US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - Part III

[Dreadsox]

Huck will be the nominee I think.

 

[deep]

I still think Giuliani has the best shot with the early primaries on Feb 5.

I think Huckabee will do better than Thompson. and Romney will make some decent showings in some primaries, but will not be able to capture the nomination

it is possible we could go in to the GOP convention with no candidate having the delegates to cinch the nomination






_______________________________
if I had a sig - this might be it

 

[phillyfan26]

Giuliani and Huckabee are the frontrunners now, with Romney and Paul a good distance back, and the other guys with no chance.

 

[deep]

Abortion questioner is declared Edwards supporter (and a slobbering Anderson Cooper fan); Log Cabin Republican questioner is declared Obama supporter; lead toy questioner is a prominent union activist for the Edwards-endorsing United Steelworkers ....
Jay Tea was one of several to complain, writing at the blog Wizbang: "Those were good, solid questions. But CNN, by playing by completely contradictory standards for its questioners at debates, betrays its bias: the Democrats get to stack their questions to make their candidates look good; the Republicans find themselves having to squirm and evade, or give concrete answers that won't make some people very happy."

CNN's Feist said, conservative commentators did not complain when questioners who shared their political ideology had videos aired during the Democratic forum in July.

During that session, one video questioner asked the candidates to choose between raising taxes or cutting benefits in order to save Social Security. Another demanded to know whether taxes would rise "like usually they do when a Democrat comes in office." A third featured a gun-toting Michigan man, who in an interview Thursday said he had voted twice for President Bush, who wanted to know if the Democrats would protect his "baby" -- an assault rifle he cradled in his arms.

Another questioner from that forum who seemed to have clear conservative credentials was John McAlpin, a sailor who asked Clinton: "How do you think you would be taken seriously" by Arab and Muslim nations that treat women as "second-class citizens"?

McAlpin's MySpace page features pictures of Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York mayor and Republican presidential candidate.

It depicts Fox commentator Bill O'Reilly as a friend, while offering a caricature of a bearded, turban-wearing "Borat Hussein Obama" -- a derogatory reference to Obama, the Democratic candidate who as a youth attended a Muslim school.

So are Conservatives just a bunch of whining little babies?

 

[phillyfan26]

So are Conservatives just a bunch of whining little babies?

Bingo.

And that women Malkin (sp?) misses the point. A Republican president still has to rule a nation divided along political lines. "Leaving them to squirm and evade" isn't the fault of the questioner. If the candidate cannot give a good answer to an important issue, that's the problem of the candidate.

 

[BVS]

It was rigged, it was rigged






Conservatives = :crybaby: with this one.

 

[2861U2]

Why is it that when the topic of gays in the military comes up, I never hear any of you attack Bill Clinton for signing DADT, only the "bigoted, heartless Republicans?"

 

[martha]

Why is it that when the topic of gays in the military comes up, I never hear any of you attack Bill Clinton for signing DADT, only the "bigoted, heartless Republicans?"

Because he's no longer president?

I thought it was bullshit then, and I think it's bullshit now.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I wasn't as into politics then (or I was a bit young to really pay attention, depending on when it was), but I don't agree with that, either. My guess is Clinton was trying to cater to the Republicans with that, to help placate them so they wouldn't get as upset whenever he did something that would cater to the Democrats. I personally would've just said, "Screw it, I'm not getting involved in this", but I'm not president, so...*Shrugs*.

But yeah, if you do anything that shows discrimination towards gays, I think it's stupid no matter who you are.

A Republican president still has to rule a nation divided along political lines. "Leaving them to squirm and evade" isn't the fault of the questioner. If the candidate cannot give a good answer to an important issue, that's the problem of the candidate.

Exactly. I don't care what party you belong to, if you can't give a good response to a question, then that's your issue to deal with, and it makes me wonder why you're even in politics in the first place. I've had to listen to people complain for years that the media isn't getting tough on the candidates, that they're not asking the important questions, and yet when they finally do get tough, people complain about that. Same thing is happening with the Democrats. If they back down from a debate, they're called spineless, if they fight back, people complain that they're being bullies. What do you want, people?

the Democrats get to stack their questions to make their candidates look good;

Psst...Michelle Malkin...the Republicans have done that, too. Both sides are guilty of this. And I think it's wrong either way, but politics is dirty and that sort of thing is going to happen.

Angela

 

[martha]

As far as I remember, the Don't Ask thing was a modernization of the policy of actively looking for and routing gays out of the service. Someone will have to correct me if I'm wrong on that.

It was nearly a decade ago. We were all younger then. : old:

 

[BVS]

Why is it that when the topic of gays in the military comes up, I never hear any of you attack Bill Clinton for signing DADT, only the "bigoted, heartless Republicans?"

It was babysteps, and it's bullshit that no one has done anything since...

But like always, you are missing context.

 

[U2DMfan]

BVS is right. DADT was trying to take a step in the right direction, as opposed to doing nothing. That's the thing, if the Clinton admin takes a "must allow gays, period" to the military, they scoff. He can't get it passed through congress, he was in a world of hurt at the time. 1994 was when the Reps took congress and held until last year. I don't believe he had the authority to change it on his own and if he did, the political fallout from forcing the military's hand would have been even worse for him, at the time a pretty weak President.

I think Clinton should be applauded for trying to get something done. He said, "look, if this person isn't trying to cause trouble, leave them alone, let them serve" not perfect but it was better than the altervative, status quo.

As Martha said, the status quo, as far as I understand was to actively root out gays. What that entailed, not exactly sure. My guess is if solider X thinks Joe over in the next bunk is gay, he might be able to 'report' him in some manner without much warrant, whereas, it seems to me that the policy now is anything short of Joe coming out and proclaiming how fabulous Judy Garland is ( :; flaunting) that he should be left alone to serve, even if they have suspicions or outright knowledge. I don't know for sure though.


It's exactly the kind of compromise we need now. Leaves people unhappy, yes, but gets some shit done until the next step can be taken. We can't get a decent immigration policy for this very reason, nobody is willing to take the hit to compromise. One side wants a basic amnesty, another wants something just short of rounding them up and building a wall, and we all now the policy will be somewhere in the middle. I'll applaud whoever gets that done as well, even Georgey Chimpnuts Bush.

 

[BVS]

Compromise isn't a dirty word...

Unfortunately that's the way it works...

 

[BonosSaint]

Actually Don't Ask Don't Tell was passed in 1993, a good year before the Republicans took over the House. So much as I like to point out the failings of the Republicans, this was a policy adopted by a Democratic President with a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate. Clinton came in promising to lift the ban, Congress and the Military blew a gasket and Clinton caved with the compromise. This policy belongs to the Democrats.

In somewhat of a defense for Clinton, decisions like this had in the past been made by Executive Order and he undestandingly expected he could change policy with the sweep of a pen, but Congress stepped in. Clinton caved either because he thought this was the best he could get or he wasn't about to make this THE fight of his Presidency.

Better than outright ban, yeah. But ultimately a joke.

 

[Anu]

Why is it that when the topic of gays in the military comes up, I never hear any of you attack Bill Clinton for signing DADT, only the "bigoted, heartless Republicans?"

Great point, really. Will they call Bill the 'first gentleman'?

Yet another reason to support Dennis Kucinich.

 

[Anu]

Compromise is great, but the ball-less, soul-less, mean-spirited opportunism that the Democratic Party has used to get its grassroots activists to support centrist pro-NAFTA globalist warmakers like the Clintons is frankly despicable.

Glad we have Dennis the menace to call them out from our side.

 

[2861U2]

But like always, you are missing context.

How am I missing context? BonosSaint is absolutely right. Unless my math is failing me, 1993 comes before 1994. The Republicans had nothing to do with it.

 

[martha]

The Republicans had nothing to do with it.

Except now the Republican candidates all think it's the greatest policy since sliced bread.

 

[BVS]

How am I missing context? BonosSaint is absolutely right. Unless my math is failing me, 1993 comes before 1994. The Republicans had nothing to do with it.

I never said the Republicans had anything to do with it, did I?

What was the climate in the military before this? This was a baby step that had to be made. The fact that it's been policy for 14 years now is discusting, but that isn't Clinton's fault. Context.

 

[phillyfan26]

How am I missing context? BonosSaint is absolutely right. Unless my math is failing me, 1993 comes before 1994. The Republicans had nothing to do with it.

The context that for the last seven years our President hasn't even attempted to do anything towards correcting it.

Instead of talking about Bill Clinton, discuss our current president.

 

[verte76]

Why is it that when the topic of gays in the military comes up, I never hear any of you attack Bill Clinton for signing DADT, only the "bigoted, heartless Republicans?"

Good point. Generally, I liked Clinton, and still do. But he shouldn't have signed DADT.

 

[verte76]

The context that for the last seven years our President hasn't even attempted to do anything towards correcting it.

Instead of talking about Bill Clinton, discuss our current president.

Yeah, we're discussing next year's Presidential campaign, not Bill Clinton's presidency.

 

[Infinity]

You know that a neo-con feels defeated in an argument about George W. Bush when he or she brings up the faults of Bill Clinton's presidency in the argument.



It always happens, every thread and every argument i've seen.

 

[Infinity]

Let me give you an example:

Me: GWB Lied about Iraq and attacked it with false claims of WMD's.

Neo-con: In 1993, Al Gore said we should get rid of Iraq's WMD program.



So lame!

 

[yolland]

The candidates on energy: hot topic, diverse views

By Mark Clayton
Christian Science Monitor, December 3

With gasoline at more than $3 a gallon, energy has emerged as a top issue in the presidential campaign for the first time since the 1970s, with all major presidential candidates including it in their stump speeches. Not just gasoline prices, but global warming, the Iraq war, and Hurricane Katrina have combined to put secure and renewable energy--along with healthcare and the economy--near the top of voter and candidate priorities this election season.

While all candidates speak of the urgency of unhooking America from imported oil, of developing new energy technologies, and of feeling voters' pain at the pump, their plans for dealing with the problem vary from the detailed to little detail at all. That leaves energy-security hawks like Dr. Gal Luft, executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security in Washington, wanting more from both parties. Democrats' plans don't mandate the flex-fuel vehicles he deems necessary, and he says Republicans' plans need more detail. "Democrats have some very specific agendas that you can argue about whether they are good enough," Mr. Luft says. "But with key exceptions, Republicans have not offered very many details at all about their energy security plans. There's not much meat on the bones."

Some environmentalists, however, are encouraged that energy plans are finally emerging from both parties' candidates. "The good news is that all of the leading Democrats now have put forward comprehensive aggressive plans to deal with the twin challenges of energy security and global warming," says Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, a nonpartisan environmental group. "On the Republican side, the most aggressive energy candidate by far is Sen. [John] McCain--and [former Gov. Mike] Huckabee has expressed support for solving these related problems, too."

Broadly speaking, Democrats' energy security plans focus on curbing oil imports through tougher auto mileage requirements--achieving fleet averages of 35 to 50 miles per gallon over the next 10 to 15 years. Those goals are far tougher than the ones now being considered in Congress. Front-runners Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama have each unveiled detailed energy policies focused largely on slowing global warming, cutting fossil-fuel use, and promoting renewables. All favor developing cellulosic ethanol technology and plug-in hybrid cars that get more than 100 m.p.g. All their plans are more aggressive than those in the energy bill expected to see a vote this week in Congress. Overall, the Democrats' plans are focused on cap-and-trade programs aimed at slashing carbon emissions and on efforts to stop global warming.

Republican candidates, by contrast, have generally opposed government mandates for higher mileage for autos. Exceptions include Mr. Huckabee, who supports a 35-m.p.g. fleet standard by 2020, and Senator McCain, who supports plug-in hybrids and a higher mileage standard but has not specified targets. Republican candidates' energy security focuses on boosting energy production and developing new technology, such as cellulosic ethanol. Some, including former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, support expanding oil reserves by drilling for oil in sensitive areas like the continental shelf and Alaska's wilderness. Converting the nation's coal reserves to liquid motor fuel is another key departure from Democrats' positions. Mr. Romney, Mr. Giuliani, and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado all support coal-to-liquid, or CTL, development. Other GOP candidates have no articulated position on CTL, the League of Conservation Voters reports.

Most Democrats don't support liquefied coal, although Senators Clinton and Obama have left the door open, saying they might support the technology if it can be made to produce fewer carbon emissions than does gasoline. Republicans (except McCain) and Democrats, facing tough caucuses in the corn-growing state of Iowa, favor ethanol subsidies.

Most Republicans support expansion of nuclear power. Most Democrats do not. But Clinton and Obama have indicated that they are open to more nuclear power to help the global-warming problem if waste disposal and proliferation problems can be solved.

With rising public concern over global warming and fossil-fuel burning, many candidates' energy plans zero in on this issue. Mr. Edwards, who favors cutting US carbon emissions by 80% by 2050, this spring was the first to unveil an energy plan. Clinton weighed in this fall with a detailed plan for similar carbon cuts. But New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson is even more aggressive in his timelines and goals, pushing for 90% carbon reductions by 2050, Mr. Karpinski says.

While several Republican candidates have said in speeches that global warming is real, most oppose any mandatory emissions cuts or have no stated position. Notable exceptions are Huckabee, who supports in principle a mandatory emissions cap, and McCain, who strongly supports a mandatory cap and was the first to cosponsor emissions-cap legislation. "While there are meaningful differences among Democrats' plans, all acknowledge climate change as a major challenge and say quick action is needed," says Julia Bovey, who analyzes candidate positions for the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund, the political arm of the NRDC. "The Republican field is a far more mixed bag."

Shifting electric utilities away from coal and toward renewable fuels like wind and biomass so it is increasing efficiency of electricity use instead of building more power plants is a major goal of most Democratic candidates. Most Republicans oppose such a requirement for renewable sources on the grid, though some have not stated a position. While most Democrats favor a federal mandate to require that 20-25% of US electricity come from renewable sources by 2025, Governor Richardson has set a 30% target by 2020 and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio wants that much or more.

Finally, there's the question of the depth of commitment to a new national energy policy. At the first major forum on it earlier last month in Los Angeles, only three candidates showed up--all Democrats. "We invited all the candidates to come. [We] really wanted them all there," the NRDC's Ms. Bovey says. "But only Clinton, Kucinich, and Edwards came."

Even so, candidates are focusing more on energy this time than ever before, say many. "Energy has become a symbol of lack of US competitiveness, innovation, and even our geopolitical standing," says Paul Bledsoe, strategy director at the National Commission on Energy Policy. "So that's why candidates are talking about it. It's not just about energy; it's about American standing in the world."

 

[2861U2]

You know that a neo-con feels defeated in an argument about George W. Bush when he or she brings up the faults of Bill Clinton's presidency in the argument.

Excuse me?

Assuming you're referring to me, I do not feel defeated in the slightest. And about me bringing up Clinton? It's a fact, sir. If you guys disagree with the Republican candidates here, I don't care. I'm just trying to remind you that it was one of your own who started the policy. Same principle applies for your WMD example. Bringing up Democrats who voted for this war is absolutely a legitimate point in an argument, and anyone who says otherwise is, as far as I can see, ashamed and trying to run from the fact.

 

[BVS]

Infinitum, is a republican.

 

[2861U2]

Yeah, I know that. How does that make a difference?

 

[BVS]

Yeah, I know that. How does that make a difference?

If you knew that, then this doesn't make sense:

I'm just trying to remind you that it was one of your own who started the policy

 

[2861U2]

With the "you", I was referring to the majority of people reading this thread, who are mostly Democrats and/or Clinton-lovers, not Infinitum specifically.