Huckabee really seems to have gotten an unfair shake tonight, in the sense that he’s gotten almost no questions. But, he hasn’t been attacked much either. Mixed blessing I guess.
I can’t imagine that Romney doesn’t get a question on “Cabinetgate”, though I can’t imagine that he doesn’t have a strong answer prepared. Unless the question is asked in a truly unorthodox manner, I can’t imagine how he can lose the debate at this point. He’s pretty much hit every answer out of the park. Bad night for Rudy and Mike, great night for Mitt, average night for Fred and McCain.
“Then do you know the differences between the REASONS why we are attacked and the RATIONALIZATIONS that our attackers use to justify their attacks?”
But of course. I just come to the conclusion that we need to defend ourselves, rather than draw our companies from the Middle East and withdraw support for Israel.
Reading that book reinvigorated my support for the War on Terror.
Agree with Swint that Romney and McCain are basically tied for the top spot in this debate. Romney owned the first half of the debate, and McCain is owning the second half. Fred is only doing well because he’s the comedian tonight. Rudy is treading water. Huckabee is devoting all of his air time to playing defense. Paul and Tancredo are their usual crazy selfs.
TLG, What would you say are the REASONS our attackers attack us and what would you say are the RATIONALIZATIONS our attackers use to justify their attacks?
TLG, What would you say are the REASONS our attackers attack us and what would you say are the RATIONALIZATIONS our attackers use to justify their attacks?
Wait, wait — I thought you meant rationalizations that some conservatives use.
They attack us for our bases in the Middle East, our support for Israel, our support for secular regimes in the Middle East, and the fact that our companies are benefiting from Arab oil. They pound the last point home, calling it the “biggest theft in human history.” They also slam us for our sanctions on Iraq.
Of course, it all stems from Islam. That’s not a silly rationalization — they’re mad about the things I listed above BECAUSE of Islam.
I imagine that the General was not openly anything when he was serving. Bless him for what he did in the army, but he is fogging the issue with his statement
By the way, I just separated from the Military. For my job as a linguist where i was a desk jocky, the gay issue would not matter. But on the front lines, in infantry, it likely would.
I think gays should be able to serve openly in the military, but McCain is the only one on stage who gave a rationale for upholding DADT that didn’t seem slick or bigoted.
The first half of the debate, they asked conservative questions, the second half they’ve asked questions from a liberal perspective. Democrats never get conservative questions.
32, Do you think that our attackers would still vehemently resist our foreign occupation and support for oppressive regimes if they were not Muslims?
I haven’t seen any American buildings blown up by any South Americans lately.
“Support for oppressive regimes”? They’re not mad at us for supporting secular regimes because they’re oppressive. They’re mad at us for supporting them because they’re secular regimes.
heres my analysis so far. mitt – started off strong and faded. rudy – started off weak, never recovered. ron paul – weakest yet. mccain – solid. thompson – his usual solid, but not his best format. tancredo + hunter – fine, but not important.
I’ll give you Rudy was good for two months after 9/11 till he tried to stay in office illegally. I’ll give you that crime continued to go down in New York when he took over 9and has really plummeted since he left, under Bloomberg) – so ok, what has Giuliani really done?
Romney has a career of true accomplishment, and he never endorsed Mario Cuomo or cut deals with the Liberal Party.
“I’ll give you Rudy was good for two months after 9/11 till he tried to stay in office illegally. I’ll give you that crime continued to go down in New York when he took over 9and has really plummeted since he left, under Bloomberg) – so ok, what has Giuliani really done?”
You cannot be serious. He only busted the Mafia, cut taxes, shrunk the size of government, slashed crime, and cleaned up an entire city once called ungovernable.
Romney has a career of true accomplishment, and he never endorsed Mario Cuomo or cut deals with the Liberal Party.
murphy,
He’s been very levelheaded, and substantive. Solid. Mitt was great for the first hour and has been up and down the second. Overall , he’s had a good night.
70, Just because it hasn’t happened yet, doesn’t mean it won’t. Do you think that suicide terrorism is particularly linked to Islam?
I can’t disprove future events.
International suicide terrorism is linked to Islam. Typically, terrorist activities remain confined to their country of origin. That is, until you inject the element of jihad…
Didn’t you say that you read the al-Qaeda Reader? Did you read the first half, entitled “Theology”?
tommy – i should officially apologize for the bad things i’ve said about fred. i really like him as a candidate now. i dont think the campaign has been run well, but i love his ideas.
100, I have read the al-Qaeda Reader, several times through. I’ve also read a book called Dying To Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism by Robert Pape. Did you know that the vast cross-section of the suicide bombers that have committed their atrocities in Lebanon, for instance, are not Islamic fundamentalists by Marxist/Leninist? Did you know that 8% of the suicide bombers in the 1982-86 Hezbollah suicide bombing campaign were Christians?
Did you actually believe the NYC budget was smaller when he left office than when he entered office – hahahahaha!
Cleaned up an entire city – c’mon, that’s just silliness. He had some successes, some failures, probably wasn’t as conservative as Ed Koch – or as successful.
You’re buying the hype.
Mitt has been a businessman, Olympic leader, prominent Governor, investor – a true, well-rounded leader.
good answer by thompson – it was good to see mitt show some emotion about how stupid some of these questions are given the challenges this nation faces
GOP candidates have guts. they go on CNN. dems have no balls, they are so scared of fox. man up. fox is as right wing as cnn is left wing. if you cant deal with a tv station you shouldnt run for president.
I agree. I’m not from the south, so obviously I can’t speak to it’s appeal to Southerners, but I think the Confederate flag is precisely what you suggested; a symbol a traitorous movement. Ignore the racism, and it’s still an awful symbol.
jeff,
It’s a real sensitive issue here in the south. I think it’s a stupid question, but a lot of people in the south, right or wrong, take it seriously. Romney and Fred gave great, basically perfect answers.
100, I have read the al-Qaeda Reader, several times through. I’ve also read a book called Dying To Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism by Robert Pape. Did you know that the vast cross-section of the suicide bombers that have committed their atrocities in Lebanon, for instance, are not Islamic fundamentalists by Marxist/Leninist? Did you know that 8% of the suicide bombers in the 1982-86 Hezbollah suicide bombing campaign were Christians?
for those out there that say mitt always avoids taking a stand, how bout that answer on the flag? it could really cost him votes in SC and he manned up.
Cleaned up an entire city – c’mon, that’s just silliness. He had some successes, some failures, probably wasn’t as conservative as Ed Koch – or as successful.
You’re buying the hype.
Nope. Didn’t cut taxes 23 (or 16, whatever) times. Didn’t cut the bureaucracy. Didn’t — UGH MORE ON THIS LATER I’M SO SICK OF THIS LINE-ITEM VETO FOOLISHNESS! IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL, YOU STUPID –
bottom line of the debate – rudy tried to imply that mitt is responsible to check the citizenship of lawnmowers which hes not, and rudy ended up looking petty. rudy looking desperate to attack mitt is not how a frontrunner is expected to act. that is what will be replayed tomorrow morning.
Mr T. how can you have huck at #2 ? he didnt get much face time, and although he was funny, at this point in the race, people wont substance, not funniness.
mitts moments of pownage in this debate: 1) working rudy on immigration, 2) putting the abortion issue to rest, 3) manning up on the confederate flag issue.
136, I have two words for you: Thenmuli Rajaratnam.
I said “typically,” because there are always exceptions.
But so what? Do you think that bin Laden and Zawahiri are lying when they say that Islam is the main motivation behind their attacks? They think that Islam is being assaulted. That’s what they say, not TLG says.
This ranking isn’t for my vote. He’s a great speaker and uses the format to his advantage. He was my last choice of our candidates for President in Matt’s recent poll.
That was a rough debate. The crowd was booing everyone, even the poor gay general.
Romney would have won, but he got nailed on that gay question. He didn’t need a flip-flop on camera. McCain deserves kudos on the torture question. But in the end I think Huckabee probably edged out a win.
As you all undoubtedly know, I have the McCain site. I won’t get into rating and ranking performances (although I applaud those of you that did), but just make these general observations:
This was really, really, rollicking entertainment. It went 15 minutes over time and it was totally worth it. Serious issues were discussed. Enough light, funny videos were included to keep it from getting too heavy. I think that CNN and YouTube made a set of very good decisions in terms of what they included. (My one exception being that I was fervently hoping that the Ghost of Richard Nixon one would appear, although they did at least include it in the opening segment. Go find it on YouTube and you’ll see why.)
I really think it was great theater… Back in the 19th century, politics was entertainment, and on this sort of debate night, the vestiges of why that was the case emerge. (Granted, in the 19th century there weren’t a lot of alternatives for entertainment…)
Though I’m not voting for Giuliani, I like and respect him to the
nth degree. I can’t imagine he could have done that badly with his
great personality.
the commentators have picked up on the big storyline. if rudy guiliani is such a strong frontrunner, why is he making lame desperate attacks on mitt to start out the debate.
Absolute nonsense from Geffen. Huckabee couldn’t give a single answer without a joke. But, golly, he talked about how Republicans want to punish children; no wonder Geffen loved him.
I dont usually like Bill Bennett, but I think he is right! Mitt needed a big night with recent Iowa polls and I wouldnt be surprised with his lead growing in the next few days
I think Huckabee dodged all the bullets basically. And he came across as very calm and presidential. Romney, Giuliani, and Rudy all seemed ruffled at some points. So it was a narrow win over Romney.
Ilfigo, yeah I watched the same debate, in which none of our candidates were perfect, where Fred’s video was bad, where Rudy was rude, where Mitt and Mike were up and down.
All the empirical data show that, regardless of the personal motivations of bin Laden, Zawahiri, or any other self-proclaimed leader of their ilk, the taproot of terrorism is not Islam in and of itself. The critical question is a counterfactual one: would these religious or ideological provocations suffice if the United States and European allies did not also station troops in the Middle East and subsidize governments that oppress and repress them? The evidence suggests that answer is NO. The taproot of al-Qaeda’s animosity to its enemies is nationalism–the belief among members of a community that they share a distinct set of ethnic, linguistic, and historical characteristics and are entitled to govern their national homeland without interference from foreigners.
I agree that he dodged bullets. But, then he saw few bullets. He was little of anything. It’s never a good idea to fade into the background, and only come to the forefront when the other guys need a good laugh; he came across as a lightweight yokel.
Frankly, I can’t decide whether or not Huck was better off getting no questions, or being treated with the degree of harshness Rudy was. He won’t get any momentum from this, but he won’t collapse into the see, which he may well have if they’d gone after him sufficiently.
You’re right, Ilfigo. I thought McCain had the best night. I thought Romney’s flag answer was one of his best the entire campaign, but I didn’t think as much of the rest of his debate. And I think Huckabee tended to make a stronger personal connection on TV than Romney.
Guys, there’s a lot of room on Huckabee express. I invite all of you to come aboard before Huck express really starts to take off. Let bygones be bygones.
The frontrunners certainly got the bulk of time, but I think the endposts got a fair amount as well. Hunter’s answer on gays in the military was awful. I think this was Giuliani’s worst performance. I think getting booed in the beginning threw him off, just as it did Obama in the dem debate.
All the empirical data show that, regardless of the personal motivations of bin Laden, Zawahiri, or any other self-proclaimed leader of their ilk, the taproot of terrorism is not Islam in and of itself. The critical question is a counterfactual one: would these religious or ideological provocations suffice if the United States and European allies did not also station troops in the Middle East and subsidize governments that oppress and repress them? The evidence suggests that answer is NO. The taproot of al-Qaeda’s animosity to its enemies is nationalism–the belief among members of a community that they share a distinct set of ethnic, linguistic, and historical characteristics and are entitled to govern their national homeland without interference from foreigners.
Self-proclaimed leader? They founded al-Qaeda. They’re more than “self-proclaimed,” I’d say. I don’t know what you think they’re talking about when they say that jihad is the motivation behind their attacks, but it’s not just that they perceive us as oppressing them — and that’s an important word here: perceive, I’m not ready to acquiesce to their outrageous demands, unlike some — but that they see us oppressing them as Muslims. Their faith in Allah has been insulted; they see Islam as under attack by the United States more than any other nation through our actions. They’re not concerned about national sovereignty, or else our support for secular regimes — specifically secular regimes, as in: not including Islamic regimes; they aren’t mad at us for supporting Saudi Arabia, which does is not self-governed — would be irrelevant to them!
Honestly, who in the world thought it was a good idea to have 4 Democratic operatives, and one Republican pundit, in a spin room on a Republican debate? I’m at a loss for words.
Rudy did slightly better than that gay dude who went there specificaly to humiliate himself on national tv. Huck swayed the illegal alien audience and probably owned the mexican vote. Fred and McCain looked like a 4 year term might go beyond their life expectancy. Hunter did well. Mitt won.
257, You’ve made a false logical inference. I never said that Muslims don’t get “mad at us” for reasons other than nationalism. The key point I’m driving at is, what compels a man (or woman) to strap a bomb to their chest and blow themselves up in order to kill others? I’m not driving at what drives Muslims to be “mad at us,” I’m driving at what drives Muslims to actually go out of their way to launch attacks against us? And all the empirical data show that fervence of belief in a religion or even religion itself is not the taproot of terrorism. The taproot of terrorism is nationalism.
Opinionated, Rudy did no better than tread water in the 2nd half (except for his Yankees v Red Sox question. He was right on there.). Romney ran away with the first half to such an extent that everyone else could only keep him in site for the rest of the night.
270 . we’re not here to make logical inferences on islam and zarqawi, we’re here to make illogical inferences about 7 men arguing on a stage in florida!
“Rudy did slightly better than that gay dude who went there specificaly to humiliate himself on national tv. Huck swayed the illegal alien audience and probably owned the mexican vote. Fred and McCain looked like a 4 year term might go beyond their life expectancy. Hunter did well. Mitt won.”
I didn’t see the debate, but I think the Florida GOP has been the big winner of these debates. Florida Republicans have gotten the candidates to keep coming to the Sunshine state for debates and other campaign stuff. Contrast that with the democrats who are avoiding us Floridians like we carry the plague. These attitudes will help whoever is the GOP nominee.
257, You’ve made a false logical inference. I never said that Muslims don’t get “mad at us†for reasons other than nationalism. The key point I’m driving at is, what compels a man (or woman) to strap a bomb to their chest and blow themselves up in order to kill others? I’m not driving at what drives Muslims to be “mad at us,†I’m driving at what drives Muslims to actually go out of their way to launch attacks against us? And all the empirical data show that fervence of belief in a religion or even religion itself is not the taproot of terrorism. The taproot of terrorism is nationalism.
No, not religion! Islam! Islam and nationalism go hand in hand — that’s Sharia Law! Anyone who knows anything about Islam knows that nationalism is mixed in with it wherever it’s prominent.
Without the religious element, there is no reason to believe that September 11th would have happened. We have bases all around the world. Only Muslims get pissed off about it. Yes, Muslim nationalists. The nationalism stems from Islam!
re:279, im just kidding, i like a lot about ron paul. but seriously, tlg, arent you 17? you know what most of us would give to have one day of being 17 again, sneak out our parents house, to find our warm stash of natural light we hid in the bushes down the street?
but seriously, tlg, arent you 17? you know what most of us would give to have one day of being 17 again, sneak out our parents house, to find our warm stash of natural light we hid in the bushes down the street?
…I’m an adult trapped in a teenager’s body.
I’ve hated being a teenager. Why some people call these days the happiest of their lives astounds me.
Unbelievable. Honestly, I’ve given up saying “I won’t vote for X under any circumstances”, but if the Republican Party nominates Mike Huckabee, if the media foists him on us, I can’t imagine voting for him.
TLG: you are historically wrong. The Islamic empires were pan-Islamic and most of the fighting between them was between Shia and Sunni with no nationaistic agenda.
TLG: you are historically wrong. The Islamic empires were pan-Islamic and most of the fighting between them was between Shia and Sunni with no nationaistic agenda.
I should have been clearer…
Islamic expansionism has always had a religious-nationalistic fusion agenda stemming from the want to govern people under Sharia Law. Sharia Law is inherently religious and nationalistic.
Today, terrorism stems from a fusion between the two, but without both of them together, you’re not going to get 9/11’s.
The only ones I wouldn’t vote for are Tancredo and Paul, although Huckabee is starting to sound like Charlie Crist (NOT a good Republican by any measure)
Romney upon seeing video of himself speaking in support of abortion: “I don’t recognize that young man in the video.” (Or something like that.)
Problem is, a lot of his detractors don’t either. Because he’s a chameleon. I don’t know what things he says he actually means and what things he says because he thinks it’s what his audience wants to hear.
Firstly: Once again, you’ve made false logical inference. Yes, it is true that we do have bases all around the world. No, it is not true that only Muslims get pissed off about it. We have been stirring up vats of seething resentment against us in places like South Korea, Japan, Italy, and elsewhere for decades now–the fact that there haven’t been any large scale campaigns from nationals of those countries lashing out against us YET is not the issue. The issue is: When such lashing out DOES occur, what is the taproot of it? All the empirical data show that nationalism, regardless of Islam or any other religion, is the true taproot.
Secondly: Why is it, when post-mortem biographical research is done on Al Qaeda and other organizations’ suicide bombers, that so many of them were only nominally religious before deciding to carry out their attacks? Why also is it that virtually all of Al Qaeda’s suicide bombers are only people who have come from countries where America has a heavy combat troop presence or people who have been oppressed by secular governments that America is subsidizing? Statistically, why hasn’t the intensity and breadth of Islamic fundamentalism (or even, more specifically, Salafism for that matter) been the–or even a–major indicator of where Al Qaeda’s suicide bombers come from?
Thirdly: The fact that Islam is in some ways fused with the nationalism that propels attacks against us does not make our continued unnecessary and unconstitutional military presence in other countries and subsidizing of other countries, more justified or more necessary. The key question is, if our military presence in and subsidizing of other countries is not authorized by our own Constitution and clearly not making our country safer, why continue it?
305 –
i respect mitt saying that he doesnt recognize himself from a long time ago. isnt it like 15 years? imagine the things we all would have said 15 years ago. you grow up and learn, and he has done so as well.
I’d be enthusiastic about: Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson
I’d be okay with, but not enthusiastic about: John McCain
I’d hold my nose and vote for: Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo
I would vote for the Libertarian instead of: Mike Huckabee
I would vote for Hillary instead of: Mitt Romney
Now John Roberts says Rudy really handled himself well? I can’t imagine how anyone can claim the MSM isn’t biased. All of this spin absolutely REEKS of bias.
Tancredo is a nativist pure and simple. Stopping legal and illegal immigration. I may be working on my college degree, but even I know that Tancredo would be more comfortable in the Know-Nothings than the republicans
Yeah, Tancredo is a nativist, but there is a growing strong current of nativism in both parties in response to illegal immigration. His problem is he talks about it hysterically.
Firstly: Once again, you’ve made false logical inference. Yes, it is true that we do have bases all around the world. No, it is not true that only Muslims get pissed off about it. We have been stirring up vats of seething resentment against us in places like South Korea, Japan, Italy, and elsewhere for decades now–the fact that there haven’t been any large scale campaigns from nationals of those countries lashing out against us YET is not the issue. The issue is: When such lashing out DOES occur, what is the taproot of it? All the empirical data show that nationalism, regardless of Islam or any other religion, is the true taproot.
The issue is most certainly that South Koreans, the Japanese, and Italians have refrained from flying planes into our buildings and organizing movements to kill Americans. And you can’t brush off al-Qaeda as a group of homicidal freaks. Opinion polls taken of Islamic countries show that the overwhelming majority in every one except Turkey believes that suicide bombings can be justified in some instances. Even in Turkey, a fifth of the citizenry believes that, which is still horrifyingly high. It’s not an accident that suicide bombings are accepted in repressed, Islamic countries, while secular countries that support civilized society go about things in a more rational manner. Even other repressed countries that take issue refrain from blowing us up. And what about our other enemies? Chavez? Castro? Kim Jung-il?
Answer me this: Would you or would you not be more concerned about North Korea tomorrow if Kim Jung Il converted to Islam?
#292 TLG – you’re like my son (now 21). He didn’t enjoy being a teenager, either. He was always more serious about life than his friends. I told him that it gets better and better as you get older. You go to college and meet all kinds of people from all over and have a much wider group of people to choose your friends from. For some “old souls,” like you and my son, being a teenager is not all it’s cracked up to be.
Doesn’t Huck’s rise in the polls seem like Thompson’s? The fall will probably be the same as well. As soon as people start learning about Huck’s positions and stop romanticizing about him, he will fall as Thompson has.
Secondly: Why is it, when post-mortem biographical research is done on Al Qaeda and other organizations’ suicide bombers, that so many of them were only nominally religious before deciding to carry out their attacks? Why also is it that virtually all of Al Qaeda’s suicide bombers are only people who have come from countries where America has a heavy combat troop presence or people who have been oppressed by secular governments that America is subsidizing? Statistically, why hasn’t the intensity and breadth of Islamic fundamentalism (or even, more specifically, Salafism for that matter) been the–or even a–major indicator of where Al Qaeda’s suicide bombers come from?
I never said that America’s presence has nothing to do with the matter — that is the matter. But without Islam as a catalyst for the attacks, they’d go about things in a more rational manner instead of blowing things up. America subsidizes religious regimes, but al-Qaeda, quite tellingly, doesn’t complain about those. Islamic fundamentalism combined with nationalism — and only combined; just one alone seemingly won’t do it — causes terrorism. Without the former, you won’t get the latter.
I’ll turn the tables: Statistically, why hasn’t the intensity and breadth of our foreign involvement been the — or even a major — indicator of where terrorism against the US will come from?
Doesn’t Huck’s rise in the polls seem like Thompson’s? The fall will probably be the same as well. As soon as people start learning about Huck’s positions and stop romanticizing about him, he will fall as Thompson has.
The rise is fueled not by the media, but by the mobilization of social conservatives after the Washington Briefing, the largest social conservative gathering in the nation, where Huck won the support of over 80% of the crowd.
#292 TLG – you’re like my son (now 21). He didn’t enjoy being a teenager, either. He was always more serious about life than his friends. I told him that it gets better and better as you get older. You go to college and meet all kinds of people from all over and have a much wider group of people to choose your friends from. For some “old souls,†like you and my son, being a teenager is not all it’s cracked up to be.
I noticed when I was going through the youtube questions, and most of the questions in previous debates, period, parents are absent. I mean questions from the perspective of those self-identifying as parents of children still living at home. It’s especially odd as the GOP is the party of “affordable family formation”.
I guess questions of morality, and illegal immigration (an issue for families in huge part because of quality of life, crime, and making housing less affordable and thus children less affordable) are the closest we’ll get to issues that strike close to the heart for them.
Moms, especially, seem acutely absent.
Duncan on CNN.com. Asking him lame questions about the YouTube format, but he did think this go around was “classier” than the Dems version. Also, apparently he writes his own speeches, and is his own staff, but a handful of unpaid groupies might show up to help. Then lame stuff about polls.
Thirdly: The fact that Islam is in some ways fused with the nationalism that propels attacks against us does not make our continued unnecessary and unconstitutional military presence in other countries and subsidizing of other countries, more justified or more necessary. The key question is, if our military presence in and subsidizing of other countries is not authorized by our own Constitution and clearly not making our country safer, why continue it?
I agree; I’m a non-interventionist, but I believe that this is a threat that we are justified in confronting.
I don’t think we should continue it, but that’s not the debate at hand.
Also, it’s not going to happen, so let’s work with what’s possible. We don’t want to act like these Human-Life-Amendment-or-bust on abortion idiots. Incrementalism is not a dirty word.
I guess questions of morality, and illegal immigration (an issue for families in huge part because of quality of life, crime, and making housing less affordable and thus children less affordable) are the closest we’ll get to issues that strike close to the heart for them.
Moms, especially, seem acutely absent.
What’s that, you say? You weren’t satisfied with Romney’s rhetoric?
333 – I bet because those busy raising a young family are a) least likely to send in a youtube question, and b) also paying the least attention still at this point in the game.
Secondly: Why is it, when post-mortem biographical research is done on Al Qaeda and other organizations’ suicide bombers, that so many of them were only nominally religious before deciding to carry out their attacks?
The answer to this is: they needed that extra push. Martyrdom will do it. Both elements are needed. Once Islam is injected and the promise of Heaven is given, there’s no turning back.
“America subsidizes religious regimes, but al-Qaeda, quite tellingly, doesn’t complain about those.”
I thought you said you’d read the Al Qaeda Reader. Do I really have to dig up the quotes where they complain about our support for Saudi Arabia?
“Islamic fundamentalism combined with nationalism — and only combined; just one alone seemingly won’t do it — causes terrorism. Without the former, you won’t get the latter.”
Do you know what country is the leader in suicide terrorism? Sri Lanka. Do you know what religious sect is the leader in suicide bombings? Hindus. Do you know how many suicide terrorists have been religious? Forty-three percent. Do you know how many suicide terrorists have been secular? Fifty-seven percent. Nationalism is the taproot of suicide terrorism, regardless of religion. We and our allies have been attacked by both religious and secular attackers, by both pro-sharia and Marxist/Leninist attackers, and Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians have all joined the ranks of the suicide bombers, among others.
“I’ll turn the tables: Statistically, why hasn’t the intensity and breadth of our foreign involvement been the — or even a major — indicator of where terrorism against the US will come from?”
Allow me to turn the tables again, by saying, it HAS.
OK, Sorry Tommy Oliver, I’m off my boycott–addiction.
I came into the debate just before the Thompson ad attacking Romney/Huckabee so I missed the Romney/Giuliani moment.
I have to admit that I was highly bothered by the ‘bible’ question. I think I’ll wake up tonight in cold sweats seeing unshaven fat middle aged men shouting at me with bullhorns that I’m not a Christian.
Having not watched the first 40 mins. of the debate, this debate was hard for me to watch. It seemed that the questions and sequences were designed to make Romney and Giuliani look bad, Huckabee and McCain look Good. I think the moderation of the debate was fairly neutral on Thompson.
I thought you said you’d read the Al Qaeda Reader. Do I really have to dig up the quotes where they complain about our support for Saudi Arabia?
Only in the context that Saudi Arabia isn’t a strong enough supporter of Sharia Law. Actually, I may have made quite a large error here: they’re not too pleased with Saudi Arabia, actually.
Do you know what country is the leader in suicide terrorism? Sri Lanka. Do you know what religious sect is the leader in suicide bombings? Hindus. Do you know how many suicide terrorists have been religious? Forty-three percent. Do you know how many suicide terrorists have been secular? Fifty-seven percent. Nationalism is the taproot of suicide terrorism, regardless of religion. We and our allies have been attacked by both religious and secular attackers, by both pro-sharia and Marxist/Leninist attackers, and Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians have all joined the ranks of the suicide bombers, among others.
Terrorism AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. Not TERRORISM. Terrorism against the United States. The terrorism in Sri Lanka is intra-country fighting. That’s not unusual at all.
“Terrorism AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. Not TERRORISM. Terrorism against the United States. The terrorism in Sri Lanka is intra-country fighting. That’s not unusual at all.”
My point was that nationalism does not have to be the partner of fundamentalist Islam in order to produce terrorism. Many suicide bombers are part of religions that offer no paradise or leagues of virgins upon detonation. They do what they do out of a sense of deep commitment to and integration in a supportive nationalist community, and this fact transcends all suicide terror campaigns. The point is that, overall, analysis of Al Qaeda’s suicide terrorists show that its most lethal forces are best understood as a coalition of nationalist groups seeking to achieve a local change in their home countries. Religion matters, but mainly in the context of national resistance, not vice versa.
“There is no 9/11, USS Cole, or ‘93 WTC bombing equivalent coming from other nations we’re occupying in some fashion.”
Precisely because of the fact that you had earlier denied. The intensity and breadth of our involvement in (as far as stationing heavy combat troops and subsidizing oppressive regimes) Muslim countries is astonishingly greater than in other countries, and thus produces astonishingly more violence against us from nationals of those particular countries. This is magnified by our insistence on discriminatingly picking on MUSLIM countries and turning a blind eye to the suffering of MUSLIM peoples in particular. I recommend you read “Dying To Win” by Robert Pape and “Blowback” by Chalmers Johnson for more thorough analysis of our interventions and their effects.
My point was that nationalism does not have to be the partner of fundamentalist Islam in order to produce terrorism. Many suicide bombers are part of religions that offer no paradise or leagues of virgins upon detonation. They do what they do out of a sense of deep commitment to and integration in a supportive nationalist community, and this fact transcends all suicide terror campaigns. The point is that, overall, analysis of Al Qaeda’s suicide terrorists show that its most lethal forces are best understood as a coalition of nationalist groups seeking to achieve a local change in their home countries. Religion matters, but mainly in the context of national resistance, not vice versa.
No, no, you misunderstood: I was referring to international terrorism from Muslims. Islam alone doesn’t seem to do the trick; it’s got to be tied with a nationalist sense of outrage. But without Islam, a nationalist sense of outrage won’t suffice, either.
Precisely because of the fact that you had earlier denied. The intensity and breadth of our involvement in (as far as stationing heavy combat troops and subsidizing oppressive regimes) Muslim countries is astonishingly greater than in other countries, and thus produces astonishingly more violence against us from nationals of those particular countries. This is magnified by our insistence on discriminatingly picking on MUSLIM countries and turning a blind eye to the suffering of MUSLIM peoples in particular.
Fair enough, but I noticed that you never answered my question about Kim Jung-Il.
All the way back from 320: “Answer me this: Would you or would you not be more concerned about North Korea tomorrow if Kim Jung Il converted to Islam?”
Did anyone catch the post debate spin where they said the General who asked the DADT question was part of Hillary’s Steering Committee for Gays and Lesbians? What are your thoughts, and does this negate Romney’s stumble on the answer? What do you think?
November 28th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
this is a weird question
November 28th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
telecommunications???…hahhaah!
November 28th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
get your Global Warming buddy, John, for your IT advisor
November 28th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
LOL THE HUNTER VIDEO “HE BUILT THE FENCE”!!!
YES!!!
November 28th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
That’s been the same ad Hunter has had all campaign long. It was up in February.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Hunter’s commercial seems like a late night informercial
November 28th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Huckabee really seems to have gotten an unfair shake tonight, in the sense that he’s gotten almost no questions. But, he hasn’t been attacked much either. Mixed blessing I guess.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
That was a great ad.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Really, Tommy? Hunter has had ads?!
November 28th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Where is Mitt and Huck? I haven’t seen them in a while!!!
November 28th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
TLG: “I’ve read it! I tout it on this site all the time.”
Then do you know the differences between the REASONS why we are attacked and the RATIONALIZATIONS that our attackers use to justify their attacks?
November 28th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Ok,
As of now, Mitt has come back to the pack a bit.
Top two are
1. Mitt 1. McCain
3. Fred.
4. Everyone else
November 28th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Will anyone agree with me that Tommy Oliver is awesome?
November 28th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
I don’t do a numbers rating overall… Here’s how I do it
Best performances…
Mitt, Fred, McCain
Mixed…
Huckabee, Paul, Rudy, Hunter, Tancredo
I think Rudy has rebounded somewhat but still hasn’t had a great night.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
i like tommy oliver. he sticks w/ his horse and i respect that.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Thank you jrcutler!
November 28th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
I can’t imagine that Romney doesn’t get a question on “Cabinetgate”, though I can’t imagine that he doesn’t have a strong answer prepared. Unless the question is asked in a truly unorthodox manner, I can’t imagine how he can lose the debate at this point. He’s pretty much hit every answer out of the park. Bad night for Rudy and Mike, great night for Mitt, average night for Fred and McCain.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
[...] Debate Open Thread II is up over at Race 4 2008. Join in! [...]
November 28th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Speaking for all the RomBots, Tommy can start threads for us any time
November 28th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
“Then do you know the differences between the REASONS why we are attacked and the RATIONALIZATIONS that our attackers use to justify their attacks?”
But of course. I just come to the conclusion that we need to defend ourselves, rather than draw our companies from the Middle East and withdraw support for Israel.
Reading that book reinvigorated my support for the War on Terror.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Huckabee: For Pastor in Chief
November 28th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Doesn’t Huckabee have any ads from when he was fat?
November 28th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
I’ve gotta tell you, that Huck commercial bothers me
November 28th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
if he only waved a bible around in the commercial he’d have my vote
November 28th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Agree with Swint that Romney and McCain are basically tied for the top spot in this debate. Romney owned the first half of the debate, and McCain is owning the second half. Fred is only doing well because he’s the comedian tonight. Rudy is treading water. Huckabee is devoting all of his air time to playing defense. Paul and Tancredo are their usual crazy selfs.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
TLG, What would you say are the REASONS our attackers attack us and what would you say are the RATIONALIZATIONS our attackers use to justify their attacks?
November 28th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Agreed, Romney has momentum and it all started with Rudy
November 28th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Irish Right,
I appreciate that greatly…
November 28th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Huck’s ad clearly targets Mitt, although he’s never mentioned…
November 28th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
i’m glad duncan hunter is the one adressing the gays.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Awful answer by Hunter. Sounds pretty…eh, bigoted.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
TLG, What would you say are the REASONS our attackers attack us and what would you say are the RATIONALIZATIONS our attackers use to justify their attacks?
Wait, wait — I thought you meant rationalizations that some conservatives use.
They attack us for our bases in the Middle East, our support for Israel, our support for secular regimes in the Middle East, and the fact that our companies are benefiting from Arab oil. They pound the last point home, calling it the “biggest theft in human history.” They also slam us for our sanctions on Iraq.
Of course, it all stems from Islam. That’s not a silly rationalization — they’re mad about the things I listed above BECAUSE of Islam.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
There are SO MANY things wrong with Duncan Hunter’s answer.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
huck preaching on ethical conduct… lol!
November 28th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Awful answer by Hunter. Sounds pretty…eh, bigoted.
So-cons? Never.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
ruh-roh Mitt
November 28th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
That huckabee ad bothers me. I’m not an atheist, but I do believe that there is a fine line between church and state
November 28th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
I imagine that the General was not openly anything when he was serving. Bless him for what he did in the army, but he is fogging the issue with his statement
November 28th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
A lose-lose question for Mitt.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
shutup anderson
November 28th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
The sleaze is just bursting out of Romney this hour.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Ouch on Romney.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Luckily it didn’t last too long. May not be remembered to much.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Mitt did about as well as he could there. He really couldn’t overcome that past statement. But, really his worst answer of the evening.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
is this guy running for office? if not, get off the stage
November 28th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
This is a totally gotcha question for any Republican candidate.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
What is this?
November 28th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Yes! This guy is courageous.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
I think it’s poor form for them to offer this General this time.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
32, Do you think that our attackers would still vehemently resist our foreign occupation and support for oppressive regimes if they were not Muslims?
November 28th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
awwwkwardddd
November 28th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
By the way, I just separated from the Military. For my job as a linguist where i was a desk jocky, the gay issue would not matter. But on the front lines, in infantry, it likely would.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
I respect this man, but this shouldn’t be a place of protest. But that man is courageous for standing up for his beliefs.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Tough position for Romney but not a big issue so nothing lost.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
was it just me or was that just a tad bit weird??
November 28th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
mccain’s ‘all the time’ sounds like hillary
November 28th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
WOW. Nailed Romney on that question!
November 28th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
52, Really? I’m a linguist in the military as well! What language did you learn?
November 28th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
When did this turn into gay agenda debate?
November 28th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
seriously
November 28th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
I think gays should be able to serve openly in the military, but McCain is the only one on stage who gave a rationale for upholding DADT that didn’t seem slick or bigoted.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Another Chuck sighting. Judo chop!
November 28th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Good answer by Huck
November 28th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
The first half of the debate, they asked conservative questions, the second half they’ve asked questions from a liberal perspective. Democrats never get conservative questions.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
irish – at about 9:45 et
November 28th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
anderson insisted on the gay question
November 28th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Farsi, you?
November 28th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
This discussion is gay
November 28th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
MEM…yeah but what did you expect?
November 28th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
32, Do you think that our attackers would still vehemently resist our foreign occupation and support for oppressive regimes if they were not Muslims?
I haven’t seen any American buildings blown up by any South Americans lately.
“Support for oppressive regimes”? They’re not mad at us for supporting secular regimes because they’re oppressive. They’re mad at us for supporting them because they’re secular regimes.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
67, Mandarin.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
heres my analysis so far. mitt – started off strong and faded. rudy – started off weak, never recovered. ron paul – weakest yet. mccain – solid. thompson – his usual solid, but not his best format. tancredo + hunter – fine, but not important.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
good answer by fred
November 28th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
When did this turn into gay agenda debate?
Oh no! The gays and their nefarious “agenda”!
November 28th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Homerun by Fred. Stick to the issues and nail it.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
joe c : great assessment.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
I was in Mandarin for 6 months at DLI, I sucked at it.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Rhetoric including Rudy and Hillary, is just what Mitt needed to bring it back.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Great answer from Fred. Romney seems to go off-topic a bit when he’s slightly wounded.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
TLG and Rudybots (from previous thread):
I’ll give you Rudy was good for two months after 9/11 till he tried to stay in office illegally. I’ll give you that crime continued to go down in New York when he took over 9and has really plummeted since he left, under Bloomberg) – so ok, what has Giuliani really done?
Romney has a career of true accomplishment, and he never endorsed Mario Cuomo or cut deals with the Liberal Party.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
ugh…what a dumb question!
November 28th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Dave,
Glad to see someone else agrees with me regarding DADT.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Just coming in now.
That was Fred at the best I’ve heard him. Has he been hot tonight?
November 28th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
i officially stopped being a huge fan of george bush when he introduced the mars and moon base programs.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Mars?
November 28th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
70, Just because it hasn’t happened yet, doesn’t mean it won’t. Do you think that suicide terrorism is particularly linked to Islam?
November 28th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Fred has been decent, but forgettable.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
ron paul can get us to mars pretty fast
November 28th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Chris,
I’ve been somewhat impressed by Romney tonight. But to say Romney didn’t cut deals with the liberal party is pushing it…
November 28th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
LJ,
I oppose Don’t Ask Don’t Tell as well. It’s an awful policy.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
I think he wandered because we’re nearing the end and he wanted to make sure to get all his 3 legs into the discussion.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Huck just can’t resist throwing a joke into every question.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Man, can Huckabee answer ANY of these questions without a joke?
November 28th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Aw shucks, that was a good one from Huck.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
“I’ll give you Rudy was good for two months after 9/11 till he tried to stay in office illegally. I’ll give you that crime continued to go down in New York when he took over 9and has really plummeted since he left, under Bloomberg) – so ok, what has Giuliani really done?”
You cannot be serious. He only busted the Mafia, cut taxes, shrunk the size of government, slashed crime, and cleaned up an entire city once called ungovernable.
Romney has a career of true accomplishment, and he never endorsed Mario Cuomo or cut deals with the Liberal Party.
Liiiike..? What has he done politically?
Again — do you care about words or actions?
(Again — I guess that’s a stupid question.)
November 28th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Good one, Huck! Ahh, this debates would be so dull without Huck.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
build a fence, not a rocket
November 28th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
murphy,
He’s been very levelheaded, and substantive. Solid. Mitt was great for the first hour and has been up and down the second. Overall , he’s had a good night.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Lol Jeff!
November 28th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
70, Just because it hasn’t happened yet, doesn’t mean it won’t. Do you think that suicide terrorism is particularly linked to Islam?
I can’t disprove future events.
International suicide terrorism is linked to Islam. Typically, terrorist activities remain confined to their country of origin. That is, until you inject the element of jihad…
Didn’t you say that you read the al-Qaeda Reader? Did you read the first half, entitled “Theology”?
November 28th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
tommy – i should officially apologize for the bad things i’ve said about fred. i really like him as a candidate now. i dont think the campaign has been run well, but i love his ideas.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Pretty sloppy final answer for Rudy.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
no Dennis Kucinich could get us to Mars pretty quick
November 28th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Man, can Huckabee answer ANY of these questions without a joke?
He’s the Friendly Court Jester, remember?
November 28th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Rudy seems to have recovered.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Huck, point out that all the major candidates except you shunned the Baltimore debate organized by Michael Steele!!!
November 28th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
He’s getting his A game on, too bad most of America has probably tuned this program out by now.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
anyone else having trouble getting audio from the cnn feed? the video plays for me but no sound
November 28th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
joe c,
On behalf of Fred and myself, apology accepted
November 28th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
#106- yeah, that was disappointing.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
CAN WE GO THROUGH AN ELECTION CYCLE WITHOUT TALKING ABOUT THE CONFEDERATE FLAG?
November 28th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
can you pass the collection plate back here – I missed it earlier
November 28th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
From The Corner:
That General who just asked about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is a member of Hillary Clinton’s Gay Steering Committee.
Doesn’t CNN bother to even google these people?
November 28th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Good answer by Romney, but that might have hurt him in the south
November 28th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
WOW. Mitt Romney gives a good answer on the Confederate Flag.
Too bad it’s a non-issue.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
That flag represents treachery.
that was the standard bearer for people who were traitors in the Civil War.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Good answer, Mitt.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
That General who just asked about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is a member of Hillary Clinton’s Gay Steering Committee.
Who cares?
November 28th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
100, I have read the al-Qaeda Reader, several times through. I’ve also read a book called Dying To Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism by Robert Pape. Did you know that the vast cross-section of the suicide bombers that have committed their atrocities in Lebanon, for instance, are not Islamic fundamentalists by Marxist/Leninist? Did you know that 8% of the suicide bombers in the 1982-86 Hezbollah suicide bombing campaign were Christians?
November 28th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Wow…Romney took a politically risky position.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Did you actually believe the NYC budget was smaller when he left office than when he entered office – hahahahaha!
Cleaned up an entire city – c’mon, that’s just silliness. He had some successes, some failures, probably wasn’t as conservative as Ed Koch – or as successful.
You’re buying the hype.
Mitt has been a businessman, Olympic leader, prominent Governor, investor – a true, well-rounded leader.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Mitt’s answer was solid. A great example of thinking on his feet. Impressive.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
The Dems would never have the guts to go face Conservative questioners. You have to give it to our guys for their courage.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
good answer by thompson – it was good to see mitt show some emotion about how stupid some of these questions are given the challenges this nation faces
November 28th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Solid answer from fred, might have hurt him though as well, but both Romney and Fred took the high road
November 28th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
HAHA I see those RON PAUL REVOLUTION signs over freeways EVERYWHERE!
November 28th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Amen Bethtopaz
November 28th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
GOP candidates have guts. they go on CNN. dems have no balls, they are so scared of fox. man up. fox is as right wing as cnn is left wing. if you cant deal with a tv station you shouldnt run for president.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Man, this is the longest debate ever.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Swint,
I’d live to discuss what that flag represents. Factually, traitorism isn’t it.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
That was a great moment for Romney
November 28th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
maybe mitt will talk about the big dig
November 28th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Swint,
I agree. I’m not from the south, so obviously I can’t speak to it’s appeal to Southerners, but I think the Confederate flag is precisely what you suggested; a symbol a traitorous movement. Ignore the racism, and it’s still an awful symbol.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
jeff,
It’s a real sensitive issue here in the south. I think it’s a stupid question, but a lot of people in the south, right or wrong, take it seriously. Romney and Fred gave great, basically perfect answers.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Sorry guys I can’t get a live feed to cnn from work here. I’ve been lurking the threads to get a feel for what’s been going on.
Can anyone tell me what Romney said to the Confederate Flag issue?
November 28th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
100, I have read the al-Qaeda Reader, several times through. I’ve also read a book called Dying To Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism by Robert Pape. Did you know that the vast cross-section of the suicide bombers that have committed their atrocities in Lebanon, for instance, are not Islamic fundamentalists by Marxist/Leninist? Did you know that 8% of the suicide bombers in the 1982-86 Hezbollah suicide bombing campaign were Christians?
That proves my point, then.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
for those out there that say mitt always avoids taking a stand, how bout that answer on the flag? it could really cost him votes in SC and he manned up.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
and what Fred said as well please (didn’t realize another canidate was asked)
November 28th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Fast-forward Paul, please. Maybe Kavon has the power to do that for me. Kavon?
November 28th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
McCain took a shot at Rudy!! OUCH
November 28th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
I disagree, so a flag representing a group of people who seceded from our country and tried to create their own is not a symbol of being a traitor?
I respect others passionate feelings on that, but that is the reality.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Here comes the Line-Item veto again
November 28th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
props to fred on the flag answer. he too manned up and showed some guts.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
There’s McCain going after Rudy. I thought he might.
Has he been doing that much tonight?
November 28th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Glad someone (other than Romney) slammed Rudy on LIV
November 28th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Gutsy, for Giuliani to bring that up. He should have just let it be.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Cleaned up an entire city – c’mon, that’s just silliness. He had some successes, some failures, probably wasn’t as conservative as Ed Koch – or as successful.
You’re buying the hype.
Nope. Didn’t cut taxes 23 (or 16, whatever) times. Didn’t cut the bureaucracy. Didn’t — UGH MORE ON THIS LATER I’M SO SICK OF THIS LINE-ITEM VETO FOOLISHNESS! IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL, YOU STUPID –
November 28th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Goodness, wasn’t this supposed to be only a 2 hour debate?
November 28th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
PS – can we have an all night open forum on the nights of the primaries?
November 28th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
What a dumb question.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
That would be fun
November 28th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Glad someone (other than Romney) slammed Rudy on LIV
THE
LINE
ITEM
VETO
IS
NOT
CONSTITUTIONAL.
GET
OVER
IT.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
144 – Not much. It was Mitt/Rudy earlier, then a bit of Mitt/McCain, now McCain/Rudy
November 28th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
It’s like a free campaign ad for Ron Paul.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
jrcutler,
Kavon isn’t able to be with us tonight. That’s why I did the new post. OMG RON PAUL
November 28th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Joe C, exactly. That was an example of bravery many of us haven’t see in Romney so far.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
136, I have two words for you: Thenmuli Rajaratnam.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Oh, for crying out loud. What a waste of time.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Swint,
The makeup of our country today isn’t what it was in the early 1860’s. The states that left the union had the right to do so, at that time.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Tommy,
That’s too bad. Tell him to show up next time with a remote control for me!
November 28th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
“This country is in a revolution”? If Paul had any chance, that would be a death knell….an absolute death knell. Psycho.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
stupid dumb ‘a’ question
November 28th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
a little hope for rudy with a yankees question.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Haha, funny answer by Rudy!
November 28th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Great answer by Rudy on the Yankee question.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Go Rudy!!!
November 28th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
It was 86 years, Mitt.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
THE
LINE
ITEM
VETO
IS
NOT
CONSTITUTIONAL.
GET
OVER
IT*
*as it was written.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Romney vs. Rudy!
November 28th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
YANKEES SUCK! YANKEES SUCK!
November 28th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
happened in the 87th year
November 28th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Thank you for the asterisk, sampo
November 28th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
I think Mitt was trying to be funny….I only laughed a little. Rudy was more funny there.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
fred walking by rudy was hilarious! Fred’s got the guy by 2 FEET!
November 28th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
finaly over.
1. Mitt – The opening fireworks was the story of the night, and Mitt won that.
1a. McCain
3. Fred
4. Huck
5. Rudy
November 28th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
All in all, Giuliani again proves he is unmatched.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
I’ll type up some thoughts and post them shortly.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
1. Mitt
2. McCain and Fred
3. None
4. Giuliani and Huck
5. Hunter
6. Ron paul
7. Tancredo
November 28th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Man, Mitt’s response to Giuliani was priceless in the immigration argument.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
#176. Are you high?
November 28th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Opinionated, not following you on that comment. Rudy didn’t win.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
bottom line of the debate – rudy tried to imply that mitt is responsible to check the citizenship of lawnmowers which hes not, and rudy ended up looking petty. rudy looking desperate to attack mitt is not how a frontrunner is expected to act. that is what will be replayed tomorrow morning.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
1. McCain
2. Huck
3. Romney
4. Rudy
5. Fred
November 28th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
176 – meaning that rudy shouldn’t be on stage with some of the other guys
November 28th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
1. Mitt
2. Fred/McCain
4. Huck
5. Rudy
November 28th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Huck #2 are you crazy? Wow some of you guys are nuts.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Mr T. how can you have huck at #2 ? he didnt get much face time, and although he was funny, at this point in the race, people wont substance, not funniness.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
1. Mitt
2. McCain
3. Fred
4. Rudy
5. Huckabee
6. Who cares
November 28th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
186, seriously
November 28th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
mitts moments of pownage in this debate: 1) working rudy on immigration, 2) putting the abortion issue to rest, 3) manning up on the confederate flag issue.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
#188 my list exactly.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Mitt’s answer on Abortion was right on.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Mitt wins with spat v. Giuliani and his willingness to admit mistake in abortion!!
November 28th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
136, I have two words for you: Thenmuli Rajaratnam.
I said “typically,” because there are always exceptions.
But so what? Do you think that bin Laden and Zawahiri are lying when they say that Islam is the main motivation behind their attacks? They think that Islam is being assaulted. That’s what they say, not TLG says.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Also Mitt remained cool and courteous with McCain re: torture
November 28th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
This ranking isn’t for my vote. He’s a great speaker and uses the format to his advantage. He was my last choice of our candidates for President in Matt’s recent poll.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Yeah 176, tjhis may be the night Giuliani lost it all…he had some downward slide going but not that bad – this may well accelerate it. Big time.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
1.mitt
2. mccain
3. fred
4. huckabee
5. hunter / tancredo
6. rudy
7. paul
November 28th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
This was a great night for Mitt. All in all, this could have huge impact on the race.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
It was ultimately a terrible night for Rudy. It will be interesting to see if this has an effect on his poll numbers.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
wehre do they find these ‘viewers’ on the cnn.com after debate townhall? we’re in sad shape as a nation
November 28th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
What the hell is this guy talking about Huck, did he see the same debate!
November 28th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
The most bizarre answer of the night, to me, is when Rudy said “I PROBABLY wouldn’t sign a bill banning all abortions”. Utterly schizophrenic.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Geffen is a joke. No wonder he liked those 3.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
That was a rough debate. The crowd was booing everyone, even the poor gay general.
Romney would have won, but he got nailed on that gay question. He didn’t need a flip-flop on camera. McCain deserves kudos on the torture question. But in the end I think Huckabee probably edged out a win.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
The most bizarre answer of the night, to me, is when Rudy said “I PROBABLY wouldn’t sign a bill banning all abortionsâ€. Utterly schizophrenic.
That was weird, yes.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
I’m funny! vote for me! ignore everything else
November 28th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Yup, here comes the spinning trying to give us the liberals.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
these guys are all waiting to see who is the ‘winner’ and hitch their wagon
November 28th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Huckabee won.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Feltcher…how did Huck win??
November 28th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Feltcher,
Huckabee won? Seriously?
November 28th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
As you all undoubtedly know, I have the McCain site. I won’t get into rating and ranking performances (although I applaud those of you that did), but just make these general observations:
This was really, really, rollicking entertainment. It went 15 minutes over time and it was totally worth it. Serious issues were discussed. Enough light, funny videos were included to keep it from getting too heavy. I think that CNN and YouTube made a set of very good decisions in terms of what they included. (My one exception being that I was fervently hoping that the Ghost of Richard Nixon one would appear, although they did at least include it in the opening segment. Go find it on YouTube and you’ll see why.)
I really think it was great theater… Back in the 19th century, politics was entertainment, and on this sort of debate night, the vestiges of why that was the case emerge. (Granted, in the 19th century there weren’t a lot of alternatives for entertainment…)
Thoughts?
November 28th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
They seem to be trying to spin this as if Romney had a bad night and Rudy was solid.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
huckabee didnt do bad. but he didnt win, because he wasnt a presence in the debate.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
The Bible, abortion, and guns, Bennett? All of the important issues for an executive!
November 28th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Who hurt himself more: Huck or Giuliani?
Though I’m not voting for Giuliani, I like and respect him to the
nth degree. I can’t imagine he could have done that badly with his
great personality.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
1. mccain
2. huck
3. fred
4. hunter
5. mitt
6. rudy
November 28th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
this guy is exactly right about Mitt and Rudy
November 28th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
the commentators have picked up on the big storyline. if rudy guiliani is such a strong frontrunner, why is he making lame desperate attacks on mitt to start out the debate.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
i listen to bill bennett gloat about romney every day on my morning drive.
nothing to see here.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Rudy, Huck wasn’t on enough.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Absolute nonsense from Geffen. Huckabee couldn’t give a single answer without a joke. But, golly, he talked about how Republicans want to punish children; no wonder Geffen loved him.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
I dont usually like Bill Bennett, but I think he is right! Mitt needed a big night with recent Iowa polls and I wouldnt be surprised with his lead growing in the next few days
November 28th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Good point Joe C.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Bennett just talked up Romney! Bad night for Rudy.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Geffen? Isn’t that David Gergen?
November 28th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
I think Huckabee dodged all the bullets basically. And he came across as very calm and presidential. Romney, Giuliani, and Rudy all seemed ruffled at some points. So it was a narrow win over Romney.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Ilfigo, yeah I watched the same debate, in which none of our candidates were perfect, where Fred’s video was bad, where Rudy was rude, where Mitt and Mike were up and down.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Huckabee won the award for most jokes!!!
November 28th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Whatever. I didn’t recognize him, and someone referred to him as Geffen. So I went with it.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
huckabee dodged bullets because no one really cared about what he had to say. every once in a while, they broke him out for some comic relief.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Did Cambell Brown not watch the opening? what is she smoking?
November 28th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
True…but Huck did not win, this was not even close to a good debate for him…not all his fault thoug, he didnt get that much time
November 28th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Maybe the MSM isn’t taking Huck seriously yet.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
194:
All the empirical data show that, regardless of the personal motivations of bin Laden, Zawahiri, or any other self-proclaimed leader of their ilk, the taproot of terrorism is not Islam in and of itself. The critical question is a counterfactual one: would these religious or ideological provocations suffice if the United States and European allies did not also station troops in the Middle East and subsidize governments that oppress and repress them? The evidence suggests that answer is NO. The taproot of al-Qaeda’s animosity to its enemies is nationalism–the belief among members of a community that they share a distinct set of ethnic, linguistic, and historical characteristics and are entitled to govern their national homeland without interference from foreigners.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
JR…the MSM has been promoting Huck for the lasst few weeks!
November 28th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
I’m looking for a mature leader.
Not for a comedian. Not for someone who thinks today’s most crucial issue is abortion.
I’m looking for a leader on the various issues from crime to infrastructure to eduction to war and peace.
Tonight, only McCain and Giuliani fit that bill.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Feltcher,
I agree that he dodged bullets. But, then he saw few bullets. He was little of anything. It’s never a good idea to fade into the background, and only come to the forefront when the other guys need a good laugh; he came across as a lightweight yokel.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
ilfigo,
They are promoting him, but I don’t know if they really think he can win yet.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
jrcutler,
Frankly, I can’t decide whether or not Huck was better off getting no questions, or being treated with the degree of harshness Rudy was. He won’t get any momentum from this, but he won’t collapse into the see, which he may well have if they’d gone after him sufficiently.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
MSM are using Huck as a tool to promote guiliani
November 28th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
david gurgen. david geffen runs a record label or something. man fred thompson is tall.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Anderson Cooper was not very good as moderator. The whole event was more like a glorified Rudy Giuliani press conference than an actual debate.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Good point, Matt.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
You’re right, Ilfigo. I thought McCain had the best night. I thought Romney’s flag answer was one of his best the entire campaign, but I didn’t think as much of the rest of his debate. And I think Huckabee tended to make a stronger personal connection on TV than Romney.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
collapse into the sea*
November 28th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
they’re replaying McCain’s comparison of our GI’s to Pol Pot… does anyone else see a campaign commercian here?
November 28th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
so question: will anything said in this debate affect the polls in iowa, nh, and SC?
November 28th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Huck won!!! Woo-hoo! Yes!
Guys, there’s a lot of room on Huckabee express. I invite all of you to come aboard before Huck express really starts to take off. Let bygones be bygones.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Opinionated,
I’d suggest that you go back and watch the first hour of the debate.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
The frontrunners certainly got the bulk of time, but I think the endposts got a fair amount as well. Hunter’s answer on gays in the military was awful. I think this was Giuliani’s worst performance. I think getting booed in the beginning threw him off, just as it did Obama in the dem debate.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Geffen spent the 90s promoting Kurt Cobain. Gergen, Bill Clinton.
Forgetting either is understandable.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Are these spin room guys all Democrats besides Bennett?
November 28th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
I love the way the Democratic strategists love Huck.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Oh golly, the Democrats like Huckabee, and dislike Fred and Romney. Wowzers. Big surprise.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Boy the MSM love the Huckabee. Who is this idiot talking right now?
November 28th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
All the empirical data show that, regardless of the personal motivations of bin Laden, Zawahiri, or any other self-proclaimed leader of their ilk, the taproot of terrorism is not Islam in and of itself. The critical question is a counterfactual one: would these religious or ideological provocations suffice if the United States and European allies did not also station troops in the Middle East and subsidize governments that oppress and repress them? The evidence suggests that answer is NO. The taproot of al-Qaeda’s animosity to its enemies is nationalism–the belief among members of a community that they share a distinct set of ethnic, linguistic, and historical characteristics and are entitled to govern their national homeland without interference from foreigners.
Self-proclaimed leader? They founded al-Qaeda. They’re more than “self-proclaimed,” I’d say. I don’t know what you think they’re talking about when they say that jihad is the motivation behind their attacks, but it’s not just that they perceive us as oppressing them — and that’s an important word here: perceive, I’m not ready to acquiesce to their outrageous demands, unlike some — but that they see us oppressing them as Muslims. Their faith in Allah has been insulted; they see Islam as under attack by the United States more than any other nation through our actions. They’re not concerned about national sovereignty, or else our support for secular regimes — specifically secular regimes, as in: not including Islamic regimes; they aren’t mad at us for supporting Saudi Arabia, which does is not self-governed — would be irrelevant to them!
November 28th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
these people analysing are stupid. Just like the CNBC pundits. I’m no fan of Romney, but he was very good tonight.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
God, it’s sickening watching this spin room talk. Absolutely sickening.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
typical media hacks. That last guy said Romney and Fred did the worst? What a moron.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Way to go Bennett
November 28th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
A lot of Democrats like Huckabee because, aside from abortion,..
November 28th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Huckabee is a liberal why wouldnt they like him?
November 28th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Honestly, who in the world thought it was a good idea to have 4 Democratic operatives, and one Republican pundit, in a spin room on a Republican debate? I’m at a loss for words.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
…aside from abortion, correct.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
CNN sucks. But this debate was good theater as someone said earlier. There were real exchanges and substance.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Irish Right
It’s why I wrote “all in all”.
The debate didn’t last only 15 minutes. If it had the results would be different.
Giuliani got to address many issues and closed very strongly in the second half.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Rudy did slightly better than that gay dude who went there specificaly to humiliate himself on national tv. Huck swayed the illegal alien audience and probably owned the mexican vote. Fred and McCain looked like a 4 year term might go beyond their life expectancy. Hunter did well. Mitt won.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
TLG – are you even on the same chat as us?
November 28th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
257, You’ve made a false logical inference. I never said that Muslims don’t get “mad at us” for reasons other than nationalism. The key point I’m driving at is, what compels a man (or woman) to strap a bomb to their chest and blow themselves up in order to kill others? I’m not driving at what drives Muslims to be “mad at us,” I’m driving at what drives Muslims to actually go out of their way to launch attacks against us? And all the empirical data show that fervence of belief in a religion or even religion itself is not the taproot of terrorism. The taproot of terrorism is nationalism.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Opinionated, Rudy did no better than tread water in the 2nd half (except for his Yankees v Red Sox question. He was right on there.). Romney ran away with the first half to such an extent that everyone else could only keep him in site for the rest of the night.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Wow, that’s harshin’ it, Argamenon – but your conclusion is correct.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
The MSM came in with a script, and have stuck to it: “no matter what happens, Huckabee wins! No matter what happens, push the liberal”.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
270 . we’re not here to make logical inferences on islam and zarqawi, we’re here to make illogical inferences about 7 men arguing on a stage in florida!
November 28th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
“Rudy did slightly better than that gay dude who went there specificaly to humiliate himself on national tv. Huck swayed the illegal alien audience and probably owned the mexican vote. Fred and McCain looked like a 4 year term might go beyond their life expectancy. Hunter did well. Mitt won.”
ROTFLOL!
November 28th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Thompson seemed to disappear as the debate went on and Romney was diminishing.
Giuliani got stronger and stronger.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
TLG and Common Sense are having a side discussion prompted by Ron Paul.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
I didn’t see the debate, but I think the Florida GOP has been the big winner of these debates. Florida Republicans have gotten the candidates to keep coming to the Sunshine state for debates and other campaign stuff. Contrast that with the democrats who are avoiding us Floridians like we carry the plague. These attitudes will help whoever is the GOP nominee.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
“having a side discussion prompted by Ron Paul” probably never a good sign
November 28th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Yey! Huckabee wins!
November 28th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
257, You’ve made a false logical inference. I never said that Muslims don’t get “mad at us†for reasons other than nationalism. The key point I’m driving at is, what compels a man (or woman) to strap a bomb to their chest and blow themselves up in order to kill others? I’m not driving at what drives Muslims to be “mad at us,†I’m driving at what drives Muslims to actually go out of their way to launch attacks against us? And all the empirical data show that fervence of belief in a religion or even religion itself is not the taproot of terrorism. The taproot of terrorism is nationalism.
No, not religion! Islam! Islam and nationalism go hand in hand — that’s Sharia Law! Anyone who knows anything about Islam knows that nationalism is mixed in with it wherever it’s prominent.
Without the religious element, there is no reason to believe that September 11th would have happened. We have bases all around the world. Only Muslims get pissed off about it. Yes, Muslim nationalists. The nationalism stems from Islam!
November 28th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Lol , i’m feeling Guliano as well.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
CNN online is blathering about how surprised they are noone they’re talking to brought up Rudy on their own volition, but neglect to mention why.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Cool, they included Republicans who prefer John Edwards. Gorgeous.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
I think TLG is having an out of body experience.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Suprise that the spin is for Huckabee. I would vote for him if we were electing a comedian.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
re:279, im just kidding, i like a lot about ron paul. but seriously, tlg, arent you 17? you know what most of us would give to have one day of being 17 again, sneak out our parents house, to find our warm stash of natural light we hid in the bushes down the street?
November 28th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Cool, they included Republicans who prefer John Edwards. Gorgeous.
I’m telling you people, and nobody believes me: average voters are idiots.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Erik,
he has been all night.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
http://mydryfly.wordpress.com/2007/11/28/gop-debate-mitt-mccain-winners-rudy-lost/
There is my debate analysis.
By the way, that panel interview was ridiculous. I can’t believe that is what democracy relies on.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
LOL, no way that woman is a republican. Edwards? He’s gone socialist.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
but seriously, tlg, arent you 17? you know what most of us would give to have one day of being 17 again, sneak out our parents house, to find our warm stash of natural light we hid in the bushes down the street?
…I’m an adult trapped in a teenager’s body.
I’ve hated being a teenager. Why some people call these days the happiest of their lives astounds me.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
I support Huckabee in Iowa. Leave them laughing.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
TLG you are right the average voter is an idiot. Very uneducated about the issues.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Unbelievable. Honestly, I’ve given up saying “I won’t vote for X under any circumstances”, but if the Republican Party nominates Mike Huckabee, if the media foists him on us, I can’t imagine voting for him.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
TLG: you are historically wrong. The Islamic empires were pan-Islamic and most of the fighting between them was between Shia and Sunni with no nationaistic agenda.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
292 – just wait till you get a full time job, man. it never stops. sure you might get a few days or a week off, but it always there.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Chuck Norris in the spin room for Huck on CNN.com
November 28th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
I agree matt m, Huckabee is the only one I would never vote for other than Ron Paul.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
From Matt Lewis of Townhall and no fan of Mike Huckabee:
“In my estimation, the candidates who benefited from tonight were McCain, Thompson, and Huckabee.”
November 28th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Erik, I’m glad you are being sacastic.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
TLG: you are historically wrong. The Islamic empires were pan-Islamic and most of the fighting between them was between Shia and Sunni with no nationaistic agenda.
I should have been clearer…
Islamic expansionism has always had a religious-nationalistic fusion agenda stemming from the want to govern people under Sharia Law. Sharia Law is inherently religious and nationalistic.
Today, terrorism stems from a fusion between the two, but without both of them together, you’re not going to get 9/11’s.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
The only ones I wouldn’t vote for are Tancredo and Paul, although Huckabee is starting to sound like Charlie Crist (NOT a good Republican by any measure)
November 28th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
TLG, some of your responses make it painfully clear you’re a bright teenager, but still a teenager nonetheless.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Bombed joke imho:
Romney upon seeing video of himself speaking in support of abortion: “I don’t recognize that young man in the video.” (Or something like that.)
Problem is, a lot of his detractors don’t either. Because he’s a chameleon. I don’t know what things he says he actually means and what things he says because he thinks it’s what his audience wants to hear.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
292 – just wait till you get a full time job, man. it never stops. sure you might get a few days or a week off, but it always there.
Sheesh, what do you do?
I would go insane if I didn’t end up in a job that I enjoyed, whether that means $300,000 a year or $30,000 a year. Happiness is the goal, over here.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
McCain and Thompson should have demanded soft lighting.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
TLG, some of your responses make it painfully clear you’re a bright teenager, but still a teenager nonetheless.
Are you referring to my ALL CAPS responses?
November 28th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Tancredo has moved well above Huckabee on my list. Huckabee is dueling with Ron Paul for last place.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Firstly: Once again, you’ve made false logical inference. Yes, it is true that we do have bases all around the world. No, it is not true that only Muslims get pissed off about it. We have been stirring up vats of seething resentment against us in places like South Korea, Japan, Italy, and elsewhere for decades now–the fact that there haven’t been any large scale campaigns from nationals of those countries lashing out against us YET is not the issue. The issue is: When such lashing out DOES occur, what is the taproot of it? All the empirical data show that nationalism, regardless of Islam or any other religion, is the true taproot.
Secondly: Why is it, when post-mortem biographical research is done on Al Qaeda and other organizations’ suicide bombers, that so many of them were only nominally religious before deciding to carry out their attacks? Why also is it that virtually all of Al Qaeda’s suicide bombers are only people who have come from countries where America has a heavy combat troop presence or people who have been oppressed by secular governments that America is subsidizing? Statistically, why hasn’t the intensity and breadth of Islamic fundamentalism (or even, more specifically, Salafism for that matter) been the–or even a–major indicator of where Al Qaeda’s suicide bombers come from?
Thirdly: The fact that Islam is in some ways fused with the nationalism that propels attacks against us does not make our continued unnecessary and unconstitutional military presence in other countries and subsidizing of other countries, more justified or more necessary. The key question is, if our military presence in and subsidizing of other countries is not authorized by our own Constitution and clearly not making our country safer, why continue it?
November 28th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
305 –
i respect mitt saying that he doesnt recognize himself from a long time ago. isnt it like 15 years? imagine the things we all would have said 15 years ago. you grow up and learn, and he has done so as well.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
I’d be enthusiastic about: Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson
I’d be okay with, but not enthusiastic about: John McCain
I’d hold my nose and vote for: Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo
I would vote for the Libertarian instead of: Mike Huckabee
I would vote for Hillary instead of: Mitt Romney
November 28th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Now John Roberts says Rudy really handled himself well? I can’t imagine how anyone can claim the MSM isn’t biased. All of this spin absolutely REEKS of bias.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
312 — I forgot about Paul! Not that he matters. I already said that I’d vote for him over Huckabee in that post.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Tancredo is a nativist pure and simple. Stopping legal and illegal immigration. I may be working on my college degree, but even I know that Tancredo would be more comfortable in the Know-Nothings than the republicans
November 28th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Cool! Mike Huckabee wins again, according to good ole’ Jeffrey!
November 28th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Yeah the Liberal media wants Rudy so damned bad. He and Paul are the two guys I could never vote for.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
313 – It is the “Spin Room” for a reason.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Yeah, Tancredo is a nativist, but there is a growing strong current of nativism in both parties in response to illegal immigration. His problem is he talks about it hysterically.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Firstly: Once again, you’ve made false logical inference. Yes, it is true that we do have bases all around the world. No, it is not true that only Muslims get pissed off about it. We have been stirring up vats of seething resentment against us in places like South Korea, Japan, Italy, and elsewhere for decades now–the fact that there haven’t been any large scale campaigns from nationals of those countries lashing out against us YET is not the issue. The issue is: When such lashing out DOES occur, what is the taproot of it? All the empirical data show that nationalism, regardless of Islam or any other religion, is the true taproot.
The issue is most certainly that South Koreans, the Japanese, and Italians have refrained from flying planes into our buildings and organizing movements to kill Americans. And you can’t brush off al-Qaeda as a group of homicidal freaks. Opinion polls taken of Islamic countries show that the overwhelming majority in every one except Turkey believes that suicide bombings can be justified in some instances. Even in Turkey, a fifth of the citizenry believes that, which is still horrifyingly high. It’s not an accident that suicide bombings are accepted in repressed, Islamic countries, while secular countries that support civilized society go about things in a more rational manner. Even other repressed countries that take issue refrain from blowing us up. And what about our other enemies? Chavez? Castro? Kim Jung-il?
Answer me this: Would you or would you not be more concerned about North Korea tomorrow if Kim Jung Il converted to Islam?
More in a minute…
November 28th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
These commentators are whoring for Huck because they want Rudy/Hillary.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
#292 TLG – you’re like my son (now 21). He didn’t enjoy being a teenager, either. He was always more serious about life than his friends. I told him that it gets better and better as you get older. You go to college and meet all kinds of people from all over and have a much wider group of people to choose your friends from. For some “old souls,” like you and my son, being a teenager is not all it’s cracked up to be.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
The MSM came in with a script, and have stuck to it: “no matter what happens, Huckabee wins! No matter what happens, push the liberalâ€.
Actually, Huck is surging since he connects with most mainstream conservatives.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Doesn’t Huck’s rise in the polls seem like Thompson’s? The fall will probably be the same as well. As soon as people start learning about Huck’s positions and stop romanticizing about him, he will fall as Thompson has.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Erik 321 – exactly right, and they know Hillary will beat Rudy – once again. Damn.
Go Mitt!
November 28th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
I got a scary scenario…what if Huckabee wins Iowa and Paul wins in New Hampshire?
November 28th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
#323 He has connected with most mainstream social conservatives. Economic and Defense conservatives still have their reservations
November 28th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Secondly: Why is it, when post-mortem biographical research is done on Al Qaeda and other organizations’ suicide bombers, that so many of them were only nominally religious before deciding to carry out their attacks? Why also is it that virtually all of Al Qaeda’s suicide bombers are only people who have come from countries where America has a heavy combat troop presence or people who have been oppressed by secular governments that America is subsidizing? Statistically, why hasn’t the intensity and breadth of Islamic fundamentalism (or even, more specifically, Salafism for that matter) been the–or even a–major indicator of where Al Qaeda’s suicide bombers come from?
I never said that America’s presence has nothing to do with the matter — that is the matter. But without Islam as a catalyst for the attacks, they’d go about things in a more rational manner instead of blowing things up. America subsidizes religious regimes, but al-Qaeda, quite tellingly, doesn’t complain about those. Islamic fundamentalism combined with nationalism — and only combined; just one alone seemingly won’t do it — causes terrorism. Without the former, you won’t get the latter.
I’ll turn the tables: Statistically, why hasn’t the intensity and breadth of our foreign involvement been the — or even a major — indicator of where terrorism against the US will come from?
November 28th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Doesn’t Huck’s rise in the polls seem like Thompson’s? The fall will probably be the same as well. As soon as people start learning about Huck’s positions and stop romanticizing about him, he will fall as Thompson has.
The rise is fueled not by the media, but by the mobilization of social conservatives after the Washington Briefing, the largest social conservative gathering in the nation, where Huck won the support of over 80% of the crowd.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
326, Then the universe collapses. J/k.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
#292 TLG – you’re like my son (now 21). He didn’t enjoy being a teenager, either. He was always more serious about life than his friends. I told him that it gets better and better as you get older. You go to college and meet all kinds of people from all over and have a much wider group of people to choose your friends from. For some “old souls,†like you and my son, being a teenager is not all it’s cracked up to be.
Why, Beth, we agree on something.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
where is metrorepublican? does he run away when rudy has a bad night?
November 28th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
I noticed when I was going through the youtube questions, and most of the questions in previous debates, period, parents are absent. I mean questions from the perspective of those self-identifying as parents of children still living at home. It’s especially odd as the GOP is the party of “affordable family formation”.
I guess questions of morality, and illegal immigration (an issue for families in huge part because of quality of life, crime, and making housing less affordable and thus children less affordable) are the closest we’ll get to issues that strike close to the heart for them.
Moms, especially, seem acutely absent.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Duncan on CNN.com. Asking him lame questions about the YouTube format, but he did think this go around was “classier” than the Dems version. Also, apparently he writes his own speeches, and is his own staff, but a handful of unpaid groupies might show up to help. Then lame stuff about polls.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Thirdly: The fact that Islam is in some ways fused with the nationalism that propels attacks against us does not make our continued unnecessary and unconstitutional military presence in other countries and subsidizing of other countries, more justified or more necessary. The key question is, if our military presence in and subsidizing of other countries is not authorized by our own Constitution and clearly not making our country safer, why continue it?
I agree; I’m a non-interventionist, but I believe that this is a threat that we are justified in confronting.
I don’t think we should continue it, but that’s not the debate at hand.
Also, it’s not going to happen, so let’s work with what’s possible. We don’t want to act like these Human-Life-Amendment-or-bust on abortion idiots. Incrementalism is not a dirty word.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
I built that fence!!!!
November 28th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
#331, as someone still too young to have a career, I agree with both of yall
November 28th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
324 Stevo
It’s nothing like Thompson. Thompson was all anticipation and reality collapsed him.
There was no anticipation for Huckabee. His rise is a default position for otherwise disappointed SoCons.
Huckabee will fall where SoCons are not as potent.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
I guess questions of morality, and illegal immigration (an issue for families in huge part because of quality of life, crime, and making housing less affordable and thus children less affordable) are the closest we’ll get to issues that strike close to the heart for them.
Moms, especially, seem acutely absent.
What’s that, you say? You weren’t satisfied with Romney’s rhetoric?
November 28th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
333 – I bet because those busy raising a young family are a) least likely to send in a youtube question, and b) also paying the least attention still at this point in the game.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Secondly: Why is it, when post-mortem biographical research is done on Al Qaeda and other organizations’ suicide bombers, that so many of them were only nominally religious before deciding to carry out their attacks?
The answer to this is: they needed that extra push. Martyrdom will do it. Both elements are needed. Once Islam is injected and the promise of Heaven is given, there’s no turning back.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
so is the forum done discussing the debate?
November 28th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
“America subsidizes religious regimes, but al-Qaeda, quite tellingly, doesn’t complain about those.”
I thought you said you’d read the Al Qaeda Reader. Do I really have to dig up the quotes where they complain about our support for Saudi Arabia?
“Islamic fundamentalism combined with nationalism — and only combined; just one alone seemingly won’t do it — causes terrorism. Without the former, you won’t get the latter.”
Do you know what country is the leader in suicide terrorism? Sri Lanka. Do you know what religious sect is the leader in suicide bombings? Hindus. Do you know how many suicide terrorists have been religious? Forty-three percent. Do you know how many suicide terrorists have been secular? Fifty-seven percent. Nationalism is the taproot of suicide terrorism, regardless of religion. We and our allies have been attacked by both religious and secular attackers, by both pro-sharia and Marxist/Leninist attackers, and Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians have all joined the ranks of the suicide bombers, among others.
“I’ll turn the tables: Statistically, why hasn’t the intensity and breadth of our foreign involvement been the — or even a major — indicator of where terrorism against the US will come from?”
Allow me to turn the tables again, by saying, it HAS.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
OK, Sorry Tommy Oliver, I’m off my boycott–addiction.
I came into the debate just before the Thompson ad attacking Romney/Huckabee so I missed the Romney/Giuliani moment.
I have to admit that I was highly bothered by the ‘bible’ question. I think I’ll wake up tonight in cold sweats seeing unshaven fat middle aged men shouting at me with bullhorns that I’m not a Christian.
Having not watched the first 40 mins. of the debate, this debate was hard for me to watch. It seemed that the questions and sequences were designed to make Romney and Giuliani look bad, Huckabee and McCain look Good. I think the moderation of the debate was fairly neutral on Thompson.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
I thought you said you’d read the Al Qaeda Reader. Do I really have to dig up the quotes where they complain about our support for Saudi Arabia?
Only in the context that Saudi Arabia isn’t a strong enough supporter of Sharia Law. Actually, I may have made quite a large error here: they’re not too pleased with Saudi Arabia, actually.
Do you know what country is the leader in suicide terrorism? Sri Lanka. Do you know what religious sect is the leader in suicide bombings? Hindus. Do you know how many suicide terrorists have been religious? Forty-three percent. Do you know how many suicide terrorists have been secular? Fifty-seven percent. Nationalism is the taproot of suicide terrorism, regardless of religion. We and our allies have been attacked by both religious and secular attackers, by both pro-sharia and Marxist/Leninist attackers, and Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians have all joined the ranks of the suicide bombers, among others.
Terrorism AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. Not TERRORISM. Terrorism against the United States. The terrorism in Sri Lanka is intra-country fighting. That’s not unusual at all.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
There needs to be an anti-hijacking policy. Deploy some virtual Israeli sky marshalls.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
There is no 9/11, USS Cole, or ‘93 WTC bombing equivalent coming from other nations we’re occupying in some fashion.
That’s the big point, here.
If you’d read their declaration of war against us and their treatises on their motives, they even remark themselves that it stems from Islam.
Are you saying that they’re just making that up?
November 28th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
“Terrorism AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. Not TERRORISM. Terrorism against the United States. The terrorism in Sri Lanka is intra-country fighting. That’s not unusual at all.”
My point was that nationalism does not have to be the partner of fundamentalist Islam in order to produce terrorism. Many suicide bombers are part of religions that offer no paradise or leagues of virgins upon detonation. They do what they do out of a sense of deep commitment to and integration in a supportive nationalist community, and this fact transcends all suicide terror campaigns. The point is that, overall, analysis of Al Qaeda’s suicide terrorists show that its most lethal forces are best understood as a coalition of nationalist groups seeking to achieve a local change in their home countries. Religion matters, but mainly in the context of national resistance, not vice versa.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
“There is no 9/11, USS Cole, or ‘93 WTC bombing equivalent coming from other nations we’re occupying in some fashion.”
Precisely because of the fact that you had earlier denied. The intensity and breadth of our involvement in (as far as stationing heavy combat troops and subsidizing oppressive regimes) Muslim countries is astonishingly greater than in other countries, and thus produces astonishingly more violence against us from nationals of those particular countries. This is magnified by our insistence on discriminatingly picking on MUSLIM countries and turning a blind eye to the suffering of MUSLIM peoples in particular. I recommend you read “Dying To Win” by Robert Pape and “Blowback” by Chalmers Johnson for more thorough analysis of our interventions and their effects.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
I have to get up early in the morning for work, so I need to get going, but I do leave you with those recommended reading suggestions. Good night!
November 28th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
My point was that nationalism does not have to be the partner of fundamentalist Islam in order to produce terrorism. Many suicide bombers are part of religions that offer no paradise or leagues of virgins upon detonation. They do what they do out of a sense of deep commitment to and integration in a supportive nationalist community, and this fact transcends all suicide terror campaigns. The point is that, overall, analysis of Al Qaeda’s suicide terrorists show that its most lethal forces are best understood as a coalition of nationalist groups seeking to achieve a local change in their home countries. Religion matters, but mainly in the context of national resistance, not vice versa.
No, no, you misunderstood: I was referring to international terrorism from Muslims. Islam alone doesn’t seem to do the trick; it’s got to be tied with a nationalist sense of outrage. But without Islam, a nationalist sense of outrage won’t suffice, either.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Precisely because of the fact that you had earlier denied. The intensity and breadth of our involvement in (as far as stationing heavy combat troops and subsidizing oppressive regimes) Muslim countries is astonishingly greater than in other countries, and thus produces astonishingly more violence against us from nationals of those particular countries. This is magnified by our insistence on discriminatingly picking on MUSLIM countries and turning a blind eye to the suffering of MUSLIM peoples in particular.
Fair enough, but I noticed that you never answered my question about Kim Jung-Il.
All the way back from 320: “Answer me this: Would you or would you not be more concerned about North Korea tomorrow if Kim Jung Il converted to Islam?”
November 29th, 2007 at 2:12 am
Did anyone catch the post debate spin where they said the General who asked the DADT question was part of Hillary’s Steering Committee for Gays and Lesbians? What are your thoughts, and does this negate Romney’s stumble on the answer? What do you think?