American Presidential Candidates: Republican v2

Now with a poll!

Discuss the various Republican candidates here, and their campaigns, etc. Keep it polite and disagree nicely. You know the rules.

EDIT: I've removed Newt Gingrich from the poll, as it now seems clear that he will not run. He did get 3 votes, however.

Well, I'm not American, so I can't vote but based on the Iowa debates I really think Mitt Romney is a good candidate.
I didn't agree with EVERYTHING he said, but if you were watching him and comparing him to the other candidates he stood out, and he was very distinctive. The way he spoke, the way he answered questions, he seemed on top of things and just milestones ahead of everyone else. He seemed to know exactly what he was going to do regarding each issue, he had very strong views, and I think how firm and decisive he was made him seem more important.

I notice that Tommy Thompson, who just shut his campaign down, isn't on the list. Good foresight :)

I haven't decided the "best" rep candidate yet. I do hope, though, that the Republican candidates get behind the YouTube debate. The demo one worked out fairly well, IMO, and the questions from the "people" did seem fresh and a change of pace from the typical debates. Perhaps, to alleviate the fears that CNN would stack the debate with unfriendly questions, a top party official could discuss the questions with the CNN folks beforehand? CNN should retain control, of course, but that might alleviate fears.

I'm one of the Gingrich votes, though I say that without enthusiasm. He just happens to be the only GOP candidate who might represent change from the mess the party has become. They pretty much all offer four (and maybe eight) more years of Bush. I don't think I could bear that.

BTW, good job putting all of the candidates on the poll. Why are there two un-announced candidates up there but even more announced ones left off?


Ron Paul offers constructive change to the status quo. Highly intelligent man, looking out for us in the pursuit of the protection of the Constitution.

Paul, as far as I have seen, is the only one that ensures a protection of the Constitution. All the others seek to continue its degradation.

Every other candidate is just wishy-washy camera meat. They don't have any real, legitimate plans.

BTW, good job putting all of the candidates on the poll. Why are there two un-announced candidates up there but even more announced ones left off?


Ron Paul offers constructive change to the status quo. Highly intelligent man, looking out for us in the pursuit of the protection of the Constitution.

Paul, as far as I have seen, is the only one that ensures a protection of the Constitution. All the others seek to continue its degradation.

Every other candidate is just wishy-washy camera meat. They don't have any real, legitimate plans.

Although I'm a democrat through and through, I greatly respect Ron Paul and appreciate his wisdom as far as foreign policy.

Did anybody hear him debate Sean Hannity? He mopped the floor with him.

I used to listen to Hannity, but I've stopped. When he does segments on the radio taking tallies from listeners on who they support, he tries to suppress what they have to say.

I did like it that one caller led Hannity right into a trip a couple of months ago. Hannity had just come off a tirade saying that Paul's foreign policy viciously undermines the troops and our position in the middle east, that he would destroy the military etc etc. The caller asked of all Republican candidates, which candidate received the greatest amount of donations from the military. Hannity guessed McCain. No, the caller politely informed him, it was overwhelmingly Ron Paul, and begged Hannity to explain how this could be if Ron Paul is undermining the troops. Hannity quickly declared a "hard break" and went to a commercial.

I used to listen to Hannity, but I've stopped. When he does segments on the radio taking tallies from listeners on who they support, he tries to suppress what they have to say.

I did like it that one caller led Hannity right into a trip a couple of months ago. Hannity had just come off a tirade saying that Paul's foreign policy viciously undermines the troops and our position in the middle east, that he would destroy the military etc etc. The caller asked of all Republican candidates, which candidate received the greatest amount of donations from the military. Hannity guessed McCain. No, the caller politely informed him, it was overwhelmingly Ron Paul, and begged Hannity to explain how this could be if Ron Paul is undermining the troops. Hannity quickly declared a "hard break" and went to a commercial.

That's very funny. :lol: I do wish Hannity would stop exploiting the troops for his own political purposes.

But back on topic: I think Republicans and Democrats should both look into Ron Paul. If he had been in charge, we would have never gone into Iraq. He's far too learned in the geo-politics of the area, whereas Bush...:no:

BTW, good job putting all of the candidates on the poll. Why are there two un-announced candidates up there but even more announced ones left off?

I put the candidates (or pseudo-candidates) on that were attracting some amount of significant attention. The ones that aren't on there have very little support: if that changes, I'll add them on.

I put the candidates (or pseudo-candidates) on that were attracting some amount of significant attention. The ones that aren't on there have very little support: if that changes, I'll add them on.

That's the big problem with the media's coverage of presidential candidates. They decide who's important enough for coverage, and if you aren't one of them, they you're SOL. The poll's selective options censor multiple candidates which only smothers democracy.

I'm generally liberal, but if I had to pick one of these candidates, I'd pick Guliani, as he's the most liberal. Too bad he's not as popular as he was earlier this year. I'm also surprised that Romney doesn't have more votes since he's definately one of the top candidates right now.

I pick Giuliani because he is the only candidate who I can see stopping the slide I see in the Republican party. I think he could pull the party back from the jaws of corruption and extremism where I see both parties going. I'd like to see Fred Thompson as the vice presidential candidate.

So good it had to be posted twice...

Chart on the candidates (http://www.2decide.com/table.htm)

Surprising how they voted.

MNF, there's something wrong with your link...

:grumble: It was working earlier...:grumble:

How curious. It is listed on searches as valid.

If link not working, here's what it looked like (http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=868063604&size=o).
To my knowledge however, the original link gets updated regularly. So that may be the problem at the moment.

Works now. :)

It gets updated regularly. That might have been the problem...

I’m going to tread carefully with this post, and I sincerely do not mean to offend anyone’s beliefs, either personal or political.

I support the Democratic Party. That doesn’t mean I agree with every democrat’s view on things, and I know it’s the same with the Republican Party – not everyone who supports them agrees with each view they have.

However, so after reviewing the chart that Midnighsfire posted, I’m having difficulty understanding why almost all the republican candidates are against: universal healthcare, assault weapons ban, and minimum wage increase. I am only a 17 year old Canadian (who doesn’t necessarily know that much about politics), but it seems to me that all three of these things would greatly improve the lives of Americans. I can attest to the fact while universal healthcare may have its flaws, overall it’s wonderful to have. Assault weapons: I don’t understand what good can come out of assault weapons. More innocent people are killed than “bad guys” are stopped when there are so many guns around. As for minimum wage increase, no matter which party you support, who doesn’t want a pay increase? If you’re working a job that only pays between $5 and $7 per hour (whatever min. wage is), how can one be content with that?

I won’t get into things like abortion rights, stem cell research, and gay marriage / union, because I know religion pays an important part in those subjects and it can get touchy. But the Republican view on the earlier mentioned subjects has me baffled, and I’d love the insight of someone who knows more about this party than I do.

I'll lay my positions out carefully so perhaps you understand on two of these issues.

Universal Healthcare essentially adds up to government-led socialism. Government-led socialism requires a bigger government. A bigger government sucks up billions more of taxpayer dollars. The money people earn should be kept with the people as much as possible.

As far as the quality of universal healthcare is concerned, if one looks to model countries who have enacted similar systems, one finds only a long history of breakdown and poor care. Britain's system has poor survival rates for many kinds of cancer, the waiting period for simple procedures are too long. In Canada, the same is often the case. (If you require sources, I can provide them.) Universal Healthcare, namely eradicating competition between health providers and giving equal service, does just that. It eradicates competition. When competition is eradicated, the "product" of the health provider goes down in quality. When competition is in place, the health providers must compete with varying degrees of service quality. Universal healthcare does away with competing services and quality goes down in like fashion.


As for assault weapons bans, I agree, they should be banned. Most, not all, of the gun advocates support keeping assault weapons in some attempt to uphold the Constitution, but I would say a simple pistol for self-defense and a rifle for hunting is sufficient. If assault weapons must be allowed, the user, in my opinion, ought only be permitted use after a stringent and grueling battery of tests, both practical and psychological before being allowed to use the assault weapon.

As for minimum wage, it only drives up the prices for the rest of the consumers. Locally, since the state minimum wage increase, prices for food items at relatively cheap restaurants have gone 25-50% higher. The rest of us then have to fork out a greater amount of cash. Since the national minimum wage increase (which I doubt is Constitutional) the prices for consumers have gotten even worse. Increased minimum wage only bites everyone else in the rear.

I’m having difficulty understanding why almost all the republican candidates are against: universal healthcare, assault weapons ban, and minimum wage increase.

Given that the Republican party stands for smaller government, less government intervention, personal responsibility etc these three things are actually what traditionally the Republican stance would be.

The rest of the social conservatism for example banning abortion and the waspish foreign policy e.g. the troop surge etc are less directly Republican in ideology and more due to their alliance with social conservatives and the religious right.

To be honest, despite all the Ron Paul love these days (since he seems to rule the internet, like Obama seems to be the internet Dem favourite), I like him less every time I see something from him. Whilst he is obviously a constitution stickler and people like him for his foreign policy, he seems to be stuck too much in ideological dreamland for my taste.

Auror Williamson and Overdose, thank you both for the explanations, especially on healthcare. Auror Williamson, I definitely do not need sources to backup the fact that wait times for procedures (and ER visits at that) are long, trust me.

It does make sense that country with 10x the amount of people than Canada would be affected differently by a universal healthcare system, not to mention minimum wage. And that makes me wonder if Obama, who is has relatively less experience, would be able to handle the changes he has in mind.

To be honest, despite all the Ron Paul love these days (since he seems to rule the internet, like Obama seems to be the internet Dem favourite), I like him less every time I see something from him. Whilst he is obviously a constitution stickler and people like him for his foreign policy, he seems to be stuck too much in ideological dreamland for my taste.

They all are stuck in ideological dreamland. Every candidate on the GOP slate strikes me as four more years of the mess we've continually landed ourselves in over the past quarter of a century.

That is of course what I expected you to say. Though probably because from your posts I have deduced that you are also a Bill Clinton fan (although, as with all topics US related, most of my family moved back from the US soon after Clinton left office so I have no first hand experience of the changes post-Clinton and only hearsay from a couple of aunts and uncles).

To be honest, despite all the Ron Paul love these days (since he seems to rule the internet, like Obama seems to be the internet Dem favourite), I like him less every time I see something from him. Whilst he is obviously a constitution stickler and people like him for his foreign policy, he seems to be stuck too much in ideological dreamland for my taste.



I like the man,but would never vote for him.
He comes across as an honest and down to earth man,interested in serving the country,not personal gain,it seems like it'd be really hard to corrupt him,i think that's what made him popular (aside from his forein policy).

But like you I think "he seems to be stuck too much in ideological dreamland for my taste."

Originally Posted by Overdose
To be honest, despite all the Ron Paul love these days (since he seems to rule the internet, like Obama seems to be the internet Dem favourite), I like him less every time I see something from him. Whilst he is obviously a constitution stickler and people like him for his foreign policy, he seems to be stuck too much in ideological dreamland for my taste.
The internet is 1.) overwhelmingly left-wing and 2.) a refuge for those, like libertarians, who don't feel like they're being heard in other media sources. Ron Paul has no chance, but I find him interesting because of the different reactions Republicans have to him - you get people saying he should be running as a Democrat because he's anti-war, other people pointing out that traditional conservatism is against expensive nation-building exercises and that he's the only true conservative of the lot... it really shows the spectrum of conservative opinion. He's a refuge for the small-government conservatives disgusted by what the Bush Administration has done with the Right.

He has no chance of winning, though. But libertarians like him are the GOP what the Greens are to the Dems - a haven for disgruntled voters.


It will be interesting to see how the race turns out. If it's Giuliani, it will be a new thing simply in that there will be no socially conservative option - and in that the Democratic candidate will be the one with the best record on valuing marriage.

If it's Fred Thompson, that could be very bad for the Dems. I've decided Hillary's a shoe-in for the nomination (Obama's got no momentum any more, he's stalled at under a quarter of support and she's got over 40%). Thus, the sides would be:

R: An archconservative hawk (satisfying "values voters" and the rest of the base) who could appeal to swing voters due to the fact that he was involved in the Watergate hearings and so comes across as a straight arrow - and who is also more generally knows as "the guy on Law and Order". The Dems would have trouble fighting someone with his background; GOP would think they had Reagan back again. And nobody would really notice he's far enough right to be practically off the map until he was elected.

D: A centrist who doesn't inspire the level of passion among Democrats as, say, Obama; who appears largely representative of the status quo and thus wouldn't inspire massive grassroots support; and who is loathed by conservatives. Right now the conservative base is rather depressed and unenergetic, but nothing would energize them like the prospect of a Hillary presidency. The Dems would have a little under a year to campaign against a Republican nominee - the GOP has been campaigning against Hillary for several years. Little chance of securing swing votes, NO chance of attracting Republicans.

It would be close. Somehow, even with the GOP in disfavour, I have trouble seeing Hillary becoming President. I have trouble seeing someone so polarizing having a great deal of success if she did.


I voted McCain on the poll (although I can't really feel support for any of them) for several reasons. ONE: There's only one Republican candidate who opposes Guantanamo. There's only one Republican candidate who opposes torture. Guess which one. TWO: He's brave, probably the bravest of the candidates on there. And I don't mean just physical courage (ie: Vietnam), but moral courage. He's willing to stand against the party on torture, on Gitmo, on immigration. He's willing to support the war even when the public is overwhelmingly against it - and it doesn't feel like denial, like it does with Bush. He KNOWS the public opposes the war: he simply feels that staying is what's necessary.

Yes, he's was reaching out to the base more recently. Yes, he gave a speech at Falwell's university. But he's not a total social conservative (he supports stem cell research and opposes a constitutional ban on gay marriage), and his support of the immigration bill tells me his courting of the base was more courting than representative of his true opinions. That does mean he's not Mr. Straight Talk anymore. But he knew there was a large group of Republican passionately against the bill; he had to know knew it would hurt him. But when it came down to action and not just talking, he voted for what he thought was right, even if it was at the cost of the nomination. And that's what political courage is. The only other nominee for any party I can say has shown similar courage was Kucinich voting against Iraq from the start, when the drums were beating. And in terms of what's at stake (Kucinich never had a chance at the nomination, although I love him all the same) McCain had far more to lose.

And he'd be a good candidate. Enough Democrats have said good things about him in the past that they'd have a difficult time campaigning against him without looking hypocritical.


For all the positive things that have been said about Giuliani (enough to make me think the only thing seperating some liberals from conservatives is the "moral values" issues), he would be terrible. He's said he opposes Palestinian statehood, at least any time soon. Anyone with a brain can see that if you refuse even the hope of freedom to people who have quite literally nothing left to lose, it won't bring peace: it will increase their willingness to fight. They're not going to believe America if they're told, "sit down, calm down, be good, and maybe, eventually, if you behave yourselves to our standards, you'll get a state". They'll take it as a statement that they'll never get what they're fighting for short of violence, violence, and more violence - and the regional conflict will only get worse. Take away the two-state solution, and the only way you'll end the fighting is by killing off all the Palestinians.

There's no logic behind such a position, except political logic. It's an embarrassment for any candidate to lose their home state in the primaries, and NY has few enough Republicans. One of the largest Republican backers in it is likely to be jewish hawks, and that's who he's playing to. It's the only possible sense I can make of that stance. Which suggests that he, unlike McCain, is far more a man of votes than of principles.

Been hearing that Fred Thompson is making it official September 6th. Although it's been clear for a while that he's running, how does it change up the race? Is there now three "co-favorites" between Thompson, Romney, and Guiliani? Or does Guiliani's lead in the polls make him the favorite?

Since the Iowa straw poll it seems like Mike Huckabee is moving up. Here is a link to the issues section of his exploratory committee site. I'm not sure whether he'd win the nomination against Guiliani or Thompson because they are sooo far ahead (although Presidential politics is full of come from nowhere stories). I do wonder whether he'd be a strong VP candidate.

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=23

I like Guiliani because I tend to agree with him on many issues but his family life does give me pause (and I know I've said before that his private life is his own private life, but it is hard to look past a man who announced his divorce on TV before he even told his wife and children).

I've always liked McCain because he graduated with my Dad from the Naval Academy and I've met him and he's a genuinely nice person (granted I was 9000 months pregnant at the time, hadn't seen my feet in years, and it was the hottest day of the year so just about everyone was nice to me). If you're looking for someone who can build concensus and works well with the Democrats then McCain should be your man.

I know many of you like Ron Paul, but he gives me the creeps. I can't quantify the feeling I get from him with facts or opinions, in fact I agree with him on many issues, he just seems so negative and argumentative and makes me wonder whether he'd get mired in details and petty squabbles while President and lose sight of what he should be focused on. I actually like having him as part of the Republican panel because he's challenging conventional wisdom, which is always a plus in my book.

I like Guiliani because I tend to agree with him on many issues
What do you think about his position that the US shouldn't support a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict? It strikes me as a recipe for disaster - if they've got no hope of getting their own country through peaceful means, they'll only fight harder. Short of throwing more support Hamas' way, it's not likely to achieve anything.

I've always liked McCain because he graduated with my Dad from the Naval Academy
That is incredibly cool. (Out of curiosity, did your dad get sent to Vietnam too?)

If you're looking for someone who can build concensus and works well with the Democrats then McCain should be your man.
Why would Republicans - reasonable ones, at least - want anything else? The chances of them winning both the White House and Congress are practically non-existant: someone who can't work with the Democrats is very unlikely to achieve anything.

What do you think about his position that the US shouldn't support a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict? It strikes me as a recipe for disaster - if they've got no hope of getting their own country through peaceful means, they'll only fight harder. Short of throwing more support Hamas' way, it's not likely to achieve anything.

I'm an idealist so I'd love to see a single state where everyone was equal (I'd also like to be able to eat cake and cookies all day and not gain weight:p). I'm not sure what the solution is with Israel-Palestine. Clearly what they've been doing isn't working, but little has since Israel first can into being. Two states is difficult because the Palestinian areas wouldn't be linked together and most of the jobs are in the Israeli areas. I'd love to see moderates from both sides work together to come up wiht a solution which would benefit all. What we've been seeing lately seems to indicate that that won;t be happenign any time soon.

That is incredibly cool. (Out of curiosity, did your dad get sent to Vietnam too?)

Yep. He did two tours and came home when he was injured when the building he was in was blown up.

Why would Republicans - reasonable ones, at least - want anything else? The chances of them winning both the White House and Congress are practically non-existant: someone who can't work with the Democrats is very unlikely to achieve anything.

I agree with you 100%. We need folks who can get along and find common ground. Divisiveness and partisanship is the problem, not the solution. I may not agree with McCain on many major issues but he tries hard to build concensus. Unfortunately, I don't think he'll get the nomination.

I'm an idealist so I'd love to see a single state where everyone was equal (I'd also like to be able to eat cake and cookies all day and not gain weight:p). I'm not sure what the solution is with Israel-Palestine. Clearly what they've been doing isn't working, but little has since Israel first can into being. Two states is difficult because the Palestinian areas wouldn't be linked together and most of the jobs are in the Israeli areas. I'd love to see moderates from both sides work together to come up wiht a solution which would benefit all. What we've been seeing lately seems to indicate that that won;t be happenign any time soon.
I don't know what the solution is either for certain, although I think a two-state one would be the best that's doable, but I am 100% dead certain that just saying [staff edit], which appears to be Giuliani's position, is a recipe for disaster.

The chances of them winning both the White House and Congress are practically non-existant: someone who can't work with the Democrats is very unlikely to achieve anything.

You'd think wouldn't you. The thing is, at the moment I just don't see any excitement around many of the Dem candidates. The Dems, after such an unpopular Republican government and many of the current GOP candidates offering little more than simply, the same, should really walk this election. But right now, I'm not sure that they will. I have little doubt that the Dems will win, but I think that the margin and amount of Republicans in the senate or congress could be a lot closer than most Dem supporters would like it to be.

I'm not sure the margin has to be that large, however. One or 2 more seats on the House and Senate and the Dems will have an almost filibuster proof majority. Then again, the Republican party has lost it's way of late. There is apart of me which hopes that being slammed encourage the GOP to examine who it is and what it stands for.

Is Thompson planning on skipping the New Hampshire debate? I heard a brief blurb about the debate and whether Thompson would be there or not but didn't hear the full story.

Then again, the Republican party has lost it's way of late. There is apart of me which hopes that being slammed encourage the GOP to examine who it is and what it stands for.

I hear you, Mom. I've given a lot of thought to how and why they went wrong. There are a couple of possibilities and neither are attractive, nor are they going to be easily "fixed." Becoming power drunk is probably the most obvious source of their decline, much like the Democrats were when Gingrich engineered his "revolution" in 1994. Personally, though, I think both parties have yet to completely recover from the aftermath of the Civil Rights legislation thirty years previously. Lyndon Johnson predicted, correctly, that the Dems would lose the south for "fifty years" when he signed the first bill. But in truth, I think the GOP is paying a far heavier price for recruiting those disaffected southerners and letting them dictate the party's platform. Nixon's "Southern Strategy," while hailed inside the Beltway and in Dixie as a master stroke, has come back to bite them where it hurts. Republicans are now widely viewed as the party of intolerance, hypocrisy, and of blind ideology - none of which is attractive to the broader American electorate these days.

These are just my thoughts, though. I'm sure others will have a different perspective.

I think one of the big problems the Republican Party has is that it has largely turned its back on its orignial base of small-government, fiscal-resposibility conservatives. The people may have tolerated deficit spending under Reagan in the interests of winning the Cold War, but are less willing to accept it from Bush, who inherited a surplus, massively expanded government, and built up a large stockpile of debt in something that looks more like a nation-building exercise than the quick-in-quick-out scenario people anticipated. Such conservatives are also unlikely to look kindly on the government trying to dictate morality on matters like gay marriage, and on the closer relationship between religion and government. Neither party has a place for traditional conservatives any more, and I think they're getting fed up with it. With their current foreign policy largely discredited, I think those are the people Republican candidates will need to be courting.

Which may in some ways add up to the opposite of what purp's saying, because small-government conservatives are likely to be in favour of devolution of powers to the states. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing - it lets them come up with ideas of their own that can be applied by other states or even on a national level if they work well. Look at California's environmentalism (and by a Republican, too!). Look at some of the state health care plans.

However, I don't think any of the leading Republican candidates are really small-government: they favour wide security powers on things like Guantanamo, they've got aggressive foreign policies, and everyone but Guiliani is really trying to court the religious right.

Lyndon Johnson predicted, correctly, that the Dems would lose the south for "fifty years" when he signed the first bill.

I think Johnson said he'd lost the South for a generation, but it's been rather longer than that, and I don't see the Democrats getting it back any time soon. (I can almost hear you saying 'good riddance' on that count.)

I think one of the big problems the Republican Party has is that it has largely turned its back on its orignial base of small-government, fiscal-resposibility conservatives. The people may have tolerated deficit spending under Reagan in the interests of winning the Cold War, but are less willing to accept it from Bush, who inherited a surplus, massively expanded government, and built up a large stockpile of debt in something that looks more like a nation-building exercise than the quick-in-quick-out scenario people anticipated. Such conservatives are also unlikely to look kindly on the government trying to dictate morality on matters like gay marriage, and on the closer relationship between religion and government. Neither party has a place for traditional conservatives any more, and I think they're getting fed up with it. With their current foreign policy largely discredited, I think those are the people Republican candidates will need to be courting.

Isn't that disastrous fiscal policy the result of their ideological leanings, though? I mean, these guys came into the White House intending to wage this war and be damned to anyone who stood in their way. What I'm not liking about their current slate of candidates is that they all seem to be of that same mindset. I want a president who will do what's best for the country, not for one particular party and not for a lot of already-rich donors who want to cash in on war booty!

Which may in some ways add up to the opposite of what purp's saying, because small-government conservatives are likely to be in favour of devolution of powers to the states. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing - it lets them come up with ideas of their own that can be applied by other states or even on a national level if they work well. Look at California's environmentalism (and by a Republican, too!). Look at some of the state health care plans.

Well, I've spent the last 40 years married to one of them and he likes what's going on with Schwarzenegger and California. The state of our country's finances is a constant frustration for him.

However, I don't think any of the leading Republican candidates are really small-government: they favour wide security powers on things like Guantanamo, they've got aggressive foreign policies, and everyone but Guiliani is really trying to court the religious right.

That's what I see, too. It's so sad. We don't need another president who will attempt to rule via a razor-thin majority as Bush did. The Republican candidate in 2008 had better scoot well back to the middle. And even that might not work. This country is no longer buying the "We'll keep you safe" argument. And how on earth can anyone blame them?

I think Johnson said he'd lost the South for a generation, but it's been rather longer than that, and I don't see the Democrats getting it back any time soon. (I can almost hear you saying 'good riddance' on that count.)

You're right. It was a generation.

I don't see the Democrats gaining any traction down there in the next two decades or even longer. The hatred survives in the generation after the one LBJ conceded. I also don't see the GOP giving up race-baiting when it suits them. Look at all the dirty tricks that have come to light since Florida in 2000.

I am inclined to agree also with your "good riddance" comment, except that it doesn't help my country come together as Americans. Instead, I can only hope the deep south eventually changes its way of thinking. I don't expect to live long enough to see it, though. :(

Isn't that disastrous fiscal policy the result of their ideological leanings, though? I mean, these guys came into the White House intending to wage this war and be damned to anyone who stood in their way. What I'm not liking about their current slate of candidates is that they all seem to be of that same mindset.
Yes, they are (minus Ron Paul): they're very hawkish and at times seem to be in a bidding contest with each other on who can up the "tough on terrorists (+ other enemies)" stakes the most - Romney saying he'd expand Gitmo, Giuliani saying he's against a two-state solution to Israel-Palestine, Thompson suggesting Cuban illegal immigrants are terrorists. They've won in every presidential election where they've used that tactic when the US has been at war (Cold War included). Why stop now?

The staunch neocons have largely been cleaned out of the White House, though - Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby - and Cheney will be gone in 2009 whatever happens.

The staunch neocons have largely been cleaned out of the White House, though - Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby - and Cheney will be gone in 2009 whatever happens.

We thought they were done deals after Reagan left office, but Bush brought them back when he assumed the presidency.

They've won in every presidential election where they've used that tactic when the US has been at war (Cold War included). Why stop now?

I hope the election of 2008 will make mash of that strategy. I would challenge every voter to honestly answer the question: Are we safer now?

I would like to remind you that the purpose of this thread is not for Democrats to discuss how disgruntled they are with the Republican party and the current Presidency. Please try to keep this thread as respectful as we try to keep the Democratic thread.
In an attempt to move this conversation onward:
I just found this here (http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/business/index.ssf?/base/news-46/1188592167121230.xml&storylist=mibusiness): Among the 408 likely Republican presidential primary voters polled, Mitt Romney was the favorite of 25 percent, while 23 percent picked Rudolph Giuliani. Fred Thompson, who plans to officially launch his campaign next Thursday, was backed by 16 percent, while 15 percent said they'd choose John McCain.

I find this interesting because, even with the small amount of our membership who have voted in our poll, it parallels the finding in this particular article.

I missed it because I was not watching the late night shows tonight, but it appears that Fred Thompson finally officially declared his intention to run for the presidency on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno.

According to the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/us/politics/06thompson.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin) he will outline his platform and on his website (http://fred08.com/index.aspx) today. He also has a recorded announcement of candidacy which includes a mini-biography, his qualifications and his beliefs/stance on some issues. And a couple of things that he basically mentioned on the announcement on his website, but since it is a little long (just over 14 minutes): A Couple of Things You Might Not Know About Fred (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gyZQU6VH892PgQGFD0xMDnONBUkA).

I thought he did a good job with the announcement. He's a good orator, that certainly shows and he hit a lot of the major topics: Iraq War, taxes, health care, border security, education, bipartisanship, and the all important (at least for presidential candidates) the American spirit.

Thanks for the link PLIMPY - I'll be sure to check it out! I wanted to watch the debate and Thompson;s announcement, but I fell asleep (yes, it was on after MY bed time!).

Anything interesting happen?

Guliani definately has my vote. Im from NYC, and I remember what it was before he became mayor and I see how he turned everything around. He's pragmatic and level headed enough to handle the Iraq War and our relations with the Middle East. He's an excellent leader, his personal life doesn't bother me.

My admiration for Ron Paul doubled overnight.

Midnightsfire pointed out this (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/) site to me on the Democrats thread. You can see how much the candidates are making, the proportion of it they're getting from large donors, who people working in certain industries are getting money from - loads of stuff.

Most interesting fact so far: Rudy Guiliani has recieved more than twice as much money from workers in the oil and gas industry as anyone else.

You can also see what proportion of the donations from each state are going to each candidate. Over 90% of the ones from Utah are going to the Republicans - three guesses who that's going to and the first two don't count. Romney's also the top fundraiser in most of the Midwest.

My admiration for Ron Paul doubled overnight.
What did he do?

You can also see what proportion of the donations from each state are going to each candidate. Over 90% of the ones from Utah are going to the Republicans - three guesses who that's going to and the first two don't count. Romney's also the top fundraiser in most of the Midwest.


That's not only unsurprising but common knowledge. A lot of it is because of what he did in the wake of the Olympics scandal to turn everything around and, literally, save the 2002 Winter Olympics.
I'm also interested, Williamson, in what Ron Paul did to double your admiration overnight.

That's not only unsurprising but common knowledge. A lot of it is because of what he did in the wake of the Olympics scandal to turn everything around and, literally, save the 2002 Winter Olympics.
Ah. I was thinking more of the fact that he was a Mormon, but that makes sense too.

One more surprise (for me, at least): of Ron Paul's five top contributors, three are the US Army, Navy, and Air Force (presumably contributions are from individual members). Clearly, America's troops support him. It's less significant than it would be for a more prominent candidate, as he hasn't raised nearly as much as the frontrunners (around $3 million overall), but still interesting.

Ah. I was thinking more of the fact that he was a Mormon, but that makes sense too.
I'm sure that contributes as well, but I, for one, am rather cautious (that's not the word, but I can't think of it right now) about voting for someone based solely on their religion. It's a very scary concept. I quite like Mitt for his leadership skills, his experience, and a lot of other reasons. I've seen the man in action. However, we're still a long way from the real decision-making, so I'm still looking into everyone.

One more surprise (for me, at least): of Ron Paul's five top contributors, three are the US Army, Navy, and Air Force (presumably contributions are from individual members). Clearly, America's troops support him. It's less significant than it would be for a more prominent candidate, as he hasn't raised nearly as much as the frontrunners (around $3 million overall), but still interesting. That is interesting. I'll have to do more research on that one.

What did he do?

Completely pwned Chris Wallace the partial moderator as well as Huckabee in the debate.

One more surprise (for me, at least): of Ron Paul's five top contributors, three are the US Army, Navy, and Air Force (presumably contributions are from individual members). Clearly, America's troops support him. It's less significant than it would be for a more prominent candidate, as he hasn't raised nearly as much as the frontrunners (around $3 million overall), but still interesting.

And yet his opponents mark him as the crazy anti-war guy that is viciously undermining our troops. Seems the military is embracing Paul's sensibility on foreign policy and Iraq.

Ok I have to say after a while I have grown to severely dislike Ron Paul. Obviously he gets popularity from a lot of the libertarian minded and those who oppose the Iraq war or are just generally dissatisfied with the party.

But Ron Paul also opposes the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, federal regulation of anything at all, which whilst is the libertarian standpoint, is basically unworkable. He's also pro-life to an extreme, has mentioned favourably the "War on Christmas", and for some inexplicable reason wants to put the US back on the gold standard.

He's got some good ideas about foreign policy, but actually when you look at what he is really suggesting i.e. complete isolationism and this by the way includes pressuring against the violence in Darfur and to be honest, pretty much anything.

He does have a good ideas about personal liberty but in my opinion he is pretty much impractical. And also seems to earnestly want to regress the nation to pre-1900.

Currently, were I still living in the US (I can still vote technically I think due to dual citizenship), I would be most likely to vote Republican if the candidates were McCain or Fred Thompson.

Ok I have to say after a while I have grown to severely dislike Ron Paul. Obviously he gets popularity from a lot of the libertarian minded and those who oppose the Iraq war or are just generally dissatisfied with the party.

I decided the same thing a couple of months ago. He's really quite scary, to tell the truth.

Thing is, Paul has the advantage of being the only candidate offering something to the anti-Iraq war faction in the Republican Party. And if he comes up against a now anti-war Dem who voted for the war in the first place he has an unassailable record of offering consistent and reasoned opposition to the war.

Whatever his position on other issues, I have a feeling that the election will come down to a referendum on the war.

Whatever his position on other issues, I have a feeling that the election will come down to a referendum on the war.

Sure looks like it, Wab. I don't think that's going to bode well for any of the Republican candidates, though.

Thing is, Paul has the advantage of being the only candidate offering something to the anti-Iraq war faction in the Republican Party. And if he comes up against a now anti-war Dem who voted for the war in the first place he has an unassailable record of offering consistent and reasoned opposition to the war.

Whatever his position on other issues, I have a feeling that the election will come down to a referendum on the war.

I guess it all depends on what is going on with the war. If things are still like they are today, the war will play a major role in the election. If there is another terrorist attack on the US or if things in Iraq have improved considerably (politically and militarily) then other issues just might bump the war from top billing.

I'm one who would like a moderate in the office of President. I see Rudy's a candidate who's a moderate. Thing is...he's the polar opposite of what I want in a moderate :(. Oh, well...It'd be nice to have a pro-life Democrat or a moderate republican running who had the opposite views. I'm not averse to voting Republican, but right now, no one strikes my fancy.

Not to mention Giuliani recently said that illegal immigration should not be a crime.

My problems with Ron Paul:

He is against Abortion rights. Against Stem Cell Research, against Background Checks For Guns, against Net Neutrality, against Iran Sanctions, against Minimum Wage Increase...

He is for a border fence that is woefully inadequate. (a pathetic, porous fence that doesn't cover the whole border and isn't manned by national guard to insure no one makes it past the fence.)

He is for drilling for oil in our unspoiled Alaskan wildlife reserve. This smacks of being paid off by big business.

Not to mention Giuliani recently said that illegal immigration should not be a crime.
Interesting. Something I agree with him on. Surprised he'd take that position after the immigration bill pretty much tanked McCain's candidacy.

Not to mention Giuliani recently said that illegal immigration should not be a crime.

He's merely stating a matter of fact. Illegal immigration, while illegal, is not a criminal offense.

He's merely stating a matter of fact. Illegal immigration, while illegal, is not a criminal offense.

Tell that to Tancredo.

Here is what Giuliani said about illegal immigration (from the AP) .....

"It's not a crime," Giuliani said Friday. "I know that's very hard for people to understand, but it's not a federal crime."

Giuliani's comments came in an interview with CNN Headline News and radio talk-show host Glenn Beck.

"I was U.S. attorney in the Southern district of New York," he said. "So believe me, I know this. In fact, when you throw an immigrant out of the country, it's not a criminal proceeding. It's a civil proceeding."

Illegal immigration shouldn't be a crime, either, Giuliani said: "No, it shouldn't be because the government wouldn't be able to prosecute it. We couldn't prosecute 12 million people. We have only 2 million people in jail right now for all the crimes that are committed in the country, 2.5 million."

He added: "My solution is close the border to illegal immigration."

The former New York mayor has been defending his city's so-called sanctuary policy, which stopped city workers from reporting suspected illegal immigrants. The policy is intended to make illegal immigrants feel that they can report crimes, send their children to school or seek medical treatment without fear of being reported. It did require police to turn in illegal immigrants suspected of committing crimes.

My problems with Ron Paul:

He is against Abortion rights. Against Stem Cell Research, against Background Checks For Guns, against Net Neutrality, against Iran Sanctions, against Minimum Wage Increase...

He is for a border fence that is woefully inadequate. (a pathetic, porous fence that doesn't cover the whole border and isn't manned by national guard to insure no one makes it past the fence.)

He is for drilling for oil in our unspoiled Alaskan wildlife reserve. This smacks of being paid off by big business.

[staff edit] Many of the first round of issues you mention are opposed based upon Constitutional reasons, especially the Net Neutrality Bill. He voted against regulations on Net Neutrality on the fear that any sort of referundum on Net Neutrality at all opens the door for regulation of the internet, something he stridently opposes. Furthermore, the Federal Government contains no express power to affect the internet.

As for drilling in ANWR, Paul has received no corporate contributions and accepts none, so any poor speculation on big business interests is rather moot.

He's merely stating a matter of fact. Illegal immigration, while illegal, is not a criminal offense.

Really? I'm sure U.S. Federal Law would disagree with this most stridently.

Many of the first round of issues you mention are opposed based upon Constitutional reasons, especially the Net Neutrality Bill. He voted against regulations on Net Neutrality on the fear that any sort of referundum on Net Neutrality at all opens the door for regulation of the internet, something he stridently opposes. Furthermore, the Federal Government contains no express power to affect the internet.

Correction; Not Constitutional "reasons," Constitutional interpretation.
Lets not judge the man by mere verbiage, judge him by how he votes:
From Vote Smart (http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=296)

This candidate has responded in a past election to the National Political Awareness Test. As a continued effort to provide the American public with factual information on candidates running for public office, these archived responses are made available here.


As for drilling in ANWR, Paul has received no corporate contributions and accepts none, so any poor speculation on big business interests is rather moot.

Admittedly, he hasn't received much money at all.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sector_img.asp?id=N00005906&cycle=2008

Probably because he hasn't much chance at all of winning.

Adding fuel to a long-simmering fire, the front-running Republican presidential candidates have announced "scheduling conflicts" as the excuse du jour for not attending the "All American Presidential Forum" organised by black talk show host Tavis Smiley.

Giuliani, Romney, Thompson and John McCain have declined to attend the debate, although the top Democratic contenders attended a similar event in June at Howard University.

Making matters worse, all the Republican candidates except McCain also declined invitations this month to a debate on Univision, the most-watched Hispanic television network in the United States. The event was eventually postponed.

"We sound like we don't want immigration; we sound like we don't want black people to vote for us. What are we going to do -- meet in a country club in the suburbs one day? If we're going to be competitive with people of color, we've got to ask them for their vote."

"For Republicans to consistently refuse to engage in front of an African American or Latino audience is an enormous error. I hope they will reverse their decision and change their schedules. I see no excuse -- this thing has been planned for months, these candidates have known about it for months. It's just fundamentally wrong. Any of them who give you that scheduling-conflict answer are disingenuous. That's baloney."

[edited by staff]

Debate No-Shows Worry GOP Leaders (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/18/AR2007091801781.html?hpid=topnews)

Adding fuel to a long-simmering fire, the front-running Republican presidential candidates have announced "scheduling conflicts" as the excuse du jour for not attending the "All American Presidential Forum" organised by black talk show host Tavis Smiley.

Giuliani, Romney, Thompson and John McCain have declined to attend the debate, although the top Democratic contenders attended a similar event in June at Howard University.

Making matters worse, all the Republican candidates except McCain also declined invitations this month to a debate on Univision, the most-watched Hispanic television network in the United States. The event was eventually postponed.


They're going to have to do better than this if they ever hope to get past their history - and present - of race-baiting politics.

Debate No-Shows Worry GOP Leaders (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/18/AR2007091801781.html?hpid=topnews)
From the point of view of the campaign, I can see why they would not want to do these debates. Why put your candidate out there in front of an audience of people not likely to agree with many of your positions...while they perhaps have the potential to gain a lot, they are still unlikely to do so. This is the same reason I didn't really understand the Democratic candidates agreeing to the "gay debate" when only two of them (Gravel and Kucinich, not exactly front runners) support gay marriage. The odds of saying something to get you in trouble just seem to be higher than the odds of gaining support. Why show up for a debate for the Hispanic community now when there is such an uproar about the immigration laws? And the Black community...well, they are the most loyal group of Democratic voters (and unlikely to be able to vote in Republican primaries for the most part) and there is still a lot of animosity about Katrina...and Tavis Smiley is known for being somewhat liberal, isn't he?

I'm not saying they shouldn't court these voters at all, I just think that a debate might not be the best way for most of them to attempt to do so at this point in time. As for the "scheduling conflict" I just see that as the all-purpose excuse for turning down engagements.

I think all Americans should be appalled at what the GOP is doing, or not doing with regard to two large constituencies. Republican voters should be howling about them "dissing" certain groups of Americans.

Interesting op-ed suggesting that the power of Dixie is in decline even among Republicans.

"Even Republicans seem to have cooled on the Old South. Their leading presidential contenders are a multiply-divorced Catholic social liberal from New York (Rudy Giuliani) and a Mormon from Massachusetts (Mitt Romney). Two Southerners are in the field – Fred Thompson, from Tennessee, and Mike Huckabee, from Arkansas, but their southernness doesn’t seem to be helping them much."

The remarkable death of Dixie America (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article2500455.ece)

Adding fuel to a long-simmering fire, the front-running Republican presidential candidates have announced "scheduling conflicts" as the excuse du jour for not attending the "All American Presidential Forum" organised by black talk show host Tavis Smiley.

Giuliani, Romney, Thompson and John McCain have declined to attend the debate, although the top Democratic contenders attended a similar event in June at Howard University.

Making matters worse, all the Republican candidates except McCain also declined invitations this month to a debate on Univision, the most-watched Hispanic television network in the United States. The event was eventually postponed.
I expect they're afraid of losing votes from the base. During the election they'd do it, but in the primaries looking moderate is more likely to hurt than help. McCain's found that out.

"Even Republicans seem to have cooled on the Old South. Their leading presidential contenders are a multiply-divorced Catholic social liberal from New York (Rudy Giuliani) and a Mormon from Massachusetts (Mitt Romney). Two Southerners are in the field – Fred Thompson, from Tennessee, and Mike Huckabee, from Arkansas, but their southernness doesn’t seem to be helping them much."
Mm-hm. I find it amusing that if Giuliani wins, Hillary Clinton will be the candidate with the best record on family values - at least she's not doubly divorced.

I wouldn't say Thompson's "southerness" and social conservatism isn't helping him, though - he was in second place even before he entered the race, and could well win. I think he's become the candidate for a fair number of the undecideds and disaffected McCain supporters. He comes across as very far-right: a more grouchy-looking Reagan. While that may delight Republicans, it terrifies me. Politics is neglected by so many American I can see people voting for him simply because he's "that guy from Law and Order".

Giuliani's unlikely to get a majority in the primaries, which means it will likely come down to dealing at the convention. That leaves things very open.

I expect they're afraid of losing votes from the base. During the election they'd do it, but in the primaries looking moderate is more likely to hurt than help. McCain's found that out.

Hmm... that "base" is the reason the Republican candidates can't live down the Party's abysmal record on racial rapprochement and their reputation for pursuing race-baiting as a campaign strategy.

While that may delight Republicans, it terrifies me. Politics is neglected by so many American I can see people voting for him simply because he's "that guy from Law and Order".

I can only sigh. That some of us would elect a man because of his television and movie fame rather than on his ability to lead the country is so sad.

Hem, hem.
I would like to remind you that the purpose of this thread is not for Democrats to discuss how disgruntled they are with the Republican party and the current Presidency.

Topic: American Presidential Candidates: Republican.

As expected, none of the front-running Republican candidates appeared at the Morgan State University debate focusing on issues important to America's black citizens. The debate organizers set up podiums and nameplates for all this missing candidates: Guiliani, McCain, Romney, and Thompson as a silent testimonial to their absence.

"I think this is a disgrace that they are not here. I think it's a disgrace to our country. I think it's bad for our party, and I don't think it's good for our future."


Right cheek or left, it still feels like a slap (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.scene28sep28,0,2898579.story)

Minority debate undercut by GOP no-shows (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2003909290_debate28.html)

For the sake of balance:
From a New York Times article: (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21022957/)
“I think it is a little unfair to assume that they didn’t show up tonight because they were sending some message of a negative kind to the black community,” said Mr. Keyes, who is black. He noted that they also skipped a recent debate that was held to address issues important to conservatives.
Candidates in both parties have shunned debates that fell outside their comfort zones. The leading Democratic candidates did not attend a debate on Fox News after liberal online groups urged them to boycott Fox over what they said was its conservative bias.
Similar sentiments were found in other links.

Alan Keyes? Ohmigosh... now there's a voice of reason. :lol:

Peg, I remember the flap about the Fox debate and I agreed with the decision to avoid it. The difference, as I see it, is that Fox News doesn't vote. The folks who attended the Morgan State debate do.

Candidates in both parties have shunned debates that fell outside their comfort zones. The leading Democratic candidates did not attend a debate on Fox News after liberal online groups urged them to boycott Fox over what they said was its conservative bias.
I don't think the two situations are comparable. Fox News, and particularly its pundits, shows an obvious conservative and pro-Republican bias, so the Democrats would gain nothing from showing up. That certain Republicans would believe a debate on issues important to many black Americans is inherently liberally biased says a lot about their party's priorities and beliefs. If the Democrats, for example, declined to attend a debate hosted by a socially conservative Christian-values group, that would also make a statement about what they do and do not consider to be consistent with their values as a party.

What Republicans are saying by not showing up is that concern for racial issues facing black Americans is inherently incompatible with their platform. Kudos to the Republican candidates that did show up, and to McCain for being the only candidate willing to attend a debate hosted by Hispanic Americans.

That certain Republicans would believe a debate on issues important to many black Americans is inherently liberally biased says a lot about their party's priorities and beliefs.

It also says a lot about the divisiveness that has marked every Republican presidency since 1968. Feels a bit like a real-life version of "Magic is Might," to tell the truth.

I'd say that there is a little more to the candidates skipping Travis Smiley's debate than "shunning the black vote" and I disagree with the assessment that the event he orchestrated wasn't a biased event.

Smiley is known for his liberal bent - he isn't moderate or centrist in his political leanings. In fact the folks who asked questions of the candidates were Cynthia Tucker, Juan Williams and Ray Suarez - whose political opinions run from left to center. There were no conservatives on the panel. If Fox wasn't wasn't going to give the Democrats a fair shake because there weren't any liberals on their panel and that made it OK for the Democrats to skip their debate, then why is it wrong for the Republican's to skip Smiley's debate when he didn't have any conservatives on his panel? Sounds like the same thing to me - the Democrats skipped Fox's debate beause they felt Fox wouldn't present their views in the best light and the Republican's skipped Smiley's debate because they didn't feel he would present their views in the best light.

Evangelical Christian's make up close to 25% of the Republican base yet the top tier Republican candidates also skipped the Values Voter Debate. If skipping Smiley's debate means they are "shunning balck American's" then does skipping the evangelical Christian's debate also mean that they shunning evangelical Christians?

We're also knee deep in the primaries, not the general election. The candidate who will be selected will be chosen largely from someone who does well in Iowa and New Hampshire (states which will hold the first primaries in a few weeks). Like it or not, Republican primary voters from Iowa and New Hampshire aren't going to be at or participate in the debate at Morgan State. Right now the priority for all of the candidates is to appeal to their base. Travis Smiley doesn't represent the Republican base just as the NRA or the National Right to Life Organization don't represent the Democratic base. Senator's Clinton and Obama wouldn't take time out of their schedule's to attend a debate at Jerry Falwell's University because the demographic he attracts wouldn't help them get their message to their party base. Why should the Republican's be held to a different standard when the debate Smiley hosted wouldn't help them appeal to thier base? Were we a few weeks shy of the general election skipping Smiley's event would be a different story, but this is the primaries, and in the primaries you gotta appeal to your base.

Mom, many people of the left and center regard Fox as a conservative spin outlet.

And many view many of the major news outlets like ABC, NBC, CBS, and their cable cousins CNN and MSNBC as liberal strongholds with overt political objectives. Which is neither here nor there (and certainly not he stated topic of thise thread!!! - sorry mods!!!) as the Republican's have participated in debates hosted by those outlets.

My point is this - if it was OK for the Democrats to shun a debate hosted by a media outlet they view as a "conservative spin outlet" then why isn't it also OK for the Republican's to shun a debate hosted by a media outlet they view as a liberal spin outlet? Why the double standard? Why is it OK for the Democrat's to blow off debates hosted by conservative voting blocs but not OK for Republican's to do the same?

My point is this - if it was OK for the Democrats to shun a debate hosted by a media outlet they view as a "conservative spin outlet" then why isn't it also OK for the Republican's to shun a debate hosted by a media outlet they view as a liberal spin outlet? Why the double standard? Why is it OK for the Democrat's to blow off debates hosted by conservative voting blocs but not OK for Republican's to do the same?

I understand what you are saying about appealing to the base and about the apparent double standard. I don't necessarily agree with the double standard but I daresay that the way people see it at this point is that the Republicans are operating at a disadvantage. Their base is only going to get them so far. The Dems already have the advantage of favorable public opinion so they don't need to "recruit" as heavily as the Reps do. In other words, the Reps have to do it "cleaner" and "better" than their opponents and cannot afford any negatives...it may be unfair, but that is the reality as I percieve it.

While what debates the candidates attend and what they skip certainly is on topic, a general discussion about the political preferences of the media or the party's history is not.

Of interest:

Poll Paradox (http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071002/NATION/110020030/1028/election)

All the polls show that Rudolph W. Giuliani is the clear national front-runner for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, but Mitt Romney, who lags in fourth place in the same surveys, is leading in the first four party-preference contests of the 2008 campaign...
...According to Real Clear Politics, the Web site that tracks all the election polls, Mr. Giuliani led with a 27.8 percent average, followed by former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson with 22.4 percent, Arizona Sen. John McCain with 14.4 percent, Mr. Romney with 9 percent and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee with 4.5 percent.

But state-by-state polls show Mr. Romney, the less well-known former Massachusetts governor, leading in Iowa, Michigan, Nevada and New Hampshire — the states that will lead off the party's nominating process once the primary calendar is readjusted later this year.

The Romney campaign thinks the heavy news attention and political momentum that he will derive from these first four contests, if he is successful, would help him overtake Mr. Giuliani in the remaining contests where the New York Republican is leading.

"There are two schools of thought on this. One says that if a candidate is leading nationwide, that will help that candidate in the early states. But I'm in the old school. I think that Iowa and New Hampshire are still the gatekeepers to the nomination," independent pollster John Zogby said.
Here's how the top Republican candidates are performing in the six states that will begin the Republican primary season in January, according to the latest Real Clear Politics polling averages as of last week:
Iowa:
Mr. Romney 26 percent
Mr. Giuliani 16.8 percent
Mr. Thompson 15.3 percent
Mr. McCain 8.3 percent
Mr. Huckabee 8 percent.
New Hampshire:
Mr. Romney 26.4 percent
Mr. Giuliani 22.4 percent
Mr. McCain 15.2 percent
Mr. Thompson 11.8 percent
Mr. Huckabee with 3.6 percent.
Nevada:
Mr. Romney 28 percent
Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Thompson 18 percent each
Mr. McCain 8 percent.
Michigan:
Mr. Romney 26.3 percent
Mr. Giuliani 18.7 percent
Mr. Thompson 14 percent
Mr. McCain 12.7 percent
Mr. Huckabee with 3.3 percent.

However, Mr. Romney's numbers change as the race heads South.
South Carolina
Mr. Giuliani 21 percent
Mr. Thompson 19.8 percent
Mr. Romney with 15.3 percent
Mr. McCain with 14 percent
Mr. Huckabee with 4 percent.
Florida:
Mr. Giuliani 27.7 percent
Mr. Thompson 21 percent
Mr. Romney 11.7 percent
Mr. McCain with 11 percent.
But Mr. Zogby adds this note of caution to the latest polling numbers: "The biggest number is the undecideds. We have poll numbers coming out this week showing anywhere between 20 [percent] to 22 percent nationally and in some of the states are undecided, which suggests how wide open the Republican nominating race is," he said.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only impressive number is indeed the undecided.
Those other percentages aren't impressive at all.

However, Mr. Romney's numbers change as the race heads South.
South Carolina
Mr. Giuliani 21 percent
Mr. Thompson 19.8 percent
Mr. Romney with 15.3 percent
Mr. McCain with 14 percent
Mr. Huckabee with 4 percent.
Florida:
Mr. Giuliani 27.7 percent
Mr. Thompson 21 percent
Mr. Romney 11.7 percent
Mr. McCain with 11 percent.
But Mr. Zogby adds this note of caution to the latest polling numbers: "The biggest number is the undecideds. We have poll numbers coming out this week showing anywhere between 20 [percent] to 22 percent nationally and in some of the states are undecided, which suggests how wide open the Republican nominating race is," he said.

The only impressive number is indeed the undecided.
Those other percentages aren't impressive at all.

Why do you suppose Giuliani holds a majority in the south?

Can't answer the South question, but the NH and Michigan leads might all be because they're near areas where Romney has a history - his dad was governor of Michigan, and he was governer of MA, which is right next door to NH. Not sure the MI connection is helping in Iowa, and I can only guess that heavy advertising and appearances are helping him in the other states

Romney may be rich enough to buy himself a seat in the Oval Office. His third quarter fundraising report shows that he raised $10 million and loaned his campaign another $8.5 million (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21131873/).

The size of the loan was unexpected and nearly matched his personal contribution to the campaign during the first six months of the year. Overall, Romney, a former venture capitalist and Massachusetts governor, has dipped into his vast personal wealth for a total of nearly $17.5 million.

ETA:

The latest NBC News/Washington Post poll reflects a strong desire among Republican voters for a president unlike George Bush. The article linked below states that, while GOP voters may not want a full divorce, they are definitely seeking a trial separation. Nearly half (48%) want a president who will take a new approach, while 38% want more Bush.

"This puts Mitt Romney and John McCain between a rock and a hard place,” Newhouse said. “A near majority of Republican primary voters are saying they want someone different from W. All of the candidates are running a Bush Light campaign. No one’s capturing that change agenda."

GOP voters want someone who’s not like Bush (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21114419/)

Romney has flipped his position on every platform on which he ran for Governor of Massachusetts, he's clearly just trying to imitate the popular values of the Republican party and nothing else.

Giuliani is a terrible person who was on the verge of being impeached before 9/11 happened and saved his job. It's disgusting how everything he does he relates to 9/11 as its the only time he's made a positive difference for this country.

McCain is in far too poor health in my opinion, he could have made a very good President 8 years ago, not now.

Thompson and Gingrich don't have a chance.

Which brings us to Mr. Ron Paul. If I had to vote for a Republican I would choose him, he's the one shining voice of reason lost in a sea of Neoconservatism that is the current Republican party.

Romney has flipped his position on every platform on which he ran for Governor of Massachusetts, he's clearly just trying to imitate the popular values of the Republican party and nothing else.

Giuliani is a terrible person who was on the verge of being impeached before 9/11 happened and saved his job. It's disgusting how everything he does he relates to 9/11 as its the only time he's made a positive difference for this country.

McCain is in far too poor health in my opinion, he could have made a very good President 8 years ago, not now.

Thompson and Gingrich don't have a chance.

Which brings us to Mr. Ron Paul. If I had to vote for a Republican I would choose him, he's the one shining voice of reason lost in a sea of Neoconservatism that is the current Republican party.

If you're going to make sweeping judgments like these, you really ought to provide some reasons for how you came to those conclusions. Can you elaborate?

Romney has flipped his position on every platform on which he ran for Governor of Massachusetts, he's clearly just trying to imitate the popular values of the Republican party and nothing else.
I've always sort of thought it was the other way around. By which I mean, I figured that he made himself seem more liberal/moderate in order to hold elected office in Massachusetts and that he's really rather conservative. It seems to me that even as Governor of Massachusetts he began to support more positions of the Republican party than he had professed at the beginning of his term.
Thompson and Gingrich don't have a chance.

Which brings us to Mr. Ron Paul. If I had to vote for a Republican I would choose him, he's the one shining voice of reason lost in a sea of Neoconservatism that is the current Republican party.

Personally, despite reports I've read that say that Thompson isn't really inspiring people with his speeches, I think he has a much much better chance of being elected than does Ron Paul. Paul wants to get rid of income taxes, the IRS and pull out of the WHO and the UN? Kind of extreme political positions, no?

If Democrats should ever sink to the level of Republicans in 2004, specifically the flip-flop massacre they laid on John Kerry, Mitt Romney will be in deeeep trouble in the general campaign. I can't think of another politician on the national level who has loosey-goosied his views on such a wide variety of subjects.

Giuliani is another one who will have a rough road to trek in the general campaign. There are hours and hours of taped radio interviews (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/us/politics/05radio.html?ex=1349236800&en=7d9a5634948230da&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) from his tenure as mayor of New York City that are not going to be helpful at all. Well, they'll be helpful to his opponents, but not to the candidate himself. And there's that whole business of his second wife learning that he planned to divorce her on the 6:00 news, and the court proceedings that were necessary to keep his mistress (and current wife) out of the mayor's mansion - and away from Giuliani's wife and children - until the divorce was final.

If Democrats should ever sink to the level of Republicans in 2004, specifically the flip-flop massacre they laid on John Kerry

You're letting your partisanship get in the way again, which is especially out of place in the Republican thread. Try to dial it back a bit, okay?

Okay.

ETA:

For anyone who's interested, the New York Times has truth-squadded (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/a-truth-squad-of-claims-by-romney-and-giuliani/index.html?hp) both Giuliani and Romney on comments made in last night's debate. They caught both fairly.

Did anyone catch the Republican debates on MSNBC last night? I only caught snippets and haven't had time to research what was asked and how the questions were answered. For anyone who did catch them or who has had time to look into them, what do you think? Any clear winners, great one liners, significant points?

I heard on quote this morning which had me thinking (and the producer of the program I was listening to as well). Huckabee said the following in responce to a question about our economy "Most of us here today, probably every one of us are living better than we ever dreamed we would when we were kids.

But when I ask the question of how many of you think your kids and grandkids are going to be living better than you, rarely does a hand go up.

A lot of what has to happen is a restoring of the resilience of optimism in this country, and part of that is making sure that they understand that we understand we've got big problems that need big ideas, things like a total overhaul of our tax system and people who are running this country who grew up the hard way with a struggle, who understand what it's like to not be sure that the next day is going to necessarily be a great and prosperous one."
What do you all think about what Huckabee had to say? Do you think what the candidates are proposing on taxes, the economy, national security, health care, etc, will help your children and grandchildren be better off?

What do you all think? How do you define better off, and do you think your children and grandchildren will be better off than you are - say 50 years down the road?

How are we supposed to feel about passing a deficit like the current one to our children and grandchildren? I don't care for the idea of "charge it to the kids."

Hem hem.
Topic please! This is not about our views on 'better off'. It's about those candidates' views.

Being back in South Carolina has to be tough for John McCain and his family. It was there in 2000 that George W. Bush launched a smear campaign against McCain, then the front-runner in the race, that was so over-the-top that it will never be forgotten in the annals of the brutality of American politics. South Carolinians are still apologizing to McCain for what happened.

That campaign had many of them falsely believing that McCain’s wife, Cindy, was a drug addict and that the couple’s adopted daughter, Bridget, was the product of an illicit union. She was referred to as McCain's "black love child." McCain’s patriotism, mental well-being and sexuality were also viciously called into question. MSNBC has a nice article about how the McCains are confronting the ghosts of South Carolina (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21374175/).

I liked McCain in 2000. He was my preferred candidate and Bush's slime job on him is something that still bites.

On another front, Slate Magazine's John Dickerson (http://www.slate.com/id/2176197/fr/rss/) discusses Mitt Romney's fatal flaw as a presidential candidate. Dickerson doesn't see it as Romney's religion (Mormon), but instead the mountain of distrust he faces in trying to convince voters he truly believes in anything other than what they want to hear in the moment at hand.

"Romney has often undermined himself during the presidential campaign. Even as he has asserted that he is anti-abortion (http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/National_Right_To_Life_Convention_Forum), he has been dogged by video clips and statements from his 1994 Senate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFMdK0TWtks&mode=related&search=) and 2002 gubernatorial campaigns (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4&mode=related&search=), in which he robustly defended a woman's right to have an abortion. On several other subjects there also seem to be two stories: gun control (for (http://youtube.com/watch?v=HzYTdM9b5F4)/against (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/14/romney_retreats_on_gun_control/)); gays (their champion (http://www.nysun.com/article/45109)/not so much (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/08/us/politics/08romney.html?_r=1&fta=y&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin)); and even Ronald Reagan himself (distance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pVqZzHm3Z4)/hug (http://mittromney.com/News/In-The-News/Romney_Reaches_For_Reagan_Touch)). The individual changes of position have caused minor irritation for him. The cumulative effect of them all is the big problem. Taken together, they suggest, as a nonaffiliated veteran of Republican politics put it, "that he has no core."

I don't know about Romney. How can a voter possibly assess him when his stance flip-flops so dramatically?

I don't know about Romney. How can a voter possibly assess him when his stance flip-flops so dramatically?

I'm starting to think that being a flip flopper is a prerequisite for being a politician.

Have you heard anything about Brownback's campaign? Rumors have been circulating around all day that he is withdrawing his candidacy but I haven't heard anything to confirn that yet.

I haven't seen confirmation of it, but it's been all over CNN this morning and afternoon.

I did see that Mel Martinez, quit as chairman of the Republican National Committee after just 10 months on the job.

Martinez Quits as G.O.P. Chairman (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Martinez-RNC.html?ref=politics)

I'm starting to think that being a flip flopper is a prerequisite for being a politician.

If you can name a candidate with such spectacular flip-flops as Romney, I'd love to know the name.

I heard on quote this morning which had me thinking (and the producer of the program I was listening to as well). Huckabee said the following in responce to a question about our economy "
What do you all think about what Huckabee had to say? Do you think what the candidates are proposing on taxes, the economy, national security, health care, etc, will help your children and grandchildren be better off?

I think that if you ask your grandparents what they thought life would be like for your parents they would say that they expected it to be worse for them, and even worse for you.

Generally, the older we get, the bleaker we see the future. When telephones first came out, the reaction was the same as when personal computers hit the market. Everyone was excited, but as they saw ways it those things could cause problems the negativity showed through.

What Huckabee said I must disagree with.

As for how the proposals will help or harm our children or grandchildren, I am mixed depending on the issue. I am not a big fan of some of the ideas for Healthcare, but I urge you to look at my proposal in the INTERNATIONAL HEALTHCARE: THE GOOD AND THE BAD IN YOUR AREA thread for my views. I am in favor of an overhaul to the tax system, so long as they keep the incentives available in some form for giving to charity, or compensation for those who have to pay out of pocket for work expenses (i.e. travel expenses, uniforms, equipment, fees and educational expenses to maintain licenses). I don't think that National Security should be shunted, and the proposals by the candidates are sound and provide for the future of our children.

I don't know about Romney. How can a voter possibly assess him when his stance flip-flops so dramatically?

Everyone seems to think that flip-flopping on an issue is a wrong thing. When done strictly for political gain, then yes, it is dispicable; but when done because one earnestly looks at an issue and then comes to the conclusion that his or her stance is wrong, decides to flip-flop, and supports an opposite opinion, it should not be seen as flip-flopping, but a change of opinion.

A leader is not someone who is always correct, in fact it is someone who exactly the opposite. Leaders see the value in being wrong as positives for change, and improvements in one's experience.

If you can name a candidate with such spectacular flip-flops as Romney, I'd love to know the name.

Several come to mind (Kerry, Clinton (both of them), McCain, Rudy, Gore). I guess my point is that all politicians change thier positions from time to time, and they generally have reasons for doing so. Unfortunately, with the 10 second sound bite and the gotcha attitude which seems to prevail today their reasoning is frequently lost to partisanship.

No one on your list, Mom, has flipped as completely as Romney on so many major issues. I also remember Republicans using Kerry's flip-flop on his war vote as a means to excoriate him in 2004. As Dickerson said in the linked article, taken one at a time, Romney's flips aren't a problem. Taken in total, however, it seems the man has no true political soul.

Everyone seems to think that flip-flopping on an issue is a wrong thing. When done strictly for political gain, then yes, it is dispicable; but when done because one earnestly looks at an issue and then comes to the conclusion that his or her stance is wrong, decides to flip-flop, and supports an opposite opinion, it should not be seen as flip-flopping, but a change of opinion.

I agree with this completely. I believe that the term "flip-flopping" has become overused since the last presidential election. It made a good sound-bite for the Bush campaign, so was taken from that as a useful phrase to apply to everyone, all the time. There needs to be a greater distinction as to whether a particular "change of tune" is due to political expedience (a "flip-flop") or if it is instead due to an intellectual examination of the particular issue and circumstances.

As for Mitt Romney, in particular, it seems to me that he had a specific set of views while campaigning for election in Massachussetts; views that he now seems to have abandoned in order to pursue his presidential aspirations. Maybe he had a complete change of heart or, more likely in my opinion, he changed his views for political gain.

As for Mitt Romney, in particular, it seems to me that he had a specific set of views while campaigning for election in Massachussetts; views that he now seems to have abandoned in order to pursue his presidential aspirations. Maybe he had a complete change of heart or, more likely in my opinion, he changed his views for political gain.

Which was, in fact, my whole point. Romney is not a man people can reasonably put much trust in.

Which was, in fact, my whole point. Romney is not a man people can reasonably put much trust in.

Folks, especialy partisan's like the folks at Slate, like to say he's flip flopped on issues which they believe are important and that he can't be trusted. They seem to conviently forget that Romney is politician and politician's play up their strengths and play down their weaknesses just like the rest of us.

Romney on Abortion

While running for Gov., Romney stated that he is personally opposed to abortion but that he would not seek to change Mass. state law regarding abortion. While running for president he has played up his personal opposition to abortion but he has not said that he would submit legislation banning abortion or that banning abortion would even be a part of his platform.

He has stated that he would appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court which the pro-choice community interprets to mean that he would appoint judges who were more likely to overturn Roe v/s Wade than activist judges. He has also stated that he supports banning late term abortions and parental notification. None of these are radical positions and none reflect a change of heart from the positions he held as Governor.

By standing behind what he believes (abortion is wrong) but allowing the legislative process to determine the law of the land (will not submit legislation banning abortion outright) he has earned the ire of both pro-choicers and pro-lifers. I don't call that flip-flopping or waffling. Heck, anyone who can tick off both the pro-choicers and the pro-lifers should be proud!

Romney on Gun Control

On gun control, Romney has stated that he supports second amendment rights but that he would support a ban on assault weapons. His opinion here has not changed - in fact during his tenure in Mass he signed an assault weapons ban into law in his state.

Yet again he's won the ire of radicals on both sides of the debate - gun control advocates don't like him because he won't submit legislation banning guns and gun rights advocates don't like him because he thinks the right to keep and bear arms doesn't include assault weapons.

He hasn't changes his opinion one bit since he ran for Governor. The radicals aligned on opposite sides of the issue may not like his opinion, but I'd bet a lot more American's agree with him than with the radicals on either side.

Romney on Gay Rights

As to gay rights, well Romney has stated that he opposes gay marriage. He stated this when he ran for governor and has stated this as he's running President. The controversy comes because, as governor he granted one-day certificates to about 1,200 people, of which 189 were used at gay weddings. One-day certificates allow any ordinary person to officiate at a wedding in that state for a given day. Romney's interpretation of the law in Mass. was that it would be "discriminatory and illegal for him to apply the law regarding the one-day certificates differently to same-sex couples".

''Governor Romney has fought against the court's gay marriage ruling from day one and is continuing to fight for the right of voters in Massachusetts to cast a vote to overturn the gay marriage decision," Fehrnstrom said in an e-mail statement. ''Until that day comes, Governor Romney is bound by his oath of office to execute the laws of the Commonwealth."

Nothing in his opinion has changed since he was Governor. Unlike a person who has never headed a state before, Romney has learned that sometimes you don't agree with the law but you still have to abide by it.

Um, Mom, what was your source on this information?

I think that so-called "moral issues" get far more play in elections than they should, simply because little is done on them regardless. Even with Bush, who puts a lot of emphasis on those issue, all that's happened besides a lot of talk is funding of faith-based charities (which I agree with, and which is done even in social-liberal British Columbia, Canada) and banning of partial-birth abortions. I doubt another so-con would have a huge effect.

I'm more worried about Romney because of his hawkishness on Latin America and his claim that he will double the number of prisoners at Guantanamo (never mind the fact that many of the people there even now are known to be guilty of nothing, and none of them have been proved guilty of anything in court of law).

I have to say, it feels like they've lost touch when they're all trying to out-hawk each other still on things like Guantanamo, torture, and Iran when only a third of Americans even agree with staying in Iraq, much less starting another war.

When it comes to changing views, I'm more disappointed in McCain than Romney. He moved to the right to try to pick up the base: not only did he not get them, he lost the moderates who liked him. He would have done better holding his old positions.

I'm more worried about Romney because of his hawkishness on Latin America and his claim that he will double the number of prisoners at Guantanamo (never mind the fact that many of the people there even now are known to be guilty of nothing, and none of them have been proved guilty of anything in court of law).

:agree: I would have far more consideration for a candidate committed to closing that dreadful place.

I have to say, it feels like they've lost touch when they're all trying to out-hawk each other still on things like Guantanamo, torture, and Iran when only a third of Americans even agree with staying in Iraq, much less starting another war.

I suppose that has something to do with the so-called "base" they're trying to appeal to?

This poll is missing Sam Brownback (I know he just now dropped out, but that was after it was made), Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and now Alan Keyes is in the race.

That being said, I'm voting for Giuliani. I am a long-time Democrat who recently switched parties just to vote for him. We need a strong leader dedicated to victory in the War on Terror, and Rudy's leadership during 9/11 is a perfect example. He also takes a tough stance on violent crime, and advocates fiscal responsibility. Meanwhile, I am still liberal on most social issues (exceptions being the death penalty, Title IX, and affirmative action), and I'm glad Rudy is sticking by his guns and keeping a moderate stance in these matters.

I can't stand Ron Paul. Libertarian my ***. Libertarians allow people to live their lives, while protecting the country's citizens in times of crisis. Paul has it backwards, regulating our lives with a pro-life, anti-gay agenda, and refusing to go after those responsible for 9/11.

I'm backing Giuliani, but if anyone else gets the nomination, I'll see who the Democrats nominate. If it's anyone other than Richardson, Dodd, or Biden, I'm voting for a real Libertarian, or Michael Bloomberg if he runs as a third party candidate.

Anyone catch the debates last night? Any thoughts on a clear winner or loser?

Folks are reporting that Romeny did well and Thompson and Guiliani held their own (with Thompson getting the last one liner of the night in). The biggest shocker is Huckabee who is coming from behind and closing ground fast. He wasn't asked many questions, but the one's he was asked he answered well and made some important points. I'd blown Huckabee off as a third tier candidate some time ago, but I might actually look at him again.

That debate reminded me of Stan Shunpike and his pals chatting up the Veela girls at the World Cup. They all seemed hell-bent and determined to prove they were the true conservative in the race - and they all beat up on a common enemy: Hillary Clinton.

I though thtey had some pretty valid points - about social security, taxes, the war, and spending. Besides, these debates are about shoring up support with the folks who will vote in the primaries which is generally the parties base so I'd expect them to try to showcase what appeals to the base.

McCain had a really great bit which got the biggest applause and most laughts. It went as follows:

WALLACE: Senator McCain, you're running the closest to Clinton, but you still trail her by three points in our latest poll. The biggest issue between the two of you clearly is the war in Iraq.

You strongly support the troop surge. She wants to start pulling the troops out. Is that a winner for Republicans in 2008?

MCCAIN: I don't know. And I can't be concerned. Because I know too many brave young Americans that are serving and sacrificing in Iraq, as we speak.

I would much rather lose a campaign than lose a war. And now I'm...

Let me just say that I know and respect Senator Clinton.

MCCAIN: The debate that I have between me and her will be based on national security, on fiscal conservatism, and on social conservatism. It will be a respectful debate. That is what the American people want.

Now, one of them will be spending. I have fought against out-of- control and disgraceful spending that's been going on and I have saved the American people as much as $2 billion at one stroke.

In case you missed it, a few days ago, Senator Clinton tried to spend $1 million on the Woodstock Concert Museum. Now, my friends, I wasn't there. I'm sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event.

I was tied up at the time.

Huckabee is... interesting. Socially conservative, extreme economic libertarian (he advocates abolishing all income, payroll, and capital gains taxes and replacing them with a single "FairTax" on purchases, with rebates for all purchases by people under the poverty line), and yet supports the war in Iraq. Does he realize how much the American military in general, and that war in particular, costs? With his system, the government would, at best, have only enought money to fund the miltary and nothing else.

Oh, and he supports a line-item veto by the President to ensure costs stay down, which strikes me as a fairly substantial increase of executive power.

I don't think there's any way he could win an election, or even the primary, on that, but if he brings the social conservatives on side he could become significant.

Huckabee is... interesting. Socially conservative, extreme economic libertarian (he advocates abolishing all income, payroll, and capital gains taxes and replacing them with a single "FairTax" on purchases, with rebates for all purchases by people under the poverty line), and yet supports the war in Iraq. Does he realize how much the American military in general, and that war in particular, costs? With his system, the government would, at best, have only enought money to fund the miltary and nothing else.

Oh, and he supports a line-item veto by the President to ensure costs stay down, which strikes me as a fairly substantial increase of executive power.

I don't think there's any way he could win an election, or even the primary, on that, but if he brings the social conservatives on side he could become significant.

The National Sales Tax was originally proposed by Jack Kemp (if memory serves) and presents a hugh shift in the way we currently tax people. I actually support the idea. I'm a CPA and I absolutely HATE taxes (I could expouse for days on the evils of the internal revenue code - but I don't want to put you all to sleep!).

I believe Huckabee's tax proposal would eliminate the Federal Income Tax and replace it with a fixed percentage National Sales Tax (15% was one percentage I saw but I've seen other percentages as well). Food and medications would be exempted from the sales tax (as they are in most states now) or an equivalent amount would be refunded against Social Security taxes.

Since you pay only for what you spend, lower earning individuals would pay less in taxes as they have less to spend on stuff and higher earning individuals who buy more junk would pay more. The NST would raise enough funds to be "revenue neutral" which means we'd take in the same amount we take in now, but at significantly lower costs.

The Washington Post has a site with compares and contrasts the differenet plans. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/tax/links.htm

The line item veto will never go through (although I think Senator Clinton also supports it as did President Clinton during his terms).

I'm not sure whether Huckabee could win the election or not. I'd love to see the debate go away from mudslinging and gotcha and focus on the differences between the vision each candidate has for America's furure and what they'd do to ensure that that vision is realized. As, well, boring (sorry!) as Huckabee is there wouldn't be much mud to sling and maybe, just possibly, the focus would be on the issues and not garbage.

OOO Look - a pig just flew my window.........

I'm not saying the tax isn't an interesting idea, but it doesn't strike me as very feasible. Excluding property taxes, income taxes, social security plan contributions, and "other" taxes, the income of the Canadian government would be 37% of what it is now - and that's with a 6% GST (Goods and Services Tax). Even doubling that wouldn't make it revenue neutral, and it would make housing purchases, in particular, far more. I know the US spends less on social services than Canada, but also a lot more on the miltary.

I can think of reforms to his idea that would make me like it better. Keeping capital gains taxes - they hit the rich and discourage real estate speculation that drives housing prices up. Some modifications to the National Sales Tax to make it higher on "discouraged purchases" like low-fuel-efficiency new vehicles, cigarettes, etc (fast food? hee). And I don't think ditching Social Security would be a good idea either (unless he's proposing putting aside money from the NST for social security - I doubt it, as all he mentioned was ending Social Security payments).

A big problem with it is that it shifts the tax burden, to a great extent, from businesses to individuals, which means that the middle-class isgoing to be bearing a larger amount of the burden.

In principle, without a wider knowlege of the potential economic effects, I like the idea because it encourages earning while discouraging the currect society of consumption. An extra 15% on luxuries might may people think they don't need them as much.

As you said, when pigs fly. ;)

A big problem with it is that it shifts the tax burden, to a great extent, from businesses to individuals, which means that the middle-class isgoing to be bearing a larger amount of the burden.

In principle, without a wider knowlege of the potential economic effects, I like the idea because it encourages earning while discouraging the currect society of consumption. An extra 15% on luxuries might may people think they don't need them as much.

As you said, when pigs fly. ;)

It doesn't necessariy shift the burden from businesses to individuals because the tax is paid on what is pruchased. Goods held for resale (like Nike purchasing rubber for the soles in their tennis shoes) aren't taxed, but goods held for internal use are. So business would pay tax on office supplies, office furniture, equipment, etc.

Individuals would only pay based on what they buy (excluding food and medication). You buy a new TV, you pay the tax. You buy a Big Mac, you pay the tax. You buy green beans and amoxicillin, you don't pay the tax. Lower income and middle class folks tend to buy less than wealthy individuals and wealthy individuals tend to pay more for what they buy. You buy a $30 pair of jeans from LLBean and you'd pay and addition $4.50 in taxes on those jeans. You buy a pair of $200 jeans from Sacks (yes, I actually saw a pair of jeans for $200!!) and you'd pay $30 in tax.

An example I saw depicted it as follows: You buy a car that costs $10,000. You have to earn $13,000 in income (10,000 plus 30% income taxes) to pay for that car, and that doesn't cover property taxes which are paid annually based on the value of the car. With a 15% national sales tax you'd pay $11,500 (10,000 plus 1,500) one time. That's a savings of $1,150.

Then there's the government's savings. The IRS processes close to 200 million returns a year from individuals and it employs a huge number of people to process those returns. There are significantly fewer businesses than there are households. The number of returnes processed would decrease exponentially and they'd be much simpler (sales * 15% = tax).

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p80/asdfg88/hillary_rudy.jpg

GOTTA LOVE THIC PICTURE!!!! :lol::lol::lol: what's he doing? trying to stop her from falling into the tracks, or thrying to throw her in?

Can you give us a source for that picture? It looks Photoshopped to me...

Then there's the government's savings. The IRS processes close to 200 million returns a year from individuals and it employs a huge number of people to process those returns. There are significantly fewer businesses than there are households. The number of returnes processed would decrease exponentially and they'd be much simpler (sales * 15% = tax).
I hate to be cynical, but the flip side of that is that large businesses are much better at and much better equipped (in terms of ability to hire lawyers) for tax evasions than individuals are, too.

And regarding what you said about resale, that would be a large portion of the costs of business. Take a big store like Wal-mart - most of their costs are going to be buying the stock that they re-sell. Suddenly exempt them from all those taxes, and they're paying a lot less. If the system is, as you say, revenue-neutral, that new revenue has to come from somwhere. There aren't enough millionaires out there to make up for the taxes from multiple businesses of that size, so that "somewhere" is going to be either the middle class or the government budget.

Oh, I found it somewhere on line and downloaded it. I thought it looked strange, I mean, since when do the subway trains have an 'I love NY' bumper stcker on them? but if it's real, wouldn't it be great if everyone would be able to get along? I mean I'd love it if Giuliani's son marries Chealsy Clinton, wouldn't you? HA think what the wedding celebration would look like!:rockon:

anyway, I think that the worst thing for Giuliani's campaign is that he showed streangth during the Twin attacks. because everyone now thinks that NewYorkers like him only for that. It's not true! take it from someone who voted Giuliani for mayor. I would have voted for him 3 times but was unfortunately too young to vote. when I voted him second term, it wasn't because of any heroism, but because he was the only polititian who DID rather than TALKed. see, I remember the traffic jams, the broken roads, the shootings and the fear of getting into "bad" neighborhoods if you walked a little too far from home - now, I let my kids run and play outside without fear the roads are safer and traffic stabalized. If you don't believe me, why don't you go to NYC dot GOV and look for mayoral archives, you will find all of Giulianni's reports there. all the charts from crime rate to the number of rodents found in subways. from sanitation laws, to alternat side parking rules, to j-walking (that was a joke, btw, but every mayor has something wierd on their records lol.)
anyway, the greatness of him is not that he WAS strong during the attacks, but that it was EXPECTED of him to be strong. because he got us so used to being on top of everything, taking control of all criseses, from minor fires to major crime, that when he didn't show up right away after the collapse of the tower, and pple saw him enter WTC7 and not leave it, and debries were flying into WTC 7 and it burst into flames, everyone said "the mayor is dead!" and it was a real state of panic. because he was missing for , oh, I don't remember, at least an hour, and to NY people who were glued to their radios, this was the scariest hour!
anyway, I am worried that I am biased towards Giuliani because I know his work best, so if there is anyone here from Arizona or something and can testify about your senetor/governer/etc. tell me about it. I don't wanna be bias, I wanna vote for the BEST candidate.

:agree: I would have far more consideration for a candidate committed to closing that dreadful place.

I suppose that has something to do with the so-called "base" they're trying to appeal to?

I did not believe Romney would say this:

ROMNEY: I am glad [detainees] are at Guantanamo. I don’t want them on our soil. I want them on Guantanamo, where they don’t get the access to lawyers they get when they’re on our soil. I don’t want them in our prisons, I want them there. Some people have said we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is we ought to double Guantanamo.

He *was* by far and away my favorite Republican candidate till reading this. Has any Republican come out against this?

Wow, I'm just simply shocked and sick to my stomach over this. :no:


Luna blessings... :tu:

I hate to be cynical, but the flip side of that is that large businesses are much better at and much better equipped (in terms of ability to hire lawyers) for tax evasions than individuals are, too.

And regarding what you said about resale, that would be a large portion of the costs of business. Take a big store like Wal-mart - most of their costs are going to be buying the stock that they re-sell. Suddenly exempt them from all those taxes, and they're paying a lot less. If the system is, as you say, revenue-neutral, that new revenue has to come from somwhere. There aren't enough millionaires out there to make up for the taxes from multiple businesses of that size, so that "somewhere" is going to be either the middle class or the government budget.

But large business wouldn't be reporting anything so there would be little to evade. The organizations paying taxes would be the retail establishments who actually sell the goods. The only way to evade taxes would be for a retail establishment to deflate their income which is easy enough to verify - you just have to tie what they report as income for tax purposes to what they report as income on their income statements (which are required for publically traded companies, franchises, and partnerships).

Walmart doesn't pay taxes on the goods they purchase and hold for resale now. They pay taxes on their net income and the cost of goods purchased for resale is deducted when calculating net income.

Republican candidates, please. :)

Sorry for the departure Alastor! Huckabee supports a national sales tax and we were discussing the mertis and pitfalls of such a system.

I did not believe Romney would say this:

ROMNEY: I am glad [detainees] are at Guantanamo. I don’t want them on our soil. I want them on Guantanamo, where they don’t get the access to lawyers they get when they’re on our soil. I don’t want them in our prisons, I want them there. Some people have said we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is we ought to double Guantanamo.

He *was* by far and away my favorite Republican candidate till reading this. Has any Republican come out against this?

Wow, I'm just simply shocked and sick to my stomach over this. :no:


Luna blessings... :tu:


I don't know why it's hard to believe, to tell the truth. He's a Republican candidate. They're all trying to out-tough each other for national security credentials and thus the Bush mantle.

To my knowledge, not one of them has come out against Gitmo or torture.

I did not believe Romney would say this:

ROMNEY: I am glad [detainees] are at Guantanamo. I don’t want them on our soil. I want them on Guantanamo, where they don’t get the access to lawyers they get when they’re on our soil. I don’t want them in our prisons, I want them there. Some people have said we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is we ought to double Guantanamo.

He *was* by far and away my favorite Republican candidate till reading this. Has any Republican come out against this?

Wow, I'm just simply shocked and sick to my stomach over this. :no:


Luna blessings... :tu:
To my knowledge, none of them are opposed to keeping Guantanamo open, and none have come out against Romney for saying it should be doubled. McCain does oppose torture and probably did the best he could to get it banned, but the Administration still has ways of getting around that.

He's the only one, though, on the Republican side. Probably because he's the only one who's been through it.

They've all been trying to prove that they're "tougher" than the others, and it's been bringing crazy ideas out of the woodwork from more than one of them.

To my knowledge, none of them are opposed to keeping Guantanamo open, and none have come out against Romney for saying it should be doubled. McCain does oppose torture and probably did the best he could to get it banned, but the Administration still has ways of getting around that.

He's the only one, though, on the Republican side. Probably because he's the only one who's been through it.

They've all been trying to prove that they're "tougher" than the others, and it's been bringing crazy ideas out of the woodwork from more than one of them.

Again, if you have any evidence of torture at Gitmo, please present it.

They've all been trying to prove that they're "tougher" than the others, and it's been bringing crazy ideas out of the woodwork from more than one of them.

I knew McCain was against waterboarding, like duhhh! . . . who could possibly be for simulating drowning???

This is going to destroy our country if mainstream candidates don't take a strong stance against this redefining torture insanity. I am ashamed this is the state of affairs for mainstream candidates to go along with Bush's redefining the meaning of torture if it means waterboarding is acceptable. I've seen Bush avoid the waterboarding question more than once, btw.

I'm so proud my city voted against Bush both times! :D That's Austin, Texas, btw! :lol: Some Texans are smart after all. :) No one can be for waterboarding can we? No! :no: I'm also just devastated over the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's that have been killed over this war on terror.

I want a candidate that will promote energy independence from Oil Imports, period. We just need to restructure the world's energy sources to prevent these wars. Why can't America do this? We have the science, but we are lacking the leadership to do it.

Look what Brazil, Germany, and France have done. It takes leadership.


Luna blessings... :tu:

can we please discuss the candidates rather than bush?
anyway, I saw the GOP of florida and loved it! McCain was great his "I was tied up at the time" coment rocked the house. I don't know what they all have against Hillary, I mean whe Giuliani was comared to her, he took it as an insult!
I agree with Ron Paul, to my shock! yes I do! he is a REAL american. the stuff real americans are made of! abolish ALL BOARDS!! YEAH!! no more unions! no more social security, no more medicate and medicare, no more taxes, no more public schools! Not that I have anything against medicare and all that, but, man in nature has to make a living in order to live. and all these programs turn us all into dependent suckers who are afraid to get a better paying job lest we lose our medical coverage. it's rediculous. same with public schools. what's wrong with parents choosing their own school? choosin what they want to teach their children? and WHY should childless couples pay public school tax for someone else's children????????

Again, if you have any evidence of torture at Gitmo, please present it.

You've got to be kidding! We've known about it since at least 2004. There are literally thousands of news articles about Bush's "extraordinary interrogation methods." What on earth do you think all the legal finagling - relative to assuring that none of the detainees can discuss the conditions of their interrogations, even at trial - was about?

The Supreme Court has already ruled against the Bush administration. Rather than change to bring that hell hole back under the rule of law, they chose instead to ramrod the Military Detention Act of 2006 through Congress. That new law has yet to be tested by the federal courts, but it is assuredly going to be shot down when it reaches the Supremes, just as the first one was.

Ever wonder why no Republican is willing to define what constitutes torture and what doesn't?

Most of the detainees caged down there are guilty of nothing other than being Arab. They have, however, been tortured en route to being declared not enemy combatants. That's the Number One reason they can't be repatriated to their home countries.

This discussion belongs in the Bush thread, I think.

Erm, yes - let's keep this to the 2008 candidates please :).

I agree with Ron Paul, to my shock! yes I do! he is a REAL american. the stuff real americans are made of! abolish ALL BOARDS!! YEAH!! no more unions! no more social security, no more medicate and medicare, no more taxes, no more public schools! Not that I have anything against medicare and all that, but, man in nature has to make a living in order to live. and all these programs turn us all into dependent suckers who are afraid to get a better paying job lest we lose our medical coverage. it's rediculous. same with public schools. what's wrong with parents choosing their own school? choosin what they want to teach their children? and WHY should childless couples pay public school tax for someone else's children????????
You know, if I had ever liked Ron Paul, you would have just talked me out of it. :lol: Quite a diverse nation, aren't we?
I have a question about this philosophy: What would replace all those valuable things all our taxes pay for? Does he have a better solution, or is it a matter of hiring someone on your own to put out the fire when the fire department isn't getting paid by the public? What would happen to our national parks, and who would fill in the potholes?

Regarding Giuliani as mayor: I actually spent several days in New York City with my singing group last summer, and I must say I absolutely loved it. I can honestly say I felt safe. I didn't wander around by myself, but I wouldn't do that in downtown Salt Lake City, either. However, I can say similar things about Mitt Romney; I was here when he saved the 2002 Olympics and I've been watching him ever since.

Regarding Guantanamo: I don't think we have the whole story. We've seen from MonsterMom and OldLupin's posts that there are more than one side to every story.

This discussion belongs in the Bush thread, I think.

But if Romney is for doubling Guantanamo, then we should identify any candidate that supports such ideas. Or, supports any ideas of redefining torture that military manuals have defined long ago.

This is really shocking to me! I respect Mormons. Their family values. Even their unusual beliefs. :) Their long standing patriotism. Their care for their church and internal Mormon community, tithing, supporting each other in family & businesses too.

So, I'm a bit bewildered over this, because Republicans (including Mormons) should be very moral at least. So, it seems McCain is not for waterboarding, and that was a VERY FUNNY joke about him being all tied-up. :lol:

Has McCain or any other Republican spoken out against Guantanamo too? Is Romney for "redefining" the meaning of torture, meaning waterboarding is ok?


Luna blessings... :tu:

Okay, I found some interesting stuff on Giuliani here: http://www.ontheissues.org/Rudy_Giuliani.htm#Health_Care
For the sake of consistency, here is what it says about health care: * $15,000 tax credit for health savings accounts. (Aug 2007)
* Switch from employer decisions to individual choices. (Jun 2007)
* $15,000 family tax deduction for your own health insurance. (Jun 2007)
* 96,000 NYC children insured via HealthStat initiative. (May 2007)
* No socialized medicine; give vouchers to the poor. (Apr 2007)

Okay, it looks like I lost my last edit to my last post. (Goes back to find the info)

Here it is, off of Mitt's website (http://www.mittromney.com/): Ambinder: "Say what you will about the guy: [Romney] expended political capital, he worked hard, and he did something meaningful to reform the health care system in his state. Very few candidates on either side can say that." (Marc Ambinder, "It Took Romney Long Enough..." The Atlantic Blog, http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/, Posted 10/21/07)

- Ambinder: "But it stands out as an prime example -- perhaps the ultimate example -- of conservative governance. Romney worked hard at health care in Massachusetts; he worked with Democrats; he worked with Republicans; he wound up with a novel program that, while not perfect and not transferable to other states, stands out as a real accomplishment. Romney calls himself an executive and a manager; with health care, he executed and managed in real time." (Marc Ambinder, "The Republican Debate: First Take," The Atlantic Blog, http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/, Posted 10/21/07)

Wandrider, you can read what everyone said in that debate you referenced, including the actual questions asked and the answers, in context (which makes a huge difference to me), here. (http://www.generousorthodoxy.net/thinktank/2007/05/republican_cand.html)

Peg, that ^ is the ugliest critter I've seen in a good long while.

You know, if I had ever liked Ron Paul, you would have just talked me out of it. :lol: Quite a diverse nation, aren't we?
I have a question about this philosophy: What would replace all those valuable things all our taxes pay for? Does he have a better solution, or is it a matter of hiring someone on your own to put out the fire when the fire department isn't getting paid by the public? What would happen to our national parks, and who would fill in the potholes?

Regarding Giuliani as mayor: I actually spent several days in New York City with my singing group last summer, and I must say I absolutely loved it. I can honestly say I felt safe. I didn't wander around by myself, but I wouldn't do that in downtown Salt Lake City, either. However, I can say similar things about Mitt Romney; I was here when he saved the 2002 Olympics and I've been watching him ever since.

Regarding Guantanamo: I don't think we have the whole story. We've seen from MonsterMom and OldLupin's posts that there are more than one side to every story.

Ok, first Ron Paul: he opposed getting rid of law enforcements, military men and fire fighters, but why shouldn't PRIVATE hospitals not provide emergency ambulances?
as for natinal parks and potholes, it can all be privatized. bought off by some millionares who like to show off and the parks could still look beautiful! and every private owner will fix his own pot holes in is area.
look, the guy who built the brooklyn bridge was a private invester. roads can be built by private people. government is unneccesary. I think pure capitalism is not what we have now. we have a very mixed economy, and each state has completely different laws. so Ronb Paul would still not have the power to turn the entire country into lazei fare but he could at least abolish federal tax...
Mitt Romney saved the 2002 Olimpics? tell me about it.
you were here this past summer? you should have told me! maybe I'd have come see your singing group. :) don't be afraid to walk alone lol. I figure that if I show streangth people won't attak, they'll get scared of my eyes lol. no, I'm not a thug, but growing up in Brooklyn under the mayorality of Coch and Dinkins, I had to learn to defend myself by looking scary.

As a Libertarian, I find Ron Paul intriguing. He is obviously more in line with Libertarian political stances than Republican main line stances. The privatization of the country and the reduction of government being the most Libertarian stance of all he obviously has at least strong leanings that direction. I think the reception he gets from some is based on an idea that these changes would be expected to somehow occur quickly and without transition. It also sounds scary to reduce the safety nets we have become accustomed to. The theory that people are better equipped to make decisions for themselves than government is doesn’t have as much traction now as it did when the theory first appeared at the founding of this nation. In a population conditioned to freely give up to half of their income to the government to receive services that would be cheaper and better provided privately, it is a hard sell. The fact that in every case where government and private sector are competitors, the private sector is far superior doesn’t get much play, but I would invite people to compare healthcare, education, development, and conservation based on private efforts versus public efforts. Is there a case where the government provides the services better or cheaper? I can’t seem to find one. Letting a free market run its course fixes a lot of the artificial problems that interference in that system creates.

Ok, first Ron Paul: he opposed getting rid of law enforcements, military men and fire fighters, but why shouldn't PRIVATE hospitals not provide emergency ambulances?
as for natinal parks and potholes, it can all be privatized. bought off by some millionares who like to show off and the parks could still look beautiful! and every private owner will fix his own pot holes in is area.
look, the guy who built the brooklyn bridge was a private invester. roads can be built by private people. government is unneccesary. I think pure capitalism is not what we have now. we have a very mixed economy, and each state has completely different laws. so Ronb Paul would still not have the power to turn the entire country into lazei fare but he could at least abolish federal tax...

Libertarians...:td:

An ideal without an ideology. it's fractured politics, and as a result will go nowhere... it will reside in the white tower halls of a few elite, and live on only as a buzzword of economic conservatives.
In effect, it is the Scientology of political ideologies, minus the celebrities. (Harry Browne even went as far as saying we shouldn't have been involved with World War II.)

I could list the ways just how bad the ideas you posted above are, but this thread isn't about Libertarianism. And none of the candidates--Republican, Democrat, or Ron Paul--that I recall, are capable of actually uttering what you posted above.:relax:

Libertarians...:td:

An ideal without an ideology. it's fractured politics, and as a result will go nowhere... it will reside in the white tower halls of a few elite, and live on only as a buzzword of economic conservatives.
In effect, it is the Scientology of political ideologies, minus the celebrities. (Harry Browne even went as far as saying we shouldn't have been involved with World War II.)

As I am not an elitist, nor am I a cultist, I will assume you were referring to all other Libertarians and not me. It isn't fractured politics, it is simpler politics that places the onus on the individual and avoids giving sweeping powers to the governing class. It is in short the true opposite philosophy of socialism. It benefits everyone by giving him or her equal opportunity and doesn’t penalize success. It doesn’t assume that the populace is made up of incapable people that are lost without government guidance and direction. While the government provides a limited amount of common services, it doesn’t have the ability to create dependency in the people it serves and doesn’t have the authority to potentially oppress the people it serves. In short it is the closest existing philosophy to the one on which this nation was based. Almost all governing will be done at a local level, reliance on government will be minimal, and self-sufficiency will be every citizen’s responsibility. Abundance breeds charity and opportunity breeds ingenuity. The concept is so insane that it lead to the founding of our current system.

I think Midnight has it right, Lupe. Libertarianism encompasses some pretty strange ideas and it is too much akin to the Republican platform to truly be viable as a third-party alternative. Quite a few people have tried to interest me in becoming a Libertarian because I am a fiscal conservative, up to a point, but the Libertarian social policy would be as much of a disaster for America as the Republicans have been.

Mitt Romney saved the 2002 Olimpics? tell me about it.

From this website: (http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Olympics)
2002 Winter Olympics

Olympic Overhaul

Mitt Romney first gained national recognition for his role in turning around the 2002 Winter Olympics. With the 2002 Games mired in controversy and facing a financial crisis, Romney left behind a successful career as an entrepreneur to take over as President and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee.

Romney has said he felt compelled to assume the seemingly impossible task of rescuing the Games by both the urgings of his wife, Ann, and by the memory of his father, George Romney, who had been a successful businessman, three-term Governor of Michigan, and a tireless advocate of volunteerism in America.

In his three years at the helm in Salt Lake, Romney erased a $379 million operating deficit, organized 23,000 volunteers, galvanized community spirit and oversaw an unprecedented security mobilization just months after the September 11th attacks, leading to one of the most successful Olympics in our country's history.

* Mitt Romney Rescued the 2002 Winter Olympics by turning a $379 million deficit into a $100 million profit as emergency C.E.O.
* Supervised a multi-national security effort that allowed the 2002 Olympics to proceed without incident only a year after September 11th.

There was more to it than that, but this gives you the basics.

Ron Paul: If the potholes happen in poor areas and there isn't a government entity or a business who's interested, the roads don't get fixed.

Incidentally, I'm a petite, thirty-year-old woman who still looks little older than a teenager. I couldn't look scary if I tried. :lol: To be honest, though, I think I felt safer on Broadway after dark than in some parts of downtown Salt Lake City.

Ron Paul: If the potholes happen in poor areas and there isn't a government entity or a business who's interested, the roads don't get fixed.

Yep. And if the poor people need a road throug the rich people's neighborhood to cut their commutes the road isn't going to be built but if the rich people need a road through the poor neighborhood to cut their commute, well you get the picture. The rich people get police because they can afford to pay them, the poor people get anarchy.

The same goes with, schools, libraries, and a thousand other things that are already fighting to get more attention.

Ron Paul: If the potholes happen in poor areas and there isn't a government entity or a business who's interested, the roads don't get fixed.

Is there a neighborhood that doesn't have property owners that have a vested interest in having the roads serviceable? As it stands right now, it is the rural residents that have to have potholes filled at their own expense anyway because the state won't spend the resources on roads with too few people living on it. So if some of us have to pay for it any way, why should we have to pay for that "service" twice? The idea that government runs anything well or efficiently would have to be shown somewhere before I could acquiesce to the idea that having less government and more personal responsibility is a bad thing. I would appreciate some actual reasons for why Paul’s libertarian ideas are bad ideas, as opposed to just hearing that it is elitist or like a cult or other such commentary.

Wow, I'm glad to not be the only member who has no use for Libertarians. :lol:

Yep. And if the poor people need a road throug the rich people's neighborhood to cut their commutes the road isn't going to be built but if the rich people need a road through the poor neighborhood to cut their commute, well you get the picture. The rich people get police because they can afford to pay them, the poor people get anarchy.

Not true. Police, fire and courts would still be government functions. The idea is to privatize ownership and limit government influence. Forcing government to a lower more manageable level and allowing people to purchase only the services they need would allow personal choices and would keep private services competitive and would go a lot further toward improving quality than throwing massive money at massive bureaucracy. The horror stories about poor people being less provided for would be incentive for people to do more for their own benefit and would definitely drive personal responsibility. The idea that charity and people helping one another wouldn’t both exist and be expanded with a lack of government involvement is underestimating Americans.

Wow, I'm glad to not be the only member who has no use for Libertarians. :lol:

Hey, a little courtesy, please. I realize you may have no use for me, but that isn't actually something you need to post. Especially on the same page in which I said that I am a Libertarian.

I never thought I would say this, but given a choice, I would greatly prefer nationalized healthcare to nationalized nothing.
Is taking away Medicaid, Medicare, and CHIP going to make health care more accessible, or make prices go down? No. Technology costs money, and someone has to pay for it. Lawsuits don't go down just because no one can afford health care. It just doesn't make sense. (To me, anyway.)
*Deep breath* If all the tax money went to fill potholes, then it wouldn't make sense to have to "pay for it twice." If all the tax money went for public schools, it wouldn't make sense for people who don't use them. If all the tax money went to Medicare, then only those on it and charitably minded people would like to pay it. But it all goes into a pool, and we all benefit from that pool.
I once heard a man say that he doesn't know what other people's taxes pay for, but his pay for national parks and NASA. I got a chuckle out of that. It's too bad we don't all have that kind of a mindset.


Hey, a little courtesy, please. I realize you may have no use for me, but that isn't actually something you need to post. Especially on the same page in which I said that I am a Libertarian.
Libertarian tax idealogy, not you personally, I'm sure. :)

Libertarian tax ideology, not you. :)

She said it for me, too.

It's not about you, dear man, but the ideology we're objecting to. Besides, you know how much moi loves you.

I never thought I would say this, but given a choice, I would greatly prefer nationalized healthcare to nationalized nothing.
Is taking away Medicaid, Medicare, and CHIP going to make health care more accessible, or make prices go down? No. Technology costs money, and someone has to pay for it. Lawsuits don't go down just because no one can afford health care. It just doesn't make sense. (To me, anyway.)
*Deep breath* If all the tax money went to fill potholes, then it wouldn't make sense to have to "pay for it twice." If all the tax money went for public schools, it wouldn't make sense for people who don't use them. If all the tax money went to Medicare, then only those on it and charitably minded people would like to pay it. But it all goes into a pool, and we all benefit from that pool.
I once heard a man say that he doesn't know what other people's taxes pay for, but his pay for national parks and NASA. I got a chuckle out of that. It's too bad we don't all have that kind of a mindset.


If I paid for the school, I'd not only know the money went to education, but I would have a lot more input in that school and a lot more opportunity to shop for a school instead of having the state tell me where my kids go regardless of my purchasing the service. I don't see one example of the government running any service better than private business does or could. The government subsidy of healthcare has more to do with rising healthcare costs than litigation. The idea that eliminating that cash cow wouldn't reduce costs is missing the massive impact government payouts have. Deluding myself as to what my taxes pay for doesn't change the fact that I am being overcharged for the services I receive and that I'm not even getting quality services at that. Again, I just need evidence of one government service that is well run and efficient as a counter-argument to privatizing. I don’t understand the philosophy that I’d rather have the government take 30+% of my income, tell me when and how they are going to provide what that 30% pays for and then allowing them to do a sub par job when they finally get around to doing it. What in that makes hiring a professional that is motivated to do a prompt professional job for the same service not a good idea?

Again, I just need evidence of one government service that is well run and efficient as a counter-argument to privatizing.

Social Security. Medicare before Medicare D. Section 8.

She said it for me, too.

It's not about you, dear man, but the ideology we're objecting to. Besides, you know how much moi loves you.

O.K., I feel better now! :tu:
While I'm obviously not a hard line libertarian, I am definitely not dismissive of the philosophical premise and I do have a great deal of sympathy for eliminating government as much as possible and using capitalism and competition to raise the standard and quality of services that the government provides badly and sporadically. Government is supposed to serve the people, not the other way around. The only way to ensure that is to keep government as small and unobtrusive as possible. The downside of reliance on government is obvious in the level of service it actually provides.

If I paid for the school, I'd not only know the money went to education, but I would have a lot more input in that school and a lot more opportunity to shop for a school instead of having the state tell me where my kids go regardless of my purchasing the service.
Actually, that's what school choice is all about. That's why charter schools were born, and that's why our state is voting on private school vouchers in a couple weeks. Stepping up to the plate and doing something about it where you see a problem, I'm all for. Trying to rehaul the entire system without a solid alternative beyond a dream...not so much.

You might take a look at the health care portions of Romney and Giuliani's websites that I posted yesterday.

Has anyone mentioned any of the candidates lately? :p

Ok Lupe, you asked for specifics about my concerns over Ron Paul so here goes......

Paul says he supports school choice through vouchers. If he does, then why did he vote against allowing vouchers in the District of Columbia where the public schools are a travesty and choice might actually enable lower income families to provide an acceptable education for their children?

Paul says he values families and wants to protect children yet he voted against expanding the AMBER alert system nationwide in 2003? Why?

Paul says non-intervention is traditional American & Republican policy, yet he voted against deterring foreign arms transfers to China, voted to retain the travel ban on Cuba, and supports a ban on foreign aid to oil-producers who restrict production. How is simplifying or easing the sale of arms to China in the best interests of the US? If private interests are the answer, then why support a ban on travel to Cuba - why not allow travel so that the capitalists can rise up to provide goods and services to the tourists? If US intervention is the cause of so many problems we face today then why restrict trade with oil-producing countries when they are simply exercising their right to control the supply of oil?

Paul says he supports unlimited campaign contributions provided there is full disclosure of contribution yet he voted against requiring laobbyists to disclose bundled donations. Why shouldn't bundled contributions be disclosed?


Honestly, I do support many of his ideas and agree with libertarian's in theory on many issues, I'm just not sure whether the theory would meet the practice.

Social Security. Medicare before Medicare D. Section 8.

Social Security? An unfunded, overly expanded and doomed to bankruptcy program that rarely repays to people what they paid in, let alone at any return on investment? Not a good example. Poorly run and has serious problems with funding while continuing to take money from people's incomes that won't likely ever be repaid possibly at all. Medicare? Spend an inordinate amount of money for basic services, is notorious for denying qualified applicants and payment for covered services. Fraud, waist and abuse at an unacceptably high rate also victimize it. Just the amount that is lost in Medicare being ripped off would pay for private insurance for millions of people. There is no way that either of those is well run or efficient. Not to mention that they are both restrictive services that is paid for in advance by people who may not even be able to use them. This omits that a part of the money that is supposed to be allocated to these "services" is pilfered regularly for unrelated spending. If a private sector business ran their operation that way they would be broke inside of a year and would be in court for another ten. Not to mention that they would answer to the people paying for the service instead of placing restrictions on them.

Ok Lupe, you asked for specifics about my concerns over Ron Paul so here goes......

Paul says he supports school choice through vouchers. If he does, then why did he vote against allowing vouchers in the District of Columbia where the public schools are a travesty and choice might actually enable lower income families to provide an acceptable education for their children?

Paul says he values families and wants to protect children yet he voted against expanding the AMBER alert system nationwide in 2003? Why?

Paul says non-intervention is traditional American & Republican policy, yet he voted against deterring foreign arms transfers to China, voted to retain the travel ban on Cuba, and supports a ban on foreign aid to oil-producers who restrict production. How is simplifying or easing the sale of arms to China in the best interests of the US? If private interests are the answer, then why support a ban on travel to Cuba - why not allow travel so that the capitalists can rise up to provide goods and services to the tourists? If US intervention is the cause of so many problems we face today then why restrict trade with oil-producing countries when they are simply exercising their right to control the supply of oil?

Paul says he supports unlimited campaign contributions provided there is full disclosure of contribution yet he voted against requiring laobbyists to disclose bundled donations. Why shouldn't bundled contributions be disclosed?


Honestly, I do support many of his ideas and agree with libertarian's in theory on many issues, I'm just not sure whether the theory would meet the practice.

O.K., I should point out that I was sidetracked by the amount of bashing going on toward Libertarian ideology. (Sorry Alastor). Obviously Paul is not a Libertarian and his voting record doesn't even support his espoused views, but the philosophy behind those views is valid. He is the only candidate on either side that is advocating smaller government in anything but claim. As there is no candidate of consequence in my party, I am forced to try and find the closest ideological candidate. The knee-jerk reaction of people when the concept of reducing government authority and power is what keeps Libertarian ideas from being given any chance to be heard, apparently it is seen as an all or nothing agenda without concession or transition. Of course that isn’t the case for any political ideology or party, just the perception that seems to be accepted. If Paul is at least willing to espouse some of those concepts, it at a minimum puts those ideas in play for discussion.
As for theory and practice, no one is saying that we wake up Thursday and there is a new system of government, just that moves like vouchers and privatizing of schools could be a goal that can be worked toward as would privatizing of other currently government controlled services. Allowing people to keep more money for retirement instead of mandating that they contribute to a system unlikely to ever pay them back in addition to privately funding a retirement on what is left is another worthwhile goal. If Paul is willing to actually vote and lead in that direction, which his record doesn’t support unfortunately, then I would be behind him in that pursuit as would a lot more people if that ideology were allowed to be expressed adequately.

Obviously Paul is not a Libertarian and his voting record doesn't even support his espoused views, but the philosophy behind those views is valid. He is the only candidate on either side that is advocating smaller government in anything but claim. As there is no candidate of consequence in my party, I am forced to try and find the closest ideological candidate. The knee-jerk reaction of people when the concept of reducing government authority and power is what keeps Libertarian ideas from being given any chance to be heard, apparently it is seen as an all or nothing agenda without concession or transition. Of course that isn’t the case for any political ideology or party, just the perception that seems to be accepted. If Paul is at least willing to espouse some of those concepts, it at a minimum puts those ideas in play for discussion.

I actually agree with what Reagan said - that government was the problem, no the solution. There are very few government run programs which are both efficient and effective (although if you want to look at one which is both efficient and effective you should check out OPIC - Overseas Private Investment Corporation).

My concern is the libertarian's tend to try to bite off too much - they propose privatizing everything without offering substantive proof that their theories are actually effective. I think many would be more accepting of libertarian ideal if they proposed small, incremental changes which would have a big impact in a short amount of time instead of all or nothing.

Social Security? An unfunded, overly expanded and doomed to bankruptcy program that rarely repays to people what they paid in, let alone at any return on investment? Not a good example. Poorly run and has serious problems with funding while continuing to take money from people's incomes that won't likely ever be repaid possibly at all.

It delivers when it's needed. My husband gets a check every month. One of these days soon, I'll get one too. At my age I know loads of people on Social Security, and for some of them it's the difference between surviving and not. Why else would the public be so against Bush's plan for privatization?

Everything that's wrong with Social Security was caused by politicians who just couldn't keep their hands off a large pot of money, not the federal government agency charged with responsibility for administering the program.

I don't care for privatization. I have only to look at Iraq and at New Orleans to see what a bad idea it is.

In defense of some government programs I've seen at work, and working:
1. CHIP. If I had a choice, I confess I would go with CHIP over my husband's work benefit, even if the premium was the same. I think all children should have access to the healthcare and meds they need regardless of the cost.
Why? My oldest child needed tubes put in her ears. No big deal. $20 and the job was done.
Several years later, she needed them again. She had 1/3 of her hearing. It was urgent. I had to wait six months for insurance to cover it, while premiums continued to leave our family paycheck, then I had to pay a large deductible, then 20% of what was left. The ear drops weren't on the list of approved formularies, so that cost was ridiculous, too.
2. Title I schools and low-income housing. I haven't seen them at work elsewhere, so I can only speak for Utah. In Utah these two things change so much in the lives of the lower-income workforce.
3. Not directly related, perhaps, but the ROTH IRA.

And, lest I stray too much from the topic at hand: I really have trouble taking Ron Paul seriously. I'm sorry. He's not the only one, and I realize there are a lot of people who have trouble taking Mitt Romney seriously. Giuliani looks good now that I spent some time browsing him yesterday, too.
I want someone who can get the job done and has already proven it. Brilliant ideas and dreams are great, but they have to be down-to-earth enough to be put into real, solid practice for the entire country. When there are candidates who have already done this on a smaller scale, my head goes up...and stays there.

Giuliani looks good now that I spent some time browsing him yesterday, too.

You're ok with the idea of supporting candidates that support waterboarding? Our military leaders & field manual knows this to be torture! Our commander in chief can't foolishly mock his military redefining torture! This is insane, imo.

Btw, thank you Pegasus :) for that link:

MR. GIULIANI: In the hypothetical that you gave me, which assumes that we know there's going to be another attack and these people know about it, I would tell the people who had to do the interrogation to use every method they could think of. It shouldn't be torture, but every method they can think of --

MR. HUME: Water-boarding?

MR. GIULIANI: -- and I would -- and I would -- well, I'd say every method they could think of, and I would support them in doing that because I've seen what -- (interrupted by applause) -- I've seen what can happen when you make a mistake about this, and I don't want to see another 3,000 people dead in New York or any place else.

http://www.generousorthodoxy.net/thinktank/2007/05/republican_cand.html

I truly admire McCain for shaming everyone and taking a stance:

SEN. MCCAIN: Yes, and the interesting thing about that aspect is that during the debate, when we had the detainee treatment act, there was a sharp division between those who had served in the military and those who hadn't. Virtually every senior officer, retired or active- duty, starting with Colin Powell, General Vessey and everyone else, agreed with my position that we should not torture people.

One of the reasons is, is because if we do it, what happens to our military people when they're captured? And also, they realize there's more to war than the battlefield.

So yes, literally every retired military person and active duty military person who has actually been in battle and served for extended times in the military -- (bell rings) -- supported my position, and I'm glad of it.


Ron Paul supporters have organized a group of C-SPAN fanatics that call in incessantly. It's become quite a nuisance, imo.


Luna blessings... :tu:

You're ok with the idea of supporting candidates that support waterboarding? Our military leaders & field manual knows this to be torture! Our commander in chief can't foolishly mock his military redefining torture! This is insane, imo.

I'm OK with just about anything if it fits the hypothetical Hume set out for Giuliani. The scenario set forth by Hume was "Three shopping centers near major U.S. cities have been hit by suicide bombers. Hundreds are dead, thousands injured. A fourth attack has been averted when the attackers were captured off the Florida coast and taken to Guantanamo Bay, where they are being questioned. U.S. intelligence believes that another larger attack is planned and could come at any time."

Please note that in the scenario presented by Hume the people they captured off the coast of the US weren't soldiers - they were terrorists and terrorists don't have protected status.

The Geneva Conventions define a Prisoner of War as "a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine who is imprisoned by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict." It states that those entitled to POW status include: Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill the following conditions:
1. Being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
2. Having a fixed distinctive sign or uniform that's recognizable at a distance;
3. Carrying arms openly;
4. Conducting operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war;
5. Membership in an established and recognized armed forces.

The Geneva Conventions also state who is and who is not covered by by the conventions: "only nations who are a party to the Geneva Conventions are protected by the Geneva Conventions, and a nation that may not have been a signatory to the Geneva Conventions but which nonetheless agrees to abide by the Geneva Conventions during conflict with a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, is also protected."

I truly admire McCain for shaming everyone and taking a stance

So do I. I have always admired his position on torture and the treatment of those caught in Bush's universe of pain and invisibility. The lack of support from the other Republican candidates, congressmen and senators, and the White House is just one more very good excuse to send them all packing at the earliest opportunity.

So few of them have ever so much as worn the uniform, let alone fought in an actual war, but they're all trigger happy to plunge the nation into another war. I'm just not buying it.

ETA:

Mom, I think, by that definition, they are covered under Geneva. So does most of the free world, which is why our current position is killling us abroad.

ETA:

Mom, I think, by that definition, they are covered under Geneva. So does most of the free world, which is why our current position is killling us abroad.

How? Geneva says that to be covered they must meet the following:
(a) be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates. It is possible that one of the people in the boat was the leader so they pass on this one.

(b) have a fixed distinctive sign or uniform that's recognizable at a distance. The scenario didn't say that they were wearing uniforms or whether they had outfits with any sign which made their association with a signatory nation evident from a distance. Because the scenario doesn't spell out what they were wearning, they neither pass nor fail on this one.

(c) carrying arms openly. Again the scenario was silent as to whether they were carrying arms openly, but I'd et that as soon as US Coast Guard ships came into view the people on the boat either tried to flee or tried to shoot. I'll give them a pass on this one.

(d) Conducting operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Oops. They fail on this one big time because the laws and customs of war state "The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited". Since the scenario said they were planning an attack on a shopping mall and a shopping mall is an undefended dwelling they fail on this one.

(e) Membership in an established and recognized armed force. They neither pass nor fail on this one. The scenario didn't state whether they were members of the armed forces of a signatory nation so they neither pass nor fail on this one, however, that's not relevant because they failed on (d) as soon as they set out to blow up a shopping mall.

McCain feels they are covered, Mom. So does the U.N. and virtually all of our allies, excluding the Coalition.

ETA: These arguments over word meanings remind me of Dolores Umbridge and Dumbledore discussing all those Educational Decrees. There comes a point when a common sense determination needs to be made. As our president is incapable of relinquishing his "wartime president" right to torture people if he wants to, the American people will have to do it for him at the polls.

Rudy or Fred out of those. But my personal favorite is Mike Huckabee....whataman whataman whatamightygoodman.

Rudy or Fred out of those. But my personal favorite is Mike Huckabee....whataman whataman whatamightygoodman.

I LOVE Huckabee and really wish he were doing better. Maybe he'll be another comes from behind nominee.......

Rudy Guiliani is my vote, if i had one. He did an amazing job governing NY and I think he could repeat that success on a large scale.

Rudy Guiliani is my vote, if i had one. He did an amazing job governing NY and I think he could repeat that success on a large scale.

I do like Guiliani, and probably agree wiht him on more issues than I do with Huckabee. It's just that Guiliani has a lot of baggage that he'd bring with him to a general election which promises to be nasty. Huckabee is a pastor - he has very little baggage which might take a little wind out of the nastiness.

I do like Guiliani, and probably agree wiht him on more issues than I do with Huckabee. It's just that Guiliani has a lot of baggage that he'd bring with him to a general election which promises to be nasty. Huckabee is a pastor - he has very little baggage which might take a little wind out of the nastiness.

That's no guarantee of anything, though. Presidential politics can be nasty.

That's no guarantee of anything. Look at Richard Roberts and so many other evangelical pastors who've been caught doing stuff they shouldn't be doing.

Lets refrain from painting all members of a certain group with the same brush please. Individuals should be judged on their own merits please.

Lets refrain from painting all members of a certain group with the same brush please. Individuals should be judged on their own merits please.

Sorry. I edited it out.

That's no guarantee of anything, though. Presidential politics can be nasty.

This is what they will say abut Giulliani:
1) he devorced twice and I don't know how much the rest of the country remembers of it, but here in NY it was the biggest scandals of all, when he gave his second wife a legal seperation on TV (Man, this guy made some serious mistakes!) this might have been because his life was outa control then, with the prostate cancer and all.

2) his father was a criminal of some sort, but I'm not exactly sure I remember wheat sort (it was a long time ago in the news)

3) he's is overall just a really tough guy- it's great for a crime-filled city, but will it do in the whitehouse?

4)oh, and he got dressed as a woman once :lol:

BUT he's got my vote because of one reason:

his opponents are trying sooo hard to make him sound like a terrible guy. they even got some fire fighters to tell everyone that he was evil because he wouldn't let them search for victims. this is such lies, because months after it happened, no one even had any hope of finding. I remember. we all gave in DNA of our loved ones (from tooth brushes and stuff) and the first few weeks body parts were found to match the DNA, and as the days went by, less and less dna was found. it was hopeless. those who weren't found were probably creamated on the spot. try and get DNA from a cremated body. come on. and there were TONS of steel to dig through. the city had to go on. there was a subway under all that rubble. it had to be fixed.
so now they all say that the FDNY union oppose the evil Giuliani. WRONG. all unions oppose republicans. and my bro is in the FDNY and will vote Giuliani. so there.
it's like Umbrigde. no matter how heroic Harry is, she'll insist -and the daily prophet will insist- that he is evil.
THIS is why I am voting for RUDY!! I am sick of fake propaganda.

I don't know whether it's a case of him being a "terrible guy" or not, but his personal life is beyond messy. Good men don't announce a separation from their wives on the 6:00 news - and with the other woman at his side, no less. His record on minorities is also deplorable. He strikes me as altogether too self-centered and too much of a high flyer to be a good president.

You're ok with the idea of supporting candidates that support waterboarding? Our military leaders & field manual knows this to be torture! Our commander in chief can't foolishly mock his military redefining torture! This is insane, imo.

MR. GIULIANI: In the hypothetical that you gave me, which assumes that we know there's going to be another attack and these people know about it, I would tell the people who had to do the interrogation to use every method they could think of. It shouldn't be torture, but every method they can think of --

MR. HUME: Water-boarding?

MR. GIULIANI: -- and I would -- and I would -- well, I'd say every method they could think of, and I would support them in doing that because I've seen what -- (interrupted by applause) -- I've seen what can happen when you make a mistake about this, and I don't want to see another 3,000 people dead in New York or any place else.

http://www.generousorthodoxy.net/thinktank/2007/05/republican_cand.html



see how important it is to do research before posting something? here is a video of Rudy Giuliani saying that he disagrees with torture, he says it is not necessary.

"if it is done the way it's described in the media, then it shouldn't be done. of course it shouldn't be done, but I'd have to see for myself, because I've learned something living a public life, as long as I have, I learned that, I hate to shock everyone, but the newspapers don't always describe it accurately."

he says that when he was prosecutor fighting against crime no one came into his office and said "ok, mr giuliani, I was hired by this mob boss to kill mr a on sunday and that mob boss to kill mr b on tuesday."

it doesn't happen. so you need agressive questioning. but it wa snever neccesary to torture.

and he went on to say that it depends what they consider to be torture. some people say sleep deprivation is torture, and that's just silly, because if it is so, anyone running for president is being tortured.

here is a link:
ah, never mind. this link dosn't work. the way to find it is: ny times- video - rudy giuliani on torture

A quick reminder of one of our forum rules:

2a. The goal of CoS Forums is to make sure everyone has a good time and can make friends. Obviously not everyone will agree with one another and we ask that you respect the opinions of others. Making sarcastic, or rude remarks directed at another member, or attacking others for holding views different to your own will not be tolerated. If you see this taking place, please report it to an Unspeakable.

The Guiliani quote in question is well-known. There has been a lot of debate about entrapment in the line of questioning, but it is not out of line to note that Guiliani and other candidates appeared to support torture as a means of interrogation during that debate. I think several of the candidates have been trying to distance themselves from those quotes in the time since - and I would expect that the video of Guiliani saying it is not OK to torture would be part of this.

see how important it is to do research before posting something? here is a video of Rudy Giuliani saying that he disagrees with torture, he says it is not necessary.

Disagreeing with torture and agreeing with methods that one considers to be used during interrogation is saying two different things. (Where does he exactly state he disagrees with waterboarding?)

John McCain Swipes at Rudy Giuliani, Says Waterboarding 'Is Torture' (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,305356,00.html)

Audience Applauds As Giuliani, Tancredo Endorse Waterboarding Torture (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/15/debate-torture/)

Isn't waterboarding specifically forbidden by Geneva? I realize, of course, that the Republican leadership keeps its own counsel about what practices and techniques are actually considered torture - thus enabling the denials - but I'm pretty sure waterboarding was deemed outside the pale years and years ago.

From above link:

During the debate last year over loosening the definition of torture, Gen. Colin Powell declared, “The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 [of the Geneva Conventions]…would put our own troops at risk.”

I would like to hear from someone, a Republican member perhaps, who does support the use of torture and can explain why they believe it's okay. This is something that's just beyond my comprehension. I look at the candidates and read or listen to what they've said and get goosebumps... the creepy kind.

Disagreeing with torture and agreeing with methods that one considers to be used during interrogation is saying two different things. (Where does he exactly state he disagrees with waterboarding?)

John McCain Swipes at Rudy Giuliani, Says Waterboarding 'Is Torture' (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,305356,00.html)

Audience Applauds As Giuliani, Tancredo Endorse Waterboarding Torture (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/15/debate-torture/)

From an NYT article on the same subject:
With the exception of Mr. McCain, who believes that torture is ineffective because its victims will say anything to make it stop, several leading Republican presidential candidates have suggested that they would use aggressive or coercive interrogation techniques — they say they would stop short of torture — to prevent a terrorist attack.

For anyone who does think torture - including waterboarding - can be justified and/or useful - don't you think McCain, of all people, has a better idea of how effective it is, having been through it?

I don't think the media gives us an accurate a ccount of torture. see, sleep depravation is, in their opinion, torture :rolleyes:

It's torture in my mind. Keeping people awake with blaring rock music in refrigerated rooms, where it's too cold to be safe, fits the definition of torture in my book.

Let's bring this back to the candidates :)

I don't think the media gives us an accurate a ccount of torture. see, sleep depravation is, in their opinion, torture :rolleyes:
The discussion wasn't of sleep deprivation, it was of waterboarding. Which Giuliani supports. Which is undisputably torture.

Proposal for the next Republican debate: A terrorist is brought on stage. Whoever makes him talk first, wins.

Let's keep this on what the candidates have said about the matter, and leave definitions and proposals out.

I think it's safe to say that we have different priorities. I would love to see a candidate who wants to end this war safely, not abruptly to the point of causing more damage, who also has a firm stand against things like partial-birth abortion. I see the good and bad in both parties. I don't think you can fairly say that either party lacks compassion; it just depends on which side of the story and in which instance you're looking at.
I've done a great deal of thinking about presidential candidates this weekend. I've been asked how I can support someone who supports waterboarding. I can't tell that any of the candidates actually do; all we have is a debate worded a certain way and a bunch of candidates publicly put on the spot. They all stammered over their answers a bit. But I can't support anyone who supports abortion or several other things, and in looking at how candidates have voted on these matters in the past, I know exactly where they stand.

Everyone is going to have some kind of black spot in their background; a time when they changed their mind, when they showed human weakness or indiscretion, a secret that's bound to come out in a national election. The more I learn about any of them the more I wonder, because none of them are perfect. To tell you the truth, I'm not sure what I think right now. I'm glad we've got plenty of time.

ETA: Item of interest. (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/10/romney_leads_in.html) A University of Iowa poll shows Romney ahead on the Republican side with 36% and Huckabee and Giuliani tied at 13%. Clinton leads on the Democratic side with 29%. Obama is closely behind with 27%.

Since I posted parts of Romney and Giuliani's health care platforms, here (http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=8) is Huckabee's. My favorite parts of his proposal are making health plans more portable from one job to another and making health savings accounts available to everyone, not just those with high deductibles. There is also something in there about quality of insurance not being job-related.

Unfortunately strong feelings on any matter does not give us the right to express those feelings in a disrespectful way here. Whatever you think about today's society, the Department of International Magical Cooperation: Revised Rules (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=23691) apply.

Guidelines for Posting:
----
Content Not Acceptable in This Forum
Attacking statements directed at a specific member or group in society. This includes derogatory comments based on actual or perceived age, race, gender, nationality, place of residence, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, or other opinions of the poster / group.
Rude or offensive comments directed at a person's beliefs. Comments putting down another's religion, political party, or other beliefs will not be tolerated. Please stay respectful of the views of others, even when you strongly disagree with them. This especially applies to rude or hateful remarks concerning another's religious beliefs. Comments of this sort will not be tolerated.
Direct disrespect towards any public figure. This includes rude names or sarcastic comments regarding any figure such as a president, congressmen, or religious leader. While we understand that you may strongly dislike these people, we ask that you disagree in a civil manner representative of the values of Chamber of Secrets Forums. In addition, any hateful comments regarding God or a historically important figure associated with any religion (such as Mohammad) will not be tolerated.
Losing your temper or making comments with strong, negative emotions. You must remain respectful at all times and keep your head. All discussions are to remain calm. This is a place for intellectual conversation, not random shouting or putting down of others and their views.
-----

I have deleted one post that was not in accordance with the quote above.

I saw that post as an email notification. I'm sorry it had to be deleted. As a nation, we should be calling candidates on their support of torture and extraordinary rendition. We should be demanding that they support the closing of Guantanamo and the repeal of the Military Detentions Act of 2006.

If this is the image of democracy the rest of the world is getting, why should they want to bother with it?

I could never vote for a candidate who won't take a stand to end the use of torture and extraordinary rendition, and who won't promise to close the gulag at Gitmo.

I don't know why the republican candidates are working so hard. according to the polls Hilary Clinton already won. so why bother with so much debate and everything. I am a republican, and I emphthize with us wanting a Republican for prez. but facts are facts, and if Hillary Clinton will end up president, well, God Bless America. Hope she does a good job. :rockon:

I also don't know why Giuliani is working so hard. he will never make the primaries. Republicans hate devorcees, and guys who wear a dress etc, etc. :relax: Now, if he ran as a Liberal...

Since I posted parts of Romney and Giuliani's health care platforms, here (http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=8) is Huckabee's. My favorite parts of his proposal are making health plans more portable from one job to another and making health savings accounts available to everyone, not just those with high deductibles. There is also something in there about quality of insurance not being job-related.


Thanks for posting those links! I do like what he had to offer on health care reform. Since he has health issues himself and recently lost a heck of a lot of weight, I tend to think he has a better understanding of the issues than people who are blessed with good health.

What's his position on some of the other things we've been discussing? Like rendition and torture and Gitmo?

Like the majority of posters currently in this thread, I'm most interested in the candidates' reforms for health care first.

I think all of us want to see health care reform. But would you vote for a man who would continue to authorize torture and indefinite detention without legal recourse, even if he did have a good healthcare plan?

What's his position on some of the other things we've been discussing? Like rendition and torture and Gitmo?

I'm not sure whether he has a specific position on rendition, torture, or GITMO, but this is what he said in the Republican Presidential debate where torture was discussed....

Slate: Rudy Giuliani suggested recently that water-boarding might not be torture. What’s your view?

Huckabee: I’m going to defer to Sen. McCain. Of all the people standing on the stage, he’s the only one who has experienced torture. I’m certainly not endorsing him for president, but it’s silly for some of us to talk like we know more about the effect of torture than John McCain does. He and every military leader are quick to say that the information that is obtained from true torture—and that’s an issue that has to be decided by the military experts—but once you cross into that line—the information is not very reliable, and two, whatever we do to them, we invite them to do to us.

Apparently Huckabee is one of few Presidential contenders who have actually visited GITMO. The AP reported that he said the following about Guantanomo Bay..

Detainees being held at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on suspicion of connections to terrorism enjoy conditions better than many prisons in the United States, Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee said Sunday.

While the government's handling of Guantanamo detainees has come to symbolize "what's gone wrong" in the fight against terrorism, the former Arkansas governor said, it's better to err on the side of protecting the American people.

The former Arkansas governor, who has visited Guantanamo, said Arkansas prisoners most likely would prefer Guantanamo to incarceration in Arkansas.

"I can tell you most of our prisoners would love to be in a facility more like Guantanamo and less like the state prisons that people are in in the United States," Huckabee said on a cable news network.

"It's (Guantanamo) more symbolic than it is a substantive issue because people perceive of mistreatment when in fact there are extraordinary means being taken to make sure these detainees are being given really every consideration," he said.

As for rendition, I haven't found anything, yet (other than a mention that he is in a band which performed a version or rendition of "Free Bird" at a campaign event:hmm:), but I'll keep looking. What I did find was kind of interesting but has no relevance on Huckabee.....

I wonder... his Gitmo-is-cushier-than-Arkansas-jails sounds a little too political. Kinda like McCain's walk through downtown Baghdad with a mini-army of military and private security people and two Blackhawk choppers watching from above. Not to mention a flak jacket.

I wonder... his Gitmo-is-cushier-than-Arkansas-jails sounds a little too political. Kinda like McCain's walk through downtown Baghdad with a mini-army of military and private security people and two Blackhawk choppers watching from above. Not to mention a flak jacket.

My first thought was gee, jail must really really really stink in Arkansas.

Columnist Paul Krugman points out a Giuliani whopper in Prostates and Prejudices (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/opinion/02krugman.html?ref=opinion).

"My chance of surviving prostate cancer — and thank God I was cured of it — in the United States? Eighty-two percent. My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England? Only 44 percent, under socialized medicine."

That, friends, is an outright lie taken from an unsourced article that appeared in the City Journal, a publication of the conservative Manhattan Institute.

Krugman asks, appropriately, why this isn't considered a character issue with Giuliani - and also with Romney, who is patently misrepresenting what his Democratic opponents are offering on healthcare?

To be fair, there has been some news coverage of the prostate affair. But it’s only a tiny fraction of the coverage received by Hillary’s laugh and John Edwards’s haircut.

And much of the coverage seems weirdly diffident. Memo to editors: If a candidate says something completely false, it’s not “in dispute.” It’s not the case that “Democrats say” they’re not advocating British-style socialized medicine; they aren’t.

The fact is that the prostate affair is part of a pattern: Mr. Giuliani has a habit of saying things, on issues that range from health care to national security, that are demonstrably untrue. And the American people have a right to know that.

Anybody listening?

Columnist Paul Krugman points out a Giuliani whopper in Prostates and Prejudices (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/opinion/02krugman.html?ref=opinion).

"My chance of surviving prostate cancer — and thank God I was cured of it — in the United States? Eighty-two percent. My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England? Only 44 percent, under socialized medicine."

That, friends, is an outright lie taken from an unsourced article that appeared in the City Journal, a publication of the conservative Manhattan Institute.

Krugman asks, appropriately, why this isn't considered a character issue with Giuliani - and also with Romney, who is patently misrepresenting what his Democratic opponents are offering on healthcare?

To be fair, there has been some news coverage of the prostate affair. But it’s only a tiny fraction of the coverage received by Hillary’s laugh and John Edwards’s haircut.

And much of the coverage seems weirdly diffident. Memo to editors: If a candidate says something completely false, it’s not “in dispute.” It’s not the case that “Democrats say” they’re not advocating British-style socialized medicine; they aren’t.

The fact is that the prostate affair is part of a pattern: Mr. Giuliani has a habit of saying things, on issues that range from health care to national security, that are demonstrably untrue. And the American people have a right to know that.

Anybody listening?

Eugene Robimson had a similar article in the Washington Post today. One of his primary points was the Guiliani relied on the City Paper and its vetting by physician David Gratzer rather than his own vetting to verify the statistic the statstic Gratzer presented. Robinson accused Guiliani of cherry-picking his facts which is funny because that's what Robinson and other liberal reporters are accused of doing all the time.

As to the statistic, well it does have some merit and isn't completly without factual basis. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, men disgnosed with prostate cancer in the US have a five year survival rate of about 98% v/s about 74% in Britian. Men in the US are diagnosed at a much higher rate and earlier in the disease process due to increased screening and testing for prostate cancer in the US which many physicians believe accounts for the gap.

Eugene Robimson had a similar article in the Washington Post today. One of his primary points was the Guiliani relied on the City Paper and its vetting by physician David Gratzer rather than his own vetting to verify the statistic the statstic Gratzer presented. Robinson accused Guiliani of cherry-picking his facts which is funny because that's what Robinson and other liberal reporters are accused of doing all the time.

I was reading Robinson's column when this post hit my email account. I don't find anything liberally-biased in what he wrote. There is no liberal bias when it comes to telling the truth.

As to the statistic, well it does have some merit and isn't completly without factual basis. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, men disgnosed with prostate cancer in the US have a five year survival rate of about 98% v/s about 74% in Britian. Men in the US are diagnosed at a much higher rate and earlier in the disease process due to increased screening and testing for prostate cancer in the US which many physicians believe accounts for the gap.

The lie is in the comparison of what the Democratic candidates are proposing to Britain's socialized system of healthcare. British doctors are government employees. No one here has suggested that American doctors should be. What Giuliani said was, in fact, a straw man argument based on inaccurate statistics. In other words, a lie.

ETA:

You might find WaPo's Fact-Checker (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/10/rudy_miscalculates_cancer_surv.html) a handy resource. They took aim at Giuliani's claim as well.

Experts from the National Cancer Institute and the Departments of Urology at Johns Hopkins University and the University of Kansas agreed that Giuliani's figures were way out of date, if they were ever accurate at all. The latest official figures for five-year "survivability" rates for men diagnosed with prostate cancer are around 98 per cent in the United States and 74 per cent in England.

More importantly, the survivability figures tell us little about the differences in the quality of treatment received by prostate cancer patients in the United States and Britain. Doctors in the two countries have different philosophies about how to treat prostate cancer, and these differences have greatly influenced the "survivability" statistics.

I was reading Robinson's column when this post hit my email account. I don't find anything liberally-biased in what he wrote. There is no liberal bias when it comes to telling the truth.

I didn't say that his article had a liberal bias (though I did wonder what relevance expousing about Iraq for several paragraps served other than pandering). What I said was it was interestign that he accused Guiliani of cherry-picking his facts to support his own personal viewpoint when liberal journalists like him are accused of doing just that all the time.

The lie is in the comparison of what the Democratic candidates are proposing to Britain's socialized system of healthcare. British doctors are government employees. No one here has suggested that American doctors should be. What Giuliani said was, in fact, a straw man argument based on inaccurate statistics. In other words, a lie.

His statistics weren't inaccurate. There is a sizable gap in the survival rates between men diagnosed with prostate cancer in the US v/s Britian. That gap is largely attributed to the fact that the disease is typically diagnosed earlier in the US when it is less likely to have spread and is easier to treat, as I noted in my post.

Experts from the National Cancer Institute and the Departments of Urology at Johns Hopkins University and the University of Kansas agreed that Giuliani's figures were way out of date, if they were ever accurate at all. The latest official figures for five-year "survivability" rates for men diagnosed with prostate cancer are around 98 per cent in the United States and 74 per cent in England.

Wow! Those are the exact same statistics I provided in my previous post which I got directly from Robinson's editorial.

The Post's factchecker is one of many sources I use. I try to find information from both liberal and conservative sources, instead of restricting my search solely to liberal sources.

I didn't say that his article had a liberal bias (though I did wonder what relevance expousing about Iraq for several paragraps served other than pandering). What I said was it was interestign that he accused Guiliani of cherry-picking his facts to support his own personal viewpoint when liberal journalists like him are accused of doing just that all the time.

Some of them do... just as conservative columnists do.

His statistics weren't inaccurate. There is a sizable gap in the survival rates between men diagnosed with prostate cancer in the US v/s Britian. That gap is largely attributed to the fact that the disease is typically diagnosed earlier in the US when it is less likely to have spread and is easier to treat, as I noted in my post.

Yes, they were inaccurate. There is a huge difference between a 74% and a 42% survival rate. And there is the fact that nobody is proposing a socialized healthcare program for the United States. That's just spin.

Wow! Those are the exact same statistics I provided in my previous post which I got directly from Robinson's editorial.

Wouldn't it be nice if Giuliani had bothered to check as well?

The Post's factchecker is one of many sources I use. I try to find information from both liberal and conservative sources, instead of restricting my search solely to liberal sources.

You know what, though? The conservative sources are so in lockstep with one another and so distressingly predictable that I have all but given up on them. They all read and sound like they're using the exact same script with every buzzword and clarion call in its proper place.

You know what, though? The conservative sources are so in lockstep with one another and so distressingly predictable that I have all but given up on them. They all read and sound like they're using the exact same script with every buzzword and clarion call in its proper place.
I could say the exact same thing about liberal sources. However, the fact is that this is the Republican candidates thread, not the media bias thread.

You're right, of course, Peg. We were talking about Rudy's Big Lie and got a bit off-topic with how it is being reported.

Unfortunately strong feelings on any matter does not give us the right to express those feelings in a disrespectful way here.

My post was never intended to be disrespectful of anyone personally. I just used Pegasus quote to add my ideas to, and this is what I quoted . . .

I've done a great deal of thinking about presidential candidates this weekend. I've been asked how I can support someone who supports waterboarding. I can't tell that any of the candidates actually do; all we have is a debate worded a certain way and a bunch of candidates publicly put on the spot. They all stammered over their answers a bit.

I think it's fine to express strong feelings against torture, example waterboarding, and how humiliating it would be now to defend my country's previous ideals expounded around the world as being once against any form of torture & our leadership role for Human Rights.

As I pointed out, our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights should be the standard we set for any human being. Waterboarding is a high crime of torture, and it should be punished as such.

The Ugly American comes to mind, and we are being mocked by our friends and enemies.

I do think Bush & Cheney should have been impeached long ago for this travesty, and I'm amazed we have another nominated Attorney General that will not testify that waterboarding is torture.

Instead, we have "a crazy" answer stating he doesn't know what waterboarding is! Then when he was given a general description of what waterboarding is, he said IF that was torture it is unconstitutional. I don't want the nominated Attorney General answering questions under oath being clearly evasive about what torture is.

This is ludicrous & it mocks our nation's values.

I think McCain is the only one that understands this along with all our other military leaders brave enough to speak out against this openly in defiance of Bush's redefinition and approval of waterboarding. This is what is shocking to me, as this gives cover to the other Republican candidates to take a stance against waterboarding or other forms of torture. I did already post quotes from Romney & Guiliani condoning waterboarding.

At least Huckabee seems to understand this too. Thanks for the quote. :)

Huckabee: I’m going to defer to Sen. McCain. Of all the people standing on the stage, he’s the only one who has experienced torture. I’m certainly not endorsing him for president, but it’s silly for some of us to talk like we know more about the effect of torture than John McCain does. He and every military leader are quick to say that the information that is obtained from true torture—and that’s an issue that has to be decided by the military experts—but once you cross into that line—the information is not very reliable, and two, whatever we do to them, we invite them to do to us.


Luna blessings... :tu:

Nice post, Wandrider!

Fred Thompson has been flying around the country in a private jet owned by a "close advisor" who just happens to have a criminal record for drug dealing (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/03/AR2007110301153.html?hpid=topnews).

Thompson's campaign said the candidate was not aware of the multiple criminal cases, for which Martin served no jail time. All are described in public court records.

Meanwhile, today's NYT has an in-depth article about Giuliani and his friend Bernard Kerik. The thrust of the article is how Giuliani could have missed the obvious signals about Kerik, how he came to overlook a jumble of disturbing information about the man, even as he pushed him for two crucial positions in the federal government. The article hits Giuliani's credibility and judgment.

"Rudy can fall for people big time, and sometimes qualifications are secondary to loyalty. If he gets it in his head he trusts you, he is extremely loyal."

This article engendered a strong sense of déjà vu in me. We've been here before with the blind loyalty thing.

Loyal to Kerik, Giuliani Missed Warning Signs (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/03/us/politics/03kerik.html?hp)

Nice post, Wandrider!

. . . :)

Fred Thompson has been flying around the country in a private jet owned by a "close advisor" who just happens to have a criminal record for drug dealing (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/03/AR2007110301153.html?hpid=topnews).

Thompson shouldn't be accepting private flying perks from a "past" cocaine dealer. So, he has a personal friendship & accepts flying favors from an ex-cocaine dealer in order to help him run for president?

Stranger than fiction; probably flying in an ex-cocaine cargo plane. :D (<-- That is a joke and not true I hope.)


Luna blessings... :tu: