Comments on: GOP Contenders Second Primary Debate Will Likely Shake Up Field

By: fray » Blog Archive » GOP Contenders Second Primary Debate Will Likely Shake Up Field

Tue, 16 Oct 2007 03:42:17 +0000

[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]

By: Divided We Stand United We Fall

Divided We Stand United We Fall — Thu, 17 May 2007 02:25:21 +0000

Live blogging the live bloggers – Republican debate redux

Watching alpha dog Rudy Giuliani snap at Ron Paul, followed by the rest of the Republican presidential wolf-pack tearing his carcass to shreds was bad enough. But then came the “Jack Bauer 24″ hypothetical questions carefully scripted to elicit supp…

By: Donklephant » Blog Archive » Live blogging the live bloggers - Republican debate redux

Thu, 17 May 2007 00:09:36 +0000

[...] Gandelman on John McCain at The Moderate Voice: “His stance on torture, including torture renamed so it isnâ€™t called torture but is still [...]

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Wed, 16 May 2007 19:49:01 +0000

pacatrue,
I agree with you to the extent that a person should be able to hold some views that might not be “mainstream” in the party and explain them in the way that you suggest- and I’d say that’s what Rudy is trying to do with his stance on social issues. We’ll have to wait and see what happens, but even if he doesn’t get the nomination he does have a lot of support so it’s not as though that sort of difference is completely untolerated in the GOP.

Kim,
Yes, I’d say that people in general want pragmatic solutions but there is nothing wrong with those solutions having an ideological basis either. I believe that there are conservative solutions to many of those problems, and other solutions that really aren’t ‘right’ or ‘left’. The reason that the ideology still matters to me is because I don’t support the idea that the ends justifies the means (which sometimes happens if you ask for pragmatism over everything else).

By: pacatrue

pacatrue — Wed, 16 May 2007 19:10:00 +0000

What I was trying to say, CS, is that I would love to see people in both parties standing up and arguing for what they believe in, and then letting the chips fall where they may. A lot of it depends on how you use the terms “conservative” or “liberal” of course. I think the Republican party should be able to hold someone who believes in several central tenets of the Republican platform, but not all of them, and that he or she will then stand up there and try to convince others that he or she is right. I hope the Democratic Party would be able to also host such people. The idea is to tell people where you agree and why you belong and then try to change their minds where you disagree. Instead, we have most candidates just trying to convince everyone they believe what they are supposed to believe. For the Republican party, I guess it comes down to whether or not Republican = conservative, or not.

By: kritter

kritter — Wed, 16 May 2007 15:31:00 +0000

CS-
How about standing for pragmatic solutions to global warming, terrorism, growing inequality,a shrinking middle class, failing schools,increasing energy costs, a failing healthcare system, etc? Isn’t that what most voters really care about?

Jason- MM has almost no influence on the Dem party??? Yet he is brought up in conversation after conversation as if he were a party guru. Norquist actually insists that GOP candidates sign his no-new-taxes pledge before he will endorse them, and evangelicals like Robertson and Dobson routinely give candidates their blessing- or signal that they do not meet their moral code. McCain lost South Carolina to GW after calling Falwell and Robertson ‘agents of intolerance’. This time around, he made amends with Falwell and gave an address at Liberty University. He was also the first to send flowery condolences after Falwell’s death.

You wouldn’t see Hillary Clinton working to get MM’s blessing??? And Soros has said nothing- Sharpton is uncommitted. They don’t set a firm ideological script that the candidates have to follow in the same way.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Wed, 16 May 2007 15:07:08 +0000

Those aren’t the only two choices, Kim. I don’t have to endorse the views of the leaders of the religious right to feel that it’s appropriate for the party to have some boundaries on how far the ideology can bend. On certain issues, the vast majority of people within a party might take a certain stance because their perspective on the issue is colored by the basic philosophy of the party.

In other words, I do support moderation and a ‘big tent’ view, but not at the expense of diluting what the party actually stands for. If the majority of the party members feel that compromise on certain issues does that, then I have no problem with saying that the candidates and elected officials from that party should be in line with the ‘base’.

So it’s not really that I’m criticizing the Democrats for having a litmus test on certain issues. What I am saying though is that since they are also monolithic on certain issues then they shouldn’t criticize the GOP for being that way on other issues. If there weren’t any ideology involved, then each party would be like some kind of sports team- they have to stand for something, don’t they?

By: Jason Steck

Jason Steck — Wed, 16 May 2007 15:01:27 +0000

Wow. Do you really think that is a fair characterization? If so, I presume you won’t object if others characterize Democrat nominees as “handpicked by Michael Moore, George Soros, and Al Sharpton”?

By: kritter

kritter — Wed, 16 May 2007 14:53:47 +0000

Ok, I’ve already stated that I support my party’s moves to broaden their base on some of these issues- do you support the same for the GOP- or should the candidates be handpicked by James Dobson, Pat Robertson and Grover Norquist?

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Wed, 16 May 2007 13:49:09 +0000

Kim,
Yeah, it was snarky but I was just trying to make the point that each party has its issues on which there tend to be litmus tests.

By: kritter

kritter — Wed, 16 May 2007 13:02:46 +0000

CS- Now that was snarky, wasn’t it? Actually, I don’t want lockstep Democrats, and I believe we have diversity of opinion within the party on Iraq and other issues- remember the Blue Dogs? Remember, during the midterms I supported the moderate to conservative Democrats that were running, because we need to have a wide range of ideas and solutions-not a platform that is ideologically based.

I personally support making abortion rare but legal, but would not vote against a candidate-if they felt otherwise, solely on that issue. Listen to Hagel, he is telling the truth about today’s Republican party- it is moribund and authoritarian. How can you expect to attract new voters like that?

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Wed, 16 May 2007 12:37:07 +0000

So, Kim, I assume you would like to see a Democratic candidate who supports the Iraq surge, and who supports a vigorous challenge to Roe v. Wade? After all, we wouldn’t want all the Democratic candidates to be in lockstep on any of these issues, would we?

By: hanginjohnny

hanginjohnny — Wed, 16 May 2007 12:36:36 +0000

Well I give Rudy props for sticking to his guns and not pandering to the ultracons.

His background? Hell we have a draft-dodging recovering alcoholic drug user for President. There are no angels in politics.

By: kritter

kritter — Wed, 16 May 2007 12:15:17 +0000

I think it is healthy to see a variety of viewpoints in either party. I don’t think the Democrats should just field liberal candidates- historically they have run the gamut from liberal to conservative, and the Republicans would be wise to do the same.

Driving out those with a diversity of viewpoint on the war because they use inconveniently true facts in an argument doesn’t make those facts any less true.Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air in a party that has stagnated by taking too narrow of an approach. If the GOP doesn’t widen its appeal, it will continue to lose moderates and independents who don’t kowtow to the party line. The other 9 candidates were almost in lockstep with current GOP dogma- (except for Rudy’s social stances of course)

By: superdestroyer

superdestroyer — Wed, 16 May 2007 11:30:01 +0000

I cannot believe that people are spending so much time discussing a bunch of candidates that will never be president. Whoever the Democratic Party nominates could be caught in bed with a 15 y/o hooker and still win the general election.

The only question in 2008 is whether the Democrats will get 60 or more seats in the Senate to ensure total dominance of the government.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Wed, 16 May 2007 10:33:00 +0000

pacatrue,
Why would a candidate say that, and why should they? The Republican party, of our two main parties, is the more conservative one. Why should candidates disavow that? It’s one thing to run as a moderate rather than an extremist ideologue. but that would be ridiculous to state that one is not conservative but chooses to put a Republican label on oneself. If someone doesn’t believe that conservative principles work, then that person shouldn’t be a Republican.

By: pacatrue

pacatrue — Wed, 16 May 2007 07:19:21 +0000

I wonder if it would ever work for a candidate to say, “I’m not a conservative, but I am a Republican and here are the things I think are good for America.”

Probably wouldn’t.

By: nicrivera

nicrivera — Wed, 16 May 2007 05:55:45 +0000

John Nichols over at The Nation has a pretty good post that focuses on the exchange between Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul during last night’s debate:

Rudy Giuliani made clear in Tuesday night’s Republican presidential debate that he is not ready to let the facts get in the way of his approach to foreign policy…

Giuliani led the crowd of contenders on attacking Texas Congressman Ron Paul after the anti-war Republican restated facts that are outlined in the report of the The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States…

But congressman [Paul] did not back down, and for good reason. Unlike Giuliani, the Texan has actually read the record.

The 9-11 Commission report detailed how bin Laden had, in 1996, issued “his self-styled fatwa calling on Muslims to drive American soldiers out of Saudi Arabia” and identified that declaration and another in 1998 as part of “a long series” of statements objecting to U.S. military interventions in his native Saudi Arabia in particular and the Middle East in general. Statements from bin Laden and those associated with him prior to 9-11 consistently expressed anger with the U.S. military presence on the Arabian Peninsula, U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people and U.S. support of Israel.

The 9-11 Commission based its assessments on testimony from experts on terrorism and the Middle East. Asked about the motivations of the terrorists, FBI Special Agent James Fitzgerald told the commission: “I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes, and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States.

By: nicrivera

nicrivera — Wed, 16 May 2007 05:26:55 +0000

Hmm...The weblink in my last post didn't seem to work. Hopefully this one does: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEZO7MPxJIs

By: nicrivera

nicrivera — Wed, 16 May 2007 05:25:01 +0000

Wow. The commentators at Fox News just can’t seem to stop trashing Ron Paul after his exchange with Rudy Giuliani. Following the debate, Ron Paul went head-to-head with Sean Hannity and didn’t back down:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEZO7MPxJIs