Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
Ha, Mitt "bore his testimony," in Mormon parlance. The Spirit touched the hearts of viewers and helped him win debate!
Guy Smiley's alien overlords who have sent him here to rule us must be excited at his ability to charm the sheep.
“The Republicans don’t want to hear from the Democrats and the Democrats don’t want to hear from the Republicans.”That pretty much sums it up. I haven’t bothered to pay any attention at all to anything being said on the other side of the aisle because I already know I won’t be voting for any of their candidates and all but one of them won’t be their presidential nominee (and I can always go back and scan a transcript to say what that person said while filtering out the background noise from the other wannabes).
This evangelical can vote for Mormon Romney for President - heck, I'd vote for a gay man or woman for President if I agreed with a majority of their policy views, and he or she showed a demonstrated competence and temperament for the position.I am more concerned with where Romney and any candidate stands on these three items:National Securitythe Supreme CourtOver-burdensome taxation But - and this is big for me - I can't abide any more "nanny-staters" like Al Gore and Hillary ('It Takes A Village')telling us that:- we all belong in cities (ne Urban-revitalized areas) - we shall have no more "suburbs", - no more large, energy-guzzling homes, unless your last name is Gore, Edwards, Streisand, or Geffen.- we must get rid of your cul-de-sac's and the mentality that goes with it.- mass transit must be worshipped, not just made available.Pleeeeezzz!
Some of the candidates had very good moments where they showed great sincerity and articulate speech.Mike Huckabee did a magnificent job on the set up question Blitzer the secular progressive tried to use to trip up the more Christian of the candidates on evolution.Mitt Romney had a similar fine moment in explaining his faith and why he is proud of it and why it is no impediment to leading the nation. (Enough that he got past the CEO shoptalk phrases of "non sequiter" "Null set", "moving from small bore to larger bore" garbage his staff will justly spend time beating out of him.) Giuliani ran NYC with little evidence he had a real sense of humor. But at least he was quick enough to realize the lightning bolts coming down as he denied he was Pontius Pilate in a Catholic sense on abortion - could only be deflected by humor. If the SOB had froze then, you betcha the lead would have been "Rudy's guilty conscience as lightning bolts paralyze his abortion reply"> As for McCain, like Rudy with the 9/11 families or Kerry with his "fallen heroes act" - I am sick of the pandering. The media of course cannot get enough of it because they annoint certain "victim families" with absolute moral authority.But it is getting to be a shopworn Kabuki ritual.Someone shows up and claims special victim status from having a relative that died in the military or were in the wrong office building on the wrong day...instead of being on the wrong road at the wrong time or being born with a breast cancer gene and perishing from that.Instantly, on announcement of exhalted victimhood status, the candidate or politician is expected to pay homage with the Full Victim Monty.A reverential hush is expected to go over the audience.The political people are to intensify their tone of speech, drip sincerity.Directly address the claimant of special victimhood and effusively thank them for their "hero's sacrifice" or/and their "service".Stand up or do some special bit of body language that signifies an expectation of a divine chorus about to break into tribute.Tell the claimant that nothing matters to the politic more than their special victimhood or sacrifice or service.(Statistically, the 800 or so deaths in Iraq in each of the past few years are 0.03% of all US deaths per year, many equally tragic for the family and society. And military deaths under Bush II are less than the peacetime military fatalities under Carter that went utterly unremarked on.) Imagine McCain in full panderfest mode getting up off his seat as the media announces they have a question from a woman whose brother. a traveling saleman, died in an auto accident:McCain solemnly gets up off his seat walks forward so TV cameras can see the vast concerned eye contact he makes with the exhalted victim claimant. The audience awaits his absolution and blessing....."Ma'm 1st let me say thank you on behalf of your brother for volunteering for a job that involved risk..and for his service and sacrifice to the nation..800 traveling salesmen die every year and if not for them, our entire economy and way of life would collapse. I honor him and all other hawkers. As your President, I would pledge that I will run the country not only with better and safer roads and cars so your brother's loss will lead to a better America, but with deep sorrow and pride in all such heroic salesmen..And that reminds me that there is a husband in the audience who lost his hero wife to colon cancer, and I'd like to talk about not only more roughage and signoidoscopy services for all...but the names of Hispanic colon cancer victims and heroes that should be seen on the future National Monument to Malignacies of the Bowels...illegal immigrant Hispanics...many just like your wife, heroes to their children ...heroes to us all despite their immigrant status..Nah, McCain is gonna slip no matter how much the media loves his pandering. He's old, he's cliche'd, Republicans don't trust him except the group that worships him for being captured by the enemy and suffering...
I'm glad that someone finally agrees that McCain 'lost' the debate. Right after the debate on CNN, the pundits (see: Arianna Huffington) were raving about the great job that he did, but I thought he was flat and uninspiring. He's running as a candidate who has experience, but he seemed flustered the whole time.
Mike Huckabee did a magnificent job on the set up question Blitzer the secular progressive tried to use to trip up the more Christian of the candidates on evolution.Really? I don't think "my grampa weren't no goddang monkey" really qualifies as a "magnificent job".
Rasmussen has McCain sliding from 18% to 14% in two weeks. The more he champions his immigration bill, the more he slips. Good riddance.http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/2008_republican_presidential_primary
Acceptance of the theory of evolution isn't "secular progressive". It is just intelligent.
Re: the divided electorate comment...I'd never understood the impact of John Brown's raid on the Union armory until recently. (I've been reading a book of Civil War essays by the historian James McPherson.) Brown planned to take the arms and distribute them among slaves to touch off an armed rebellion. After his arrest, many Northerners had nothing but praise for Brown. Other Northerners had mixed feelings over his use of violence, but still supported what he did. On the other hand, Southerners were universally horrified by what they saw as Northerners' support for terrorism (though that word didn't exist then).Hope we're not as divided now as then....
I'm having a ball watching McCain implode... The guy is becoming more worthless day by day...
Enough that he got past the CEO shoptalk phrases of "non sequiter" "Null set"Actually, those are logical terms, not corporate jargon. Not to mention you spelled one of them incorrectly.
Actually, those are logical terms, not corporate jargon. Not to mention you spelled one of them incorrectly.Actually his use of "null set" was completely illogical unless Mitt thought the question was about set theory. His use of "null set", I guess as some synonym for non-sequitor was pure linguistic buffoonery at best. Nothing is worse than a fool speaking with words and on topics that he doesn't understand.
McCain answered one question totally right when he said his priority would be to veto pork laden bills. The only problem is that he's a senator and isn't seem to be doing a damn thing about pork as we speak. Why doesn't he stand on the floor of the senate and denounce by name all the rascals that are piling pork into bills? (Rhetorical question: McCain sticks his finger in the wind and if enough people fuss about something, it becomes pork.)
Hate to bring some substance to the discussion, but is Mitt Romney ignorant or a liar? It's one or the other. Romney is ignorant or lying about the single most important issue of our day: the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Mitt: "What I mean by that -- or a null set -- that is that if you're saying let's turn back the clock and Saddam Hussein had open[ed] up his country to IAEA inspectors and they'd come in and they'd found that there were no weapons of mass destruction, had Saddam Hussein therefore not violated United Nations resolutions, we wouldn't be in the conflict we're in.But he didn't do those things, and we knew what we knew at the point we made the decision to get in." WRONG! - The weapons inspectors were allowed in, until Bush pulled them out. - They did not find WMD. Sure would be nice to have some fact-checking instead of all this puffery. We need a competent President for a change. http://americanfootprints.com/drupal/node/3500
Hate to bring some substance to the discussionDon't worry, there's little danger of you doing that sort of thing. :)- The weapons inspectors were allowed in, until Bush pulled them out.The head of the inspection effort reported to the UN that Iraq had refused to give them sufficient access to sites, had prevented them from interviewing scientists, and had harassed the inspectors. Hans Blix conceded, three weeks before the war, that Iraq had still not committed to disarmament.- They did not find WMD.The UN didn't find WMD when they inspected Israel, either. Does that mean Israel has no WMD? Because that'd come as a surprise to a lot of people, particularly the Israelis themselves.Anyway, while the inspectors did not find WMD (not that anyone expected them to), they did find that Iraq possessed illegal weaponry in violation of both UN sanctions and the cease-fire agreement. That's sufficient grounds for war.
Vegas odds as of May 25th -THE FIELD REPUBLICANS RUDY GIULIANI Odds: 5-3FRED THOMPSON Odds: 3-1MITT ROMNEY Odds: 4-1JOHN MCCAIN Odds: 6-1MIKE HUCKABEE Odds: 200-1SAM BROWNBACK Odds: 1000-1TOMMY THOMPSON Odds: 20,000-1DUNCAN HUNTER Odds: 20,000-1JAMES GILMORE Odds: 40,000-1TOM TANCREDO Odds: 75,000-1RON PAUL Odds: 500,000-1 DEMOCRATSBARACK OBAMA Odds: 4-2HILLARY CLINTON Odds: 3-2JOHN EDWARDS Odds: 8-1BILL RICHARDSON Odds: 20-1JOE BIDEN Odds: 65-1CHRIS DODD Odds: 150-1DENNIS KUCINICH Odds: 25,000-1Mike Gravel Odds: 2,000,000 -1(Note this is before Richardson's minor league showing in the debate or John McCains embrace of Ted Kennedy's illegal immigrant amnesty.)
I'm creeped out by this chart thing they are showing on this youtube from FOX. WTF is that? Is anyone noticing the 'con' indicator going up just as fast as the 'oh my god I want to make out with him in a cheap Italian restaurant' indicator? Probably not, the koolaid tastes too good.Could the 'voters' they interviewed be any WHITER? good god, may the GOP continue to go down in a ball of flames. Mit Romney is about as genuine as a timeshare salesman.
Could the 'voters' they interviewed be any WHITER?What kind of racist comment is that?
Even before watching that clip, I just can't bring myself to support Mitt Romney. It's not the religion thing; it's the Clintonian thing.I hear him talk, and I can't help but think everything coming out of his mouth is focus-tested, Soccer Mom-approved. This is the one place where McCain's attacks in earlier debates have resonated with me: Romney says all the right things, but I can't discern whether those views are genuine or not. His positions when running for office in Massachusetts are clearly different than the ones he holds now -- did he "evolve" or did his audience? Which brings up the larger problem: as a general election candidate, can he even carry his home state?I like John McCain. I have nothing but respect for his service of this country in the Armed Forces, and I think he really stands out from the field on those issues. Unfortunately, he keeps attaching his name to horrible legislation. McCain-Feingold didn't "take the money out of politics," it just moved the money out of the control of the mainstream parties & into increasingly fringe groups (501(c)(3)'s are one of the leading causes of the partisan divide, IMO). Likewise, the Immigration bill causes me to dread what he would end up doing with health insurance reform or Social Security.The one candidate out of the second tier that interests me right now is Huckabee. His humor ("Give us one more chance," "John Edwards in a beauty salon," etc.), while heavily scripted, is helping him separate from the field in my eyes.Tommy should have made his Presidential run in the 1990s. His major issues (e.g. welfare reform) resonated so much better then.That pretty much leaves Rudy. I like his answer on most issues. (I tend not to vote based on abortion position, since I don't think that there's enough of a unified spirit to change the status quo right now.) With his legal background, I know he understands the importance of appointing judges, and I trust his decisions more so than I would McCain or Romney. Not to mention, I think he gives the Republicans the best chance to pick off a major blue state (NY), unless Hillary gets the nod (in which case her negatives will cause gains elsewhere) or Bloomberg pulls a Perot.I'm interested in hearing from Fred Thompson, but I still see myself voting Giuliani at this point. (As if the WI primary is actually going to mean anything.)
Revenant, thanks for engaging a substantive discussion, instead of focusing on shoulders, haircuts and other puffery of our chattering class. But your response didn't back up Gov Romney's false accusations at all. The fact is, the inspectors were in Iraq. Bush pulled them out. And, they did not find WMD. When you continue to insist that the WMD line was sound, you marganlize yourself.
Alpha Liberal: But your response didn't back up Gov Romney's false accusations at all. The fact is, the inspectors were in Iraq. Bush pulled them out. And, they did not find WMD.You're engaged in a form of Dowdism [Maureen] - parsing facts [phrases] to reach a distorted conclusion [quote].UNMOVIC Summary, June 21 2006, p2154. Security Council resolution 867 (1991) of 3 April 1991, required Iraq to declare to the Secretary-General, within 15 days of it adoption, the locations, amounts and types of all chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and ballistic missile with a range greater than 150 km, as well as related subsytems, components and associated facilities. The resolution called for these items to be destroyed, removed or rendered harmless by Iraq under international supervision.55. Had Iraq complied with the Security Council's requirements and provided the information required in a coherent and complete fashion to the United Nations, the entire process of verification could have been completed without delay. Instead, the verification process was drawn out over 13 years from 1991-2003.http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/compendium_summary/s-2006-420-English.pdfWhen you continue to insist that the WMD line was sound, you marginalize yourself.Fallacy. Appeal to conformity. If the WMD line was really unsound, you wouldn't need to prop your position up with a personal attack.
Fen, I didn't engage in a personal attack. Simply said that a person arguing the WMD were there and a good reason to invade and occupy Iraq are marginalizing themselves. And your response doesn't defend Romney and his statement at all. It's not related to Romney's lie. Remember Hans Blix? He was in Iraq conducting intrusive inspections. George Bush pulled the inspectors out of Iraq. The Bush Command said they knew where the WMD were, where the mobile labs were, etc. Yet, they didn't tell the inspectors these secret locations for some reason (hint: their claims were B.S.) A better option at the time than invading and occupying Iraq was to increase and expand the inspections regime, make it even more intrusive. This was proposed but brushed aside by the Bushies. The fact remains, Mitt Romney is either ignorant or lying. Though I guess he could be doing both. And no-one here has defended what he said.
For people attempting to keep track of the lies used to start this bloody and costly occupation, there's a new report out with new information: One report found: "A US-led war against and occupation of Iraq would boost political Islam and increase popular sympathy for some of the terrorist objectives," the report concluded.
Alpha Liberal: Fen, I didn't engage in a personal attack. Simply said that a person arguing the WMD were there and a good reason to invade and occupy Iraq are marginalizing themselves.Yes Alpha, thats an appeal to conformity:All smart/sane/etc people believe x, anyone believing in y marginalizes themselves Its an attempt to "marginalize" someone who disagrees with you via ad hom.
Could the 'voters' they interviewed be any WHITER?The overwhelming majority of the American electorate is white, especially if you look only at those people who actually vote. If you look at the Republican party specifically it is almost ALL white; the minority of the electorate that isn't Caucasian typically votes for Democrats.So -- shockingly! -- if you want to get a good feel for voters, especially Republican ones, you end up interviewing a whole lot of white people.
But your response didn't back up Gov Romney's false accusations at all. The fact is, the inspectors were in Iraq. Bush pulled them out.What Romney said was this:if you're saying let's turn back the clock and Saddam Hussein had open[ed] up his country to IAEA inspectors and they'd come in and they'd found that there were no weapons of mass destructionHussein did not open up his country to the inspectors. He allowed them in, then restricted access to the locations, scientists, and files they needed to do their job. Bush then pulled them out so they wouldn't get killed when we invaded.And, they did not find WMD.They weren't trying to find WMD. You've fallen victim to the common misconception that the inspectors were in Iraq to seek out weapons of mass destruction. They weren't -- they were there to give Iraq the opportunity to prove that it had disarmed. Hussein claimed to have complied with UN and cease-fire conditions by disarming. The inspectors were there to confirm that he was telling the truth. The inspectors confirmed that he'd lied about some of it (e.g. the long-range missles), and Hussein refused to let them confirm much of the rest of it.Let me summarize that in simple terms: it wasn't our responsibility to prove that Hussein had WMDs and illegal weaponry. It was *Hussein's* responsibility to prove that he DIDN'T have WMDs and illegal weaponry, and he refused to take advantage of that opportunity.What Thompson was saying was simply this: if Hussein had cooperated with the inspectors and let them confirm that he really HAD disarmed, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in. That's one hundred percent true.When you continue to insist that the WMD line was sound, you marganlize yourself.You just don't get it -- it doesn't matter if Iraq was WMD-free or not. The only question is whether or not Hussein cooperated, and the answer is "no". That was sufficient justification for war.
Dowdification--the use of ellipses to distort and obliviate the meaning of the cited material. EXAMPLE:Movie review--"This movie is a mish-mash of cliches, rife with inept writing, trite plotting, poor performances, and stilted dialogue. In short, it's just no damned good!"Dowdified movie review--"This movie is...damned good!"
Revenant, you have a pretty trigger-happy standard for starting wars. If they don't follow the proper bureaucratic procedures, kill `em! (And you get an "A" for historical revisionism. ) Muhammed ElBarradei, International Atomic Energy Agency: “After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq.”They were trying to find WMD. That's why they were conducting "inspections". Let me guess. You're "pro-life?"
You just don't get it -- it doesn't matter if Iraq was WMD-free or not. The only question is whether or not Hussein cooperated, and the answer is "no".Thank you, Revenant. The issue is pretty straight-forward, but too many people really believe (including Blix himself, I think, in his desire to be the man credited with keeping the peace) that the inspectors were supposed to be running around looking for weapons.And lest anyone ask "How do you prove a negative?" ...plenty of other countries (South Africa for one) have disarmed, and provided evidence of it to the satisfaction of the rest of the world. Saddam *purposely* thwarted inspectors throughout the process.
Alpha: you have a pretty trigger-happy standard for starting wars. If they don't follow the proper bureaucratic procedures, kill `em!No, if they don't abide by a ceasefire and UN resolutions they've agreed to, then force is on the table. I've never understood how the Left can put so much faith into multi-lateral institutions like the UN, but then permit rogue nations to defy those multilateral institutions without consequence.Here it is again:UNMOVIC Summary, June 21 2006, p2155. Had Iraq complied with the Security Council's requirements and provided the information required in a coherent and complete fashion to the United Nations, the entire process of verification could have been completed without delay. Instead, the verification process was drawn out over 13 years from 1991-2003.http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/compendium_summary/s-2006-420-English.pdf13 years and 17 resolutions, Alpha. Would you accept "the check is in the mail" routine for 13 years?
Revenant, you have a pretty trigger-happy standard for starting wars. If they don't follow the proper bureaucratic procedures, kill `em!Maybe you think there's something strange about having a zero-tolerance policy towards defeated enemies, but frankly that's not my problem.Hussein had been in open defiance of UN sanctions, international law, and the terms of his cease-fire for twelve years. It isn't like he just fucked up his first chance, or his twentieth, or even his one hundredth -- he'd gone well past that before Bush even entered the White House. What Bush did was to tell him: you have exactly one remaining chance to yield. Hussein failed to take that opportunity, which is why he's worm food now.Tell me, Alpha, just how many years do genocidal totalitarian dictators who've lost a war with us get to violate the terms of the cease-fire (to say nothing of shooting at our planes and sheltering our enemies) before the cease fire can be considered broken? We've established that you think "12" is too little. Would 15 be better? 20? 25? 100?Muhammed ElBarradei, International Atomic Energy Agency:“After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq.”Babble all you want. Like I said, the inspectors weren't there to find nukes -- they were there to verify that Hussein had gotten rid of his WMDs, WMD programs, and other illegal weaponry. By refusing them full access, Hussein made that impossible. That was grounds for war, and we took it. We were under no moral, ethical, or legal obligation to find either nukes or evidence thereof. All we needed to justify the war was for Hussein to keep refusing to cooperate. We've had grounds for invading Iraq since before George H. W. Bush had even finished out his term.I would also point out that ElBaradei is a representative of the Egyptian dictatorship. Only a great fool would trust either him or any agency he heads.Let me guess. You're "pro-life?"Let me guess -- you ran out of things to be completely wrong about, so you decided to guess how I felt about abortion. I'm pro-choice.
Revenant, I was opposed to Saddam Husein in the 1980s when Bush pere, Rumsfeld and the rest were propping him up. Note: this was when Saddam gassed his own people. So spare me your opportunistic lectures. The United States has violated UN sanctions and international law. would you sit back if we were invaded? The sad thing is how impervious you are to logic. Romney's statement was false. But you don't deal with that, instead you seek some bureaucratic argument. Next you'll argue what the definition of if is. My question on "pro-life" was linked to your casual approach to warmaking. The right wing is thoroughly hypocritical on this score. "9/11 bad. Shock and awe, good."
Revenant, here is the part of Romney's quote which tells me your argument is with him, not me: "Saddam Hussein had open[ed] up his country to IAEA inspectors and they'd come in and they'd found that there were no weapons of mass destruction,"So maybe we're actually agreeing. I say the inspectors were in Iraq and that they did not find WMD. Yuo don't dispute they were in Iraq, but seem to be arguing they weren't looking for WMD. We disagree on your second point, but we seem to agree that Romney is all wet here.
Revenant, I was opposed to Saddam Husein in the 1980s when Bush pere, Rumsfeld and the rest were propping him upSo when America "supported" Hussein, you opposed him. When America opposed Hussein, you supported him. Could it be any clearer that you've never given a shit about Iraq? You're simply following the leftist cliche of "whatever you're for, I'm against".It is also interesting that you say nothing about opposing Iraq back when *Carter* was supporting Hussein. Of course, since you get your information on the Iraq conflict exclusively from left-wing talking points it is entirely possible that you simply never knew he'd done that.The United States has violated UN sanctions and international law. would you sit back if we were invaded?The United Nations has no authority over America. It did have authority over Iraq -- those were the cease-fire terms they agreed to in order to get us to stop killing them. When they violated those terms we were free to resume the war.The right wing is thoroughly hypocritical on this score. "9/11 bad. Shock and awe, good."What's hypocritical about supporting the killing of fascists while opposing the killing of babies?say the inspectors were in Iraq and that they did not find WMD. Yuo don't dispute they were in Iraq, but seem to be arguing they weren't looking for WMD.You're failing a reading comprehension test. "Found that there were no WMDs" is NOT the same sentence as "found no WMDs". That's what is confusing you. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.The purpose of the inspections was to confirm whether or not Hussein had gotten rid of his WMDs. Now, obviously if they had found WMDs that would have confirmed that he hadn't gotten rid of them -- but it does not follow that *not* finding any proved that he *had* gotten rid of them. Proving that he had gotten rid of them required access to locations, records, and personnel that Hussein refused to provide access to. That is why, as the inspectors admitted, they were unable to confirm that Iraq had in fact scrapped all its WMDs and WMD programs.And that's what Romney meant by "found that there were no WMDs" -- in other words, "if the inspectors had been able to determine that Hussein had no WMDs". The inspectors were not able to determine that. All they were able to say is "we didn't find anything", which obviously isn't good enough. When you're searching someone's house for contraband, you can't just throw up your hands and say "oh, guess there's nothing here" when he refuses to let you check under the sink or in the garage. ;)When the IAEA inspected Israel, it found no nukes. Why did it find no nukes, you ask? Simple -- because when they went to inspect areas related to nukes and nuke production, Israel said "you can't go in there". So, at the end of the inspection, the inspectors had to throw up their hands and say "we didn't find any nukes". But only the very, very stupid took that as proof that Israel was nuke-free.Hussein, despite apparently not actually HAVING any nuclear program at the time, decided to act like somebody who did. What he was smoking when he decided THAT was a smart play is anybody's guess.
Revenant desperately makes a shamelessly dishonest argument:"So when America "supported" Hussein, you opposed him. When America opposed Hussein, you supported him."Are you really so dumb that you can't understand that opposing an invasion and occupation is different than supporting a brutal dictator? I don't think you're that stupid. I think you're that dishonest. I opposed the invasion and occupation because I loved and support my country. And this bloody folly has weakened my country, has strengthened our enemies and is immoral. There is more than one way to oppose a brutal dictator. Like, say, a smart way. The rest of your blathering is just more dishonest tripe from a person who can't face reality. You 'r in furious, pathetic denial. You're a sad case and not worthy of my time.
Post a Comment