Republican debate tonight...

[Medic]

If there was any doubt that all the stuff we read here isn't what the base on the right actually thinks, that should be dead.

I'm specifically making reference to Ron Paul's comments, Guliani's indignant response, the crowd's roaring approval and Ron Paul's sticking to his guns. Watching FNC, the impression is clear: Ron Paul committed political suicide for having the gall to drag history into the equation of 9/11.

RP mentioned that we were attacked on 9/11 cause of the 10 year interwar period and the no-fly-zone, with the embargoes and bombing of Iraq. It was mangled but he made his intent clearer after he was questioned by Guliani, who characterized that as one of many insane suggestions he'd heard about why 9/11 happened, and that Ron Paul should retract the claim.

That got the loudest applause I can remember and was the subject of much of the reporting post-debate on Hannity's circus show.

Ron Paul responded by mentioning the Shah of Iran and hostage taking and sticking to his guns.


The rationalization post-debate that Guliani, Hannity, and McCain all gave was the utterly messianic, transendant good versus evil conception that I expected, but honestly, not that strong. They said in no uncertain terms: "we were attacked cause they hate our freedom and hate everything we stand for." In other words, the perfect menace. They thrive in ignorance. This is surreal.

[Patrick Degan]

The rationalization post-debate that Guliani, Hannity, and McCain all gave was the utterly messianic, transendant good versus evil conception that I expected, but honestly, not that strong. They said in no uncertain terms: "we were attacked cause they hate our freedom and hate everything we stand for." In other words, the perfect menace. They thrive in ignorance. This is surreal.

That's the Republikan Way.

I keep saying it: GOP = mind-control cult.

[Enforcer Talen]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070516/ap_ ... ans_debate

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer 30 minutes ago

COLUMBIA, S.C. - Under pressure from their rivals, the leading Republican presidential contenders defended their conservative credentials Tuesday night on abortion, gun control and tax cuts. "I ultimately do believe in a woman's right of choice, but I think there are ways we can look for ways to reduce abortions," former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said in the second debate of the campaign.
ADVERTISEMENT

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said he had signed legislation banning assault weapons but added that he is a supporter of the rights of gun owners under the Second Amendment.

Arizona Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) of Arizona said he would make sure that
President Bush's tax cuts are made permanent, even though he voted against them when they were passed in 2001.

He said he did so because they were not accompanied by spending cuts.

All three men sought to stand their ground — and protect their standing in the presidential race — in a 90-minute debate at the University of South Carolina.

In a break from the campaign's first debate, some of the contenders who lag in the polls jabbed sharply at the front-runners.

Asked whether he believes McCain, Romney and Giuliani were soft on immigration, Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado said, "I do."

That wasn't all, he added quickly, saying his rivals had undergone recent conversions on abortion and other issues.

"I trust those conversions when they happen on the road to Damascus and not on the road to Des Moines," he said, contrasting the biblical with the political.

Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore bore in, as well. "Some of the people on this stage were very liberal in characterizing themselves as conservatives, particularly on the issues of abortion and taxes and health care," he said.

He singled out Giuliani for his position on abortion and said another rival, Mike Huckabee, had raised taxes while serving as governor of Arkansas.

Huckabee responded that the state raised taxes in response to a court order and said he had cut taxes repeatedly.

On defense for much of the evening, Giuliani switched gears nearly an hour into the debate, challenging Rep. Ron Paul (news, bio, voting record)'s suggestion that the U.S. bombing of
Iraq had contributed to the terrorist attacks of 2001.

As someone who lived through 9/11, the man who was New York mayor at the time, Giuliani said sternly, "I don't think I've ever heard that before, and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations."

His rebuke to Paul drew some of the loudest applause of the night from the partisan audience.

There were few moments when the Republicans sought to turn the campaign spotlight on the Democrats, who are embarked on a drive to win back the White House after President Bush's two terms.

"We've had a Congress that's spent money like
John Edwards at a beauty shop," said former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said, mocking the Democratic presidential hopeful's penchant for $400 haircuts.

He did not mention that until January, Congress has been under the control of Republicans for a dozen years.

Giuliani criticized the Democratic front-runner, Sen.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, at one point, in response to a question about abortion. That prompted one of the debate moderators, Chris Wallace of Fox, to ask whether the former mayor would answer the question.

Yay for deficit spending.

[Chris OFarrell]

"We've had a Congress that's spent money like
John Edwards at a beauty shop," said former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said, mocking the Democratic presidential hopeful's penchant for $400 haircuts.

He did not mention that until January, Congress has been under the control of Republicans for a dozen years.

Its not that surprising that people are cheering these statements on. If your attending RNC rallies after all these years of insane mismanagement of the country under Bush, then your a hardcore supporter who isn't going to be convinced of anything other then that the Democrats are bad and Republicans are Good.

[Enforcer Talen]

We have a dozen college republicans here on campus;

But the ones who still identify as republicans scare me most. They *like* the current situation.

[Medic]

Ron Paul is winning FNC's text-poll! Either that's the silent majority or Democratic hax mucking it up.

[Enforcer Talen]

Crooksandliars have some links of the debate

http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Pla ... anamo.mov/
http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Pla ... -Rudy.mov/

[Medic]

Oh god, this is hilarious, whyyy didn't I record this?!
Ron Paul finally got interviewed in Hannity & Colmes post debate show and of course, Hannity wanted to grill him on the whole 'do you think Americans brought 9/11 on themselves?' Ron Paul did a good job of responding (even if he is somewhat stuttery) by immediately pointing out it was American policy over many years.

Eventually, Hannity threw out the crap-question "do you think that we just have no moral obligation? That we just stand by while innocent Kuwaiti's have their nations invaded" (more rambling) and it sort of bogged both of them down and it looked like it was getting worse for Ron Paul cause he said "we've stood by and let atrocities happen before" and he had no compelling follow up.

Cue Allen Colmes growing a spine and balls and pointing out "Ronald Reagan did nothing in 1988 when he gassed the Kurds" to which Hannity never could respond.

BTW, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul are tied on FNC's poll at %27 each. Still hilarious.

[Axis Kast]

I'm curious what Ron Paul would have done, other than impose sanctions.

If we impose sanctions on Iran but Tehran finds a way to stave people so it can pay the bills for its nuclear energy program, ought we to stop doing anything to curb that country's economic progress?

Aren't successful sanctions the reason Democrats (and others) claim that the War in Iraq was unnecessary in the first place?

And didn't Osama bin Laden hate us long before the Gulf War? Didn't the Arab street have plenty of rhetorical ammunition with which to assail the United States?

It's one thing to say, "The sanctions alienated us in the eyes of Muslims and Arabs and others who didn't properly place blame where blame was due - on Saddam Hussein, the man who initiated the suffering by stealing food from people's mouths." It's another to say that the people who attacked us did so because of the sanctions. Or because of what's happened since 1990. Their hatreds are not so well grounded in reality as that.

[Elfdart]

It's informative to see at least two Republitards come out in favor of torture. Ghouliani was no surprise (he ran NYC like Mussolini, only without all the aftershave). I loved the way Brit Hume called a bullshit Ticking Time Bomb scenario "plausible". It's only as plausible as all the other crap you see in Steven Seagal movies.

[Son of the Suns]

hmmm after being raised a conservative republican for 18 years, being taught to be a liberal democrat for 6 at college, I now consider myself an independent whose registered as a republican. I was really starting to lose hope of having anyone that I could feel remotely comfortable with voting for in this election, but after the debate tonight and looking at his website I'm voting for ron paul, for some reason I feel that he's the only person currently running that has any balls left. I also think that he's one of the few republicans that could actually win over an appreciable number of non conservatives in the 08 election.

I also noticed that one of the candidates (former head of the republican party, can't remember the name off the top of my head) said that other people would be entering into the primary when asked about the lack of diversity in the field. condie rice maybe?

This little gem by Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado really made me laugh tho....

“I trust those conversions when they happen on the road to Damascus and not on the road to Des Moines,”

there's a big difference between having a change of heart and flip flopping to make your poll numbers improve a little, and I think it's going to really hurt candidates in both parties.

[Son of the Suns]

I'm curious what Ron Paul would have done, other than impose sanctions.

If we impose sanctions on Iran but Tehran finds a way to stave people so it can pay the bills for its nuclear energy program, ought we to stop doing anything to curb that country's economic progress?

Aren't successful sanctions the reason Democrats (and others) claim that the War in Iraq was unnecessary in the first place?

And didn't Osama bin Laden hate us long before the Gulf War? Didn't the Arab street have plenty of rhetorical ammunition with which to assail the United States?

It's one thing to say, "The sanctions alienated us in the eyes of Muslims and Arabs and others who didn't properly place blame where blame was due - on Saddam Hussein, the man who initiated the suffering by stealing food from people's mouths." It's another to say that the people who attacked us did so because of the sanctions. Or because of what's happened since 1990. Their hatreds are not so well grounded in reality as that.

I believe Ron was talking about US policy in general since well before the Gulf War, probably back to the creation of Israel. It was pretty aparent from what he said both in the debate and in the interview afterwards that that was the direction he was heading, and that the iraq bombings were just a part of the larger picture. I think he raised a good point, islamic jihadists don't hate us becuase we have a free society, they hate us because of our foreign policies, which have led to things like having our soldiers in their holy lands such as saudi arabia.


As to the interview itself, I love how Hannity asked if we had a moral obligation to go into Iraq, and Ron told him if we did then why didn't we stop Paul Pot and Stalin etc.

I honestly think Ron Paul could take the Republican nomination if he didn't have a couple things going against him, the first being that Guliani has already kinda taken the star position of being the guy that is the non conformist who could actually win the 08 election, plus he simply just doesn't have the name recognition or charisma that some of the other candidates do. Add to that the fact that he is quite possibly the oldest person running, and it all adds up to him being exactly what he has been for the last couple of years, the guy in the background yelling "I told you so!" that no one listens to because he's damned inconvient and embarressing to have around.

but... like I said before, he got my vote tonight ;P

[Vympel]

I think Ron Paul is the only sane person on the entire fucking stage on that issue.

It was a truly disgusting display of American-exceptionalist-dumbfuckery on the part of Giuliani to get all indignant and call uncontroversial fact "absurd". And Romney and his despicable pro-torture comment and "Double Guantanamo!" (to overwhelming applause) ... I hope he's waterboarded.

[Medic]

I think Ron Paul is the only sane person on the entire fucking stage on that issue.

It was a truly disgusting display of American-exceptionalist-dumbfuckery on the part of Giuliani to get all indignant and call uncontroversial fact "absurd". And Romney and his despicable pro-torture comment and "Double Guantanamo!" (to overwhelming applause) ... I hope he's waterboarded.

That's what's so funny about it, Ron Paul merely dragged history into the equation and that was apparently really, really a big no-no for a huge portion of that audience. Ignorance is strength I guess. Hell, they even asked him 'but you don't think 9/11 changed everything?' He still stuck to his guns saying, no, 9/11 did not in fact 'change everything.'

I hear he's a 9/11 'truther' but between that and the line-to-God GWB's made infamous, I'll take a conspiracy-wank nutjob over a religious one. If I had to choose between the two I mean.

[SirNitram]

The response to Ron Paul is absolutely understandable when you realize you basically just saw the Republican Party without it's mask on. Note what didn't come up: Guiliani's Pro-Choice, Romney's Pro-Gun Control. These issues were once make or break; now they don't matter. All that matters is, well, Macho posturing.

The biggest moments of applause? Guiliani asserting it's 'Good vs. Evil', nothing with inconvenient shit like US policy causing the clusterfuck we have. Huckabee pulling out the 'beauty parlor' nonsense about Edwards. And Romney asserting that They need to be kept without rights, without lawyers, and so forth, and we must 'Double Guantanamo'. Cause all suspects are guilty.

It's very telling. It's no longer about Jesus or Pro-Life or any of that shit. It's moving towards full-on authoritarian Kill All Of Them. And Them is defined as whoever might oppose them, I suspect.

[Axis Kast]

That's what's so funny about it, Ron Paul merely dragged history into the equation and that was apparently really, really a big no-no for a huge portion of that audience. Ignorance is strength I guess. Hell, they even asked him 'but you don't think 9/11 changed everything?' He still stuck to his guns saying, no, 9/11 did not in fact 'change everything.'

Ron Paul deserved acknowledgement for pointing out that choices the United States has made in the past definitely came back to haunt it on September 11th.

On the other hand, one has to wonder precisely how much Washington could have done to forestall such an event – particularly given the examples that Paul himself cited.

Were we wrong to fight the Persian Gulf War? Were we wrong to answer the Saudi government’s appeal for American military assistance? Talk about taking “occupation of the Holy Land” out-of-context.

Sanctions are a form of collective punishment. War is a form of collective punishment. It’s one thing to fight a surgical war. It’s another to imply that we should target individual leaders by taking all other options off the table. Once again, the irony shines through: sanctions apparently prevented Hussein from acquiring even the dual-use materials that would have been necessary to build the WMD he clearly wanted. Clinton seems to have put paid to the idea that any nation that wants nuclear weapons will get nuclear weapons even over the mid-term.

And no, the world didn’t change after September 11th. But threat perception in the Western world absolutely did so. Never before had we been confronted with such a stark example of “bang for buck.” We suddenly woke up to the reality of superterrorism.

It's very telling. It's no longer about Jesus or Pro-Life or any of that shit. It's moving towards full-on authoritarian Kill All Of Them. And Them is defined as whoever might oppose them, I suspect.

It has more to do with the fact that most Americans lose no sleep at night over what happens at Guantanamo Bay. And that the politicians do not consider that anybody is realistically going to use the powers they authorize in order to curb the freedoms they (and most others) care about most strongly.

Republicans make most Americans feel safe. Harry Reid gets up and claims George Bush – supposedly the stupidest man on the planet – “pulled the wool over our eyes.” The Democrats race to set up timetables that can easily be denounced as “a timetable for retreat.” And no Democrat gets up and says the fifteen words needed to win elections: “I will keep you safe. I will keep you safe. I will keep you safe.” I still have no answer as to why that is.

[Vympel]

I thought this was a good comment:

Getting Our Hair Mussed

by digby

It was quite interesting watching the Republicans debate down in South Carolina tonight. I think it's clear that this group has come to fully understand that winning the GOP nomination is all about the codpiece. These guys have just spent the last fifteen minutes of the debate trying to top each other on just how much torture they are willing to inflict. They sound like a bunch of psychotic 12 year olds, although considering the puerile nature of the "24" question it's not entirely their fault.

This debate is a window into what really drives the GOP id. The biggest applause lines were for faux tough guy Giuliani demanding Ron Paul take back his assertion that the terrorists don't hate us for our freedom, macho man Huckabee talking about Edwards in a beauty parlor and the manly hunk Romney saying that he wants to double the number of prisoners in Guantanamo "where they can't get lawyers." There's very little energy for that girly talk about Jesus or "the culture of life" or any of that BS that the pansy Bush ran ran on. (Brownback's position, forcing 14 year old girls who've been raped by their fathers to bear their own sibling, will have to suffice for the compassionate "life" crowd tonight.)

John McCain is the only adult on that stage and that scares the living hell out of me considering that he's half nuts too. Wow.

I think Rudy won it. These people don't care if he's wearing a teddy under his suit and sleeping with the family schnauzer as long as he promises to spill as much blood as possible.

[Medic]

And no, the world didn’t change after September 11th. But threat perception in the Western world absolutely did so. Never before had we been confronted with such a stark example of “bang for buck.” We suddenly woke up to the reality of superterrorism.

Granted, though no doubt he's responding to that question in the broadest sense. From what I gather, he doesn't perceive 9/11 to be justification for retaliatory land invasions, enacting the unitary executive, and setting up places like Guantanamo. I can't see why that's hard to assume either, he articulated a very strong isolationist position and went out of his way to point out such traditional leanings in the Republican Party and was claiming that foreign involvements lead to superterrorism.

It 'doesn't change everything' cause in his mind, a lack of isolationist policy contributed to 9/11, not ramped up posturing and far-flung invasions.

It seems like people have it backwards, that we were sitting on our ass, drinking beer and enjoying our freedom, and then were attacked cause of that freedom. Then we had to leave this isolationist shell which in reality never existed. American citizens are by and large insulated from the worries of much of the world, we complain about gas prices when they hit $3 but they're regularly much higher in Europe. American policy though has not in recent history been insulated or isolationist, in nature. (not to claim everything in this list is evil or wrong) But foreign entanglements during the Cold War include the Marshall Plan, the Korean war, Vietnam war, installing the Shah of Iran, kicking Iraq out of Kuwait, stationing troops in Saudi Arabia which pissed off a few key radical Islamists like UBL, (something that was asked of us albeit by the Saudi Government) Kosovo, putting sanctions on Iraq and enforcing the no fly zone, ... my memory and knowledge have limits and that's an impressive list I think.

The point being, we did not go from isolated to involved as a result of 9/11. We went from involved to even more involved. Everything did not change.

[Axis Kast]

From what I gather, he doesn't perceive 9/11 to be justification for retaliatory land invasions, enacting the unitary executive, and setting up places like Guantanamo. I can't see why that's hard to assume either, he articulated a very strong isolationist position and went out of his way to point out such traditional leanings in the Republican Party and was claiming that foreign involvements lead to superterrorism.

And that’s stupid. As we learned on December 7, 1941, even a foreign policy that appears to Americans to have little to recommend it as proactive can provoke other nations or peoples into taking violent measures against us. The United States of America is simply too great a power for any politician to make the mistake of believing that we can safety wash our hands of “foreign entanglements” and presume that things will get progressively better from there on in.

If you actually listen to Ron Paul, his arguments stemming from his read of history are asinine. How would he have handled the invasion of Kuwait? How would he have handled Saudi calls for assistance? He even claims that he wants to cut off aid to Musharrif and begin aggressively confronting Pakistan.

The point being, we did not go from isolated to involved as a result of 9/11. We went from involved to even more involved. Everything did not change.

I don’t think anybody’s making that argument. I’ve always regarded the “shift” as a subjective one. “Wow. Look what we missed.”

[Medic]

Meh, Ron Paul's entire political platform remains an amusing sideshow among the greater circus of the Right Wing. I already mocked him for being a 9/11 'truther.'

I don’t think anybody’s making that argument. I’ve always regarded the “shift” as a subjective one. “Wow. Look what we missed.”

We missed bombings of an US Embassy in Lebanon, the Marine barracks, terrorism on several airline flights including TWA Flight 840, Pan Am Flight 103, the 1st WTC attacks, embassy bombings in Kenya, the USS Cole and finally, 9/11? I don't care how subjective a shift it was, it was a needless one, 9/11 was a crescendo of a trend, not an outstanding one-of. (all of that also starts in the early 80's, after the creation of Israel and installing and the dumping of the Shah are mere history, and arming Mujahideen and aiding Saddam are the on-going backdrop)

Seriously, these are all non-points to the Right which think that out of the blue, we were attacked, not cause of anything to do with history, but cause of our freedom. No one in this thread's making that argument, but the idiots in the debate were.

[SirNitram]

It has more to do with the fact that most Americans lose no sleep at night over what happens at Guantanamo Bay. And that the politicians do not consider that anybody is realistically going to use the powers they authorize in order to curb the freedoms they (and most others) care about most strongly.

Sorry, can't hear you over the sound of all that bullshit you just vomitted forth flushing away. If you're going to claim 'Most Americans' support something, you should probably provide evidence, that being a rule about this site. Of course, I do recignize that as a Republican Drone, anything you are handed from On High is what 'Most Americans' support, with no connection to actual facts or figures.

Republicans make most Americans feel safe. Harry Reid gets up and claims George Bush – supposedly the stupidest man on the planet – “pulled the wool over our eyes.” The Democrats race to set up timetables that can easily be denounced as “a timetable for retreat.” And no Democrat gets up and says the fifteen words needed to win elections: “I will keep you safe. I will keep you safe. I will keep you safe.” I still have no answer as to why that is.

Republicans want people to feel safe? Right. That's why it's all 'ELECT A DEMOCRAT AND YOU'LL GET A NEW 9/11!!!!!!'(Guiliani), or 'DEMOCRATS ARE EMBOLDENING THE TERRORISTS!!!!!'(Administration) and other such total crap. No, Republicans want the American people scared, because scared people object less to you flushing freedoms away. Or did you not notice that Romney openly trumpeting he wanted to remove people's right to trial, counsel, and rights in general?

I love this 'Waaaah, the Democrats don't macho posture! Why can't they sport codpieces?!' crap. Why should Democrats emulate the party that's fallen on it's face and continuing to fall? Or didn't you notice that the Republican majority died while they were mouthing such empty sentiments?

[Elfdart]

Something just occured to me:

Several Republitards stated their endorsement of torture right in front of a man who was tortured. The only thing more repulsive I can think of is if a Nazi Holocaust survivor were running for office and his opponents announced their support for gassing people and putting them in ovens.

[Enforcer Talen]

The wild cheers must have helped.

[Elfdart]

Bob Cesca sums it up at Huffington Post:

If the 1960 debates between Kennedy and Nixon were Star Wars, last night was the Wookiee Holiday Special with Mitt Romney played by Harvey Korman.

[Axis Kast]

quote] Sorry, can't hear you over the sound of all that bullshit you just vomitted forth flushing away. If you're going to claim 'Most Americans' support something, you should probably provide evidence, that being a rule about this site. [/quote]

According to polling by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 68% of Americans believe that using torture against suspected terrorists can often, sometimes, or rarely be justified.

http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm

Republicans want people to feel safe?

Strawman. I said that Republicans make people feel safe.

And, as I’ve said before, Giuliani merely delivered the blunt version of the traditional campaign message: “My opponent can’t deliver what he’s promising.”

No, Republicans want the American people scared, because scared people object less to you flushing freedoms away.

I am still waiting for you to prove that the Republican candidates are embarked upon a systematic campaign to terrify the American public specifically so that they can eliminate civil liberties.

I love this 'Waaaah, the Democrats don't macho posture! Why can't they sport codpieces?!' crap. Why should Democrats emulate the party that's fallen on it's face and continuing to fall? Or didn't you notice that the Republican majority died while they were mouthing such empty sentiments?

The very fact that 2008 is not “in the bag” for the Democratic Party is evidence of why they need to make bolder statements about security.