If you want to listen to this yourself check this URL:
I watched the Democratic debate and let me tell you the Republican debate was well-produced, slick and said to be "hosted" by Nancy Reagan though she only shown once sitting sadly next to Arnold Schwarzeneggar in the crowd at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. The debate ran 90 minutes and featured 10 candidates: Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo and Tommy Thompson.
All Republican candidates favored the war in Iraq to one degree or another with the exception of Ron Paul who was he comic relief of this debate. Paul wants to abolish the IRS, withdraw from the world, get rid of taxes and practically all government spending, he is, in short a Libertarian wacko.
Rudy Guiliani made the first comment that stood out to me because he was all good vibes and sounded like a cheerleader. He stated in his opening remark that the US had the greatest healthcare system in the world. This is what I meant by cheerleading - what a confusing statement when almost everyone in the US is complaining about the health care system being a national tragedy.
Tommy Thompson then said something interesting about Iraq. That was that we could probably solve the problem if we started Iraq producting oil and gave the revenues out as follows: 1/3 to the Iraqi government, 1/3 to the 17 Iraqi "states" governments, and 1/3 to the people of Iraq to invest them in stabilizing their society. I think this might well get Iraq stablized and moving again, but I got to wondering if this division of natural resources owned by the country would be good for Iraq, why don't we try a little bit of it here in the US, we have a gap between the rich and the poor and a dwindling working class who is so disinvested in the country listen to them talk about how 911 was caused by the government.
Brownback said that we needed to engage the Moderate Muslim states before Radical islam corrupts them all we face a worldwide threat from a Radical Islamic "Caliphate" that stretches from Morocco to the Phillipines. There were all men who seem to understand and take seriously the threat from Islamic fundamentalism at all the different levels.
Many were critical of George Bush, most gently critical. Gilmore and McCain were probably the most strident about the military threat. Tancredo got cornered with the question - should Israel call him up as president and say that they were going to mount an attack on Iran, would he offer to assist. His answer was yes, we would have to. I think this is a key question that somehow draws a line between many Americans. Some see offering to fight for an ally as evidence that Israel has too much influence with the US, and some see it as a no-brainer question of defending an staunch ally and a country that is a key component of the West and is one of the few strong democracies in the world.
All candidate except Guiliani were solidly against abortion when asked if Roe V. Wade were overturned all said that it would be cause for celebration. Guiliani had the more moderate position of saying that he felt that abortion was wrong, but that he did not feel he had the right to decide for the country, other states, or other people, and some said that abortion should be legal within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.
Many mentioned related abortion to cloning, which I suppose was a way of supporing the ban on stem cell research and calling it bad without mentioning it and taking the heat for possible denying some famous people now living the cures that they have been told stem cell research supply.
Guiliani made a statement about standing up to Islamic terrorism to the effect that a president had to be a leader, like Ronald Reagan, and that they minute the Iranians looked into Reagan's eyes they knew he was a strong leader so they released the hostages in 2 seconds. To me this was dishonest, and a lie. Reagan had made a deal with the Iranians through backdoor channels for them not to release the hostages until Jimmy Carter was out of office.
Romney was the only one who seemed to know all the terrorist groups that we are fighting in the Islamic world, that is Hezbollad, Hamas, Al Qaida, and the Muslim Brotherhood. Romney also has good presentation, a strong voice and pleasant manner. He is also a Mormon.
Huckabee when asked about Global Warming enlarged the question and made it one about our responsibility to God and our descendents, that like the Boy Scout camping motto, we should leave the Earth a better place after we are gone than when we got here.
Hunter said clearly that Iran had already crossed the line that would leave them open for US military action by funding and arming terrorists in Iran. Other candidates that mentioned Iran all believed that bottom line is that Iran cannot get nuclear weapons, and force would be used if it was the only alternative.
Again, all candidates want a major revision of the tax system, but they almost all used the slogan Fair and Flat, and some mentioned getting rid of the estate tax.
Guiliani and Thompson both made big points that they were uniters. Guiliani that he worked with a majority Democrat government in New York as Mayor of New York, and Thompson that he had been a very successful government of the blue state of Wisconsin. Thompson was also the major leader of successful welfare reform that led to a successful national version of welfare reform.
None of the candidates when asked if they had room for Karl Rove in their administrations would say anything bad about Rove or distance themselves from Rove. Probably because Rove has eviscerated opponents of his before and no one wants to be on his dirty-tricks list.
When asked about illegal imgration without saying it McCain's rhetoric made me think that he leans towards some kind of amnesty while Tancredo is the opposite and leans to building fences and deporting aliens.
After 8 years of Bush and his group in the news for so long there were many new faces itching to get known on this huge panel and I confess I still had trouble remembering which ones Hunter, Gilmore, Huckabee and Tancredo are.
After watching this introductory debate I was impressed by these Republicans. I am a registered Republican, but I am more of a fiscal Republican and social Democrat. I never voted for Bush and in fact seldom really vote for Republicans because I feel the party is not what I think of when I think of Republican, but I cannot make the change over the Democrat either. I felt that almost all of these men made a better showing than the Democrats who really still have not congealed a message on anything important to me that resonates and to me still seem to spend too much time pandering to the far left about gay marriage and abortion.
The common wisdom seems to say that the Democrats will win this election cycle since the Republicans are so hated over Bush's mistakes in the war on terror, pointing to the midterm elections as proof of this. I think there are two things that do not support this. One is that the Democrats could barely pass the withdrawal date bill for the war, and Bush easily sustained his veto of this bill that the Democrats had to include so much pork in to get enough votes to even get to the President's desk. The second is that I still cannot help thinking that the people are more disenchanged with Bush's domestic policies than they are against the war. It is obvious that Bush and his hardline elite Republicans seek to get rid of abortion, get rid of social security, get rid of social programs in general, in short to remove a lot of things that most Americans, and most of the rest of the developed world believe in - education, health care, safety net, the Bush idealogues seek to gut these any way they can, and they consistantly come up with new marketing ploys. I think Americans do not support this "ownership society" but the media does not report it that way. Americans do not support this small group of very rich elite Republicans can use the media as a tool to market and push their New World Order and what it means - outsourcing and much more immigration while the standard of living declines for Americans who work for a living.
I think Americans support the war, both in Afghanistan and less so but in Iraq, but I think support is flagging because of Bush's incompetance and his hands off ivory tower leadership in the things he has done - remember Tom Ridge from Homeland Security, Brown from FEMA, Rumsfeld firing and overruling the Generals, Alberto Gonzales ... Bush and his crew have a goal, but they have not been competent, and they have not been honest - that is what I think rubs Americans the wrong way.
This was a good first debate, and let's hear more from these candidates and see what they say about coming developments until the election.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 22
I think just about everyone supported the Afghan war for the simple reason that it made sense and was clearly in the national interest. Iraq is different -- once the American people finally began to understand the extent to which they had been lied to (yes, 'lied to') by means of what a recent report on the Pentagon's Special Operations Branch called Doug Feith's 'inappropriate' 'alternative' intelligence. Then came the ever-changing rationale for the war, as rationalization after rationalization bit the dust. Now we're left with the impossible goal of establishing a democracy in a nation that hasn't the faintest notion of democracy's guiding principles and is busy fighting a civil war so the Shiites can establish a theocracy. But, say some politicians, if we leave we will "destabilize Iraq and the region," overlooking the fact that we have already accomplished that dubious feat. As icing on this poisonous cake, Bush's adventure in Iraq resuscitated Al Qaeda, which was on the ropes, and created a new generation of terrorists. I wonder how the candidates would define "winning" in Iraq now? I'm sure our brave troops out there would define it as surviving their deployment and getting home to their families. Let's hope the politicians will assist them.
on that note, Romney faired the best. Where is Newt??????
Here, if anyone is interested, is a summary of the Factcheck.org analysis of the various misstatements made in this debate...not too serious, given our low standards for political "truth."
Giuliani claimed that adoptions shot up 73 percent while he was mayor. In fact, the net increase over his entire tenure was 17 percent.
Brownback hyped the medical potential of stem cells taken from adults and not embryos, failing to mention their limitations.
Hunter claimed that 155,000 non-Mexicans were seized crossing illegally from Mexico last year. The actual figure is 98,153.
Romney described a Massachusetts health care plan he backed as "a fabulous program," when in fact it has not fully taken effect and only half the low-income persons who are eligible have signed up.
These and more are detailed below.
Then they go on to do an in-depth analysis. They did the same thing for/to the Democrats. www.factcheck.org -- non partisan and very useful as this process unfolds. Have fun!
Maybe it would help to have a constant gallery of people who would express their opinions every year so that we get to know these people, and so their exposure is not just sound-byte when people are herded to have a particular interest in say gay marriage that really is not a big issue at all considering the problems of this world.
Those of you who think this process is too early sound a bit like you just do not like the people running. Maybe if some new and different blood could get in and start asking questions things might be more reasonable. My great example is had Ralph Nader been allowed to the debate in the 2004 election maybe he would not have been elected president, but Bush and Gore would have had to work harder and the American people would have been the winners of that.
I didn't watch the whole debate...couldn't stomach the reagan worship, the constant spin about Iraq/911/terrorism, and watching Gulliani look like a deer caught in the headlights. Man, that guy looked almost as lost as Bush did in the debates against Kerry in 2004. Pretty sad stuff.
Well, at least all of the "pro lifers" are fully in support of state sponsored murders in Iraq. Nice to see that the republican party as a whole hasn't lost its shameful hypocrisy in that regard.
You need to figure out how to become an actual human being and join other human beings in making some sensible political choices. You and your fundmentalist "911 was pulled off by Bush" religion are so out there with the other fundamentalists. If you want things to change then you, outliers ... or is it outliars ... to reality, have to get yourselves off the margins and actually talk to someone calmly and rationally and maybe even Republicans.
Comments inferring that anyone American or anyone in the American government is sponsoring murder in Iraq need to be the first thing to go. It is so easy for you to say BS like that. You must think Americans are so rabid you are scared to go out of the house - which would explain your voluminous posts.
Seriously, if you have something serious to say, and despite my dislike of your posts and disagreement with your point of view, I think you have a point of view that should be heard, how do you expect anyone to listen to you that does not already agree with you or that is not already on your emotional "tone"?
This is the whole problem of the left/Democrats, which are or should be the majority, but they are like the tower of Babel, each with their own secret language that all know everyone else has got it wrong. The Republicans can bust that up faster than a spotlight on a roach infestation because there is nothing to it.
Vote for John Edwards , you know you wanna........................
He's got as much chance as the only two other worthy candidates, Kucinich and Gravel. In other words, zero.
"Comments inferring that anyone American or anyone in the American government is sponsoring murder in Iraq need to be the first thing to go."
Because? It's ok for republicans to continually inject fearmongering make irrational statements about democrats "wanting us to lose," or continuing to align Iraq with the mythical "war on terror," but it's not permissible for a liberal to speak the actual truth? This is why your party is so far off track. You have no ability to grasp and discuss reality. You all live in a bubble of delusion.
"This is the whole problem of the left/Democrats, which are or should be the majority, but they are like the tower of Babel, each with their own secret language that all know everyone else has got it wrong. The Republicans can bust that up faster than a spotlight on a roach infestation because there is nothing to it."
Actually, it's the republican psycho-babble that is being demolished by the truth. Like it or not, the war in Iraq was not necessary, had nothing to do with 9/11, and is destroying our national soul, along with our national treasury. At this point, we've murdered somewhere in the neighborhood of 750,000 people, the vast majority of whom were doing nothing wrong, except that they were standing on George Bush and his neocon pal's oil.
In my world, wars based on lies, for the purpose of greed, are unjust, therefore every death caused by them is flat out murder. Where are the pro-lifers on this? Oh yeah...they're busy supporting it.
Also, under the Parliamentary system the party out of power can, and in Britain does, set up a "shadow government," with shadow cabinet members following and speaking out on the areas of their responsibility. That gives voters a running commentary that tells them how the parties differ and gives them the information they need to judge their respective sets of policies. And finally, the campaigns are limited to something like six weeks -- ok, not a reasonable length of time for a country this vast, but the idea is appealing at this point.
The downside is that one party has legislative and executive powers in its pocket, which means they can do a lot of damage. Look at what happened here when one party controlled the whole shebang. We aren't about to change our system, of course, but I wish the powers that be could step back and reverse some of the things that are causing our political system to drift away from democracy. We don't need an oligarchy of the left or the right here.
>> to rid the country of Bush/Cheney and this crowd.
Huh? President Bush was very popular up until just recently,
and still be cannot be contradicted on the war, ie. the recent
veto cannot be overturned. How would a paliamentary
system help now, and how would it have helped avoid the
problems with the war? Did not really help Britain much, at
least if that is your goal.
We should have a government run television channel that
broadcasts all federal and state public proceeding and has
new reporting of the rest. This idea of leaving the news
and elections up to private enterprise has put us in the
circumstance now that all our news is brought to us by
defense contractors now. Talk about oligarchy.
His poll numbers have been below 50% for years, and are now at 28%, which is truly stinkland. America has awakened.
still be cannot be contradicted on the war, ie. the recent
veto cannot be overturned. "
The will be the downfall of yet more congressional republicans in '08. The American people spoke, and what they said was that they no longer want Bush and the GOP's war in Iraq.
"We should have a government run television channel that
broadcasts all federal and state public proceeding and has
new reporting of the rest."
Isn't that CSPAN?
What we need is a restoration of the Fairness Doctrine. The Iraq war would never have happened, had that law been in place, because the same truths that I was finding on the internet at the time would've been presented over every broadcast media that was foisting the white house lies.
"We should have a government run television channel that
broadcasts all federal and state public proceeding and has
new reporting of the rest."
Well, but for the "government run" part that is perfectly reasonable. Clark is right though, C-SPAN does a remarkable job in this vein. I don't know if it is still only available on cable though, and I think your idea has merit, if we amend it to say "paid for by the government, and available to all Americans free".
Second, that was not my real intent. Instead of government run, maybe government provided, or government sponsored, or like a tax 10% of airtime of every station should be civic based. The FCC used to do this through the grant of bandwidth to be used in the public interest. Well, most of it is in no way used in the public interest anymore, and in fact, though the logic is not direct, my opinion anyway is that it is used for the public detriment.
For example, have a program where anyone can present their ideas on a public forum like a soapbox, give candidates or state and federal politicians of officials time to present their ideas all year long. Have educational shows that explain the law, real estate, tax, and different ways to measure its effectiveness. Present civic statistics and metrics objectively, how many of what kind of crime is happening and where. Get children watching it early in their lives so they know what the world is, and can develop their ideas on fixing it or at least a concensus on what needs to change.
There is so much to be done it seems like pie in the sky to even talk about it.
Yeah, C-Span is "reality TV" worth watching. I spend an average of maybe two hours watching the box, and about an hour and a half is C-Span. They really do it right, and put commercial television to shame.
It may sound like "pie in the sky", but it's really just common sense. You're absolutely right about the bandwidth aspect, and attaching conditions like public service programming to it's purchase is not even slightly out of line. The sort of things you mention are not expensive to produce, as C-Span demonstrates every day. And there will be oodles of channels coming into existence, so what rational argument can be made for missing the chance for introducing some real substance to the mix?
I see no reason whatsoever for the Government itself to actually produce or control the presentation of such things, however. As Bill said; that's just asking for trouble. Paying for some of it with tax dollars is another matter altogether, and the value to the society at large is potentially immense.
Trying to "force" commercial interests to broadcast in the public interest is a joke ... a bad one. Think of Saturday morning cartoons.
The key is that intelligent person to person programming in very inexpensive to produce, and that is why I specifically mentioned, despite the protests I knew I would get, government produced. In other words let the government maintain the infrastructure for people and groups to make their statements.
I did not mention control, in the fact the reason I think it would be good for the government to get involved would be because it can be used as a place for interested people to get an internship to learn broadcasting in a real place.
Since the objectivity is in the public interest this is the purvue of the government and it would be very useful to let ordinary people get into broadcasting and media, not just relatives of those already in the game and rich.
>> once Government gets involved it inevitably wants control,
>> because as we have seen, information is power, and
>> politicians want to wield it.
Bill, I totally agree with this statement ... but I am amazed at
how for whatever reason we Americans just close our brains
off after this is said.
Look at private enterprise. Look at monopolies, and look at
what they do, they want control just as much as government,
and usually even more because private companies as well as
corporations are tyrannies .... did you get that - tyrannies.
They can do whatever they like. They do not have to hire you
and if they do not like anything about you they can fire you for
no reason.
I would also agree with you that there is a "devolution", some
common steps, a path that humans go in whether they are in
government or in corporations - and that means anything.
I think it is way past time to swing back to regulation, building
infrastructure and putting some attention on social systems,
and for God's sake we should get rid of this idea that government
cannot do anything right, and private enterprise gets everything
right.
We people have to get off automatic and start looking at things
and seeing them for what they are, not what common wisdom
or someone in the media says they are. We have to teach
people to think again.
I also agree with you on Public Media ... radio and TV. If it was
not for Public Radio and Public TV I do not know what I would do.
Those efforts by what I see as very intelligent and wonderfully
productive people keep our society going in a lot of ways, especially
if you look at what pay TV has become. "Pay TV", when I was a kid
the concept was unthinkable.
I think the right sees public radio not as liberal, but as a provider
of information that is believes should be paid for and gated by someone
for maximum profit. You cannot have a society or culture with these
kinds of people, and those elements of the far right that want to
destroy public media seek to drag the culture down as well.