican.
After watching both debates, I have got to say Ron Paul is the only one who impressed me. It is not that I agree with everything he has to say, but he seems to be the most pragmatic, and he seems to have the most integrity.
I thought it was brilliant and bold of him to talk about 911 as blow back from some of our foreign policy. Rudy's outburst was politically contrived. Does Rudy really think that our actions don't influence behavior.
I loved Jon Stewart's Rudy 911 mobile from a couple weeks ago. "I was the mayor on 911, 911 changed everything."
It is not like 911 is our fault or justified, but understanding our enemy's motives is much more impressive then just saying they hate our freedom.
It will be interesting if he Ron Paul can get more then a dismissive response from the main stream Republicans, Fox news, or the public. His debate polls seem impressive.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It will be interesting if he Ron Paul can get more then a dismissive response from the main stream Republicans, Fox news, or the public. His debate polls seem impressive.
The problem is, while Ron Paul is admired and respected by Democrats and Libertarians, his views are NOT in line with the party for whose nomination he is running. Expecting main stream Republicans to cozy up to Paul is kinda like expecting main stream Democrats to support Joe Lieberman. Maybe they'll accept him as being part of their party, but not as representing them in a Presidential election. Just ain't gonna happen.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: It will be interesting if he Ron Paul can get more then a dismissive response from the main stream Republicans, Fox news, or the public. His debate polls seem impressive.
posted
I like Romney's answer to "If you knew then, what you knew now..." question. It's an unfair question, for the reasons he laid out, it's a hypothetical that can not obtain because part of what we knew back then was that we didn't know whether Saddam had weapons.
The question should have concerned the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes. There is a sense in which, Iraq is the equivalent of an execution. Let's say that 30 years ago, we have a a guy in jail for assault and battery, in addition, and we think he committed the murder. He is surly. He is found guilty for murder, executed, and now DNA evidence exonerates him.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: I like Romney's answer to "If you knew then, what you knew now..." question. It's an unfair question, for the reasons he laid out, it's a hypothetical that can not obtain because part of what we knew back then was that we didn't know whether Saddam had weapons.
The question should have concerned the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes. There is a sense in which, Iraq is the equivalent of an execution. Let's say that 30 years ago, we have a a guy in jail for assault and battery, in addition, and we think he committed the murder. He is surly. He is found guilty for murder, executed, and now DNA evidence exonerates him.
Completely agree. I was annoyed when Wolf pushd the question again as if it had not been answered and Romney held to his originial statement.
That question was right up there with that stupid question given to Bush in the 2004 presidential debats, "If you could go back and correct one mistake in your presidency what would you change."
Why don't we just ask candidates, "Why are you a bad choice for president?"
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
