Because of the way CNN structured this debate no one really looked good. Romney and Guliani looked petty, Huckabee, nice, but not ready to be President, McCain ready--to refight Vietnam and the 2nd tier candidates, mean men, except for Ron Paul who is in a universe by himself. If I were a conservative Republican, I would be very upset at the way my party and my candidates were portrayed as a result of this debate. Not a great job CNN.

I dont think any Republican is going to be President this time. Bush and Cheney have destroyed the party chances along with everything else on the planet.

I agree with your analysis of the debate pretty much. I've read all of these comments. Whew! Lots of good ones and bad ones. I voted for Bush twice and am not sorry concidering the choices we had. I find myself changing in my beliefs about politics. At one time I was a rabid Rebublican but I am sick of the 2 party system, us against them. I want to be a united country. That is my heart in voting this time. Mike Huckabee was elected governor in a Democrat state. He was able to get some important things accomplished with a 90% (I believe) democrat government. That is quite an accomplishment. This says alot to me. He is able to work with people who think differently than he does and still get things done. I'm voting for Mike Huckabee.

jimd52 - thanks. I messed up by challenging you know who. Judge reminded me of that. I had gotten pretty good at scrolling past the inane comments, but got thrown off when registration became mandatory.

Judge pointed out that there does seem to be a lot of newbies since the switch, so a new period of relearning to identify which of the unfamiliar names are actually interested in thoughtful discussions. But I seem to always be a bit behind as I'm on the west coast and by the time I can sneak in a moment or two, the string of comments is pretty long.

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.

sean4 writes
"Well being a foil certainly hasn't hurt Paul's fundraising since he's now raised over $10 million for the quarter. Guliani, McCain, Huckabee may very well attack RP if they think it helps them. But usually, it winds up helping Ron Paul."

Sean, its been interesting to watch the rise of Ron Paul. While he has successfully generated interest that he's converted into financial support, it is entirely unclear that he's been (or will be) able to convert that support into votes in the primaries. It seems like Rep Paul has to find a way to get new people to the polls to vote in the primary; I could be wrong, but it seems like his candidacy is not appealing to the party's base, but to people who are fed up with both parties. If that's true, can he be competitive for the GOP nomination?

I guess its okay to mention Ron Paul on The Fix so long as he's a foil for someone else. Well being a foil certainly hasn't hurt Paul's fundraising since he's now raised over $10 million for the quarter. Guliani, McCain, Huckabee may very well attack RP if they think it helps them. But usually, it winds up helping Ron Paul.

By the way Chris, you don't McCain would attack Paul unless he thought he was a threat to him in New Hampshire? He certainly didn't attack Duncan Hunter. Think about it.

femalenick & jimd52: You are both rite on the swith issue. I would add that religion plays a big part as well, because in the south P, makes up more than all others combined by a huge margin, I think this holds true to a lesser extent in the midwest, with the new england and east and west coast pretty well evened out. I don't have any numbers to back this up, just from what I've seen and heard.

We saw no Morning in America, only fearfulness. The implicit message of all debaters seems to be that America has seen its best years and only the wannabe currently speaking can slow down the process of our nation's decline.

Obama remains the most Reaganesque of candidates in personifying hope and revivifying change from the morbid rut in which we have become stuck by the Bush administration.

femalenick

When you challenge MikeB's statistics, all you get is vituperation.

The defection of Southern white Democrats started with Civil Rights legislation and was accelerated by the discord of the Vietnam era. The social issues that came to prominence in the '80s cemented that transformation.

I am a native New Englander who has lived in the South for about 21 of the last 31 years. Although the great Rust Belt migrations of the last 40 years are changing this somewhat, especially in Florida, the South is different - more conservative, more religious, more fundamentalist in religion and host to a disproportionate number of military bases.

The South was solidly Democratic for so long because the Republicans were the party of Lincoln and Reconstruction. When the Democrats became the Civil Rights Party, that started to change. Reaction against the anti-Vietnam war positions of most national Democrats and the social upheaval of the late 60's and early 70's was just as important. Nixon deliberately played on white Southern resentments in a very cynical manner. His Attorney General even acknowledged this in an infamous interview in which he said, in reference to civil rights issues, "watch what we do not what we say".

God - I'm feeling like Rufus with three posts in a row! Sorry!

"Substitute 'rich Republicans' for 'Republicans' and you'd definitely be spot on. I know plenty of R's who get all riled up about abortion and think it's the ONLY issue worth worrying about. Gun control has its share of single-issue adherents. None of those people are rich, however."

You missed one, Judge: taxes. There are Rs who equate all tax hikes with socialism - or government squandering money away. Funny thing is that if you ask the average how much a tax hike would really mean to them, they can't give an answer.

My theory is that numbers become too abstract for average people after 6 digits. How many zeros in a billion? Trillion? And what does that mean to someone making $50k a year? What about $100k? What about the person making just a little above minimum wage? You get the gist.

Maybe people wouldn't be so one sided if we didn't have these oversimplified phrases:

"Pro-life" -- as if those of us less opposed are somehow against life. "Pro-choice" just isn't as powerful a phrase. "Baby killers" is another one.

"2nd Amendment Right" vs. "Gun Control." As a friend in AL says, "I like hunting...the Democrats want to take my guns away." We just need a better phrase here. "Control has negative connotations." Maybe Dems should start saying we're pro "Gun Licenses and Gun Safety Tests." Establish class levels (as in driver's licenses) that indicates what guns you can and cannot own - so that it becomes a status symbol for those macho gun toting types.

Finally there's "tax and spend liberal." Maybe we should start asking taxpayers for specifics since those who complain about "liberals" often will have a list of exceptions when it comes to spending. So what if, once you know how much in taxes you're paying, you have two boxes from which to choose: 1) Allocate the dollars as you see fit, 2) Itemized allocations. Then give them the programs -- let them choose percentages with a minimum amount required for all.

"I'd love to ask them why they permit Chinese and Indian government vetted H1-B and L-1 visa workers into this country when we have solid proof that they steal our most sensitive technological secrets and constitute nothing so much as tax payer subsidized espionage. I imagine there are over 4.5 million unemployed high tech workers that would like answers to those questions."

mibrooks27, it is categorical statements like this that creates division. Where do you get your facts? 4.5 million unemployed high tech workers? Where do you get this figure?

Further "high tech" can mean a lot of things. Are you talking about the computer industry, i.e., software, hardware, internet? Or are you talking telcom, consumer electronics, etc.?

Are these "high tech workers" skilled professionals or displaced manufacturing types? I live in the Silicon Valley area and believe me, there are plenty of jobs here for skilled software and hardware engineers. I have clients that have been trying to fill positions for months now.

What is outsourced to India are those jobs that require lower level skills, manufacturing to China.

It might be helpful to cite sources when quoting statistics. (Many here often do.) It otherwise sounds like angry diatribe. (Many of these here as well.)

lylepink, I was born in 1960, but I'm a history buff, and I once spent a year focused on studying Richard Nixon, reading four biographies (to get different perspectives) and every book Nixon wrote, including his autobiography.

While the first to implement a "southern strategy" and appeal to the "silent majority" (Reagan followed suit), I think that the migration of southern whites to the Republican Party and the Blacks to the Democrats occurred when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. I recall that it was Bill Moyers who said that Johnson told him that he just signed away the south to the Republican Party.

But G.W.'s success with Hispanics in TX, his brother's in Florida, GHW appointing the first African American to the Supreme Court, G.W.'s appointment of Powell, then Rice to cabinet positions -- I would have thought that there would be more people of color in the GOP today. I keep looking for them whenever I watch a debate or GOP convention - expecting more each time. But they're not there.

I have my theories on why that is, but I do find it interesting.

Imagine Mrs. Clinton appearing at a debate on Fox News, and a member of the McCain camp asking her a loaded question.

Can you say NYT?

But that will never happen. Mainly, because the party that is supposed to fight terrorism can't stand toe-to-toe with Chris Wallace.

Cooper deserves whatever he receives, and CNN was exposed for how biased they really are.

The questions were supposed to be from undecided voters. Yet one comes from someone who works for HRC?

They either knew or should have known. End of story.

colin, sleeping lawyer does not necessarily equal ineffective assistance of counsel in TX, according to USCA-5.

You win the law quiz.

Is it funny to anyone else to see the republcains cry about a planted questions. After they landblasted teh dems for not appearing on fox debates. Exact same thing. Only one side cares about this country and those that serve. The other side only cares about maintaining a dream world. aS long as they are "normal". What is normal anyway. the gop are clone slaves.

welcome to America.

thecrisis - I'll tell you what's wrong with it, no one is permitted to ask genuine questions of candidates that they might possibly support. It's spin and garbage. I'd love to stand before the Democratic candidates and ask them about outsourcing and the millions of "guest workers" they have permitted to take American jobs. I'd love to ask them why they permit Chinese and Indian government vetted H1-B and L-1 visa workers into this country when we have solid proof that they steal our most sensitive technological secrets and constitute nothing so much as tax payer subsidized espionage. I imagine there are over 4.5 million unemployed high tech workers that would like answers to those questions. The don't get asked because some dweeb, some utter twit, some goofy gay rights nutcase gets put in the front of the line by the politial correct or becasue some smart operative doesn't want genuinely difficult questions asked. What's wrong with this is that the questions that MOST voters want answered never get asked. Instead, the debates have been turned into twisted and worthless campaign tools.

Good god, who cares if the corn kid was a former intern for a democratic representative? It's pretty apparent it doesn't take much work to get past the CNN filters (are they even supposed to ban democratic-leaning voters from questioning?) and people need to get over it, it's not some huge liberal conspiracy to sabotage the republican debates; on the other hand, the republicans simply need a chance to speak and they typically sabotage themselves.

USMC Mike said: "I don't trust the government with my healthcare, with my taxes, or with most relatively easy tasks that my 4th grade cousin could perform.

So, why would I trust them with the MONUMENTAL task of rendering death upon the guilty?"
____________________________

Amend buddy. And living in Texas, your position makes even more sense.

Mark -- correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the 5th Circuit's famous sleeping lawyer case come out of Texas? The Fifth, unsurprisingly, found that it wasn't prejudicial that defense counsel fell asleep during the sentencing phase of the defendant's trial. Yikes.

Mibrooks,
The gun toting guy, the dude asking about the Bible, the person demanding permanent presence in Iraq were more likely republicans than a democrats. So I guess a few republicans did get a chance to ask questions.

For the umpteenth time, Mike Huckabee is for real. Of all the candidates on stage last night, he was the only candidate who had a positive agenda. Romney, Giuliani, and Thompson seemed more interested in tearing each other down and trying to one-up each other. Very unpresidential. Huckabee is a serious threat to Romney in Iowa AND Thompson in South Carolina.

The Confederate flag question was unfortunate because even though both Romney and Thompson answered it "correctly," I can only wonder how Republican voters in South Carolina (where I live) will respond to that. In SC, it's quite common to see Confederate flag decals on cars and trucks here. The flag even flies in front of the statehouse in Columbia. Did Romney cross the "liberal" threshhold on that question alone? If he did, he is finished in SC. And Thompson too, especially since he was supposed to be "the great SOUTHERN conservative hope."

It seems to me like the so-called "second tier" candidates on the GOP side are more qualified to be President than the so-called "frontrunners." McCain, Huckabee, and Ron Paul seemed much more presidential than Romney, Giuliani, and Thompson. The same phenomenon exists among the Democrats as well in that Richardson, Biden, and Dodd seem head and shoulders above Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. Are regular Republicans demoralized by the Romney/Giuliani/Thompson trio?

You can read more of my analysis here:

http://www.theseventen.com/2007/11/youtube-debate-analysis-r.html

I also looked around and found no connection other than Romney using Norquist quotes on his web site and Norquist introducing Romney at one of Romney campaign talks. This of course doesn't mean that there is no connection.

Here is the info on Kerr being in the Clinton Campaign.
http://www.adamyoshida.com/2007/11/why-is-hillary-clinton-campaign-member.html

This just out:
Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) has found herself in the middle of a minor controversy surrounding Wednesday night's CNN/YouTube GOP presidential debate.

Harman's chief of staff has gone so far as to release a statement distancing the congresswoman from one of the questioners at the debate. The questioner, a college student named Ted Faturos, used a stage prop in his YouTube question -- taking a bite out of a corn cob while asking about farm subsidies (watch it below).

But Faturos was "outed" as a former Harman intern on this random blog. (Faturos prominently lists his qualification as a former Harman intern on his LinkedIn page.

The outing created enough buzz that Harman's office put out the following press release distancing the senior lawmaker from the kid who once interned for her...."

You just gotta wonder, were there any genuine Republican's in the audience at all? Did even one Republican ask a question? Or were they ALL Democratic operatives of one sort or another? (And, note, Rep. Harman is part of the Clinton inner circle....)

I don't know. I have no more evidence that he is associated with the Romeny campaign than that the military guy is associated with Clinton's.

However, strategically, Romney is likely to be the Club for Greed's candidate, very much Wall Street. They hate Huckabee, and Mitt is more likely to fear Huckabee in Iowa than Rudy.

femalenick: I have no idea of your age, but for the "Southern " vote, this changed in the 70s mostely from Dem to Repub due to Nixon. Blacks in the south now are overwhelminglt Dems. The thing that is most important to Dems in the South is getting these folks registered and to the polls. The population of blacks in the South, with the exception of Texas, could almost guarentee a Dem victory in 08 if the Dems could get them registered and voting.

Claudia,
What's Norquist's association with the Romney campaign?

Guliani is not the most attractive candidate for me either. However, I appreciated his answer about gun control. Unlike him, however, I hope that time will come when the supreme court will interpret the 2nd amendment as a protection of collective but not individual rights to bear arms. Individuals may still have the privilege to bear arms subject to strict regulation.

I ask again -- wasn't Grover Norquist a plant by the Romney campaign, and why doesn't anyone care about that?

Coffee break, finally!

USMCMike, I had written two threads earlier that I claimed no religious expertise but it seemed to me that Huck was in no way inconsistent by opposing abortion and supporting the death penalty, from a scriptural perspective, and I asked for help from folks who knew. I was moved to do that by the criticism of Huck as "unchristian" that someone had posted previously.

Predictably, some folks [including you on this thread] provided light, while Rufus called me a fascist and called Catholics unchristian.
-----------------------------------
bsimon, the Biden v. McCain race being run in our heads would provide the civics lesson we think America needs and the promise of the bipartisan foreign policy some of us here want.

For Charlie Rose fans: the 50 min. interviews with the candidates are great;
the McCain interview was so good that whether you love him or hate him you should watch it, and they are available in streaming video at Rose's website for no increase in tuition.

Point well taken.

Uniformly there is something characteristically soulless about Republican behavior. The affluent economic conservatives, by example, provide dubious leadership for their intolerant social conservatives/defense conservatives. They are a mosaic of individualism, to its utmost capacity. I like individual liberties, too. But taxes are not awful. Paved roads are nice to ride on. Republicans not only behave indecently, they wear the fact that they confronted liberals as a sign of triump. Liberals need to act tougher and, challenge Republicans as spineless. If Democrats catch fire some some silly accussation, chide the reported who asked the question. Americans want a nice President but, I hope we want a President who doesn't waste his time with under-educated reporters who work under-educated questions. Democrats need a strong arm. As inauthentic as I concede John Edwards, he may be the only one on the left that I think might change things rather dramatically. Which, by the way, we are helplessly in need of.

Eugene Debs 2008

lylepink - oh, guilt by association. Clinton has the support of Jenna Jamison and most of the "film stars" of the pornography industry. She also has the support of Wall Street investors, *all* of the outsourcing and guest worker firms that have cost us so many millions of jobs, the very same banks and credit mortgage businesses that caused the mortgage mess we're in, the leaders of the amnesty of illegals groups, and the health care and pharaceutical industries. The main difference is, Clinton doesn't just associate with them and take monye from them and vote for them, she IS ONE OPF THEM!

Take "The Pledge". If Clinton is anywhere on the 2008 ticket, you wont vote for any Democratic candidates for any office. Make the fanatics and the swine pay for infliciting this gutter snipe on us.

With regards to the retired Army officer's question, I think that the question itself was fair and relevant, and so the person asking the question should not really matter.
However I do not think it was appropriate for this forum for Gen. Kerr to be given mic time to refute the candidates, especially considering his political ties.
If Hillary Clinton is in fact attempting to manipulate the process by planting supporters and questions in these debates, then that strikes me as being highly unethical.

On CC's assessment of the winners & losers - I concur on the winner side, except for the ridiculous addition of Chuck Norris. Were you trying to be funny, CC?

I'd add Mitt Romney to the losers side. At best, his management consulting background came through loud and clear, and at worst, he came across as a panderer. I did like his remark to Giuliani re: his hiring "undocumented workers."

Giuliani came across as an obnoxious, arrogant pig who'll happily distort facts to suit him. Why anyone would support this man is beyond my comprehension.

The other thing I noticed is how white that audience was. Okay - the camera occasionally panned a person of color, but the lack of diversity in the party hasn't seemed to improve in the last 7 years.

My final thought about last night's debate is how wonderful it would be, if before the primaries, that there was a debate where Dems get to ask GOPs the questions, and vice versa. As it is, the questions are currently limited to what party loyalists seem to deem to be important, but after the primaries, issues that matter to the other 50% will be brought to the fore. I think it would serve us all if we could get a glimpse of how the respective candidates would respond to issues that matter to the other side. And this would be best with a YouTube debate - ordinary citizens asking the questions.

jaymills1124: Mike Huckabee has the support of the "Christion right-wing" of the Repub party pretty well in hand in Iowa, and I suspect around the country as well. Off Topic, I just got a 50 inch Toshiba TV and am using it as my computer screen on sites like this, although I have a 22 inch computer screen. Your post about a TV caught my attention and I wanted to pass along this information to others.

"I maintain that low taxes matter more to Republicans than all the social issues they claim to champion. Reaganomics is soulless; Mike Huckabee is not. Ergo, Mike Huckabee must seek Independent candidacy."

Substitute "rich Republicans" for 'Republicans' and you'd definitely be spot on. I know plenty of R's who get all riled up about abortion and think it's the ONLY issue worth worrying about. Gun control has its share of single-issue adherents. None of those people are rich, however.

-Guiliani: Easily the most frightening candidate of the pack. The NY Times wrote a detailed piece today on he & Mrs. Clinton's 2000 U.S. Senate race, which Guiliani later withdrew from. Guiliani is, and I like talking to Republicans, a bad person. If you like him, you're a bad person, too. Sorry. Letting this man run the military would be an absurd mistake. I would rather 4 more years of George W. Bush than Guiliani. That's how bad it is. To really understand what Guiliani's foreign policy might be like, read Pat Buchanan's column on Guiliani's foreign policy advisors: http://www.theamericancause.org Click on Archives. Basically, it's Israeli foreign policy.
-Romney: Romney could not beat a Democrat. But I respect him for some strange reason. Maybe because I don't believe he is as evil as he claims.
-McCain: I'm not a Republican, but seriously, guys, the general election is getting closer. John McCain is your best shot. And he's not soulless like Guiliani.
-Huckabee: Charming, but his candidacy will stagnate. Republicans think he's too liberal on economic issues. I maintain that low taxes matter more to Republicans than all the social issues they claim to champion. Reaganomics is soulless; Mike Huckabee is not. Ergo, Mike Huckabee must seek Independent candidacy.
-Thompson: I'm still convinced he doesn't really want to be President. He's too unremarkable; but I don't hate him. I simply disagree with him on virtually everything.
-Paul: Must seek Independent candidacy. If Republicans wish to be relevant for the next 8 months, more Republicans must reconcile with this wing of the party. It's less radical than you think. This is Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanan. Republicans would be wise to atone. This wing could easily splinter into its own third-party movement, and be rather successful.
-Tancredo: See Don Quixote.
-Duncan Hunter: Sucks not to be heard, huh? Now you know how it feels to be a liberal American citizen.

-Winners: My guess is that Guiliani will take this nomination, thus ensuring Republicans' defeat. If Republicans want to have a decent shot: See John McCain.
-Losers: The American people, for sure.
-Thinking Ahead: I have solved that irritable immigration issue for liberals & Democrats. If nativists claim this is a public health issue, all the more reason for American citizens to have mandated-healthcare. (Like Romney's) If everyone has to have it, we'll know who is here legally and illegally. We are all wrong, but both right on these two issues. Let us compromise. See Henry Clay.
P.S. See Mister Mom with Michael Keaton. Great movie.

Eugene Debs 2008

It's time for everyone to stop spinning and pretending that winning is all that counts. What counts is this country and the people here. There are plenty of fat fools and crooks in the Republican Party. You can begin with Bush and Cheney and the list goes on through Guliani and Romney, the likes of Rove and Lott. But there are decent men and women who are Republican's, too. Wih them we need to discuss issues and formulate polcies that better this country. This is what Nancy Pelosi, one MY HEROS, is doing. At the same time, we have people in our party like the Clintons. Self serving liars that have no place and do not deserve our support or even our acknowledgement. Those from both parties that practice the politics of destruction, of lies and deceit, need to be consigned to the garbage heap of history. I will leave you with cite to a great editorial on Bill CLinton's latest speech:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071128/ap_po/on_deadline_bill_clinton_1

Spot on, Blarg, spot on.

A few years ago, Charleton Heston spoke at my university. There were representatives of anti-gun groups there, including liberal students. There were also NRA members. The liberals asked detailed questions about gun laws and NRA policy. The NRA members asked fawning questions like "Can you tell us any stories from the war?", and other softballs meant to make Heston look good. You can guess which answers were more interesting.

That's why I don't have a problem with planted Clinton supporters at the Republican debates. Sure, it's a bit shady, but it's good for the democratic process. On the other hand, planted supporters at Democratic debates, or at Clinton events, are bad for the process. Difficult questions are a good thing, no matter who them come from.

Obviously there are exceptions. If the Democrats last night asked hostile or stupid questions, that would be worthy of criticism. But the question about gays in the military was legitimate, and it deserved to be asked and answered.

"I'd like to see a Biden/McCain ticket."

I'd like to see a Biden v McCain race.

Great quote brooks...are you suggesting the Republican Party quit attacking liberals as socialists/communists?

mibrooks: that gives new meaning to the word irrelevancy.

urban4-ill give you anderson cooper, but the format is horrid. ill check out the charlie rose interviews,unfortuantely pbs station has the bright ideal of airing a plege drive right now. ill check around to see if its online or not.

marine mike/mark in austin- ill see if i can pick up neil boortz book next time im in a bookstore.

claudialong, bsimon, LoudounVoter, thecrisis, all -
History repeats itself.

"Until this moment, Senator, I think I never gauged your cruelty or your recklessness[...]" When McCarthy resumed his attack, Welch interrupted him: "Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" - Joseph Welch at the Army-McCarthy hearings, June 9, 1954

Urban, I'll agree that one cannot justify an immoral action based on an immoral action, but again it can't be proven that Clinton had anything to do with this question, and even so, there was nothing sketchy about it. He simply asked a question of the candidates and gave them their chance to answer it. He was unsatisfied but the candidates handled it just fine so it's really a non-issue to me. I simply have a problem with the pretense that only Republicans are authorized to ask republican questions. That seems absurd to me.

Bsimon, I stand corrected. I have indeed seen a lot of Biden support here.

Ironically, I'm more of a Biden supporter than any other candidate, I just don't think he's going to get the nod for one reason or another (tragically). I'd like to see a Biden/McCain ticket. They could get a lot done together. McCain wouldn't have a free reign to nuke Iran and as far as fiscal responsibility goes, I couldn't imagine a more responsible pair.

Jaymills -- I thought Anderson Cooper was much better than Blitzer or Matthews in previous debates. He kept people on time, explained weak questions and insisted on direct answers. It seems to me that the debate format - with this many participants - is bad for the candidates and bad for the moderator.

The 1 on 1 interviews that Charlie Rose is doing are much more informative to learn in depth about the candidates. The only value that I see is in these debate is that they reveal how the candidates handle pressure and time constraint.

bsimon-only reason because someone like huck is going to need someone with strong millitary credentals. if any thing a vp ticket might be his last chance.

'Won't a Democrat President have to face questions from conservatives?'

Not if he's like bush and refuses to speak or hear from half the country.

And I'm sure when the R's agree to debate on Air America, the Dems will agree to FOX.

"i dunno im thinking there might be a huckabee/McCain ticket."

I could see the inverse, but it would take a miracle for McCain to win enough delegates to take the top of the ticket. I don't see him accepting the bottom. Though, given the Cheney example, maybe I'm way off base.

'Possibly all of the Biden supporters that exist.'

I wonder about that. We certainly do seem to be a small club. but welcome, thecrisis.

I wondered if anyone noticed that CNN gave airtime to Grover Norquist, you know of Club for Growth, who hates Huckabee? Wonder if Romney's campaign planted him?

Remind me again why Edwards, et al refused to debate on Fox? Didn't the progressives all line up behind that boycott?

Won't a Democrat President have to face questions from conservatives?

Goose - Gander?

after montoring the "debate"(it was more like the jerry springer show) i got a few thoughts on the matter.

honestly, i think both McCain and Huckabee did well(with the slight exception of the spat with ron paul about ww2) i dunno im thinking there might be a huckabee/McCain ticket.

rudy and romney didnt do them selves any favors really. if anyone who's against illegal immigration was watching those two, they would not be voting for them in the general election if either one is the nominee. do i smell a 3party threat coming?

some advice to the fix-ers who might invest in a hd-tv, dont! 1080p is not forgiving to fred thompson or ron paul.

note to CNN- stop doing debates. the moderators were dull, no real important questions were raised and the crowd was possibly filled with staff members of ron paul(hence the wild cheering and boo's)

thecrisis writes
"I've been a long, long time fan of the Fix but hesitate to post comments because it's mostly rabid Paulites chanting in lock-step about conspiracy theories."

Not at all. While Paul's supporters come around from time to time, there are far more Biden supporters here. Possibly all of the Biden supporters that exist.

.

Thecrisis -- Despite the expletives, Mibrooks has a point. Clinton should not get a pass just because Bush has been manipulating the media as well. Skillful marketing and spin are what sold the Iraq war to Americans.

Only a small number of Clinton tricks will ever be proven like the planted question. If one is uncovered, you can be sure that there are dozens that escape scrutiny.

Clinton campaign is a master of media manipulation. A frightening similarity to the Bush-Rove machine. I suspect an ABC news video a week ago showing Obama talking to a room full of sleepy and uninterested high schoolers. No news value, but too expeditious for HRC to be just a coincidence.

Oh perfect. Didn't see this. He would ask one of the heads of Blackwater, some of whom belong to an 11th century order and think that they're in Iraq on a crusade against Islam--and have shot up any number of innocent Iraqis, about torturing Muslims:

'During tonight's CNN/YouTube debate, a YouTube questioner asked the candidates why they refuse to condemn waterboarding as torture. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said that before making such a determination, he would need to get "counsel on a matter of this nature" from "a lot" of people. One of the people with whom Romney said he would specifically like to speak is Blackwater vice chairman Cofer Black:'

Thought you all'd appreciate this--Huck gets calls from God, wherein god tells him he's on the Republican's side:

'At a Republican Governors Association Dinner in 2004, Huckabee took the stage and began to deliver remarks when his cell phone rang. He took the phone out of his pocket and proceeded to have a conversation with God about President Bush's reelection:

HUCKABEE: Hello? I'm sorry. I'm right in the middle of an event. It's who? It's God? On the phone for me? How did he get my number? Oh, God has everybody's number. OK? Yes, I'll hold.

Huckabee then engaged in a 3-minute back-and-forth exchange with God, in which Huckabee asserted that God was with the Republicans and President Bush.'

Guess that's where Rudy got his idea. Only his calls come from his wife, who apparently is whom he takes HIS marching orders from.

And thanks, LoundounVoter. I've been a long, long time fan of the Fix but hesitate to post comments because it's mostly rabid Paulites chanting in lock-step about conspiracy theories. Maybe I can help bring a bit of civility and sensibility to the Fix's comment section.

thecrisis: See what I mean about his irrationality? the man is unhinged. If you don't clearly state that clinton is the worst person ever, he will go off on you.

This debate was the worst. The shining stars were clearly Huckabee and McCain. But for Giuliani and Romney to be the leaders...that's sad for the republicans. Those two...no way..no wonder so many republicans are undecided...

And probably contemplating voting for a democrat.

Milbrooks, come on man. Seriously. You first attempted to actually say something to me, but after five minutes of discussion you turn to name-calling. I'm morally bankrupt, I'm condemned, I'm not worth respect, I am a "bot," I spout hysterical nonsense, I'm immoral and wicked. Does that sum it up?

Who here sounds like the "bot"? As soon as I bring up a few issues you turn to unsubstantiated insults. You don't know a thing about me and yet you make claims that imply you understand how my brain functions on a subconscious level? Fascinating, please let me know how to do this to others so I can return the favor.

The first 15 minutes or so showed Mitt and Rudy were losers. Their stupid exchange turned most folks against them from the start, and they vever were able to recover. Mike was a winner in the debate, but the big winner was the Dems. I just cannot see where any of this bunch has much of a chance in 08.

CNN allowed Huckabee to demagogue and didn't give Romney enough time to make an essential point about how bad a bill that Huckabee supported was. Huck might have also been misleading about the provisions of the bill:

http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007277.html

And, if CNN had asked McCain a real question instead of a weak one, his popularity would have fallen even further:

http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007276.html

Perhaps Cillizza should do some research and try to find out why CNN would choose such an obviously weak question. Everyone who follows this issue knows that no one calls what they support "amnesty". Even the Dems don't support "amnesty", they support "regularization" and so forth.

Why would CNN ask such a worthless question?

If McCain had been asked a real

thecrisis - You are intellectually and morally bankrupt. Your own words condemn you. No one with an ounce of self respect nor who actually cares about debate will have anything to do with you. You are nothing more than a "bot", spouting hysterical campaign nonsense from the most wicked and immoral collection of goons to come down the pike in a long long time. Go away.

thecrisis: welcome to the Fix. As I am sure you are figuring out, "babbling" brooks bears a hatred for Clinton that is well into the frothing at the mouth range. Despite being a self-proclaimed Democrat and liberal, he has stated that he would even vote for someone like Huckabee if the Dem nominee was Clinton.

Milbrooks, did he ask a "gotcha" question? If the Republican candidates were meant to squirm when answering this question, maybe that's evidence that they know their opinions are bigoted and ignorant?

I have contributed to the Obama and Clinton campaigns but that doesn't mean I'm incapable of asking a Republican a reasonable question. So long as all questioners are held to the same level of transparency in all of the debates, I have no objections to people in one party asking questions of the other party's candidates. If we aren't allowed to challenge the beliefs of the candidates in these debates then what is the point of the debate in the first place? To provide a thoughtless stump for each candidate so they can smile and kiss the babies?

Honestly, I couldn't care less if Bush, Giuliani, McCain or Romney planted a questioner in a Democratic debate. If the candidate is afraid of answering questions from voters they might disagree with, how do they expect to represent those same voters once in office?

I think that we should definitely elect our presidents based on their quick wit and one-liners.

Politihal
http://www.ablahblahblog.com

thecrisis - You just jumped in the gutter and lost all respect. How can you sit there an claim any sort of intellectual integrity and not acknowledge that a **PAID** Clinton campaign insider was a plant, especially in light of subsequent reports of this from CNN and MSNBC and ABC! The intellectual distortions required to justify this are so juvinile as to be just plain embarrassing. Cuple this with the telephone banks p[aid for by her campaign slandering Obama and Edwards and Roimney, the secretly staff written trash about Gulianai, her ties with the Drudge Report... Have you no shame, no integrity left after all?

'A huge number of Americans ARE socially conservative, and the numbers are rising. I'm sure you knew that and are just being friendly.'

Oh please. I think the truth is that people are sick to death of the failures of so-called conservatism. why do you think dems won the last election and look to win the next one too?

'I sure don't want any openly homosexual soldiers in my unit.
That would be exceedingly disruptive'.

Then I'm sure you are very courteous to the women in your unit, knowing how obnoxious it is to be hit on by someone you aren't interested in. Tell me, if a man hits on a woman in your unit, do you stone him to death?

What does it matter that Huckabee is the only one who has experience making death penalty decisions? First off, a governor doesn't sentence someone to death nor do they do the actual execution. They either stop one, or allow it to take place. Second, how much of a US president's time is spent on death penalty issues, versus all the other pressing concerns we have now? Bush had lots of experience with the death penalty in Texas, and look at where we are now.

Here's what Huckabee established in the debate: 1. he'll take from taxpayers and give to illegals 2. he'll give illegals special treatment 3. he's a bible-thumping religious fanatic who will polarize the nation and the world. Are the Re'pugs dumb enough to nominate him? Answer: DickNBush.

BrianX9, if you and your comrades are bigots, that's perfectly fine. But to make your bigotry into law is pure insanity. How you can think that bigotry against homosexuals is any different from bigotry against different races is beyond me, unless you think homosexuality is a choice, and in that case you're even more ignorant than I thought.

Milbrook, you have no evidence that Kerr was planted by Clinton, and even if he was, he asked a valid question that the candidates answered quite well, in my opinion. CNN confirmed he and the other questioners have not contributed anything to any political campaign, which is the same requirement for YouTube users during the Democratic debate, which could very well have had "planted" questions as well. Quit crying already.

Besides, Bush is famous for planting entire audiences of fans before his speeches and I don't hear you blubbering about how phony that is and he's actually in office.

"McCain, taking a page from the playbook of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, effectively used Rep. Ron Paul as a foil -- taking Paul on over his assertion that American troops should come home from a failed mission in Iraq. "That kind of isolationism sir is what caused World War II," McCain said to a mixture of boos and cheering from the crowd."

I don't agree that John McCain came out a winner from his exchange with Ron Paul. Like Mr. Giuliani, Senator McCain showed himself ignorant of the difference between noninterventionism and isolationism. The true isolationists are supporters, like McCain, of the Bush administration's policy of military intervention to force our version of democratic government on peoples abroad. We become increasingly isolated from the rest of the world because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain persist in making terrorists out of people in the Muslim world who would otherwise support us. Their policy stands in stark contrast to Ron Paul's advocacy of fully engaging with the rest of the world through trade and cultural exchanges.

How ridiculous they all are and this article. This idea of "who was the winner" just perpetuates the idea that we can be tantalized by something as ludicrous as Huckabee's cute answer to a serious question (Oh boy I'll vote for him, he's so clever). Christian?? Morals??
And the real sick part is voters do buy this crap (wouldn't it be fun to have a beer and an ol' slap on the back with GWB?)

imiga, excellent post.

claudia - Either condemn the actions by Clinton or shut up. Her plants not not just simple people, they are part of a concerted dirty campaign the likes of which this country has never seen. Your only choice is to condemn it or join it in the gutter. No one with an ounce of self respect, of decency, of any degree of morality, will tolerate these actions nor justify them. So, the qurestion is, are you a liberal or are you a weasel?

The big story is this very paper attempt to swift boat Obama. shameful

"Her 'minion' was a guy who served in the US military for 40 years. I think he deserves a little respect, and a chance to ask a question.
...
"Purely from an economic standpoint, I can't imagine why any fiscally responsible person would object to gays who wanted to serving in the military, considering that things are so bad in recruiting that the enlistment bonus just went up to $40,000 a person."
Posted by: claudialong |
______________________________________________

Claudia,
That so-called "General" deceived the CNN producers in order to get to ask his question.

And he served in the Army Reserve, not the Active Duty Army, for most of his time.
It is reported [Google] that he retired as a California Army National Guard colonel.

Such a two-time liar would not have lasted a day in my outfit.

...

I've been an infantryman, both Active and National Guard.
It may not make much difference in the Reserves or Guard,
But let me tell you, on active duty,
I sure don't want any openly homosexual soldiers in my unit.
That would be exceedingly disruptive.

While commanding troops in Korea,
I learned that some soldiers had accused a senior NCO of making sexual advances to them.
There nearly was a riot.
Soldiers wanted to stone him to death.
The Colonel intervened and got the guy out of the country ASAP.
Now, this guy was an excellent NCO.
Personally, I believe that the allegations were false,
retribution for some perceived slight.
But I don't think you understand, Claudia,
what the Infantry is, who joins it, and how they have to get along.

.............................

I was once a sort-of aide to GEN Max Taylor.
Many folks thought he was gay, but they had no evidence.
He had some odd mannerisms, never married, and died of something similar to AIDS.
He certainly never told, and I doubt anyone had the guts to ask him to his face.
He was one tough son-of-a-biscuit.
He was the guy who started the "Be all that you can be" campaign.
He belonged in the Army, and the Army was far better for having him in it.

Can anyone say that about this Kerr guy ?
.

There's a troubling pattern here. The Clinton campaign had automated telephone machines calling voters, accusing Obama of being a "born Muslim" (with the implication that he is a secret Islamic radical - and there are indications that they were behind similar campaigns against Romney, Guliani, and Edwards), they somehow got control of the bulk of the tickerts for the last Democratic "debate" and filled the audiance with ringers, they had a campaign staffer write an article disparaging the Zogby poll and their methodology that was taken up by the media and printed as if it were gosple instead of campaign spin, there are now hundreds of people who have come forward acknowledging that they had asked questions planted by Clinton campaign staff, and now we have a, as it turns out, *paid* Clinton staffer asking leading questions at a Republican debate. At some point, people need to understand that morality, right and wrong, decency count for something. Politics isn't just about winning and being ruthlessly tough. It is supposed to be about leadership and representing people. You cannot do that and be the sort of scumbag Clinton is. After today, no one can call themselves liberal, much less ethical, that would justify anything done by the Clinton campaign or support her in any way. Frankly, these trogledites are an embarrassment to me and anyone calling themselves a liberal. Clinton is a scumbag, a ruthless dirty gutter fighter, a phony, that will do pretty much whatever she wants and say anything (but not deliver on those promnises!) to get elected. Frankly, if she is elected, no one has any idea of what she will do becasue everything she says is merely meaningless blather and lies. It's time to toss Clinton and her supporters out with the weeks trash.

gandalf, excellent synopsis. I agree 100%.

Remember,"all we have to decide is what to do with the (candidates) that are given us." ...

"She will not be the nom. And your party is done. Enjoy your irrelevance.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti"

oh snap! rufus, you old codger. I thought you got the boot.

So you think Barry Obama will get the nom? You are more delusional than I thought.

I agree, Chuck Norris is a clear winner. He was able to step off the podium without breaking his neck... :) ...Wait! Perhaps he wasn't. The camera did not show that part.

QUOTE:

ok. The church's statement from the free republc, tblackstock ? No thanks. I'll take the teachings of God over your right wing lies and propognada.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | November 29, 2007 02:04 PM

******************
Okay picky. For your information I never visit Free Republic, but I was looking for articles on the death penalty and they had one. And for your information Free Republic didn't do this article, a Catholic Priest by the name of Carr did, and it's originally from the American Life League. So since you can't click on a Free Republic link, here's a link to the original article. LOL It's a PDF.
http://www.clmagazine.org/backissues/2007_julyaug.html

Generally, I thought that the format tended to detract from the opportunity to hear directly from the candidates...better if the questions were sorted by someone with a policy background rather than a television marketing mentality and then read questions to the candidates. Why no questions on healthcare, education, Iran or the Iraqi War? What about Middle East Peace talks? What about Pakistan?

Big losers were:

Romney - came across as insincere and poorly prepared - clumsy responding to dificult questions...slippery.

Tancredo - one dimensional and out of his depth on a national stage.

Paul - further confirmed his narrow perspective, albeit very popular with the Libertarian finge. Unfortunately, an ideologue is an idealogue.

Thompson - Ill prepared for either a debate or - judging from his responses - the Presidency. Show horse...Empty suit.

Held even:

Guliani - A better politician than his chief competition... but questions about his judgement remain unaddressed...

Hunter - solid but uninspiring - remains in the shadows.

Winners:

McCain - Clearly best level of expertise (aside from DH in the shadows)and came across as capable to handle the Presidency. Not useful for him to suggest that he will govern by veto. Needs to emphasize new and positive leadership ideas.

Huckabee - Appealing responses and comes across as calm, levelheaded. Appears thoughtful and genuine. A positive showing of domestic experience and big picture humor.

In all, a weak field. We are counting on the Dems offering a flawed candidate so that we can steal the general election by offering the better of two poor choices.

I agree with one thing Chris said - Chuck Norris was a winner last night.

Heck, people even call The Barrens area in WoW "Chuck Norris Land".

But it's sad seeing how old McCain is. Experience has an expiration date, and both he and Thompson are past their sell by dates.

Imiga, the law forbids a formal religious test by government means, not a non-binding test by a redneck from Texas or wherever he was from.

However you are still spot-on, in that instead of declining to answer the question, the candidates were all more than happy to stump on behalf of evangelical whackos everywhere. What has happened to our country? I personally would prefer a law that forbids a candidate to formally announce their religious beliefs while on campaign trails. Political elections should never have any basis in religious affiliation. Instead, if a candidate commits crimes based on their affiliation, then they should be punished for the crimes, not their religion.

Excuse my error. It was supposed to read:
A huge number of Americans ARE socially conservative, and the numbers are rising. I'm sure you knew that and are just being friendly. :)

*****************
the truth of the matter is, that a huge number of Americans are not socially conservative, and the numbers are rising.'

yes, so this means trouble for liberals? come back when you learn to operate your brain.

Posted by: claudialong | November 29, 2007 01:37 PM

ok. The church's statement from the free republc, tblackstock ? No thanks. I'll take the teachings of God over your right wing lies and propognada.

Come on proud. did you see the debate? your leaders ripped each other to shreds. No wonder you are bringing up clinton. how would you exist with that republican sabotuer (clinton)? What would you talk about? She will not be the nom. And your party is done. Enjoy your irrelevance.

Mike:

Here is an excellent article on the Church's ACTUAL teaching about the death penalty. I think it's fair to both sides of the argument and clarifies things wonderfully.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1873286/posts

good point imiga. So what are we going to do about it? keep electing those that are destroying it? no. Let's do soemthign about it. Get involed.

Good post imiga.

Anybody else outraged by Huck's using chrsitianity to justify republcain/facsist principles and murder?

/they all lost, IMO. Huckabee wins because he justifies killing people? Ok, CC. If you say so.

Forget teh commandments, I guess. If a man/woman merely CLAIMS to be a christian, I guess tha tmakes it so. Just like i can fly through the air without wings. Hey, I said it , it must be true.

Blasphemy

A moment of great concern to all Americans occurred when an ordinary American--an all too typical American--
--held up a Bible and said (I write from memory, but this was his meaning): "I'm going to ask you a question whose answer will tell us all we need to know about every one of you: do you believe that every single word of this book is true?"
And Giuliani answered like a sensible Catholic. And Romney answered like a Mormon scared to admit to the Book of Mormon. And Huckabee answered like a good Baptist minister, a good pastoral answer balancing faith and reasoned understanding. . . .
And I looked up and realized that the Constitution had vanished. Because no one--not one candidate, not Anderson Cooper the moderator, not a single person in that packed and often raucous audience--spoke the only possible Constitutionally permissible answer:
Article.VI. . . . no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
No religious test. None. Yet what we saw tonight was a religious test. A crystal-clear, absolutely open and direct violation of Article VI of the Constitution.
And no one in that roomful of politicians and political experts and politically committed Americans had the courage to say so, or perhaps even the knowledge to recognize it for what it was.
In that silence, we had to know: the Constitution has died, and we are so ensorcelled by those who killed it that we cannot even see that it is gone.

Bill Clinton -- never supported the war? I had to laugh.

HRC is desperate. Opera is a giant.

Huckabee was the only person who seemed reasonable and like so many have pointed out, he doesn't even believe in science.

Undecided Republican voters want to vote for Edwards, of all people.

Tom Tancredo doesn't understand that employers competing with China can't afford to pay Americans what the law requires them to, forcing them to hire illegals.

Romney wants to force innocent children of illegal immigrants to remain undocumented and in poverty instead of in college and the workforce. He also was busted twice, on video, for changing his position 180 degrees on abortion rights and gay rights in the military, both of which he staunchly favored in the 90s.

Giuliani is intelligent but is trying not to play the part so Republicans continue to vote for him.

McCain wants to continue the Iraq war.

Paul wants to dissolve the IRS and the Depts of Education, Energy and Homeland Security, and uses naive and ignorant 100-year-old arguments to support his reasoning.

Hunter wants to spend nearly a billion dollars on a border fence to keep out terrorists who have never been shown to even enter the country from Mexico.

Thompson can't put together a cogent sentence, let alone argument, without spacing out for five minutes.

What a field.

"one Republican said she would consider voting for John Edwards, if he becomes the Democratic Party´s nominee."

Linda, What do you expect? - it was CNN (the Clinton News Network) Of course they gave the interview with the dumbest person they could find, to further their negative portrayal of R voters. That lady is obviously not a conservative...nobody but mikeB supports Edwards.

Listen, voters are not as dumb as the Clintons think, and we can surely see through Bill Clinton's attempt to reinvent history about his support for the Iraq war. Who do they think they are kidding?

My point is that only 25% of the country identify themselves as Republican. Everyone else is either Democratic or Independent. The great "Center," also known as the "swing voters" or "moderates" (be they Independent, Democratic, or moderate Republicans) rejected the Republican Party in 2006 and are poised to do so again in 2008.

proud -- how can you say John McCain is not as canned as the rest?

How many times do I have to sit there and watch him twirl his sharpie and want to "Veto every pork barrel project that comes across my desk and make the authors famous"

or

"We went to Washington to change it, and Washington changed us"

or

"We Republicans spent like drunken sailors. And I know some drunken sailors who would be offended by that"

I think message is important. I also think style is important. John McCain is too old to construct a coherent sentence.

I did like the "Let us win".

Too bad he literally said it 5 times.

'the truth of the matter is, that a huge number of Americans are not socially conservative, and the numbers are rising.'

yes, so this means trouble for liberals? come back when you learn to operate your brain.

Instead of making your own little humorous comment, CC, how about adding John McCain to the Winners list instead.

McCain rose above the bickering and gave voters straight answers last night, raising the level of discourse.

The American people don't want to watch round after round of "gotcha politics". The selection of our next president is a serious matter, and it deserves to be debated by serious men and women who understand the stakes.

While other candidates spent their time delivering canned one-liners, debating lawn care, and taking credit for stopping snow storms, John McCain took on the toughest issues with bold honesty and moral certainty.

McCain cut through the petty back and forth with a vision for America's future in the war against Islamic extremism, fighting wasteful spending, and finding a real solution to border security. He did not equivocate, he did not rely on the advice of his lawyers and advisors; he spoke with a voice of reason and experience.

Anyone here ever been on a highschool or college debate team? I have not, but I'd always heard that among "real" debaters, it was common practice that whoever brought up Hitler first automatically lost.

"is going out of popularity to be "liberal", even with most of the media, entertainment industry, etc... "

That's why they are calling themselves "progressives".

I read some article about how the liberals in the country have been swinging back and forth between the two words, as it becomes over-used and unfashionable.

When Repukes debate, there are ONLY losers.

Huckabee believes the Earth is only 6000 years old and he wants this taught as a scientific fact in our public schools.

I hope he runs, he's a reichwingnut whacko and any Democrat can beat him with their hands tied behind their back.

I wouldn't let Chuck Norris sit next to my wife.

John Edwards won the Republican Party´s debate at CNN! Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhkyd4Z_EEc

The undecided Republican voters were underwhelmed by the Republican candidates and one Republican said she would consider voting for John Edwards, if he becomes the Democratic Party´s nominee.

In regards to the post by Salatiello:

Oh, please, dear God, let the Republicans nominate Huckabee. Doing so will ensure a landslide for the Democrats. But, really, I can only imagine that Republicans must watch these debates and say to themselves, "We have to nominate one of these clowns? Lord have mercy!" Most of the other 75% of the electorate watches this spectacle and says, "Thank goodness the Democrats are offering rational alternatives!"
****************************************

I hate to say it, but the liberals are in a losing battle. I've felt it for a good 10 years now, people are swinging back away from the radical liberalism, you can see it in the Churches, hear it when you talk to people. The truth of the matter is, that a huge number of Americans are not socially conservative, and the numbers are rising. And we aren't a bunch of bible thumper freaks like the liberals want to make us out to be. Take a look at this poll:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/general_current_events/24_are_both_fiscal_and_socially_conservatives_9_fiscally_and_socially_liberal

Note that the socially and fiscally conservatives are the LARGEST group of people in America, and if you look at JUST social issues, 37 % consider themselves conservative, the biggest group. 30% are moderates, and 30% are liberals, with 3% unsure. Even if some of these people are more liberal than they THINK of themselves, they don't want to appear to be liberal, and would rather consider themselves conservative. It is going out of popularity to be "liberal", even with most of the media, entertainment industry, etc... constantly berating conservatives. Truth will eventually stand against pressure and lies.

Chuck Norris can't act his way out of a wet paper bag, and unfortunately for him, neither can Mitt Romney.

"There are many traditional Catholics who disagree strongly with the Bishop's statement on the death penalty"

That is certainly true, but doesn't refute my point.

"The American Bishops have come up with their own idea of whether it is wrong or right (the death penalty), but the Church as a whole has not come up with a solid statement to this affect."

This must be why we had a Holy Week Campaign to End the Death Penalty, why we constantly pray to end abortion and the death penalty in church, and why Pope John Paul II appealed to America in 1999 in St. Louis to become unconditionally pro life in every situation, including the death penalty.

Are there folks who don't think removing someone away from society protects society (enough)? Sure. But that doesn't change church teaching.

The field is lame when the guy that seems reasonable compared to his opponents is on record believing humans walked the earth with dinosaurs when it was created 6,000 years ago.

Meant to say,

"However, one would have thought that when CNN asked the 24 undecided voters in Tampa, FL which candidate they were leaning towards, that any of them would have mentioned McCain as their choice. Not one of them mentioned McCain. That is not a good sign for McCain."

I love that there is so much hype about the "Hillary plant." Of course, it is never mentioned that an Edwards supporter (the China-toys questioner) and an Obama supporter (forget which question) also asked questions.

Is anyone really surprised that 3 Dems asked questions in last night's debate? Do you really think there are more than a handful of the racist-homophobic ignorant Southern hicks who make up the base of Republican party who actually know how to operate a web cam and post a video? Their ma and pa probably told them it was sinful.

But not the death penalty, of course, Jesus would be ALL for that. You know, given that he was innocently put to death and forgave another condemned man moments before he died.

If McCain wins the GOP nomination, he's going to have a hard time proving he's still a "maverick" candidate - he has pretty much towed the party line on the Iraq War (and other GOP-centric issues) and for that reason isn't substatially different - in policy - than most of the other Republican candidates (except Ron Paul).

However, one would have thought that when CNN asked the 24 undecided voters in Tampa, FL which candidate they were leaning towards, not one of them mentioned McCain. That is not a good sign for McCain.

"If you can believe this, I am a conservative from Texas who does not support capital punishment."

If you were listening closely, Mike, that sound you heard was me hitting the floor after fainting.

So, what's it like to be a walking, talking oxymoron in your neighborhood?

Chris, I wish you'd cut it out with that "Hizzoner" stuff, unless you're going to give cute nicknames to all the candidates. I know the Beltway MSM is crazy about Rudy but not everyone else is.

CC wrote: John McCain, "effectively used Rep. Ron Paul as a foil"

Only because Americans are easily duped. McCain insinuated that Ron Paul is an Isolationist. That is wrong. Ron Paul is a "non-interventionist". There's a HUGE difference.

McCain knows the difference but assumes (rightly so I'm afraid) that most Americans won't. It doesn't help that the MSM won't call him out on it, or take the time to explain to their viewers/readers understand where McCain was wrong.

What a sham.

In regards to the post by USMC_Mike:

**********************

I can tell you the Catholic Church teaches that capital punishment is unnecessary and wrong*

*In societies like the US, where we have the ability to separate the criminal from the rest of the population.
**************

Actually Mike, this is not true. The American Bishops have come up with their own idea of whether it is wrong or right (the death penalty), but the Church as a whole has not come up with a solid statement to this affect. This has been a huge debate in Catholic theological circles about this issue. It's not as simple as you make it sound. There are many traditional Catholics who disagree strongly with the Bishop's statement on the death penalty, ESPECIALLY because when it comes to American death penalty: it's not clear cut. IF it's not necessary to use the death penalty to protect the public then yes, it would be wrong. But there is still the argument that by NOT having the death penalty that it's not protecting the public, by actually encouraging MORE heinous crimes. It's a detailed, tricky discussion and has no easy answer, even if you rely fully on Church teaching and have the Church as authority in your life.

'Her 'minion' was a guy who served in the US milatry for 40 years. I think he deserves a little respect, and a chance to ask a question.

Respect yes, a chance to ask a question, no.

Bloated Farm Subsidies - Winner
Only Two Early Voting States - Loser

...I very glad to see a question about the farm subsidies last night. Only, instead of answering why already rich farmers are even elligible for subsidies, the candidates pandered to Iowa voters. No Republican seemed willing to fix the broken subsidies system.

...There would be more hope for fixing the ridiculous subsidies, if candidates didn't have to kiss Iowans butts.

I agree that Mitt Romney belongs in the "Losers" column, though. I was thinking, as I was watching the post-debate coverage, that Romney is a classic political opportunist. CNN rolled footage of a question where Cooper reported Romney had said, commenting on the "gays in the military" issue, that Romney "looked forward to the day" when gays could serve openly, and asked Romney if he still felt that way. Then I watched Romney furiously backpedal, not ever answering Cooper's question not once, but three times. Romney is trying hard to be all things to all people (in the GOP) and I don't think it's going to work. Northern Republicans may not have a major problem with him, but Southern Republicans most certainly won't trust him.

Purely from an economic standpoint, I can't imagine why any fiscally responsible person would object to gays who wanted to serving in the military, considerng that things are so bad in recruiting that the enlistment bonus just went up to $40,000 a person.

Chris, Huckabee's response to Jesus and the death penalty was clever, but sidestepped the question. Sadly, the press marveled at yet another non-answer to a question about a serious issue. The question was intended to be a request for a Christianity-based stance on the morality of the death penalty, not a set-up for a one-liner. Huckabee said nothing about the fact that the death penalty is disproportionately applied to African-Americans, that decisions to apply it are based in slipshod police and crime lab work, or any of a host of other related, troubling issues. Quips are nice, but debates are supposed to be about establishing positions, not electing an Entertainer-In-Chief.

And Norris in the "Winners" column? You gotta be kidding!

'I can't complain that her minion got a 5-minute free pass on CNN?

'Her 'minion' was a guy who served in the US milatry for 40 years. I think he deserves a little respect, and a chance to ask a question.

I have to agree with some of the comments here about Mitt Romney. I was downright embarrassed for him last night. In the interest of full disclosure, I'm an independent who supports Senator Obama but I'm open to other ideas. Mitt Romney is a joke. He tries to be a slick, clever speaker but comes across as a less-than-honest, holier-than-thou (as Giuliani put it) partisan. He HAS to be included in the loser section. His immature quips about ACLU lawyers and his inability to respond to McCain's waterboarding answer made him look like he was running for dogcatcher, not a position of power and influence at a time when our country desperately needs to rebuild its image abroad.

Gov. Romney seems so insincere when he discusses social issues because he's "new" to these beliefs. While its probably more of a general election strategy, he should stick to what he knows... business. His campaign would do him a service by promoting his management and problem solving skills (eg: Salt Lake Olympics). Right now he's coming across as an overly coiffed Janus.

People with strong beliefs are usually rather offended when someone apes their concerns for manipulative reasons... its a form of mockery.

Mayor Guliani: again I dont know how this sells to primary republicans but he seems to have thought about much of what he believes. He didn't bite on the "Do you believe everything in the Bible?" question, opting for a more thoughtful answer (which was Rev. Huckabee's answer also). The Mayor actually suggested that different municipalities may have different firearms needs (not alot of live quail in the Bronx)... and did this in front of a less than receptive audience.

I think the Mayor and Sen. Mc Cain win points for appearing, at least, to stick to their guns on certain unpopular issues (McCain on immigration)... unfortuneatly probably wont translate to primary votes.

We may actually do better with a Prez who sees a very complicated world beyond two dimensions.

Mark,

I can't find where you asked the question, and/or what question you ask.

I can tell you the Catholic Church teaches that capital punishment is unnecessary and wrong*

*In societies like the US, where we have the ability to separate the criminal from the rest of the population.

If you can believe this, I am a conservative from Texas who does not support capital punishment.

I don't trust the government with my healthcare, with my taxes, or with most relatively easy tasks that my 4th grade cousin could perform.

So, why would I trust them with the MONUMENTAL task of rendering death upon the guilty?

Romney was a joke and makes me sick. He's almost as slick as Slick Willie Clinton, and his flip-flopping is just as bad if not worse. Giuliani was so-so .. Thompson was OK. The clear winner was Huckabee.
GOP better hope Romney is not nominated because Hillary would eat him for lunch.

So now the Republican true believers are mad because a Democrat got to ask a question. The Republicans are, supposedly, looking for the best candidate to run for president. Well, THAT candidate is going to HAVE to answer questions from Democrats, so perhaps in the primaries they ought to get used to it. Otherwise, this is a contest to find out who most appeals to the far right of the party, hardly a qualification to run for President of ALL of the people.

Each election cycle the Far Right's tantrums, stunts, outings, and general misconduct to leverage the control of the center right become more blatant and more extreme. Somewhere in here the center is going to gag on this garbage once too often and then there will be the Democratic Plurality, the Progressive Opposition, and the Conservative Rump as the three main political foci. As a devoted Democrat, I like that possibility very much. Given that breakdown of the electorate there will never again be a Republican majority of anything.

Prediction: The Far Right is going to pull off a Goldwater Landslide.

WAG: Fred Thompson gets to play the role of AUH2O. With poorer results.

Who won the CNN Youtube Republican Debate in Florida?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1119

.

Mark_in_Austin, to reply in part to your question two threads back about the different religions' views of capital punishment: yes, capital punishment is technically allowed by Jewish law, which continues to evolve since our Bible (your "Old Testament") was written. However, the ancient rabbis put some pretty tough restrictions on the conditions under which capital punishment could take place. The only person ever executed by the modern state of Israel was Adolf Eichmann, in 1962. As I recall, the Sanhedrin of ancient times was referred to as "bloody" if only a single person was executed within a 70 year span.

My understanding of the Christian view is that a distinction is drawn between the term "kill" and "murder." But not being Christian, I could be very wrong about that.

Sorry to reply off-topic to THIS thread, but I simply can't keep up with the number of messages and threads on The Fix