I must admit, I first learned of Elizabeth Kucinich through Jon Stewart and The Daily Show. He presented a story about how one of the Democratic debates was so boring, cameramen would just switch to Mrs. Kucinich's beautiful figure when some candidate was talking. Makes sense to me.
And now, she openly states she is 100% in agreement with Dr. Paul's monetary policy! On video! Kucinich has his problems, but at least he married well!
Monday, November 26, 2007
Friday, November 16, 2007
Getting Rid of the CIA - It Makes Sense
A lot of folks call Dr. Ron Paul kooky and goofy, more Patch Adams than President Adams. Mona Charen has joined that thankfully shrinking chorus with her invective about Ron Paul. Many of her points are ridiculous, but her charge that Ron Paul's promise to rid the USG of agencies like the CIA or the IRS is bumper sticker garbage is worth addressing.
First off, Ron Paul is not against gathering intelligence. He simply charges that there is too much bureacracy between the intelligence and the decision makers. There is truth in that claim. The Central Intelligence Agency's charter has two missions - one, to gather and analysis intelligence to preserve national security; and two, to perform covert missions at the command of the President. One of the biggest gripes people have with the CIA - from Kermit Roosevelt in Iran to the black site prisons of the present day - is that there is a whole lot of two and not much one.
Are these two functions unique within the government? Not by a long shot.
There are currently 16 member organizations of the United States Intelligence Community. They are listed below.
First off, Ron Paul is not against gathering intelligence. He simply charges that there is too much bureacracy between the intelligence and the decision makers. There is truth in that claim. The Central Intelligence Agency's charter has two missions - one, to gather and analysis intelligence to preserve national security; and two, to perform covert missions at the command of the President. One of the biggest gripes people have with the CIA - from Kermit Roosevelt in Iran to the black site prisons of the present day - is that there is a whole lot of two and not much one.
Are these two functions unique within the government? Not by a long shot.
There are currently 16 member organizations of the United States Intelligence Community. They are listed below.
- Air Force Intelligence
- Army Intelligence
- Central Intelligence Agency
- Coast Guard Intelligence
- Defense Intelligence Agency
- Department of Energy
- Department of Homeland Security
- Department of State
- Department of the Treasury
- Drug Enforcement Administration
- Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Marine Corps Intelligence
- National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
- National Reconnaissance Office
- National Security Agency
- Navy Intelligence
Every military branch has their own intelligence group (even Marines and Navy are seperate). They also tend to guard their capabilities jealously, and aren't willing to give up responsibility for them even though technically they report to the Director of National Intelligence.
As for the civilian services, they are very specialized. The NSA, NRO, and NGIA are all part of the Department of Defense and control signals intelligence, satellites, and mapping services (for reconnaissance and targeting of weapons) respectively. Energy monitors nuclear activity around the world. Treasury is on the look out for anything that might affect monetary policy. The DEA is the drug police. And of course State, having personnel all over the world in the embassies, consulates, and miscellaneous missions is in an excellent position for gathering and analyzing intelligence.
Under a Paul administration, foreign intelligence may be boiled down to simply information gathering from the State Department and the Defense Department (including NSA, NRO, NGIA, Coast Guard, and other service intelligence groups), with Energy keeping responsiblity for the nukes. This of course is not official, but is based off of Paul's public statements in debates and interviews.
Intelligence Community Under Paul (speculating, of course)
Air Force Intelligence
Army IntelligenceCentral Intelligence Agency
Coast Guard Intelligence
Defense Intelligence AgencyDepartment of EnergyDepartment of Homeland Security
Department of State
Department of the TreasuryDrug Enforcement Administration
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Marine Corps Intelligence
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
National Reconnaissance Office
National Security Agency
Navy Intelligence
While there is intense debate over whether the CIA failed in its mission - given that intelligence was available about the hijackings but nothing was delivered to deicion makers - what can be said with some surety is that eliminating the CIA will not leave America blind and deaf to the world.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Bringing Ron Paul To Wash U
Now that Dr. Paul's incredible fundraising effort makes a viable run for the GOP nomination more than a pipe dream - its time he makes a visit to St. Louis.
Check out the Ron Paul - WU site at eventful.com and vote to bring Ron Paul to WU!
Check out the Ron Paul - WU site at eventful.com and vote to bring Ron Paul to WU!
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Ron Paul Wows Tonight Show
For the first time in at least six years, I actually sat and watched the Tonight Show. Of course, it was to watch Jay Leno's interview with Ron Paul. Jay was respectful without pandering, and gave Dr. Paul a chance to answer every question thoroughly and honestly. I haven't had goosebumps about a politician since Reagan.
Lew Rockwell has a recap of the whole experience behind the scenes.
Lew Rockwell has a recap of the whole experience behind the scenes.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
The 5th of November: 100,000 X $100 for Ron Paul on Guy Fawkes Day
This is all kinds of cool: a grassroots effort to get 100,000 Paul supporters to contribute $100 each on November 5. Count me in.
Now's the Time to Text R5 to 36288
Paul is still winning, but the Huck, who is possibly the worst of all the candidates, is catching up -- he's at 24 percent to Paul's 32.
Huck is the worst because he represents a virulent new form of soft socialism, one that appeals to many mush-brained evangelicals. Giuliani and the others are old fascist types whose limits are well-defined. But there's no telling what the health-nut Huck might try to do using government power.
Huck is the worst because he represents a virulent new form of soft socialism, one that appeals to many mush-brained evangelicals. Giuliani and the others are old fascist types whose limits are well-defined. But there's no telling what the health-nut Huck might try to do using government power.
The Zombie Focus Group
"So you want more passion?" asks Frank Luntz, when nobody raises their hand to say that McCain won the debate.
The focus group just wants somebody to attack Hillary and project power. They have no principles, they have no analytic ability.
Giuliani is now on Hannity and Colmes, mentions that except for Ron Paul neither he himself nor any of his colleagues will let Iran get nukes. That's right: they're all pro-war, except for Paul.
The focus group just wants somebody to attack Hillary and project power. They have no principles, they have no analytic ability.
Giuliani is now on Hannity and Colmes, mentions that except for Ron Paul neither he himself nor any of his colleagues will let Iran get nukes. That's right: they're all pro-war, except for Paul.
Round 3
We also had a commercial for the v-chip. I kid you not.
Now a question from Carl Cameron about Putin and Russia and their nuclear plans. Question for McCain: a new Cold War?
McCain: Says when he looked into Putin's eyes he saw the letters KGB. Ooh. Gets applause. Has nothing very specific to say, though. Says he doesn't think there'll be a new Cold War. But everything he says about Putin, "this is a dangerous person" and "he needs to understand that there is a cost to his actions," sounds like warmed-over Cold War rhetoric. McCain says he wants missile defense. "There's going to be some tough times," he says.
Hunter says that Putin gave us an opening by offering to work with us on sea-based missile defense, and says that we should work with Putin on that, put Aegis missile defense in the Black Sea. Lots of cheers when he says we need to keep missile defense strong.
Giuliani: says now is the time to make it clear to Putin that America speaks softly and carries a big stick. He too is a Cold Warrior -- and maybe not even "cold" at all. Says he wants to expand NATO -- NATO is already in a few former Soviet republics, does he propose to expand NATO all the way into Russia herself? Good grief. Says he wants to increase the size of our military in all aspects.
Question for Thompson about Turkey's steps to curb Kurdish terrorism. If America gets to be pro-active and invade Iraq, why shouldn't Turkey do the same thing? Thompson doesn't have much of an answer for this, we have "friends on both sides," he says, but "we have to understand Turkey's position." Says he hopes diplomacy can work. But if it doesn't? He seems to come down on the Turkish side, which in Realpolitik terms is wise.
Tancredo gets to add his two cents. Picks up a Thompson point about Pelosi's Armenian genocide vote, blames her for the Turks getting antsy about Kurdish Iraq.
Huckabee says trained and armed Kurds should fight the PKK, the Kurdish terrorists. Well, do you really think armed Kurds would see the PKK as terrorists, Huck? They'd see them as brothers-in-arms.
Paul says this is all a result of a policy of interventionism. Reminds the audience that Bush ran on a policy of noninterventionism. Paul says the Iraq was is likely to spill over into Iran. "We jeopardize ourselves, and quite frankly we're not able to afford this," he says w/regard to interventionism, and "we don't need another Cold War." Audience is jeering loudly. Booing when he says "the Turks business is not our business." Florida Republicans are trashy people, at least the ones in this audience.
Romney is emoting about genocide, getting applause. Cites Charles Krauthammer -- good to know Romney frankly thinks that one of the prime neocons is a wise foreign policy maven. Lots and lots of applause from the servile audience.
Paul gets a question from Goler, who says that Paul has drawn some of the strongest reactions from the audience, both pro and con. Question is whether the other candidates have left the Republican Party. Paul has a great answer: points out that they do not represent traditional conservatism, that they do not follow the constitution, they are "big government conservatives." Paul points out that Republicans consistently won when they ran as pro-peace, smaller government candidates. Points out that "we have lost our way," which is why "we lost last year, and if we don't go back to our traditions" of hte constitution, civil liberties, etc, we're doomed. Lots of jeering.
Giuliani asked whether he fears a nuclear Iran more than he fears going to war with Iran. Makes it pretty clear that he'd go to war with Iran, though he puts more emphasis on sanctions. He also says he wants to put pressure on China and Russia to pressure Iran. But how? Giuliani cites the difference between Carter and Reagan when dealing with Iran. He doesn't mention Reagan's sale of missiles to Iran -- remember Iran-Contra? Evidently no Florida Republican does.
Thompson gets a question about his laziness. He rambles along in reply, rattling off his resume. After getting to the end, says that, "If a man can do all that and be lazy" he'd recommend laziness to anyone. The brain-dead audience cheers.
That's the end. Not just of the debate, but probably of the Republicans' chances for the next decade or so.
Now a question from Carl Cameron about Putin and Russia and their nuclear plans. Question for McCain: a new Cold War?
McCain: Says when he looked into Putin's eyes he saw the letters KGB. Ooh. Gets applause. Has nothing very specific to say, though. Says he doesn't think there'll be a new Cold War. But everything he says about Putin, "this is a dangerous person" and "he needs to understand that there is a cost to his actions," sounds like warmed-over Cold War rhetoric. McCain says he wants missile defense. "There's going to be some tough times," he says.
Hunter says that Putin gave us an opening by offering to work with us on sea-based missile defense, and says that we should work with Putin on that, put Aegis missile defense in the Black Sea. Lots of cheers when he says we need to keep missile defense strong.
Giuliani: says now is the time to make it clear to Putin that America speaks softly and carries a big stick. He too is a Cold Warrior -- and maybe not even "cold" at all. Says he wants to expand NATO -- NATO is already in a few former Soviet republics, does he propose to expand NATO all the way into Russia herself? Good grief. Says he wants to increase the size of our military in all aspects.
Question for Thompson about Turkey's steps to curb Kurdish terrorism. If America gets to be pro-active and invade Iraq, why shouldn't Turkey do the same thing? Thompson doesn't have much of an answer for this, we have "friends on both sides," he says, but "we have to understand Turkey's position." Says he hopes diplomacy can work. But if it doesn't? He seems to come down on the Turkish side, which in Realpolitik terms is wise.
Tancredo gets to add his two cents. Picks up a Thompson point about Pelosi's Armenian genocide vote, blames her for the Turks getting antsy about Kurdish Iraq.
Huckabee says trained and armed Kurds should fight the PKK, the Kurdish terrorists. Well, do you really think armed Kurds would see the PKK as terrorists, Huck? They'd see them as brothers-in-arms.
Paul says this is all a result of a policy of interventionism. Reminds the audience that Bush ran on a policy of noninterventionism. Paul says the Iraq was is likely to spill over into Iran. "We jeopardize ourselves, and quite frankly we're not able to afford this," he says w/regard to interventionism, and "we don't need another Cold War." Audience is jeering loudly. Booing when he says "the Turks business is not our business." Florida Republicans are trashy people, at least the ones in this audience.
Romney is emoting about genocide, getting applause. Cites Charles Krauthammer -- good to know Romney frankly thinks that one of the prime neocons is a wise foreign policy maven. Lots and lots of applause from the servile audience.
Paul gets a question from Goler, who says that Paul has drawn some of the strongest reactions from the audience, both pro and con. Question is whether the other candidates have left the Republican Party. Paul has a great answer: points out that they do not represent traditional conservatism, that they do not follow the constitution, they are "big government conservatives." Paul points out that Republicans consistently won when they ran as pro-peace, smaller government candidates. Points out that "we have lost our way," which is why "we lost last year, and if we don't go back to our traditions" of hte constitution, civil liberties, etc, we're doomed. Lots of jeering.
Giuliani asked whether he fears a nuclear Iran more than he fears going to war with Iran. Makes it pretty clear that he'd go to war with Iran, though he puts more emphasis on sanctions. He also says he wants to put pressure on China and Russia to pressure Iran. But how? Giuliani cites the difference between Carter and Reagan when dealing with Iran. He doesn't mention Reagan's sale of missiles to Iran -- remember Iran-Contra? Evidently no Florida Republican does.
Thompson gets a question about his laziness. He rambles along in reply, rattling off his resume. After getting to the end, says that, "If a man can do all that and be lazy" he'd recommend laziness to anyone. The brain-dead audience cheers.
That's the end. Not just of the debate, but probably of the Republicans' chances for the next decade or so.
Firemen Need Plavix
Plavix will stop firemen from having clots. That's what I've learned from Fox's advertisements. Talk to your doctor.
The Debate Continues
Now a question about how all the candidates on stage trail Hillary in the polls. Romney trails by twelve points. Romney's answer is the usual: global jihad, "emerging economic superpower in China," blah blah. Cites his own business experience as a sign of how well he understands economics; contrasts that with Clinton's inexperience running anything. True as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough to take Romney to the White House.
Lots of cheering and cheering from the audience, which doesn't like Hillary and thinks that Hillary-hatred amounts to a substantial political program. The Republicans are sunk: they only know how to emote. That their emotions against Hillary are correct is beside the point. This audience has evidently popped too much Prozac.
Giuliani's response to the Hillary question is to crack jokes. Gets hoots and applause.
So far, no discussion of the fact that there's a bloody war going on in Mesopotamia...
Are Floridians just stupid? Giuliani keeps pandering to the audience, talking about how greateful he is for Florida for defeating Gore. Great, but ancient history...
McCain is now talking about Iraq, but he's not saying anything of substance. Doesn't say how he's going to win this war that we've been losing for nearly five years. In fact, his answer, to a question about the difference between himself and Hillary on Iraq, shifts into a discussion of the Woodstock museum. McCain says he doesn't remember Woodstock because "I was tied up at the time." Lots of hooting and hollering and applauding -- a standing O! -- from the drugged-up, sexually dysfunctional, statist audience. Yay for other people who fought in wars that we lost! Hurray! Gimme another blue pill!
Huckabee, putting on his serious face, says there's nothing funny about Hillary Clinton being president. Rants about Islamofascism. Well, there's something pretty funny about Huck being president. It aint gonna happen, for one thing.
Now Thompson, reciting some more talking points. This is going nowhere. Attacks liberals for "insulting" generals.
Paul gets a question about the Iraq War--Hillary is against it too, says the Fox News moderator, so what's the difference between them? Paul points out that most Americans want to come home -- and the Prozac audience boos. Paul points out that Hillary wants to stay in Iraq for at least another five years. Paul also mentions that our civil liberties have been eroded. "We need to get back to the basics, believe in the constitution, believe in the rule of law, and not allow our government to spend endlessly and bankrupt this country." Gets applause from the audience.
Another question for Thompson, about the solvency of the country. Thompson spouts cliches--bankrupting the next generation, "they don't have a seat at the table," blah blah. It's not wrong, but Thompson has nothing specific to say and can't be trusted. Words without meaning. Ok, now he gets to something specific: indexing Social Security to inflation. That's something, but not much.
Giuliani gets the next question. Thompson, the question says, will be accused of trying to cut benefits, "are you prepared to be as bold?" Giuliani says we need to get a consensus behind private accounts. Points out that Medicare and Medicaid are going to be twice as expensive as Social Security in ten years. Giuliani, as terrible as he is, often comes off as better versed in technical questions than the other neocons. Points out that the people who are not covered by health care right now are consumers -- they're not the poor, who are covered by Medicaid, but people who are buying things and who choose to buy something other than health insurance. Not a bad answer, all said.
Romney says he's prepared to be as bold, but not by cutting benefits for poor Americans -- good grief, a totally nonsensical answer. Talks a little about private accounts, says he wouldn't index benefits to inflation except for rich people. "Democrats also love America," he says, blah blah.
Huck now asked about private accounts. Says that Bush used the wrong word with "privatization," should have used "personalization." Says government should stop robbing the Social Security trust fund. This is all pretty banal. Says he wants to give seniors the option of a one-time buyout, for those who don't need Social Security.
Paul: points out that the government is not very good at centrally planning the economy. Says we need to provide for the elderly, but let the young people get out. Talks about the dollar's loss of value; unless the dollar is shored up, the attempt to keep up with cost of living increases won't work, because the currency will be worthless. A new foreign policy would tide people over, with the money redirected from the military. Gets applause.
McCain now asked. Talks about Tip O'Neill and Reagan fixing Social Security; says it has to be a bipartisan solution, with personal savings accounts.
Hunter now gets the question. He decides to talk about protectionism, thinks that Americans are going to get bigger paychecks by keeping (inefficient, uncompetitive) manufacturing jobs in the U.S. Gets wild applause for protectionism. Brit Hume asks, incredulously, whether Hunter really thinks he can solve the entitlements problem with trade policy. Hunter says, basically, yes.
Tancredo: Zzzzz.... Talks a little about the plan to give Social Security benefits to illegal aliens, which he opposes (as does anyone with an ounce of sense, I would think).
Commercial break, thank God. Next round is foreign policy.
This ordeal is brought to us by Bristol-Meyers-Squibb, we're informed. I need a drink.
Lots of cheering and cheering from the audience, which doesn't like Hillary and thinks that Hillary-hatred amounts to a substantial political program. The Republicans are sunk: they only know how to emote. That their emotions against Hillary are correct is beside the point. This audience has evidently popped too much Prozac.
Giuliani's response to the Hillary question is to crack jokes. Gets hoots and applause.
So far, no discussion of the fact that there's a bloody war going on in Mesopotamia...
Are Floridians just stupid? Giuliani keeps pandering to the audience, talking about how greateful he is for Florida for defeating Gore. Great, but ancient history...
McCain is now talking about Iraq, but he's not saying anything of substance. Doesn't say how he's going to win this war that we've been losing for nearly five years. In fact, his answer, to a question about the difference between himself and Hillary on Iraq, shifts into a discussion of the Woodstock museum. McCain says he doesn't remember Woodstock because "I was tied up at the time." Lots of hooting and hollering and applauding -- a standing O! -- from the drugged-up, sexually dysfunctional, statist audience. Yay for other people who fought in wars that we lost! Hurray! Gimme another blue pill!
Huckabee, putting on his serious face, says there's nothing funny about Hillary Clinton being president. Rants about Islamofascism. Well, there's something pretty funny about Huck being president. It aint gonna happen, for one thing.
Now Thompson, reciting some more talking points. This is going nowhere. Attacks liberals for "insulting" generals.
Paul gets a question about the Iraq War--Hillary is against it too, says the Fox News moderator, so what's the difference between them? Paul points out that most Americans want to come home -- and the Prozac audience boos. Paul points out that Hillary wants to stay in Iraq for at least another five years. Paul also mentions that our civil liberties have been eroded. "We need to get back to the basics, believe in the constitution, believe in the rule of law, and not allow our government to spend endlessly and bankrupt this country." Gets applause from the audience.
Another question for Thompson, about the solvency of the country. Thompson spouts cliches--bankrupting the next generation, "they don't have a seat at the table," blah blah. It's not wrong, but Thompson has nothing specific to say and can't be trusted. Words without meaning. Ok, now he gets to something specific: indexing Social Security to inflation. That's something, but not much.
Giuliani gets the next question. Thompson, the question says, will be accused of trying to cut benefits, "are you prepared to be as bold?" Giuliani says we need to get a consensus behind private accounts. Points out that Medicare and Medicaid are going to be twice as expensive as Social Security in ten years. Giuliani, as terrible as he is, often comes off as better versed in technical questions than the other neocons. Points out that the people who are not covered by health care right now are consumers -- they're not the poor, who are covered by Medicaid, but people who are buying things and who choose to buy something other than health insurance. Not a bad answer, all said.
Romney says he's prepared to be as bold, but not by cutting benefits for poor Americans -- good grief, a totally nonsensical answer. Talks a little about private accounts, says he wouldn't index benefits to inflation except for rich people. "Democrats also love America," he says, blah blah.
Huck now asked about private accounts. Says that Bush used the wrong word with "privatization," should have used "personalization." Says government should stop robbing the Social Security trust fund. This is all pretty banal. Says he wants to give seniors the option of a one-time buyout, for those who don't need Social Security.
Paul: points out that the government is not very good at centrally planning the economy. Says we need to provide for the elderly, but let the young people get out. Talks about the dollar's loss of value; unless the dollar is shored up, the attempt to keep up with cost of living increases won't work, because the currency will be worthless. A new foreign policy would tide people over, with the money redirected from the military. Gets applause.
McCain now asked. Talks about Tip O'Neill and Reagan fixing Social Security; says it has to be a bipartisan solution, with personal savings accounts.
Hunter now gets the question. He decides to talk about protectionism, thinks that Americans are going to get bigger paychecks by keeping (inefficient, uncompetitive) manufacturing jobs in the U.S. Gets wild applause for protectionism. Brit Hume asks, incredulously, whether Hunter really thinks he can solve the entitlements problem with trade policy. Hunter says, basically, yes.
Tancredo: Zzzzz.... Talks a little about the plan to give Social Security benefits to illegal aliens, which he opposes (as does anyone with an ounce of sense, I would think).
Commercial break, thank God. Next round is foreign policy.
This ordeal is brought to us by Bristol-Meyers-Squibb, we're informed. I need a drink.
Drugs for Cholesterol-Clogged, Impotent Voters
It's stunning: every commercial break I've seen so far on Fox News this evening has been inundated with drug commercials, mostly for heart medicine and whatnot, but now for Cialis. Oh, and vitamin supplements too. And foodstuffs that are advertised as drugs: some kind of fake butter without real nourishing delicious fat and cholesterol. Man, I hate this stuff. It's Huckabeeworld, where everyone if fat, impotent, statist, and treats religion as a twelve-step program, to be administered by the compassionator-in-chief. Aaargh!
I think I'm going to start smoking. I want to live in a free country, where cigarettes can be advertised on TV.
I think I'm going to start smoking. I want to live in a free country, where cigarettes can be advertised on TV.
What We Need Is Choice
That's Giuliani's claim in education. Giulinai is asked whether "choice" will bring back teachers who have quit. Giuliani says he cares about teachers, but he cares about kids more. Gets applause. Hints at support for vouchers, but doesn't say so specifically, uses the euphemism of "choice." Completely unsubstantive.
And now to a break. I think we all need it.
And now to a break. I think we all need it.
It Begins
The head of the Republican Party of Florida refers to it as "the party of Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Reagan."
Ron Paul gets big applause when he's introduced, but, disappointingly, Huckabee and Giuliani are getting bigger pops. Romney and Thompson, even McCain, too. It's not much of a Paul crowd, it seems.
Brit Hume introduced Paul as the '88 Libertarian Party candidate.
First question: who is the real Republican, the real conservative? Giuliani is asked whether he's more conservative than Thompson. Giuliani cites George Will to vouch for his conservative credentials. Giuliani claims he brought down crime "Maybe more than anyone in the history of this country." Megalomaniacal much? Claims that someone might find one or two exceptions to his conservatism--no kidding.
Romney is asked about his flip-flops and having run to the left of Ted Kennedy in Mass. Romney is sporting a ridiculous new hairstyle, with a lick of bangs dropping down onto his forehead. He looks absurd. This must be his attempt to make himself look less stiff and polished, but it makes him look like a statue with a bit of pigeon poop dropping down its forehead.
Thompson is asked whether he buys what Romney and Giuliani are selling. He says they have an hour and a half, maybe they'll get somewhere. Cracks a joke about Ted Kennedy's girth (no room to the left of him--no room to the right of him, either). Thompson says "both of these gentlemen have done some good things," but he points out that Giuliani is for government-funded abortion, gun control, and sanctuary cities. Giuliani gets to rebut him: says that Thompson was biggest obstacle to tort reform. "He voted against almost anything that would make our legal system fairer," such as loser-pays laws. Giuliani seemsa bit shaky in his response--he's grasping at straws.
Thompson gets another minute. Blathers about tort reform a bit, says he supported it w/regard to interstate commerce and a few other things, but that local issues belong at the state level. Good comeback to Giuliani. Says he passed an anti-sanctuary-city bill. Giuliani went to court to overturn it, says Thompson. Giuliani replies with his stock answer about New York's problems and the practical need for sanctuary policies.
McCain is asked who's more conservative, himself or Romney. McCain cites his record going back 20 years or so. Says he wasn't a mayor or a governor for a short period of time, he was a soldier and a leader.
Romney calls McCain "an American hero." Romney says he was fighting for issues like keeping the death penalty and lowering taxes as governor. "Fighting against the liberal lion." Gets tangled in a metaphor about building houses -- he says something about houses building other houses!
McCain cracks a joke about Romney's "call in the lawyers" answer from the last debate. Gets applause. McCain says Romney has been fooling people about his own record, and doesn't want Romney fooling the people about McCain's record. Not a lot of substance here.
Romney gets to rebut. Says again he would meet with lawyers before going to Congress in questions of going to war. This is weaselly. None of these clowns believe in following the constitution and actually declaring war -- only Paul does that.
Paul gets a question about gay marriage, asked about his opposition to an anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment. Paul says it should be a state-by-state matter, and ultimately a religious matter. Says an amendment is unnecessary; the states should be able to handle the issue and the federal government should get out. Authority can be put in the states by voting in Congress.
Romney is now asked about his support for the constitutional amendment. Romney says he comes from a state that has gay marriage. He cites the risk of gay marriage having such effects as, for example, discriminating against Catholic adoption services. This is a good point, and Romney gets pretty big applause for it.
Giuliani gets the question. He too says there is no need for a constitutional amendment, especially while only one state has actually had gay marriage imposed by judicial fiat. Giuliani cracks a joke about performing 210 marriages as mayor, says they were all men and women -- he hopes. Gets some laughs. Says that he has to get some slack, since it was New York City.
Huckabee is now asked about Giuliani's abortion position. Says he's not interested in fighting the other candidates, but wants to fight "for the American people." He throws out some banalities about human life, gets some applause. Huckabee has a very unctuous, "aw, shucks" kind of faux-sincerity that I find utterly repellent. I think Brownback was less repulsive.
Thompson now asked about his lobbying for Planned Parenthood. Thompson gives a rather incoherent answer, but ends by saying that Planned Parenthood opposes him now, which gets him some applause.
McCain gets a question about his criticisms of the Religious Right -- and the audio goes down! He's giving a long answer, too. Audio's back, he's talking about a "united party."
Tancredo gets his first question, about the hyphenation of the party -- neoconservatives, paleoconservatives, compassionate conservatives, etc. Tanc rambles a bit, says every candidate brings something good, but they also bring differences, and it shouldn't be a sin to discuss them. Cites his own American Taxpayers Union rating and his ratings from various other organizations. He sounds pretty shaky--I don't think he'll be in the race much longer.
Hunter gets his first question. He says Carl Cameron has been "dividing the party for the last ten minutes," and he'll try to unite them. He starts talking about Cuban freedom fighters. Direct pandering to the Cubans. Gets huge applause for it.
Wendell Goler is now asking about health care and education -- two issues that the federal government should not be involved in at all, as Ron Paul will hopefully have a chance to explain.
McCain gives a very generic answer, talks about Hillarycare, the Canadian and British National Health Services, etc. Wants to give out tax credits, which is good, but kind of weak.
Paul is asked about insurance and government programs creating the massive costs of health care. Goler asks whether other doctors, like Dr. Paul, should treat patients without taking medicare--basically, on charity. Paul says that the only way to save money and bail out Medicare in the short term is to fix our foreign policy, redirect some of that military money, and in the long term move away from managed care back to a free market system. Points to the AMA and pharmaceutical companies' roles. Gets pretty good applause.
Romney asked about his own health-care plan in Massachusetts--Romneycare. Romney says he's proud of what he did in Mass. Romney seems to have fixed his drooping forelock -- was that deliberate, or was it a genuinely unscripted hair moment? That, I think, is about as much interest as Romney can generate.
Hunter says Romney's plan, which mandates people buying health insurance, actually drives up the price of healthcare, which it does. Jokes about Romney's plan mandating fertility coverage for 90-year-olds, which he says is "optimistic." Gets some laughs, gets good applause.
Romney says he took as many mandates out as possible. "It was a compromise." Sheesh. Hunter is right: mandated insurance only adds to costs. It's also just plain statist. Awful, awful stuff. Romney is visually oozing; he's like a used-car salesman.
Now Huck. He's talking about how much money is spent on chronic disease. Wants emphasis put on prevention. Remember, folks, Huck wants to control what you eat and what you smoke. He wrecked his own health with a bad diet, and now he wants to "save" the rest of us.
Tancredo gets the question. I can't bring myself to write much more about Tanc. He's on his way out. Says federal government shouldn't be involved, gets applause.
Thompson is asked about his vote for No Child Left Behind. He refuses to say plainly that his vote was wrong, though he now criticizes NCLB and the teaching the test. His answer is rambling. Says he wants to "help the states." What does that mean? He throws out random cliches: vouchers, charter schools. And then he cites societal breakdown, gets applause from this evidently zombie-like, mindlessly cheery audience.
Ron Paul gets big applause when he's introduced, but, disappointingly, Huckabee and Giuliani are getting bigger pops. Romney and Thompson, even McCain, too. It's not much of a Paul crowd, it seems.
Brit Hume introduced Paul as the '88 Libertarian Party candidate.
First question: who is the real Republican, the real conservative? Giuliani is asked whether he's more conservative than Thompson. Giuliani cites George Will to vouch for his conservative credentials. Giuliani claims he brought down crime "Maybe more than anyone in the history of this country." Megalomaniacal much? Claims that someone might find one or two exceptions to his conservatism--no kidding.
Romney is asked about his flip-flops and having run to the left of Ted Kennedy in Mass. Romney is sporting a ridiculous new hairstyle, with a lick of bangs dropping down onto his forehead. He looks absurd. This must be his attempt to make himself look less stiff and polished, but it makes him look like a statue with a bit of pigeon poop dropping down its forehead.
Thompson is asked whether he buys what Romney and Giuliani are selling. He says they have an hour and a half, maybe they'll get somewhere. Cracks a joke about Ted Kennedy's girth (no room to the left of him--no room to the right of him, either). Thompson says "both of these gentlemen have done some good things," but he points out that Giuliani is for government-funded abortion, gun control, and sanctuary cities. Giuliani gets to rebut him: says that Thompson was biggest obstacle to tort reform. "He voted against almost anything that would make our legal system fairer," such as loser-pays laws. Giuliani seemsa bit shaky in his response--he's grasping at straws.
Thompson gets another minute. Blathers about tort reform a bit, says he supported it w/regard to interstate commerce and a few other things, but that local issues belong at the state level. Good comeback to Giuliani. Says he passed an anti-sanctuary-city bill. Giuliani went to court to overturn it, says Thompson. Giuliani replies with his stock answer about New York's problems and the practical need for sanctuary policies.
McCain is asked who's more conservative, himself or Romney. McCain cites his record going back 20 years or so. Says he wasn't a mayor or a governor for a short period of time, he was a soldier and a leader.
Romney calls McCain "an American hero." Romney says he was fighting for issues like keeping the death penalty and lowering taxes as governor. "Fighting against the liberal lion." Gets tangled in a metaphor about building houses -- he says something about houses building other houses!
McCain cracks a joke about Romney's "call in the lawyers" answer from the last debate. Gets applause. McCain says Romney has been fooling people about his own record, and doesn't want Romney fooling the people about McCain's record. Not a lot of substance here.
Romney gets to rebut. Says again he would meet with lawyers before going to Congress in questions of going to war. This is weaselly. None of these clowns believe in following the constitution and actually declaring war -- only Paul does that.
Paul gets a question about gay marriage, asked about his opposition to an anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment. Paul says it should be a state-by-state matter, and ultimately a religious matter. Says an amendment is unnecessary; the states should be able to handle the issue and the federal government should get out. Authority can be put in the states by voting in Congress.
Romney is now asked about his support for the constitutional amendment. Romney says he comes from a state that has gay marriage. He cites the risk of gay marriage having such effects as, for example, discriminating against Catholic adoption services. This is a good point, and Romney gets pretty big applause for it.
Giuliani gets the question. He too says there is no need for a constitutional amendment, especially while only one state has actually had gay marriage imposed by judicial fiat. Giuliani cracks a joke about performing 210 marriages as mayor, says they were all men and women -- he hopes. Gets some laughs. Says that he has to get some slack, since it was New York City.
Huckabee is now asked about Giuliani's abortion position. Says he's not interested in fighting the other candidates, but wants to fight "for the American people." He throws out some banalities about human life, gets some applause. Huckabee has a very unctuous, "aw, shucks" kind of faux-sincerity that I find utterly repellent. I think Brownback was less repulsive.
Thompson now asked about his lobbying for Planned Parenthood. Thompson gives a rather incoherent answer, but ends by saying that Planned Parenthood opposes him now, which gets him some applause.
McCain gets a question about his criticisms of the Religious Right -- and the audio goes down! He's giving a long answer, too. Audio's back, he's talking about a "united party."
Tancredo gets his first question, about the hyphenation of the party -- neoconservatives, paleoconservatives, compassionate conservatives, etc. Tanc rambles a bit, says every candidate brings something good, but they also bring differences, and it shouldn't be a sin to discuss them. Cites his own American Taxpayers Union rating and his ratings from various other organizations. He sounds pretty shaky--I don't think he'll be in the race much longer.
Hunter gets his first question. He says Carl Cameron has been "dividing the party for the last ten minutes," and he'll try to unite them. He starts talking about Cuban freedom fighters. Direct pandering to the Cubans. Gets huge applause for it.
Wendell Goler is now asking about health care and education -- two issues that the federal government should not be involved in at all, as Ron Paul will hopefully have a chance to explain.
McCain gives a very generic answer, talks about Hillarycare, the Canadian and British National Health Services, etc. Wants to give out tax credits, which is good, but kind of weak.
Paul is asked about insurance and government programs creating the massive costs of health care. Goler asks whether other doctors, like Dr. Paul, should treat patients without taking medicare--basically, on charity. Paul says that the only way to save money and bail out Medicare in the short term is to fix our foreign policy, redirect some of that military money, and in the long term move away from managed care back to a free market system. Points to the AMA and pharmaceutical companies' roles. Gets pretty good applause.
Romney asked about his own health-care plan in Massachusetts--Romneycare. Romney says he's proud of what he did in Mass. Romney seems to have fixed his drooping forelock -- was that deliberate, or was it a genuinely unscripted hair moment? That, I think, is about as much interest as Romney can generate.
Hunter says Romney's plan, which mandates people buying health insurance, actually drives up the price of healthcare, which it does. Jokes about Romney's plan mandating fertility coverage for 90-year-olds, which he says is "optimistic." Gets some laughs, gets good applause.
Romney says he took as many mandates out as possible. "It was a compromise." Sheesh. Hunter is right: mandated insurance only adds to costs. It's also just plain statist. Awful, awful stuff. Romney is visually oozing; he's like a used-car salesman.
Now Huck. He's talking about how much money is spent on chronic disease. Wants emphasis put on prevention. Remember, folks, Huck wants to control what you eat and what you smoke. He wrecked his own health with a bad diet, and now he wants to "save" the rest of us.
Tancredo gets the question. I can't bring myself to write much more about Tanc. He's on his way out. Says federal government shouldn't be involved, gets applause.
Thompson is asked about his vote for No Child Left Behind. He refuses to say plainly that his vote was wrong, though he now criticizes NCLB and the teaching the test. His answer is rambling. Says he wants to "help the states." What does that mean? He throws out random cliches: vouchers, charter schools. And then he cites societal breakdown, gets applause from this evidently zombie-like, mindlessly cheery audience.
Dumb Voters
Frank Luntz is talking to a herd of undecided Republicans -- a focus group. A fat guy complains that "Ron Paul is certifiably insane," and whines about Republicans being characterized as "warmongering Nazis." About three-quarters of the focus group is convinced that Hillary is literally a socialist. Well, she's plenty awful, but all the leading Republicans are too. Most of the focus group wants a daddy, a leader, someone to "step-up" and make Republicans feel good about themselves again. But Republicans shouldn't feel good about themselves, not after nominating and electing George W. Bush twice.
The focus group, which can't articulate any substantial vision but just wants a Republican "leader" to stop the Democrat Hillary, symbolizes pretty well how far wrong the GOP has gone.
The focus group, which can't articulate any substantial vision but just wants a Republican "leader" to stop the Democrat Hillary, symbolizes pretty well how far wrong the GOP has gone.
36288
That's the number to text "R5" to in order to vote for Ron Paul as tonight's winner.
Edit: Ah, Colmes just announced that the line opens at 8 pm, when the debate starts. That makes marginally more sense than asking who won before the debate so much as begins -- but not a whole lot more.
Edit: Ah, Colmes just announced that the line opens at 8 pm, when the debate starts. That makes marginally more sense than asking who won before the debate so much as begins -- but not a whole lot more.
Another Fox Debate
Hmm... the trouble with liveblogging these debates is having to slog through the rehearsed, focus-group-determined, propagandistic answers of all the candidates who aren't Ron Paul. Admittedly, Thompson had one or two funny lines in the financial debate a few weeks back, and occasionally one of the neocon candidates will bait another with a sharp rhetorical hook. But it's all pretty stultifying otherwise.
This is Fox, so of course we'll get some kind of sci-fi postapocalyptic scenario question toward the end. Weirdly, Fox is already running a telephone poll asking who won the debate. Is this some kind of ploy to get Paul supporters to call in early and then disqualify them? Or maybe it's just Fox trying to see if the other candidates can muster any support at all with the phone lines open early. Most likely, though, there isn't any point to it at all.
This is Fox, so of course we'll get some kind of sci-fi postapocalyptic scenario question toward the end. Weirdly, Fox is already running a telephone poll asking who won the debate. Is this some kind of ploy to get Paul supporters to call in early and then disqualify them? Or maybe it's just Fox trying to see if the other candidates can muster any support at all with the phone lines open early. Most likely, though, there isn't any point to it at all.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
A Standing Ovation Before Dartmouth Doctors
The Dartmouth Review has a wonderful report on Rep. Paul's speech before the students at Dartmouth Medical School. Here is Dr. Paul's assessment of the current state of health care in these United States.
Paul began his remarks by telling students that, “the medical system is going well except for a few groups: the patients, the doctors, the hospitals, the labs, and the politicians. Everybody else is happy.”
Guy Fawkes, V(for Vendetta), and now Ron Paul...
Most Americans gave little thought to the 5th of November until Hugo Weaving donned the Guy Fawkes mask in the Wachowski thriller V for Vendetta. Universally loved by freedom lovers and roundly panned and criticized by neocons - it is only natural that Ron Paul's campaign channel that libertarian soon to be classic with this announcement.
-Hat tip to Casey Khan at LRC Blog.
I have spent some time in politics, and this is the most inventive idea yet (and much less pandering and slimey than Giuliani's $9.11 idea). Sign up at http://www.thisnovember5th.com/ so your name will be counted.
Please join us this November 5th for the largest one day political donation event in history. Our goal is to bring together 100,000 people to donate $100 each, creating a one day donation total of $10,000,000.
-Hat tip to Casey Khan at LRC Blog.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Campaign Is Narrowing Focus? Says Who?
We are still months away from the first primary, yet there is all this talk of focusing on "top candidates" or "two-man" races. Certainly there are a lot of bad things about such a long and early campaign cycle, but one clear benefit is that there is more time to get out information about little known candidates and more time to expose little understood candidates. Only a short campaign cycle would allow Giuliani to be painted as a conservative. And yet we are being fed insinuations from the MSM and elsewhere that the campaign is narrowing down. Here is an egregious example from Pajamas Media and their failed online Presidential poll.
So while "top tier" candidates like McCain are faltering, while Ron Paul is surging - none of this matters because the campaign itself is narrowing its focus. Never mind that every person who has given money, voted in an online poll (including at PJM), gotten off their behind and voted in a straw poll completely disagrees. Sorry PJM, the media can't just wish undesirables away.
The problem with phone polling is that all you have to do to participate is answer your phone. Forget what PJM and other political websites say - the only polls that matter are at the primaries and the caucuses. You actually have to leave your house to make your voice heard, and it looks like Paul's people are very willing to do that.
This party is just getting started.
For months now, many readers have been complaining to us about the increasing inutility of the poll because of vote-swarming by second tier candidates. Many voters have lost interest and are not participating. Websites that had run our widget were no longer doing so.
Something needed to change.
Therefore, especially since the campaign itself appears to be narrowing its focus to front-running candidates, henceforth the Pajamas Media Poll will be restricted to those first tier candidates listed on the front poll page of the leading online poll aggregator Real Clear Politics.
So while "top tier" candidates like McCain are faltering, while Ron Paul is surging - none of this matters because the campaign itself is narrowing its focus. Never mind that every person who has given money, voted in an online poll (including at PJM), gotten off their behind and voted in a straw poll completely disagrees. Sorry PJM, the media can't just wish undesirables away.
The problem with phone polling is that all you have to do to participate is answer your phone. Forget what PJM and other political websites say - the only polls that matter are at the primaries and the caucuses. You actually have to leave your house to make your voice heard, and it looks like Paul's people are very willing to do that.
This party is just getting started.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
No Establishmentarian Wants A Paul Presidency
After all, if the incredible happens and he won, there would be no patronage jobs for them.
David Frum of National Review is now the Senior Policy Advisor for the Giuliani campaign, and in that capacity he claims that Giuliani shares his "conservative" values. I just can't believe there are thinking people who can look at Giuliani's record at face value and call him a conservative. The truth is that a president like Giuliani would stack his administration with fat cushy important jobs for all the little people who helped him along the way. A president like Paul would eliminate those jobs from the budget.
David Frum of National Review is now the Senior Policy Advisor for the Giuliani campaign, and in that capacity he claims that Giuliani shares his "conservative" values. I just can't believe there are thinking people who can look at Giuliani's record at face value and call him a conservative. The truth is that a president like Giuliani would stack his administration with fat cushy important jobs for all the little people who helped him along the way. A president like Paul would eliminate those jobs from the budget.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Who Won?
Vote for Ron Paul here.
A good debate performance is a good reason to donate to Ron, of course. Give generously: $4 million is the target for October. With that kind of funding, Ron will be on target to take New Hampshire by storm.
A good debate performance is a good reason to donate to Ron, of course. Give generously: $4 million is the target for October. With that kind of funding, Ron will be on target to take New Hampshire by storm.
The Debate Goes On (and On)
Lightning round.
Huck asked about SCHIP: Huck says he wants a minute and a half. So he can weasel. Says issue wasn't about children, which is true enough. But he doesnt' answer the question. They're giving him more than his 30 seconds. Says as president, he would never let it get to the point that it came to a veto. He refuses to say, when Matthews pushes him, to say he would veto it. Says the political loss is going to be enormous. So Huck would have signed SCHIP. They're giving him about a minute and a half, it seems. He gets applause for saying he doesnt' trust government or health care companies.
Romney asked about Arab-American population in Dearborn, Michigan. Romney talks about "Equality of all people," blah blah, but people who preach doctrines of hate or terror are "going to be followed into a church or Mosque." Hey, Religious Right, listen up: if you are preaching "hate," Romney will follow you into church with FBI spies.
Thompson: Asked about weak dollar. Says it helps our exports. Rambles.
Giuliani: Asked about federal debt owned by foreigners. Giuliani says we should sell more things overseas to balance out the debt owned by foreigners. "Sell energy independence, sell healthcare."
Brownie: Asked who his econ advisor would be. Says Greenspan(!). C'mon. He says he needs an "amalgam" of people. In other words, he can't name a single economist. He knows nothing about economics. Names Phil Gramm.
McCain asked about Bernanke's rate cuts. Says he (McCain) doesn't have the expertise to speak to it, that's why the Fed is independent. Says he wishes interest rates were zero, but leaves all that to the Fed.
Paul asked if he promises to support the GOP nominee. No, he says, not unless they promise to bring the troops home. He won't support them if they continue to take the party down the path that has taken the party down the tubes. We need a humble foreign policy.
Tancredo is asked the same. Says he's tired of being forced to choose lesser of evils, "I really don't intend to do that again." Good answer.
Brownie: Says he'll support the nominee. So the pro-life Brownie will vote for the pro-death Giuliani, though he says he thinks the nominee will be pro-life.
Hunter: Says he'll support the nominee. Talks about abortion, "respect for human beings." Gets applause.
Giuliani: Asked about London replacing NYC as financial capital of the world. Giuliani says no way, no how. Says it can't happen. Says this country is "last best hope" for humanity. Doesn't care about Bartiromo's objections, say it's inconceivable that America and NYC won't be the leading examples for the world. China, India, want to emulate U.S. Bartiromo asks about Sarbanes-Oxley and businesses leaving NYC. Giuliani says he'll lower corporate tax rates. Gets applause.
Romney: No, London won't replace NYC. Otherwise just parrots Giuliani. Says he'll support the GOP nominee. Cracks a joke about Fred Thompson and Law and Order, lots of laugh and Thompson is stony faced, but then cracks his own joke about how he's not the best actor on the stage.
Thompson asked about relationship with Canada. Thompson says it's fine. He successfully names Canadian PM Harper.
Huck asked about fixing the airlines. Says we need technology on the ground as sophisticated in the planes. Says "I don't want to re-regulate the industry, but..." He's a pinko! Says passengers shouldn't be "held hostage" on planes. Ok, fine. But he wants to re-regulate.
McCain asked how he would catch bin Laden. Says he would establish an organization not unlike the OSS in WWII. Well, guess what, John, the OSS wasn't too damn effective -- see "A Legacy of Ashes." Jokes that he would support the GOP nominee -- himself.
Romney asked about greatest long-term threat to U.S. economy. "Sense of optimism" he says. Utter b.s. "What we have as Americans is the envy of the world." Actually, Europe doesn't envy us very much.
Brownie: Says breakdown of the family is the greatest long-term economic threat. Ok, but it's too bad Brownie doesn't know anything about economics and can only talk about social issues.
Giuliani: Asked whether it would be good for hte country to have third-party option. Dumb question, and Giuliani says we do have third-parties. He goes back tot he question about education, says that's the biggest threat to the economy, and we should have school "choice." (I.e. get the government into private schools!)
Thompson asked how his first debate feels: Says it feels like home and he doesn't regret waiting to get into the race. "It was getting a little boring without me," he says, gets laughs.
It's over.
It seems to me that Paul was asked by far the fewest questions. Even Brownie got more. Duncan and Tancredo had more face time. It was shameless. Paul got no questions during that last lightning round, as far as I can recall.
Huck asked about SCHIP: Huck says he wants a minute and a half. So he can weasel. Says issue wasn't about children, which is true enough. But he doesnt' answer the question. They're giving him more than his 30 seconds. Says as president, he would never let it get to the point that it came to a veto. He refuses to say, when Matthews pushes him, to say he would veto it. Says the political loss is going to be enormous. So Huck would have signed SCHIP. They're giving him about a minute and a half, it seems. He gets applause for saying he doesnt' trust government or health care companies.
Romney asked about Arab-American population in Dearborn, Michigan. Romney talks about "Equality of all people," blah blah, but people who preach doctrines of hate or terror are "going to be followed into a church or Mosque." Hey, Religious Right, listen up: if you are preaching "hate," Romney will follow you into church with FBI spies.
Thompson: Asked about weak dollar. Says it helps our exports. Rambles.
Giuliani: Asked about federal debt owned by foreigners. Giuliani says we should sell more things overseas to balance out the debt owned by foreigners. "Sell energy independence, sell healthcare."
Brownie: Asked who his econ advisor would be. Says Greenspan(!). C'mon. He says he needs an "amalgam" of people. In other words, he can't name a single economist. He knows nothing about economics. Names Phil Gramm.
McCain asked about Bernanke's rate cuts. Says he (McCain) doesn't have the expertise to speak to it, that's why the Fed is independent. Says he wishes interest rates were zero, but leaves all that to the Fed.
Paul asked if he promises to support the GOP nominee. No, he says, not unless they promise to bring the troops home. He won't support them if they continue to take the party down the path that has taken the party down the tubes. We need a humble foreign policy.
Tancredo is asked the same. Says he's tired of being forced to choose lesser of evils, "I really don't intend to do that again." Good answer.
Brownie: Says he'll support the nominee. So the pro-life Brownie will vote for the pro-death Giuliani, though he says he thinks the nominee will be pro-life.
Hunter: Says he'll support the nominee. Talks about abortion, "respect for human beings." Gets applause.
Giuliani: Asked about London replacing NYC as financial capital of the world. Giuliani says no way, no how. Says it can't happen. Says this country is "last best hope" for humanity. Doesn't care about Bartiromo's objections, say it's inconceivable that America and NYC won't be the leading examples for the world. China, India, want to emulate U.S. Bartiromo asks about Sarbanes-Oxley and businesses leaving NYC. Giuliani says he'll lower corporate tax rates. Gets applause.
Romney: No, London won't replace NYC. Otherwise just parrots Giuliani. Says he'll support the GOP nominee. Cracks a joke about Fred Thompson and Law and Order, lots of laugh and Thompson is stony faced, but then cracks his own joke about how he's not the best actor on the stage.
Thompson asked about relationship with Canada. Thompson says it's fine. He successfully names Canadian PM Harper.
Huck asked about fixing the airlines. Says we need technology on the ground as sophisticated in the planes. Says "I don't want to re-regulate the industry, but..." He's a pinko! Says passengers shouldn't be "held hostage" on planes. Ok, fine. But he wants to re-regulate.
McCain asked how he would catch bin Laden. Says he would establish an organization not unlike the OSS in WWII. Well, guess what, John, the OSS wasn't too damn effective -- see "A Legacy of Ashes." Jokes that he would support the GOP nominee -- himself.
Romney asked about greatest long-term threat to U.S. economy. "Sense of optimism" he says. Utter b.s. "What we have as Americans is the envy of the world." Actually, Europe doesn't envy us very much.
Brownie: Says breakdown of the family is the greatest long-term economic threat. Ok, but it's too bad Brownie doesn't know anything about economics and can only talk about social issues.
Giuliani: Asked whether it would be good for hte country to have third-party option. Dumb question, and Giuliani says we do have third-parties. He goes back tot he question about education, says that's the biggest threat to the economy, and we should have school "choice." (I.e. get the government into private schools!)
Thompson asked how his first debate feels: Says it feels like home and he doesn't regret waiting to get into the race. "It was getting a little boring without me," he says, gets laughs.
It's over.
It seems to me that Paul was asked by far the fewest questions. Even Brownie got more. Duncan and Tancredo had more face time. It was shameless. Paul got no questions during that last lightning round, as far as I can recall.
Econ Debate Continues
Social Security is up next. Thompson gets a question: specific steps to maintain long-term SS solvency. He rambles at first, says the short term "is very good news" but in the future "our children and our grandchildren" won't have social security as we know it (I should hope not!). Says we need a growing economy, less discretionary spending, but we have to take care of national parks and bridges (yes, those are the two things he singles out), and we have to index SS benefits to inflation for future retirees. Blah blah.
Tancredo is asked about trade and whether the the Bush administration understands trade negotiation. Tancredo says that CAFTA, the policy formerly known as MFN, and other trade deals include all kinds of things that have nothing to do with trade, such as immigration issues.
Romney asked about health costs for employers, and whether the employer-based healthcare system should be abolished. His answer is imprecise: he attacks Hillary (good) but speaks vaguely about "market dynamics" and says his plan gets everybody insured (which will require more command-and-control of individuals and businesses, of course). Romney's health care plans are as bad or worse than Hillary, because he wants the state to ensure that everyone gets insured, which of course is not something government should do. He wants to force people to buy insurance. "Market dyanamics," he says, but he would make it all compulsory.
Question for Paul about whether unions are good for Americans. He says the right to organize is a right, but there should be no special privileges. Huckabee says "the real fact is unions are going to take a more prominent role in the future" because workers' wages are falling "while CEO salaries are going higher and higher." Ah, I hate this guy, a class-warring, nation-warring, bloodthirsty, sanctimonious, hypocritical pinko. And he doesnt' answer the question.
McCain says he's glad he's from a right-to-work state, no one should be forced to join a union.
Romney says McCain is right. Says there are good unions and bad unions--names the Carpenters Union as a good union. Won't name bad unions, gets a laugh for that.
Thompson: "I dont have to pretend that I'm a union member, because I have been a union member for some time," he's talking about Screen Actors Guild. Says that unions have done good, but dues shouldn't be used for political purposes against members' wishes.
Giuliani: Says that without unions, his family might never have gotten out of poverty. Panders to the UAW, says they're a good union. Says people should have a right ot join a union or not.
Hunter: Likes the steel workers' union. "They help to build a middle class," he says.
Brownback: Zzzzzzz...
Tancredo: Hey, he's a got a great line, makes fun of Bronwie's mother for being part of a postal workers union, because postal workers already have cushy jobs! Brownie laughs, says Tancredo should not attack his mom. The whole thing turns into comedy between Tanc and Brownie.
McCain gets a laugh with a joke about being the cheap seats and not being able to hear Maria Bartiromo. Says he thinks Washington has a requirement to bring health care costs down. (Where in the Constitution does it say that? It's regulation and state-granted monopoly that creates those astronomical costs in the first place!)
Oh, interesting, McCain says he doesn't support ethanol subsidies or sugar cane subsidies. Did I hear that right? Says that Reagan would be spinning in his grave at this bashing of free trade. (Even though Reagan protected Harley Davidson and a few other industries.)
Thompson gets a question about strikes and government stepping in with auto-makers. Says he wouldn't support stepping in.
Q. for Giuliani about policing the internet. Oh boy. "A new serious area of crime that's emerging" says Giuliani. "We should not tax the internet," he says. "We should police the internet" against child predators, wants a state-local-federal "task force" to "share information." Says he was involved with a company that attacks internet systems to see if they can be penetrated -- I hope he means they do this on request, not for the hell of it! Says he might be willing to set up an FCC for the Internet, though he says he would prefer not to.
McCain says absolutely not, he wouldn't have an FCC for the Internet. Says he'd stop child pornography on the 'net by going after the money.
Commercial break.
Tancredo is asked about trade and whether the the Bush administration understands trade negotiation. Tancredo says that CAFTA, the policy formerly known as MFN, and other trade deals include all kinds of things that have nothing to do with trade, such as immigration issues.
Romney asked about health costs for employers, and whether the employer-based healthcare system should be abolished. His answer is imprecise: he attacks Hillary (good) but speaks vaguely about "market dynamics" and says his plan gets everybody insured (which will require more command-and-control of individuals and businesses, of course). Romney's health care plans are as bad or worse than Hillary, because he wants the state to ensure that everyone gets insured, which of course is not something government should do. He wants to force people to buy insurance. "Market dyanamics," he says, but he would make it all compulsory.
Question for Paul about whether unions are good for Americans. He says the right to organize is a right, but there should be no special privileges. Huckabee says "the real fact is unions are going to take a more prominent role in the future" because workers' wages are falling "while CEO salaries are going higher and higher." Ah, I hate this guy, a class-warring, nation-warring, bloodthirsty, sanctimonious, hypocritical pinko. And he doesnt' answer the question.
McCain says he's glad he's from a right-to-work state, no one should be forced to join a union.
Romney says McCain is right. Says there are good unions and bad unions--names the Carpenters Union as a good union. Won't name bad unions, gets a laugh for that.
Thompson: "I dont have to pretend that I'm a union member, because I have been a union member for some time," he's talking about Screen Actors Guild. Says that unions have done good, but dues shouldn't be used for political purposes against members' wishes.
Giuliani: Says that without unions, his family might never have gotten out of poverty. Panders to the UAW, says they're a good union. Says people should have a right ot join a union or not.
Hunter: Likes the steel workers' union. "They help to build a middle class," he says.
Brownback: Zzzzzzz...
Tancredo: Hey, he's a got a great line, makes fun of Bronwie's mother for being part of a postal workers union, because postal workers already have cushy jobs! Brownie laughs, says Tancredo should not attack his mom. The whole thing turns into comedy between Tanc and Brownie.
McCain gets a laugh with a joke about being the cheap seats and not being able to hear Maria Bartiromo. Says he thinks Washington has a requirement to bring health care costs down. (Where in the Constitution does it say that? It's regulation and state-granted monopoly that creates those astronomical costs in the first place!)
Oh, interesting, McCain says he doesn't support ethanol subsidies or sugar cane subsidies. Did I hear that right? Says that Reagan would be spinning in his grave at this bashing of free trade. (Even though Reagan protected Harley Davidson and a few other industries.)
Thompson gets a question about strikes and government stepping in with auto-makers. Says he wouldn't support stepping in.
Q. for Giuliani about policing the internet. Oh boy. "A new serious area of crime that's emerging" says Giuliani. "We should not tax the internet," he says. "We should police the internet" against child predators, wants a state-local-federal "task force" to "share information." Says he was involved with a company that attacks internet systems to see if they can be penetrated -- I hope he means they do this on request, not for the hell of it! Says he might be willing to set up an FCC for the Internet, though he says he would prefer not to.
McCain says absolutely not, he wouldn't have an FCC for the Internet. Says he'd stop child pornography on the 'net by going after the money.
Commercial break.
Econ Debate II
It's probably the most interesting debate so far, but also the least relevant. All of the Republican candidates (with the partial exception of the protectionists) know how to speak a good game of tax cuts, spending cuts, and free-market economics. But it's all hot air: none of them, except for Ron Paul, is serious about any of it, and we'd get more Bushism under any of the non-Pauls: more spending, lower taxes maybe, but generally an incoherent economic policy directed mostly to favored Republican constitutencies.
Thompson has now been asked about Iraq. He says we didn't go in with enough troops, but he says there are signs of progress and it's the right strategy. Very generic answer. Says if "we leave with our tail between our legs" it'll be worse for America. Says "Islamic fascism" has declared war on us, wants to kill "millions of innocent people" (millions? They might want that; they have no prospect of doing so). He makes a joke, but nobody laughs--about 20-year-old soldiers vs. 20-year veterans of Capitol Hill.
McCain is asked about national sacrifice, serving a cause greater than themselves. Says he wants people to join the military, the Peace Corps, Americorps, etc. Claims that he's the only person on stage who says that the Iraq policy wasn't going to succeed years ago. He's lying: Paul said that all along.
Paul is asked about the "mercantilist" and "neo-colonial" point that we needed to go to war for oil. Paul debunks that idea, and emphasizes that this war is economically harmful, not helpful. "We're going broke, we have this huge deficit, we're spending over a trillion dollars maintaining this empire overseas." Says we have to change our foreign policy, live within our means, and can't have "paper dollars" as our chief exports if we want prosperity. Good anti-Fed material. Says war is a threat to our personal liberties and our economy.
Brownback is now asked the question. Says he voted for a "war on terrorism," which of cousre wouldn't justify war with Iraq, which had no WMD and little or no al-Qaeda. Brownie acknowledges that we haven't found WMD, but he says we shouldn't get out. Says he supports Biden's three-state solution--problem is, Brownie, the Iraqis don't like that "solution."
Thompson is asked whether he believes Saddam had WMD. Says that Saddam had a nuclear reactor back in '81 (Osirak, he means) and that he used chemical weapons against his own people. Believes that left to his own devices, Saddam would be developing a nuclear capability. "The whole place would be nuclearized," the "whole part of the world," Saudi, etc.
Romney asked if he would need to go to Congress to get authorization from Congress to attack Iran. Romney says he'd ask a lawyer, but it's clear that he thinks the president doesn't have to do so. He's giving a weaselly answer. But he does say we need to avoid war with Iran in the first place; says it was outrageous for the UN to invite Ahmadinejad to the U.S. and outrageous for Columbia to invite him to speak. How is Romney going to avoid war if he won't talk to the Iranians?
Duncan Hunter says the president can bomb other countries without provocation without asking Congress. Good grief. Says he should ask for approval, if there's time, but otherwise, bombs away. Talks about pre-empting nuclear facilities. (Not, notably, pre-empting a military threat, but just pre-empting another countries "facilities.")
"Absolutely," says Paul, you don't talk to attorneys, you read the Constituion. "You're not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war." "Preposterous" that the Iranians could pose an immediate, short-term threat to the U.S. Says this is just war propaganda. HUGE applause!
Huckabee says "a president has to do whatever is necessary to protect the American people," and that the president can bomb other countries without getting Congressional approval, which he describes as a "luxury." Huck is getting angry: he's a warmonging nutcase. He gets applause for it, though.
McCain says "it depends on the scenario," and at a minimum he would consult with the leaders of Congress.
My God, these guys are all saying that we don't need a legislative branch, we don't need the Constitution, we should have a warlord-president. This is pure, unadulterated Caesarism, and they not only believe it, they're touting it in public. Thompson says that getting permission from Congress is not necessary. So the president, according to the GOP, can now unilaterally start a war, bombing a country that poses no threat to us. This is dictatorial.
Giuliani says it depends on "circumstances," but it's safer and "desireable" to go to Congress. Cites Paul as saying that there never was an imminent attack, claims that 9/11 was such an attack. Paul says that we weren't attacked by a country. Giuliani says that we were attacked by Afghanistan and Pakistan. (Gee, if that's true, why didn't we attack Pakistan? Pak's government did not, of course, attack us.) Giuliani says Iran is a greater threat than Iraq.
Paul didn't get to respond to Giuliani's attack, so he's been left at a disadvantage here. Giuliani gets the next question as well, about energy independence, which he says he supports (ooh, risky!). Mentions a lot of power sources -- biofuels, wind power -- that are not really substitute for oil. HE's asked if he supports drilling off of Florida, California. Giuliani evades. Says "you can't do long term damage to our environment," but doesn't say whether he would do it. Talks about building more nuclear power plants -- hey, Giuliani, do you think Iran should be allowed to bomb those?
Brownback has been asked the question. Says he wants to be "energy secure" not "energy independent," which is fair but meaningless. Blah blah blah. "There a Chevy Malibu parked out here ... first twenty or thirty miles off of electricity, that you plug into at night ...." Zzzzzz. Supports drilling in ANWR and off the coasts.
Tancredo says "you better drill every place you can here."
McCain is asked about oil company profits and whether they should be taxed higher and forced to spend their profits to develop alternative fuel sources. McCain says no, and says he wouldn't drill off the coasts of Florida, California, unless the people of those states wanted to. Good--I'll give him a half-credit for a federalist answer. Says climate change is real and has taken place, "confluence" of climate change and strategic issues (mentions Chavez, Iran, Putin) as requiring energy reform. Slight applause.
Huckabee is asked about ethanol, whether the free market should determine whether they are used. Huckabee says it's critical for national security and economic interests to use "biofuels." It's a tremendous boondoggle, in fact, and Huck, a pinko through and through, is pandering. Blathers about "Islamofascism," as if ethanol gives us independence from the Arab world! "We can't wait till another generation." I hate Huckabee.
Thompson is asked about ethanol. Says ultimately the free market will decide, but in the meantime--of course!--he's for ethanol. Says there's plenty of oil out there for the indefinite future. Says U.S. since World War II has been a force for "stability and democracy."
Romney asked about farm subsidies. Romney says "I believe in domestic supports" for farmers. He's a socialist. He's as bad as Huckabee. Says he doesn't want our food supplies to be as insecure as our fuel supplies. What a sleazy liar Romney is.
Chris Matthew is asking about how Republicans will win back confidence of the public for handling the economy. Paul says if we want a prosperous economy here, we can't be "bailing out farmers and subsidizing ethanol" and we must bring the troops home and stop sending the money abroad. Huckabee is telling some tear-jerking story about Americans thinking their children will be worse off than they are. Says we need a "total overhaul of the tax system," but Huck's "fair tax" would be a nightmare. McCain says we need to restore "trust and confidence" in government, in part by reining in spending. "They [the public] want straight talk." Romney says Republicans have to be confident, not "going out with a message of doom and gloom" and GOP must say our future will be brighter than the past. Utter rhetorical gloss, no substance. Thompson: "we need to tell the American people the truth ... I don't think anyone believes anything coming out of Washington any more," says our security, prosperity, are on the line. Says we'll have to spend more than 4% of our budget on the military. "It's not all gloom and doom," he says, but he's just rambling.
Giuliani says we need "a vision of a robust strong America," providing an example of energy independence to China and India. Giuliani is awful, but he comes off as more knowledgeable of specifics than Romney and Thompson. He's talking about Hillary's 401(k) program.
Hunter: talking about protectionism, offshoring, trade deficit. He's a down-the-line protectionist. At least, unlike Huck and Romney, he's honest and unabashed.
Brownback: zzzzz. Oh, wait, he's proud that we represent "a third of the world's military spending." That's a plus for him!
Tancredo: "Stop illegal immigration." Says he's never voted with his party as often as now that the GOP is in the minority. Says GOP must stop pandering to special interests. Gets applause.
And now it's commercials.
Thompson has now been asked about Iraq. He says we didn't go in with enough troops, but he says there are signs of progress and it's the right strategy. Very generic answer. Says if "we leave with our tail between our legs" it'll be worse for America. Says "Islamic fascism" has declared war on us, wants to kill "millions of innocent people" (millions? They might want that; they have no prospect of doing so). He makes a joke, but nobody laughs--about 20-year-old soldiers vs. 20-year veterans of Capitol Hill.
McCain is asked about national sacrifice, serving a cause greater than themselves. Says he wants people to join the military, the Peace Corps, Americorps, etc. Claims that he's the only person on stage who says that the Iraq policy wasn't going to succeed years ago. He's lying: Paul said that all along.
Paul is asked about the "mercantilist" and "neo-colonial" point that we needed to go to war for oil. Paul debunks that idea, and emphasizes that this war is economically harmful, not helpful. "We're going broke, we have this huge deficit, we're spending over a trillion dollars maintaining this empire overseas." Says we have to change our foreign policy, live within our means, and can't have "paper dollars" as our chief exports if we want prosperity. Good anti-Fed material. Says war is a threat to our personal liberties and our economy.
Brownback is now asked the question. Says he voted for a "war on terrorism," which of cousre wouldn't justify war with Iraq, which had no WMD and little or no al-Qaeda. Brownie acknowledges that we haven't found WMD, but he says we shouldn't get out. Says he supports Biden's three-state solution--problem is, Brownie, the Iraqis don't like that "solution."
Thompson is asked whether he believes Saddam had WMD. Says that Saddam had a nuclear reactor back in '81 (Osirak, he means) and that he used chemical weapons against his own people. Believes that left to his own devices, Saddam would be developing a nuclear capability. "The whole place would be nuclearized," the "whole part of the world," Saudi, etc.
Romney asked if he would need to go to Congress to get authorization from Congress to attack Iran. Romney says he'd ask a lawyer, but it's clear that he thinks the president doesn't have to do so. He's giving a weaselly answer. But he does say we need to avoid war with Iran in the first place; says it was outrageous for the UN to invite Ahmadinejad to the U.S. and outrageous for Columbia to invite him to speak. How is Romney going to avoid war if he won't talk to the Iranians?
Duncan Hunter says the president can bomb other countries without provocation without asking Congress. Good grief. Says he should ask for approval, if there's time, but otherwise, bombs away. Talks about pre-empting nuclear facilities. (Not, notably, pre-empting a military threat, but just pre-empting another countries "facilities.")
"Absolutely," says Paul, you don't talk to attorneys, you read the Constituion. "You're not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war." "Preposterous" that the Iranians could pose an immediate, short-term threat to the U.S. Says this is just war propaganda. HUGE applause!
Huckabee says "a president has to do whatever is necessary to protect the American people," and that the president can bomb other countries without getting Congressional approval, which he describes as a "luxury." Huck is getting angry: he's a warmonging nutcase. He gets applause for it, though.
McCain says "it depends on the scenario," and at a minimum he would consult with the leaders of Congress.
My God, these guys are all saying that we don't need a legislative branch, we don't need the Constitution, we should have a warlord-president. This is pure, unadulterated Caesarism, and they not only believe it, they're touting it in public. Thompson says that getting permission from Congress is not necessary. So the president, according to the GOP, can now unilaterally start a war, bombing a country that poses no threat to us. This is dictatorial.
Giuliani says it depends on "circumstances," but it's safer and "desireable" to go to Congress. Cites Paul as saying that there never was an imminent attack, claims that 9/11 was such an attack. Paul says that we weren't attacked by a country. Giuliani says that we were attacked by Afghanistan and Pakistan. (Gee, if that's true, why didn't we attack Pakistan? Pak's government did not, of course, attack us.) Giuliani says Iran is a greater threat than Iraq.
Paul didn't get to respond to Giuliani's attack, so he's been left at a disadvantage here. Giuliani gets the next question as well, about energy independence, which he says he supports (ooh, risky!). Mentions a lot of power sources -- biofuels, wind power -- that are not really substitute for oil. HE's asked if he supports drilling off of Florida, California. Giuliani evades. Says "you can't do long term damage to our environment," but doesn't say whether he would do it. Talks about building more nuclear power plants -- hey, Giuliani, do you think Iran should be allowed to bomb those?
Brownback has been asked the question. Says he wants to be "energy secure" not "energy independent," which is fair but meaningless. Blah blah blah. "There a Chevy Malibu parked out here ... first twenty or thirty miles off of electricity, that you plug into at night ...." Zzzzzz. Supports drilling in ANWR and off the coasts.
Tancredo says "you better drill every place you can here."
McCain is asked about oil company profits and whether they should be taxed higher and forced to spend their profits to develop alternative fuel sources. McCain says no, and says he wouldn't drill off the coasts of Florida, California, unless the people of those states wanted to. Good--I'll give him a half-credit for a federalist answer. Says climate change is real and has taken place, "confluence" of climate change and strategic issues (mentions Chavez, Iran, Putin) as requiring energy reform. Slight applause.
Huckabee is asked about ethanol, whether the free market should determine whether they are used. Huckabee says it's critical for national security and economic interests to use "biofuels." It's a tremendous boondoggle, in fact, and Huck, a pinko through and through, is pandering. Blathers about "Islamofascism," as if ethanol gives us independence from the Arab world! "We can't wait till another generation." I hate Huckabee.
Thompson is asked about ethanol. Says ultimately the free market will decide, but in the meantime--of course!--he's for ethanol. Says there's plenty of oil out there for the indefinite future. Says U.S. since World War II has been a force for "stability and democracy."
Romney asked about farm subsidies. Romney says "I believe in domestic supports" for farmers. He's a socialist. He's as bad as Huckabee. Says he doesn't want our food supplies to be as insecure as our fuel supplies. What a sleazy liar Romney is.
Chris Matthew is asking about how Republicans will win back confidence of the public for handling the economy. Paul says if we want a prosperous economy here, we can't be "bailing out farmers and subsidizing ethanol" and we must bring the troops home and stop sending the money abroad. Huckabee is telling some tear-jerking story about Americans thinking their children will be worse off than they are. Says we need a "total overhaul of the tax system," but Huck's "fair tax" would be a nightmare. McCain says we need to restore "trust and confidence" in government, in part by reining in spending. "They [the public] want straight talk." Romney says Republicans have to be confident, not "going out with a message of doom and gloom" and GOP must say our future will be brighter than the past. Utter rhetorical gloss, no substance. Thompson: "we need to tell the American people the truth ... I don't think anyone believes anything coming out of Washington any more," says our security, prosperity, are on the line. Says we'll have to spend more than 4% of our budget on the military. "It's not all gloom and doom," he says, but he's just rambling.
Giuliani says we need "a vision of a robust strong America," providing an example of energy independence to China and India. Giuliani is awful, but he comes off as more knowledgeable of specifics than Romney and Thompson. He's talking about Hillary's 401(k) program.
Hunter: talking about protectionism, offshoring, trade deficit. He's a down-the-line protectionist. At least, unlike Huck and Romney, he's honest and unabashed.
Brownback: zzzzz. Oh, wait, he's proud that we represent "a third of the world's military spending." That's a plus for him!
Tancredo: "Stop illegal immigration." Says he's never voted with his party as often as now that the GOP is in the minority. Says GOP must stop pandering to special interests. Gets applause.
And now it's commercials.
The Econ Debate
I didn't realize it was starting so early in the afternoon. What are they thinking? I'll do a little liveblogging, but I might have to nip out and run a few errands before long.
Giuliani vs. Romney on tax cutting right now. Giuliani actually sounds more convincing. Romney sounds like he's trying to sell a used car. (Romney likes to talk about his tax cutting, but he raised fees.) Giuliani is saying the line-item veto is unconstitutional; he's emphasizing that he lowered spending, while Romney hiked it. Romney says this is "baloney" and claims he lowered taxes (but again, I think that omits fees). Romney's hitting back on the line item veto, which may be a good tactic -- heck, I like the line-item veto. Giuliani can't be winning any friends by ranting about how it's unconstitutional.
Now a question for Thompson, who can barely be heard trying to interject comments into the Romney/Giuliani fight. The question for Thompson is about the loss of U.S. manufacturing and the lower pay that manufacturing workers get when they find new jobs. Thompson is giving a very generic answer: most prosperous nation in the world, manufacturing is important, government is going to help manufacturing hire more people. The meat of his remarks is that we can help manufacturing by cutting taxes and regulations on manufacturers, which is sound enough, if not very specific. Duncan Hunter is rebutting with a protectionist argument about China undercutting American manufacturing with lower prices. (Oh, the horror! Lower prices!)
Question for McCain about single-income families. McCain says those days are gone. Cites people who make their livings off Ebay. Talks about "job retraining programs," community colleges, and other boondoggles. Uses the word "fix" a lot, and says "we have to go to the American people with clean hands" as far as spending is concerned. Mentions waste in defense spending, "which is the biggest part of our budget." Well, that's a good point.
Tancredo says that illegal immigration is the cause of the public's loss of faith in government.
Question for Romney about government borrowing and trade. Romney's rambling about trade agreements. Says he understands the business world because he spent his life in business. Talks about protecting intellectual property. Not a lot of specifics, and IP is always a problematic thing. He's bashing China, saying he's going to protect American workers. He wants to have it both ways: free trade and protectionist rhetoric.
Question for Giuliani about protectionism and national security. Giuliani comes off a knowledgeable about exports, knows specifically which trade agreements he's being asked about. Says that we need two categories of protection: economic protection, which he's implying he's against, and security protection, including IP as well as national security, which he implies he supports. But the weight of his remarks is about free trade, "entrepreneurial spirit." Says a Dubai company, if considered safe, should be allowed to own 20% of NASDAQ, but that this particular deal was done too quickly to tell whether they're safe. He too is trying to have it both ways: talking a big game about free trade, but qualifying it out of the game.
Paul says yes, a Dubai company should be able to own 20% of NASDAQ if they're not a threat ot security, and he sees no reason to think they're a threat.
Huckabee is making a protectionist case. McCain says Dubai deal is ok, criticizes protectionism and even says Smoot-Hawley contributed to World War II. Romney is also on the bandwagon, but with more generic remarks and he's also saying we have to make sure agreements are "in our benefit" -- yet again, he's trying to appeal to protectionism (the debate is taking place in Detroit) as well as claiming to be for free trade. Sleazy.
Thompson says yes, Dubai can own 20% of NASDAQ, which he says would in turn gain 30% of the Dubai company. Claims we should "look at these deals carefully," whatever that means. Hunter firmly says "No, because I don't trust them." He's a shameless protectionist, says that he thinks Dubai would provide the A.Q. Khan network with nuclear triggers. Attacks the trade deficit, says we have deficits with countries that have higher wages than the U.S. Says he would put mirrored tariffs against anyone with tariffs on us.
Brownback is speaking now. Vote him off the island! Let him get on with the business of reforming the family, or whatever the hell he says he's going to do. He's not adding anything, in the debates or in any other respect.
Tancredo is agreeing with Hunter; he's a protectionist. Notes he voted against MFN (which is no longer called MFN, but PNCR) along with Hunter.
CHris Matthews is asking about the alternative minimum tax, a really sadistic tax I must say. Thompson has a good answer: says that we don't need revenue-neutral tax cuts. Tax cuts that cut revenue are fine, he says, which is actually a good thing to say. Unfortunately, he doesn't sound like he has much conviction or enthusiasm. He sounds like he's reciting talking points, which of course he is.
Now a break for the debate, and a break for me.
Giuliani vs. Romney on tax cutting right now. Giuliani actually sounds more convincing. Romney sounds like he's trying to sell a used car. (Romney likes to talk about his tax cutting, but he raised fees.) Giuliani is saying the line-item veto is unconstitutional; he's emphasizing that he lowered spending, while Romney hiked it. Romney says this is "baloney" and claims he lowered taxes (but again, I think that omits fees). Romney's hitting back on the line item veto, which may be a good tactic -- heck, I like the line-item veto. Giuliani can't be winning any friends by ranting about how it's unconstitutional.
Now a question for Thompson, who can barely be heard trying to interject comments into the Romney/Giuliani fight. The question for Thompson is about the loss of U.S. manufacturing and the lower pay that manufacturing workers get when they find new jobs. Thompson is giving a very generic answer: most prosperous nation in the world, manufacturing is important, government is going to help manufacturing hire more people. The meat of his remarks is that we can help manufacturing by cutting taxes and regulations on manufacturers, which is sound enough, if not very specific. Duncan Hunter is rebutting with a protectionist argument about China undercutting American manufacturing with lower prices. (Oh, the horror! Lower prices!)
Question for McCain about single-income families. McCain says those days are gone. Cites people who make their livings off Ebay. Talks about "job retraining programs," community colleges, and other boondoggles. Uses the word "fix" a lot, and says "we have to go to the American people with clean hands" as far as spending is concerned. Mentions waste in defense spending, "which is the biggest part of our budget." Well, that's a good point.
Tancredo says that illegal immigration is the cause of the public's loss of faith in government.
Question for Romney about government borrowing and trade. Romney's rambling about trade agreements. Says he understands the business world because he spent his life in business. Talks about protecting intellectual property. Not a lot of specifics, and IP is always a problematic thing. He's bashing China, saying he's going to protect American workers. He wants to have it both ways: free trade and protectionist rhetoric.
Question for Giuliani about protectionism and national security. Giuliani comes off a knowledgeable about exports, knows specifically which trade agreements he's being asked about. Says that we need two categories of protection: economic protection, which he's implying he's against, and security protection, including IP as well as national security, which he implies he supports. But the weight of his remarks is about free trade, "entrepreneurial spirit." Says a Dubai company, if considered safe, should be allowed to own 20% of NASDAQ, but that this particular deal was done too quickly to tell whether they're safe. He too is trying to have it both ways: talking a big game about free trade, but qualifying it out of the game.
Paul says yes, a Dubai company should be able to own 20% of NASDAQ if they're not a threat ot security, and he sees no reason to think they're a threat.
Huckabee is making a protectionist case. McCain says Dubai deal is ok, criticizes protectionism and even says Smoot-Hawley contributed to World War II. Romney is also on the bandwagon, but with more generic remarks and he's also saying we have to make sure agreements are "in our benefit" -- yet again, he's trying to appeal to protectionism (the debate is taking place in Detroit) as well as claiming to be for free trade. Sleazy.
Thompson says yes, Dubai can own 20% of NASDAQ, which he says would in turn gain 30% of the Dubai company. Claims we should "look at these deals carefully," whatever that means. Hunter firmly says "No, because I don't trust them." He's a shameless protectionist, says that he thinks Dubai would provide the A.Q. Khan network with nuclear triggers. Attacks the trade deficit, says we have deficits with countries that have higher wages than the U.S. Says he would put mirrored tariffs against anyone with tariffs on us.
Brownback is speaking now. Vote him off the island! Let him get on with the business of reforming the family, or whatever the hell he says he's going to do. He's not adding anything, in the debates or in any other respect.
Tancredo is agreeing with Hunter; he's a protectionist. Notes he voted against MFN (which is no longer called MFN, but PNCR) along with Hunter.
CHris Matthews is asking about the alternative minimum tax, a really sadistic tax I must say. Thompson has a good answer: says that we don't need revenue-neutral tax cuts. Tax cuts that cut revenue are fine, he says, which is actually a good thing to say. Unfortunately, he doesn't sound like he has much conviction or enthusiasm. He sounds like he's reciting talking points, which of course he is.
Now a break for the debate, and a break for me.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
WSJ.com Wants To Know What The Fuss Is About
If you, delusional Wash Uer, honestly believed that politics wasn't all about money - then yesterday was bittersweet. On news that Rep. Ron Paul has raised over $5MM in Q3 - the MSM after a LONG while has finally started paying attention. The Q3 number is impressive because even McCain isn't expected to raise much more than that, Q3 numbers are traditionally softer compared to Q2, and only Ron Paul has increased fundraising from Q2 to Q3. Internet polling, newsgroups, meetups, and MySpace friends don't mean a damn to old school media - the only thing that really counts is money, and it looks like Rep. Paul is a threat in that arena as well.
Ben Worthen at WSJ.com, in reporting on Ron Paul's success via the internet, asked a big question: What's the deal? Many commenters responded with talking points on Paul's positions and his integrity. I included a meaningful and well worded comment as well. However, one gentleman took our reasoned arguments and put them into words anyone can understand...
"Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that isn’t full of shit!"
Bully to that "disinter," bully to that.
Ben Worthen at WSJ.com, in reporting on Ron Paul's success via the internet, asked a big question: What's the deal? Many commenters responded with talking points on Paul's positions and his integrity. I included a meaningful and well worded comment as well. However, one gentleman took our reasoned arguments and put them into words anyone can understand...
"Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that isn’t full of shit!"
Bully to that "disinter," bully to that.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Who Can Outflank Hillary From The Right AND The Left?
Did I even have to ask?
From the Chattanoogan:
While I disagree with getting out of Iraq as a left wing position - it is the right, and thankfully politically viable position. Primary voters need to get behind RP, after all Bush and Cheney could care less if the Republicans go down in flames in 2008.
From the Chattanoogan:
Only Ron Paul can outflank Hillary Clinton both to the left on the war, and to the right on everything else ... which is the only winning strategy the Republicans can plausibly employ in 2008.
While I disagree with getting out of Iraq as a left wing position - it is the right, and thankfully politically viable position. Primary voters need to get behind RP, after all Bush and Cheney could care less if the Republicans go down in flames in 2008.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Health Care Inequality
Suarez is now asking a lengthy question about Hispanics and blacks having less health insurance, more diabetes. What does your health care plan contain to address these inequalities, he asks.
Hunter: Says that New Jersey policyholders should be able to buy cheaper California policies. Talks about massive malpractice insurance burdens. Wants to bring back family doctors. Refers to the "barrio" quite a lot...
Keyes: Says before bringing back the family doctor, you have to bring back the family. Two-parent households. But *how* Alan? How are you, or the federal government, going to do that? Also says that in areas where blacks and hispanics live, we have to encourage entrepreneurship.
Huckabee: Problem with health care system is that it is intervention-based, rather than prevention-based. Again, this hints at vast statism: remember, Huckabee has said he likes the idea of a national smoking ban. He's going to screen us all for alcohol, tobacco, drugs, and transfats!
Paul: We have managed health care and corporatism because of the tax code, we have a monopoly created by the code--the HMOs and Big Pharma. Talks about how inflation wipes out the Middle Class. Prices go down when you don't have government involved. "There's a doctor monopoly out there." Says we need to rein in the FDA. HUGE applause, biggest yet of anyone tonight.
Brownback: Says he wants "more markets," but doesn't say anything specific as Paul did. Totally anodyne remarks. oh, now he gets to the point: health savings accounts. That's his panacea.
Tancredo: Says it's the individual's responsibility to stay healthy. Precisely: "we have to first look to ourselves, individually." Tancredo is very right about some things: too bad he's a loose cannon on foreign policy and an ultramilitarist. Supports reimportation of drugs from Canada--excellent!
Now Juan Williams is asking about black military heroes, calls attention to the first African-American combat pilot in U.S. history, who is in the audience tonight. Williams corrects himself: first *female* African-American combat pilot. When he gets to his question, it's about the war in Iraq, and the fact that minorities overwhelmingly oppose it. What do the candidates say to that?
Keyes: "An effort to defend the United States of America to a ... threat that came against us." Yeah, as if Iraq attacked the U.S. Keyes is blathering. Says G.W. Bush put too much emphasis on democracy in Iraq, not security in America. Ok, but if he'd put the emphasis on our security, he would never have invaded Iraq in the first place.
Huckabee: Says we need a federal "Veterans Bill of Rights" to make sure veterans benefits are the first thing to be drawn from the federal treasury. Says nothing about Iraq.
Paul: Says we shouldn't get into these wars, and if we do we need to declare wars. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Lots of applause. Points out Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. If we live up to our principles, we would have fewer injured veterans, and if we stopped sending the money overseas, we'd have more money to care for wounded veterans. Bravo!
Brownback: Lies through his teeth, says we declared war. Gets applause for saying military is doing a superb job. Says that the political situation is not working in Iraq, however, and wants to divide Iraq into three ethno-religious areas with a weak federal structure. Wishful thinking.
Tancredo: Says Congress must declare war and either fund or not fund the war. Says Congress should not dictate how the war is fought. "If you dont' want it, don't fund it, but you cannot micromanage it from the Congress of the United States." Applause.
Hunter: Refers to his son being in Afghanistan, tells Bernice, the pilot lady, that she might be in Afghanistan soon. Kind of a bad thing to stay. Says Iraq has a free government and needs a reliable Iraqi army. Wants more combat tours to create battle-hardened battalions. Gets some applause for saying we have to leave Iraq in victory.
Now Smiley says questions will be restricted to 30 seconds. Cynthia Tucker asks about Darfur. Huckabee says we must first address the genocide in America, abortion. Gets HUGE applause for this line. Says we have to fight poverty at home, "there's poverty in the Delta."
Paul: "The U.S. government has no authority," constitutional or moral, to get involved in Darfur. Says that we'd be getting involved in a civil war. We must keep our objective as our own national security, we should come home from everywhere, "bring our troops home from Iraq." HUGE applause.
Brownback Says he "couldn't disagree more," and gets a lot of applause. He wants war--says we shouldn't put our own troops in Darfur, but he's being shifty: he wants every measure that would lead to war.
Tancredo: No troops, but like Brownie, he wants war, under U.N. auspices.
Hunter: The UN and African Union can't do it, we need a "humanitarian corridor" with armed convoys of UN or African Union forces, and teach the villages self defense.
Keyes: Says he's appalled at the idea of retreating into Fortress America, says we have a "universal mission." He's a global imperialist without varnish.
Suarez asks Paul about the death penalty, whose support is fading. Whites support it more than blacks. There is a federal dimension to it. Is the death penalty carried out justly?
Paul: Says he's changed his opinion about the death penalty, says it should not exist at the federal level, it's unjust, it favors the rich over the poor who are more likely to be convicted. Huge applause.
Brownie: "We need a culture of life in the United States" (but we'll bomb the rest of the world!), "I have difficulty with the death penalty." He's temporizing. Says we should have very limited death penalty.
Tancredo: Almost entirely a state issue. Tancredo supports continuation of death penalty for crimes like treason. Gets applause.
Hunter: Says the death penalty is justified by deterrence. (This is a pretty problematic claim, actually.) Says it might only deter 5 percent. Actually, it might not even do that much.
Keyes: "I support the death penalty." Says it has a basis in universal justice and in the respect for life. Says most murders are of black people, and we would cheapen the significance of that if we didn't execute the killers.
Huckabee: Claims he dislikes the death penalty more than anyone else on the stage because he had to carry it out as Arkansas governor. Said he did it because it was the only conclusion that he could come to. Says "God help the American who has a cavalier attitude about the death penalty," but he supports it. Says we must emote, but not stop the policy. What hypocrisy.
Williams is asking about the achievement gap in schools. Is the Supreme Court right to say that school integration is no longer key to equal results?
Brownback says we still need integration, on a voluntary and "incentivized" basis, as much as possible. (But clearly if it's not possible freely, he'll force it.)
Tancredo: Says it's racist to claim that blacks can only learn by sitting next to whites. Wants more charter schools, vouchers.
Hunter: Population of schools should depend on communities, not forced mandate for government integration.
And that's it.
Hunter: Says that New Jersey policyholders should be able to buy cheaper California policies. Talks about massive malpractice insurance burdens. Wants to bring back family doctors. Refers to the "barrio" quite a lot...
Keyes: Says before bringing back the family doctor, you have to bring back the family. Two-parent households. But *how* Alan? How are you, or the federal government, going to do that? Also says that in areas where blacks and hispanics live, we have to encourage entrepreneurship.
Huckabee: Problem with health care system is that it is intervention-based, rather than prevention-based. Again, this hints at vast statism: remember, Huckabee has said he likes the idea of a national smoking ban. He's going to screen us all for alcohol, tobacco, drugs, and transfats!
Paul: We have managed health care and corporatism because of the tax code, we have a monopoly created by the code--the HMOs and Big Pharma. Talks about how inflation wipes out the Middle Class. Prices go down when you don't have government involved. "There's a doctor monopoly out there." Says we need to rein in the FDA. HUGE applause, biggest yet of anyone tonight.
Brownback: Says he wants "more markets," but doesn't say anything specific as Paul did. Totally anodyne remarks. oh, now he gets to the point: health savings accounts. That's his panacea.
Tancredo: Says it's the individual's responsibility to stay healthy. Precisely: "we have to first look to ourselves, individually." Tancredo is very right about some things: too bad he's a loose cannon on foreign policy and an ultramilitarist. Supports reimportation of drugs from Canada--excellent!
Now Juan Williams is asking about black military heroes, calls attention to the first African-American combat pilot in U.S. history, who is in the audience tonight. Williams corrects himself: first *female* African-American combat pilot. When he gets to his question, it's about the war in Iraq, and the fact that minorities overwhelmingly oppose it. What do the candidates say to that?
Keyes: "An effort to defend the United States of America to a ... threat that came against us." Yeah, as if Iraq attacked the U.S. Keyes is blathering. Says G.W. Bush put too much emphasis on democracy in Iraq, not security in America. Ok, but if he'd put the emphasis on our security, he would never have invaded Iraq in the first place.
Huckabee: Says we need a federal "Veterans Bill of Rights" to make sure veterans benefits are the first thing to be drawn from the federal treasury. Says nothing about Iraq.
Paul: Says we shouldn't get into these wars, and if we do we need to declare wars. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Lots of applause. Points out Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. If we live up to our principles, we would have fewer injured veterans, and if we stopped sending the money overseas, we'd have more money to care for wounded veterans. Bravo!
Brownback: Lies through his teeth, says we declared war. Gets applause for saying military is doing a superb job. Says that the political situation is not working in Iraq, however, and wants to divide Iraq into three ethno-religious areas with a weak federal structure. Wishful thinking.
Tancredo: Says Congress must declare war and either fund or not fund the war. Says Congress should not dictate how the war is fought. "If you dont' want it, don't fund it, but you cannot micromanage it from the Congress of the United States." Applause.
Hunter: Refers to his son being in Afghanistan, tells Bernice, the pilot lady, that she might be in Afghanistan soon. Kind of a bad thing to stay. Says Iraq has a free government and needs a reliable Iraqi army. Wants more combat tours to create battle-hardened battalions. Gets some applause for saying we have to leave Iraq in victory.
Now Smiley says questions will be restricted to 30 seconds. Cynthia Tucker asks about Darfur. Huckabee says we must first address the genocide in America, abortion. Gets HUGE applause for this line. Says we have to fight poverty at home, "there's poverty in the Delta."
Paul: "The U.S. government has no authority," constitutional or moral, to get involved in Darfur. Says that we'd be getting involved in a civil war. We must keep our objective as our own national security, we should come home from everywhere, "bring our troops home from Iraq." HUGE applause.
Brownback Says he "couldn't disagree more," and gets a lot of applause. He wants war--says we shouldn't put our own troops in Darfur, but he's being shifty: he wants every measure that would lead to war.
Tancredo: No troops, but like Brownie, he wants war, under U.N. auspices.
Hunter: The UN and African Union can't do it, we need a "humanitarian corridor" with armed convoys of UN or African Union forces, and teach the villages self defense.
Keyes: Says he's appalled at the idea of retreating into Fortress America, says we have a "universal mission." He's a global imperialist without varnish.
Suarez asks Paul about the death penalty, whose support is fading. Whites support it more than blacks. There is a federal dimension to it. Is the death penalty carried out justly?
Paul: Says he's changed his opinion about the death penalty, says it should not exist at the federal level, it's unjust, it favors the rich over the poor who are more likely to be convicted. Huge applause.
Brownie: "We need a culture of life in the United States" (but we'll bomb the rest of the world!), "I have difficulty with the death penalty." He's temporizing. Says we should have very limited death penalty.
Tancredo: Almost entirely a state issue. Tancredo supports continuation of death penalty for crimes like treason. Gets applause.
Hunter: Says the death penalty is justified by deterrence. (This is a pretty problematic claim, actually.) Says it might only deter 5 percent. Actually, it might not even do that much.
Keyes: "I support the death penalty." Says it has a basis in universal justice and in the respect for life. Says most murders are of black people, and we would cheapen the significance of that if we didn't execute the killers.
Huckabee: Claims he dislikes the death penalty more than anyone else on the stage because he had to carry it out as Arkansas governor. Said he did it because it was the only conclusion that he could come to. Says "God help the American who has a cavalier attitude about the death penalty," but he supports it. Says we must emote, but not stop the policy. What hypocrisy.
Williams is asking about the achievement gap in schools. Is the Supreme Court right to say that school integration is no longer key to equal results?
Brownback says we still need integration, on a voluntary and "incentivized" basis, as much as possible. (But clearly if it's not possible freely, he'll force it.)
Tancredo: Says it's racist to claim that blacks can only learn by sitting next to whites. Wants more charter schools, vouchers.
Hunter: Population of schools should depend on communities, not forced mandate for government integration.
And that's it.
Juan Williams Won't Get to the Point
He's asking a very long question. Ok, now it turns out, about six or seven sentences in, that he's talking about crime. Asks what the candidates will do to assure blacks and Latinos get treated fairly in the criminal justice system.
Brownback: "I may be the only person on this stage that's spent a couple of nights in jail, of my own volition." If only they had kept him there! I can't stand this sanctimonious pinko, or his twin, Huckabee. "If you go to prison, the chances of you going back are two thirds." That's bad news for Brownie, I guess. Talks about "mentorship and work programs." Federal alms.
Tancredo: "Far too many criminal statutes at the federal level ... especially drug laws, mandating certain penalties." Hey, that actually is a great answer! Mild applause. Talks about the black family, "the welfare state has helped create this." The welfare state can be the breadwinner, but it cannot give you morals, he says.
Hunter: Says he doesn't know much about the facts in this particular case, referring to the Jena episode, which Williams referred to in his meandering introduction. Hunter has no sympathy for the Jena 6 -- good for him. "There must be accountability if in fact a young man was kicked in the head while he was unconscious." He gets applause for that -- African-Americans in the audience evidently don't support thugs. Smiley is now jumping in, wants Hunter to mention a particular policy he would support to create a "fairer" equal justice system. Hunter says you can't be more fair than for people who are tried for criminal acts to be tried by a jury of their peers. Too bad he's for suspending habeas corpus in the spurious "War on Terror." What a fraud!
Keyes: Talks about community policing, justices of the peace, etc. Says if young people are treated the right way, they might get put on the right path -- this is a good point; throwing young people in jail when not absolutely necessary is obviously destructive.
Huckabee says we don't have a crime problem, we have a drug and alcohol problem. Well, he's a holy roller and he wants prohibition, or at least that's how I read it. He says we should have drug rehab instead of long-term incarceration. No, we need to get rid of these victimless drug crimes. You don't do that by trying to expand Prohibition, which I suspect -- though he doesn't say so explicitly -- is what Holy Huckabee wants.
Paul: Minorities are punished unfairly in the war on drugs. Blacks are 14 percent of drug users, but over 30 percent of those charged with drug crimes are black. Says "we need to repeal the whole war on drugs, it isn't working! Prohibition didn't work. Prohibition on drugs won't work. ... That is one way you can have equal justice under the law." Huge applause at several points.
Cynthia Tucker is now asking about voting rights for D.C. and rigid voting ID laws, including photo ID laws (which I am against, by the way).
Tancredo says D.C. is not a state and not entitled to representation. Says the district must be split up if it wants representation, split between D.C. and Maryland. Tancredo supports the photo ID requirement, "it's not that difficult to obtain." Lot's of applause, but of course it's a precursor to a national ID. Awful!
Hunter: Says if citizens in D.C. could keep and bear arms, he might support D.C. representation. Lots of applause for that. Says first 21 black congressmen were Reconstruction-era Republicans. Says he doesn't agree with poll taxes, but fears illegals voting. So he's a ID-maniac too.
Keyes: D.C. is supposed to belong to the nation, he says. Wants to "maintain that symbol" of our unity. Sheesh. Says if you don't like it, move to Maryland or Virginia. What grandiose b.s.!
Huckabee: Says D.C. should have representation, even if it requires amending the constitution. Lots of applause for that. Says they ought to be able to vote, regardless of color or political representation. Of course, Huckabee is for photo ID. Take note: these clowns are all for a national ID, an internal passport, a breathing license...
Paul: Need to amend constitution to give D.C. representation. Says states can set their own ID policies. But a national ID is another thing -- "I am positively opposed to any move to a national ID card." Lots of applause.
Brownback: Says he supports D.C. representation, if it's by amendment.
Brownback: "I may be the only person on this stage that's spent a couple of nights in jail, of my own volition." If only they had kept him there! I can't stand this sanctimonious pinko, or his twin, Huckabee. "If you go to prison, the chances of you going back are two thirds." That's bad news for Brownie, I guess. Talks about "mentorship and work programs." Federal alms.
Tancredo: "Far too many criminal statutes at the federal level ... especially drug laws, mandating certain penalties." Hey, that actually is a great answer! Mild applause. Talks about the black family, "the welfare state has helped create this." The welfare state can be the breadwinner, but it cannot give you morals, he says.
Hunter: Says he doesn't know much about the facts in this particular case, referring to the Jena episode, which Williams referred to in his meandering introduction. Hunter has no sympathy for the Jena 6 -- good for him. "There must be accountability if in fact a young man was kicked in the head while he was unconscious." He gets applause for that -- African-Americans in the audience evidently don't support thugs. Smiley is now jumping in, wants Hunter to mention a particular policy he would support to create a "fairer" equal justice system. Hunter says you can't be more fair than for people who are tried for criminal acts to be tried by a jury of their peers. Too bad he's for suspending habeas corpus in the spurious "War on Terror." What a fraud!
Keyes: Talks about community policing, justices of the peace, etc. Says if young people are treated the right way, they might get put on the right path -- this is a good point; throwing young people in jail when not absolutely necessary is obviously destructive.
Huckabee says we don't have a crime problem, we have a drug and alcohol problem. Well, he's a holy roller and he wants prohibition, or at least that's how I read it. He says we should have drug rehab instead of long-term incarceration. No, we need to get rid of these victimless drug crimes. You don't do that by trying to expand Prohibition, which I suspect -- though he doesn't say so explicitly -- is what Holy Huckabee wants.
Paul: Minorities are punished unfairly in the war on drugs. Blacks are 14 percent of drug users, but over 30 percent of those charged with drug crimes are black. Says "we need to repeal the whole war on drugs, it isn't working! Prohibition didn't work. Prohibition on drugs won't work. ... That is one way you can have equal justice under the law." Huge applause at several points.
Cynthia Tucker is now asking about voting rights for D.C. and rigid voting ID laws, including photo ID laws (which I am against, by the way).
Tancredo says D.C. is not a state and not entitled to representation. Says the district must be split up if it wants representation, split between D.C. and Maryland. Tancredo supports the photo ID requirement, "it's not that difficult to obtain." Lot's of applause, but of course it's a precursor to a national ID. Awful!
Hunter: Says if citizens in D.C. could keep and bear arms, he might support D.C. representation. Lots of applause for that. Says first 21 black congressmen were Reconstruction-era Republicans. Says he doesn't agree with poll taxes, but fears illegals voting. So he's a ID-maniac too.
Keyes: D.C. is supposed to belong to the nation, he says. Wants to "maintain that symbol" of our unity. Sheesh. Says if you don't like it, move to Maryland or Virginia. What grandiose b.s.!
Huckabee: Says D.C. should have representation, even if it requires amending the constitution. Lots of applause for that. Says they ought to be able to vote, regardless of color or political representation. Of course, Huckabee is for photo ID. Take note: these clowns are all for a national ID, an internal passport, a breathing license...
Paul: Need to amend constitution to give D.C. representation. Says states can set their own ID policies. But a national ID is another thing -- "I am positively opposed to any move to a national ID card." Lots of applause.
Brownback: Says he supports D.C. representation, if it's by amendment.
The Competition Winner
A lady who won a contest on a on-line radio station to ask a question is now up. "I believe that most black Americans who will vote in teh year 2008 are not able to name even one Republican president in teh 142 years since Lincoln's death who have left a positive and significant legacy for African-Americans." Question is, what "positive and significant legacy will they make for black Americans?
Huckabee tells her that Eisenhower was the one who supported the integration of Little Rock high school. Says he wants to treat cocaine and crack the same, in terms of punishment--but does he want to lower sentences for crack, or raise them for cocaine?
Paul: "If we had a freer society, it would take care of blacks and whites equally." Emphasizes that we're all individuals. Says that we should repeal the drug laws, and that's the way to address the mistreatment of blacks in the legal system. Talks about property rights, the military industrial complex, individuals, and fair distribution of goods and services in a free economy. Huge applause again!
Brownback: Wants to focus on "rebuilding the family." Do *you* want Senator Brownback to "rebuild" your family? Maybe kind of like "rebuilding" Iraq? Says we need an official apology from the U.S. government for segregation and slavery.
Tancredo: Says a number of Republicans have done great things for black Americans, mentions that Ronald Reagan did something for all Americans by increasing liberty. Says it's destructive to focus on race. To increase economic opportunities for every American, he says he will reduce the flow of immigration into the country. Pretty big applause for that.
Hunter: "What a wonderful question," he says. Also praises Eisenhower. Says the '64 Civil Rights Act was passed with a greater proportion of GOP votes than Democratic votes. Says that African-Americans, and all Americans, need to be shielded from pornography. Now he quotes Jack Kemp. He says nothing about the drug war or the Iraq War.
Keyes: "I don't believe there is this deep divide" between blacks and whites. "The core of that community is not race ... it's the more consensus that we are all created equal..." he's going Jaffa-ite again, and says we have to honor the creator God, and that we must "empower every parent in this country" to send children to schools that reflect their faith and values. Lots of appaluse, but he's way over time, and Smiley isn't taking any of it.
Next set of questions come from Cynthia Tucker, Ray Suarez, and Juan Williams. Starting with Tucker and Huckabee.
Tucker asks about race and unemployment. 33 percent higher unemployment rate for black high school graduates than for white high school dropouts. Huckabee says that the opportunities aren't the same and there's still racism. "That's something government can't change" but leadership can do something about, he says. More platitudes. Something about "the heel of someone's boot" on people's heads. Totally substance-free remark.
Paul: Walter Williams, a very astute free market economist, has studied this extensively, says Paul, and he cites Williams's conclusion: the minimum wage is to blame, because it eliminates opportunities. Says the economy is sound only when there's sound money, minimum taxes, wise foreign policy, etc. Says he has a bill in that will help everyone who is trying to get a start: no payroll taxes on waiters and waitresses. HUGE applause!
Brownback: "We still don't have a color blind society." Refers to a federal racism museum, or something, that he's building. Good grief. An "optional flat tax"--what an idiot, since flat taxes are regressive and would hurt blacks more than whites.
Tancredo: Says he can't agree with the race-baiting comments about why we have these problems. Blacks were moving up the ladder, he says, and families were in better shape in black America than in white American before the rise of the welfare state, which pays people to not be in the home. Lots of applause. Also cites importation of millions of low-wage workers who depress wages, "and it's got nothing to do with race."
Hunter: Republicans initiated legislation three times to reform welfare under Clinton, he says, and finally passed it. The number of jobs for single moms increased after that, jobs increased in places where welfare decreased. "We did very, very well by breaking the cycle of welfare." Says if we help the small businessman, "we'll do it."
Keyes: The disproportionate impact on black morals that government programs have had is to blame. "When you allow the family to break down" you create the conditions that lead to poverty. Now he's orating about promiscuity. He's overtime again, and Smiley is cutting him off.
Suarez for Paul: There are 12 million illegals in the U.S. Is it desireable or practical to try to send them all home? Will he sign a path to citizenship?
Paul: Says he didn't hear the last part of the question, the path to citizenship part. Paul says he would not sign the bill Suarez describes, it would be amnesty. Also says it's impractical to round up 12 or 20 million people. We have to stick to our guns on obeying the law and not reward illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is a consequence of a welfare state--immigrants get free hospital care, education, etc. You don't round 'em up, you don't reward them, you don't give them amnesty, you take down the welfare state. Pretty big applause.
Brownback: The American people are for immigration, he says, but not illegal immigration. Says he will not support new paths to citizenship (which doesn't seem to rule out amnesty, exactly.)
Tancredo: Laughs at Brownback's claim that we'll secure the border, since Brownback had never supported that before. (And I doubt he does now.) This is Tancredo's issue, so his answer here is a bit more polished than his others: says by enforcing the law, you will diminish illegal immigration without a roundup.
Hunter: Talks about how drywall contractors are undercut by illegal immigrants. "That's not fair," he says. "You have to build a border fence, you have to have a real border." Says he wrote the law that extends the border fence 854 miles. "They've got to knock on the front door, because the back door is going to be closed."
Keyes: talks about border control. Says we have to remember why we lost control, and he blames big business, and says blacks are most hurt by this. He cites Katrina, says blacks are always hurt the most. Keyes is shouting quite a bit.
Huckabee: More smooth lies. Says we live in a country people are trying to break into rather than break out of, and we should thank God for that. Suitcase, dirty bomb, etc. Talks about cracking down on employers. "Another version of slave labor" he says--wow. No applause for that. He really wants to go after employers--well, he is a socialist.
Huckabee tells her that Eisenhower was the one who supported the integration of Little Rock high school. Says he wants to treat cocaine and crack the same, in terms of punishment--but does he want to lower sentences for crack, or raise them for cocaine?
Paul: "If we had a freer society, it would take care of blacks and whites equally." Emphasizes that we're all individuals. Says that we should repeal the drug laws, and that's the way to address the mistreatment of blacks in the legal system. Talks about property rights, the military industrial complex, individuals, and fair distribution of goods and services in a free economy. Huge applause again!
Brownback: Wants to focus on "rebuilding the family." Do *you* want Senator Brownback to "rebuild" your family? Maybe kind of like "rebuilding" Iraq? Says we need an official apology from the U.S. government for segregation and slavery.
Tancredo: Says a number of Republicans have done great things for black Americans, mentions that Ronald Reagan did something for all Americans by increasing liberty. Says it's destructive to focus on race. To increase economic opportunities for every American, he says he will reduce the flow of immigration into the country. Pretty big applause for that.
Hunter: "What a wonderful question," he says. Also praises Eisenhower. Says the '64 Civil Rights Act was passed with a greater proportion of GOP votes than Democratic votes. Says that African-Americans, and all Americans, need to be shielded from pornography. Now he quotes Jack Kemp. He says nothing about the drug war or the Iraq War.
Keyes: "I don't believe there is this deep divide" between blacks and whites. "The core of that community is not race ... it's the more consensus that we are all created equal..." he's going Jaffa-ite again, and says we have to honor the creator God, and that we must "empower every parent in this country" to send children to schools that reflect their faith and values. Lots of appaluse, but he's way over time, and Smiley isn't taking any of it.
Next set of questions come from Cynthia Tucker, Ray Suarez, and Juan Williams. Starting with Tucker and Huckabee.
Tucker asks about race and unemployment. 33 percent higher unemployment rate for black high school graduates than for white high school dropouts. Huckabee says that the opportunities aren't the same and there's still racism. "That's something government can't change" but leadership can do something about, he says. More platitudes. Something about "the heel of someone's boot" on people's heads. Totally substance-free remark.
Paul: Walter Williams, a very astute free market economist, has studied this extensively, says Paul, and he cites Williams's conclusion: the minimum wage is to blame, because it eliminates opportunities. Says the economy is sound only when there's sound money, minimum taxes, wise foreign policy, etc. Says he has a bill in that will help everyone who is trying to get a start: no payroll taxes on waiters and waitresses. HUGE applause!
Brownback: "We still don't have a color blind society." Refers to a federal racism museum, or something, that he's building. Good grief. An "optional flat tax"--what an idiot, since flat taxes are regressive and would hurt blacks more than whites.
Tancredo: Says he can't agree with the race-baiting comments about why we have these problems. Blacks were moving up the ladder, he says, and families were in better shape in black America than in white American before the rise of the welfare state, which pays people to not be in the home. Lots of applause. Also cites importation of millions of low-wage workers who depress wages, "and it's got nothing to do with race."
Hunter: Republicans initiated legislation three times to reform welfare under Clinton, he says, and finally passed it. The number of jobs for single moms increased after that, jobs increased in places where welfare decreased. "We did very, very well by breaking the cycle of welfare." Says if we help the small businessman, "we'll do it."
Keyes: The disproportionate impact on black morals that government programs have had is to blame. "When you allow the family to break down" you create the conditions that lead to poverty. Now he's orating about promiscuity. He's overtime again, and Smiley is cutting him off.
Suarez for Paul: There are 12 million illegals in the U.S. Is it desireable or practical to try to send them all home? Will he sign a path to citizenship?
Paul: Says he didn't hear the last part of the question, the path to citizenship part. Paul says he would not sign the bill Suarez describes, it would be amnesty. Also says it's impractical to round up 12 or 20 million people. We have to stick to our guns on obeying the law and not reward illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is a consequence of a welfare state--immigrants get free hospital care, education, etc. You don't round 'em up, you don't reward them, you don't give them amnesty, you take down the welfare state. Pretty big applause.
Brownback: The American people are for immigration, he says, but not illegal immigration. Says he will not support new paths to citizenship (which doesn't seem to rule out amnesty, exactly.)
Tancredo: Laughs at Brownback's claim that we'll secure the border, since Brownback had never supported that before. (And I doubt he does now.) This is Tancredo's issue, so his answer here is a bit more polished than his others: says by enforcing the law, you will diminish illegal immigration without a roundup.
Hunter: Talks about how drywall contractors are undercut by illegal immigrants. "That's not fair," he says. "You have to build a border fence, you have to have a real border." Says he wrote the law that extends the border fence 854 miles. "They've got to knock on the front door, because the back door is going to be closed."
Keyes: talks about border control. Says we have to remember why we lost control, and he blames big business, and says blacks are most hurt by this. He cites Katrina, says blacks are always hurt the most. Keyes is shouting quite a bit.
Huckabee: More smooth lies. Says we live in a country people are trying to break into rather than break out of, and we should thank God for that. Suitcase, dirty bomb, etc. Talks about cracking down on employers. "Another version of slave labor" he says--wow. No applause for that. He really wants to go after employers--well, he is a socialist.
In the Money
A few days ago the Ron Paul campaign challenged supporters to raise $500,000 before midnight September 30, the official end of the third quarter. The response caught everyone unaware: they've already raised the $500,000 and now have their sights set on a cool million. Join me and thousands of others by going here to donate.
This is Starting to Get Weird
For those of you unfamiliar with Ron Paul girl, she's a Ron Paul supporter who makes videos praising Paul while also doing some PG-13 striptease. You may have doubts about the intellectual quality of these videos, but I think this one is pretty clever.
Ron Paul Girl - Worker Bee? - video powered by Metacafe
I ain't a workin' bee no more.
Ron Paul Girl - Worker Bee? - video powered by Metacafe
I ain't a workin' bee no more.
The Debate Begins
I've just sat through about five minutes' worth of commercials. Not that PBS is really ad-free, but this was a little much.
This debate, as Tavis Smiley's hosting suggests, focuses on African-Americans. It's held at "historically black Morgan State University" in Baltimore. The pre-debate emcee is cracking jokes about Fiddy Cent and Kanye West. He gives a shout out to those viewing at home--like Romney, Thompson, Giuliani, and McCain.
And now he's paying tribute to one of the kids involved in the Jena imbroglio, Michael Bell Good grief!
"Let's loosen up everyone--you don't have to wave your hands in the air, but at least unfold them," the host says. This is all a bit parodic.
Now Smiley is up.
Michael Steele is up, too -- he's introducing the candidates. We'll see whether he's warmed up at all to Ron Paul since he was calling for him to get out of the debates not so long ago. Hey, Michael, notice that Ron is one of the only five Republicans who shows up for the African-American debate? Your top-tier candidates don't give a damn, but Ron Paul does.
There's a HUGE applause for Paul as he's introduced, much bigger than for the other candidates. Keyes gets the second loudest applause.
First question is the predictable one: candidates are asked why they decided to show up for this debate and what they think about those who didn't. Huckabee says he got 48 percent of the black vote in Arkansas. Otherwise, he's just emoting a lot.
Paul is next. HUGE applause again! This is a Paul audience! Says he goes wherever he's invited to talk about freedom and the Constitution. Says if you have the fruits of your labor, he would like you to keep them -- under a freedom philosophy, we would be more prosperous because we would not be policing the world. Big applause for that.
Brownback is next: no applause. He apologizes for the candidates who aren't there. Moderate applause. Suggests that African-Americans pick an early primary state, register Republican, and vote for one of the six candidates who has shown up.
Tancredo is next: I didn't think he would be there. (I thought I'd read earlier that he'd declined it.) Mentions his attendance at the NAACP convention. Gets pretty good applause for that. "The promise of America is something we all actually have to share in." Rather bland statements so far, and he's a bit poorly spoken tonight.
Duncan Hunter: got some laughs from the audience with a joke about families talking about missing members at gatherings. Mentions Iraq War, border control (and narcotics), and his little grandson, who asked for his teacher's vote.
Keyes "thinks it is a little unfair to assume" that the no-shows didn't show up because they were sending a negative message to African-Americans. But then he mentions that they didn't show up at the Values Voters debate either. Now he's talking about himself, and how he's been barred from the Michigan debate. Great, Alan, it's about you. "They may not be afraid of all black people, but there seems to be at least one black person they're afraid of." Lots of applause.
This debate, as Tavis Smiley's hosting suggests, focuses on African-Americans. It's held at "historically black Morgan State University" in Baltimore. The pre-debate emcee is cracking jokes about Fiddy Cent and Kanye West. He gives a shout out to those viewing at home--like Romney, Thompson, Giuliani, and McCain.
And now he's paying tribute to one of the kids involved in the Jena imbroglio, Michael Bell Good grief!
"Let's loosen up everyone--you don't have to wave your hands in the air, but at least unfold them," the host says. This is all a bit parodic.
Now Smiley is up.
Michael Steele is up, too -- he's introducing the candidates. We'll see whether he's warmed up at all to Ron Paul since he was calling for him to get out of the debates not so long ago. Hey, Michael, notice that Ron is one of the only five Republicans who shows up for the African-American debate? Your top-tier candidates don't give a damn, but Ron Paul does.
There's a HUGE applause for Paul as he's introduced, much bigger than for the other candidates. Keyes gets the second loudest applause.
First question is the predictable one: candidates are asked why they decided to show up for this debate and what they think about those who didn't. Huckabee says he got 48 percent of the black vote in Arkansas. Otherwise, he's just emoting a lot.
Paul is next. HUGE applause again! This is a Paul audience! Says he goes wherever he's invited to talk about freedom and the Constitution. Says if you have the fruits of your labor, he would like you to keep them -- under a freedom philosophy, we would be more prosperous because we would not be policing the world. Big applause for that.
Brownback is next: no applause. He apologizes for the candidates who aren't there. Moderate applause. Suggests that African-Americans pick an early primary state, register Republican, and vote for one of the six candidates who has shown up.
Tancredo is next: I didn't think he would be there. (I thought I'd read earlier that he'd declined it.) Mentions his attendance at the NAACP convention. Gets pretty good applause for that. "The promise of America is something we all actually have to share in." Rather bland statements so far, and he's a bit poorly spoken tonight.
Duncan Hunter: got some laughs from the audience with a joke about families talking about missing members at gatherings. Mentions Iraq War, border control (and narcotics), and his little grandson, who asked for his teacher's vote.
Keyes "thinks it is a little unfair to assume" that the no-shows didn't show up because they were sending a negative message to African-Americans. But then he mentions that they didn't show up at the Values Voters debate either. Now he's talking about himself, and how he's been barred from the Michigan debate. Great, Alan, it's about you. "They may not be afraid of all black people, but there seems to be at least one black person they're afraid of." Lots of applause.
Tavis Smiley Debate
Ron Paul is one of the five candidates who showed up for tonight's Republican debate on PBS, organized by Tavis Smiley. The big uglies boycotted it, so no Romney, Thompson, Giuliani, or McCain. In addition to Paul, Duncan Hunter, Alan Keyes (why, Lord, why?), Brownback (I think), and Huckabee are taking part. Starts in a few minutes, and I'll do some live blogging...
I Love How Ron Paul Thinks - Tax Free Tip Act
This bit is from Lew Rockwell's blog, and it is the best idea to come out of Washington in 10 years. Of course, it is a bill sponsored by Ron Paul.
We all know friends and family in the service sector, and Americans jealously protect the tradition of tipping a server ONLY what they deserve (sometimes less!). Not taxing the income is the least this country can do, especially since this law would also decriminalize those who don't report tips.
A pox and a curse on any politician who tries to fight this bill.
"Many service-sector employers are young people trying to make money to pay for their education, or single parents struggling to provide for their children. Oftentimes, these workers work two jobs in hopes of making a better life for themselves and their families. The Tax Free Tips Act gives these hard-working Americans an immediate pay raise. People may use this pay raise to devote more resources to their children's, or their own, education, or to save for a home, retirement, or to start their own businesses.
"Helping Americans improve themselves by reducing their taxes will make our country stronger. I, therefore, hope all my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring the Tax Free Tips Act."
We all know friends and family in the service sector, and Americans jealously protect the tradition of tipping a server ONLY what they deserve (sometimes less!). Not taxing the income is the least this country can do, especially since this law would also decriminalize those who don't report tips.
A pox and a curse on any politician who tries to fight this bill.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Colin Powell: It's a Civil War
Gen. Colin Powell, architect of the Gulf War and Secretary of State during the Iraq War, has this to say about the situation we are in right now.
So even the "cakewalk" brigade saw this coming, only they did nothing. Ron Paul is right, at this point, we just need to leave.
"That was the big mistake. Don had written a list of the worst things that could happen, but we didn't do the contingency planning on what we would do about it. So we watched those buildings get burned down, and nobody told the divisions, 'Hey, go in there and declare martial law and whack a few people and it will stop.' Then the insurgency started, and we didn't acknowledge it. They said it wasn't an insurgency. They looked up the definition. They said it was a few dead-enders! And so we didn't respond in a way that might have stopped it. And then the civil war started at the beginning of last year. I call it a civil war, but some say no, it's not a civil war, it's a war against civilians. In fact, we have total civil disorder."
So even the "cakewalk" brigade saw this coming, only they did nothing. Ron Paul is right, at this point, we just need to leave.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Pro-American Iraqis Are In Danger Regardless
In addressing Dan's point below on the fate of pro-American Iraqis, their fate is grim, and of little real concern to the United States at this point. The New Yorker has a great article discussing this betrayal. The article exposes the fact that even those Iraqis most sympathetic to the American cause face many dangers from neigbors and former friends. And even if the danger is obvious, American policy is to not issue them armor or space on the base, and if they wish to leave the country, they need to talk to the Europeans because Americans want "to keep the 'good Iraqis' in Iraq."
The article is 15 pages long - but here is a substantial quote that covers the essence of the problem.
While Americans' security is paramount, the fact that we allow our natural allies to be daily targets simply goes to show the depth of disregard the government has for "good Iraqis." As Dan stated, there doesn't seem to be any solution to get this toothpaste back in the tube.
The article is 15 pages long - but here is a substantial quote that covers the essence of the problem.
Negroponte had barely expressed his condolences when Firas, Ahmed, and their colleagues pressed him with a single request. They wanted identification that would allow them to enter the Green Zone through the priority lane that Americans with government clearance used, instead of having to wait every morning for an hour or two in a very long line with every other Iraqi who had business in the Green Zone. This line was an easy target for suicide bombers and insurgent lookouts (known in Iraq as alaasa—“chewers”). Iraqis at the Embassy had been making this request for some time, without success. “Our problem is badges,” the Iraqis told the Ambassador.
Negroponte sent for the Embassy’s regional security officer, John Frese. “Here’s the man who is responsible for badges,” Negroponte said, and left.
According to the Iraqis, they asked Frese for green badges, which were a notch below the official blue American badges. These allowed the holder to enter through the priority lane and then be searched inside the gate.
“I can’t give you that,” Frese said.
“Why?”
“Because it says ‘Weapon permit: yes.’ ”
“Change the ‘yes’ to ‘no’ for us.”
Frese’s tone was peremptory: “I can’t do that.”
Ahmed made another suggestion: allow the Iraqis to use their Embassy passes to get into the priority lane. Frese again refused. Ahmed turned to one of his colleagues and said, in Arabic, “We’re blowing into a punctured bag.”
“My top priority is Embassy security, and I won’t jeopardize it, no matter what,” Frese told them, and the Iraqis understood that this security did not extend to them—if anything, they were part of the threat.
While Americans' security is paramount, the fact that we allow our natural allies to be daily targets simply goes to show the depth of disregard the government has for "good Iraqis." As Dan stated, there doesn't seem to be any solution to get this toothpaste back in the tube.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
More Debts the State Can't Pay
Matt's points below are very well made. With honor, as with currency and strategic risk, the Bush administration has long since incurred debts that it cannot pay--that, indeed, nobody can pay. The question is: if we stay longer, do we start to make payments, or do we only incur more debt? I think the answer is woefully obvious. It's true that there's a chance that pro-American Iraqis--however many of them there are--may be endangered if we leave expeditiously. But, of course, they'll be endangered if we leave slowly, too. And, in fact, they are likely to be more jeopardize the longer we stay, if University of Chicago Professor Robert Pape is correct in his well-documented theory that occupation is what drives insurgencies and terrorism.
Mike Huckabee, who was appropriating a lot of lines from a lot of sources in last week's debate (he ripped off Newt Gingrich's crack about FedEx finding illegal immigrants), used Colin Powell's old Pottery Barn rule: you break it, you bought it. But wait: what would Pottery Barn think about a kid of, in attempting to pay for the pots he's broken, says he'll stay and clean in the store--in the process knocking even more merchandise off the shelves?
There is no honor in this war. The sooner we leave, the less harm to Iraq--and to the U.S. That's not at all a perfect solution, unfortunately it's the only solution at all.
Mike Huckabee, who was appropriating a lot of lines from a lot of sources in last week's debate (he ripped off Newt Gingrich's crack about FedEx finding illegal immigrants), used Colin Powell's old Pottery Barn rule: you break it, you bought it. But wait: what would Pottery Barn think about a kid of, in attempting to pay for the pots he's broken, says he'll stay and clean in the store--in the process knocking even more merchandise off the shelves?
There is no honor in this war. The sooner we leave, the less harm to Iraq--and to the U.S. That's not at all a perfect solution, unfortunately it's the only solution at all.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
What Honor, Gov. Huckabee?
Growing up in rural Missouri in the 1980s, honor meant a lot - especially in the schoolyard. If a bully threatened you - and you wanted not give up your lunch money, have girls like you, avoid having your friends abandon you, or even just exist in a public middle school in peace - you had to fight him. You had to beat him up, if you could, or at least injure his pride to the point that he would search for easier prey. That was schoolboy honor.
To some extent, that honor is replicated in the honor among nations. Nations that are strong like Switzerland are rarely touched throughout history, and nations that are weak like Belgium often are. The key point, however, is that honor is tied to the ability of a person or nation to defend herself from aggression or invasion.
The United States government invaded Iraq, successfully. American soldiers lost no honor; Iraqi soldiers and their leaders lost plenty. If we left today, as Rep. Paul advocates - most would applaud our good sense, and hope we don't try that stunt again.
However, the United States government lost honor during 9/11. Even though the FBI and the Border Patrol had information on the hijackers, we failed to catch them. Because of current restrictions, the pilots had no arms to defend themselves - never mind many airline pilots are qualified to do so. For the first time in history, NATO patrolled the skies over New York and Washington, instead of our own planes. Every fumble, including Giuliani's insane decision to put an emergency center in a former (and future) terrorist target, lost honor for all involved.
The only way to restore that honor is not to honor the dishonorable, but completely revamp how things were handled that day. Cut the bureaucracy that silenced the analysts who knew what UBL was up to, and change our foreign policy from one of aggression to one of vigilant peace and mutual prosperity. That is the American way, and the honorable way.
To some extent, that honor is replicated in the honor among nations. Nations that are strong like Switzerland are rarely touched throughout history, and nations that are weak like Belgium often are. The key point, however, is that honor is tied to the ability of a person or nation to defend herself from aggression or invasion.
The United States government invaded Iraq, successfully. American soldiers lost no honor; Iraqi soldiers and their leaders lost plenty. If we left today, as Rep. Paul advocates - most would applaud our good sense, and hope we don't try that stunt again.
However, the United States government lost honor during 9/11. Even though the FBI and the Border Patrol had information on the hijackers, we failed to catch them. Because of current restrictions, the pilots had no arms to defend themselves - never mind many airline pilots are qualified to do so. For the first time in history, NATO patrolled the skies over New York and Washington, instead of our own planes. Every fumble, including Giuliani's insane decision to put an emergency center in a former (and future) terrorist target, lost honor for all involved.
The only way to restore that honor is not to honor the dishonorable, but completely revamp how things were handled that day. Cut the bureaucracy that silenced the analysts who knew what UBL was up to, and change our foreign policy from one of aggression to one of vigilant peace and mutual prosperity. That is the American way, and the honorable way.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Bomb Iran?
Up next, the candidates are going to be asked to respond to a "scenario."
Ah, it's about war with Iran. They must have got the Cheney memo (to which Arnaud de Borchgrave has alluded) about building up a case for war with Iran.
Paul: the president doesn't have the authority to go to war. He goes to the Congress and finds out if there is any threat to our national security. We didn't have to have a nuclear confrontation during the Cold War. We should be talking to Iran right now, we shouldn't be looking for the opportunity to attack them. [Paraphrase.] "Instead of looking at a scenario where it's inevitable we have to attack," we should be looking for how to have peaceable relations, as we did with China and the USSR. Massive applause once again: a very antiwar audience, or at least parts of it are.
Edit: I was mixing up Borchgrave's column on Bush's plans to attack Iran with George Packer's piece in the New Yorker on-line about Cheney's plans to whip up war with Iran. The latter is the one that's relevant to the Fox News scenario.
Ah, it's about war with Iran. They must have got the Cheney memo (to which Arnaud de Borchgrave has alluded) about building up a case for war with Iran.
Paul: the president doesn't have the authority to go to war. He goes to the Congress and finds out if there is any threat to our national security. We didn't have to have a nuclear confrontation during the Cold War. We should be talking to Iran right now, we shouldn't be looking for the opportunity to attack them. [Paraphrase.] "Instead of looking at a scenario where it's inevitable we have to attack," we should be looking for how to have peaceable relations, as we did with China and the USSR. Massive applause once again: a very antiwar audience, or at least parts of it are.
Edit: I was mixing up Borchgrave's column on Bush's plans to attack Iran with George Packer's piece in the New Yorker on-line about Cheney's plans to whip up war with Iran. The latter is the one that's relevant to the Fox News scenario.
The Crowd Loves Paul
Massive cheers for Paul over abolishing government agencies and departments, including the CIA. Question is, how would President Paul know what was going on without the CIA? Paul points out that the inefficiency of the bureaucracy prevents these agencies from doing much good.
"This whole idea that we're supposed to sacrifice liberty for security ... don't we remember that when you sacrifice liberty for security, you lose both?" Mentions national ID card, FISA, secret prisons, etc. -- "That's un-American." Massive cheering again; there are some decent people in the audience. Hope yet for the Republic?
"This whole idea that we're supposed to sacrifice liberty for security ... don't we remember that when you sacrifice liberty for security, you lose both?" Mentions national ID card, FISA, secret prisons, etc. -- "That's un-American." Massive cheering again; there are some decent people in the audience. Hope yet for the Republic?
The Party of Torture
Giuliani and Hunter, unsurprisingly, are very pro-Guantanamo, with Hunter describing it as a luxury spa. This is a party that, if it should have power for 20 years, would probably abolish all vestiges of habeas corpus. It'll start with Guantanamo, but why should it end there?
The Anti-Civil Liberties Candidate
Romney has just said he would wiretap mosques and churches. Claims the most important civil liberty is the right to be kept alive by the government. Good Lord.
And Tancredo is talking about his love of torture again, though he thinks waterboarding isn't torture. (What is it then? A recreational activity.)
McCain says he's anti-torture. But he's not to be trusted on this point. The audience is cheering his anti-torture line, which is good. Just hope they don't believe he's as good as his word: McCain was responsible for watering down the anti-torture bill a year or so ago.
And Tancredo is talking about his love of torture again, though he thinks waterboarding isn't torture. (What is it then? A recreational activity.)
McCain says he's anti-torture. But he's not to be trusted on this point. The audience is cheering his anti-torture line, which is good. Just hope they don't believe he's as good as his word: McCain was responsible for watering down the anti-torture bill a year or so ago.
Romney's Sons Are Fighting a War By Electing Him President
The Slickster just got a very harsh question from a "man on the street" referring to Romney saying that his children are kind of like the young men and women fighting in Iraq because they're fighting to elect him president. I'm sure Romney meant it when he said it, though of course he regrets it now.
He was asked whether he has an endgame. He's not giving any specific ideas. Says he can't say whether the surge is really successful until he hears from Petraeus. He gets no applause at all for his response. The audience has spotted a fake.
He was asked whether he has an endgame. He's not giving any specific ideas. Says he can't say whether the surge is really successful until he hears from Petraeus. He gets no applause at all for his response. The audience has spotted a fake.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
