Here's a pretty sunset while you're waiting:
That happened tonight. I'm not palming off some other night's sunset. That's tonight's sunset.
ADDED: Come into the comments and talk about the debate.
UPDATE, NEXT MORNING: Lots of comments! Did you like this approach to live-blogging? Let me sum up what I thought:
1. Anderson Cooper is a very weak moderator. He's a nice-looking man, but he had no authority, and, as a result, the candidates did whatever they wanted, which was actually revealing and interesting. It was really bad, however, when he allowed the retired general in the audience to hold the mike and lecture us on gays in the military. Once the point was made, that man had no right to consume air time like that, and Cooper was incompetent at stopping him. It seemed that at one point someone cut the mike, but then Coooper didn't take advantage of that to move on, he made efforts to get the mike back and to give the man more time. If that was supposed to be an expression of Anderson's own commitment to gay rights, it was: 1. inappropriate, and 2. inept.
2. Giuliani was good — nice and scrappy at the beginning, which set the tone the others had to deal with. Giuliani made Romney seem stiff and nervous, and he did a nice job turning the charge of "sanctuary city" back on Romney with "sanctuary mansion" — a memorable phrase.
3. CNN seemed to choose the YouTube videos that would show individuals who would repel a sizable segment of Americans: the guy with the gun, the kid with the Confederate flag, the Christian with the Bible. Or are you going to tell me CNN just loves props?
4. Thanks to everyone who participated in the comments. I think people did a great job!
Posts
310 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 310 of 310Ann,
I didnt watch the debate, so reading all these posts was like hearing one end of a telephone call.
Of course, to those who were both watching and commenting, it probably worked pretty well.
My vote, as a non-TV person, is to blog it your old way where you were providing both the content and the comment. I found that quite entertaining and informative. Its more typing on your part, however. Or, you could vblog it, with the camera catching both you and the TV.
Regards,
Sorry I couldn't participate (during the last debate, I did comment live a bit spontaneously, and would have enjoyed this); I got stuck babysitting a print run for work, and by the time I got home, there was only a half-hour left. But if you do this next time, and I'm where I have access to a television, I'm in.
I'll have to catch the entirety of tonight's debate on re-run.
Paul sounds like a total loon. I wish the others wouldn't bother to engage him on the "substance" of his remarks.
Strongest moments for me:
- Huckabee on the Bible (can we elect him to be our national pastor?)
- McCain on waterboarding
- Thompson on his guns
- Hunter's upbeat defense of America
---------
laser-
Yes, if a bit imprecise. I prefer anti-abortion terrorist.
"Thanks Jeff... you did ask for a cite, otherwise I would have let it go. I'm not fan of the insult tossing, either, for the most part."
Yes I did. And you did just that. I think you would get a good reception here. Maybe not agreement, but a respectful disagreement.
"Maybe not agreement, but a respectful disagreement."
Well some of us might agree, we're not all Republicans (or Democrats for that matter).
Hmm, I also think that this thread was too fast for the slow-witted troll regulars. Maybe we need a faster pace in general.
Can I liveblog the livebloggers...
These are some of the best--and funniest--comments I've read on a blog, maybe ever, especially uncle jimbo and kt cat who said...
"Repair the image of America? I don't know, man, winning seems like something that might be good for our image."
Clint- would it be ok to talk about people who bomb abortion clinics as "Christian terrorists"?
If any of them belonged to a branch of Christianity that advocated killing abortionists I'd be more than happy to call them "Christian terrorists".
But the President of the United States can push for a constitutional amendment. So, the question before RG is whether such an amendment is a good idea. More than 30 states confer this power on governors.
That's all true, Mark, but the odds that a constitutional amendment allowing line item vetos getting the necessary votes from both the House and the Senate are just about zero. and it needs to get out of there before it goes to the states. So why should Giuliani or any other candidate waste everyone's time pretending that it is remotely possible? It is a phony issue and Romney should be embarrassed every time he brings it up.
Anyone else still watching?
During the panel discussion, Bill Bennett asserted that he'd been hearing from e-mailers that the retired General may have been a Clinton campaign consultant.
...no wonder CNN gave him the microphone. ;)
"I also think that this thread was too fast for the slow-witted troll regulars."
Past their bedtimes, probably.
Yah. Apparently the good General was a Clinton plant. He's on the Hillary for Prez GLBT steering committee. The bloggers caught it.
CNN apparently didn't catch it. Or so we're told.
"Yah. Apparently the good General was a Clinton plant. He's on the Hillary for Prez GLBT steering committee. The bloggers caught it."
Does that make him ineligible to ask a question? Maybe so, I don't know the etiquette or policies of these things.
"Well some of us might agree, we're not all Republicans (or Democrats for that matter)."
Yeah I know. I am refering to the people who disagree with everyone no matter what the subject. But he had stated he didnt want to argue with conservatives, so that was the direction I was coming from.
Yeah, gotcha ;)
"Does that make him ineligible to ask a question? Maybe so, I don't know the etiquette or policies of these things."
No but I think it's something that is relevant. Will the Republicans get to have a supporter of Thompson ask questions of the Democrats? It seems CNN has a problem with finding undecided people with no agenda to ask questions in these things.
This was great! It was the perfect amount of information to hold me over until the morning paper. Thanks, Althouse.
Missed the debate caught in traffic, but this thread was very helpful as well as entertaining. Boy it was nice to not see the vituperation and ad hominem for a change. Could we pay laser72 to come back?
What is the point of having a Clinton supporting Gay General asking a question about Gays in the military in a Republican debate?
How many Republicans care about this
or the "Log Cabin Republicans"? I doubt large numbers of Gay dying to get into the military or to get Married.
Gays, what is it about the military? The low pay? The "great" clothes? The chance of being killed? The chance to see the world without the money to enjoy it?
Hector Owen said...
"McCain wants line item veto? Did he miss a memo? Lawyers here, is this possible? Does he regard the Constitution as plastic?"
Romney wants one too, and no, neither of them can have one.
Wow, I'm impressed.
You guys did a great job!
Pinkerton has a good column on Rudy.
It seems that Rudy is giving talks to Hispanic businessmen that he favors a "Virtual" fence. Translation: he still favors open borders, despite the campaign rhetoric.
Hello, regular commenters whose company I so enjoy. Just a request to my conservative pals here -- next time we're having a wrangle and you're insisting there's nothing homophobic about the GOP position on DADT or the gay marriage issue, try to recall rcocean's comment of 10:05. Thanks.
Great idea, Ann. I couldn't watch the debate, but I've enjoyed the comments.
"try to recall rcocean's comment of 10:05."
Why? He is entitled to his own opinion, but pretty sure he isn't the official spokesman for anyone but himself
Nicely done all. From reading the comments [didn't watch] sounds like my drinking game was a bust?
For Rudy: why should people have to take a written exam to own a gun? Answer: As mayor, he enforced all the laws vigorously... and it worked in NY.
Hey Rudy, how about everyone be forced to take a class on hate speech before they're allowed to exercise their 1st Ammendment rights?
"Gays, what is it about the military? The low pay? The "great" clothes? The chance of being killed? The chance to see the world without the money to enjoy it?"
What a profoundly stupid statement, which could be simply expanded to be asked to anyone thinking of enlisting. I don't presume to speak for gay people (there's no such thing as "the gay community") but for me, the issue is important because it's better for the country to lose this pointless bone of contention and for patriotic gay men and women to be able to serve their country without fear of a retributive court-martial or dishonorable discharge should they fall afoul of someone or other.
I have known several gay (and bisexual) soldiers who served honorably and quietly and who lived in fear that they could be targeted for official nastiness if someone got angry at them for any reason.
The thing people don't seem to understand is that gay and bisexual people already serve, in much greater numbers than you might think, and fairly openly in some cases. Why retain this pointless and punitive restraint on military service?
It's not the most important issue we currently face, and I certainly get annoyed by political people using "me" as a political bludgeon when they don't actually care about the issue, but I haven't seen any compelling evidence that allowing gay people to serve without fear of dishonorable discharge would be harmful to the military. There's a better case to be made for ending this pointlessly discriminatory practice than there is for federalized gay marriage.
The only countries who ban gay people from openly serving in their militaries are:
Brazil
China
Cuba
Egypt
Iran
North Korea
Philippines
Saudi Arabia
Syria
The United States of America
Venezuela
Yemen
Wonderful company we're in...
"Why retain this pointless and punitive restraint on military service?"
Because Congress on both sides of the isle are afraid of the backlash they think will happen if they change the law. Personally, I think it is a stupid rule and will eventually go away. OTOH it's been 14 years and no change so what do I know. This was interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell
Beth: Just a request to my conservative pals here -- next time we're having a wrangle and you're insisting there's nothing homophobic about the GOP position on DADT or the gay marriage issue, try to recall rcocean's comment of 10:05. Thanks.
Whats homophobic about the 10:05 position? Not obvious to me, please be specific.
10:05 comment: Gays, what is it about the military? The low pay? The "great" clothes? The chance of being killed? The chance to see the world without the money to enjoy it?
Gays have served honorably in the military since it was founded. I think the push has little to do with gays that want to serve their country - its more about activists wanting to score political points, to legitimize homosexuality in society.
I'm for gays serving openly in the military, so long as they are seperated from the other males in the same way those males are seperated from the females [berthing spaces, showers & bathrooms, etc]
palladian: but I haven't seen any compelling evidence that allowing gay people to serve without fear of dishonorable discharge would be harmful to the military
The main problem is "Esprit de corps" - cohesion of a unit. I don't know if you've ever served in a combat unit, but it really IS like a pack of wolves bonded to each other in brotherhood.
This touches on another deeper point - homosexuality can be seen as perverting the normal non-sexual love that men can have with each other. As a parallel, imagine if father/daughter sex was permitted in society - what damage would it do to the father/daughter relationship, even amoung families that didn't engage in incest. Sorry, I know that must seem offensive to you, but I can't think of another way to get the point across to you...
Also, when females were mixed into combat units, studies showed that the males stopped responding to each other as brothers and instead started competing against each other for the female's attention. I think a similar problem would exist with gays - unit cohesion would suffer, and when it does, the unit is less effective and more troops die.
Another problem is [unfortunately] the biases of this society. Young enlisted males simply will not respect any superior officer or NCO that they know places himself in a subordinate sexual position with another man, regardless of how illogical that sounds.
Beth: That comment jumped out for me, too.
Palladian: "...which could be simply expanded to be asked to anyone thinking of enlisting...
That's where I was going to go, but since you already did, I don't need to.
Randy:
I agree with you about the politics of getting a line item veto through Congress. It's even unlikelier that two-thirds of the state legislatures would seek a special convention for the purpose of passing an amendment to the Constitution enacting the line item veto.
But I think that Giuliani deliberately ignores the underlying issue when he talks about the constitutionality of the line item veto. We all know that it's currently unconstitutional. But what does he think of the idea?
So far as I know, Chester Alan Arthur was the first US President to advocate the line item veto. Most, if not all, of his successors have been in agreement, I think. Because only the President and Vice President are elected by the country at large, it makes sense that this power be conferred on the chief executive. It's a potential antidote to the pork barrel spending that so easily makes it through the federal budget process.
Andrew Jackson was the first President to make energetic use of the veto, seeing it as a means by which the President, speaking on behalf of the entire country, could negate the power of special and sectional interests. It has long seemed to me that, though the Constitution is admirable in many ways, that allowing such groups to get compliant members of Congress to fold unnecessary spending into necessary appropriations is a major design flaw. In other legislative areas, special interests are prevented from cherry-picking their way to success by the presidential veto. Pork barrel spending is the result of interest groups cherry picking, influencing suscpetible members of Congress to back them in exchange for campaign contribitions. Without the line item veto, the President is unable to stop earmarks should he or she be of a mind to do so.
Giuliani could go beyond his dodge-the-bullet tutorial and say what he actually thinks of the merits of a line item veto.
Mark
Fen:
How 'bout this, then: Gays can serve openly in the military, but it's strictly don't-ask-don't-tell as to who's a bottom and who's a top?
pffff.
Mark: As you say, almost everyone since Arthur thought it a fine idea but it has gone nowhere in almost 150 years and unlikely to in the next 150 years so what point is served by injecting it into a campaign? So they can all pretend that they would exercise it if it were consitutional? Absolutely nothing useful comes of the discussion. Romney can pretend it matters til the cows come home but that isn't going to make it matter. Giuliani can say "What a fine idea!" and judging by your comment perhaps he should. That won't change the facts. That won't get it through congress if the the republic survives in its current form for another thousand years. So talking about it is an exercise in futility. Or more appropriately, an exercise in pandering to those who don't know enough to know it will never happen. It is a completely academic debate rather like asking Giuliani or anyone else to opine about what they would do differently if the national debt did not exist. While I have always enjoyed visiting Disneyland, Fantasyland does not appeal to me as a subject of a political debate.
countries that ban gays in the military... Brazil
And here I thought Glenn Greenwald was a political refugee. ;-) You know, one with a conscience.
KTCat: Anderson COoper is Gloria Vanderbilt' son. Yes, really.
Amba - I didn't know that. Probably explains why he got promoted after violating the basic principles of good journalism and broadcasting all the lies and misinformation about events after Katrina (the widespread murders and rapes that didn't happen, the freezer full of stacked corpses of murder victims in the Superdome, etc. etc.)
Giuliani says, let's not hate all muslims, and then attacks Dems for not using the phrase "islamic terror" at their debate. Does that really make sense?
Yes, laser, it does.
"its more about activists wanting to score political points, to legitimize homosexuality in society."
That's a problem why exactly? Eh, it's a battle that's already been won.
"I'm for gays serving openly in the military, so long as they are seperated from the other males in the same way those males are seperated from the females [berthing spaces, showers & bathrooms, etc]"
Did you know I use the bathroom with straight men? I mean, all. the. time.! Why, somewhere, sometime, I might use the same bathroom at the same time as you dear Fen! I've been in public, communal showers as well, and every guy looked at every other guy's package at least once. And, guess what? No one cried! No one freaked out! And I didn't get a boner! The problem is not with gay people, but with perverts, a class including, but not limited to, gay people.
Men are fascinated by sex. And the boundaries between the mostly fictive appellations "straight" and "gay" sometimes get a lot blurrier than some men are willing to admit.
I have full confidence that our soldiers can take the strain of showering with potential poofters without breaking down and crying like little girls.
"Gays, what is it about the military? The low pay? The "great" clothes? The chance of being killed? The chance to see the world without the money to enjoy it?"
My daughter just had to read a book about the Navaho code talkers in WW2. It was apparently all about how, beyond all reason and rationality, this oppressed minority chose to fight and die for a country that despised them.
It reminded me of a tribute I'd seen on television about those Marines, and all the pols got up and said nice speeches about the Navahos. And then the top enlisted Marine got up and said *almost* the same words except that he wasn't talking about Navahos at all, he was talking about Marines.
Heh, I was talking to a retired Marine just the other day and he mentioned Clinton's extreme downsizing of the military and he expressed it in personal terms, "Go away. We don't need you. We don't like you."
Turn that around and you'll see why many women, gays, and even Navahos, beyond all reason and rationality want the pride of place and the *right* to bleed.
(At least in the abstract. No one actually wants to bleed, they just want the right to.)
of course it's true that we were attacked by Islamic terrorists, but why use the phrase if it's offensive to muslims around the world? Why don't we just say terrorists?
In Rudy's well-chosen words -- it offends the people we want to offend! If we don't engage in "group blame" and blame all Muslims, the others won't be offended.
Palladian,
To demonstrate your point, some journalism foundation did an eye-track study of how people look at newspapers and news websites. They had an image of a baseball player batting. Women looked at the player's face and shoulders. Men looked at his face, shoulders and crotch.
Beth - I'm not sure I follow your point. I wasn't aware that anyone denied that there are people who oppose gay marriage and DADT (or allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military) because of homophobia.
I don't like the idea of tarring someone with such a broad brush because of what one or two people say here. If I followed that logic, I'd be tarring all the Democrats and liberals here as supporters of suppressing free speech and desirous of imposing systemic thought control because I know a few misguided souls who think the University of Delaware had a fine idea when it sought to impose ideological rigidity upon its students and forced those who rebelled at the notion to undergo "re-education." Just because I know another liberal who said America was horrible, blood-thirsty, and no better than the terrorists becasue she believed CNN's lie about the United States bombing Afghanistan within hours of the collapse of the WTC towers on 9/11/2001 (when the death toll was still presumed to likely be in the tens of thousands), I don't automatically assign those beliefs to other liberals.
Heh, I was talking to a retired Marine just the other day and he mentioned Clinton's extreme downsizing of the military and he expressed it in personal terms, "Go away. We don't need you. We don't like you."
Oh really? I was under the impression that the downsizing of the military began in the Bush41 administration. In fact, I believe that if you review the record prior to 9/11/2001, you may find Donald Rumsfeld discussing his original plans for a comprehensive reorganization of the military that included further downsizing.
Randy: Indeed.
But let's not all get bogged down in wonky-ass historical details, by all means!
Anyone else find it interesting that the crew at National Review are in a funk over how well Huckabee has been doing? Here's the candidate who agrees with about 90% of their positions, and about 99.99% of those they profess to being the most important, and they are having conniption fits because he is mucking everything up. That's because half of them decided for Romney or Giuliani months and months ago. How inconvenient for them that their desire for political power at any cost be so publicly exposed.
And the concept didn't just spring out of f'n nowhere back in Bush 41's era, either, for that matter.
Oh, really, yes, I had a conversation with a retired Marine who said what I said he said.
I served during this downsizing and people were being paid significant sums, not to reenlist but to leave. I didn't perceive any great hostility toward the military but it sure as anything sucked to be there. People would rotate out, no one would rotate in, your work load stayed pretty much the same no matter what, the first stuff to go was actual military training and contingencies because we simply didn't have the flexibility or time.
But I mean, seriously, were you doubting that I talked to someone who saw the downsizing under Clinton as a personal insult?
For my part, Synova: Nope. Not at all.
That doesn't change the larger facts--record--on the ground.
I mean, in terms of the trend, philosophy, intent and so forth--however you'd prefer to word it.
Clinton is wonderful, Clinton is fabulous. He didn't come up with the idea that we could drastically cut our military to shreds therefore the fact that he actually did it means absolutely nothing. Not his fault.
Not his fault, wasn't his idea, not his fault that people who would have been experienced NCO's today were given a fat check and pointed at the door, not his fault, wasn't his idea that we shouldn't buy new equipment and have it on hand. Not his fault, wasn't his idea that he went and did what other people did or that no one particularly opposed it at the time.
What the eff ever.
The fact is that he DID do the downsizing. He did reduce our forces during his administration. It *did* turn out to have been a really bad idea.
If someone else had been president they may well have done exactly the same thing. If we hadn't been attacked on 9-11 the present administration may have continued because no one can see the future.
Or shall we not talk about *facts* but about what might have been and who started it and why it's wrong to point out that Bill did what he did.
Sorry,
But assuming I'm an idiot and can't tell the difference between opinion and not, particularly when I *thought* I was making a point about why gays, or any minority or excluded group want to be in the military, which is also subjective, is annoying in the extreme.
Im pretty sure reader will join me in saying we don't care if someone wants to criticize Bill Clinton. we have ourselves. There's a lot to criticize. and neither of us is questioning what your friend the marine said. I've heard virtually the same thing from retired military I know. But your post made it sound like it was an invention of that administration. It wasn't. I'm sorry we intruded on your pleasant little narrative, but we've seen it many times before. It has taken on a life of is own. Rather like those who run around the internet blaming Clinton and Reno for Ruby Ridge. Of course, you know that was Bush41 and Barr.
I see. So his opinion, and yours (which read like an attempt to pass it all as fact to at least two of us here) has value and should not be questioned. But ours does not. Makes sense to me, in a "four legs good, two legs better" kind of way.
I'm not assuming you're an idiot. In fact, I assume quite the opposite, with regard to you, Synova.
I think, and thought, that Bill Clinton is neither angel nor demon. I have, and never had, any personal loyalty toward him, ever.
I do, and have, however, read QDR's regularly, and am familiar with relevant acts and precedent discussions going back quite aways.
I'm sorry I upset you. That was not my intent. I responded to your question about your discussion not out of rancor, but rather to acknowledge the pain in real time AND yet at the same time, point to the reality that the issue, the debate, extends over a longer period of time. And the reality that military planning doesn't just "start over," like a stop-clock, when someone new steps into the Oval Office.
Surely you know what I mean?
Is it insulting to assume that you do? If so, please--and I mean this sincerely--tell me why?
IR: We're cross-posting.
"How inconvenient for them that their desire for political power at any cost be so publicly exposed."
Think there is any possibility that it could be they don't think Huckabee has a chance in winning and they prefer 1/2 a loaf to none? You think they would be more pure if they contributed to a democratic win where very few of their positions would be supported? You think that is a desire for political power at any cost?
On the other hand, I did write this:
Randy: Indeed.
But let's not all get bogged down in wonky-ass historical details, by all means!
And also:
And the concept didn't just spring out of f'n nowhere back in Bush 41's era, either, for that matter.
So I can see why you're upset. FWIW, I was responding to Randy's frustration (and with sarcasm, because I get the frustration, and share it in terms of the larger, and longer, narrative, and how that tends to be truncated), and at the time of those comments wasn't paying so much attention to the other elements of what came before in comments.
I can fully understand what ticked you off, and what upset you, Synova, about the thread as it unfolded.
I also think it's worth at least looking at the points that I, and IR, were making.
Yes, Jeff, I do. I agree they think he is unelectable. Their snide remarks about Huckabee are interesting. It seems to me that they desperately want him to go away so that they can soothe their consciences by saying to themselves, "We didn't have a choice." Instead of quietly disappearing like Vilsack, however, Huckabee is looming larger on the stage.
And, no, Jeff, I don't think they will be more pure if they acted differently, but they have a track record of pretensions of personal commitment to ideological purity and attempting to enforce a rigid conformity among other GOP hopefuls running for lesser office. "We're better off without Lincoln Chaffee" springs immediately to mind. But are they? As it turned out, he was the difference between a GOP Senate and a Democrat-led one.
Hi Randy, I'm not making a deep point. Every once in awhile someone here will try to persuade me that gay people really ought to vote GOP, that it's a big tent, yada yada, and rcocean's incredibly lame--and admittedly funny--comments struck me as a great example for why I'll never fall for that.
Gays can serve openly in the military, but it's strictly don't-ask-don't-tell as to who's a bottom and who's a top?
Yes! Thanks, reader, for having a sense of humor. You're the Tower of Pisa. And the Mona Lisa.
Reader: I realized that after it was too late. And I was harsher in response than you, so I apologize for dragging your name into my replies. I've heard similar stories often enough around here, primarily because of the many base closings in the area and the large retired military population. It borders on being an urban legend of doubtful provenance.
Point taken, Beth. I see you found just the right reply to Reader's gem. I was tempted to ask "Which do you think is suppposedly more threatening, being a bottom or a top?" *LOL*
Non-sequitur. How far in did you go, exactly?
"[Giuliani] did nothing to prevent [9/11]."
Governor Poindexter didn't stop Pearl Habor, either. Impeach!
"Seems like the more we kill the more mad it makes them."
Not killing them makes them worse than mad: it inspires them. The "Strong Horse Doctrine" is part of Al Qaeda's strategic plan. Attack the terrorists and you attack their plan.
"Giuliani says, let's not hate all muslims, and then attacks Dems for not using the phrase 'islamic terror' at their debate. Does that really make sense?"
Absolutely. Part of being the "Strong Horse" is calling out our enemies by name. Muslims who complain that we're racists when we discuss Islamic terrorism are pissing on the graves of dead Americans and we should call them on it, not apologize. Only a Weak Horse apologizes when in the right.
"Why use the phrase if it's offensive to muslims around the world?"
Because Muslims only really respect people who stand up for themselves. (Strong Horse Doctrine)
"Would you call me unreasonable if I was offended by the phrase 'Jewish moneylenders' (I am Jewish, btw)"
When suicide brokers start blowing up buildings we'll call it like we see it.
"... would it be ok to talk about people who bomb abortion clinics as 'Christian terrorists'?"
IFF it's true.
"... torture is immoral, and it shouldn't be done by anyone to anyone."
Finally an honest opinion. I agree with you, but I also don't consider waterboarding to be "torture" in the sense that, say, electric shocks to the genitals are torture, or for that matter tying someone to a chair and beating them with a sock full of nickels. Waterboarding inflicts no physical harm. A little perspective is in order.
"How can anyone think that that would be inflicted by Americans?"
Generally with water and a board.
and every guy looked at every other guy's package at least once.
I never do this, and I hate when guys do this. Just like I hate dudes moaning in ecstasy as they take a dump. I hate public bathrooms. Piss and go.
Anyone else find it interesting that the crew at National Review are in a funk over how well Huckabee has been doing? Here's the candidate who agrees with about 90% of their positions, and about 99.99% of those they profess to being the most important, and they are having conniption fits because he is mucking everything up. That's because half of them decided for Romney or Giuliani months and months ago.
Ronin, I think you're entirely wrong on that.
First of all, I don't see your basis for claiming that National Review has decided for Romney or Giuliani. They have a lot of problems with both candidates. So far as I can tell they're pretty well split up among the contenders, and a lot of them don't really like ANY of the candidates.
Secondly... "agrees with 90% of their issues"? He certainly agrees with the social conservative issues, but he's an even worse big-government type than Bush. Jonah Goldberg had this to say in his head-to-head with Peter Beinart:
"My problem with Huckabee boils down to the fact that he's basically the champion of Compassionate Conservatism 2.0. Whereas Bush's compassionate conservatism [wasn't entirely meant], I think in Huckabee's case he really means it. What he represents [...] is this slide towards right-wing progressivism in the conservative movement that you've heard me lament many times. He believes that the government in Washington is there to be used to do any and all good things whenever he can".
That, Ronin, is why a lot of true conservatives really don't like Huckabee. It isn't that he's a conservative they agree with who they oppose because he's unelectable -- they oppose him because he isn't a conservative on much of anything but social issues. He's strongly anti-federalist, anti-limited-government, you name it.
That would be browncoats, dave™©. I'm glad to see that you have somehow found a way to access the Net from your barrack in the Amerikkkan Gulag. Can't stop the signal!
cnn should have its cable channel spots revoked. could anything be more embarrassingly lame?
Hi Randy, I'm not making a deep point. Every once in awhile someone here will try to persuade me that gay people really ought to vote GOP, that it's a big tent, yada yada, and rcocean's incredibly lame--and admittedly funny--comments struck me as a great example for why I'll never fall for that.
Beth, I think you're being really unfair. It isn't hard to dig out quotes from left-wingers that condemn America as inherently evil, or hope for the defeat of our troops, or what have you. Would you consider it fair for me to hold those up and say "see? this is why no patriotic American who cares about this nation can vote for a Democrat"?
Sure, there's a Republican homophobes. There are plenty of Democratic ones, too! I'll admit that there are more in the Republican tent than in the Democratic one, but a flat-out refusal of people who care about gay rights to work within the party only makes that worse. After all, if you absolutely refuse to deal with Republicans, why should they care what you think?
Ronin, here's a link to that Beinart/Goldberg discussion I mentioned. It does a better job of explaining what's wrong with Huckabee than I did.
KT Cat said...
McCain is kicking Mitt's plastic, pandering butt. Mitt doesn't have much of a response to a previous POW.
I don't agree that simply being captured by the enemy and held as POW gives someone the highest moral ground - through the cult of glorification of victimization.
We know that McCain was beaten and he talked. He said he did in his book, and some of what he gave up was useful classified info, others lies he hoped his interrogators would swallow. We also know that McCain was forced to take back his angry High Moral Ground charge that coercive interrogations of Al Qaeda terrorists Never Work because he himself earlier said they do. Now he is on a tack that terrorists have full Geneva protections, even as unlawful combatants and even if we could save thousands of American lives by putting a Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in discomfort - we shouldn't - because it would be unAmerican.
McCsin is Stockholm Syndrome'd out and the only reason people swallow his incoherent logic is that he says it loudly and angrily, and he has the modern military Victimhood Medal of Honor - falling into enemy hands and suffering.
The side McCain wants to unilaterally give full Geneva protections to and a bunch of NYC ACLU lawyers does not reciprocate with it's enemy prisoners. They are only taken to be mutilated and slowly be put to death.
************************
Lot of talk about the line item veto.
Many people point out that though the Constitution apparantly set up out modern fiscal meltdown in Congress, it's spending the Social Security money away because they figured out how to make near-veto proof bills by bundling pork and new spending with essential government services - Nothing can be done because the Sacred Parchment says so and the Amending Process has been broken and is in gridlock limbo.
I disagree.
If we continue seeing America collapsing, and needed repairs to the Constitution cannot be done...we will eventually reach a major crisis that requires substantial revision and correction to the Constitution including adding the line item veto.
Rudy is wrong in his deference to the Sacred Parchment in "nothing
can be done about it because the Constitution and the Big Lawyers dressed in robes say so!"
They said that with Dred Scott, they said it with Plessy, they said it with abortion. The 1st two bad decisions were corrected, the 3rd bad decision is slowly getting to the point where it will be given for The People and their Representatives to decide.
Rudy doesn't understand that his arguing that you can't advocate a line item veto because it disses the Sacred Parchment and all-wise lawyers is the same argument as others give that no one has the right to disagree with Roe and seek it's change.
could someone get cheney to have trademark dave rendered, waterboarded, and clapped in Gitmo so the whiner can have something tangible to whine about? What a dork
It's HD House--returning like a case of genital warts. Thought you were leaving us HD--so how come you are back? no strength of conviction? just missed regaling us trogs/brownshirts with your wit and wisdom? inquiring minds want to know. Anyway, welcome back. you're a hell of a lot more fun than LOS and his pathetic sockpuppet Christopher.
***
***
Good Lord, for whom do Anderson Cooper and CNN think these debates are for, notwithstanding the jointedness with YouTube?
So here I am, in the wee hours of the morning, catching parts of the debate originally held early this evening. (Other obligations, work and otherwise, means--as it turns out--that I didn't get to watch this one as a holistic, well, whole.) And all of a sudden, I see and hear Anderson Cooper ask a question--a breaking one, so to speak--with a casual, passing reference to "Polico" reporting. As if, to the general public--even the cable-TV-watching public, even the CNN-watching public--that's an attribution that needs no explanation.
Yeah, OK.
"Yeah"?
"OK" with everyone?
(Note: This isn't about CNN, per se, or Cooper. It is, however--in this season of analyzing all the metas & etc. of the candidates--about whether it's worth looking at and considering of what used to be considered some other fundamentals of election seasons, as well.
FWIW.)
Shorter: Is it helpful to the body politic, and to our democracy, for moderators to choose "hip" over "clarity"?
This ought to be a case in which inclusiveness--using a definition of "inclusive" in which "exclusive" has no part--matters more than "ingroupedness," to coin an ugly, clunky term (and rightly so, damn it!).
Tell me how and why I'm wrong about that. In context.
Please.
I have read all these remarks and I must now go bathe all over again.
This ignoring televised debates for better things but then reading them blogged is really the way to go, I recommend it. Well, except for the extra bathing.
Having quickly scanning the comments, I'll paraphrase my favorite exchange. My apologies to all involved:
Synova: Let me relate the personal opinion of someone I know.
Internet Ronin: I think the facts are at odds with that opinion.
reader_iam: I agree with Internet Ronin.
Synova: Why am I accused of lying?
reader_iam: Not by me.
Synova: Oh, I see. Just a bunch of Cliton suckups.
Internet Ronin: Huh?
reader_iam: No.
reader_iam: Perhaps we phrased our responses a bit confrontationally, but we're still right.
Internet Ronin: yeah.
"laser-
Yes, if a bit imprecise. I prefer anti-abortion terrorist."
I agree. There are plenty of other examples.
"Environmental terrorists" refers to those who do things like spike trees and attack developers. It does not say that all environmentalists are terrorists.
"Leftist terrorists" refers to those who blow crap up hoping for their violent revolution to overthrow whatever it is they are wanting to overthrow now. It does not say that all leftists are terrorists.
While I agree with the above that those who shoot abortion doctors are better described as anti-abortion terrorists I also would not sweat it if someone called them Christian Fundementalist Terrorists. Actually, that one that did bombings and then hid in the mountains in NC I believe was called that. And I think that Tim McVeigh would be a primo example of a Christian Fundementalist Terrorist. And identifying them in no way suggests that Christian Fundementalists are, by and large, all terrorists.
"Why use the phrase if it's offensive to muslims around the world?"
Honestly, I could care less if muslims around the world are offended by us accurately labeling the psychos in their midst.
After all, they don't seem to lose too much sleep about the phrases bandied about within their countries about The Great Satan, about Christians, about Jews, etc.
Some might argue that we should behave one way without demanding reciprocity, because it is the right thing to do. In some cases, that is probably correct. I do not think it works as a general rule of thumb, however.
Besides, the problem is not us. Do you think it is just random that we do not run into problems worrying about how Buddhists worldwide would react to us calling some of them Buddhist Terrorists? I don't-- I think it is because there is not a problem with Buddhist Terrorists.
"It was really bad, however, when he allowed the retired general in the audience to hold the mike and lecture us on gays in the military."
It was also really bad of CNN to let someone from the HRC and Kerry campaigns ask the Repub candidates a question. I'm sure Fox would have allowed somone from Giuliani's campaign ask the Dems a question. Guess that's why they were afraid to have a debate on Fox.
Tim McVeigh might be a primo example of a christian terrorist were he a Christian fundamentalist. There is not much evidence that he was.
As to candidates being asked questions by democratic activists--seems to me its better preparation for them than the dem candidates are getting in their sterile republican-free, FNC-free environment.
I'll paraphrase my favorite exchange.
bill, that's an excellent summary.
I missed the debate -- like all the others. This time I was getting ready to teach a class. Thanks for the different interpretations all.
Thanks Madisonman.
I screwed up this line: Synova: Oh, I see. Just a bunch of Cliton suckups.
It would read better as: Synova: Oh, I see. Just a bunch of suckups for the person I dislike.
Keeps it more template-y.
Fen: "...its more about activists wanting to score political points, to legitimize homosexuality in society."
Palladian: That's a problem why exactly?
I need to explain why using the military as a social experiment is a problem?
I think thats rcocean's point [and Beth has yet to specify the "homophobia" in his comment]: if you want to serve your country, then serve. You can do so without parading your sexual orientation on your sleeve.
"I'm for gays serving openly in the military, so long as they are seperated from the other males in the same way those males are seperated from the females [berthing spaces, showers & bathrooms, etc]"
Palladian: Did you know I use the bathroom with straight men? I mean, all. the. time.! Why, somewhere, sometime, I might use the same bathroom at the same time as you dear Fen!
Non-sequitor. You do so voluntarily. You are not forced to share living space with those sexually attracted to you. Again, if our culture had evolved to a point where men and women shared beds, showers and bathrooms without any difficulty, integrating open homosexuals would not be a problem. We're just not there yet.
I have full confidence that our soldiers can take the strain of showering with potential poofters without breaking down and crying like little girls.
I never said they would. I wish you [and Beth] could address my 10:54PM comment in good faith, rather than with snark. Here it is again:
Palladian: but I haven't seen any compelling evidence that allowing gay people to serve without fear of dishonorable discharge would be harmful to the military
The main problem is "Esprit de corps" - cohesion of a unit. I don't know if you've ever served in a combat unit, but it really IS like a pack of wolves bonded to each other in brotherhood.
This touches on another deeper point - homosexuality can be seen as perverting the normal non-sexual love that men can have with each other. As a parallel, imagine if father/daughter sex was permitted in society - what damage would it do to the father/daughter relationship, even amoung families that didn't engage in incest. Sorry, I know that must seem offensive to you, but I can't think of another way to get the point across to you...
Also, when females were mixed into combat units, studies showed that the males stopped responding to each other as brothers and instead started competing against each other for the female's attention. I think a similar problem would exist with gays - unit cohesion would suffer, and when it does, the unit is less effective and more troops die.
Another problem is [unfortunately] the biases of this society. Young enlisted males simply will not respect any superior officer or NCO that they know places himself in a subordinate sexual position with another man, regardless of how illogical that sounds.
Synova: People would rotate out, no one would rotate in, your work load stayed pretty much the same no matter what, the first stuff to go was actual military training and contingencies because we simply didn't have the flexibility or time.
I saw the same thing. I did SORTs data, and several line companies went down to C4 in training because there wasn't enough ammo supplied to do LAV gunnery training. At best, we were restricted to one live fire per year, approx 40 rounds per main gun [25mm]. Thats simply not enough for a gunner to become proficient.
We had the same problem with parts at Lejeune. Instead of going out to the field to manuever and train, we were restricted to PMCS on the ramp in a futile effort to keep the LAVs up and running.
Mark Daniels said...
"But I think that Giuliani deliberately ignores the underlying issue when he talks about the constitutionality of the line item veto. We all know that it's currently unconstitutional. But what does he think of the idea?"
Mark, with all due respect, what does his opinion of it matter if he can't have one? The Constitution doesn't permit it, and an amendment changing that isn't going to pass. What does he think of whether the President should have the power to fly, or raise the dead?
Bill: LOL! Thanks. That works for me. Others' MMV, though.
After all, if you absolutely refuse to deal with Republicans, why should they care what you think?
Revenant, I think your overall point is fair about generalizing, but the upshot, in my experience, is that the GOP has had years and years to cope with its homophobic base, and right down the line, it caves to it instead. The Log Cabin Repubs have had no effect whatsoever on the GOP platform; every single piece of policy or legislation that might positively affect the lives of gay Americans is rejected or at least hindered by the GOP; over and over, GOP candidates who might personally be very moderate or even liberal in their beliefs have to publicly swing to the right (Giuliani and Romney, for example) to get elected to national office -- it just doesn't end. The hardcore conservative base of the GOP is irrationally obsessed with seeing gay people as a threat, or a joke.
I sometimes vote Republican in local elections, where politics is more about getting trash picked up and streets fixed than working some homophobic nutcase's agenda. But I find that from state legislator on up, the anti-gay line is de riguer for any GOP candidate in the race, so pfffft. There's no point engaging them, because it isn't about reason and logic. It's about winning office, and to do that, they have to play to the wings.
Oh, now, Bill--you're just going all "simplifyin' on me because I questioned the lack of beans and the potential dearth of spice in your current chili cookoff recipe.
But, yeah, that's pretty much it. Ditto IR's LOL.
P.S. Bacon ice cream?
Beth: The hardcore conservative base of the GOP is irrationally obsessed with seeing gay people as a threat, or a joke
Thats simply not true. On this very blog, gays have patiently & politely argued with me about their issues. And I listened.
The result being that they have shifted me from voting "no" on gay marriage to, at the very worst, abstaining.
Also, you use the words "irrationally obsessed", but my experience is that gay activists [see my 8:37 AM post above] automatically assume malicious intent without trying to understand valid points made by their opponents.
Likewise, illegal immigrant activists counter every argument with "you're just a racist". Where do you think they picked that up? [yes, still waiting for your explanation re how rcocean's comment is "homophobic"]
Fen, I don't know what you're waiting on. I didn't call rcocean's comment homophobic, I called it lame, and funny. I really can't tell if he (or she) is sincerely asking why the GOP should care about gays, and why gays should want to be in the military what with the ugly clothes and all, or whether it's an incredibly clever joke. I said the GOP caters to its homophobic base. Don't confuse the two comments.
It's wonderful to hear that you've shifted some of your views on gay marriage. I guess you're not part of the irrationally obsessed wing. But as long as you vote for candidates that shape their pitch to those obsessives, you're rewarding the GOP for its homophobic pandering.
Beth:I didn't call rcocean's comment homophobic
Huh?
Beth [10:24PM]: "...next time we're having a wrangle and you're insisting there's nothing homophobic about the GOP position on DADT or the gay marriage issue, try to recall rcocean's comment..."
Beth: I really can't tell if he (or she) is sincerely asking why the GOP should care about gays, and why gays should want to be in the military what with the ugly clothes and all, or whether it's an incredibly clever joke.
I think he's being sarcastic, while complaining that if you want to serve, then serve - don't turn your enlistment into a political statement by parading your sexuality on your sleeve. Thats not a good reason to join up.
Revenant, I think your overall point is fair about generalizing, but the upshot, in my experience, is that the GOP has had years and years to cope with its homophobic base, and right down the line, it caves to it instead.
I think that's very slanted language. Generally speaking, the Republican positions on homosexuality (e.g., gay marriage and gay adoption) are more in-tune with those of the American people than the Democratic positions are. The correct term for that is "democracy", not "pandering". Pandering, to me, is when you do something counter to what most people want in order to gain the support of a minority.
Consider for a moment that the majority of the Republican Party's Christian conservative base wants homosexuality to be illegal. Despite that, the Republican Party isn't demanding that it be made illegal. It isn't demanding an amendment to recriminalize sodomy.
Where gay rights are concerned, the Republican Party's only "pandering" is support for the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy (which I personally find ironic, given that it was cooked up by Democrats). They're with the minority on that one.
One more thing:
GOP candidates who might personally be very moderate or even liberal in their beliefs have to publicly swing to the right (Giuliani and Romney, for example) to get elected to national office
Giuliani has swung "to the right"... and landed in the middle. He hasn't adopted the right-wing position on gay issues, he's adopted an entirely moderate one. He (like the majority) now claims to favor civil unions; he (like the majority) opposes an amendment banning gay marriage; he (again, like the majority) opposes attempts by the courts to legislate gay marriage from the bench. His position, in fact, is indistinguishable from John Kerry and Hillary Clinton's positions in 2004 and 2008.
Where Romney is concerned, I suspect his earlier, more liberal position on gay rights was the act -- not his current stance. He strikes me as genuinely religious, and the LDS position on gay marriage is not what you'd call "liberal".
Beth, perhaps you didn't mean it the way it looks in print.
don't turn your enlistment into a political statement by parading your sexuality on your sleeve
What constitues "parading your sexuality on your sleeve"? Living with a partner off base? Going to a gay bar during your off hours? Answering honestly "went to camping with by boy/girl friend" when asked what you did on your days off? Go to a party with your partner? Do all the things straight people without a second thought?
Beth: What constitues "parading your sexuality on your sleeve"? Living with a partner off base? Going to a gay bar during your off hours? Answering honestly "went to camping with by boy/girl friend" when asked what you did on your days off? Go to a party with your partner?
No. None of those things do.
Parading your sexuality on your sleeve constitutes joining the military with the purpose of forcing their endorsement of your sexual preference. You shouldn't join merely to make a statement or advance a political cause. Thats not what the military is for.
Fen, people get kicked out of the military for doing the things I listed. Or, rather, at least some of those things bring them under scrutiny and then DADT gets them kicked out.
As for joining the military to tout a cause, how do we stop that? People have all sorts of motives for military service. DADT is about how people live their lives after joining. Sexual orientation ought to be a non-factor.
That reminds me Beth, I was wondering who ended up winning that Louisiana legislative seat where the one candidate accidentally signed off a telephone call with an important black supporter with some incredibly lame (and if IIRC, racist) remark. I can't recall enough of it to call it up myself. Just curious what happened in the end.
"Anyone else find it interesting that the crew at National Review are in a funk over how well Huckabee has been doing? Here's the candidate who agrees with about 90% of their positions, and about 99.99% of those they profess to being the most important, and they are having conniption fits because he is mucking everything up."
As someone who finds Jonah funny, I read the Corner and have for a long time. I call BS, and I think it is easy to prove.
The Corner, searched up through 2006, for the name Huckabee. Look for yourself.
First two posts-- "Huckabee vs. America", second "Huckabee, Big Government Republican."
I note a distinct lack of fawning over him. If they agreed with him then, one would have expected some evidence of it. But none.
I suspect this means that what you think conservatives like, who conservatives are, and what conservatism *is*, they don't, they aren't, and isn't.
Randy, that was Carla Dartez, a Democrat running for re-election to the state House (Morgan City, I think)--she lost.
Thanks, Beth. The story came and went so fast I was very hazy on the whole thing.
The comment liveblog was interesting -- the way you'd get different views of the same moment coming in unaware of each other and adding up to a portrait from different angles
-- a Cubist liveblog, or Exquisite Corpse.
So the right wing blogosphere is attacking a former General today, just because he's gay.
But we're not allowed to slam that anti-gay bigoted scumbag known as General Betrayus.
Screw that. I'd spit in Betrayus' face in a second if I saw him.
So the right wing blogosphere is attacking a former General today, just because he's gay.
Gee, DTL, did you get bored celebrating the suicides of young girls already?
I'd spit in Betrayus' face in a second if I saw him.
Oh, come on. You'd shit your pants if you had to confront a member of the armed forces, and everyone here knows it.
I'd spit in Betrayus' face in a second if I saw him.
Oh please try it. Nothing would make my day more than watching Petraeus cripple you for life.
Hell, come to DC and spit in my face. Please.
Post a Comment