LV: You are generious to a fault.

I don't call myself a 'liberal'. I don't call myself anything--I don't need an ideology, I can think for myself. I lean toward progressive views [and there is a difference between a 60s sort of 'liberalism' and what i consider 'progressive']. In any case the words have been rendered meaningless by constant propagandizing. As a parent, I am one of the most 'conservative' ones I know, in the older, truer sense of the word.

Most people who considered themselves 'conservatives' today are actually pretty radically rightwing.

lyle: henceforth he will be known as "babbling" brooks.

LV, bsimon, & claudialong: Give it up on MikeB, this guy is a kook from way back when and tries to smear just about everyone, including myself, that is why I don't engage him in any way.

"LoudounVoter, bsimon, claudialong - I'm starting to worry about you guys. You call yourselves liberals and justify underhanded dirty tricks like this?"

1. I most certainly have never called myself a liberal.

2. If you think this was an "underhanded dirty trick," you don't know much about American politics, old sport.

Mike, I suspect you are uninterested in a reasoned response, but I will try none the less. I think that when the Clinton campaign planted that young lady at Grinnell with a global warming question for Sen Clinton at a 'town hall' meeting, it was a pretty sleazy move. I don't think that having a public figure asking a reasonable question of the GOP candidates rises to the same level of offense. You, of course, are welcome to disagree. But to call me names for disagreeing with you doesn't serve to further your point.

"Grow up!"

Mmmm.... delicious irony.

bsimon - Then, I guess you were never taught there difference between right and wrong. I feel sorry for you. You are the sort of moron that votes for some underhanded scumbag that makes the right campaign promises and, once in office, forgets all about those promises and trogledites like you act all surprised and upset. If you don't vote for candidates with morals, who are decent human beings, people who's word is their bond, then you will continue to get underhanded scumbags that wreck havoc. This is what brought us Bill Clinton, both Bush's, Hillary, and a long parade of bad leaders. Grow up!

"I'm starting to worry about you guys. You call yourselves liberals and justify underhanded dirty tricks like this? "

A) I don't call myself a liberal.
B) I don't understand all the fuss about a 'clinton operative' asking a question at the GOP debate. Having a general who's served 40 years ask a military policy question of the GOP front-runners is an 'underhanded dirty trick'? Give me a break. If you're going to criticize Clinton, try to make it a rational criticsm, not some kind of paranoid kneejerk over-reaction about nothing consequential - there's certainly enough material.

bsimon - Original source is NBC News and MSNBC.

LoudounVoter, bsimon, claudialong - I'm starting to worry about you guys. You call yourselves liberals and justify underhanded dirty tricks like this? In the past week we have been witness to planted questions and questioners, whispering campaigns using of automated telephone banks, a paid campaign pollster, writing as if he was a disinterested statstician, releasing a distorted an blatantly false article disparaging a Zogby poll, telkephone calls traced directly to the Clinton camp calling Obama a "born Muslim". You guys call yourselves "liberals" and sit there and justify some of the dirtest, most immoral camapaign tactics in history? Give me a break. People were outraged about Bush's people in 2000 running an underground campaign in South Carolina calling John McCain's adopted Indian daughter his "illicit black love child" (only they uised the "N" word instead of "black"). This is much worse and a lot more dangerous. Here we have a campaign machine manipulating the NEWS MEDIA, planting outright slanderous stories about other candidates, planting outright lies about scientific polling and statistical methods (and THAT is a heck of a lot worse and just as anti-intellectual as "creationism), and you mindless trolls lecture ME about liberalism and morality? Pardon me for laughing my a*s off! Pardon all of us for laughing at you until tears stream down our faces. You are an embarrassement, not any different than the worst operative of Carl Rove, the dumbest Fundimentalist supporter of George Bush. Apologize or just shut up. You have wrecked any claim to morality, decency, accuracy, ethics, integrity and sure as hell aren't liberals!

what difference does it make who asked the question? it was a legimate question-- and how do we know that republicans didn't plant questions at the Dem debate?

again, who cares?

mibrooks, as a good liberal, you should be completely in favor of allowing gays to serve openly in the military. what's wrong with getting GOP candidates' views on that?

"Interesting article on the Drudge Report today."

Who's the original source?

Interesting article on the Drudge Report today. Evidently Hillary's campaogn was up to their old dirty tricks again at the debate with planted questions and questioners. According to MSNBC one person who asked questions about gays in the military (and was allowed to make lengthy speech...blathering on and on) actually works directly for her camapaign, is evven PAID! It looks like the Queen Of Dirtbags is pulling out all the stops.

If, as the American Conservative Union supposes, Romney is the GOP's best hope, then the Republicans have already handed the presidency to the Democrats. In truth, he comes out ahead of Giuliani because he has only had one wife. I wonder whether they are aware that Romney is a converted Conservative - about the time he announced his intention to run. This man lies and dissembles; he twists facts to suit his purpose; he has a different agenda, hidden behind a smile more easily described as a smirk. The only true Conservative is Ron Paul, who is ignored by the press.

How would Romney differ from Bush:

1). He would have an IQ over 100.

2). I do not believe he is a member of the neocon cult like Bush is. I don't believe Romney would have gone to war in Iraq. But, like all the other responsible candidates of BOTH parties, he is not going to renege on the obligation we now have toward Iraq. (to do so would precipitate a bloodbath)

3). He does not support the "legalized anarchy" immigration policy (aka "comprehensive" immigration reform) which Bush and Ted Kennedy advocate.

I doubt the ACU endorsement will have as much impact as the attack ads showing Romney espousing liberal positions in Massachusetts.

I can see why the ACU is hitching its wagon to Romney though. They have serious differences with Huckabee and Giuliani. Thompson is a bust. Although McCain is only an apostate from their orthodoxy on very few issues, he is heartily disliked by most conservative intellectuals. Romney, at least, is toeing their line now. He is not tied to the Bush administration or the Republican Congress, so he can make a legitimate claim to be an outsider. He must look like the most electable candidate with the most acceptable positions to the ACU.

If Romney is not the clear front-runner coming out of Iowa and New Hampshire, his campaign is doomed. The open question is would he continue to self-fund his campaign and for how long. Giuliaini's national celebrity and Huckabee's personality would be difficult for him to compete with (if Huckabee starts to raise enough money). The longer this stays a 3 or more person race, the better Giuliani's chances. My personal prediction right now is a Giuliani-Huckabee ticket, but I wouldn't bet heavily on it.

I have spent several hours after watching the debate last night trying to check feelings around the country. As of now, I get the sense Huckabee is going to be gaining strength from all regions. Every newspaper I've checked appears to show a favorable trend toward him.

Who do you believe emerged as the most presidential candidate from the CNN Youtube debate?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1127

.

drindl, take a bow for "outtolunchisstan." That made me laugh.

pach12, you from Massachusetts? I am (Blarg also) and Mitty does NOT have a 'good record' here. He is shallow, ego-driven, and insincere, and he is both unwilling and unable to imagine the perspective of anyone who was not born into a wealthy political family, was not shielded from the draft, and has not been affluent since birth. (And the list could go on.)

Mark, good list, with these caveats:

* Mitt would not ask his advisors about waterboarding, unless said advisors were either senior to him in the Mormon church or had in their hot little hands a poll saying that 51% of Americans did not consider it torture.

* Any one of us could walk down a street anywhere in America and select - at random - at least 20 people who work harder than GWB. As a nation, we need to raise the bar substantially.

* Mitt smirks. I've seen it.

* and while he may "understand the budget process," the priorities he would use in making decisions with regard to it are unique to extremely wealthy men with a sense of entitlement. Having seen him in action, I believe that neither the quality of his intellect nor his track record entitle him to anything on a national level.

Hoover and Pearce both chose to "affirm" rather than swear at their inaugurations. For Hoover at least, I believe his religion (he was a Quaker) required that decision. Interestingly, Nixon -- also brought up a Quaker -- chose to be sworn in.

"To me it seems that they're still being pretty quiet about Bush. Certainly they're not slamming him, but they hardly seem to be singing his praises."

I phrased my point poorly. You're correct that they're not singing his praises. However, they're also promoting various Bush policies that are counter to America's best interests: continuing the war, continuing the torture, making tax cuts permanent & thus continuing the fiscal irresponsibility. With the notable exception of Ron Paul, the GOP candidates appear to think this country is 'on the right track'.

'Rudy Giuliani faced new questions Wednesday about his illicit affair with Judi Nathan after records emerged suggesting the tab for cops guarding their Hamptons love nest was buried in obscure City Hall accounts.'

Appparently he was in the Hamptons every single weekend before 9/11-- his campaign 'delines' to discuss it. Yet only the NY Daily News has covered it, far as I can tell. Imagine if it was Bill or Hillary Clinton...would be on the front page of evey paper in america.

Yeah, what is with the Falwell Jr. endorsement? Who CARES?

Bsimon: "To be fair, the candidates of both parties are pandering more to the base now, which for the Repubs seems to be talking about how great Bush's administration has been."

Really? To me it seems that they're still being pretty quiet about Bush. Certainly they're not slamming him, but they hardly seem to be singing his praises.

Claudia, as for the Bible question, the annotated transcript of that bit is here:
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/11/republicans_are_asked_what_wou.html

But the quick and dirty summary?

Giuliani: Yes (but not literally)

Romney: Yes (but we might interpret it differently)

Huckabee: Of course (and we can all figured out what the love your neighbor bit means, so let's do that)

'Lynchburg, VA - Former Arkansas Governor and Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee announced the personal endorsement of Liberty University President Jerry Falwell, Jr. Falwell is the son of the late Jerry Falwell, founder of Liberty University and Falwell Ministries.

This endorsement comes one-day after Huckabee announced the formation of his Faith and Family Values Coalition, a team of 30 faith leaders who will join Huckabee in reaching out to Christian and social conservatives across the country. The team will also assist and advise Huckabee on policy issues that affect families and the faith community.'

I would like to know why these 'faith leaders' will not be losing their tax exempt status. Here's a few of the assorted fruits and nuts who are backing Mr. Huckabee. Some of the most wild-eyed wingnuts in Outtolunchistan...

William J. Murray, Chair of Religious Freedom Coalition,* Chair of Government is Not God PAC,* and author; Washington D.C.

Dr. Jerry Jenkins, best-selling author, including the Left Behind series; Colorado

Michael Farris, Chair of Home School Legal Defense Association* and Chancellor of Patrick Henry College;* Virginia

Don Wildmon, Founder and Chairman of American Family Association;* Mississipp

pach12, take a look at the Massachusetts gubernatorial election results from 2006.
http://www.boston.com/news/special/politics/2006_elections/general_results/

The Democratic candidate was Deval Patrick, a black liberal often compared to Barack Obama. The Republican was Kerry Healey, Mitt Romney's lieutenant and chosen successor. There were also 2 independents. Patrick got 56%, Healey 35%, independents 9% combined. That's not just a loss; that's a blowout.

Clearly the voters of Massachusetts disagree with you about Mitt's great record in the state. They also prove you wrong when you say that even Democrats like Romney; they certainly didn't like Healey. And remember, Romney governed MA as a moderate. Now he's running as a hard-right conservative, which will lose him any hope of support from Democrats or independents.

Of course, you also think Romney has "unimpeachable integrity". So you're either deluded or a human press release. Anyone want to take a guess?

"But about the swearing in, that's a real question to me. Don't you have to swear on your own religous book? "

If you don't want to swear to God, you can Affirm. One of the Presidents did, I don't recall whom. Of course, that 'swearing in on the book of Mormon' will likely show up in an attack ad at some point, though surely one sponsered by a 529, not a specific candidate.

I don't imagine the outrage will compare to that over Rep Ellison's swearing in on the Koran, but it could be enough to scuttle Romney's campaign.

The American Conservative Union endorsement of Romney probably does more for them than for Mitt.

Mitt has a good record in Massachusetts and clearly has appeal to independents and probably somes dems in the bluest of blue states.

Mitt's decision to pander to the GOP right by running as a Reaganite detracts from that, but in the general with the ACU endorsement, Mitt can once again tout his record in Massachusetts.

But the important thing is that the ACU has decided to take a principled stand and to back a candidate of unimpeachable integrity.

Conservatism has been badly damaged by the corruption and drift that have become the norm in the Congressional class of '94 and the Bush Administration.

Endorsing Romney shows the official organ of Conservatism recognizes the moral bankruptcy that has paralyzed the movement.

The endorsement of Romney, a GOP moderate who can attract blue voters, shows that conservatives are moving to mobilize down scale social conservatives.

That is the correct strategy for them and their only hope for rebuilding the movement.

I ask about the Bible because it seems that this suddently doesn't exist:

Article.VI. . . . no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

'Take his oath on The Book of Mormon.'

Like your list, Mark, about sums it up. He's smarter than Bush, in any case. Maybe that will just make him more effective at doing awful things. But about the swearing in, that's a real question to me. Don't you have to swear on your own religous book? I mean, obviously that's the only one you beleive is the real thing. And what would most republicans think about that?

I didn't see the question about 'do you bleieve every word is true?' of the Bible. What were the responses to that?

That may be true Mark, but we would have a significantly larger amount of brush out there to clean up.

Blarg, couldn't have said it better myself.

You know the thing I don't get is that it seems that people haven't realized that the reason John Kerry lost last election is because he got painted as a flip-flopper. Period. It wasn't the swift-boating although that played a part, it was when he said "I voted for it before I voted against it." And if the GOP thinks that Romney's 'evolution' argument is gonna fly, especially when he doesn't beleive in Evolution, then they have spent too much time in their cigar filled rooms. Romney would be a GIFT to the Democrats.

drindl asks:

Could anyone name me ONE THING that Romney would do differently than Bush? Where is the 'change'?

It was a difficult challenge, but I have risen to it.

1] Speak clearly without "Shushing" his esses.

2] Double the size of Guantanamo.

3] Ask his advisors about waterboarding, before deciding whether it qualifies as torture.

4] Take his oath on The Book of Mormon.

5] Work harder than GWB.

6] Not smirk.

7] Understand the budget process.

What are you talking about, Drindl? Romney loves conservative change! He just changed into a conservative over the last couple years!

Also, he'd double Guantanamo. Bush didn't think of that!

"Could anyone name me ONE THING that Romney would do differently than Bush? Where is the 'change'?"

That would have been my You Tube question, had I bothered to record & submit one. To be fair, the candidates of both parties are pandering more to the base now, which for the Repubs seems to be talking about how great Bush's administration has been.

his "campaign for conservative change."

Could anyone name me ONE THING that Romney would do differently than Bush? Where is the 'change'?