Thursday, January 31, 2008

The Regan Library Debate


First of all, CNN runs a debate terribly. The guy who hosted this does not know how to moderate.

First question:
Are we better off then we were 8 years ago?
Not one candidate says yes. What is wrong with these people??? Our economy has done nothing but grow in the past 8 years, and the standard of living has only increased.
Lets have a little truth, rather then some populist pandering to the lower class. That goes for all of them.

This makes no sense...
McCain takes a shot at Romney for being endorsed by the 'very conservative paper, like the Boston Herald', as a way of targeting his conservatism. But then he turns right around and starts bragging about working with democrats.

How did Rush Limbaugh get stuck into here???
Huckabee deftly handled the question, and then started firing his conservative record.
I do remember his 'tax me more fund' a few years back, I thought it was hilarious.

McCain's on global warming eco-nuts side.
Wow... and he's argueing that we're good enough as an economy to recover from burdensome regulations and move on, and even if there is no problem, we'll leave a cleaner atmosphere to our kids. THERE is the conservative McCain we know and love.
I do like we're talking nuclear power though.

Ron Paul on Environment:
Restore property rights. YES!!!
WHAT THE HECK!!! They just chopped Ron Paul off after 32 seconds, for some bloody highway questions.

Highways???
So if the bridge in Michigan had never fallen down, would these guys be acting like blithering idiots discussing 'infrastructure'??

Here's an interesting question: Is the republican party better off then it was 8 years ago?

Got it. Romney will not leave Iraq until we win. I never thought otherwise.

Ron Paul on forign policy.... I don't understand how he can get on stage and say with a straight face that Iraq had nothing to do with Al-queda, and we had no declaration of war. This lying is absolutly ridiculous.

Huckabee could come across as a whinner, but he really is not getting much screen time. CNN is doing a terrible job with this.


Ok. Ronald Regan is not a god, can we please stop talking about a president who was elected 30 years ago???


I really didn't like anyone on there. Romney will take my tenitive support, only because he is the least terrible of the 4.
Mr. Fantastic, there ya go.

12 comments:

Jeana said...

Of course, I don't agree with you on Ron Paul, but you're right about the debate, it really stank. I couldn't stand it after a while, so I left my Dad to shout imprecations at McCain and Romney for acting like braty kids and played Bach to sooth my nerves.

That is one valuable lesson that I've learned during these debates and such--Bach can cure all ills. :)

Kingdom Advancer said...

"Ok. Ronald Regan is not a god..."-_PB

It's funny that you'd say that. When Romney said about McCain's political tactics, "That's the sort of thing I think Ronald Reagan would find reprehensible," I added, as if I were Romney, "...and so would Jesus." Double whammy, McCain! :)

"So if the bridge in Michigan had never fallen down, would these guys be acting like blithering idiots discussing 'infrastructure'??" -PB

You may have some semblance of a point, but I have to call out your logic here. Consider these derivations of that statement:

"So if the terrorists had never attacked on 9/11, would these guys be acting like blithering idiots discussing 'terrorism'?"

OR

"So if Hurricane Katrina had never hit, would these guys be acting like blithering idiots discussing 'crisis response'?"

Being a good leader is all about responding to the issues of the day. You can make the argument that infrastructure is not one of those issues, but I don't think that you can make the case that a bridge collapse shouldn't spur discussion (especially when ensuing reports showed that many other bridges are in rough shape).

Palm boy said...

The reason that the bridge fell down was due to a lack of common sense and tons of construction equipment parked on the bridge for several days. It's an isolated incident, rather then the result of a systematic infrastructure failure.

My thoughts on 'and so would Jesus' ran exactly along the same line as yours.


Jeana, McCain and Romney both deserved imprecations.

Lillgw said...

Was there a bridge that collapsed in Michigan? I was only aware of the I-35 collapse in Minnesota.

Gino said...

there was NO DECLARATION OF WAR.
the lie is in saying there was.

there was authorization for use of force, which every president says is not necessary, but merely a courtesy.

and no evidence that saddam was involved in 9-11. and nobody in the administration ever said he was, but they allowed the perception that he was to continue among the public. see? even you fell for that one.

Palm boy said...

Lil, your right. It was minnesota.

Gino...
Quick Iraq War Timeline:
1990: Iraq invades kuwait, US responds and liberates Kuwait. A 'cease-fire' agreement is reached.
1990-2003: Iraq fires hundreds of times upon US and allied Aircraft.
2003: US returns and finishes the job that was started more then a decade earlier.

As for Terrorists in Iraq, there is ample evidence that it was home to a large terrorist community receiving Iraqi assistance.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp
"The secret training took place primarily at three camps--in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak--and was directed by elite Iraqi military units. Interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and military leaders corroborate the documentary evidence. Many of the fighters were drawn from terrorist groups in northern Africa with close ties to al Qaeda, chief among them Algeria's GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army. Some 2,000 terrorists were trained at these Iraqi camps each year from 1999 to 2002, putting the total number at or above 8,000."

Jeana said...

So why did we use tax payer money to free Kuwait, I wonder? Doesn't seem very Constitutional to me.

SolaMeanie said...

These aren't debates. They're glorified press conferences. You will not hear genuine, in-depth discussion of issues and policy. You will hear only what the media want to discuss. Genuine debates between candidates died shortly after Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas.

I believe our politics will be better served if we can somehow wrest these settings from media control. A university should host the debates, moderated by a professor who teaches debate, under classic debate rules. Ignore the media and keep them behind a rope barrier. Also, refuse them access to the building unless they agree in advance to carry the debate live.

And to those who insist the public doesn't have the attention span for a classic debate, Ritalin could be served at local McDonalds in advance of the event. It's time people started paying attention.

BCBCfriend said...

The political leaders will always be a reflection of the culture that is created by the voters choices, and the voters character. Debate doesn't solve the problems, since the problem is more fundamental than communication methodology. Recognizing that there are other, greater factors that are playing out in this election that have been building momentum for decades is a good start to understanding why there are very few choices in this election, and possibly only one acceptable one for those who love America's ideals. (I'm not speaking about Ron Paul, either).

Kingdom Advancer said...

But, unless my memory fails me, it started being reported after the incident that much of our infrastructure was in subpar shape.

under_the_mercy said...

"1990: Iraq invades kuwait, US responds and liberates Kuwait. A 'cease-fire' agreement is reached.
1990-2003: Iraq fires hundreds of times upon US and allied Aircraft.
2003: US returns and finishes the job that was started more then a decade earlier."

Hmm, I don't see a declaration of war anywhere in that timeline. On a side note, why and where were these allied aircraft when they were fired upon? I personally don't know but I'm willing to bet they were in Iraqi air space.

kingdavid said...

Sorry for the segue:

I live in MN, the current theory is that the bridge collapse was due to a design flaw when it was first built, however many decades ago that was. The debate has naturally been politicized, and whatever the truth is will never be known, and the person who has the truth will never be believed.

Which makes me wonder about that popular hypothetical question we always hear:

If a tree falls in the woods, how long will democrats and republicans blame each other and their policies for that collapse, and why isn't anybody blaming jihadist squirrels who probably destroyed it just for the sheer fun of it.