Mitt and Rudy going at it!!

[JoeChalupa]

Watching the Republican debate on CNN and they are going at it over the immigration issue!! Mitt hit Rudy hard!!

[JoeChalupa]

Great debate.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I don't understand why Ron Paul just doesn't butt in on every topic, he gets like 0.15% of the air time dammit.

[IceColdBrewski]

Huckabee kicked ass. McCain and Hunter also did well.

What's the over/under on when Paul drops out of the race? He didn't fare too well tonight.

[braeden0613]

Huckabee kicked ass. McCain and Hunter also did well.

What's the over/under on when Paul drops out of the race? He didn't fare too well tonight.
I'm not sure but his odds to win the nomination are 6 to 1.

I thought he did well when he actually got to talk. He is on the way up in state polls, is raising more money than anyone expected, and gets less time than duncan hunter. Go figure.

However, I did enjoy romney and rudy getting owned by tough questions.

[boutons_]

I suppose this 2004 article still applies today, and perhaps even more so.
The debates are inanane charades, dog-and-pony show business aimed at dumbed-down electoriate.
============

Connie Rice: Top 10 Secrets They Don't Want You to Know About the Debates


September 29, 2004 ·

After weeks of political wrangling, Sen. John Kerry and President Bush will square off for the first of three key presidential debates. Both camps have agreed to an elaborate, 32-page contract that spells out everything from the size of the dressing rooms to permitted camera angles.

But the controversy over the debates threatens to overshadow the events themselves. Some citizen groups complain that the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) isn't as non-partisan as it should be, and that Kerry and Bush won't be pressed on urban issues. Commentator Connie Rice says that's just the tip of the iceberg, and she's got another Top 10 list — this time:

Top 10 Secrets They Don't Want You to Know About the Debates.

(10.) They aren't debates!

"A debate is a head-to-head, spontaneous, structured argument over the merits of an issue," Rice says. "Under the ridiculous 32-page contract that reads like the rules for the Miss America Pageant, there will be no candidate-to-candidate questions, no rebuttal to your opponent's points, no cross questions or cross answers, no rebuttals, no follow-up questions — that's not a debate, that's a news conference."

(9.) The debates were hijacked from the truly independent League of Women Voters in 1986.

"The League of Women Voters ran these debates with an iron hand as open, transparent, non-partisan events from 1976 to 1984," Rice says. "The men running the major campaigns ended their control when the League defiantly included John Anderson and Ross Perot, and used tough moderators and formats the parties didn't like. The parties snatched the debates from the League and formed the Commission on Presidential Debates — the CPD — in 1986."

(8.) The "independent and non-partisan" Commission on Presidential Debates is neither independent nor non-partisan.

"CPD should stand for 'Cloaking-device for Party Deceptions' — it is not an independent commission on anything. The CPD is under the total control of the Republican and Democratic parties and by definition bipartisan, not non-partisan. Walter Cronkite called CPD-sponsored debates an 'unconscionable fraud.'"

(7.) The secretly negotiated debate contract bars Kerry and Bush from any and all other debates for the entire campaign.

"Under what I call the Debate Suppression and Monopolization Clause of the contract, it is illegal for the candidates to debate each other anywhere else during the campaign," Rice says. "We need a new criminal law for reckless endangerment of democracy."

(6.) The debate contract effectively excludes all other serious presidential candidates from participating in the debates.

"This is what I call the Obstruction of Democratic Debate Rule, which sets an impossibly high threshold for third-party candidates... Where are we, Russia? Isn't Vladimir Putin wiping out democracy in Russia by excluding all opposing candidates from the airwaves during his re-election campaigns? Most new ideas come from third parties — they should be in the debates."

(5.) All members of the studio audience must be certified as "soft" supporters of Bush and Kerry, under selection procedures they approve.

"It's not enough to rig the debate — they have to rig the audience, too? The contract reads: 'The debate will take place before a live audience of between 100 and 150 persons who... describe themselves as likely voters who are soft Bush supporters or soft Kerry supporters.' We should crash this charade and jump up in the middle to declare ourselves hard opponents of this Kabuki dance."

(4.) These "soft" audience members must "observe in silence."

"Soft and silent... In what I'm calling the Silence of the Lambs Clause of this absurd contract, the audience may not move, speak, gesture, cough or otherwise show that they are alive and thinking."

(3.) The "extended discussion" portion of the debate cannot exceed 30 seconds.

"Other than the stupidity of the debate contract, what topic do you know that can be extendedly discussed in 30 seconds?"

(2.) Important issues are locked out by the CPD debate rules and party control.

"Really important but sticky or tough issues get axed, because the parties control the questions and topics," Rice says. "For example, in 2000, Gore and Bush mentioned the following issues zero times: Child poverty, the drug war, homelessness, working-class families, NAFTA, prisons, corporate crime and corporate welfare."

(1.) Fortune 100 corporations are the main funders of the CPD-sponsored debates, and the CPD's co-chairs are corporate lobbyists.

The CPD is run by Frank Fahrenkopf, a pharmaceutical industry lobbyist, and Paul Kirk, a top gambling lobbyist," Rice says. "And the biggest muliti-national corporations write the checks that fund the CPD — Phillip Morris, Anheuser-Busch and dozens more. The audience may have to be silent and motionless, but the corporate sponsors can have banners, beer tents, Budweiser girls handing out pamphlets protesting beer taxes — a corporate-sponsored circus to go along with the Kabuki Debates. Could we get a more fitting description of our democracy?"

[Lebowski Brickowski]

I suppose this 2004 article still applies today, and perhaps even more so.
The debates are inanane charades, dog-and-pony show business aimed at dumbed-down electoriate.
============

Connie Rice: Top 10 Secrets They Don't Want You to Know About the Debates


September 29, 2004 ·

After weeks of political wrangling, Sen. John Kerry and President Bush will square off for the first of three key presidential debates. Both camps have agreed to an elaborate, 32-page contract that spells out everything from the size of the dressing rooms to permitted camera angles.

But the controversy over the debates threatens to overshadow the events themselves. Some citizen groups complain that the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) isn't as non-partisan as it should be, and that Kerry and Bush won't be pressed on urban issues. Commentator Connie Rice says that's just the tip of the iceberg, and she's got another Top 10 list — this time:

Top 10 Secrets They Don't Want You to Know About the Debates.

(10.) They aren't debates!

"A debate is a head-to-head, spontaneous, structured argument over the merits of an issue," Rice says. "Under the ridiculous 32-page contract that reads like the rules for the Miss America Pageant, there will be no candidate-to-candidate questions, no rebuttal to your opponent's points, no cross questions or cross answers, no rebuttals, no follow-up questions — that's not a debate, that's a news conference."

(9.) The debates were hijacked from the truly independent League of Women Voters in 1986.

"The League of Women Voters ran these debates with an iron hand as open, transparent, non-partisan events from 1976 to 1984," Rice says. "The men running the major campaigns ended their control when the League defiantly included John Anderson and Ross Perot, and used tough moderators and formats the parties didn't like. The parties snatched the debates from the League and formed the Commission on Presidential Debates — the CPD — in 1986."

(8.) The "independent and non-partisan" Commission on Presidential Debates is neither independent nor non-partisan.

"CPD should stand for 'Cloaking-device for Party Deceptions' — it is not an independent commission on anything. The CPD is under the total control of the Republican and Democratic parties and by definition bipartisan, not non-partisan. Walter Cronkite called CPD-sponsored debates an 'unconscionable fraud.'"

(7.) The secretly negotiated debate contract bars Kerry and Bush from any and all other debates for the entire campaign.

"Under what I call the Debate Suppression and Monopolization Clause of the contract, it is illegal for the candidates to debate each other anywhere else during the campaign," Rice says. "We need a new criminal law for reckless endangerment of democracy."

(6.) The debate contract effectively excludes all other serious presidential candidates from participating in the debates.

"This is what I call the Obstruction of Democratic Debate Rule, which sets an impossibly high threshold for third-party candidates... Where are we, Russia? Isn't Vladimir Putin wiping out democracy in Russia by excluding all opposing candidates from the airwaves during his re-election campaigns? Most new ideas come from third parties — they should be in the debates."

(5.) All members of the studio audience must be certified as "soft" supporters of Bush and Kerry, under selection procedures they approve.

"It's not enough to rig the debate — they have to rig the audience, too? The contract reads: 'The debate will take place before a live audience of between 100 and 150 persons who... describe themselves as likely voters who are soft Bush supporters or soft Kerry supporters.' We should crash this charade and jump up in the middle to declare ourselves hard opponents of this Kabuki dance."

(4.) These "soft" audience members must "observe in silence."

"Soft and silent... In what I'm calling the Silence of the Lambs Clause of this absurd contract, the audience may not move, speak, gesture, cough or otherwise show that they are alive and thinking."

(3.) The "extended discussion" portion of the debate cannot exceed 30 seconds.

"Other than the stupidity of the debate contract, what topic do you know that can be extendedly discussed in 30 seconds?"

(2.) Important issues are locked out by the CPD debate rules and party control.

"Really important but sticky or tough issues get axed, because the parties control the questions and topics," Rice says. "For example, in 2000, Gore and Bush mentioned the following issues zero times: Child poverty, the drug war, homelessness, working-class families, NAFTA, prisons, corporate crime and corporate welfare."

(1.) Fortune 100 corporations are the main funders of the CPD-sponsored debates, and the CPD's co-chairs are corporate lobbyists.

The CPD is run by Frank Fahrenkopf, a pharmaceutical industry lobbyist, and Paul Kirk, a top gambling lobbyist," Rice says. "And the biggest muliti-national corporations write the checks that fund the CPD — Phillip Morris, Anheuser-Busch and dozens more. The audience may have to be silent and motionless, but the corporate sponsors can have banners, beer tents, Budweiser girls handing out pamphlets protesting beer taxes — a corporate-sponsored circus to go along with the Kabuki Debates. Could we get a more fitting description of our democracy?"

Great find.

The most painful thing is the millions of people who insist that America is "democratic" and who have total faith in the election process as it now exists.

Don't dare bring up Diebold and voting fraud. You'll be taken more seriously if you are talking about Area 51.

The masturbatory self-importance of people who consider themselves 'intelligent, informed voters' is starting to make my brain sticky.

YouTube is the new Encyclopedia of human knowledge. now I'm getting off-topic.

[MannyIsGod]

Huckabee kicked ass. McCain and Hunter also did well.

What's the over/under on when Paul drops out of the race? He didn't fare too well tonight.When the repubicans announce their candidate. He has enough money for the lnog haul. No point in stopping.

[MannyIsGod]

Diebold and voting fraud?

How about apathy and ignorance? They don't need conspiracies because no one cares.

[BradLohaus]

He has enough money for the lnog haul. No point in stopping.

Yep, nearly $10M already for the quarter, with another multi-million dollar donation weekend yet to come. He will beat his $12M 4th quarter goal with ease, and if Dec. 15-16 goes as expected the only question will be how far over $15M will he get. Could he be the leading republican fundraiser of this quarter? Let's hope so. :tu

And how about Paul's first question; the one about the CFR and the North American Union? I couldn't believe they picked that question to air in a presidential debate. I thought Paul handled it perfectly, talking about how it's not a conspiracy because the goals of the pro-globalization crowd are all out in the open now. :lol

[Nbadan]

Diebold and voting fraud?

How about apathy and ignorance? They don't need conspiracies because no one cares.


Wasn't much voter apathy in the 06 midterms...but there was voter fraud...or it would have been an even larger Demo landslide....

[JoeChalupa]

Debates are not perfect but I watch to learn as much about the candidates as I can and see what they say and how they react and you can't find that in partisan blogs or websites.

[Lebowski Brickowski]

Debates are not perfect but I watch to learn as much about the candidates as I can and see what they say and how they react and you can't find that in partisan blogs or websites.

Debates show the audience who has the best grasp of emotionally laden sound-bites -- or, as Stephen Colbert says, "Who talks to my heart-bone, not my head-bone."

Recent history is clear that the eventual president says in the debate has NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS POLICIES IN OFFICE. The debate is an oppurtunity for the front-runner to charm as many more voters as possible.

Voters who pay attention to the overt statements are dumbfounded without knowing it.

Some truth can be found between the lines when the candidate falters during the debate.

[Lebowski Brickowski]

The way to find out about a candidate is to research the bills he has voted for and against, the bills he has sponsored/ co-sponsored, find out what organizations to which he belongs, and find out from whom he takes money and why.

Dear God -- don't let a string of 30 to 90 second rah-rah resume soundbites influence your vote.

[Walter Craparita]

I think you guys underestimate the cynicism of most Americans. They simply just don't care. What are they going to do? Bitch on internet forums the entire day?

Too busy racking up the debt and watching Paris Hilton.

[DarkReign]

I think you guys underestimate the cynicism of most Americans. They simply just don't care. What are they going to do? Bitch on internet forums the entire day?

Too busy racking up the debt and watching Paris Hilton.

Bingo. This is what happens when your government runs your educational institutions from child to adolescent.

Also why colleges/universities are routinely surprised by how unprepared and unrealistic the graduating high schoolers are.

These arent mistakes or the byproduct of bad policy, its a very contrived and very successful policy to eliminate free-thinking society.

Dont get me wrong, We the People deserve all the blame. All of it. For every life lost and every election that has only 40% voter turnout, its our fault entirely. The government just has no interest in improving climates to change these situations. The less people vote/care, the more influence their individual support groups have.

They gain nothing from a truly educated and participating society, so they would never take it upon themselves to actually lead or at least foster some sort of change. Public leaders are supposed to do that.

[boutons_]

"your government runs your educational institutions from child to adolescent."

So you want to privatize education and make it a corporate for-profit rip-off, like US health care?

"We the People deserve all the blame"

Well, just stinky, steaming bullshit.

Yes, fat, somnolent, media-hypnotized consumer Americans are PART of the problem, but Corporatism has totally polluted and perverted Democracy (the 8 low-quality assholes and their irrelevant hot-button bullshit on CNN last night typifies the failure of democracy), with the effect that We The People have become disenfranchised. The country belongs to the corps and their whore-politicians.

The corps and SIGs fund the candidates and their campaigns and as well making the free market unfree (it never was, never will be, "free market" being part of the bullshit framework of the right wing that says less countervailing powers is always the answer to all problems. The mortage crisis proves how non-regulation allows the super rich and corps to rip-off the country).

The corps have such predatory, unchallegned, supra-national power now that they they have more power than the national government, and the $Bs to buy enough politicians to maintain and increase that power. The corps by their very theoretical definition, and in practice, don't GAF about USA or its citizens or their jobs. They only care about increasing profits to enrich the corp mgt and the shareholders.

There are 10s of millions of people who are now even more pissed off with Fed govt after then 2006 election than they were before, because all they see is the Exec totally unbalanced and unchecked by the Congress, which is the same bunch of corporate whores as before.

But the candidates put forward and elected are of so low quality, and also financed by the corps, that the citizenry

Note the single right-wing candidate with any authenticity, Ron Paul, has received $0.00 from corps. He doesn't have a fuckng prayer with 10s of $Ms of corp $$ financing/compromising him. And even if he did, the Congress was prevent any real changle.

Dingleberry/MI has succeeded in blocking and then delaying CAFE mileage thru 2020. ie, just Detroit corporate interests are more powerful and able to overcome what is best for the country.

[MannyIsGod]

Wasn't much voter apathy in the 06 midterms...but there was voter fraud...or it would have been an even larger Demo landslide....So when less 42% of the eligible voters in this country turnout to vote there isn't much voter apathy?

Yeah, best poster in the political forum Dan. You should fight for the title more, you're spot on.

[MannyIsGod]

The way to find out about a candidate is to research the bills he has voted for and against, the bills he has sponsored/ co-sponsored, find out what organizations to which he belongs, and find out from whom he takes money and why.

Dear God -- don't let a string of 30 to 90 second rah-rah resume soundbites influence your vote.Amen, why are people so hellbent to call these pieces of shit debates? Its a propaganda fest. Let them debate each other and let all the questions come from the candidates. Then we'll have somthing worth watching.

[boutons_]

Here's a funny and trenchant take on last night's charade.

===============

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/logoprinter.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/)
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/spacer.gifhttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/fox/printerfriendly.gifhttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/fox/savages/savages_88x31_post.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&page=www.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&camp=foxsearch2007-emailtools02d-nyt5-511278&ad=savages_88x3111.28.7.gif&goto=http://www.foxsearchlight.com/thesavages/)



November 29, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist

Paging the Lesser of 8 Evils

By GAIL COLLINS

Debate time! Once again last night, Republican candidates came together to taunt the viewing public with the reminder that one of them is going to have to be nominated for president. http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

Smackdown! Prompted by a YouTube question from Ernie of Dyker Heights, the evening instantly took up the immigration issue, allowing the front-runners to demonstrate their ability to pander in such an irritating way that even the panderees would have to be turned off. Mitt Romney accused Rudy Giuliani of running a “sanctuary city” while Rudy accused Mitt of running a “sanctuary mansion,” thanks to the illegal immigrants who were grooming his lawn.

“This whole debate saddens me a little bit,” said John McCain, the only person on the stage who ever made any effort or risked any political capital trying to seriously resolve the issue. Meanwhile Representative Tom Tancredo, who has a campaign ad showing an immigrant in a hoodie sneaking across the border and blowing up a mall, was in ecstasy over the rancor. (“It is great! I am so happy to hear it!”)

There was Mike Huckabee, the new rising star, whose latest TV ad reminds us he is a CHRISTIAN LEADER. Huckabee’s most famous supporter, Chuck Norris, was sitting right there in the second row, a show of support we have yet to see from Oprah or Barbra Streisand. There was no sign, however, of the former governor’s other star supporter, Ric (The Nature Boy) Flair, who I’m sure you all remember from his exciting triumph over Ricky (The Dragon) Steamboat in the 1989 National Wrestling Alliance heavyweight title match.

Huckabee is threatening Mitt Romney in Iowa, home of many evangelical voters, at least a few of whom are expressing concern that if a Mormon president prayed for guidance in a crisis, God might not hear him. http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

Romney, however, is not going to let you feel sorry about this, gentle reader. Every time you feel the least twinge of sympathy for him, he’s going to start screeching about immigrants again. “That’s not your money. That’s the taxpayers’ money!” he cried when Huckabee explained why he did not want to exclude the children of illegal immigrants in a state scholarship program for top Arkansas high school graduates. “Illegals are not going to get taxpayer-funded breaks.”

“In all due respect, we are a better country than to punish children for what their parents did,” Huckabee retorted, winning the moral high ground just before he raced off to denounce the progressive income tax.

Taxing people based on their ability to pay got a brief, sensible defense from McCain, just before he denounced Ron Paul’s opposition to the invasion of Iraq. (“We allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude of isolationism and appeasement.”)

( McCain plays the (totally, universally) irrelavent Hitler/Nazi card, implying that the vast majority of Americans who want to pull out of Iraq are not only anti-American, pro-terrorist traitors, they are also pro-Hitler. )

It’s no wonder the Republican voters are veering back and forth, rejecting one candidate after another. Fred Thompson, who was supposed to be likable once upon a time, has gotten so desperate that he submitted a four-minute candidate profile that was composed almost entirely of attacks on Romney and Huckabee. Lately, Thompson has also been busying himself attacking the Fox network for bias against his alleged campaign.

McCain and Huckabee, the candidates who seemed to speak from the heart did best, even though their hearts occasionally seemed to be completely nutty. McCain absolutely dismembered Romney on the question of torture. (Mitt refused to denounce waterboarding because he said he didn’t want the terrorists to know what we were up to.) “It’s in violation of the Geneva Convention ... how in the world anybody could think that that kind of thing could be inflicted by Americans on people who are held in our custody is absolutely beyond me,” he said. Having whipped his opponent good, McCain then turned right around and started refighting Vietnam. (“We never lost a battle ... ”)

It was suspenseful, waiting for the next shoe to drop, for the next candidate to go whacky. Rounding out the field was Representative Duncan Hunter, who has — well, he has a grandson who says cute things to his teacher. Hunter appears to have done his hardest campaigning in Florida, which means he has made approximately as many stops over the last six months as a low-energy tourist on a single weekend.

Every sign points to the party nominees being chosen by the first week in February. (If given the choice, would you prefer to see your Christmas stocking filled with a lump of coal or 10 months of Clinton vs. Romney?) But on the Republican side, it’s not hard to imagine the poor voters veering from one to the other. (Him? — Oh, god no. How about — him! No, wait, what were we thinking? )

Maybe they’ll vacillate until the bitter end, leaving it all up to the final primary in South Dakota in June. And that would be great. Finally, instead of allowing a few thousand corn farmers to decide the fate of the nation, we could place the power where it rightfully belongs, with a few thousand wheat farmers. http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif


http://up.nytimes.com/?d=0/9/&t=&s=2&ui=2423756&r=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2enytimes%2ecom%2f2007%2f11%2f2 9%2fopinion%2f29collins%2ehtml%3fhp&u=www%2enytimes%2ecom%2f2007%2f11%2f29%2fopinion%2 f29collins%2ehtml%3fhp%3d%26pagewanted%3dprint http://wt.o.nytimes.com/dcsym57yw10000s1s8g0boozt_9t1x/njs.gif?dcsuri=/nojavascript&WT.js=No&WT.tv=1.0.7
http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/clientside/ba0b070Q2F2aQ3Dyy7Q5CqQ7DqaqQ7DQ7DM8Q26gQ7CQ7DJQ5C R8 http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/clientside/7e9fa699Q2FHx%29eeDYeGexeGQ2AQ5BQ7C0Q24AGXYaQ7C

[MannyIsGod]

Ah, the Hitler card. Nice!

[JoeChalupa]

Amen, why are people so hellbent to call these pieces of shit debates? Its a propaganda fest. Let them debate each other and let all the questions come from the candidates. Then we'll have somthing worth watching.

Questions come from the candidates!?? :lmao Yeah, like that will make a difference. You can easily call any info a candidate puts as propoganda and the fact that most who bitch about the debates don't even watch them.
I read, listen and watch as much as I can about all the candiadates so I can base my decision on my own research and not just blindly follow any candidates. And there is NO perfect candidate. That simply doesn't exist.

[JoeChalupa]

Here's a funny and trenchant take on last night's charade.

===============

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/logoprinter.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/)
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/spacer.gifhttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/fox/printerfriendly.gifhttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/fox/savages/savages_88x31_post.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&page=www.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&camp=foxsearch2007-emailtools02d-nyt5-511278&ad=savages_88x3111.28.7.gif&goto=http://www.foxsearchlight.com/thesavages/)



November 29, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist

Paging the Lesser of 8 Evils

By GAIL COLLINS

Debate time! Once again last night, Republican candidates came together to taunt the viewing public with the reminder that one of them is going to have to be nominated for president. http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

Smackdown! Prompted by a YouTube question from Ernie of Dyker Heights, the evening instantly took up the immigration issue, allowing the front-runners to demonstrate their ability to pander in such an irritating way that even the panderees would have to be turned off. Mitt Romney accused Rudy Giuliani of running a “sanctuary city” while Rudy accused Mitt of running a “sanctuary mansion,” thanks to the illegal immigrants who were grooming his lawn.

“This whole debate saddens me a little bit,” said John McCain, the only person on the stage who ever made any effort or risked any political capital trying to seriously resolve the issue. Meanwhile Representative Tom Tancredo, who has a campaign ad showing an immigrant in a hoodie sneaking across the border and blowing up a mall, was in ecstasy over the rancor. (“It is great! I am so happy to hear it!”)

There was Mike Huckabee, the new rising star, whose latest TV ad reminds us he is a CHRISTIAN LEADER. Huckabee’s most famous supporter, Chuck Norris, was sitting right there in the second row, a show of support we have yet to see from Oprah or Barbra Streisand. There was no sign, however, of the former governor’s other star supporter, Ric (The Nature Boy) Flair, who I’m sure you all remember from his exciting triumph over Ricky (The Dragon) Steamboat in the 1989 National Wrestling Alliance heavyweight title match.

Huckabee is threatening Mitt Romney in Iowa, home of many evangelical voters, at least a few of whom are expressing concern that if a Mormon president prayed for guidance in a crisis, God might not hear him. http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

Romney, however, is not going to let you feel sorry about this, gentle reader. Every time you feel the least twinge of sympathy for him, he’s going to start screeching about immigrants again. “That’s not your money. That’s the taxpayers’ money!” he cried when Huckabee explained why he did not want to exclude the children of illegal immigrants in a state scholarship program for top Arkansas high school graduates. “Illegals are not going to get taxpayer-funded breaks.”

“In all due respect, we are a better country than to punish children for what their parents did,” Huckabee retorted, winning the moral high ground just before he raced off to denounce the progressive income tax.

Taxing people based on their ability to pay got a brief, sensible defense from McCain, just before he denounced Ron Paul’s opposition to the invasion of Iraq. (“We allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude of isolationism and appeasement.”)

( McCain plays the (totally, universally) irrelavent Hitler/Nazi card, implying that the vast majority of Americans who want to pull out of Iraq are not only anti-American, pro-terrorist traitors, they are also pro-Hitler. )

It’s no wonder the Republican voters are veering back and forth, rejecting one candidate after another. Fred Thompson, who was supposed to be likable once upon a time, has gotten so desperate that he submitted a four-minute candidate profile that was composed almost entirely of attacks on Romney and Huckabee. Lately, Thompson has also been busying himself attacking the Fox network for bias against his alleged campaign.

McCain and Huckabee, the candidates who seemed to speak from the heart did best, even though their hearts occasionally seemed to be completely nutty. McCain absolutely dismembered Romney on the question of torture. (Mitt refused to denounce waterboarding because he said he didn’t want the terrorists to know what we were up to.) “It’s in violation of the Geneva Convention ... how in the world anybody could think that that kind of thing could be inflicted by Americans on people who are held in our custody is absolutely beyond me,” he said. Having whipped his opponent good, McCain then turned right around and started refighting Vietnam. (“We never lost a battle ... ”)

It was suspenseful, waiting for the next shoe to drop, for the next candidate to go whacky. Rounding out the field was Representative Duncan Hunter, who has — well, he has a grandson who says cute things to his teacher. Hunter appears to have done his hardest campaigning in Florida, which means he has made approximately as many stops over the last six months as a low-energy tourist on a single weekend.

Every sign points to the party nominees being chosen by the first week in February. (If given the choice, would you prefer to see your Christmas stocking filled with a lump of coal or 10 months of Clinton vs. Romney?) But on the Republican side, it’s not hard to imagine the poor voters veering from one to the other. (Him? — Oh, god no. How about — him! No, wait, what were we thinking? )

Maybe they’ll vacillate until the bitter end, leaving it all up to the final primary in South Dakota in June. And that would be great. Finally, instead of allowing a few thousand corn farmers to decide the fate of the nation, we could place the power where it rightfully belongs, with a few thousand wheat farmers. http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif


http://up.nytimes.com/?d=0/9/&t=&s=2&ui=2423756&r=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2enytimes%2ecom%2f2007%2f11%2f2 9%2fopinion%2f29collins%2ehtml%3fhp&u=www%2enytimes%2ecom%2f2007%2f11%2f29%2fopinion%2 f29collins%2ehtml%3fhp%3d%26pagewanted%3dprint http://wt.o.nytimes.com/dcsym57yw10000s1s8g0boozt_9t1x/njs.gif?dcsuri=/nojavascript&WT.js=No&WT.tv=1.0.7
http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/clientside/ba0b070Q2F2aQ3Dyy7Q5CqQ7DqaqQ7DQ7DM8Q26gQ7CQ7DJQ5C R8 http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/clientside/7e9fa699Q2FHx%29eeDYeGexeGQ2AQ5BQ7C0Q24AGXYaQ7C


Why not actually watch the debate and form your own opinion?

[boutons_]

I have my own opinion, it's all sound-bite, attack bullshit.

Watching the debate is a huge waste of time. What they have done in their careers, votes, accomplishments is much more important in making judgements than wacthing this inane dog-and-pony shows, with the participants playing gotcha games.

[MannyIsGod]

Questions come from the candidates!?? :lmao Yeah, like that will make a difference. You can easily call any info a candidate puts as propoganda and the fact that most who bitch about the debates don't even watch them.
I read, listen and watch as much as I can about all the candiadates so I can base my decision on my own research and not just blindly follow any candidates. And there is NO perfect candidate. That simply doesn't exist.They're staged Joe. The questions are all known beforehand and it is all planned out. They are only allowed to ask certain things. They don't give equal time. If the candidates actually confronted each other in an open debate it would be nothing like what you see today. Go back into history and look at real debates and compare them to what you see today. There is no comparison to be made.

You saying I needed to watch last nights debate to be critical of the debate practices is ridiculous. What new information came out from the debate? What was exposed that I woudlnt' have known beforehand? It's all a dog and pony show. I don't need to pick up every pile of dog shit to realize it stinks. I don't need to watch every modern debate to know how staged they are.

[MannyIsGod]

I have my own opinion, it's all sound-bite, attack bullshit.

Watching the debate is a huge waste of time. What they have done in their careers, votes, accomplishments is much more important in making judgements than wacthing this inane dog-and-pony shows, with the participants playing gotcha games.Holy shit. This is the best post Boutons has ever made.

[Spurminator]

Yeah I must say I agree with boutons on this as well. It's sad that we don't demand more from the people running for the most powerful office in the country.

[Wild Cobra]

However, I did enjoy romney and rudy getting owned by tough questions.
From what I saw, but I didn't see everything...

Romney owned the room when he talked! Remember, this is a republican debate. Rudy was the better liberal and Romney was clearly the better conservative.

[Wild Cobra]

Wasn't much voter apathy in the 06 midterms...but there was voter fraud...or it would have been an even larger Demo landslide....
I'm sorry, but I believe the opposite from what I have heard.

It was democrats who discovered how to cheat the electronic systems without a paper trail.

Statistics show the democrats cheated for Kerry in the 2004 elections. The optical scan and punch ballots were primarily for president Bush, and the paperless systems in place were overwhelmingly for senator Kerry. It’s a good thing they didn’t have enough in place to change the election results. If Diabold = system manipulation, then system manipulation = democrats!

Documented accounts of democrats cheating during elections are far higher than republicans cheating.

[Wild Cobra]

Bingo. This is what happens when your government runs your educational institutions from child to adolescent.

Yep, governmental indoctrination…



These arent mistakes or the byproduct of bad policy, its a very contrived and very successful policy to eliminate free-thinking society.

I agree with you here too. Children are molded into what they are suppose to believe, especially with all the ‘feel good’ ideas.



Dont get me wrong, We the People deserve all the blame. All of it. For every life lost and every election that has only 40% voter turnout, its our fault entirely. The government just has no interest in improving climates to change these situations. The less people vote/care, the more influence their individual support groups have.

They gain nothing from a truly educated and participating society, so they would never take it upon themselves to actually lead or at least foster some sort of change. Public leaders are supposed to do that.

What’s wrong with us?

We agree…

[Wild Cobra]

None of this is as bad as the democrats canceling their CBS debate because of the Writer's Guild strike.

It is all scripted?

[JoeChalupa]

I'm sorry, but I believe the opposite from what I have heard.

It was democrats who discovered how to cheat the electronic systems without a paper trail.

Statistics show the democrats cheated for Kerry in the 2004 elections. The optical scan and punch ballots were primarily for president Bush, and the paperless systems in place were overwhelmingly for senator Kerry. It’s a good thing they didn’t have enough in place to change the election results. If Diabold = system manipulation, then system manipulation = democrats!

Documented accounts of democrats cheating during elections are far higher than republicans cheating.

Republicans are just better at not getting caught. No party is better than the other when it comes right down to it.

[JoeChalupa]

I have my own opinion, it's all sound-bite, attack bullshit.

Watching the debate is a huge waste of time. [/b]What they have done in their careers, votes, accomplishments is much more important[/b] in making judgements than wacthing this inane dog-and-pony shows, with the participants playing gotcha games.

Then why not just post their resumes and quit all this bitching back and forth? I guess I just see the debates differently than you and Manny. Yeah, I know they are out to say what is best for their campaign and gives, at least to me, a more personable understanding of the candadates. That is why employers don't normally just look at a resume and do the hiring. That is why they go through the interview process to get a feel for the prospective employee.

I don't consider it a huge waste of time at all. I find them to be very entertaining at times. I was hooping it up when Mitt and Rudy were going at and saying, "There you go Hickabee!" during the debate.

You can say that posting your opinion is a waste of time since all one has to do is look at a candidates' career, votes and accomplishments and base your decision on just that.

Go Obama!!!! Exit, stage left.

[braeden0613]

From what I saw, but I didn't see everything...

Romney owned the room when he talked! Remember, this is a republican debate. Rudy was the better liberal and Romney was clearly the better conservative.
They both tripped over and deflected every question of substance given to them. Romney danced around the waterboarding issue here. http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qk6CQVvMtNU

Not to mention how rudy almost exploded when asked if the bible was true. And He did even worse on the gun control question.

[MannyIsGod]

Then why not just post their resumes and quit all this bitching back and forth? I guess I just see the debates differently than you and Manny. Yeah, I know they are out to say what is best for their campaign and gives, at least to me, a more personable understanding of the candadates. That is why employers don't normally just look at a resume and do the hiring. That is why they go through the interview process to get a feel for the prospective employee.

I don't consider it a huge waste of time at all. I find them to be very entertaining at times. I was hooping it up when Mitt and Rudy were going at and saying, "There you go Hickabee!" during the debate.

You can say that posting your opinion is a waste of time since all one has to do is look at a candidates' career, votes and accomplishments and base your decision on just that.

Go Obama!!!! Exit, stage left.Except employerrs choose the questions, not the other way around.

[Wild Cobra]

They both tripped over and deflected every question of substance given to them. Romney danced around the waterboarding issue here. http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qk6CQVvMtNU

Not to mention how rudy almost exploded when asked if the bible was true. And He did even worse on the gun control question.
If you take time and think about it, Romney answered the issues correctly unless we have a difinitive definition for water boarding. We do not indicate to our enemies our tactics. It it amounts to disclosing classified information. Water boarding is not defined as torture, and there are some who think it should be. I too, am one that is on the fence on water boarding. I tend to see it not as torture, but I could just as likely see it as torture should I learn enough about it.

[boutons_]

"Water boarding is not defined as torture"

a fucking lie. Ashcroft and Gonzo define whatever dickhead wants defined. They are in-house lawyers,not defenders/enforcers of the law, esp not international laws and conventions which Repugs disrespect fundamentally.

[Wild Cobra]

"Water boarding is not defined as torture"

a fucking lie.
OK, give me a valid source that has the USA legal authority to define it as torture, and I will concede to your otherwise stupidity.

I take it personal being called a liar without good evidence, and it shows your intelligence level because you will not find a valid source.

I show flexibility in my response, yet you say as fact that I lie?

I hope you are not so stupid as to wonder why I attack people like you.


Ashcroft and Gonzo define whatever dickhead wants defined. They are in-house lawyers,not defenders/enforcers of the law, esp not international laws and conventions which Repugs disrespect fundamentally.
Doesn't the fact that president Bush is the 'executor' of law give him some authority to interpret the grey areas?

Like I said, where is your evidence. You are such an asshole with you constant name-calling just because you don't like someone. That is pretty childish when you have no clear evidence.

[PixelPusher]

I just don't know why Republicans are always characterized as heartless, brutal xenophobes.


Dialing the Republicans (http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2007/11/dialing_the_republicans.html)
Posted by Joe Klein | Comments (65) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This

I attended Frank Luntz's dial group of 30 undecided--or sort of undecided--Republicans in St. Petersburg, Florida, last night...and it was a fairly astonishing evening.

Now, for the uninitiated: dials are little hand-held machines that enable a focus group member to register instantaneous approval or disapproval as the watch a candidate on TV. There are limitations to the technology: all a candidate has to do is mention, say, Abraham Lincoln and the dials go off into the stratosphere. Film of soaring eagles will have the same effect. But the technology does have its uses.

Last night, for example, it was apparent from the get-go that Rudy Giuliani was having a very bad night. Mitt Romney clearly got the better of him in the opening debate about illegal immigration. Romney's dial numbers hovered in the 60s (on a scale of 100) while Giuliani (40s) seemed defensive, members of the focus group later said...and they thought Romney seemed strong, even when defending his Sanctuary Mansion. (I mean, if you care about illegal immigrants--which I don't understand in the first place, because I don''t--shouldn't you check the people working your lawn and, if you have doubts, hire another company?)

In the next segment--the debate between Romney and Mike Huckabee over Huckabee's college scholarships for the deserving children of illegal immigrants--I noticed something really distressing: When Huckabee said, "After all, these are children of God," the dials plummeted. And that happened time and again through the evening: Any time any candidate proposed doing anything nice for anyone poor, the dials plummeted (30s). These Republicans were hard.

But there was worse to come: When John McCain started talking about torture--specifically, about waterboarding--the dials plummeted again. Lower even than for the illegal Children of God. Down to the low 20s, which, given the natural averaging of a focus group, is about as low as you can go. Afterwards, Luntz asked the group why they seemed to be in favor of torture. "I don't have any problem pouring water on the face of a man who killed 3000 Americans on 9/11," said John Shevlin, a retired federal law enforcement officer. The group applauded, appallingly.

They also hated anything that Ron Paul said (high 30s to low 20s), especially on the war in Iraq.

They tended to like Huckabee a lot (60s to 80s anytime he opened his mouth), but afterwards most said he was too extreme, religiously, to be President. Really, they did.

So who won? Romney walked in with 8 members of the group leaning his way and left with 14. The group thought he looked and sounded like a leader. Fred Thompson went from 3 supporters to 7--and I noticed a clever trick he used: he started almost every answer with a joke and the dials would go up and stay up as he meandered through his nondescript answers.

Giuliani lost. He came in with 12 supporters and left with 6. People thought he came off as too much of a ...New Yorker. McCain had one lonely supporter going in and coming out--but the group was just crazy livid about his stands on immigration and torture.

The members of the group were overwhelmingly white. There were two Latinos. They seemed nice, concerned, relatively well informed and entirely intolerant citizens. This level of anger--the topic of my column below--seems likely to be exploited disgracefully by the Republican candidate in the general election campaign, especially if it's Romney. I hope the nativists lose, as they almost always have in American history. But I'm worried that they may not.