CNN Republican You-Tube Debate -- Wednesday, November 28, 2007

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

Sometimes I wonder how smart the people on this forum are.

This debate, CNN is specifically trying to make Republicans look like nutcases (of which some of the candidates are doing a pretty job at).

Most Republican voters are nutcases, which explains all the loony religion/Bible questions and that nerdboy with the shotgun.  I wonder what their Atlas Forum IDs are.

[StateBoiler]

Maybe someday all those youngsters who back Ron Paul will grow up and realize that pacifism and the gold standard aren't very good ideas and they'll become actual conservatives.  Here's to hoping.

I would have an ounce of respect for that opinion, but then I remember that the majority of war supporters would defect to Canada if they were ever drafted. Nothing but a bunch of p*ssies, all of them. War is not something you half-ass, it takes a national effort. And the fact we're being told we don't have to sacrifice anything here is both appalling and absurd, and if I were a soldier I would be ashamed to be putting my life on the line for a person with that attitude.

Any person that believes this war is important should get off their computer and go enlist.

[Joe Republic]

Any person that believes this war is important should get off their computer and go enlist.

I take it you have already - or intend to - enlist yourself?

[StateBoiler]

Any person that believes this war is important should get off their computer and go enlist.

I take it you have already - or intend to - enlist yourself?

I don't think this war is important.

My father's gone over to Iraq twice and will go over a third time next year. He has advised me to go to Canada if a draft occurs, which he thinks will eventually happen. He goes cause it's his job, and despite the fact he's voted Republican every presidential election in his life, he thinks this whole exercise is just pure bulls***.

Right now I think I'd just go along and accept it if I got drafted, I'm not a p*ssy like most Republicans, especially the country clubbers, who yell about supporting the war and the soldiers, and yet if were faced with the possibility of the draft or their children getting drafted would most likely move to Canada or call up all their political connections so their kid can get a desk job at the Minnesota National Guard or something.

[angus]

1. Romney was awful.  He was snarky and condescending on immigration towards Giuliani, an issue Romney has no right to condescend on given that he supported the ridiculous amnesty plan.  He declared his opposition to gays in the military, then looked at Anderson Cooper the way a cow looks at an oncoming train when Cooper asked if he still looked forward to a day when gays could serve.  He refused to even answer a questiona bout waterboarding.  You jusat get the feeling the air is coming out of the balloon, don't you?  He looks scared and defensive at all times, and he has no rationale for his candidacy anymore.

2. Giuliani struggled with immigration, largely because he got rattled by the crowd.  Did CNN let Romney stack the audience?  It wouldn't be the first time Romney had stacked an audience and not the first time CNN had allowed it.

3. I remain unsure why Fred Thompson is here.

4. Maybe someday all those youngsters who back Ron Paul will grow up and realize that pacifism and the gold standard aren't very good ideas and they'll become actual conservatives.  Here's to hoping.

5. John McCain had the best night to me.  I know msot people were impressed with huckabee, but then again most people are easily impressed.

6. Speaking of Huckabee, we all realize the media keeps pushing this guy because they know he'd be a catastrophic general election candidate, right?  He has an exclusively fundamentalist religious education, he does not recognize evolution or the big bang, he has a tax plan that was designed by the Church of Scientology, he has said he thinks the purpose of gun rights is to make possible violent resistance to the Federal Government, he has no foreign policy expertise, he is economically illiterate, he can't raise money, and he believes Christianity should be the basis for public policy.  His simplistic one line answers to every question play well in cattle call debates, but in one on one engagements they are likely to look shallow and poorly thought out when compared to Hillary Clinton's detail heavy answers.  He is a joke and should be treated as one.

don't hold back out of politeness.  tell us how you really feel. 

ah, actually, the idea that fewer is better is commonly held here, so you're not alone.  I guess I can see that if you flush about half of them, then you have twice as much time, in any debate, for those who may have a real chance to get nominated.  And there's value in that.

but don't forget that there's also value in diversity.  society has long recognized that, though it's not clear to me why we forget that during these debates.  Tancredo's harping may be offensive to some (me), but securing the border is important to him.  And it seems to be important to many voters, both Democrat and Republican, so he's representative of a significant group of voters.  And of course many voters now agree with the idea that Iraq war was a costly mistake, and I'd guess that most voters despise imperialism, so Paul is in sync with huge number of voters.  And even Hunter adds to the debate.  His comments about hitting China in the pocketbook made sense to me.  Candidates get ideas on the platform, and out into the airwaves.  Some of these ideas may be disagreeable to you, but fortunately you are not King of the United States.  And, just as fortunately, neither am I.

I know you want to hear more from candidates with high poll numbers (except, oddly, that one candidate with high poll numbers who actually comes across as a decent fellow.)  But it isn't as though we don't all already know what Giuliani and Romney will say when you ask them about taxes and defense.  We have heard them speak ad nauseum about those subjects.  Whether you choose to believe them is up to you, but don't think that giving some enough time to say a thing a thousand times somehow makes that thing more likely to be true.  Remember that Bush, for example, had plenty of time to tell us, in his many one-on-one debates with Gore, that he'd have a humble foreign policy and that he doesn't think we should be in the business of nation-building.  And yet, allowing him all the time in the world to say that he'd operate in a less arrogant way than his predecessor didn't make it true, did it?

I think it is important to hear the voices of dissent both within and outside the party.  And if a man is masochistic enough to want to be president, then I say let him speak.  It's bad enough that two corporate-controlled parties control all the debates.  Now you want to limit the voices even within the party, the way the democrats have done.  I say that's a bad idea.  And I know lots of other republicans feel the same way, and from conversations with my colleagues I have learned that the smart democrats also know that it's a bad idea for them as well.  Let's not close our minds to possible good ideas just because we fear hearing a few bad ones from time to time.

[True Democrat]

I was watching some questions on YouTube, and during the Bible question, when Rudy said "I read the Bible quite frequently," I chuckled.

Also, does Romney have a slight cold or nasal congestion?

[MODU]

I was watching some questions on YouTube, and during the Bible question, when Rudy said "I read the Bible quite frequently," I chuckled.

Also, does Romney have a slight cold or nasal congestion?

I don't know, but Romney really blew his response to the Bible question.  Maybe it was the point of the question to see if Romney would say yes or no.  Not sure, but I'm sure someone would have told him to work on a response for that question in case it popped up.

[angus]

I was watching some questions on YouTube, and during the Bible question, when Rudy said "I read the Bible quite frequently," I chuckled.

Also, does Romney have a slight cold or nasal congestion?

I doubt it.  Mormons aren't allowed to get colds.  The virus that causes it isn't considered Kosher.

Frankly, I was so startled by the Jim Jones twinkle in that Dallas man's eye as he held out his bible that I really didn't hear what any of the candidates said in response.  You could just almost see the impression from the latex hose that he no doubt had just removed from his upper arm if you looked closely enough.  Nothing like a good hit of speed to get those Jim Jones wackos jumping and sweating and thumping their bibles.  "Do you believe in this book?  And I mean specifically this book" as he held the book spine forward to the camera just so you could be sure it was the King James Version of the Holy Bible.  If it ain't written by Shakespeare in 15th century English, then it ain't the lit'rel word of God, I always say.  Catholics, Jews, and Mormons need not apply.

You gotta figure that guy crossed Mitt and Rudy off his list pretty quickly.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Huckabee has surged to a record high of 12.8 on InTrade.

[True Democrat]

I was watching some questions on YouTube, and during the Bible question, when Rudy said "I read the Bible quite frequently," I chuckled.

Also, does Romney have a slight cold or nasal congestion?

I don't know, but Romney really blew his response to the Bible question.  Maybe it was the point of the question to see if Romney would say yes or no.  Not sure, but I'm sure someone would have told him to work on a response for that question in case it popped up.

I don't think anyone got the purpose of the question.  The questioner wanted to try to pin Romney in saying that he also believed in the Book of Mormon, but Romney is much too smart for that.  That said, Romney certainly could've studied the Bible better.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

6. Speaking of Huckabee, we all realize the media keeps pushing this guy because they know he'd be a catastrophic general election candidate, right?  He has an exclusively fundamentalist religious education, he does not recognize evolution or the big bang, he has a tax plan that was designed by the Church of Scientology, he has said he thinks the purpose of gun rights is to make possible violent resistance to the Federal Government, he has no foreign policy expertise, he is economically illiterate, he can't raise money, and he believes Christianity should be the basis for public policy.  His simplistic one line answers to every question play well in cattle call debates, but in one on one engagements they are likely to look shallow and poorly thought out when compared to Hillary Clinton's detail heavy answers.  He is a joke and should be treated as one.

I think he could beat Clinton. Edwards would probably destroy him.

[StateBoiler]

I was watching some questions on YouTube, and during the Bible question, when Rudy said "I read the Bible quite frequently," I chuckled.

Also, does Romney have a slight cold or nasal congestion?

I don't know, but Romney really blew his response to the Bible question.  Maybe it was the point of the question to see if Romney would say yes or no.  Not sure, but I'm sure someone would have told him to work on a response for that question in case it popped up.

When they went to Romney on that question, I thought briefly "poor guy".

Then again, when you're the frontrunner, most every question is fair game.

Also, on Huckabee, why haven't any Republicans called him a tax-and-spender yet? That would be the easiest way to slow his momentum if you're Romney or Giuliani or McCain. He called the Club for Growth the "Club for Greed". Fred did last night in his ad but didn't follow up on it forcefully enough.

[True Democrat]

I just watched the Huckabee-Romney spat on immigration.  Huckabee pwned.  I favorite part was when Huckabee told Mitt to stop talking, and Romney backed down like a school child talking to his teacher.

I'm starting to really like Huckabee.  Of all the Republicans, he's my number 2 behind McCain.  At least he's authentic.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I was watching some questions on YouTube, and during the Bible question, when Rudy said "I read the Bible quite frequently," I chuckled.

Also, does Romney have a slight cold or nasal congestion?

I don't know, but Romney really blew his response to the Bible question.  Maybe it was the point of the question to see if Romney would say yes or no.  Not sure, but I'm sure someone would have told him to work on a response for that question in case it popped up.

When they went to Romney on that question, I thought briefly "poor guy".

Then again, when you're the frontrunner, most every question is fair game.

Also, on Huckabee, why haven't any Republicans called him a tax-and-spender yet? That would be the easiest way to slow his momentum if you're Romney or Giuliani or McCain. He called the Club for Growth the "Club for Greed". Fred did last night in his ad but didn't follow up on it forcefully enough.

Eh, even better would probably be to point out that he supports lower tuition for illegal immigrants.

[angus]

I don't think anyone got the purpose of the question. 

I think everyone pretty much understood the purpose of the question.  It's hard to miss.

But it's not like Romney can say, "You stoopid bigot, what cave did you crawl out of?  I'm amazed that CNN even put you on.  But then I know that they'll do whatever it takes to ensure a Democrat victory in 2008 so I shouldn't be surprised.  Anyway, why don't you just finish rolling your joint and smoke it and then roll your cousin over and give her a good lay.  And stay away from me."

And it's not like all the non-wasps in the audience would then stand up and applaud and say, "You tell 'em Mitt.  I'm glad at least one of you had the balls to call out that cracker for what he is."

No, Romney had to bite his lip and play it cool.  This is all part of the game.  I suppose those candidates have to put up with quite a bit of craziness on their campaign trails.  Then again, you'd have to be a little bit crazy to want the job of United States president to begin with.  There are much less stressful ways to make 400 thousand dollars a year, I'm sure.

[angus]

outstanding.  Musta been taking a leak or something last night when they did this bit.

There was a question about space exploration.  Huckabee seems to really understand that importance of basic science research.  He understands, moreover, the possibilities for spinoff technologies. 

I just keep liking that guy better and better, I have to admit.

The thing about these debates is that, unlike us junkies, most folks still haven't really decided who they like.  Or, even if they have, if they live in a caucus state--I hate that "caucus" B.S.  I wish we had primaries--anyway, if they live in a caucus state, then their second, and sometimes third, choices matter.  So some of us are still watching to decide who we like second best or third best.  All the more reason to have a crowded field.  Fringe candidates bring up important points that might not be brought up otherwise, and it forces the popular candidates to take concrete stands.  Huckabee's strength isn't that he stands with me.  In fact, he disagrees with me on a hell of a lot of things, his strength is that he seems to have the conviction to admit that he doesn't stand with me.

Obama's like that too, by the way.  I could vote for him if the GOP insists on nominating some neoconservative hell bent on ruling the world.  Let's hope that doesn't happen.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Jesus, Romney is the biggest panderer.  He even pandered to Sox fans, his family is from MI right?  But there lifelong Sox fans? I don't think so

[Josh/Devilman88]

outstanding.  Musta been taking a leak or something last night when they did this bit.

There was a question about space exploration.  Huckabee seems to really understand that importance of basic science research.  He understands, moreover, the possibilities for spinoff technologies. 

I just keep liking that guy better and better, I have to admit.

The thing about these debates is that, unlike us junkies, most folks still haven't really decided who they like.  Or, even if they have, if they live in a caucus state--I hate that "caucus" B.S.  I wish we had primaries--anyway, if they live in a caucus state, then their second, and sometimes third, choices matter.  So some of us are still watching to decide who we like second best or third best.  All the more reason to have a crowded field.  Fringe candidates bring up important points that might not be brought up otherwise, and it forces the popular candidates to take concrete stands.  Huckabee's strength isn't that he stands with me.  In fact, he disagrees with me on a hell of a lot of things, his strength is that he seems to have the conviction to admit that he doesn't stand with me.

Obama's like that too, by the way.  I could vote for him if the GOP insists on nominating some neoconservative hell bent on ruling the world.  Let's hope that doesn't happen.

Stupid question, how do caucus work?

[Lief 🗽]

I'm a Cubs fan, and I've never lived in Chicago.

I'm having a really hard time not liking Huckabee. He's just so good. And his positions sound so not crazy. Gah.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I'm a Cubs fan, and I've never lived in Chicago.

I'm having a really hard time not liking Huckabee. He's just so good. And his positions sound so not crazy. Gah.

FAIR TAX!!

I'm surprised liberals aren't running for the hills!  The idea of the government not taking more money from the rich to hand to the uneducated and lazy

[Boris]

Jesus, Romney is the biggest panderer.  He even pandered to Sox fans, his family is from MI right?  But there lifelong Sox fans? I don't think so

Well, it'd be pretty embarrassing to admit that he's a Tigers fan on national TV

[Хahar 🤔]

I'm a Cubs fan, and I've never lived in Chicago.

I'm having a really hard time not liking Huckabee. He's just so good. And his positions sound so not crazy. Gah.

FAIR TAX!!

I'm surprised liberals aren't running for the hills!  The idea of the government not taking more money from the rich to hand to the uneducated and lazy

I sure am.

[Lief 🗽]

His ideas are crazy, he just presents them in a way that people see him as a compassionate moderate.

[angus]

outstanding.  Musta been taking a leak or something last night when they did this bit.

There was a question about space exploration.  Huckabee seems to really understand that importance of basic science research.  He understands, moreover, the possibilities for spinoff technologies. 

I just keep liking that guy better and better, I have to admit.

The thing about these debates is that, unlike us junkies, most folks still haven't really decided who they like.  Or, even if they have, if they live in a caucus state--I hate that "caucus" B.S.  I wish we had primaries--anyway, if they live in a caucus state, then their second, and sometimes third, choices matter.  So some of us are still watching to decide who we like second best or third best.  All the more reason to have a crowded field.  Fringe candidates bring up important points that might not be brought up otherwise, and it forces the popular candidates to take concrete stands.  Huckabee's strength isn't that he stands with me.  In fact, he disagrees with me on a hell of a lot of things, his strength is that he seems to have the conviction to admit that he doesn't stand with me.

Obama's like that too, by the way.  I could vote for him if the GOP insists on nominating some neoconservative hell bent on ruling the world.  Let's hope that doesn't happen.

Stupid question, how do caucus work?

not so stupid.  I'm still learning.  I've been a registered voter in six states now, and this is the first time I have had to deal with them.  First, unlike, say, California, where I could be unaffiliated (or DTS in Californiaspeak), and then choose to vote in either (but not both) party primaries, I have to pick one party here.  Toss of a coin yielded GOP.  Just kidding.  It was a hard decision, and I'm a centrist, but I gave Republicans a slight edge owing to the fact that by the time I registered here I was convinced that the Democrats would nominate Hillary with or without me so I'll probably be voting for either a Republican or an "other" for president.  Thus it kinda made sense to help shape that repubican.  so anyway, you pick a party (formally, when you get your license.  Cheap too!  25 bucks for a license.  Can you believe that?)  and you are then a Registered Republican, a Registered Democrat, or a Registered No Party person (No party is Iowaspeak for unaffiliated). 

Then, about a week later you get a little card in the mail telling where to vote.  Mine is at Cornfield Acres Evangelical Biblethumpin' Church out on Haystack Road.  (okay, I made that name up.  But it is at a church.)  Now, I haven't been yet, but this is my understanding:  On the night of January 3, Iowans gather by party preference to elect delegates to the 99 county conventions.  Presidential preference on the Republican side is done with a straw vote of those attending the caucus.  I'm not sure about the Democrats.  This vote is sometimes done by a show of hands or by dividing themselves into groups according to candidate or by jumping up and down and hollering when they call the name of your candidate.  My neighbors tell me it's a show of hands here.  In precincts that elect only 1 delegate they choose the delegate by majority vote and it must be a paper ballot.  It's not clear to me yet how many votes my precinct gets.  I live in a city of about 38 thousand, and my city is a suburb.  We live about 7 miles from the downtown center of the county seat, which is a city of about 70 thousand.  All together, my "metro area" has about 130 thousand people.  So you could call it a small city or a large town.  But that really doesn't say how large our precinct might be.  I'm guessing it's a big one, since any city in Iowa is a big city by Iowa standards.  (The biggest city in the whole state is maybe 200 thousand people.)  So, I'll assume we get somewhere between 1 and 4 votes. 

They'll call the candidates in alphabetical order, and I'll stick up my hand when they say "Paul."  In much of Iowa, I figure I'd be the only one.  But I do live in a University town.  And I do see lots of Ron Paul 2008 signs.  And I only live about a mile from the university (~14000 students), so I'm figuring I'm in a Paul-friendly precinct.  Anyway, we'll take a straw vote.  And if no one gets a majority, then we'll "reorganize" and take another, and another, and another.  I'm planning to be loud and obnoxious and caucus for Paul and debate for him and pull out my schlong and jump around and pretty much do whatever it takes to get more Paul votes.  But if it looks bleak, I'll jump on the Huckabee bandwagon.  If we get as many as 4 votes, I'm sure either Paul or Huck gets one.  If we get only 1, then it'll be tough. 

I'll report either that night or the morning after and let ya know how it goes.

[Josh/Devilman88]

outstanding.  Musta been taking a leak or something last night when they did this bit.

There was a question about space exploration.  Huckabee seems to really understand that importance of basic science research.  He understands, moreover, the possibilities for spinoff technologies. 

I just keep liking that guy better and better, I have to admit.

The thing about these debates is that, unlike us junkies, most folks still haven't really decided who they like.  Or, even if they have, if they live in a caucus state--I hate that "caucus" B.S.  I wish we had primaries--anyway, if they live in a caucus state, then their second, and sometimes third, choices matter.  So some of us are still watching to decide who we like second best or third best.  All the more reason to have a crowded field.  Fringe candidates bring up important points that might not be brought up otherwise, and it forces the popular candidates to take concrete stands.  Huckabee's strength isn't that he stands with me.  In fact, he disagrees with me on a hell of a lot of things, his strength is that he seems to have the conviction to admit that he doesn't stand with me.

Obama's like that too, by the way.  I could vote for him if the GOP insists on nominating some neoconservative hell bent on ruling the world.  Let's hope that doesn't happen.

Stupid question, how do caucus work?

not so stupid.  I'm still learning.  I've been a registered voter in six states now, and this is the first time I have had to deal with them.  First, unlike, say, California, where I could be unaffiliated (or DTS in Californiaspeak), and then choose to vote in either (but not both) party primaries, I have to pick one party here.  Toss of a coin yielded GOP.  Just kidding.  It was a hard decision, and I'm a centrist, but I gave Republicans a slight edge owing to the fact that by the time I registered here I was convinced that the Democrats would nominate Hillary with or without me so I'll probably be voting for either a Republican or an "other" for president.  Thus it kinda made sense to help shape that repubican.  so anyway, you pick a party (formally, when you get your license.  Cheap too!  25 bucks for a license.  Can you believe that?)  and you are then a Registered Republican, a Registered Democrat, or a Registered No Party person (No party is Iowaspeak for unaffiliated). 

Then, about a week later you get a little card in the mail telling where to vote.  Mine is at Cornfield Acres Evangelical Biblethumpin' Church out on Haystack Road.  (okay, I made that name up.  But it is at a church.)  Now, I haven't been yet, but this is my understanding:  On the night of January 3, Iowans gather by party preference to elect delegates to the 99 county conventions.  Presidential preference on the Republican side is done with a straw vote of those attending the caucus.  I'm not sure about the Democrats.  This vote is sometimes done by a show of hands or by dividing themselves into groups according to candidate or by jumping up and down and hollering when they call the name of your candidate.  My neighbors tell me it's a show of hands here.  In precincts that elect only 1 delegate they choose the delegate by majority vote and it must be a paper ballot.  It's not clear to me yet how many votes my precinct gets.  I live in a city of about 38 thousand, and my city is a suburb.  We live about 7 miles from the downtown center of the county seat, which is a city of about 70 thousand.  All together, my "metro area" has about 130 thousand people.  So you could call it a small city or a large town.  But that really doesn't say how large our precinct might be.  I'm guessing it's a big one, since any city in Iowa is a big city by Iowa standards.  (The biggest city in the whole state is maybe 200 thousand people.)  So, I'll assume we get somewhere between 1 and 4 votes. 

They'll call the candidates in alphabetical order, and I'll stick up my hand when they say "Paul."  In much of Iowa, I figure I'd be the only one.  But I do live in a University town.  And I do see lots of Ron Paul 2008 signs.  And I only live about a mile from the university (~14000 students), so I'm figuring I'm in a Paul-friendly precinct.  Anyway, we'll take a straw vote.  And if no one gets a majority, then we'll "reorganize" and take another, and another, and another.  I'm planning to be loud and obnoxious and caucus for Paul and debate for him and pull out my schlong and jump around and pretty much do whatever it takes to get more Paul votes.  But if it looks bleak, I'll jump on the Huckabee bandwagon.  If we get as many as 4 votes, I'm sure either Paul or Huck gets one.  If we get only 1, then it'll be tough. 

I'll report either that night or the morning after and let ya know how it goes.

Oh, I think I'll stick with me going in my own booth and voting for my candidate.  (Which I am a republican, because I never changed it, so I'll more then likely vote for Huckabee).