GOP Nominee

[Montmorency]

One Republican man squinted and said, “Well, I like that. Takes a lot of balls to execute an innocent man.”

I don't know why, but that detail lifted my mood.

[Lemur]

As per usual, Fareed Zakaria is very smart.

The forces [in the Republican party] that are strong today are Christian conservatives, libertarian activists and other more diverse, populist groups. These groups have always existed but before now they were directed by the coastal elites. Not anymore. The tea party represents the dramatic acceleration of these forces. That’s why all the Republican presidential candidates are trying to take up the mantle of the tea party.

These forces are elevating Rick Perry such that we may end up with a situation where all the energy, enthusiasm and numbers are behind him. It would not matter that the Republican establishment was behind Romney because that establishment no longer controls much. What matters is the entrepreneurial game of getting people and money. Perry seems to be doing pretty well at that.

If Rick Perry does emerge as the front-runner, it is not just the story of one guy doing well; it is the story of a very different Republican Party than the one we have been familiar with for the last 30 or 40 years.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The last nomination mitt romney used to show gop voters that he was a conservative, im pleased that he is running as a northeastern moderate this time. I could vote for perry if he was the nominee, but I hope that more or romneys pragmatism rubs off on him. The epic back peddling on social security will help him.Republicans are frustratingly daft when it comes to working policy, that's why we lose elections. We need guys like romney who aren't afraid of supporting new ideas that work alongsid basic constitutional protections. I hope republicans are as wary as I am I of shoot from the gut texans at this point.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'll tell you this, Huntsman is talking up a good tax plan.Every GOP candidate needs to copy this or something very similar.

Plus one. Perfect

[Banquo's Ghost]

I find it quite difficult to understand the mindset of people who call themselves Christian and attend some sort of service where the Gospels are read, yet find themselves cheering that people should die for lack of charity.

Next up, paying off the deficit by charging pay-per-view auto-da-fé?

[Ronin]

I find it quite difficult to understand the mindset of people who call themselves Christian and attend some sort of service where the Gospels are read, yet find themselves cheering that people should die for lack of charity.

Next up, paying off the deficit by charging pay-per-view auto-da-fé?

it works like this because people build their own religion by Cherri-picking the parts they want to hear and mixing in their own prejudices...
then a healthy dose of cognitive dissonance helps stir it all together.....in the end it's about what they want to justify....not about what some dude supposedly said 2000 years ago.

about your next up....George Carlin had a similar idea...his was about jails and executions......it can be adapted...then you put on PPV and balance the budget! :P

warning: some harsh language.... but come on it's Carlin

[Lemur]

A nice win for Huntsman.

Republican presidential hopeful Jon Huntsman will announce the endorsement of former U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Gov. Tom Ridge Friday in an event at St. Anselm College in Goffstown.

Ridge, a former governor of Pennsylvania, plans to attend a press conference with Huntsman at the college’s New Hampshire Institute for Politics.

In a statement by the Huntsman campaign, Ridge said Thursday that Huntsman is “a serious, insightful leader.” [...] Ridge was appointed as the first secretary of Homeland Security by President George W. Bush. During the last presidential campaign he worked to support Sen. John McCain.

[Strike For The South]

Dunno, this is a pretty bloodthirsty primary. I haven't had a chance to watch any of the debates entire, but there was a lot of applause for Perry's history of executions in TX. Can't find raw video, but here's a clip w. commentary:



Given what little I know about the TX judicial system, the notion that all 200+ of those executed people were guilty ... unlikely. At best.

-edit-

Then again, for some GOP primary voters, executing potential innocents may not be a bad thing.

[O]ne of Perry’s Republican rivals in Texas tested the Willingham issue in a focus group. One Republican man squinted and said, “Well, I like that. Takes a lot of balls to execute an innocent man.” At that moment, folks say, Perry’s rival knew opposing him was fruitless.

Heh Texas has had 43 EXONERATIONS since 2002

It's terrible

[a completely inoffensive name]

I liked the part in the Tea Party debate when Wolf Blitzer asked Ron Paul, "Should society let a coma patient without insurance die?" and a handful of people of cheered, "YEAAAAH!" "YES!"

The height of the empire complete with those that would frequent a modern Colosseum if there was one.

[PanzerJaeger]

I find it quite difficult to understand the mindset of people who call themselves Christian and attend some sort of service where the Gospels are read, yet find themselves cheering that people should die for lack of charity.

Next up, paying off the deficit by charging pay-per-view auto-da-fé?

If I were to guess, I would say they were reacting more to the motivations of the questioner than the actual question. Sarah Palin calls them "Gotcha Questions", and while she uses the term far too liberally to get out of talking-point-challenging questions, they do exist. Ron Paul has some pretty intense supporters, and from what I can tell, they've grown very tired of reporters taking his limited government ideology to extremes he has never advocated to make him look bat crazy.

You'd never see Wolf Blitzer ask President Obama in a debate: "If there is a house in Pakistan with 20 women and children in it and one important terrorist plotting against America, would you murder those women and children to kill the terrorist?" It's a question without a good answer, and sure to make the answerer look bad.

That doesn't mean Blitzer had to avoid the very real implications of the question. "If you want to scrap Medicare, Congressman Paul, what would become of all those seniors that cannot afford basic medical care?" He could have then gone on to talk about the importance of personal responsibility, family, charity, and community and voters could have made up their mind whether they agreed with his stance. Instead, Wolf went for sensationalism - "Would you let him die, sir!"

[Ronin]

You'd never see Wolf Blitzer ask President Obama in a debate: "If there is a house in Pakistan with 20 women and children in it and one important terrorist plotting against America, would you murder those women and children to kill the terrorist?" It's a question without a good answer, and sure to make the answerer look bad.

to even pretend that the terrorist scenario is in any way similar or equivalent to "would you let a man in dire need of medical assistance die" is a joke.

in a civilized society there are gray areas that can be debated....the way you wage war is one of them.......to let a person die when it is easily avoidable is not debatable IMO.

this wasn´t a "gotcha question" (that to Palin goes up to "what time is it" I think)...this was a soft-ball.....a question with only one reasonable answer could not be qualified as anything else.

[PanzerJaeger]

this wasn´t a "gotcha question" (that to Palin goes up to "what time is it" I think)...this was a soft-ball.....a question with only one reasonable answer could not be qualified as anything else.

I disagree. The question condensed and distorted libertarian ideology to a ridiculous extreme. It was insulting, especially considering the man has taken the Hippocratic Oath, and characteristic of a press corps that refuses to take him seriously. My point is that it seemed like, to me at least, that the reaction (by all of three people) was more about the implications of the question instead of the question itself. It seemed to be pretty typical 'circle the wagons' behavior. The doctor is there to talk about the size and scope of government, and he gets asked if he would let someone die in a coma...

[a completely inoffensive name]

I disagree. The question condensed and distorted libertarian ideology to a ridiculous extreme. It was insulting, especially considering the man has taken the Hippocratic Oath, and characteristic of a press corps that refuses to take him seriously. My point is that it seemed like, to me at least, that the reaction (by all of three people) was more about the implications of the question instead of the question itself. It seemed to be pretty typical 'circle the wagons' behavior. The doctor is there to talk about the size and scope of government, and he gets asked if he would let someone die in a coma...

You have just completely missed the point and instead immediately took an emotional "outraged" stance. "How could they ask a doctor if he would let someone die!?!"

Fact is, the question is a perfectly fine type of question that is actually needed for all candidates in any position of power. Ron Paul believes strongly in his Libertarian ideology. How far does he want to take it? That is what is being asked here. No distortion. When you go out and tell the public that *this* is the line that you draw for government you need to own up to questions about situations that have that line being crossed.

He states that people should choose to have health insurance or not.

Blitzer then wants to take that libertarian ideology into real life by bringing up the example of the healthy 30 year old man who runs into some bad luck and ends up in a coma.

Ron Paul in case you didn't notice actually dodges the question by not tacking the situation at hand and doesn't go on to say, "ok well here is how I would like the situation to play out to the benefit of the man in the coma without massive government intervention". No, instead he makes a blanket campaign slogan about how "freedom is about taking risks".

At this point Blitzer has no other way to get Dr. Paul to apply his libertarian ideals in a situation that is all too common in American society (health care treatment without insurance), except in the most blunt way possible. "What happens to him? Do we let him die?"

Paul says no but get shouted over by the Tea Party libertarians who apparently believe that as Americans we all have the right to die when we make a personal financial mistake.


That imo was the best question of the night, because it gets down to what Ron Paul is about better than any other policy question. Do you have the balls to take your ideology to its logical conclusion in real life applications. These are the types of questions that all politicians of all political spectrum should be asked. Anything less than this, is a softball question. Americans have no clue what the **** a tough question is and instead any question that makes who they like look bad is labeled a gotcha question. It's ridiculous.

[PanzerJaeger]

You have just completely missed the point and instead immediately took an emotional "outraged" stance. "How could they ask a doctor if he would let someone die!?!"

Your exclamation points, not mine.

At this point Blitzer has no other way to get Dr. Paul to apply his libertarian ideals in a situation that is all too common in American society (health care treatment without insurance), except in the most blunt way possible. "What happens to him? Do we let him die?"

Paul says no but get shouted over by the Tea Party libertarians who apparently believe that as Americans we all have the right to die when we make a personal financial mistake.

That imo was the best question of the night, because it gets down to what Ron Paul is about better than any other policy question. Do you have the balls to take your ideology to its logical conclusion in real life applications.

But that isn't the logical conclusion of Paul's ideology, which Blitzer would have known if he had spent five minutes on research. Paul is actually not all that libertarian when it comes to health care. In his hypothetical administration, health care would be so heavily subsidized that not having it would have to be a conscious choice, not an economic hardship.

These are the types of questions that all politicians of all political spectrum should be asked. Anything less than this, is a softball question. Americans have no clue what the **** a tough question is and instead any question that makes who they like look bad is labeled a gotcha question. It's ridiculous.

Ignoring the implicit distortion, the question crossed over from the intellectual to the emotional and substituted policy discussion for sensationalism. It is exactly the kind of immature, dumbed down question that has no place in a 'debate' where candidates are given less than 10 minutes total split into 1-2 minute responses to explain their policy proposals to the voters. It's a much darker version of "Coke or Pepsi", and reflects the unfortunate reality that in today's America a "tough question" equates to gross oversimplification of very complex positions.

I would have much preferred to hear Paul explain how his tax credits for health insurance premiums proposal is substantively different than any other government subsidized healthcare scheme. That probably would have taken more than two minutes to explain and doesn't involve the candidate literally pulling the plug on a coma victim, so I guess it's not hardcore enough.

This is what tough questions used to look like.

[a completely inoffensive name]

But that isn't the logical conclusion of Paul's ideology, which Blitzer would have known if he had spent five minutes on research.

That Paul's job to let the public know and it is Blitzer's job to ask him if it is.

Ignoring the implicit distortion, the question crossed over from the intellectual to the emotional and substituted policy discussion for sensationalism. It is exactly the kind of immature, dumbed down question that has no place in a 'debate' where candidates are given less than 10 minutes total split into 1-2 minute responses to explain their policy proposals to the voters. It's a much darker version of "Coke or Pepsi", and reflects the unfortunate reality that in today's America a "tough question" equates to gross oversimplification of very complex positions.

These are just words. "ignoring the implicit distortion", no you need to bring up what the distortion was, instead of passing it off as "fact" and then finishing with your opinion once again. What you have said makes no sense either. Darker version of coke or pepsi? Do you even understand why coke vs pepsi is a joke question? It's because there is no underlying importance about it. The question Blitzer is asking is a fundamental philosophical question that america needs to answer.

If you want more time for your candidates, maybe you shouldn't have 8 of them up there with only an hour and 45 min to talk.

I would have much preferred to hear Paul explain how his tax credits for health insurance premiums proposal is substantively different than any other government subsidized healthcare scheme. That probably would have taken more than two minutes to explain and doesn't involve the candidate literally pulling the plug on a coma victim, so I guess it's not hardcore enough.

It doesn't matter what you wanted to hear him talk about. The point was to ask him, "if the government doesn't provide for the uninsured, what happens to patients?" That is a legit question to ask given his libertarian ideology and because he dodged the question the first time around, Blitzer had to be blunt about it the second time.

This is what tough questions used to look like.

From the video @4:25:
"Do you believe that killing millions of civilians was a mistake?"

You just proved my point.

[PanzerJaeger]

That Paul's job to let the public know and it is Blitzer's job to ask him if it is.

Blitzer's job is to ask insightful questions that probe the candidate's various positions on relevant public policy positions, not to throw out simplified hypothetical questions that have no bearing on the candidate's positions, or at least it should be. In actuality, his job is to draw ratings, which explains the kindergarten questions designed for maximum drama and minimum information.

These are just words.

Ok, I drew you a picture.

"ignoring the implicit distortion", no you need to bring up what the distortion was, instead of passing it off as "fact" and then finishing with your opinion once again.

I already outlined the distortion. The question presented a depiction of Paul's libertarianism that has no basis in reality.

Do you even understand why coke vs pepsi is a joke question? It's because there is no underlying importance about it.

Exactly.

The question Blitzer is asking is a fundamental philosophical question that america needs to answer.

That is your idea a fundamental philosophical question America needs to answer? It would be nice if this nation had the luxury to entertain such nonsense, but there are far more pressing issues our candidates need to be addressing.

If you want more time for your candidates, maybe you shouldn't have 8 of them up there with only an hour and 45 min to talk.

I don't make the rules.

It doesn't matter what you wanted to hear him talk about. The point was to ask him, "if the government doesn't provide for the uninsured, what happens to patients?" That is a legit question to ask given his libertarian ideology and because he dodged the question the first time around, Blitzer had to be blunt about it the second time.

He did not dodge the question. He attempted to relay a complex ideological position within the context of an oversimplified hypothetical, which didn't satisfy Blitzer who was intent on getting the money shot.

From the video @4:25:
"Do you believe that killing millions of civilians was a mistake?"

You just proved my point.

Not at all. If you cannot see the substantive differences between the two exchanges, I suppose I'll have to draw another picture...

[a completely inoffensive name]

Blitzer's job is to ask insightful questions that probe the candidate's various positions on relevant public policy positions, not to throw out simplified hypothetical questions that have no bearing on the candidate's positions, or at least it should be. In actuality, his job is to draw ratings, which explains the kindergarten questions designed for maximum drama and minimum information.

It ain't hypothetical, and it does have bearing on their positions if they are advocating an ideology where if you don't have the money, or if you take the risk of not buying health insurance, an unlucky occurrence can and will kill you.

Ok, I drew you a picture.

Picture shows you didn't watch the debate. Because you forgot to put in the part where Blitzer asked the question the first time around and Dr. Paul dodged it by saying, "Freedom is all about taking risks."

I already outlined the distortion. The question presented a depiction of Paul's libertarianism that has no basis in reality.

Then Paul needs to correct it. Like it or not there are libertarians that would like to see those without health insurance die from their bad "risk taking". They made themselves known at that debate. Why should the public just assume that isn't what Paul is unless you get him to say so on camera, with his followers right there in front of him.

That is your idea a fundamental philosophical question America needs to answer? It would be nice if this nation had the luxury to entertain such nonsense, but there are far more pressing issues our candidates need to be addressing.

You are disconnected from reality since the question of "what is the gov/society's role for the uninsured?" is literally the core debate that makes up the entire Health Care ****storm we have seen. The 8 month battle in Congress to get health care reform passed, the ubiquity of the term "Obamacare", the fact that every. single. GOP. candidate says a million times how Obamacare is terrible shows how this is a question that America has not yet decided on, and it actually is a big one. This is about life and death of the individual and what the gov/society role is and you dismiss it as luxury? You are a fool.

He did not dodge the question. He attempted to relay a complex ideological position within the context of an oversimplified hypothetical, which didn't satisfy Blitzer who was intent on getting the money shot.

"freedom is all about taking risks." is not attempting to relay a complex ideological position within the context of an oversimplified hypothetical. And this is clearly a false assertion from get go, because anybody who takes the time to listen to Ron Paul speak knows that when he wants to convey an idea, he takes his time with explaining it and doesn't go into sound bites. Example is from the Reagan Library debate, when he wanted to make the point about inflation and went over. Or back in the 2008 elections when he would frequently go into the history of US-Iran relations back to the 1950s in detail in order to make the point clear about why Iran should be left alone. It was one of the few times that he tried to dodge the question because the libertarian stance on the uninsured is not palatable for many people.

Not at all. If you cannot see the substantive differences between the two exchanges, I suppose I'll have to draw another picture...

Try to remember to draw in the context this time as well.

[Ronin]

Picture shows you didn't watch the debate. Because you forgot to put in the part where Blitzer asked the question the first time around and Dr. Paul dodged it by saying, "Freedom is all about taking risks."

he also forgot the part where several voters instead of going all frowny face actually shouted out 'yeah let him die'....small details like that.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I can tolerate all the nominees in the debate tonight - except I just want to punch Santorum in the face, especially after his answer to the gays in the military question.

CR

[PanzerJaeger]

You are a fool.

I think I'll stop here and cede the point.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think I'll stop here and cede the point.

High road eh? Well if you are not willing to get in the mud with me, I will just slop around by myself.

[Cecil XIX]

Ron Paul in case you didn't notice actually dodges the question by not tacking the situation at hand and doesn't go on to say, "ok well here is how I would like the situation to play out to the benefit of the man in the coma without massive government intervention". No, instead he makes a blanket campaign slogan about how "freedom is about taking risks".

Although I do not generally agree with ACIN on this issue, here he makes a valid point. In a healthy society, the hypothetical thirty-year old would be taken care of by friends, family, charitable organizations, religious institutions etc. The work being done to help him would be entirely voluntary. The people would be able to solve this problem more efficiently and with greater success then if handled by the government. Actions such as this would reduce dependency on government, as well as increase skepticism of government power. This is why, incidentally, the Obama Administration wanted to reduce the tax credit for charitable contributions.

Also,

gov/society

This illustrates the difficulty in discussing this issue. To conservatives, linking the State and Society like this as if they were interchangeable entities is simply wrong, morally and factually.

[Ironside]

Although I do not generally agree with ACIN on this issue, here he makes a valid point. In a healthy society, the hypothetical thirty-year old would be taken care of by friends, family, charitable organizations, religious institutions etc. The work being done to help him would be entirely voluntary. The people would be able to solve this problem more efficiently and with greater success then if handled by the government. Actions such as this would reduce dependency on government, as well as increase skepticism of government power. This is why, incidentally, the Obama Administration wanted to reduce the tax credit for charitable contributions.

Honestly, do expect that to even work systematically above a small village level (or to be more exact, above were the single community is the most important thing. Notice that it conflicts with induvidualism)?

Friends got their own life, even when they're helpful, so you probably would need a dozen of so really close ones, family can be unable to help, dead or jerks (you don't pick those), charity (I'll combine it with religious ones, they might require creed though) relies on people's generosity of time and money (unpredicable) and at best starts to remind of a state run organisation when becoming larger anyway.
For example, the state would not need to start advertising to increase the income.

[Lemur]

Best quote so far: "[I]f you can't slap Mitt Romney silly for being a flip-flopping used car salesman, you can't win the GOP presidential nomination."

[a completely inoffensive name]

This illustrates the difficulty in discussing this issue. To conservatives, linking the State and Society like this as if they were interchangeable entities is simply wrong, morally and factually.

A democratic government is in theory an extension of the society it governs. They influence each other and are tied together through moral and legal bonds. Anyone who wants to state that a society can be without a government and that a government can exist without a society is simply delusional. This has been shown numerous times throughout history that states of anarchy are not havens for liberty. Hobbes quite adequately talks about the state of nature and although I have not read him but simply have listened to lectures about him, it seems pretty clear that he recognizes that the state of nature is brutal, thugish and completely opposite to the goals of attaining liberty.

Libertarians want to deny this as if it is somehow a threat to individualism. But on the contrary it has been government in many ways that gives us our freedom. Without it, there are no property rights (at least on an enforceable level). Anarchy provides no right to free speech, only the ability to speak until someone who dislikes what you say kills you. Yes, obviously government can do the same. But it is only from having a government prohibited in its actions towards the society that free speech truly exists.

Gov and society are distinct but in a symbiotic relationship with each other. There are ebbs and flows and depending on the needs and wants of the society the line changes on how far they cross into each others territory. All domestic policy ultimately comes down to this.

[PanzerJaeger]

Finally found some time to watch the latest debate. Some random thoughts:

- I really enjoyed the last Fox News debate. It actually seemed like the more mature of the three - tough questions, less gimmicks, and good moderation. No doubt Bret Baier had a lot of input in setting it all up. He's the only reason I still tune into Fox. This one? Not so much... I don't know if it was Google's influence or if the ratings were weak for the last one, but the bling came out and the questions seemed to be aimed at an audience with a slightly lower IQ. 'Is Obama a socialist or just a really bad person?' Seriously? And there's nothing worse in a debate than a prepackaged video question from a 'real person'. Hate that gimmick.

-What happened to Michelle Bachmann? She looked tired and haggard and had pretty much nothing to say.

-Rick Perry. Wow. I don't think the completely nonsensical question responses will hurt him as much as the immigration issue. He's supposed to be the ultra conservative alternative to Romney, but by the end of the debate he looked like a flower child by comparison - imploring the others to have a heart! Romney would be wise to pursue that over the social security angle.

-Barack Obama will not be able to talk circles around Mitt Romney like he did with John McCain, if the former does end up with the nomination. The man has some serious debatin' skillz. Even though I know he'll say what he needs to say to get the nomination and he probably doesn't believe half the things he did say, he kind of won me over.

-Yay! for Gary Johnson. He kind of underwhelmed just a bit, but its good to have a younger libertarian on the stage. Ron Paul seems to be having a harder time making crisp, concise points as he has gotten older. He made headlines the other day for claiming that he did not create one job as governor of New Mexico. It made me smile.

-Newt Gingrich doesn't need to be president, but he's enjoyable to watch in a debate.

-Liked: Huntsman, Johnson, & Romney. Disliked: Perry, Bachmann, and Santorum. The others were generally forgettable.

[Lemur]

The most recent polling of registered voters in SC. Takeaways:

Among Republicans/Republican leaners, 74.7% feel the term “socialist” describes President Obama very well or well.

Among Republicans/Republican leaners, almost 30% believe President Obama is a Muslim. Among Republicans/Republican leaners, 36% continue to believe the president was either probably, or definitely, born in another country.

Even though a long-form birth certificate for the president was produced between the Winthrop April 2011 Poll and now—showing he was born in Hawaii—just 5.2% fewer respondents now believe Obama was born outside the country than those back in April (36% now vs. 41.2 % in April).

[Samurai Waki]

I think the narrative plays out rather well considering SC is one of the worst performers in edumacation.

[drone]

That was just painful to watch, one gets the feeling Perry would fall for the "duck season, wabbit season" trick. If his fellow candidates don't Dean him with this vid, they are incompetent boobs who deserve to lose to Obama.

Sorry Strike, I think you are stuck with Perry for the foreseeable future.

[Lemur]

Rick Perry. Wow. I don't think the completely nonsensical question responses will hurt him as much as the immigration issue. He's supposed to be the ultra conservative alternative to Romney, but by the end of the debate he looked like a flower child by comparison - imploring the others to have a heart! Romney would be wise to pursue that over the social security angle.

It would appear Mr. Romney is no dummy: