The Candidates
Featured Archives
Rudy Treads Water; Huck Plays Defense
After viewing tonight’s YouTube debate of the Republican presidential field, it is fairly clear to me that if this were an era of peace and prosperity, a few more events like this one would send Gov. Mitt Romney straight to Minneapolis next summer to accept the GOP presidential nomination. Romney dominated the first hour of the debate, which focused almost entirely on domestic policy, by coming off as a mainstream conservative with seemingly reasonable rationales for changing his views on issues like abortion and with the energy and vigor to actually implement his policy ideas. This dynamic was due in large part to the motley crew of ornery online conservatives who submitted questions to the field, many of which attempted to ferret out the liberalism that so many on the Right are convinced hides within the souls of candidates like Rudy, Romney, and Huckabee. But while Rudy and Huckabee fended off these queries with all the tact of a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar, Romney responded without his usual Clintonian slickness. While Rudy and Huckabee played defense, Romney put forth policy solutions that were both conservative and reasonable. When Sen. McCain got a question that was tailor-made for the Arizonan — a query about spending — McCain, who seemed tired, gave a broad, generalized answer about pork. But it was Romney who ran with the answer, explaining just how he would reduce spending in Washington. Again, in a world without a war on expansionist Islamism, Romney is the nominee.
But this is not such a world. And Romney found that out during the second half of the debate, during which Sen. McCain schooled Mitt on everything from Iraq to interrogation to gays in the military. I’m not trying to pick on Mitt. McCain schooled everybody on these issues. McCain was the only guy on stage who seemed as if he wouldn’t need a crash course on defense issues during his first day on the job as president. But while Mitt’s passion is for bean-counting, McCain’s passion is for a strong defense, a solid military, and complete victory over our enemies. Formerly tired and hunched over, the fire in McCain’s belly emerged when the debate moved to defense issues. Alive and invigorated, McCain explained that the surge is working and that we are winning in Iraq. He explained that we must finish the job, and that if we leave without doing so, Iraq and its resources will be left to the Islamists to use against us. While Duncan Hunter seemed to give almost a bigoted answer on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy regarding gays in the military, McCain pointed out that the policy, like all policies, should remain in place as long as it is working. Romney’s answer to this question was similar, but in Romney’s case, there existed a boyish need to run to the military leadership for any and every answer about anything related to defense. Romney is clearly a peacetime leader who would learn defense issues on the job. McCain’s whole life has been defense issues. And it showed.
Rudy, meanwhile, seemed so exasperated by the attacks on his immigration and gun control policies that he returned to his worn-out schtick where he touted his many accomplishments as mayor of New York. This prevented Rudy from out-wonking Romney on domestic policy or out-toughing McCain on foreign policy. Huckabee went from embattled to smarmy, as he offered to answer a question on Biblical interpretation so that the other candidates wouldn’t have to. The query at hand — whether each of the candidates interprets the Bible literally — didn’t belong in this debate, but what does one expect from CNN? In a rare turn of events, Rudy bested Romney when answering this question. Rudy provided the audience with what I would call the intellectual Catholic answer on the subject: that the Bible is partly literal, partly allegorical, partly metaphorical, etc. Romney, on the other hand, reverted to ClintonSpeak, where he attempted to convince both Bible-literalists that he was in their camp and left himself an out for the rest of us. Methinks Mitt is in need of a good Jesuit education. I kid, I kid! I kid because I love!
Fred took the role of court jester tonight, lobbing bombs at the other candidates with humor and charm. Tancredo and Paul always amuse, however unintentionally, and Hunter was, well, there. Chuck Norris was at the debate, or perhaps it is more accurate to say that a debate assembled itself around Chuck Norris. Ultimately, though, Romney and McCain helped themselves tonight, while Rudy and Huckabee hurt themselves. Romney’s biggest problem — aside from his tendency to qualify everything in order to offend no one — is that he is ultimately a peacetime candidate running during wartime. McCain seems to have no passion for domestic issues other than balancing the budget and cutting government. But given that foreign policy issues will likely dominate the coming election, and given that conservatives will select the GOP nominee, and given that most conservatives are tired of government finding more things to do, it’s entirely likely that a heavy-on-defense McCain who wants to start chopping away at the federal budget may be just what GOP primary voters are waiting for. As the undecideds start to make up their minds over the course of the next few weeks, it wouldn’t surprise me at all to see Republicans begin to return to the field’s original frontrunner, especially if McCain continues to deliver red-meat on defense and Romney, Rudy, Thompson, and Huckabee continue to seem incapable of working around the problems with their respective candidacies, all of which were on display tonight.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
I thought Romney and Fred looked horrible…To many bad soundbites out of those guys…
November 28th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
I thought Huckabee had the best night. Romney seemed to flip-flop a couple of times towards the end of the debate. He never really answered the questions when asked. Huckabee came across very,very strong. Thompson seemed very negative.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
I missed the debate, except for the very end. So sad. But when Matt Miller and DaveG call it a great night for Romney, I’ll sleep easy.
Honestly, if Romney had to have a bad half, I’m glad it was the SECOND half. Less people are watching. Those who are still watching already have got their first impressions (of the night). And sometimes, as Rudy apparently illustrated, you don’t get your game back if you stumble out of the gate.
If McCain wants to have a fun little surge, that’s fine with me. He can have #2 in NH. Romney & McCain up, Rudy & Huck down? Perfect.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Funny how the same people keep saying the same thing..
Honestly, I thought this was Romney’s best debate performance. He was strongest at the beginning. Literally mopped the floor with Giuliani after Giuliani picked a fight with the “sanctuary mansion.” They he effectively took Huckabee to task over illegal immigrant benefits by reminding him that the tax payers money is not his money.
When Romney played nice to John McCain by saying that we would consult with people like him over torture issues, John McCain picks a fight with him over torture. I’m glad Romney stood up to him and hold his ground. You can’t play nice with John McCain, he just does not work that way.
Here is how I scored the debate:
Romney
Fred
McCain
Huckabee
Rudy
Hunter
Tank
RP
William Buckley speaks the loudest for most conservatives. He clearly thought Romney won.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Mitt defended tax payers when responding to Huckabee’s program to aid illegal students. But what about the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been spent on farmer subsidies? Mitt and Rudy both justified dishing out subsidies by saying that we’ll do it because France and Germany do it.
Pardon?! The heck?
I wonder how many of those hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies ultimately find their way into the pockets of illegals? That’d be a brilliant question to ask Mitt (and Rudy).
November 28th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Hey Sampo,
How do you think Sen.McCain did tonite? I thought he did really well..
November 28th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
I was unavailable and Tivo’ed the debate.
I just do not get why any of you Republicans have any problem with waterboarding in a post-9/11 world, when journalists VOLUNTEER TO GET WATERBOARDED ON LIVE TELEVISION.
In light of that, to oppose waterboarding is to be as stupid and anti-American as liberals.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
DaveG,
I think Romney’s answer to the bible question was an answer based on Mormon theology. He didn’t try to please anyone, it’s how the LDS view the Bible.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
To me that makes John McCain unfit as a wartime leader.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:01 am
John McCain has gone through more in his life than you will ever imagine Metro, he knows what he’s talking about b/c he has experienced it!! It has nothing to do with being Liberal you pompous!!
November 29th, 2007 at 12:02 am
Unfit to be a war time leader??? Are you kidding me Metro!!!! How many drinks have u had tonite man???
November 29th, 2007 at 12:02 am
mccain was good. so was huckabee.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:03 am
Wow, metro we agree on something. #7
November 29th, 2007 at 12:03 am
Bryan, have you seen journalists get waterboarded on TV? I have.
And THAT’s too harsh for f’ing al Queda?
I don’t know what to say to you liberals.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:03 am
Was anyone else turned off by McCain’s defense of terrorists? Or McCain’s comparison of the work of our GI’s in harms way to protect this country to Pol Pot?
McCain’s got fire in his belly – that’s for sure. Too bad he just comes across as an angry old guy.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:03 am
This is why I hate the internet sometimes. If an a-hole were to say what metro just said to me in person he would get punched out. If I have to spend a night in jail for it, that’s fine.
***clears head***
From Politico, speaking time
Giuliani — 16:38, during 20 times
Romney — 13:18, during 19 times
Thompson — 12:16, during 12 times
McCain — 11:00, during 12 times
Huckabee — 10:00, during 11 times
Paul — 7:43, during 9 times
Hunter — 5:06, during 7 times
Tancredo — 3:49, during 7 times
November 29th, 2007 at 12:05 am
Feltcher: Do you KNOW that journalists have volunteered to be waterboarded on live television?
How did all these liberals get in the GOP?
November 29th, 2007 at 12:05 am
Feltcher,
Couldnt have said that better myself, Metro has no clue what he’s talkin about sometimes
November 29th, 2007 at 12:06 am
Bryan: Do you KNOW that journalists have volunteered to be waterboarded on live television?
How did all these liberals get in the GOP?
November 29th, 2007 at 12:06 am
Liberals Liberals Liberals!!!!!
November 29th, 2007 at 12:06 am
“I just do not get why any of you Republicans have any problem with waterboarding in a post-9/11 world, when journalists VOLUNTEER TO GET WATERBOARDED ON LIVE TELEVISION.
Oh my goodness, Metro and I agree.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:06 am
A journalist can’t volunteer to get waterboarded. The premise of the technique is for the person to actually think he will drown. Do any of you morons believe a journalist is going to actually be drowned on camera?
November 29th, 2007 at 12:07 am
metro, knock it off. if you liken the war on terror to a game of chess and coercive interrogation was a chess piece (lets say a rook), McCain could take that rook off the table and beat every single one of these guys half-asleep.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:08 am
Did you guys see this poll of who won the debate:
http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_1128_53.aspx
Huckabee: 44%
Giulani: 18%
Romney: 13%
McCain: 10%
Thompson: 5%
Paul: 4%
Hunter: 1%
Tancredo: 1%
Rest: undecided
November 29th, 2007 at 12:09 am
And, given what they do to innocent civilians in planes and skyscrapers, Danny Pearl, etc, it’s somehow unjustified to make them think they might be drowning, in the unlikely event Al Queda has not informed its operatives exactly what waterboarding is?
November 29th, 2007 at 12:09 am
I though McCain came off really bad on foreign policy issues during this debate, but there seems to be a definite split in opinion there.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:09 am
how do the pro-rudy and pro-romney people feel about supporting a candidate that promises not to torture but refuse to define it?
November 29th, 2007 at 12:10 am
And since Al Queda loses most of its secrets due to its operatives being captured and interrogated by the U.S., do really think they haven’t explained to their operatives what waterboarding is only perceived drowning?
And you’re willing to risk U.S. national security on that?
November 29th, 2007 at 12:10 am
25, true the split being between the mittbots and everyone else.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:11 am
27, you win the war on terror on the battlefield –NOT IN A TORTURE CELL.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:11 am
bjalder26,
I dont know how you could of come away with that opinion. McCain owns Foreign Policy, no one can match up with him.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:11 am
You know, on this water boarding issue. I wish these terrorists were water boarding our captured troops instead of actually torturing them. It’s fairly harmless and you get the information out quickly.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:11 am
sampo, actually, we win the war on terror mostly due to capturing and interrogating.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:12 am
Sampo,
Romney had the correct answer regarding our policy for interrogations. I thought it was kind of him to give McCain the nod by saying that he would consult with people like him on such issues. McCain would have none of that. He came off hot-tempered and cantankerous in that exchange.
Like I said before, you can’t play nice with John McCain. It did not work for Rudy a few debates back, is certainly cannot work for any other candidate.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:12 am
The U.S. Army has rules and regulations regarding Torture and that’s what we should go by,THE END!!
November 29th, 2007 at 12:13 am
Bryan, it’s not just me. I was live blogging on another site and a lot of people felt McCain came off poorly on the water boarding issue. He comes of as holier than though to a lot of people.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:13 am
Bryan, the sign of a mind that’s ceased functioning; We just go by bureaucratic rules, we cannot change of even question them!
November 29th, 2007 at 12:13 am
I think the people who think McCain won on the torture issue, already went into it thinking whatever he says on this issue goes.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:14 am
Romney is a JOKE, he knows nothing about Foreign Policy and especially knows nothing about interregations!
November 29th, 2007 at 12:14 am
This is just another example of the grave damage John McCain does to the GOP by being a traitor from the inside. If it weren’t for him, only people like Code Pink would believe waterboarding should not be allowed in a post-9/11 world.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:14 am
“how do the pro-rudy and pro-romney people feel about supporting a candidate that promises not to torture but refuse to define it?”
Sampo, who are they to define it? Isn’t Romney correct by stating that he’d want to consult with many others (including John McCain) to help make that determination?
November 29th, 2007 at 12:14 am
32, how’d that go over during the spanish inquisition? not too well, hu.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:15 am
“how do the pro-rudy and pro-romney people feel about supporting a candidate that promises not to torture but refuse to define it?â€
Sampo, who are they to define it?
I’m still trying to find a rational keystroke in that.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:16 am
Bjalder,
Thats b/c McCain has gone through Hell and back being tortured in Vietnam! He has been there in those situations. And while Romney was getting his lawns mowed by illegal aliens and Rudy was screwing around on his wife’s, McCain was fighting for more troops in Iraq and standing up against cruel tortures methods
November 29th, 2007 at 12:17 am
I’m going to call you Code Pink Bryan, and MoveOn Feltcher from now on.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:17 am
“Romney is a JOKE, he knows nothing about Foreign Policy and especially knows nothing about interregations!”
This is how to lose an argument. Make an extremist statement like Romney “knows nothing about Foreign Policy” which is an obvious falsehood. Make a personal attack, by calling Romney a Joke, and abandon all logical arguments.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:17 am
At this time in the U.S. we need a candidate that has foreign policy experience and doesnt need on the job training like alot of the other candidates do!
November 29th, 2007 at 12:18 am
bjalder26,
Werent you at one time supporting Sen.Sam Brownback??
November 29th, 2007 at 12:18 am
Sampo,
You have to acknowledge that there is a lot of gray area in some of these definitions. It is not always a clear cut case.
Just admit it that John McCain fumbled on that issue. I think he was trying too hard to get the better of Romney and it backfired. Tonight was clearly Romney’s night..
November 29th, 2007 at 12:18 am
No, bjalder26 is a good Mormon, always been behind Mitt.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:19 am
Thankyou Bjalder!
November 29th, 2007 at 12:20 am
Right on bjalder26…
November 29th, 2007 at 12:20 am
Metro,
And i’m sure you thought your candidate did a great job tonite to huh?? Totally ignoring the fact that he fell flat on his face!
November 29th, 2007 at 12:21 am
There are two problems with Romney’s answer. First, he did not need another instance where he needed to get someone else’s opinion on foreign policy. McCain zinged him on that. Second, McCain gave him an opinion and other generals have said its torture. So how was it he still couldn’t answer the question.
His answer on gays in the military was also harmful. Anderson Cooper made him look foolish and the crowd booed Romney’s flip-flop. These two issues are why I don’t think he can be called a winner because I think those two snippets will be replayed often.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:22 am
Bryan, haven’t watched it yet. Have it on Tivo.
Looks like you have nothing to defend yourself with on waterboarding after you shut off your brain.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:22 am
I think anyone who was listening to Mitt Romney tonite and in the other debates know that he doesnt know anything when it comes to Foreign Policy. He only knows domestic issues and how to flip-flop on social issues. But as you can see by the polls in Iowa, people are starting to see through his lies and flipflops on those issues also. So call that Extreme all you want its the truth.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:22 am
I’m right with McCain on Iraq, but I thought his waterboarding comments were a little weird. I guess his personal experience explains that, but if millions of people’s lives are at stake, I would agree with Romney, I don’t want the enemy to think I’m a wimp and won’t waterboard him, or do something worse.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:23 am
Rudy was flat tonight, he was clearly not at his best. His colossal error was picking a fight with Romney over immigration. I can’t believe Rudy used the term “Sanctuary Mansion.”
Romney sure let him have it on that one. Most pundits reviewing that exchange agree.
That was a dumb thing for Rudy to do, even dumber pulling that right at the opening of the debate.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:23 am
Bottom line is the debates dont win it or lose it for anyone unless they make a huge gaffe. The battle will take place in the states, meeting the voters, and getting them to come out and vote for said candidate. We will see what happens…Good night.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:24 am
This is another losing argument, are we to believe that anybody who hasn’t been personally tortured can’t weigh in on whether or not water boarding is torture? Has McCain even been water boarded? While we water board to get information quickly under extreme circumstances (only 3 times, 4 if you count the reporter who volunteered), the terrorists are actually torturing out troops and killing them when they catch them. I also wouldn’t criticize Rudy too much for cheating on his wife, if you support McCain.
Resorting to a dishonest personal attack against Romney alienates those who follow reason on this argument. It hurts any argument you have.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:24 am
Yea good point Feltcher i forgot about that one, Romney looked like the political fake that he is when he gave such a political answer to that question, and that is what is turning voters away from Mitt, his phoniness.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:24 am
59 is in response to this quote: “Thats b/c McCain has gone through Hell and back being tortured in Vietnam! He has been there in those situations. And while Romney was getting his lawns mowed by illegal aliens and Rudy was screwing around on his wife’s, McCain was fighting for more troops in Iraq and standing up against cruel tortures methodsâ€
November 29th, 2007 at 12:25 am
Bottom line is the debates dont win it or lose it for anyone unless they make a huge gaffe.
Ask Hillary, Mitt –just like her– has serious trouble giving simple answers to very direct questions.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Bjalder26,
Yes McCain has been waterboarded why do you think he’s so adament about the issue??
November 29th, 2007 at 12:27 am
“Ask Hillary, Mitt –just like her– has serious trouble giving simple answers to very direct questions.”
Yeah, Romney was sure indirect on the immigration issues wasn’t he? How about subsidies for farmers or even the confederate flag?
November 29th, 2007 at 12:27 am
Metro,
Have you even graduated High School yet?? Grow up man!
November 29th, 2007 at 12:27 am
I think McCain clearly won. He let them duke it out over Immigration, clean Romney and Pauls clock on Forign Policiy, and stuck the shapering veto pin in Rudys chest over the Line Item Veto remark.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:28 am
“But as you can see by the polls in Iowa, people are starting to see through his lies and flipflops on those issues also.â€
Um, isn’t it McCain and Giuliani who have taken nose dives in Iowa. So by your “logic†those polls “prove†McCain and Giuliani are liars.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:28 am
Yea i’m sure alot of South Carolina conservative voters loved what Romney said about the Confederate Flag, he gave a harsher answer than Al Sharpton gave in 2003 debates. One he is a Mormon, Two he hates the Confederate Flag that my ancestor’s and many people’s ancestor’s in the South died for!
November 29th, 2007 at 12:29 am
McCain has been waterboarded? Huh??????????????
November 29th, 2007 at 12:30 am
Just an observation. Giuliani never gets caught looking inexperienced on foreign policy. He certainly has no more than Romney. So why is it that Romney keeps stumbling? Serious question.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:30 am
McCain is not competing that hard in Iowa if you would be paying attention to the race you would know this to be true. Mitt has spent Millions upon Millions of dollars in Iowa and where has it gotten him???
November 29th, 2007 at 12:32 am
And what was the story with all the booing? I think every top candidate got booed.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:33 am
Yea i was thinking the same thing, the crowd seemed to be out of control at times..
November 29th, 2007 at 12:37 am
[...] 2: DaveG over at Race 4 2008 concludes that McCain and Romney and McCain were the “big winners.” I can’t say I completely agree with that assessment. Romney was phony as always, but [...]
November 29th, 2007 at 12:38 am
mccain hasn’t been waterboarded i dont think. Tortured for half a decade, yes. but no waterboarding. mccain actually admitted to a half-assed attempt at suicide but has not been tortured.
but the same people who tortured mccain did torture people other pow’s to death.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:39 am
When? I must have blinked.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:40 am
Yes that is my mistake thanks Sampo, McCain was never waterboarded but he was tortured for a long time so he knows what he’s talking about when it comes to Torture.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:41 am
“Yes McCain has been waterboarded why do you think he’s so adament about the issue??â€
I can’t find any source that says he’s been water boarded. I think he’s adamant about this issue because he’s using it as a wedge issue. What bothers me is not so much whether or not we water board, because it’s only been done 3 times and I doubt it will be used many more times, what bothers me is the way McCain is using this issue. He’s portraying our country as torturers, he’s saying that we break the Geneva convention, and he’s putting the welfare of terrorists above Americans. To me this is a pattern by McCain, where he puts wedges between himself and other conservatives in order to try and elevate himself.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:41 am
Psycheout,
Hey buddy where have you been? Who are you supporting for Pres now that Sen.Brownback is gone?
November 29th, 2007 at 12:41 am
66, mitt must be running for bean-counter-in-chief.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:43 am
Sampo,
What state do you live in? Are you doing any volunteer work for Sen.McCain?
November 29th, 2007 at 12:46 am
“McCain is not competing that hard in Iowa if you would be paying attention to the race you would know this to be true. Mitt has spent Millions upon Millions of dollars in Iowa and where has it gotten him???”
McCain has done the most events in New Hampshire, but last I checked Iowa is 2nd. Oh, and Mitt is in first in Iowa in most polls.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:48 am
Not in todays Rasmussen Poll bjalder, Mitt is slipping where have you been man?? Have you been under a rock the past week?
November 29th, 2007 at 12:49 am
Mitt is leading in New Hampshire, and was leading in Iowa b/c he has spent Millions!! of Dollars. I cant believe that you people cant realize this guy is just the Howard Dean of 2004?
November 29th, 2007 at 12:50 am
You make some very good points here, DaveG. You may be right about the Huckabee smarm, and Mitt’s answer on the Bible, while irrelevant in terms of the Presidency, seemed really weak. He seemed uncomfortable, tripping over his answer, trying to reassure viewers that he believes what’s in the Bible except maybe for some things. Or something.
I think the correct Monty Python answer would be “SPLUNGE!”
You also made a pretty strong argument about McCain’s performance and I think you were right on there.
McCain isn’t that concerned about domestic issues, except for cutting taxes and spending, but he has plenty of experience and interest in defense and foreign policy. That’s a great argument in his favor. That does seem to be what we need right now.
And his answer on torture was quite strong and seemed much more genuine than Romney’s lawyerly answer about not wanting to tell our enemy what interrogation techniques we’ll use.
Easy yes or no, Mitt. Is waterboarding torture? I thought that was the question, not all techniques or if we’d use them. Very easy question. But he didn’t want to answer. His inability or rather his reluctance to answer questions concerns me a lot.
But having said all that, I doubt McCain can pull off the nomination.
Anyway, again, good summary Dave. It was an interesting read.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:53 am
I thought the Geneva Accords applied only to uniformed soldiers of a identified country, not to random terrorist groups.So as far as I’m concerned, McCain’s argument is moot.
We are dealing with ruthless killers who have no regard for human life and abide by no humanitarian code of International Law( Danny Pearl, anyone?)They would use a nuke to kill hundreds of thousands of us in a heart beat.
So, whatever we have to do to protect ourselves form these ruthless killers, we have to do!!!!!
November 29th, 2007 at 1:05 am
i live in colorado. no i dont work for mccain.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:19 am
“I can tell you my inclination would be to say as many Cubans as want to come here should come in,” Romney said in an interview Tuesday with The Tampa Tribune editorial board.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:26 am
how often would you say cuban immigrants are ‘documented’?
November 29th, 2007 at 1:34 am
Wasn’t that Timothy McVeigh who asked the Bible question? I thought I saw a pipe bomb sticking out of that Bible.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:34 am
Cubans apparently have carte blanche to do whatever. Come and go, shoot at presidents, etc. I am not sure they even need papers.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:40 am
McCain is a traitor!!!!!! If the GOP is too stupid to nominate McCain, this debate will be McCain’s Kerry moment.
McCain pretends to be the best re: national security, yet hard to be the CIC when you denigrate your soldiers.
New ad:
Kerry before Congress comparing troops to Khan..then McCain’s comparison in tonight’s debate.
McCain’s argument against waterboarding is IDIOTIC…if we stop, then our troops will not get tortured.
Are you kidding me, McCain is a loon like Paul that thinks that if we pull out of Iraw and Middle East, radical Islam will end their crusade to destroy America and Western Civilization! CUCKOOOO
November 29th, 2007 at 1:40 am
So Sampo and Fletcher…where in the quote does Mitt say illegal Cubans are welcome???
Ohh good spin…
November 29th, 2007 at 1:43 am
Even men who did great things in their past…lose sight in their later days!! (King David [for the religious people out there], Barry Goldwater, etc.)
November 29th, 2007 at 1:44 am
ilfigo, you are arguing with yourself. Romney’s statement speaks for itself; there are no limitations. Castro might just empty his prisons again.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:45 am
How does the statement speak for itself?? Ohh so…if a comment does not include a limitation, then…
Gotcha! Feltcher, by chance, are you an attorney?
November 29th, 2007 at 1:52 am
LOL. Yes.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:54 am
Really?? U must be kidding??
November 29th, 2007 at 1:56 am
Res Ipsa Loquitor.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:59 am
Well with that comment, you arent kidding!
As a lawyer, you really believe that because Romney did not include a “limitation,” that he automatically dpes not prvide for any limitations???
Please don’t further hurt the profession by sticking to your comment…just say it is a spin!
November 29th, 2007 at 2:03 am
That isn’t a legal question, its one of simple grammar and logic. And the simple test is, what restrictions do you see?
November 29th, 2007 at 2:05 am
I never said it is a legal question….but lawyers [should] be good analyzers of language.
And you gave the entire response by Romney and the question or previous comments to provide some context.
No..you didnt and why not…to distort his comments in an attempt to show a flip-flop.
Kinda sad…
November 29th, 2007 at 2:07 am
Esp…when the recent posts allude me to think you are a Mccain guy.
Why no comments on his flip-flop on immigration. He goes from calling fellow Republicans names or not supporting the Amnesty Bill and NOW McCain wants to protect the borders!??
I can’t stand hypocrites!
November 29th, 2007 at 2:09 am
That was the quote in the paper, and it was not part of a larger quote. But it seems if there were additional comments you would have simply added them instead of arguing about it.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:15 am
i am studying…dont have time to dig for trash…I will leave that to you!
November 29th, 2007 at 3:21 am
92 get a grip man. My internet kept cutting, but I seriously doubt McCain denigrate the troops. He said that we aren’t like those in Burma… in that we don’t torture. If you’re twist that into saying that he denigrated the troops than you are a sorry person.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Look, I started watching at around 45 min into the debate, and it was excruciating. I’m a Mitt guy, but how’s a guy supposed to respond with the kind of questions he and Giuliani got.
There’s no question that some of those questions were designed to take down Giuliani (Gun laws from crazy gun slinging wackos–who are probably closet pacifict liberals) and Romney (the Bible question from a person who may not even believe in the Bible–seriously, who here would reveres the Bible as a sacred text would have asked that stupid question). Thompson won in my opinion by being the one who appeared most disgusted by the questioning.
Even though McCain had a strong showing, he was tricked into saying things that you would expect from Cyndi Sheehan–Comparing the good men/women in the military to atheist totalitarians? Romney gave the right answer, and anybody who followed the A.G. Mukasey hearings knows that question is inapropriate. McCain sounded like Barbara Boxer for Pete’s sake! He definitly lost my vote last night.
It is likely that half of the questions were planted by Democrats in sheeps clothing (e.g. the Gays-in-the-military pontification fiasco).
If the zombie-eyed, confederate flag waving, anti-mormons take out Romney with the help of elite liberal media–I seriously don’t know who I would vote for. I am very concerned.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Unlike every other Republican candidate on the stage in last night’s CNN/YouTube debate, only Ron Paul demonstrated that he truly “gets it” when it comes to foreign policy. Witness his comment in reply to an attack on his position on Iraq. He said, “The best thing we can do for the Iraqi people is to give them their country back. That’s the most important thing that we can do.” He went on to make a great point about Vietnam. He said, “Just think of the cleaning up of the mess after we left Vietnam. Vietnam is now a friend of ours. We trade with them. Their president comes here. What we achieved in peace was unachievable in 20 years of the Americans and the French being in Vietnam. So it’s time for us to take care of America first.”
How true! What we and the French and the Chinese (don’t forget them!) did in Vietnam was terrible, yet Vietnam survived. They rebuilt. And what Dr. Paul did not say, because there wasn’t enough time to say it all in 30 seconds, is that Vietnam represented the nightmare scenario of cold-war hawks. It was the key domino in the Domino Theory. Remember the Domino Theory? That was the idea that if Vietnam fell to communism, then the rest of Southeast Asia would fall to communism, and this would be a catastrophe for American interests. President Eisenhower first voiced the idea in an April 1954 press conference in which he said, “Finally, you have broader considerations that might follow what you would call the ‘falling domino’ principle. You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over very quickly. So you could have a beginning of a disintegration that would have the most profound influences.”
Well, America ended up withdrawing from Vietnam in the mid-1970s, and sure enough, Vietnam fell to communism, as did the rest of Southeast Asia. Now here’s the key point. Despite this, despite the fact that the worst DID happen, Vietnam is our peaceful trading partner today! And I submit that if we hadn’t interfered for 20 years, Vietnam would be much closer to becoming a free society today. It was our interference that has helped keep them in the communist embrace, but over time it is becoming increasingly clear that the communist embrace will dissipate and is dissipating.
So when I hear modern day neo-con hawks and their allies claiming that we can’t leave Iraq because it will undermine American interests, I have to ask myself what kind of drugs are they smoking? It’s clear to me that the hawks are never going to learn that continued American military presence in other countries based on fear of what might happen to American interests if they withdraw does not produce positive results (except if you’re a company like Halliburton, of course).
The discouraging part is that every Republican candidate on that stage last night talked the neo-con line except for one. The encouraging part was that the one exception was Ron Paul. Call it the contrast of Ron Paul vs. the Seven Dwarfs.
Senator McCain shot back that, “We never lost the battle in Vietnam; it was American public opinion that cost us the war.” Senator McCain obviously doesn’t get it. Public opinion didn’t cost us the war in Vietnam. Rather public opinion pulled us out of a bad foreign policy in Vietnam, which resulted in things getting better, not worse. McCain’s limited vision that wars are all about “winning” the war (by which he means using military intervention to force other countries to bend to our national will) shows its tattered logic when compared to the reality of what happened after we left Vietnam as the “losers.” The reality is that America’s leaders over that 20 year period set us up to be the losers by putting us there in the first place. In that scenario, the only way to “win” was to withdraw.
McCain went on to claim that the difference between Vietnam and Iraq is that Vietnam didn’t want to follow us home, that Al-Qaedda wants to have a base in Iraq in order to launch attacks against the U.S. He said, “Their ultimate destination isn’t Iraq. Their ultimate destination is New York City, Washington DC, Chicago, and Arizona.” Ron Paul isn’t the most graceful speaker in the world. He stumbles and trips over his own words. But the message is what is driving his campaign and his supporters, not the man himself. He managed to shoot back at McCain the following, “[Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul] Wolfowitz even admitted that Al-Qaedda was organized and energized by our military base in Saudi Arabia. He understood why they came here. They come here because we’re occupying their country, just as we would object if they occupied our country.” This kind of clear understanding is why Ron Paul has more financial support from active duty servicemen than John McCain has. That financial support is also why McCain is so upset with Ron Paul.
The only thing wrong with his statement is that Paul should have said that we’re occupying their countries, in the plural, and I’m sure that’s what he intended. Al-Qaedda isn’t just about Iraq. They’re also about Saudi Arabia, and Palestine, and Egypt, and all of the other more than 100 countries around the world where American troops reside on a regular basis and are used to force American views and American pressure on the governments of those nations and other nations in those same regions. And before some neo-con objects that Palestine isn’t a country, can we agree that they should be? Even President Bush, in his fevered mind, thinks so these days. He’s holding talks at the Naval Academy toward that end. His approach can’t work, because it’s based on forcing America’s will on other countries, but nevertheless even he now recognizes that there must be a country called Palestine.
Tom Tancredo shot back that America is under threat from Radical Islam and that we would be under threat even if there was not a single American serviceman outside of this country. But what’s his evidence for this claim? What is the evidence of any advocate for this claim? The only evidence is their own fear. Tancredo gave no evidence, and neither did anyone else. All of the other six Republican dwarfs on that stage accepted Tancredo’s claim as a given truth, not to be touched, not to be questioned.
It’s nonsense, of course. But what’s worse is that it flies in the face of what American public opinion says: that we shouldn’t remain in Iraq, that it’s time to find a way to leave. McCain claimed that American public opinion is what lost Vietnam. As I showed above, his claim is wrong, because his idea of what is a “loss” turned out to be not a loss at all, but McCain and the rest of the Seven Dwarfs are using that ill-named “loss” to convince themselves to ignore American opinion and blame it for our failures, atrocities, and horrible mistakes regarding Iraq. They’re threatening that if America withdraws from Iraq, then American public opinion is at fault.
The reality, however, is quite different. It is the Bush administration, the neo-cons, the hawks, who are at fault where Iraq is concerned. They’re the ones who got us in that mess in the first place, in pursuit of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) which we know didn’t even exist. Bush knew they didn’t exist all along, but neo-cons try to sweep that under the rug. Instead, they keep chanting their same old mantra about not leaving Iraq until we “finish the job.” Except it’s a job that America can’t finish. It’s time to hand Iraq back to the Iraqi people.
The Seven Dwarfs are out of step with American public opinion, and by insisting on rallying the Republican Party behind any other candidate besides Ron Paul, they are guaranteeing a showdown on Election Day where the majority of Americans are asked to voice their support for Bush administration foreign policy, which the Seven Dwarfs all support. That will mean almost certain defeat for the Republican candidate if it’s not Ron Paul, regardless of whether Paul stays in the race as a third-party candidate or not.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Um, Pew research poll out today shows that 73% of Republicans are happy about the progress made in Iraq, and 40-something% of all Americans are optimistic about Iraq. Nice try though, um, ‘alex’ or whoever you are.