Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

GOP Debate: Winners and Losers

COLUMBIA, S.C. -- The Fix liveblogged the second Republican presidential debate, and after a good night's sleep we're back with a look at last night's winners and losers.

Play Video
post.com's Chris Cillizza and The Washington Post's Michael D. Shear recap the Republican presidential debate in Columbia, S.C.; a few candidates appear to comment on their performance. Watch the video. (Ed O'Keefe, washingtonpost.com)

These assessments come less than 12 hours after the candidates left the stage at the Koger Center so they are, by their very nature, subjective. lf you disagree or, even better, if you agree with my take on the debate, use the comments section below to weigh in.

WINNERS

Rudy Giuliani: The former New York City Mayor had nowhere to go but up after his showing in the first debate earlier this month when he struggled to answer questions concerning his position on abortion -- a failure that led to a renewed scrutiny of where he stands on the issue. But even with those lowered expectations, Giuliani stood out. Debates are all about definining moments, and Giuliani delivered the most memorable one of the early campaign season. Following a comment by Rep. Ron Paul (Texas) that insinuated the United States had provoked terrorists into launching the Sept. 11 attacks, a visibly angry Giuliani interrupted to question that "extraordinary statement" and asked Paul to recant it. An eruption of applause followed. It was a rare moment of genuine emotion amid the heavily scripted answers offered during much of the debate, and it stood out. Giuliani also found his footing on abortion, focusing on his desire to reduce the frequency of the procedure and pointing to his successes in New York City at doing just that. Abortion will never be a winner for Giuliani in these debates, but he effectively neutralized it for a night.

John McCain: Watching the first debate, it was hard to declare McCain a winner. He looked a bit too excited, trying to fit a raft of talking points into every answer. But when we went over the transcript later, McCain's performance appeared significantly better than we first thought -- he had nailed a number of key policy questions and generally stuck to his guns. Last night, McCain more successfully married style and substance. He was active without appearing antic and presented himself as candidate best able to lead given his life experience. McCain also showed he's not afraid to throw an elbow after former Gov. Mitt Romney (Mass.) criticized McCain's support for immigration reform and campaign finance reform. "I have kept a consistent position on right to life," McCain said. "And I haven't changed my position on even-numbered years or have changed because of the different offices that I may be running for."

One Liners: You could just hear each campaign's consultants telling their guy before the debate: "Be funny. People like funny." Former Gov. Mike Huckabee (Ark.) scored best with his line equating Washington's free-spending ways with "John Edwards at a beauty shop." Heyooooo! McCain flashed his wit with his oft-repeated story about a former drunken sailor who took offense at having his spending habits compared to those of Congress. Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.) got off a canned but semi-successful zinger about the alleged conversions to conservatism by some of his rivals; "I trust those conversions when they happen on the road to Damascus, not the road to Des Moines," Tancredo said. Romney seemed eager to get in the game, but his "joke" about the solid blue political nature of Massachusetts ("Have you ever bought a suit and look at it and you can't tell if it is blue or black? That is how blue Massachusetts is.") fell flat.

LOSERS

Mitt Romney: Romney entered last night's debate with a problem: He performed well in the first gathering of the candidates. That strong showing ensured he would be tested in this go-round, and he was -- repeatedly. "Your critics have called you 'flip-flop Mitt'," Fox News Channel White House correspondent Wendell Goler said at one point. Fellow Fox News moderator Chris Wallace asked Romney whether he was "a clear and consistent conservative" given his past pledge to be a stronger advocate on gay rights than Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and his past support for abortion rights. Romney parried as best he could, but the overwhelming impression a casual viewer was left with was that Romney had switched positions on a number of issues. That sense was further driven home when Romney found himself on the receiving end of a haymaker from McCain on his alleged inconsistencies on policy matters. Romney's good looks and sunny demeanor are a double-edged sword. Seen under one light (as in the first debate), he appears to be a confident and poised leader; seen under another (as he was at times last night), Romney can appear more like a used car salesman -- telling the customer whatever he or she wants to hear to close the deal.

Ron Paul: Paul's straight-talking nature won him some kudos from folks following the first debate. But he strayed into very dangerous waters last night with what sounded to many like a suggestion that America had provoked the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "They attack us because we've been over there," Paul said. "We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years." Giuliani demanded that Paul rescind his comment, which he refused to do. Say what you will about Paul, but the suggestion that America is to blame for Sept. 11 is simply not a winning position in a presidential race, no matter what party you represent. Any good he did for his candidacy in the first debate was immediately erased with those comments last night.

Tommy Thompson: During his four terms as governor of Wisconsin, Thompson was widely regarded as one of the most innovative and forward-thinking elected officials in the country. But in the first two debates of this presidential race, he appears to be hopelessly out of his depth. Asked how he could compel an independent Iraqi government to split oil revenues, Thompson paused for several seconds before offering this gem: "There is no question that the Maliki government needs to step up and do what is right." Huh?

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 16, 2007; 11:15 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: At Second Debate, a Few Sparks Fly
Next: S.C.'s Sanford: So Far, Still on the Fence

Comments

McCain should save himself the time and his supporters their money by withdrawing from the race and return to the Senate. McCain's efforts to support the illegal immigration amnesty has killed all hope of him winning the GOP nomination.

While the Democrats have been tripping over themselves to give away citizenship and massive entitlements to millions of illegal aliens and all their family members back in Latin America, the GOP are smarter than that.

Here's a simple test for everyone in the Senate when deciding how to vote:

- Does Ted Kennedy support it? If yes, vote NAY!
- Did Ted Kennedy write the bill? If yes, not only vote NAY, but do everything in your power to get your peers to vote NAY!

Voters are FINALLY starting to realize the Democrat Senate does not have American citizens best interests at heart. Dems have been championing illegal alien amnesty since 1965 and no amount of spin or "comprehensive negotiations" will make this bill work for America.

McCain has failed the GOP and America and I guarantee he will NOT be the GOP nominee for President.

For those who want to learn about the illegal immigration crisis, visit http://stoptheinvasion.blogspot.com

Posted by: VA Patriot | May 20, 2007 6:23 PM | Report abuse

I hope you all know that internet polling compared to other polls reaches out to a larger number of people. Since internet polling gets more votes then regular polling, internet polling is more accurate.

The fact that Ron Paul has won consistently in internet polling, I think you should take notice.

Of course the media denies Ron Paul's popularity. It is because big business fears him. OPEN YOUR EYES.

Most polls that they use to try to represent the population are hand picked to their liking, and usually only encompass a couple of hundred potential voters, compared to the hundreds of thousands voters that vote in online polls.

WAKEUP and be honest with yourself.

Ron Paul in 08'

Posted by: Jonathan | May 20, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

This has got to be the most childish blog I've seen yet. Many of the posters on here have no civility or respect for dissenting opinions. They deserve the police state we will get if any of the mainstream Republicans or Democrats win.

I don't care if you like Ron Paul or not as a person. Take your best shot to refute his facts and views if you can. Seems very few of the contributors on the blog have anything so they refute to name calling or attacking posters they don't agree with.

Both the Democratic and Republican party leadership as well as the MSM, including the WaPo, have the worst case of group think I've ever seen. That kind of group think got us embroiled in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq.

Yes, the events on MSNBC and Fox were pseudo-debates.

For all you progressives out there, check out the following blog from The Nation:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=195576

Here's some more evidence of Fox News bias and Giuliani's conflicts of interest:

http://www.aim.org/aim_column/5461_0_3_0_C/

We need more input from candidates like Paul and Kucinich to give the clowns that are trying to buy the presidency a reality check.

Posted by: GGL777 | May 17, 2007 9:39 PM | Report abuse

This has got to be the most childish blog I've seen yet. Many of the posters on here have no civility or respect for dissenting opinions. They deserve the police state we will get if any of the mainstream Republicans or Democrats win.

I don't care if you like Ron Paul or not as a person. Take your best shot to refute his facts and views if you can. Seems very few of the contributors on the blog have anything so they refute to name calling or attacking posters they don't agree with.

Both the Democratic and Republican party leadership as well as the MSM, including the WaPo, have the worst case of group think I've ever seen. That kind of group think got us embroiled in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq.

Yes, the events on MSNBC and Fox were pseudo-debates.

For all you progressives out there, check out the following blog from The Nation:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=195576

Here's some more evidence of Fox News bias and Giuliani's conflicts of interest:

http://www.aim.org/aim_column/5461_0_3_0_C/

We need more input from candidates like Paul and Kucinich to give the clowns that are trying to buy the presidency a reality check.

Posted by: GGL777 | May 17, 2007 9:38 PM | Report abuse

Aussie view says:

>"What a bunch of tough guys they are. God help us if the Republicans win this election. I agreed with Ron Paul on what he said about what caused the 9/11 attacks, but don't agree with him on much else. Guiliani's interruption was lame and predictable. Almost all of them (Paul the exception) are shoot first ask questions later types. It scares me really."

The "debates" so far could be named Ron Paul and the 9 troglodites.

Only Tancredo showed a mild amount of gumption when he referred to "disagreeing with my beloved friend..." after Rudy G threw his cheapshot.

Everyone on that stage knows that, agree with him or not, Ron Paul is a man of integrity whose word is a bond.

Not one of them had the guts to look at that audience and say the following;

"Now wait a minute Mayor, I know Ron Paul, have worked with Ron Paul and he is a man of honor and integrity. He is a loyal and patriotic American who has just as much right as you to express his views to the American public and his fellow Republicans. It is up to them to agree or disagree with him but he owes neither you nor anyone else any apology for expressing his opinion."

Any of the 8 troglodites who summoned the conviction to make a statement along these lines would have scored bigtime at Rudy's expense.

That none did speaks loud and clear as to why the Pubs are headed for a disaster in 2008. They are all robotically superficial chameleons, possessing little intellectual depth, who stammer and stutter when even remotely nudged off their script.

Posted by: RP Rocks | May 17, 2007 9:32 PM | Report abuse

I hate to say this, because it is a joke of a 'news' organisation, but I think the Fox moderators did a better job than MSNBC. The main thing I liked is pulling up the candidates when they avoided a question.

What a bunch of tough guys they are. God help us if the Republicans win this election. I agreed with Ron Paul on what he said about what caused the 9/11 attacks, but don't agree with him on much else. Guiliani's interruption was lame and predictable. Almost all of them (Paul the exception) are shoot first ask questions later types. It scares me really.

I've been trying to work out which is the best of a bad bunch, from a progressive's perspective. I think it's McCain, or maybe Huckabee. Yes they are both social conservatives but that doesn't mean anything really, especially as I'm a non-US citizen. Obviously McCain's Iraq stance worries me. At least McCain has some honour on the torture issue, and he is strong on fighting global warming. If you take away his stance on evolution, Huckabee seems sensible enough too. Still a pretty bad bunch to choose from. Give me Hillary anyday ahead of all of them (and she is a long way from my first choice, Gore).

BTW, I don't know what Thompson is doing out there, he can't put two words together.

Posted by: Aussie view | May 17, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

I don't get to see the debates as easily here in Germany. The more I watch all the candidates from both sides, the more and more I like Barack Obama. I especially like his plan for US foreign policy. Please take a look at this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=a2r9rsewVRg
It is his speech to the Chicago Council of Foreign Affairs, and he outlines his plan. It just makes too much sense. I feel like this has to be the most important topic because 1) I am a Soldier, and 2) I am stationed overseas and about to go to Iraq. You owe it to yourself to at least watch it.

Posted by: Matt | May 17, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

What debate? Are you trying to call the infomercial that the GOP and the Dems put on every couple of weeks a debate? Has nobody ever witnessed a true debate? Why is the English language being changed? LET'S HAVE A TRUE DEBATE!

Posted by: rangerbob | May 17, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

What debate? Are you trying to call the infomercial that the GOP and the Dems put on every couple of weeks a debate? Has nobody ever witnessed a true debate? Why is the English language being changed? LET'S HAVE A TRUE DEBATE!

Posted by: rangerbob | May 17, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Build a Fence Around This, Tom:
I wagered that global warming would be a topic in Monday's SC debates - instead it was whittled to 1 question, and that to Tancredo. He doubts the science, but at least he's willing to look at GW through a lens familiar to him: national security. Maybe we'll see a bit more attention on June 5; after all, a Decemember 2006 poll of likely NH R primary voters said global warming was a serious issue, likely caused by humans and needed attention. And if many if not most of the 160 + towns that passed a climate change resolution in March lean right (most voted for Sununu in 2002 and Bush in 2004), the candidates stand to gain points by paying attention and offering their solutions.

Posted by: Dave in NH | May 17, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Build a Fence Around This, Tom:
I wagered that global warming would be a topic in Monday's SC debates - instead it was whittled to 1 question, and that to Tancredo. He doubts the science, but at least he's willing to look at GW through a lens familiar to him: national security. Maybe we'll see a bit more attention on June 5; after all, a Decemember 2006 poll of likely NH R primary voters said global warming was a serious issue, likely caused by humans and needed attention. And if many if not most of the 160 + towns that passed a climate change resolution in March lean right (most voted for Sununu in 2002 and Bush in 2004), the candidates stand to gain points by paying attention and offering their solutions.

Posted by: Dave | May 17, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

As long as we keep electing Republicans and Democrats who belong to the War Party, we will keep having unconsitutional, no-win wars. On the White House website is a copy of the Congressional resolution authorizing George W. Bush to use military force in Iraq. It makes for an interesting read, as it has to be one of the most unconstitutional pieces of legislation since the infamous Gulf of Tonkin Resolution of 1964 that got us into the Vietnam War. Every single war the US has been involved in since WW2 has been the product of Congress delegating its war-making powers to the Executive Branch. What political and moral cowardice! Congressmen and Senators get to have their wars and the profits derived therefrom, and if things go badly, they just blame it all on whatever President happens to be around at the time. There are only two politicians around who are honest about this problem, Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Dennis Kucinich. I am a believer in capitalism and free markets, so I like Paul better than Kucinich the socialist, but at least Dennis is an honest and decent man. Either of these two guys could get this idiotic war over with in a hurry. If we end up with ClintonObamaMcCainRomneyGiuliani, we will have another four years of war, inflation and the suppression of our civil liberties. If we had enough sense to emulate the Swiss and institute a state of heavily armed neutrality, our terrorism problem would end overnight, I guarantee it. It really is just that simple

Posted by: Don | May 17, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Firstly I am disgusted by some candidates attempts at "jokes" to garner support, Ron Paul was actually talking about issues while everyone else was trying to show off the cult of personality. Disgusting. Please, no jokes at a debate where we are discussing WAR and TORTURE. Also I am shocked that the audience was largly in support of torture. Folks have to realize that torture is not a useful tactic and happens to be completely morally reprehensible. I applaud the media for questioning poll accuracy in polls that show Ron Paul in the lead, but would anyone be suspicious about the polls if Romney or McCain were leading? Polls are not always correct but the media seems to only bring this up when Ron Paul places well......

Posted by: warehousereader | May 17, 2007 1:07 PM | Report abuse

If elevated gas prices are tied to decreased refining capacities, this year...what about last year's spike at the same time(m-day, summer)and how do they respond to the question of record earnings this past year? If the US waged war as it has been throughout history we would own Iraq, Iran and all their oil and assets and instead of spending , we would be reaping the benefits of war! Maybe then we could rest assured that the $ the Gov. now takes from us under the guise of returning in in the form of SS benefits might actually be returned in benefits...otherwise isn't it just theft?

Posted by: MedicOne-AR | May 17, 2007 11:44 AM | Report abuse

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

Posted by: anonymous | May 17, 2007 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Let's say this was 2004 and Ron Paul said what he said, or any candidate for that matter. Obviously the reaction to him would be viscerally negative. But this 2007 and the mythology around 9-11 is starting to crumble, especially when the man who is responsible for it is still at large and Mitt Romney doesn't feel going after him is all that important and when hizzoner squeezed out all the juice of that moment for benefit of his political career.

Now many people are realizing that U.S. foreign policy has real consequences, especially when much of that policy lies in ruins and world opinion is very much against us. That's why Ron Paul wasn't "destroyed" by Guliani's retort because more and more people see it for what is was, nationalistic emtionalism that wound up putting U.S. troops in harms way accomplishing nothing but getting killed. If that wasn't true, Paul would have gotten 5% in the post debate poll, not 25% and you can't spam a text-message poll, which is why Fox did it that way.

Look, you may not agree with what Ron Paul said but its not a "crackpot" view. The only people who view it that way are the neocons who are terrified of having such a debate. They had their chance to remake and they failed. Now it's time to give Ron Paul's non-intervensionism a chance.

It's time for a change, you can't have a more basic message than that and that's why Ron Paul is going to outlast the Brownback's, the Thompsons, the Gilmores and the Tancredos, because all they represent is more of the same.

Posted by: Sean Scallon | May 17, 2007 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Brit Hume, former tennis partner of the President he was supposed to be covering, has zero credibility with respect to anything objective.

Lapdog for the Fellow Travelers on the Right.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 10:27 AM | Report abuse

>Posted by: Dominic | May 17, 2007 12:15 AM

>"I don't disagree with Ron Paul on everything, but the guy is a crackpot extraordinaire. Ron Paul and his delusional followers should find some other planet where they can live out their cult-like existence in a Star Trek convention-like format."

Nice ad hominem. Did you have anything of substance to discuss?

Posted by: RP Rocks | May 17, 2007 9:38 AM | Report abuse

You know, I criticized the Dems when they cancelled the Fox News debate--they should play on the conservatives turf and be on offense.

After seeing that debate, I was stunned at how slanted and ridiculous it was. In the intros, they placed the candidates' religion directly after their names in the bios--before indicating the office they hold/held and what their resume was. And their questions read like the administrations' talking points--not necessarily conservative talking points or even Republican talking points (which would be fine in a Republican party). They read as if the White House had written the questions themselves.

I also thought the debate was poorly executed. The moderators lost complete control of the debate there after Paul's comments. And did anyone else notice that Ron Paul was asked EXACTLY the same question twice in the debate (regarding if he's running in the "right party's" campaign?). I also thought that a lopsided amount of time was spent on torture, and that Brit Hume's hypothetical terrorist attack and interrogation questions were ridiculous.

Posted by: Greg-G | May 17, 2007 9:10 AM | Report abuse

'So it has nothing to do with an interpretation of religion that says we are infidels and should be killed?'

That's just the voices in your head.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Coming to Paul's defense, however, is Andrew Sullivan:

"The conservative pundits are now referring to Ron Paul as a 'crackpot.' Hannity predictably savaged him. The Hewitt site has an image of a man in a tin-foil hat; Dean Barnett and Hugh Hewitt both call for removing Paul from the debates, when he has been the best thing about them so far. Bill Benett wants him out. I'm getting the usual ridicule for taking him seriously from the usual GOP apparatchiks. They're scared, aren't they?

"The Internet polls show real support for him. Fox News' own internet poll placed him a close second, with 25 percent of the votes from Fox News viewers. We have a real phenomenon here - because someone has to stand up for what conservatism once stood for. Whether you agree with him or not ( and I know few outside doctrinaire libertarians who agree with everything he says), he has already elevated the debates by injecting into them a legitimate, if now suppressed, strain of conservatism that is actually deeper in this country than the neoconservative aggression that now captures the party elite and has trapped the U.S. in the Iraq nightmare.

"Tuesday night, Fox News tried to destroy him. Today the right-wing blogs will.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 8:09 AM | Report abuse

Although most of the candidates' wealth came as no surprise, everyone pays particular attention to Rudolph Giuliani, who reported a net worth of more than $30 million, which is a large increase from the less than $2 million he had in personal assets when he stepped down as mayor.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 8:01 AM | Report abuse

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Big Oil went on the defensive Wednesday, getting grilled before a House panel and denying accusations that mismanagement and a lack of competition are the reasons behind this spring's record gasoline prices.

Gas prices hit $3.10 a gallon Wednesday, according to AAA. It's the fourth record day in a row, and the surge has been attributed to low gasoline supplies caused by a lack of refining capacity.

"They have no interest in building spare capacity because that would undermine their pricing power," Mark Cooper, research director for the Consumer Federation of America, said prior to a hearing by a House Judiciary Committee antitrust panel in Washington Wednesday.

At the hearing, monitored on television in New York, Cooper was just as blunt.

"This is a picture of fundamental market failure," he said. "And Congress and the administration have stood by and done nothing to help consumers."

Cooper pointed to the record earnings at oil companies and said in any other industry this would attract new businesses.

But he said the domestic refining industry has continued to consolidate, allowing operators to shun building refineries, run existing ones at full throttle and thus cause many of the accidents and outages the nation has experienced over the last few months.

"This is just mismanagement," he said. "But they get away with it because there is no competitive discipline."

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 7:56 AM | Report abuse

Actually, Progressive, Republican candidates have been quick to criticize the party for its lack of restraint and fiscal discipline while in charge. Many of us were disgusted with Republican leaders acting contrary to our principles; they broke faith with us and the millions of Americans who expected them to act as a bulwark against excessive government spending. Thanks for the opportunity to respond.

Cordially,

Ron

Posted by: Ron | May 17, 2007 7:21 AM | Report abuse

I don't disagree with Ron Paul on everything, but the guy is a crackpot extraordinaire. Ron Paul and his delusional followers should find some other planet where they can live out their cult-like existence in a Star Trek convention-like format.

Posted by: Dominic | May 17, 2007 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Honestly, have people forgotten what it means to be a Republican? Ron Paul is the only guy up the Reagan would have voted for.

I worked for the National Republican Congressional Committee and I'll tell you right know- currently the system is friggin broken.

By the way Guliani is on Newscorp's (Fox) payroll as a "consultant."

Conflict of interest? I think so.

Guliani is an anti-gun, prochoice, New York thrice married, authoritarian liberal who uses September 11th as a ticket to legitimacy.

This guy is soposed to be a Republican? This world has gone nuts.

We got one last shot with Paul. God help us.


He is also paid by the Suadis as a "consultant."

Posted by: Nicksun | May 17, 2007 12:07 AM | Report abuse

Ron Paul is as far from gone as can be. Ron Paul will stick around until about the time of the primaries garnering as much money and support and operational personnell he can attract while in the Republican primary and then he'll agree to to be the Libertarian nominee.

The only reason that Senator Hagel hasn't jumped into the Republican primary is because he knows his anti-war views won't fly in the primaries. Ron Paul has the same problem, he knows his views won't fly and that he has no chance for the Republican nomination but he knows he'll get even less exposure and money if he declares he is running for the Libertarian nomination. He'll suck up as much exposure and republican cash as he can and then jump ship. His views may not fly well in the hard care republican basethat votes in the election,they will fly better with the indys.

Posted by: Rob Millette | May 16, 2007 11:44 PM | Report abuse

I will not take any of them seriously until I hear a plan for strong leadership to mitigate the climate crisis. The next president must, MUST, lead the country, and the world, in reducing GHG emissions 80% by 2050 if we expect to avoid catastrophic damage to ecosystems that will ultimately threaten civilization as we know it. Who's it going to be? Only the candidate that can commit to a serious plan to combat climate change even stands a chance.

Posted by: Josh | May 16, 2007 11:17 PM | Report abuse

Belief in the surge is a clear symptom of testicular shrinkage.

Posted by: U.S. Surgeon General | May 16, 2007 10:54 PM | Report abuse

I want to be Rudy's fourth wife. How long must I take hormones before I will be ready for surgery?

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 16, 2007 10:52 PM | Report abuse

Dear Zouk, Razorback, et al (mostly Zouk):

I have been reading this for a while now, but this is my first contribution. I am socially liberal, foreign policy moderate, fiscal conservative, so I don't think you should write me off as a "moonbat." I agree with what someone else said, that the tone of this conversation is not conducive to an actual political discussion. I include ErrinF in this category, but I also include you two. (Again, mostly Zouk.)
You have to know that if you want to convince anyone of your ideas, you have to first stop calling them names.
Next, you have to acknowledge the arguments of those who disagree with you and ANSWER THEM INTELLIGENTLY. This means without irrelevant pop culture references, and without ignoring the points that have been made.
Finally, you have to know when to let go. Just as you, Zouk, seem never to change your mind, you must accept that others have the same right.
I am an elementary school teacher, and it amazes me that I find myself typing the same advice to you that I give to my 9 year old students. The point of this blog is to provide adults with a forum for the discussion of politics and current events, not to make individual posters feel important.

Sincerely,

Justin Kelly

Posted by: Justin Kelly | May 16, 2007 10:48 PM | Report abuse

Andy R! I want the department of education gone myself. Even my fiance (who is studying education) wants it gone as well.

Just because we eliminate the FEDERAL department of Education does not mean we will lose all schools. No way. That is why we have state education departments.

As to the debate. Guiliani hands down.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 9:43 PM | Report abuse

To the list of winners I would add Huckabee. Of course, he's starting so far behind that that his performance probably won't do any good. But he was articulate and provided a good defense to the charge that he was a tax-raiser.

I also have to strongly commend McCain for his principled stand on torture. And Romney's defense of the same, along with his overly enthusiastic support of Guantanamo, came across as clashing with his much-publicized Christian principles. He came across as a panderer.

Posted by: Eric | May 16, 2007 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Razor, don't know if you're still around or not. Sorry for the delayed response.

It's not necessarily that we shouldn't have disbanded the Iraqi military. Of course we should have. It's the letting them keep their weapons that's the problem. Who in their right mind believed that everything would be ok if we let a disbanded military hold on to their guns?

Posted by: JamesCH | May 16, 2007 8:46 PM | Report abuse

I'm surprised I failed to note this before, but the only prominent politician who directly claimed "we deserved it" (Jerry Falwell) was given unending praise by most of the Republican candidates before the debate.

Posted by: Kevin Steimel | May 16, 2007 7:40 PM | Report abuse

I am appalled at the Washington Post's shoddy, shoddy journalism by twisting Ron Paul's words and making it sounded like he said "America deserved 9/11." That's pathetic and anyone who listened will know there is a big big difference in discussing blowback and saying "we deserved it."

In the second GOP debate in South Carolina, Congressman Ron Paul has shown just how much Rudy Giuliani and most of the Republican Party is living in a bubble and ignores 50 years of interventionist foreign policy. How very, very shortsighted Rudy is.

While I'm not going to argue that radical Islamic terrorists hate America for its culture, a very strong case can be made that interventionist foreign policy amplified it exponentially and created more radical Islamic terrorists as a result of its military policy before 9/11 ever occurred.

Then post-9/11, radical political Islam against America was taken care of when America went after the Taliban and radical terrorist sects like Al Qaeda. Since then, America invaded Iraq with no evidence it was supporting terrorists or housing WMD's and lost sight of the true culprits. As much as I think Saddam deserved his fate, the Iraq invasion has also brought further disdain to our country and furthered the cause of terrorism through its unilateral military actions. If any more terrorists acts happen in America it would be foolish to think it wasn't because of this.

Congressman Ron Paul is the only candidate whose view is based on this pragmatic reality. Wake up Republicans! Your only true conservative is Ron Paul, not another authoritarian world-policer.

Posted by: Brian Defferding | May 16, 2007 7:32 PM | Report abuse

That cyncical tool and extremist interpretation would gain no traction without our involvement over there. We need troops over there, for many obvious reasons. Pretending that this justifiable policy has no effect on these madmen does not assist us in defeating them and protecting our interests. Claiming America's policies cause something to happen and blaming America for something are two distinct things, and the American media should stop perpetuating the myth that there is no seperation between the two in the shameful, anti-intellectual way it has.

Posted by: Kevin Steimel | May 16, 2007 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Kevin Steimel:

So it has nothing to do with an interpretation of religion that says we are infidels and should be killed?

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Even if you believe that every action we have taken in the Middle East is justifiable and necessary, is it even remotely possible to hold the view that the Islamists attacked us because of our wealth and freedom, rather than foreign policy? Inexcusable, intellectually disengaged mainstream media protocol calls for claiming that Paul's comments amounted to "suggesting we brought the attacks upon ourselves." What a joke. Acting as if any suggestion that the attacks were motivated by U.S. policy rather than "a hatred of freedom" is a great failure of American media. It is equally laughable that a prominent political analyst would consider Giuliani's reaction as a "rare moment of genuine emotion" rather than the obvious pander that it was. The attacks were incredibly brutal, evil, and unjustifiable, but the motivation for them was not a hatred of freedom but US policy. If we shut reasonable views of cause and effect out of our political dialogue, we lose our ability to make informed decisions. (responses that wish to be returned should be sent to steimelkb@vcu.edu)

Posted by: Kevin Steimel | May 16, 2007 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Martimr1:

I never advocated abandoning Israel. I was just making a list of things that piss off terrorists, and wondering what all the lefties are willing to do to try to make them like us.

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 7:01 PM | Report abuse

During the "First in the South" GOP debate in South Carolina last night, one thing was made clear: Rudy Giuliani does not understand how to keep America safe.

When Congressman Ron Paul, who has long served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, explained how 50 years of American interventionism in the Middle East has helped compromise our national security, Giuliani interrupted saying he had "never heard anything so absurd." This statement is particularly troubling coming from the former mayor who tries to cast himself as a security expert, since Dr. Paul's point comes directly from the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission Report.

"Rudy Giuliani has tip-toed around the issues of abortion, guns and marriage. The only issue he has left is security, and he doesn't even get that right," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "It is clear from his interruption that former Mayor Giuliani has not read the 9-11 Commission Report and has no clue on how to keep America safe."

Posted by: brody | May 16, 2007 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Razorback, you're right on one point: we SHOULD stop supporting Israel. That unfairness is certainly one of the biggest goaders of others in the Middle East to madness - and it's been going on much longer than since the Clinton era. Paul's comment was stupid in context and poorly phrased - but courageously true. It's clear that the Dems were voting for him, of course. And the Mormons were voting for Romney, too. But props to Fox for reporting the results anyway.

Posted by: Martimr1 | May 16, 2007 6:29 PM | Report abuse

They are like that crazy astronaut lady that drove 12 hours from Houston to Orlando to stalk her ex-lover's mistress - she wore diapers so that she wouldn't have to stop to go to the bathroom

Posted by: Sandy | May 16, 2007 6:22 PM | Report abuse

I don't have to wizz whenever there is a lie that needs to be corrected.

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Please don't tell me you have jobs. It just isn't possible. You post every 3 minutes for freaking hours. You're both as big a junky as your hero Rush.

Posted by: Jane | May 16, 2007 6:15 PM | Report abuse

razorback -- what are you and zouk, zombies? you don't even stop to go to the bathroom for like 9 hours? and zouk by the way today is tinfoil hate squad, trotsky and concerned dem, if everyone did not know that. these guys have the worse case of blog addiction I have ever seen. Sick, sick.

Posted by: Jane | May 16, 2007 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Dems will never agree to a Fox debate. The only statistics you need to know about Fox is that their viewers are the least informed and voted for George Bush in higher numbers than the Republican Party did as a whole. They are not a news organization. They are an arm of the Republican Party.

Posted by: Terry Green | May 16, 2007 6:05 PM | Report abuse

roo - Thanks for that refreshingly objective comment. I see that some of the posters here today cannot set aside their partisanship long enough to acknowledge that the crew at Fox would do an equally professional and informative debate with the dems. Too bad; it would've been worth watching for many millions of voters.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 16, 2007 5:59 PM | Report abuse

98% of armed criminals believe strongly in gun control.

the other two percent likes a challenge.

Posted by: tinfoil hat squad | May 16, 2007 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Bsimon - you got no gun? any valuables? what's your address, I'll come right over.

Posted by: Lib for gun control | May 16, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

OK, most amusing of all is the Libs admiration of ron Paul based solely on his war stance. did they hear the part about eliminating government? that would effectively end the Democrat party. they ridiculed bob dole for wanting to cut education but now they have a champion. single issues voters - like leaves in the wind. i think all you Dems shouold vote for Ron Paul - IN the DEM primary. Oh the irony is dripping.

Posted by: Trotsky | May 16, 2007 5:49 PM | Report abuse

A vegitarian environmentalist, after complaining about cow flatulance and its harm to the environment, once asked Ron White what he was doing for the environment.

He said, "I am eating the cows."

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

"Guns are merely one possible tool for defense"

Yes, but it is hard to carry an attack dog with you to the store.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

just like a pig to come to a knife fight armed with a gun.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

When the hooligans are thinking about hitting my house with a 12 gauge, or bsimon's with a large knife and his handy brass knuckles, I am pretty sure about where the hooligans will be visiting.

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Republican debate question:
What will you do to stop the enemy from attacking us?

Democrat debate questions:
Who does your hair?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

ron paul is a winner...he has a fraction of the money of the other contenders, and held the lead in voted=s for the majority of the program eventually getting 2nd behind romney----the media is smearing ron paul because he wants to free americans by getting rid of the thieves in the IRS and the oppressive expensive and incapable homeland security--he said research guliani and you'll see he is a crook---not too mention ron paul wants to end the war-- you guys need to do some serious research and not trust the mainstream media so much---ron paul was in the army, he's a doctor and he has more political experiance than any of the other candidates and he has always voted consistently

Posted by: stokes | May 16, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

This WaPo dark side debate has gotten silly.

The lefties on here seem to be trying to prove that WaPo is in fact on the dark side.

This is the essential problem of the new leftwing internet moonbats: If they disagree with someone on part of one issue, they become part of the dark side. Even if they generally agree with the WaPo on most issues, if a liberal moonbat disagrese with them on part of one issue, they become part of the dark side.

They disagree with Lieberman on a few issues, and they become instant haters, despite the fact that Lieberman agrees with them 80 or 90% of the time. This attitude, if used against all of the Dems in Congress, might just save the Repubs bacon in 2008, despite the unpopularity of Bush and the war.

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Fox did a fine job on the debate. It was well-executed and had exactly the substance that Republican supporters needed to make their decisions (for example the oft-mentioned "challenging of positions" was only wrt. more moderate positions.) The "independent" voter probably gained little.

Had they also done the Democratic debate, it would have also had exactly the substance Republican supporters needed.

Posted by: roo | May 16, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Walter W writes
"In the interest of truth in packaging, I think we should rename "gun-free zones" to "defenseless zones.""

That would not be truth. Guns are merely one possible tool for defense.

Posted by: bsimon | May 16, 2007 5:35 PM | Report abuse

What a sad line-up of complete reactionary non-thinking losers. Rudy's response to Ron Paul was something you would expect from a sixth grader. Does this man understand anything about history? Gee, I guess the foreign policy of a superpower has NOTHING to do with whether we are hated in the world or not. You would have to be bat-sh*t crazy to not at least think that Paul might have a point. Oh, but I guess those rabid RNC nutballs down South only clap when you talk about how cool it is to torture people or when you make stupid scripted cracks about John Edwards. I suppose if you want the Neanderthal vote, you need to run a knuckle-dragging candidate!

Oh, and Romney sucks!

Posted by: maria | May 16, 2007 5:34 PM | Report abuse

So probably the best "correct" temperature is the one that God has graciously given us, with all of its natural cycles, season peaks and valleys, sun-spot highs and sun-spot lows.

But since most greenies seemingly don't believe in God, they want to 'control' the earth's thermostat and insist on all these ridiculous carbon footprint schemes in order to fulfill their true ultimate goal: to force socialism on our nation....with them in control of more than just the thermostat.

Posted by: LucyGoosey | May 16, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

REMEMBER 20% of Global Warming is caused by Large Animal Flatulence. Someone send a telegram to PETA telling them the answer to Global Warming is to EAT MORE MEAT!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

What an experience it was. This show of wannabe Stooges for the Plutocracy on display was more unbelievably shameless conduct than substance. Rushing to outdo the others in terms of Rambo macho and red-blooded patriotism (especially when Paul gave a plausible reason for 9-11 and the other nine went ballistic), each did all but kneel down and grovel in front of the cameras in a sycophantic appeal to those well-heeled patrons whom they are so anxious to serve as lapdogs. It was, well, a total lack of any semblance of dignity and self-respect on display. The audience in place was a real sample of the hootin' and hollerin' denizens about whom thinking citizens have heard, especially as to the way things are in South Carolina, one of the worst of the Bible Belt's worst. It fully represented the assortment of Dupes and other forms of the the mentally challenged so loyal to the Fox Noise Channel and its shameless propagandists. There were large cheers and prolonged applause at remarks about the Edwards haircuts and the name Hillary which brings such joy to the Plutocracy, because its Stooges all across the Country and right there on the stage at last night's fun house are doing so well at bamboozling the rubes into cheering and voting against themselves. I failed to detect in the crowd the sound of Bible-thumping thunder or the swish of flag-waving or the rebel cries of joy and praising of Jesus for this onstage bunch, one of whom awash with sponsored TV money may be bought and sold to the Country just as was the semiliterate buffoon now occupying the office with whom we have been burdened for entirely too long. Apparently, the Dupes chose instead of Bibles, flags, and rebel yells, the loud and frenzied applause at the red-meat images of "them libruls." McCain is so desperate that here he stood, facing the very characters whose whisper campaign of vicious slander in this State, orchestrated by the said buffoon and his henchmen just ruined him. It was political mayhem on him in 2000. It seems all is forgiven as he panders and hugs and sucks up to those who attacked him and his family so outrageously. In sum, the whole Nation was able to see just what kind of characters can be found throughout a bland State in which many of us would not voluntarily live. The Fox gang must have felt right at home with those vacuous folks sorely lacking in critical thought who swallow whole the content of Fox Noise and their star propangandists and who showed up in force to cheer for them. It will be no surprise if the beauties will want next to appear in good ole Alabama, another bastion of right-winger targeting for harvesting benighted, vulnerable Dupes who are willing and anxious to cheer and vote against themselves like the rest of their gullible brothers and sisters in Dupedom South who share the same views.

Posted by: Janus55 | May 16, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

I challenge any liberal on gun control to post the following sign in their yard:

THIS HOUSE IS A
GUN FREE ZONE

I might post one myself, and when the hooligan came throught the door and saw the 12 gauge, my only response to the confused look on his face would be I LIED.

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Anything you say is irrelevant if it goes against my point. that is how Dem logic works. get used to it.

Posted by: tinfoil hat squad | May 16, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

"that's right - fundy muslims do. but fundy christians hate gays, muslims and atheists. so what's your point?"

My point is there are maybe 10,000 extremists muslims for every 1 Christian suicide bomber.

Posted by: WhyhateUSA? | May 16, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

razorback asks:

> "So RP, the WaPo has gone over to the dark side. The WaPo endorsed Carter over Reagan, Mondale over Reagan, Dukakis over Bush, Clinton over Bush, Clinton over Dole, Gore over Bush, and Kerry over Bush.

Just when did the WaPo go over to the dark side?"

False logic...but cute.

Endorsing Democrats prior to 9-11 is irrelevant...but you knew that, right? The WP led the cheerleading for the Iraq debacle. You are surely not denying this? Endorsing Kerry is another irrelevency.

Kerry was for the war, in bed with the neocons and that's why he lost an election that was his for the taking. "Me too, only better" wasn't a winner.

Posted by: RP Rocks | May 16, 2007 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Now let's turn to gun control laws. What do Virginia Tech's 32 murders, Columbine High School's 13 murders, Jonesboro Westside Middle School's five murders, Germany's Gutenberg High School's 16 murders, the murder of 14 legislators in Zug, Switzerland, and the murder of eight city council members in a Paris suburb all have in common? Answer: All the murders were committed in "gun-free zones." So a reasonable question is: Does legislation creating gun-free zones prevent murder and mayhem?

In 1970, Israel adopted a policy to arm teachers and parents serving as school aids with semi-automatic weapons. Attacks by gunmen at Israeli schools have ceased. At Appalachian Law School in Virginia, a gunman who had already murdered three people was stopped from further carnage by two armed students. Gun possession stopping crime is not atypical, though it goes unreported by the media. According to various research estimates, from 764,000 to as many as 2.5 million crimes are prevented by armed, law-abiding people either warning a criminal that they're armed, brandishing their weapon or shooting a criminal. In the interest of truth in packaging, I think we should rename "gun-free zones" to "defenseless zones."

Posted by: Walter W. | May 16, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

About Rudy and Paul:

CC and the WaPo or any other media outlet didn't confuse the issue between Rudy and Paul. It is all the debate crowd's fault.

The crowd gasped when Paul seemingly blamed the US for 9/11. The moderator gave Paul an opportunity to explain, and the crowd gapsed again when Paul didn't retreat. Then Rudy made his statement, and the crowd gave the largest applause of the night.

If this debate was before the Dailey Kos annual meeting, there would have been cheers for Paul, and gasps or even boos for Rudy.

The reason Rudy was declared the victor in the exchange is not because WaPo decided he was right. It is because in a debate for the Republican nomination, the Republican view of the exchange is what is important, and the Republican crowd sided with Rudy. (Had they been debating for a Dailey Kos medal, WaPo would have declared Paul the winner). And by the way, I agree with Rudy on this one.


Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

I am trying to resist. Trying hard. am I down to one post every 7 minutes yet? I will go to Kos and find something to paste here. I'll be back.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Giuliani showed himself to eithe be stupid or disingenuous when he twisted Ron Paul's reasonable statement to mean that he "blamed American" for 9/11. As a Republican, I will not vote for Giuliani in the primary or the general. Andy R, a poster below, showed himself to be considerably dumber than Giuliani. Scary.

Posted by: Rick | May 16, 2007 5:12 PM | Report abuse

razorback: Well, didn't the reporter who wrote this article, Cillizza, do just that to Paul? Hold him down? Sure seems like it to me. And that's where WaPo's enabling behavior towards Bush's war comes in to play. This columnist*blogger*pundit went out of his way to slam Paul...why is that? Is it so WaPo won't have to answer for what they've done, mainly creating hysteria for a not-needed war, using *proof* from the WH that wasn't vetted? They didn't do their jobs. And look at the outcome.
They need to apologize for letting down this country, and the people who live in it and who expect the media to vet lies from people in power. They were complicit in the run up to the war in Iraq, and they need to fess up. Otherwise they are a joke when compared to true and brave American media in other parts of the country.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 5:12 PM | Report abuse

"The Senate, spending the spring mired in divisive debate on Iraq, sharply rejected legislation Wednesday to cut off money for combat operations after March 2008.
The vote was a loss for Sen. Russell Feingold and other liberal Democrats who support taking the drastic step to end the war.
The proposal lost 29-67 on a procedural vote, falling 31 votes short of the necessary votes to advance."

Oh no, a real vote. what am I supposed to do with all these poll results???

Harry, Nancy, guide us???????

Posted by: concerned Dem | May 16, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul isn't going after voters committed to McCain/Romney/Giuliani, he is going after undecided voters who are against the war. You might claim he lost, but his name and position is mentioned in every story about the debate.

All he needs to do is ask Giuliani for a one-on-one debate. Either he accepts, in which case Rep. Paul gains stature, or he refuses, which makes Giuliani look like a bully and a coward.

Posted by: Mike | May 16, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Dear God,
please inform me as to the preferred temperature of the Earth. there are many souls here who are confused about it. I think if we had a single temperature we could all agree upon, we would have somethig to shoot for. and no fair changing it every couple of thousand years. We are only stupid humans you know.

Love the greens.

Posted by: tinfoil hat squad | May 16, 2007 5:08 PM | Report abuse

I've never seen anyone (Giuliani)so eager to get their butt kicked. I'm sure Hillary would welcome a debate (and make quick work of it) on the economy and monetary policy with Giuliani. But first he's gonna have to revisit Rep. Ron Paul in a debate on U.S. foreign intervention. And while they're at it perhaps they'll bring up how he believes that a president should have the power to imprison anyone he wants without charges or trial (interview w/ Cato president). Can you imagine this guy with above the law executive privileges! Will America really allow Giuliani to succeed the Decider as Fuhrer?

Posted by: goodmorgnnn | May 16, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

We can only hope that every Dem in the field will adopt the moonbat twinkie and a lawyer approach to terrorists.

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

"West Nile virus, which is spread by mosquito bites, has infected 23,974 people in confirmed cases since 1999, killing 962, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Birds that once flourished in suburban skies, including robins, bluebirds and crows, have been devastated by West Nile virus, a study found. "


Can we have a do-over on the DDT thing. We greenies tend to drastically over react and ignore the financial and other consequences of our new religion. we outlawed DDT to save birds. no fair.

I just got over global cooling, now there's global warming and it's my fault. what gives, it's hard to keep up.

Posted by: tinfoil hat squad | May 16, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Nearly evert candidate with the exception of McCain endorsed the Bush administration's "enhanced interrogation techniques" or use of torture on terrorist suspects. Unbelieveable!

Posted by: gospeedtrials.blogspot.com | May 16, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

One thing is for certain. After last night's debate, I am proud to be a registered independent. I can't imagine having to defend any of these people. Though I disagree with much of what Ron Paul says, he stood out not only as the lone true conservative, but the only one on that stage who didn't try to push fear as a political issue. Why is it that the party that is supposed to be the toughest and strongest is constantly reminding us to be afraid of bogeymen? And ole Rudy is a joke, milking 9-11 worse than Bush ever did. We're supposed to think that he was big and tough for walking the streets of NYC on 9-11, but does anyone remember that his WTC office caught on fire and later fell? He was in the streets because he didn't have an office anymore!!

Posted by: Milo Janus | May 16, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

rdf: Someone referenced a very nefarious sinister plot about WaPo holding Ron Paul down. Of course, no evidence in support of the plot was offered.

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

For accurate info on the "debate" last night go to any cable news outlet. {JOKE]. I see very little difference in the reporting, and to put it midly, each and every one is reporting falsely. To leave out a single word..and infer that someone said something that they actually/factually did not say is what I am trying to get across.

Posted by: lylepink | May 16, 2007 4:50 PM | Report abuse

I count about 46 posts from ignorant no name coward today, and that is a slow day for him. In five hours that averages about every six minutes.

congratulations - you win the "get a life" award

all that typing and not a single thing of interest. another award is in order for all talk and no content.

Posted by: tinfoil hat squad | May 16, 2007 4:50 PM | Report abuse

she made an exception for me - drindl

she was willing to do anything to get me out of the house. I am that spiteful

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

What *plot* are you referring to razorback? The dark side to me is failure of the media to do their jobs, and vet what they're told by the people in power.
They didn't. Don't try to confuse the issue and muddy the waters bringing up Kerry and past elections. This is about enabling Bush to start a war that has made our country less safe, caused countless thousands of deaths, and created terrorists for the next two or three generations who'll hate America. The WaPo was complicit in Bush's not needed war. A war detrimental to the security of these United States...a war in which WaPo helped lead the charge. They failed America and Americans, and they need to apologize on the front page. Except they don't have the balls to do so.

Posted by: rdf | May 16, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

We moonbats have nothing of consequence to offer. Instead we obsess with the lives of our adversaries. Facts and figures escape us, but we do enjoy the cult of personality. that is why we are so good at dishing out insults. It eliminates the expectation that we will say anything of merit.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

rdf, so after they went over to the dark side, they endorsed John Kerry for President. Does that mean Kerry is involved in the plot too? Or is this an instance where there Kerry endorsement was just cover for the fact that they had joined the dark side?

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

MikeB, I thought you left in discuss with us (me?) once before. You just couldn't get enough? At least you didn't make any factual assertions or try to quote me some law, so I don't have to make you a smoking hole.

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 4:32 PM | Report abuse

razorback: "Just when did the WaPo go over to the dark side?"

When they published countless articles in the run up to the Iraq War in support of Bush. WITHOUT verifying that the *evidence* was true. WITHOUT corresponding input from the other side, you know, those folks who told us it would be a disaster.

That's when they went over to the dark side. They failed this country and her people, and they need to apologize.

Posted by: rdf | May 16, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, I have been mean to a defensless moonbat, and all you have for me is curiousity about my employment? I am disappointed.

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

They're all LOSERS.

Posted by: | May 16, 2007 11:29 AM

third post of the day and still going strong. I'll be here all week.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul, or anybodyelse, doesn't have to insinuate anything.

From the start this Administration has had an "Our way or the highway!" attitude towards every other country in the World. Any country which disagreed with what this Administration dictated was villified.

Changing the name of French Fries to Freedom Fries at the U. S. Capitol was indicitive of how little awareness the Republican leadership has of the U. S. role in the New World Order.

Disgarding the Powell Doctrine and totally ignoring the coalition building of Bush 41 are but a couple of examples.

With this Administration's approach the wonder is that more of the World isn't taking shots at us.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

No one beats me in moronic posts, not in number or severity.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Is it just me or do all of these Republican types (look at the photo for this forum) look like complete dweebs? I mean, all they need is a pocket protector, a dirty white shirt, and 1960' era pants with cuffs and the picture would be complete for the proytotypical nerd, a collection of 40 year old virgins that still live in their parents basement.

Posted by: MikeB | May 16, 2007 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, Razorback. Sometimes I have work to do, which prevents me from making dozens of posts per day. Are you still insisting that you have a job which you work hard at, and don't have time to blog all day?

Posted by: Blarg | May 16, 2007 4:26 PM | Report abuse

'On this blog - the moonbat and hateful rodent mutual admiration society'

I don't understand why you come here zouky, you hate everyone so much. you arrive every day at noon... then stay all day long, among people you profess to hate. what is your problem?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Well arn't we putting a human face on those vicious fundies. Do you really see any legitimate comparison between what your mother believed and what bin Ladin belives?

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 4:24 PM | Report abuse

she made an exception for me -- she didn't actually approve of college, especially for women, but she knew how much i wanted it. she really wanted me to marry right out of high school, like most of my cousins. she was from arkansas.

and i didn't say she wanted me to marry one of my cousins.

Posted by: drindl | May 16, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Isn't is amusing that the rabid Libs have so much to say about the Republican debate and how certain policies need to be changed or discussed. I don't recall all those moonbats bothering to criticize the empty Dem debate in the same way. As if cons care aboutn the thinking of the hateful leftists who would rather get us killed than agree with anyone.

On this blog - the moonbat and hateful rodent mutual admiration society is in full swing. the rest of the country has left them to rot. If you want more of nothing - vote D. but you will get more taxes, more regulation, more useless laws, more spending, more surrendering, more delays, more posturing, more press fawning.

Vote D to get less choice, less safety, less intrusion, less education, less retirement money, less health care, less military.

the options are simple, predictable and obvious. why fight about it, if you want big government who runs everything and takes all your money, vote D. Otherwise, vote R. Same as it has always been.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 16, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

drindl, that is very nice, I guess that fundie wasn't against education after all, was she?

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

'How many posts am I up to now? '

good question -- 100? 10 times more than the rest of us put together? you sure work hard at your 'job'...

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

"It all started when Paul was asked how September 11 changed American foreign policy. "Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us?" Paul answered. "They attack us because we've been over there, we've been bombing Iraq for ten years..."

Direct quote, check the transcript.

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

"Ron Paul (Texas)... insinuated the United States had provoked terrorists into launching the Sept. 11 attacks"

That's trying to equate Paul's comment with Bush's "bring 'em on", though its entirely different.

Posted by: bsimon | May 16, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse

my mother always thought i was wonderful. first one in the family to go to college. she was very proud, although of course concerned for my eternal soul.

Posted by: drindl | May 16, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

drindle says:

"I can just hear your tiny brains exploding..."

You can hear over the juju beads rattling against the bong? You mean the ouiji board isn't talking to you? What about the voices in your head?

And for the record, I am just fine with the appointment. Whatever you think you heard didn't come from me.

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Richard: Ron Paul DID NOT say what you are trying to infer. Check Fox news politics clip/debate number 6 and you can see and hear the WHOLE thing. The good thing about this is that it is on tape and anyone can check it out.

Posted by: lylepink | May 16, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

"Ron Paul (Texas)... insinuated the United States had provoked terrorists into launching the Sept. 11 attacks"
-- Utterly false. Bad reporting. Libel. It's not in the quote.

Posted by: Rich | May 16, 2007 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Blarg:

I am being uncivil with drindle, who is always uncivil. Are you going to jump on me for that?

How many posts am I up to now? The only thing you found worthy of comment was about Fox News? I know you want to take it to me because I called drindle what she is. I guess that means you found nothing in my many posts to complain about.

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 4:11 PM | Report abuse

too bad for drindl's parents, all that work and no reward. therapy indeed.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

'WP: Bush taps skeptic of Iraq build-up as war czar. I remember his name as having written a book on US intervention --- "Improving National Capacity to Respond to Complex Emergencies: The U.S. Experience," published by the Carnegie commission on preventing deadly conflict in April 1998 -- and note that his wife, Jane Holl Lute, is a noted humanitarian expert, poli sci PhD from Stanford, currently serving as the assistant secretary general of the United Nations for peacekeeping. '

I don't have a problem with this guy, for once, seems like a good choice. But I imagine it will drive you wingers crazy that his wife works for the UN in 'peacekeeping'

I can just hear your tiny brains exploding...

Posted by: drindl | May 16, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul didn't mention 9/11 at all. 3,400 deaths refers to the Iraq War not to the World Trade Center.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272719,00.html
"Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting," Paul said in explaining his opposition to going to war in Iraq.

"They are delighted that we're over there because Usama bin Laden has said, 'I'm glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.' They have already now since that time they've killed 3,400 of our men and I don't think it was necessary," he continued.

Posted by: Rich | May 16, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

You shouldn't lash out just because you had an unpleasant childhood, drindle. Work it out in therapy. A freaking animal?? How magnanimous, how rational. You have your own little mean industry going.

Maybe you were a different kind of fundie. Did you wear long skirts and braids? Maybe your parents were just trying to keep you way from Woodstock.

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Because it attempts to use negative association the way that McCarthy did in the 1950s.. McCarthy the republican. It goes way back with you folks.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

'What a laugh. Muslims hate gays, christians, and atheists.'

that's right - fundy muslims do. but fundy christians hate gays, muslims and atheists. so what's your point?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

razorback writes
"Because it attempts to use negative association the way that McCarthy did in the 1950s... Its just another version of the irrational, angry, red faced, spittle flying Bush/Hitler chant that is typical of bitter irratonal old leftist haters."

Couldn't the same criticisms be applied to both sides? There's the 'fascist bush' chant and there's the 'treasonous appeasers' chant. Sounds like two sides of the same coin to me.

Posted by: bsimon | May 16, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

rufus1133: I have yet to find what Ron Paul said was incorrect. We may have an opinion that differs from what he actually said, but in no way can I find ANYWHERE that his statement/opinion was not what a great number of folks are agreeing with.

Posted by: lylepink | May 16, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

I h ave to laugh when i republican calls me 'mean and ignorant' the party that is more divisive than any since the civil war, that has made an industry out of hating democrats and accusing them of treason and murder and every conceivable evil [listen to coulter or limbuagh or hannity] they can't get through 5 minutes without bashing us. And you are a freaking animal the way you attack everyone that disagrees with you, so stop your sanctimonious BS.

I was raised as a fundy and I know very well what they think. They want governments to be based on the Bible -- their Bible. they don't believe in science, and for their educational views--why do you think so many home school? So their kids would be exposed to modern ideas.

Posted by: drindl | May 16, 2007 4:00 PM | Report abuse

"Muslims do not "hate our freedom", but rather, they hate our policies"

What a laugh. Muslims hate gays, christians, and atheists. Muslim restrict freedom of speech, they do not allow women to drive or vote. The ability to be a lesbian, christian, business owner is a freedom, not a policy.

Posted by: WhyhateUSA? | May 16, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Nice to see all the comments favoring Ron Paul's line of inquiry on the Whys and Wherefores of 9/11 and subsequent--what the enemy is thinking, saying. It was a breath of reality, if only for a few seconds, in this tiresome display of platitudes and pandering. When will some of the Demo Candidates take this line of thought up besides Kusinich?

Posted by: Spectator | May 16, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

I personally, applauded Ron Paul - what guts - straight talk - that is what we want -forget the political roam around - that's why he came in as second on the Fox text vote - pay attention candidates !
When the commentators ask a question and the candidate starts roaming around the answer, they should be interrupted -the candidate that gives a straight layman's answer will be the next President of the U.S., leader of the free world - and this time, no more "my way or no way"
And where was the control center in NYC? G not too smart there - didn't the terriorists pay us a visit there some years back - I watched last night because I was interested in promoting G but when I observed that he repeatedly skirted around the questions, I made my decision right then - not him for President -
McCain a good guy, no doubt, but he supports the war even when the American people have said "no more" - another 4 years of war!! The statistics always name a number of soldiers killed - start reciting the number of soldiers mammed - no arms, legs, etc - and BROKE - we talk about sacrifices we make - I do believe it is not us but our soldiers and their families - what the rest of us sacrifice is our pockets -
Let's pay attention and not say someone won because the got mad - pay attention - don't let the media/commentators make up your minds as they have done in the past - our future is at stake -

Posted by: GAYLE | May 16, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

"Under Islamic law, homosexuality is unlawful, a kind of illness that needs to be treated," said Sheikh Ibrahim Sarsur, an MP in the Israeli parliament and a member of the movement.'

how is this different from the republican party?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

here is some proof of republican evil:

WASHINGTON, DC--In the latest in a long series of ominous public pronouncements, the Department of Evil released a statement Monday demanding that all residents of the United States must die.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/dept_of_evil_all_of_you_must_die

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Surely McCain should be listed amongst the losers after he spoke out against torture. Soon after, when Giuliani and Romney disagreed with McCain, the torture-loving Fox audience applauded loudly.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul understands why we are stuck in the Iraq quaqmire. There is plenty of evidence to back up his assertions of blowback because of U.S. foreign policy. According to the September, 2004 report of the Defense Science Board, a Federal Advisory Committee "established to provide independent advice to the Secretary of Defense", here are some salient points that Congressman Paul has made from time to time over the last decade: 1. Muslims do not "hate our freedom", but rather, they hate our policies. 2. In the eyes of Muslims, the American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. 3. The dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. Fighting groups protray themselves as the true defenders of the entire Muslim community to broad community support. 4. Muslims see Americans as strangely narcissistic-namely that the war is all about us.
Obviously Rummy and Rudy did not bother to read the report.

Posted by: Don | May 16, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse

I personally, applauded Ron Paul - what guts - straight talk - that is what we want -forget the political roam around - that's why he came in as second on the Fox text vote - pay attention candidates !
When the commentators ask a question and the candidate starts roaming around the answer, they should be interrupted -the candidate that gives a straight layman's answer will be the next President of the U.S., leader of the free world - and this time, no more "my way or no way"
And where was the control center in NYC? G not too smart there - didn't the terriorists pay us a visit there some years back - I watched last night because I was interested in promoting G but when I observed that he repeatedly skirted around the questions, I made my decision right then - not him for President -
McCain a good guy, no doubt, but he supports the war even when the American people have said "no more" - another 4 years of war!! The statistics always name a number of soldiers killed - start reciting the number of soldiers mammed - no arms, legs, etc - and BROKE - we talk about sacrifices we make - I do believe it is not us but our soldiers and their families - what the rest of us our sacrificing is in our pockets -
Let's pay attention and not say someone won because the got mad - pay attention - don't let the media/commentators make up your minds as they have done in the past - our future is at stake -

Posted by: GAYLE | May 16, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse

2008 can't come fast enough; back into the wilderness for the GOP!! Take a few decades to think about what you've done....

Posted by: fear-monger | May 16, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Yes, I would. My position that Fox isn't biased actually stemmed from the 80s and 90s protests that CNN was biased. I never saw any real evidence.

There was piddling around the edges of proof, like who gets defined as a "moderate" and who gets defined as an "ultra conservative" and the seldom is anyone defined as a "ultra liberal". The ideology of most reporters is to the left. All of that is good and well and probably true, but the fact is when I watched stories on CNN they were pretty much the same stories I saw anywhere else.

When Fox News started it did suck. Their sunday show was just a compilation of interviews for the week, they had no live sunday news show. I flip channels. I watch them all, ABC NBC CBS MSNBC FOX CNN CNBC, PBS, there isn't a dimes worth of difference in the actual presentation of the news between all of them.

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Vast areas of snow in Antarctica melted in 2005 when temperatures warmed up for a week in the summer in a process that may accelerate invisible melting deep beneath the surface, NASA said on Tuesday.

A new analysis of satellite data showed that an area the size of California melted and then re-froze -- the most significant thawing in 30 years, the U.S. space agency said.

Unlike the Arctic, Antarctica has shown little to no warming in the recent past with the exception of the Antarctic Peninsula, where ice sheets have been breaking apart.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Re Rudy Giuliani, here is the link to the NY Mag article

http://nymag.com/news/features/31812/

Posted by: The REAL Rudy | May 16, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Ya, and they hate us for our freedom's right? ignorant people. The truth hurts

Posted by: truthaddict | May 16, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Giuliani should look at Switzerland. it doesn't run around invading countries, installing dictators and stealing the resources of other countries. And terrorists don't seem to be bombing buildings in that country.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

bsimon:

Because it attempts to use negative association the way that McCarthy did in the 1950s, despite the fact that US fundies don't support violence, do support the notion of progress through education, do support the first amendment, etc.

Its just another version of the irrational, angry, red faced, spittle flying Bush/Hitler chant that is typical of bitter irratonal old leftist haters.

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

No, Razorback, I don't reference anything. I quote the chief of the Fox News London bureau when he describes that his channel presents stories with a conservative bias. Scott Norvell works for the news division, and he says "our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories".

This is about as unambiguous as it gets. I could cite studies by various organizations; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies_and_allegations_of_bias has a good list. But that evidence isn't nearly as damning as a quote from a high-ranking Fox executive. If someone from CNN joked about clubbing conservatives to death and bragged that his station is honest about their point of view, would you give them a pass?

Posted by: Blarg | May 16, 2007 3:36 PM | Report abuse

"Under Islamic law, homosexuality is unlawful, a kind of illness that needs to be treated," said Sheikh Ibrahim Sarsur, an MP in the Israeli parliament and a member of the movement.

"Our Arab society cannot tolerate this phenomenum, to allow it to become an overt part of our daily life," the lawmaker added.

Posted by: WhyhateUSA? | May 16, 2007 3:36 PM | Report abuse

If Giuliani were President of Switzerland he'd get them into a war.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse

No, Razorback, I don't reference anything. I quote the chief of the Fox News London bureau when he describes that his channel presents stories with a conservative bias. Scott Norvell works for the news division, and he says "our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories".

This is about as unambiguous as it gets. I could cite studies by various media outlets; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies_and_allegations_of_bias has a good list. But that evidence isn't nearly as damning as a quote from a high-ranking Fox executive. If someone from CNN joked about clubbing conservatives to death and bragged that his station is honest about their point of view, would you give them a pass?

Posted by: Blarg | May 16, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Razorback writes
"Another mean ignorant statement by a mean ignorant person."

But drindl's statement, while phrased somewhat harshly, is factually accurate. The fundamentalist Christians I know believe that their faith is the one true faith & actively recruit others to their faith to 'save them'. Their goals are to convert everyone to their faith to save them from the devil. What's mean or ignorant about pointing that out?

Posted by: bsimon | May 16, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul is the only one that has a chance of winning the presidency. The war will be the main issue, and the winner must be anti-war. So if the GOP wants to put a conservative in office in 2008, they must endorse Ron Paul.

Posted by: brody | May 16, 2007 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Dem science (12:00 PM)

You wrote "Climatologist Fired For Exposing Warming Myths
University of Washington climate scientist Mark Albright was recently dismissed from his position as associate state climatologist, just weeks after exposing false claims of shrinking glaciers in the Cascade Mountains.

no facts please, we're Dems"

Mr. Albright was not "dismissed" he was stripped of his title.

There were no climate myths. There was a disagreement amongst colleagues regarding the percentage of snow pack shrinkage, not glaciers, in the Cascades.

Mr. Albright was stripped of his title for failing to consult with his colleagues prior to dissemenating his theories. He remains in his research position at The University of Washington.

Perhaps you should check YOUR facts prior to posting. Or is spin more important than fact?

Posted by: dahagg | May 16, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

The GOP debate: 10 losers, ome more ridiculous that the totrure.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

One guy makes a joke and it is now fact. sounds like your global warming facts, your war facts, your budget and economic facts and all the resat of the slanted, invented Lib facts.

Fact : a piece of information presented as having objective reality

I know you Libs will have to wrestle with the concept of objective, quickly followed by the utter insurmountable difficulty with reality but, one guys wandering views in an interview do not constitute fact.

Try again.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 16, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Blarg:

You reference some personalities from OPINION shows. What about bias in news coverage? Name a story that has been covered differently in a substantive way. Do you likewise accept the assertion that BBC is biased to the left?

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 3:24 PM | Report abuse

GOP pro-life(and anti-child) and sexual orientation bigots who are Romney Supporters have realize that while the political calculations have cause Romney to switch to pro-life in the primary, the calculations in the general elections are much different. I predict a reversal when he reads the polls and realized that 60+% of the electorate are pro-choice in the first trimester at least.

Posted by: Muddy | May 16, 2007 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Razorback writes
"bsimon, you need a more rational way to sort out the "fundies"."

Perhaps. I find the parallels between the groups compelling. Someone else posted earlier (possibly on the prior topic) about how the fundies tend to go all hypocritical when they really lose it - an observation which seems to hold true for both varieties (broadly grouped).

Posted by: bsimon | May 16, 2007 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Alright people. This is my last post. on this site. No more Rufus1133 of JKRish.

CC is not concerned with the issues that face this country. He is following the O'REilly's and Coulter of the world. Stir up controvesy and watch what happens. The three posts saying Rudy did himslef good with that garbage ruined it for me. YOu had 30% of right wing fox viewers say Paul won. That was before Fox started bad mouthing their own poll because they didn't liek the results.

This site is a waste of my time. The trolls are here to divide and conquer, sabatoge the debate. They want to sabatoge this country. CC is helping with the lies and propoganda. I'm not wasting my time here anymore.

HOW TO YOU EXPLAIN TO A BLIND PERSON WHAT THE COLOR BLUE LOOKS LIKE?.

How can you know what you've never know. Good luck to all. May god bless. Sorry for what I tried to do to this site. I was tried to help you pole, razor and zouk mostly.

Good luck. Now you can blather all day about non sense and ignore what is really going on. I'm going to give you people back the ability to live in willful ignorance.

To anyone that this doesnt' apply to ignore.

Good luck. May god have mercy on us all:)

Posted by: rufus1133 JKrish | May 16, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

drindl says:

"All fundies of all relgions are lunatics -- that's the problem. they all want to run the world, because they're all convinced that only they have the 'one true faith."

Another mean ignorant statement by a mean ignorant person. See the above post for the difference in islamic fundies and US fundies.

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

For those (like the anonymous poster at 3:16) who can't understand the article I quoted, I'll summarize. Scott Norvell is (was?) the London bureau chief for Fox News. In May of 2005, in an interview, he said the following:

"Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly. And those who hate us can take solace in the fact that they aren't subsidizing Bill's bombast; we payers of the BBC license fee don't enjoy that peace of mind.

Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories. That's our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting. The Beeb's institutionalized leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was a little more honest about it."

Fox News executives admit that their programming has a conservative bias. Why can't you?

Posted by: Blarg | May 16, 2007 3:20 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Ron Paul Rocks. He's the only one who made sense re foreign policy. He'll never win but at least he's talking about the right things. And first and foremost he's the only one who answered the questions. No one else did, they all evaded, especially Flip Flop Romney. Give Ron Paul credit for being honest, whether you agree with him or not.

Posted by: Ron Paul | May 16, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, you were doing so good. Did you skip lunch? Is that why you just went moonbat on me?

bsimon says:

"Sounds like its not having freedom of speech that's the problem, but using it. The fundies flipped out when salman rushdie wrote 'blasphemy' about mohammed & allah, kindof like the fundies that flipped out when that artist peed on a cross. And the fundies flipped out about a cartoon in larry flynt's mag - was that published in the netherlands?"

bsimon, you need a more rational way to sort out the "fundies". Their fundies killed other fundies that agreed with them because they were squeezed into such a tight place when having a rally about a political cartoon.

Their fundies have had a 15 year death sentence together with hit squads over something someone wrote, whereas our fundies merely suggested that if taxpayers are funding an art project, that taxpayers should have some control over what is in the art. Our fundies for the most part agreed they have the first amendment right to do the "Piss Christ" thing, they just didn't want taxpayers to pay for it.

Our fundies set up universitys that are able to get academic accreditation just like secular colleges.

http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=7650

Their fundies reject the very notion of progess through education.

Our fundies when to court over a parody that suggested that falwells first sexual experience was with his mother in an outhouse, and even with that, Falwell and Flynt "became friends"

(Flynt statement yesterday): "My mother always told me that no matter how much you dislike a person, when you meet them face to face you will find characteristics about them that you like. Jerry Falwell was a perfect example of that. I hated everything he stood for, but after meeting him in person, years after the trial, Jerry Falwell and I became good friends. He would visit me in

California and we would debate together on college campuses. I always appreciated his sincerity even though I knew what he was selling and he knew what I was selling."

http://www.accesshollywood.com/news/ah5356.shtml

Now tell me bsimon, do you really believe that our fundies are the same as those who, when Muhammed is depicted as violent, prove the point of the cartoon by going on a violent rampage?


Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 3:16 PM | Report abuse

At the top of the proof column it says:

chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics

I found some stuff on the onion that says hillary and bill have martian babies - that is also proof.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 3:16 PM | Report abuse

All fundies of all relgions are lunatics -- that's the problem. they all want to run the world, because they're all convinced that only they have the 'one true faith.'

Posted by: drindl | May 16, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

The FOX team did an amazing job and asked great questions. There are too many candidates in the pool and let's hope the obvious losers drop out. As always Mitt Romney was too staged. None of them inspires confidence. Let's all hail Hilary now.

Posted by: FOX Groupie | May 16, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Wow, now all of the sudden we're not ignoring Ron Paul in these posts, just in time to claim that he ruined his campaign by telling the truth like he did in the first debate instead of rehashing old, tired goto lines like Giuliani. If it weren't for the hand picked Fox audience, the media, and the applause lights, Guiliani would've been exposed as a fake, with very little knowledge of foreign policy and the reasons behind the 911 attacks. "They hate us for our freedom" just doesn't cut it anymore.

Posted by: brody | May 16, 2007 3:10 PM | Report abuse

28 percenters

Is that a reference to the congressional approval rating?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 3:10 PM | Report abuse

I think Huckabee won. I also did NOT hear Ron Paul say that we deserved 9/11 and Rudy Guliani, being the opportunist he is, pounced on him. It was sad and ridiculous. And does Rudy somehow own 9/11? Puhleez! Read the piece about him and his new (#3) wife in this week's NY Magazine. Sad and pathetic. A Mafia wannnabe.

Posted by: GOP Debate | May 16, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

After losing a string of embarrassing votes on the House floor because of procedural maneuvering, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has decided to change the current House Rules to completely shut down the floor to the minority.

The Democratic Leadership is threatening to change the current House Rules regarding the Republican right to the Motion to Recommit or the test of germaneness on the motion to recommit. This would be the first change to the germaneness rule since 1822.

Posted by: NPelosi | May 16, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

I think Huckabee won. I also did NOT hear Ron Paul say that we deserved 9/11 and Rudy Guliani, being the opportunist he is, pounced on him. It was sad and ridiculous. And does Rudy somehow own 9/11? Puhleez! Read the piece about him and his new (#3) wife in this week's NY Magazine. Sad and pathetic. A Mafia wannnabe.

Posted by: GOPers | May 16, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

razorback asks
"If anything that pisses them off creates more terrorists, and killing terrorists pisses them off, does it follow that we should not kill terrorists? Does preventing terrorist attacks likewise piss off terrorists? "

I disagree with your original premise about 'anything that pisses them off.' What actually does create more terrorists is when bombs get accidentally dropped on people's homes who aren't terrorists. When you incarcerate an innocent guy in Bagram & beat him to death, his family is unlikely to greet us with wine & roses.

Posted by: bsimon | May 16, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Finally a republican that has the courage to speak the truth Ron Paul, and how very predictable that after having done so, and doing well in or even leading the polls, the MSM conspires to suppres these awkward and unforeseen results in a desperate attempt to ensure their ability to foist corrupt leadership once again into office.

Is America waking up to the reality that candidates that speak the truth are quickly suppressed, edited, or even shot if they reach the point where they have a real chance at being elected into office?

Ron Paul is a brave man who is obviously willing to speak the truth, and America seems to be responding favorably to it. Let's all chip in and buy him a bullet proof vest before he is dealt with like so many other truth tellers in the past.

jomoco

Posted by: jomoco | May 16, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Evidence of Fox News bias:
http://www.slate.com/id/2119864/

Posted by: Blarg | May 16, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

RP Rocks says:

"The Washington Post is neoconservative to the bone...no wonder they find Ron Paul a "loser"."

So RP, the WaPo has gone over to the dark side. The WaPo endorsed Carter over Reagan, Mondale over Reagan, Dukakis over Bush, Clinton over Bush, Clinton over Dole, Gore over Bush, and Kerry over Bush.

Just when did the WaPo go over to the dark side?

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

razorback writes
"That is why those living in mud huts cared about what Salmon Rushdie wrote, and some have been trying to kill him ever since. The mud hut crowd went crazy over political cartoon in a low rent rag newspaper in the Netherlands."

Sounds like its not having freedom of speech that's the problem, but using it. The fundies flipped out when salman rushdie wrote 'blasphemy' about mohammed & allah, kindof like the fundies that flipped out when that artist peed on a cross. And the fundies flipped out about a cartoon in larry flynt's mag - was that published in the netherlands?

Posted by: bsimon | May 16, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

"fanatical nutjobs"? Is that a reference to the 28 percenters?

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | May 16, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Why can conservative ONLY watch fox razor. That seems like willfull ignorance to me. Why can't you watch other news if Fox "News" is not bias?

That bias would have been in the dems fox debate as well. How many conservatives would watch it? Not many right? Why give FOx the benifeit of lookin glike a real news station. The right cannot live in their caves forever. It may be bright out of the cave at first. Better to live in the daylight than the darkness. Please right wingers out there. Pelase watch other news sources. Fox is lying to you everyday. Anna nicole, Alec Baldwin, Rosie O'Donnell.

What about real news. Why not report what is really happening. Fox is a propoganda station because they select what is news. They have become the news rather than report it. I would care if they attacked both sides. Look at the show family guy. That is on FOX TV, which they say has no connection to FOx "news". Family guy attacks everybody. They don't say " oohhhh we can't make fun of republicans because one is the president." That is a facist argument. I'm going to call razor's movement on that until it stops.

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 16, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Like, I said, all Democrats who praise Ron Paul should really listen to him more carefully. When he said the reason that bin Laden hates us because of our foreign policy, bombing Iraq for 10 years, station military in Saudi, supporting Israel. Ron is talking about Bill Clinton.

Of the 10 years bombing of Iraq, 8 years were under Clinton, and they are more aggressive than the other 2 years, so is the military presence in Saudi. Our support for Israel is refering to failure of Oslo Accord.

Posted by: Richard | May 16, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

bsimon:

If anything that pisses them off creates more terrorists, and killing terrorists pisses them off, does it follow that we should not kill terrorists? Does preventing terrorist attacks likewise piss off terrorists?

France tried your strategy. They have opposed US policies. How did the fanatics thank them? By having such a riot the Frenchies elected Sarko to bust some heads.

Being nice to these guys just wont work.

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

A point to remember: The Washington Post is neoconservative to the bone...no wonder they find Ron Paul a "loser". Paul tells the truths that the Post and MSM do not want the public to hear.

The only mistake Paul made is in not tearing Rudy a new one for supporting a foreign policy that makes Americans less safe, will eventually bankrupt us and has little support from anyone in the rest of the world or our "friends" in the Middle East.

While the "RepubliCrats" in Washington continue to cover up their ineptitude by frightening the public that we will be "nuked in our jammies" by some pipsqueak third world power, it would behoove Ron Paul to remind Americans over and again that 9-11 was carried out by Saudis armed with penknives, pens and pencils and a few other low tech "weapons". And, the FBI in Minneapolis was on to them before our "leaders" dropped the ball.

Posted by: RP Rocks | May 16, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

I don't think people are giving enough credit to Tom Tancredo. Alhtough he hasn't been concise enough to get through to people yet, he is a true conservative in regards to fiscal responsibility, family values, immigration, not to mention that he thinks that we should out walk out on Iraq but should be letting the Iraq troops do the majority of the fighting at this point with Americans as a supporting force.

Guiliani has nothing to offer except that he was the Mayor during 9/11. People thought George Bush led well too during that time but look at his ratings now. I'm not sure why everyone wants to give him so much credit for being mad at Ron Paul for saying that bombing of Iraq's "no fly" zone caused 9/11, most of us were so what makes his anger so special?

Huckabee did well. Romney and McCain are going to be in it until the end because of their fund raising ability so it doesn't matter how they did.

Posted by: fighterDC | May 16, 2007 2:54 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, I don't know why people hate being called "fanatical nutjob" living in a mud hut. Or why women should not be allowed to vote, drive, go out in public w/o a male family member? I don't know why anyone would kill themselves, to try to deny religious freedom to others.

I just know they do.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Sept. 11 attacks, a visibly angry Giuliani interrupted to question that "extraordinary statement" and asked Paul to recant it.--------

But, Paul didn't recant, now did he!

Posted by: Wil Burns | May 16, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Sept. 11 attacks, a visibly angry Giuliani interrupted to question that "extraordinary statement" and asked Paul to recant it.--------

But, Paul didn't recant, now did he!

Posted by: Wil Burns | May 16, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

anonymous coward writes
"defending your self against random subway bombings is so pointless."

Its not the goal thats pointless, its the methodology used.

Or do you think an effective counterterrorism policy is one that creates more terrorists?

Posted by: bsimon | May 16, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

bsimon askes:

"Why would a guy living in a mud hut in the mountains of the middle east care if I have the freedom to criticize my President or not?"

Because they are nutty fanatics, completely irrational. That is why those living in mud huts cared about what Salmon Rushdie wrote, and some have been trying to kill him ever since. The mud hut crowd went crazy over political cartoon in a low rent rag newspaper in the Netherlands.

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 2:47 PM | Report abuse

southoftheborder writes
"One of the multiple reasons that Islamic Fanatics hate the USA is our Freedom of Speech"

How do you know that? I only ask because it doesn't make any sense. Why would a guy living in a mud hut in the mountains of the middle east care if I have the freedom to criticize my President or not? Why would a guy volunteer to hijack an airplane and fly it into a building because I have the freedom to call him a fanatical nutjob for doing so?

Posted by: bsimon | May 16, 2007 2:43 PM | Report abuse

a pointless war

defending your self against random subway bombings is so pointless.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

I do not agree that "Chris Matthews was a horrible moderator." Unlike some righties, I like Matthews.

The problem with Matthews was that he asked questions that would be tough from the perspective of a campaing consultant or a political tactician, so the debate turned on nuances of opinion regarding abortion.

Last night debate focused on tough questions that the country faces, not tough questions that each campaigns consultants and strategists face.

The Dems blew it by boycotting Fox. The best way to have a debate what focuses on substance is to have a moderator that throws at the heads of the candidates, knocking them off their canned lines and talking points, and seeing what is really there. Although the bias of Fox news is just a myth (No one has posted anything objective regarding the supposed bias) tough questions help the good candidates, help the voters and raise the quality of the debate.

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Instead of conspiricy theories, perhaps people voted for Ron Paul because the right is tired of Republicans who had power for so many years and used it expand the government and get us into a pointless war.

I WILL be voting in the Republican primaries and I WILL be voting for Ron Paul.

I don't agree with him on everything, but at least he won't keep increasing government and he will use our military as it should be used. For defense, not as the world's policemen.

Posted by: Katie | May 16, 2007 2:36 PM | Report abuse

I am entitled to my opinions and they are facts.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Razorback & bsimon

I understand that the post debate polls are not scientific surveys. That's why I said that Paul's support needs to rise in conventional polls. The Republican Party no longer resembles the free market and noninterventionist party of Robert Taft, and we all know that. Ron Paul is trying to rebuild the original base of his party, and, and if his strategy works, he will do the Republicans and the rest of the country a favor. He may not succeed, but at least he has the courage to try.

Posted by: Don | May 16, 2007 2:35 PM | Report abuse

One of the multiple reasons that Islamic Fanatics hate the USA is our Freedom of Speech. The very freedom that allows some posters to denegrate their fellow Americans.

Generalized bigoted statements about Southerners is part of our Feedom of Speech.

By the way, not all Southerners marry their cousins. Sometimes we marry a Yankee. That's because there are so many of them moving down here, it's hard to find a true Southerner.

Posted by: Southoftheborder | May 16, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

JWaterson says:

"Razorback's assertion that "combatants" (whatever that means) have different legal rights than U.S. citizens is correct, but his point is not. In fact, his last sentence makes this clear; he notes that the legal difference exists "according to the US Supreme Court." Sure, the law may differential between Americans and suspected foreign fighters, but should we, the American people, really be using de facto indefinite detention (read: potential life sentence), trial-by-army, and what are at best borderline-torture tactics to keep suspects where we want them?"

Congratulations JWaterson, a liberal finally gets a very basic point: There is a huge difference between the statement "Bush violates the Constitution" and "I disagree with Bush's policy".

I disagree with JWaterson, but because he understands that for the most part, he is disagreeing with Bush as to what the policy should be, not what the Constitution requires, I respect his opinion.

I do not respect the opinion of those who say "Bush is violating the constitution" because, as JWaterson points out, that is not what the Supreme Court says. Those who say "bush is violating the constitution" are idiots and embiciles because they do not understand the law the way that JWaterston does.

I can respect JWaterson's opinion because it is not based on "psudo law" or superstitions and false ideological notions about the law, it is based on what the law really is.

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Somebody needs to tell Giuliani that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Then again, maybe that's what Giuliani wants: another 9/11 so he can play act his commander-in-chief role.

Go take some foreign affairs course Rudy. Ron Paul was right

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Boxers or briefs?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 2:26 PM | Report abuse

So Chris Matthews was a horrible moderator. So Fox News did a better job this go-round. The thing about Chris is that he likes to hear his own voice. BUT, so does Bill O'Reilly, another polarizing political commentator. Throw him into the mix with the Democratic candidates and see if he doesn't interrupt more than a time or two. We need to pay attention to these candidates' answers, no matter if they're to good or bad questions. Obviously Chris did something right by asking Giuliani the abortion question. The entire country has talked about it since.

The fact of the matter is that there needs to be a fundamental change in how we debate policies and politics in this country. We don't learn much new about the candidates from this standard format. Town hall forums with a mixed demographic are the only way we'll ever get real answers from the candidates. No canned jokes. No prepared sound-bites. Just the "shock and awe" of real people asking questions on subjects that matter to them.

Posted by: Dem in KC | May 16, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

We do have a problem with radical Islam. There is not doubt about it. If you have any doubt, travel to Britain and go to some parts of London. It is a wake up call to Americans. We have a problem with radical evangelical Christians. And radical Mormons. And radical conservative Jews.

See a pattern?:

1) Believe in a higher power as their leader

2) Practice the opposite of what their holy books preach

3) Are the majority

4) Are the source of all problems in the world

5) Violence is acceptable. Pure power is the goal.

6) Any person who is of a religious faith is not a thinking person.

7) All support Rudy for president.

8) Love Rudy.

9) Believe in oppression as the only possible solution.

10) Love Rudy.

Posted by: Mentor Bob | May 16, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Don you lover of psudo scientific polling methodologies, can't you understand that the purpose of a poll is to use statistical probability in projecting the opinion of a large group by interviewing a smaller group. Moonbats who text in Paul are not part of the group you are seeking to measure (GOP primary) much the same way that right wingers who texted in Gravel and Kucinich were not members of the group that was being measured (Dem primary) after their debate.

If you are seeking to measure public opinion of GOP primary voters, you have to use a valid method.

More psuedo science and superstition in place of facts from the left.

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 2:21 PM | Report abuse

The average temperature in April 2007 was 51.7 F. This was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 47th coolest April in 113 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.
OMG in 100 years it will be 1 degree warmer. Is there a way to surrender to the Earth? I bet Harry knows a way.

Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven "consensus" on man-made global warming.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=

PRAGUE, Czech Republic: Czech President Vaclav Klaus on Wednesday called for a rational debate on global warming, rejecting what he called "hysteria" driven by enviromentalists.

"Let's bring the debate to whether the 0.6 (degree Celsius warming over the last century) is much or little, how much Man has contributed to the warming and ... if there is anything at all Man can do about it," Klaus said when presenting his book "Blue, Not a Green Planet."

He charged that groups other than scientists have now seized on the topic and ambitious environmentalists are fueling a global warming hysteria that has no solid ground in fact and allows manipulation of people."

the nonsense of the Libs is ending soon. all the lies can't stand up to the scrutiny of the Internet age.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 16, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Razorback's assertion that "combatants" (whatever that means) have different legal rights than U.S. citizens is correct, but his point is not. In fact, his last sentence makes this clear; he notes that the legal difference exists "according to the US Supreme Court." Sure, the law may differential between Americans and suspected foreign fighters, but should we, the American people, really be using de facto indefinite detention (read: potential life sentence), trial-by-army, and what are at best borderline-torture tactics to keep suspects where we want them? They are suspects, not convicts, and, as even the U.S. military admits, some of those suspects have been released after even the authorities were forced, by the Supreme Court, to review their cases. Just because the military's detention procedures at Guantanamo and elsewhere may not be expressly prohibited by U.S. law, they nonetheless serve as a slap in the face to the spirit of American due process.

Perhaps torture may be used in the most extraordinary cases. For instance, if the government knows that a terrorist is about to launch an imminent and life-endangering attack or knows of another individual who is, torture may be necessary if all other methods of extracting needed information to stop the imminent attack fail - a Jack Bauer scenario. But for the prisoners at Guantanamo and elsewhere, suhc tactics are deplorable and miserably un-American. These suspects are already in detention and almost certainly without information on any imminent attacks simply because their communication with other terrorists have been cut off, assuming that the prisoners are actually terrorists. These suspects at least deserve a fair trial; it may be classified if necessary and perhaps presided over by a panel of security-cleared judges, but it must be a legitimate trial that conforms to U.S. domestic standards of fairness and due process. If we give these and protections to even the most despicable and dangerous prisoners in the United States (active mob bosses, the Unabomber, the Sniper, etc.), how can we keep a straight face in denying these rights to suspected enemies simply because they lack a U.S. passport?

Posted by: JWaterson | May 16, 2007 2:17 PM | Report abuse

JamesCH, in commenting about how we "lost the peace" does something that Hillary, Edwards, McCain and many others who say the war (or peace per JamesCH) was mismanaged.

He gives a specific thing he would have done differently. Although I disagree with JamesCH, at least he argues about facts.

He says, We lost the peace after we disbanded the Iraqi army and let them keep their weapons. The problem with that argument is that the leadership of the military were Saddam loyalist Sunnis, and there is no way that Shiites would have accepted that.

I agree that there are problems that would have been solved had we tried to leave the army at least partially intact, but that would have created other problems also.

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Don-
you missed the main argument. The argument is that those pesky liberals voted for Ron Paul to skew the results in or to embarrass the 'top 3' GOP candidates. To say the least, this conspiracy theory is entertaining.

Posted by: bsimon | May 16, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Rudy Giuliani:

100 million evangelicals. Here is your base.

1) Ignorant and easily pliable.

2) Easy to manage as a whole.

3) Believe the Bible to be the basis of their entire lives. Easy to misquote and use for your gain.

4) You must appeal to this base. Whatever it takes. Then again, you know this already.

5) Remember that you must create the illusion that the evangelicals are America and that because of their beliefs, we are headed in the right direction. Lie.

6) Remember that the evangelicals in this country are not convinced that the republican party has their best interests at heart. This is the key to it all. This illusion must be kept up.

7) You are God's mayor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

8) Whatever the evengelicals believe in, you believe in. 100 million, Rudy. You'll win with their vote.

9) You must let go of the notion of any personal integrity, then again you have already according to New Yorkers. I mention your name and many can't stop laughing. They say, "Giuliani, the guy is frickin' nuts beyond anything I've ever seen. Then again, since most people in America are crazy evengelicals, Giuliani will win."
Bingo!

10) Romney is just about the funniest thing I've seen in years. You are crazier than he is. Remember, America likes crazy. He is so crazy!
10)

Posted by: Mentor Bob | May 16, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Erin, keep giving em crap, these right wing idiots need to be placed on an island where they can practice their ilks to each other! They believe that someone like Bush is a genius, need we say more about the GOP. How about this for a moniker GOP (Group of Prostitutes). They sell their soles to the right wing wackos for an endorsement, then preach WAR! They tell women that they are loved and cherished but too stupid to make a decision about their own body! They say they are patriotic and support the troops, yet they would rather leave them in Iraq as cannon fodder then admit the Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rice/Rummy/Wolfowitz/Bremer/ and all the rest of the neocons have been complicit in an illegal invasion, they ignore the constitution, and have literally ran our country into bankruptcy, destroyed our military and ruined the reputation of the US throughout the world. So they send forth a bunch of either old, broken down WAR HERO who drank the kool-aid and went against everything he was suppose to support in order to get a ticket to the big dance. Giuliani is hailed as a hero of 9-11, what did he do exactly? Walk around with a mask on directing traffic, when he's the genius that put the command center in the World Trade Center, which had been attacked in 93. Brilliant! I live in Idaho, where So. Idaho is ruled by the LDS church. There are some good people for sure in the religion, however, the majority are nutcases who have seized power in Boise and I have found a good many of them are like drones, they follow whatever Hinckley says. Seems they cannot wipe their butts without an order from the Bishop! Romney flip flops but the REPUBS only call Dems flip flopper's, it's a "brain realignment" when it's one of them. So to Farouk and all the rest spewing the usually, coward, cut and runners etc., wonder what it means when Bushie says he's for time lines, he's not cut and running, or holding our military hostage, for him it's a "vision" maybe God's talking to him again. I'd rather suggest it's the Jack Daniels! At any rate, this sorry bunch has had twelve years and a shrub to ruin our country, it's time for the American public to take it back and tell all of them their services are no longer needed! Sue F

Posted by: Sue F | May 16, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Erin, keep giving em crap, these right wing idiots need to be placed on an island where they can practice their ilks to each other! They believe that someone like Bush is a genius, need we say more about the GOP. How about this for a moniker GOP (Group of Prostitutes). They sell their soles to the right wing wackos for an endorsement, then preach WAR! They tell women that they are loved and cherished but too stupid to make a decision about their own body! They say they are patriotic and support the troops, yet they would rather leave them in Iraq as cannon fodder then admit the Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rice/Rummy/Wolfowitz/Bremer/ and all the rest of the neocons have been complicit in an illegal invasion, they ignore the constitution, and have literally ran our country into bankruptcy, destroyed our military and ruined the reputation of the US throughout the world. So they send forth a bunch of either old, broken down WAR HERO who drank the kool-aid and went against everything he was suppose to support in order to get a ticket to the big dance. Giuliani is hailed as a hero of 9-11, what did he do exactly? Walk around with a mask on directing traffic, when he's the genius that put the command center in the World Trade Center, which had been attacked in 93. Brilliant! I live in Idaho, where So. Idaho is ruled by the LDS church. There are some good people for sure in the religion, however, the majority are nutcases who have seized power in Boise and I have found a good many of them are like drones, they follow whatever Hinckley says. Seems they cannot wipe their butts without an order from the Bishop! Romney flip flops but the REPUBS only call Dems flip flopper's, it's a "brain realignment" when it's one of them. So to Farouk and all the rest spewing the usually, coward, cut and runners etc., wonder what it means when Bushie says he's for time lines, he's not cut and running, or holding our military hostage, for him it's a "vision" maybe God's talking to him again. I'd rather suggest it's the Jack Daniels! At any rate, this sorry bunch has had twelve years and a shrub to ruin our country, it's time for the American public to take it back and tell all of them their services are no longer needed! Sue F

Posted by: Sue F | May 16, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Erin, keep giving em crap, these right wing idiots need to be placed on an island where they can practice their ilks to each other! They believe that someone like Bush is a genius, need we say more about the GOP. How about this for a moniker GOP (Group of Prostitutes). They sell their soles to the right wing wackos for an endorsement, then preach WAR! They tell women that they are loved and cherished but too stupid to make a decision about their own body! They say they are patriotic and support the troops, yet they would rather leave them in Iraq as cannon fodder then admit the Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rice/Rummy/Wolfowitz/Bremer/ and all the rest of the neocons have been complicit in an illegal invasion, they ignore the constitution, and have literally ran our country into bankruptcy, destroyed our military and ruined the reputation of the US throughout the world. So they send forth a bunch of either old, broken down WAR HERO who drank the kool-aid and went against everything he was suppose to support in order to get a ticket to the big dance. Giuliani is hailed as a hero of 9-11, what did he do exactly? Walk around with a mask on directing traffic, when he's the genius that put the command center in the World Trade Center, which had been attacked in 93. Brilliant! I live in Idaho, where So. Idaho is ruled by the LDS church. There are some good people for sure in the religion, however, the majority are nutcases who have seized power in Boise and I have found a good many of them are like drones, they follow whatever Hinckley says. Seems they cannot wipe their butts without an order from the Bishop! Romney flip flops but the REPUBS only call Dems flip flopper's, it's a "brain realignment" when it's one of them. So to Farouk and all the rest spewing the usually, coward, cut and runners etc., wonder what it means when Bushie says he's for time lines, he's not cut and running, or holding our military hostage, for him it's a "vision" maybe God's talking to him again. I'd rather suggest it's the Jack Daniels! At any rate, this sorry bunch has had twelve years and a shrub to ruin our country, it's time for the American public to take it back and tell all of them their services are no longer needed! Sue F

Posted by: Sue F | May 16, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

JamesCH, I'd say we lost the peace long before that. Where's ObL?

Posted by: bsimon | May 16, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

I really like it when some folks dismiss Ron Paul's two consecutive wins in internet/text message post debate pollings. Let's say for the sake of argument that Paul has just a couple of people frantically voting/text messaging their votes after each debate. Can't Romney/McCain/Giuliani muster enough support to beat such a tiny base for Paul. The fact that they can't is food for thought. Now at some point, Ron Paul is going to have to show some real support in polls conducted by Gallup, et al. He might just surprise some of the pundits who dismiss him for now. Those interested in reading Dr. Paul's speeches and statements concerning domestic and foreign policy can access a seven year archive at his Congressional website www.house.gov/paul.

Posted by: Don | May 16, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Is it a full moon tonight? the moonbats are out in force.

Hhhhhhoooowwwwlllll!!

they must be proud of their electoral victory last night. I hate to tell them ron paul is not the new president. someone should remind them that hillary is going to be their candidate and that suggests a subsequent loss in the real election. but considering how much they like losing, it should be no problem.

Posted by: * | May 16, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

This is what drives me nuts about my fellow Democrats. We didn't lose the war. We won the war in about two weeks. What happened after is what we lost. And that's how it needs to be dealt with. We lost the peace.

We lost the peace after we disbanded the Iraqi army and let them keep their weapons.

We lost the peace when we gave U.S. contractors the job of rebuilding, instead of employing the Iraqi people.

We lost the peace when we didn't put enough boots on the ground to secure ammo dumps, let alone neighborhoods.

We lost the peace when we put leaders in the ivory tower of the Green Zone, while the rest of the Iraqi people live with the fear of dying every day.

I do agree that the Bush Administration and the rubber-stamp GOP Congress is responsible for this failure, but it wasn't the war that they failed on.

Posted by: JamesCH | May 16, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul is the only real candidate.

The Big 3 (Rudy McRomney) are neocon clones that give marching orders to 'The Fix'.

Posted by: Ward Ciac | May 16, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul is the only real candidate.

The others are neocon clones that give marching orders to 'The Fix'.

Posted by: Ward Ciac | May 16, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Anybody that disagrees with me is either lying or just plain ignorant

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

ErrinF, you keep missing the point. Let me bumper-sticker it for you:

W does not believe it's lost. That's why he's still keeping our boys (and girls) there.

Harry does believe it's lost. But he's too much of a wimp to act on his convictions.

Frankly, I probably agree more with Reid than with W on the war (but for different reasons). But at least W has the cojones to follow his convictions. Reid does not, or he'd de-fund tomorrow.

Posted by: JD | May 16, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

me too
Errin

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

The Iraq war has already been lost on the ground. Let's not pretend that some miracle is going to suddenly turn things around this late in the game.
The Iraq war has already been lost in the hearts and minds of the American people. Let's not pretend that vast majority of Americans have simply had enough of this botched war of choice.
The Iraq war is lost, and it was lost by George Bush and his rubber stamp Republicans. They were given carte blanche to wage their pet war in Iraq for four years now, and everything just got worse in worse under their watch. Bush and the GOP were allowed to stay the course for too long, and that's what lost the war. The man is a lousy wartime president and a failed Commander In Chief. Prolonging a lost war is ludicrous. The Sunni-Shia civil war in Iraq will run it's course without us being able to stop it. The American citizens who have given up on this war are never going to change their minds now.
The Iraq war is lost. Anybody telling you such is telling you the truth. Anybody that is saying the opposite is either lying or just plain ignorant.

Posted by: ErrinF | May 16, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

ErrinF says:

"What's sad is that the Republican politicians think their base is a bunch of dumb crackers too."

Lets examine the Democratic base: The liberals wants all of the convicts and parolees and druggies to vote, but heaven knows we can't let them inspect baggage we put on planes.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/jan-june04/cargo_04-16.html

The liberals can use public property in urban areas to all of the "souls to the polls" on election day, but have no turn out effort to get people out of town before a Catagory 5 hurricane hits.

Posted by: ZingofKouk | May 16, 2007 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Rufus. We do steal oil. We pay for them. Oil are traded on the world market. We pay oil the same price as any other country. What do you mean by steal? If we do steal oil, we would have taken Kuwait in. At the end of the Gulf War, after we drove out Iraqi army from Kuwait, we could easily taken in Kuwait. Kuwait by the way, has the third largest oil reservers. Yet, we do not occupy Kuwait and we are buying Kuwait oil the same price as anyone else. That is not stealing.

Posted by: Richard | May 16, 2007 1:54 PM | Report abuse

rabid, mindless hatred

that's me - ignorant coward

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Did I really just see someone try to make a point with a Dirty Harry movie?

I have always felt that the Friday the 13th movies present a highly logical argument against stocking summer camps with promiscuous teens.

Jason hates our precious freedoms!

Posted by: mich | May 16, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Rufus. I didn't know CC is into right -wing machine. Anyhow, I do agree that Rudy has the best spotlight last night and therefore he won the debate or you may say he won the show contest. Either way, he is and will get more attention. Telling people to take back their words is not facism. Making people do is. That is a whole world of difference. For example, allowing abortion is not the same as promoting abortion. By the way, I do not even like Rudy, so I am not saying this because I support Rudy. As for your comment about the 30 second debate. I agree and disagree. Yes, 30 second is too little, but when you have 10 men, this is the best they can do. If you allow them to speak for 60 second, then last night would have lasted for a 3 hour debate. You honestly think people have the patience? And if you allowed them to response for 2 minutes, that is 6 hour. The way I see it is that this format does give people will less campaign money to come out to speak. Ron Paul got as much air time as Rommey, so it is a good thing. Yes, it is a bit of a show, but what can you do? Are you willing to sit there and watch for 6 hours?

Posted by: Richard | May 16, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

'No JameCH, critisism of US policy is their propaganda tool. The Koran is their heartfelt belief.'

gee, razorback is so smart he can read minds. wow -- they could really use you over in iraq, son -- why aren't you there?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Easy ErrinF, you will start challenging drindl for the "Chick with the most pent up hatred" award on this site.

As for Reid - I thought you said he was majority leader? And isn't Pelosi in his camp? They have the power! Let them both bring a bill for immediate withdrawal (ok, defunding), as in tomorrow. Otherwise, let him go talk to the parents of whichever soldiers die from now until the withdrawal actually happens, and explain why he is dragging it out for political reasons.

Posted by: JD | May 16, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

I disagree on this one Razor. Osama bin Laden is (or rather was) as secularist, not a cleric. I don't believe that his true intentions are out of his religious beliefs, but rather out of a thirst for power. The Koran gives him the ability to recruit.

Posted by: JamesCH | May 16, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

You said thing right, for the first time Razor. They have a crummy life. They have camels, not F/18's. Way are we over there messing with those people. If someone bombed my mom/dad/brother/cousin I think I would hold a grudge also. We are doing nothing over there but stealing oil, and creating a new generation of terrorists by killings thousands of more people.

We have lost more soldiers in Iraq tahn civilains on 9/11

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 16, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Paul won just as much as Mike Gravel won the first Dem debate. People talked about Gravel after, but mostly because they thought he was a crazy old mand.
Regardless of whether Paul was right or wrong, the majority of Republicans think he is wrong.

Posted by: Andy | May 16, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

I don't like Flip flop Mitt, but the idead that "He does not believe in trial by jury, or the presumption of innocence, or the right to counsel, or an independent judiciary" is both ignorant and false.

He believes in all of that for US CITIZENS, not enemy combatants who are not US Citizens and not in uniform.

Why can't you silly liberals grasp even the most simple legal premise: The rights of US citizens and enemy combatants are DIFFERENT, according to the US Supreme Court.

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

I think Mr. Paul was suggestion its better to fight terrorists than to make terrorists. I would tend to agree. Iraq is not going to follow us home when we leave (and we are leaving, it's just a matter of when), they'll be too busy fighting each other. Meanwhile, we can redeploy the troops to afghanistan, where we're still wanted and find and destroy the taliban and most of Al Qaeda's high command.

Besides, we won the war in Iraq, it's up to them now to do the civil part of it.

Posted by: Will | May 16, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

What's sad is that the Republican politicians think their base is a bunch of dumb crackers too. The political class of the Republican party treats their Southern constituency like a bunch of bumpkins that just fell off the turnip truck. The sentiment I'm putting voice to publicly here is held privately by many politicians in the GOP. To them, the South is nothing but a bunch of rubes to be lied and manipulated. Partisans in love with any politicians are fools.

Posted by: ErrinF | May 16, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

No JameCH, critisism of US policy is their propaganda tool. The Koran is their heartfelt belief.

But the good news is this: as long as they refuse the potential contribution of half of their people (women), as long as they reject the basic western notion of progress through eduction, as long as they insist that government control the entire econony they will have a brutal backwards luddite society and have nobody but themselves to blame for their crappy lives. They will have camels, and we will have F-18s.

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for speaking up Errin. There are far more like us on the board [and the world, thank god] than there are them. razorback and zouk are two of the more simple-minded, gullible ones... and about last night..

I thought mitty hairboy was very clear. He does not believe in trial by jury, or the presumption of innocence, or the right to counsel, or an independent judiciary, or the right to liberty. He believes that the government should disappear people from their homes and send them to prison camps where brutal guards will beat them up at their leisure. He thinks we need more Gitmos and bigger Gitmos. He wants to recreate the gulag. You saw how excited the audience was. They understood it. Why don't you? They love to kill.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

LOSING BY A HAIR

Immediately post-the-debate, a reliable source in the Romney campaign claims the former Massachusetts Governor has had a falling out with a prominent political ally.

Romney blames last night's lackluster performance, on, of all things, his celebrated hair.

Apparently, the governor's stylish, much-discussed coif--it goes by the name of Neil--feels Romney has failed to value his hair as a resource, both in the debates and in the upcoming general election.

One unnamed campaign aide claims to have caught the governor locked in argument with his famous locks.

The hairdoo, or Neil, had demanded separate but equall billing and expressed a desire for the candidate to include the hairdoo as a "two-for-the-price-of-one" bargain.

An irate Romney snapped, "What? You mean along the lines of Bill Clinton's famous assessment of Queen Hillary in 1992."

At which point, Neil replied, "I was thinking more RFK to your JFK--thank you very much."

Romney fumed, "I'd rather bald. Never hurt old Ike."

"But Eisenhower was a general--what did you ever do?"

"I organized a pretty big Olympics is what!"

"You're hanging onto the Salt Lake City thing?"

At this point, Romney's hair strolled off. One rumor has it the coif was seen discussing a Unity Ticket with Joe Lieberman.

Posted by: Charles Coulter - Los Angeles | May 16, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Personally I like McCain, and I want him to do well. However, ojectively, I do not see he did better than Rommey. Can someone tell me why many blogs and columns claimed McCain did a better job than Rommey last night?

Posted by: Richard | May 16, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

This si the problem Andy. The right has turned this election into the eqivalent of americna idol. 30 seconds clips mean nothing. The future of this country and secuirty of this country. If you can or can't articulate that in 30 seconds shouldn't matter. Paul won the debate because he WAS a non-factor. That fact that everyone is talking about him means he won. It is the O'REilly and Coulter school of business. " I have high ratings."

"the worst thing sI say the more money I make." He got his name out there. CC is part of the right-wing attack machine if he is promoting that rudy won the debate becasue of his response to Paul. Where was the debate? The debate was, "recant what you just said."
That is called silencing disent people. That is called facism

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 16, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The battered housing market got another vote of no-confidence from builders last month as applications for new projects tumbled to the lowest since 1997.

republican recession coming...

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Yes and no Razor. The Koran is their propaganda tool in this case. The leaders of these groups, for the most part, hate the U.S. for their interference in their affairs. They recruit using the Koran, convincing those around them that God is on their side, then they pervert the meaning of the scripture to convince them to kill.

Posted by: JamesCH | May 16, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Falwell's legacy: faith, hate or Teletubbies?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

And ErrinF is proving a stereotype related to being an hysterial exaggerator.

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

I know what we should do. We should stop supporting Israel, replace our churches with mosques, tell the women to wear viels, and say to hell with free speech. They they will like us and will quit killing us. Yeah, that is the ticket.

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

I think FNC has a conservative bias, but the debate last night was the most effective thus far. Their bell may have been a bit childish, but apparently that's necessary to keep candidates within their time limits. The questions were more pointed and better researched.

Love or hate Paul, he was certainly out of place last night. The Republican Party has drifted from his position. His foreign policy views seemed more complex than the other candidates, but they don't fit well into 30 or 60 second sound bytes, which is why Giuliani will win that exchange in public opinion.

As for Paul winning online polls--if he has such broad support, when will that show up real world polling? Until that happens, something just doesn't add up. Text message/online polls make even the most bogus real world polls seem legitimate.

I thought McCain and Huckabee did the best. McCain still needs to smooth out his differences with the base on finance reform and immigration, but his performance was much improved (and less caffeinated?) from the first debate. Huckabee was genuine and amusing.

Posted by: Andy | May 16, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

JamesCH, you finally got it right. It has to do with their interpretation of the Koran, specifically with respect to killing infidels. Their hatred is based on their religion, not US foriegn policy.

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Errin - I am sure your fellow moonbats are proud. I find your views shallow and empty of any actual content. Are you hiding your lack of anything intelligent to offer?

Nonetheless, you have been added to the moonbat list and I am sure most reasonable posters will no longer respond to your mindless rants.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 16, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul is a classic libeterian. There is truth to that we angered bin Laden because of our middle east policy, but bin Laden is angry over many other things as well, including the fact we are not a Islamic country. For Democrats who agreeed with Ron Paul, let me translate something for you, what he said is that Bin Laden attacked us because what Clinton did. Of the 10 years bombing of Iraq, 8 years are under Clinton and the most aggressive time too. Same for troop present in Saudis and our support for Israel, remember the failure of Oslo Accords? Anyone will tell you that during the Clinton year, we have some of the biggest and most fierce engagment bewteen Israel and Palestinians.

Posted by: Richard | May 16, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

JD, Senator Reid has taken a strong stance on the Iraq war. He just tried to pass a withdrawal bill co-sponsored by him and Senator Feindgold. So, what the hell are you talking about? Reid is putting his money where his mouth is. And he speaks the truth... the war is lost and the Republicans lost it. The only people denying that are the GOP. The rest of us have seen the light on how Bush and the GOP lost Iraq by staying the course while a civil war erupted. Terms like surrender and defeat are moot when Bush has already lost the war due to his incompetence. Some wartime president that guy turned out to be.
As for the name calling, what of it? I see nothing wrong with calling a political party whose base is a bunch of hicks and crackers EXACTLY what it is. Certainly, GOP posters like kingofzouk and proudtobeGOP are proving the stereotype of the South being degenerate, ignorant, and backwards.

Posted by: ErrinF | May 16, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Dwight, et al, I said it before and I'll say it again: Whether Ron Paul was right or wrong is immaterial. What he said was the exact wrong implication, in front of that audience (or even in a general election, as CC pointed out this morning).... 9/11 was NOT America's fault.

Personally, I doubt (Clinton's) bombing of Iraq had much to do with 9/11. And no, they didn't do 9/11 because of any jealousy, strawman-maker Dwight; it's probably because they want to enable Islamic extremism to overtake the world eventually.

Posted by: JD | May 16, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

I think Ron Paul is right. Pointing out that Islamic terrorists attack the US because of our policies in the Middle East is not "blaming America", it's pointing out that our interventionist foreign policy is breeding hate. We don't have enough manpower to kill all the haters, so the choices essentially come down to withdrawing from the Middle East or continuing with more of the same. This country is spending itself into bankruptcy trying to impose its will on an oilpatch on the other side of the globe. We've already spent more than a trillion dollars on Iraq, which exceeds the value of Iraq's oil.
Let's get back to running America right and let the Arabs work out their differences amongst themselves.

Posted by: Greg | May 16, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

You think Rudy was 'visibly angry' last night, CC? You ain't seen nothing yet... wait until someone says something that REALLY angers him -- and watch him turn into the snarling, frothing rabid pit bull he really is. But I guess that's what you folks like--rabid, mindless hatred. You live for it.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

At least he didn't bring up a John Wayne movie. At least Clint is still alive :)

Posted by: JKrish | May 16, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure how bold it is to declare Ron Paul toast. Let's face it. Ron Paul on the right and Mike Gravel on the left are simply the gadflies of this presidential season. Certainly, Paul could have said that he'd fly to the gates of hell to follow Bin Laden, but it doesn't matter cause he's all-around too fringe to be elected. The point is, however, that he does raise some interesting ideas. For Guliani to suggest that he's never even heard the suggestion that the US had anything to do with creating the anger that led to 9-11 is absolute disingenuous rubbish. The problem is that that more nuanced, self-reflective view of the tragedy got buried under the ridiculous 'they hate us because they hate our freedom' rhetoric. It's childish and as a country we'd be a heck of a lot better off balancing our mission to chase down terrorists (which is valid) with one trying to alleviate the causes of a new generation of terrorists rising (e.g., unconditional support for Israel, Pervez Musharraf, etc.). So can the false furor Giuliani and let's actually talk about the real mature policies that can get this country back on track.

Posted by: BK | May 16, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

San Diego, CA, don't you know the difference beween using a random sample to project public opinion of a larger group and these anyone can call in "psuedo polls"?

The same liberals who are on here praising Ron Paul even though they would never vote for Ron Paul over Hillary ran up Paul's score on the text in the winner "poll".

Guess what San Diego, those people won't be voting in the R primary, they will be voting in the D primary.


Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure how bold it is to declare Ron Paul toast. Let's face it. Ron Paul on the right and Mike Gravel on the left are simply the gadflies of this presidential season. Certainly, Paul could have said that he'd fly to the gates of hell to follow Bin Laden, but it doesn't matter cause he's all-around too fringe to be elected. The point is, however, that he does raise some interesting ideas. For Guliani to suggest that he's never even heard the suggestion that the US had anything to do with creating the anger that led to 9-11 is absolute disingenuous rubbish. The problem is that that more nuanced, self-reflective view of the tragedy got buried under the ridiculous 'they hate us because they hate our freedom' rhetoric. It's childish and as a country we'd be a heck of a lot better off balancing our mission to chase down terrorists (which is valid) with one trying to alleviate the causes of a new generation of terrorists rising (e.g., unconditional support for Israel, Pervez Musharraf, etc.). So can the false furor Giuliani and let's actually talk about the real mature policies that can get this country back on track.

Posted by: BK | May 16, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Razorback,

Even if your premise is true, which is debatable, ask yourself this: Why do they like killing? Do you think they were born wanting to kill? Or is it for the same reason that gang members in this country appear to like killing? Because, when you've been exposed to poverty and degredation for too long, any way out starts to look good.

The terrorist leaders are rich, but the ones doing the bombing do so because they are promised that their family will be cared for. They are paid to do what they do, and they belive that they are doing what is right in God's eyes. It just isn't as simple as "we're good, they're evil". None of these people were born hating us.

Posted by: JamesCH | May 16, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

zouk is a mormon if he thinks that the right didn't start calling like crazy for Romney on that fox poll. Did you hear hannity, "That polls wrong. There' no way Paul won."

Framing the poll much. Why even have a poll. More clone dittohead mentality. I garuntee you when the right was Paul ahead they started dialing like it was AMerican Idol. Paul winning would have made the right and fox look like fools

Posted by: RUFUS1133 | May 16, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

'Remember the first Dirty Harry movie' this is what passes for thinking in republican circles. Laughable and tragic.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 1:25 PM | Report abuse

McCain & Guiliani are stalwarts. Whether you agree with them or not, you know where thay stand, For me honesty & integrity plus intelligence are major factors. Ron Paul is a dunce, Rommney a flip flopper - where's integrity, The others an indistinguishable herd

Posted by: Bob | May 16, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

maCain & Guiliani are stalwarts. Whether you agree with them or not, you know where thay stans, Fir me honesty & integrity plus intelligence are major factors. Ron Paul is a dunce, Rommney a flip flopper - where's integrity, The others an indistinguishable herd

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse

maCain & Guiliani are stalwarts. Whether you agree with them or not, you know where thay stans, Fir me honesty & integrity plus intelligence are major factors. Ron Paul is a dunce, Rommney a flip flopper - where's integrity, The others an indistinguishable herd

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse

According to Fox news poll after debate, these are top two finishers based on 400,000 voters: 1) Romney 29%; 2) Paul 25%. Guilani and McCain combined 23%.

Most intersting result in this Fox News Poll got to be Ron Paul beating Guilani and McCain both combined.

Who are these voters?

Fox News URL link:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272493,00.html

Posted by: San Diego, CA | May 16, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

According to Fox news poll after debate, these are top two finishers based on 400,000 voters: 1) Romney 29%; 2) Paul 25%. Guilani and McCain combined 23%.

Most intersting result in this Fox News Poll got to be Ron Paul beating Guilani and McCain both combined.

Who are these voters?

Fox News URL link:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272493,00.html

Posted by: San Diego, CA | May 16, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Chris said, "Perhaps you were unaware that we are fighting a war? None of the sc*m bags in Iraq or Afghanistan think twice about torturing and killing our troops, so why shouldn't we do whatever is necessary to ensure that less US lives are lost?".

So no taking the high road for us. Since they don't think twice about it, how about we find some willing folks to blow up markets full of innocent people?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Cameron - did it ever occur to you that in such a poll anyone can vote, and as many times as they like. Indeed, this just may be the method to obtain a Democrart victory in the next election.

consider that perhaps, all the rabid Dems texted in several votes for Ron Paul just to skew the results. did you? only an ignoramus would put any stock in those results.

"People like straight talk" - actually it would seem Democrats prefer spin and lies and self-victimization. that way all your flaws are caused by others and you can just continue with your shallow self-centered life. will you fight back when the enemy is other than Bush?

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 16, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe anyone was fooled by Rudy's theatrical response to Paul's comment. Rudy never heard that US foreign policy might cause a reaction? Has he been living in a spider hole with Saddam these past few years? Or perhaps he really does believe that the cause of their hatred is jealousy for our wonderful political system. Rudy just proved that he's a demogogue, nothing more.

Posted by: Dwight | May 16, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Jesse, 1996? They bombed the world trade center in 1993. Its all pretext. They kill the same reason that most people do most of what they do: They LIKE it.

Remember the first Dirty Harry movie, after the liberals lectured Harry about the constitution, Harry said "the blood is on your hands when he kills again". The liberals responded "How can you say he will kill again", and Dirty Harry says "Because he likes it."

Muslim fanatics kill because they like it. Just look at "Palestine". Yes they hate the Jews, but spend a whole lot of bullets on each other (Fatah v. Hamas).

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Romney might have pushed himself out of the race last night. How desperate must he be to light into McCain during a debate in May of '07? What a poor, sad man.

Here's some good debate analysis.
http://political-buzz.com/?p=190

Posted by: matt | May 16, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Yep, John Kerry was such a terrible candidate that he only lost by 3.5%, the smallest margin of victory for an incumbent since Truman. Actually, I'll admit that he wasn't the right man for the job. We didn't have the right candidate in '04, just like none of these GOP stooges is the right candidate in '08.

Bush was reelected by scaring the general public into thinking that he was the only one that could protect us from terrorists. Nobody's buying that anymore (except some of the people on this board). Of course, it's the entire thrust of Guliani's campaign, which would guarantee that even Kucinich would win the general election as the Democratic nominee.

Posted by: JamesCH | May 16, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Truth hurt, zoukie? Thanks for highlighting my comment, then sticking your head in the sand in response to it. Proved my point exactly.
Dude, there is nothing you post here that is not a regurgitation of the Republican party line. Everything I said about you is apt. You haven't had an original thought in your life, you right wing lemming. Your intellect is weak and your mind is small. You are more child then adult, which must be why you let the Republicans be your 'daddy party'.

Posted by: ErrinF | May 16, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

I have listened to the exchange, Ron Paul and Rudy, several times and checking cable news and newspapers, I have yet to find accurate reporting on what was actually said. Help me out folks, where is it?

Posted by: lylepink | May 16, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Word is born Jesse. He gets credit for nothing. He made an argument that the right has be regurgitating for 20 years, pre-imtive striking.

This is just like him getting credit for 9/11. What did Rudy do right in 9/11? There is a laundry list of failures. How does this qualify him MORE for president? If you don't know, we didn't stop 9/11. Rudy and Bush failed. How they both got warrior status with so many failures so how dylusional the righ tin this country is now

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 16, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Rudy Giuliani needs to more carefully study the history of American foreign policy in the Middle East. Ron Paul stood by his remarks about the blowback from our meddling in other countries' affairs. The man has more courage and common sense than all the other Republican offerings put together. It was amusing to see Sean Hannity's surprise when the post debate text message poll had Congressman Paul leading the pack for most of the evening. By the end of the poll, Mitt "Brylcream" Romney had oozed into first place, but Paul still placed a solid second. In the ABC News and MSNBC internet polls, Paul trounced all the other candidates. Like many of the previous bloggers, I believe Ron Paul is the only candidate in the Republican field who truly believes in and lives by our Constitution. He is correct in his belief that our decades of interventionist foreign policy has finally come back to haunt us. No-win wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq II again all attest to that undeniable fact. Clinton, Obama, McCain, Romney and Giuliani (take your pick-they are all pretty much the same) offer four more years of war, inflation and further erosion of the Bill of Rights. Paul holds out the promise of peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations. In November, 2008, Clinton/Obama will probably face off against Giuliani/Romney God help us all.

Posted by: Don | May 16, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Reading some of these posts, I am absolutely mortified. First, just because someone happens to disagree with your point of view, be it Republican or Democrat, doesn't mean anything other than they have a different point of view. This attitude that has become so prevalent in our culture that the opposing points of view are evil or stupid is simply ridiculous.

I'm not sure how the subject of global climate change was brought up, but I think its important to note that most people don't disagree about whether or not climate change is occuring. What is absolutely debatable is what is causing the change. Those who would submit that there is a concensus within the scientific community, are either misinformed or unwilling to listen to any opposing view. It seems as though many are treating this like religion or something. Scary.

Posted by: Cobraguy | May 16, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

If Rudy's response to Ron Paul an example of his understanding of foreign policy, he needs to go back to school.

Posted by: grunk | May 16, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

I do believe Fox News as a channel is conservative because of shows like Bill O'Reily and Hannity's America. Although the news, the actual news reports are not biased. For example, Fox News Poll has shown time after time being very accurate to public opinion. In short, if you are talking about the actual news shows on Fox News, they are very good. The Fox News Channel, however, support conversative "commenators".

People should make a real distinction here. This is why I think Fox News cast did a great job on last night debate. They really asked important questions, whereas Chris Matthews asked really stupid wasteful questions like "Do you want Bill Clinton back into WhiteHouse?" Who is going to say yes to that beside Hillary Clinton? Obama or Edwards would have said no too. That was a waste of time question. Matthews also asked a bunch of wasteful questions such as "Is Karl Rove your friend?"....

Look, it does not matter of your political views, the point is that I think most of us got to understand more about these candidates last night than when MSNBC host it, and that means FoxNews did a good job. I do agree that text-in-vote last night is a bit silly. It felt like American idiot or something.

Posted by: Richard | May 16, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

If Rudy's response to Ron Paul an example of his understanding of foreign policy, he needs to go back to school.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul wasn't afraid to tell the truth. I respect that. Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani are puppets and stand for absolutely nothing. I was thrilled to see Ron Paul get 25% of the vote in the Fox News poll. Shows what you political "experts" know. People like straight talk.

Posted by: Cameron | May 16, 2007 1:14 PM | Report abuse

oooh, the R's must protect me from the 'bad guys' i'm pe*ing my pants and it's running into my cowboy boots...

the R's are 'hard on...' etc. get it? at least they like to think so. meanwhile talkin big and having a very small stick indeed-- that's a lot of thir problem i guess. ever notice how on winger talk shows almost all the ads are for ED? that and really phony get rich schemes... and baldness 'cures'.. tells you a lot about the demographic.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 1:13 PM | Report abuse

ErrinF:

1) Knock off the namecalling, please
2) If Reid truly believes that the war is lost, and I think he does, notwithstanding his backpedaling on his comment, then he has a moral obligation to get us out of Dodge. Right the F now. The fact that he doesn't means he's a craven politician, someone who won't stand up for his beliefs or put his money where his mouth is.

Posted by: JD | May 16, 2007 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Now that the right is politically impotent, it just isn't as fun putting up with these right wing nutcases. You are truly a loser if you are still sticking by the GOP after the disasterous Bush years. All you are doing is exposing yourself as a small-minded lemming who never holds politicians of their side accountable.
Let's face it... all the strong supporters of the right are from the degenerate South. We're talking about an ignorant class of people. I think I've had enough of the peanut gallery from BFE. I'll let kingofhicks and proudtobeacracker continue with their one-sided conversations alone.

Posted by: ErrinF | May 16, 2007 1:11 PM | Report abuse

trippin says:

"Ron Paul tells the truth, and right on cue the WaPo has to cut him for it and laud praise on the fascist."

Does that mean WaPo has officially joined the big conspiracy?

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Looks like CC wanted to reframe the debate with Rudy as a winner. MAybe the below post had to many positive comments for Paul. I guess by re-framed teh argument CC hopes to get a differant results.

Not cool CC. Is the Post owned by News COrp. Also :)

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 16, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Is Guliani's response that impressive? Paul was historically accurate. In '96, bin Laden issued his declaration of war against the United States precisely on the grounds that we had bombed a muslim country and had troops stationed near Muslim holy sites. As such, Paul's comment that "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years" is in an historical sense, true.

Posted by: Jesse | May 16, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

We have a winner for the most inane comment of the day:

Yep, people like kingofzouk and proudtobeGOP are just plain stupid. Their small minds can't grasp anything beyond the GOP lies they've been willingly spoonfed for way to long now. Personally, I'd be ashamed to be like them... to let politicians wrap me around their finger while I believe any and every lie they tell me. That's exactly how people like kingofzouk behave... blindly following whatever they are told. How sad to live such a shallow, follower life... and in some backwaters burg, no doubt.


Posted by: ErrinF | May 16, 2007 01:00 PM


Posted by: kingofzouk | May 16, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

The only 2 things that might become TV adds from the debate last night are Guiliani's rebuke of Paul, and Romney's "I support the Second Amendment, but I support an assault weapons ban too" which will be made into an add similar to the John Kerry "I voted for the $87 million before I voted against it".

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Actually AndyR, he said DHS, Education, and Energy. And yes, it was a silly answer; not because there isn't too much bureaucracy in Washington (there is), but because the vast majority of the budget goes to piece-parts or components of those organizations that would still exist. Nobody is going to eliminate the Coast Guard or TSA, for example, but their budget is part of DHS. Same thing with Energy - you want to eliminate the national labs, working on radiation detectors, etc.?

Ron Paul is a fool and ought to be off the stage from now on (along with Gilmore, Tancredo, Huckabee and anyone else polling under 10% and openly running for VP)

Posted by: JD | May 16, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

'As for the dems, what is their principled stance? More spending, more social programs, soft on terror?'

please stop flogging your 70's talking points, you tiresome simpleton. christ, how microscopic is your brain?

'soft on terror' wtf does that even mean? Is isn't english, that's for sure. are they 'soft on fear' or 'soft on anger'? you people are just plain simple, for chrissake. you're infantilized -- you talk like small children--only less intelligent.

Posted by: * | May 16, 2007 1:07 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeanidiot, Reid has stated the truth: that defeat in Iraq has already come at the hands of Bush and the GOP. It was the Republicans pet war of choice, and they blew it. Everybody but a Republican in denial knows that.
Funny how you stick to 2004 and Kerry, but gloss over 2006. This ain't the politics of 2004, anymore, fool. Notice that Reid is MAJORITY leader, moron?

Posted by: ErrinF | May 16, 2007 1:06 PM | Report abuse

I see ignorant coward is still here peddling his hate speech. don't you have a single constructive thing to say or do any day of the week. Get a grip, up your meds or something. you need help dude.

If anyone flogs tired simple views, it is you my delusional friend. you've been inciting rabble on this blog for months now. does it make you feel good to be such a pest? In classic coward style this is the extent of your contribution:

how microscopic is your brain
you people are just plain stupid
A news network entirely devoted to one political party is not legit
we can't suceed against radical groups unless we understand why they do what they do
don't bother zouky with actual science or facts, it makes his head hurt

any fair observer would say that of all the posters on this blog, you are the most hateful and simple. go back to Kos where you belong. this blog used to be fairly substantial before you showed up and dragged the conversation down to cave man territory.

Of course, like all cowards, you will attempt to lay this off on someone else. you are just a victim I suppose. Of big bad zouk/razor/condi/bush/lieberman/oreilly/coulter/limbaugh

Between your obsession/paranoia with conservative bloggers and your cutting and pasting of anything you find, you have become a true pestilence and object of ridicule. Perhaps a different hobby would suit you better.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 16, 2007 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone have any objective evidence that Fox News is biased? Or is that just more "psuedo scientific" superstitious ideological blather coming from haters of the left?

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

>
Chris, tell me: how does torture ensure that less US lives are lost? I don't remember Stalin getting reliable information from the gulags.

Posted by: Lynn | May 16, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul tells the truth, and right on cue the WaPo has to cut him for it and laud praise on the fascist. Nice work.

Posted by: trippin | May 16, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

"Romney found himself on the receiving end of a haymaker from McCain on his alleged inconsistencies on policy matters"

I don't agree with this interpretation of what happened. Romney had just made the only clear statement of the evening by any candidate on the immigration issue and pointed out what was wrong with McCain-Kennedy. Then McCain responded by repeating the same tired old line about Romney. McCain just refused to deal with the amnesty/new path to citizenship issue. Earlier he had disingenuously claimed that he was not for amnesty. His response to Romney seemed tired, unoriginal, and beside the point, and did not seem like a "haymaker" by any means. He continues to obfuscate and duck questions about immigration. Also, if McCain-Feingold has hurt the Republican Party relative to the Democrats he should answer for that at some point in the debates.

Posted by: Hal K | May 16, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Nancy says: "The only reason anyone would think Ron Paul is a loser is because he is right."

More Kool-Aid drinking. She sounds like a member of a cult - a vast Internet cult whose best and only political skill is flooding Internet polls with crazed Libertarian fans of Ron Paul.

Posted by: Nhguy | May 16, 2007 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Yep, people like kingofzouk and proudtobeGOP are just plain stupid. Their small minds can't grasp anything beyond the GOP lies they've been willingly spoonfed for way to long now. Personally, I'd be ashamed to be like them... to let politicians wrap me around their finger while I believe any and every lie they tell me. That's exactly how people like kingofzouk behave... blindly following whatever they are told. How sad to live such a shallow, follower life... and in some backwaters burg, no doubt.

Posted by: ErrinF | May 16, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Err in F says "Wake up and smell your own party, loser... "

Your majority leader already claimed defeat; which candidate do you suppose will win back the WH? Someone as good as Kerry last time?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 16, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Huckabee pardoned criminals at a record pace, broke tax and spending records set by Bill Clinton, and wanted to give illegal aliens scholarships to go to college.

Mike Huckabee is not a true conservative.

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

*Dems are busy branding themselves as the party of surrender. It will not be easy to win an election when you always want to lose.
-kingofzouk*

That's funny... the Dems won the last election handily regardless of all the nonsensical "surrender" talk coming out of the right. Notice how Republican shills like kingofzouk are in COMPLETE denial about losing 2006. Every single talking point that lost the election of 2006 for the GOP is still being used in 2007. Such an ostrich act is only going to cost the GOP in 2008. Just you watch.

Posted by: ErrinF | May 16, 2007 12:55 PM | Report abuse

"Soft on terror" means you prefer to give terrorists a twinkie and a lawyer as opposed to finding out what they know in order to protect the lives of Americans.

Any further questions?

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 12:55 PM | Report abuse

excellent debate wrapup: http://www.solidpolitics.com

Posted by: William | May 16, 2007 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Sorry about a second post. Ron Paul is technically correct that Obsama bin Laden did say the reason he fought againsts America because of our troop present in Saudi, as well as our support for Israelis. Let's get few things straight: Saudi invited US there during Desert Shield and then Desert Storm, we did not attack Saudi. Just because bin Laden said he wants to fight US due to "some reasons", it does not mean we should back off. He also said they hate America beause of our corrupted cultures, especially on religious freedom and women freedom. Bi Laden also said, first and most foremost, the biggest reason he hate us because we do not believe in Allah.

Paul's arguement on 9/11 is as correct as saying Islamic fanatics attacked Americans because we are a secular soceity. The statements are technically correct, but stupid as viable solutions. There is no question that bin Laden will stop attacking us if we become a fundamental Islamic country, but is that a solution?

Posted by: About Ron Paul | May 16, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

'As for the dems, what is their principled stance? More spending, more social programs, soft on terror?'

please stop flogging your 70's talking points, you tiresome simpleton. christ, how microscopic is your brain?

'soft on terror' wtf does that even mean? Is isn't english, that's for sure. are they 'soft on fear' or 'soft on anger'? you people are just plain stupid, for chrissake.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 12:50 PM | Report abuse

I admit FOXnews sucks, Richard. You may have fell in love with them because of this debate, but the rest of us could care less. A news network entirely devoted to one political party is not legit. It's as simple as that.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Careful there Evil you are confusing their jingolism and dulling their talking points. GOP are clowns utterly lost and devoid of solutions. The entire field are dinosaurs.

Posted by: Your Conscience | May 16, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Rudy's response to Paul's statement was ridiculous. If Rudy's understanding of fundamentalist Islamic terrorists is that they hate us because we're a democracy and we have freedom, then he has a LOT of studying to do.

Does he really believe that crap he was dishing out, or was it just red meat rhetoric for the radical right? We can only hope it's the latter.

Posted by: Nyck Nayme | May 16, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

My predictions were wrong.... FOX and Hume conducted the best debate thus far. Best questions (and follow-ups), best letting the 10 white men mix it up a bit and best impression for most of the candidates.

I give Paul the courage of his convictions, but he seems to be in the wrong party.

As for who "won" the debate, while no one may have won, Romney and McCain held their own. Rudy question-dodged but was rescued by a we-deserved-9/11-sounding Paul.

The wrong Thompson was there, Tommy looked like he needed a nap. Newt Gingrich is slated to deliver the commencement address at Falwell's university this Saturday.... so without even being there, Newt wins.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | May 16, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

It is more disturbing that Dems are willing to sacrifice American lives for the comfort of a killer. so sad his ball is flat and his soap is unscented. boo hoo. Dems are busy branding themselves as the party of surrender. It will not be easy to win an election when you always want to lose.
Let's examine the branding so far:
Edwards - beauty school dropout
Obama - all talk, no substance
hillary - village control over everything

Rudy - gonna kill those bad guys
McCain - compromise on whatever it takes
romney - another yankee flip-flopper

this leaves rudy as the only palatable candidate in the bumper-sticker voter mentality. the voters who decide elections are too busy watching American idol to pay attention to this. they will be happy to accept this branding the week before the election, if it hasn't changed by then.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 16, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

'None of this rationalizes the terrorist attacks on New York and Virginia. But it goes a long way to helping to understand what motivated those responsible, and if we want to avoid future attacks, understanding is critical.'

Thank god there are still rational people in the world, who understand that we can't suceed against radical groups unless we understand why they do what they do. This was understand as long ago as the 4th century in China, with The Art of War.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

I thought the debate was better than the one on MSNBC. Fox News did a good job with the questions, especially asking Sen. McCain about the Confederate flag flying over the state house in South Carolina. My winner for the debate was Mike Huckabee. He is intelligent and witty. He is one of the true conservatives in the race.

Posted by: afam212 | May 16, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

To everyone who thinks the terrorist hate us for our freedom, ask yourself this question... Why don't they hate Canada? Is it because they like socialized medicine? No. They hate us because we've been installing terrible dictators and taking their only natural resourse for decades. They don't care about our freedom. They care about their freedom.

Posted by: Evil | May 16, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Anybody who claims to be 'proud to be GOP' at this point is a pathetically stubborn partisan. Wake up and smell your own party, loser... else you are truly stuck on stupid. Perhaps you should change your handle to 'proud to put party before country'.

Posted by: ErrinF | May 16, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

don't bother zouky with actual science or facts, it makes his head hurt.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

But 9/11 did happen because of our past actions in the Middle East. Propping up tyrannical regimes came back to haunt us on 9/11. How bogus to pretend that innocent little USA was picked on by the evil Al Qaeda just because.

Posted by: ErrinF | May 16, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

I worked in the Pentagon before, during and after 9/11, and had postings to EUCOM and CENTCOM in the 90s. The fact of the matter is that we were bombing Iraq on a pretty regular basis for more than a decade between the wars (with reason, in support of UN sanctions) from bases within Saudi Arabia. This really deeply teed off a lot of people within and around Saudi, and it was directly causal in the rise of Al Qaeda and its focus on the US.

None of this rationalizes the terrorist attacks on New York and Virginia. But it goes a long way to helping to understand what motivated those responsible, and if we want to avoid future attacks, understanding is critical.

Posted by: no es el porco | May 16, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

But 9/11 did happen because of our past actions in the Middle East. Propping up tyrannical regimes came back to haunt us on 9/11. How bogus to pretend that innocent little USA was picked on by the evil Al Qaeda just because.

Posted by: ErrinF | May 16, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

The only reason anyone would think Ron Paul is a loser is because he is right. He says the truth that everybody else is scared to say. The vast majority of problems can be created or exacerbated by government. That of the United States is no exception.

It looks like the only thing fixed here is the outcome.

Posted by: Nancy | May 16, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

progreesive -Huckabee's joke was a clunker imo. How long has he been waiting to use that one?

McCain has proven that he's willing to buck the system to make a difference; i.e. campaign finance. I think he can be trusted to make the hard choices for fiscal conservancy as well. I support his principled stance on these issues, just like I support Guiliani's principled stance on abortion rights. That is the true test of a leader imo.

As for the dems, what is their principled stance? More spending, more social programs, soft on terror?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 16, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

msimon,

Perhaps you were unaware that we are fighting a war? None of the sc*m bags in Iraq or Afghanistan think twice about torturing and killing our troops, so why shouldn't we do whatever is necessary to ensure that less US lives are lost? Good call on Ron Paul being the least scary of the debaters last night, he only thinks that we brought 9/11 on ourselves. Wake up

Posted by: Chris | May 16, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul speaking truth to devoid Rape-Public-Cans is obviously over their intellectual paygrade. The GOP brownshirt wannabees misconstrue OBL stated rationale for excusing the criminal behavior. Retarded Rape-Public-Cans limited to dichotomous thinking do not understand our occupation, covert foreign intrusions, and premptive mistakes directly feed the terrorists delusions and assist in their tyrantical terror. Ron Paul did NOT excuse this crime or make it legitimate but the retarded GOP can't be bothered with understanding the enemy and trying to outsmart them. Ron Paul spoke the truth asking them to consider how ee would react if China took it upon themselves to invade or occupy. We would also resist but this truth hurts the itty bitty brains of dittoheads and complicates the talking points. Rape-Public-Cans are doomed as a party devoid of solutions. All they have is fear. Eat your fear currds sheeple and keep saluting FAILURE.

Posted by: Rape_Public_Can = Enemy #1 | May 16, 2007 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Funny how your two biggest losers (Romney and Paul) were the two top vote-getters on Fox's post-debate viewer poll last night. I don't think McCain broke double digits. You and other mainstream pundits are definitely out of step with the voters.

http://commenterry.blogs.com

Posted by: Terry Mitchell | May 16, 2007 12:38 PM | Report abuse

The Post cheers Rudy. In a couple of months, the Post will be savaging him for his torture and ID comments. It's disturbing enough that the crowd thought torture was worthy of applause.

Posted by: ernest | May 16, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Re: Mark Albright, he was correct in pointing out that the 50% number was inaccurate. He was, however, incorrect in claiming that there had been no reduction. The best peer-reviewed studies on the matter indicated there was somwehere between a 15 and 30% reduction in Cascade Mtn snowpack since 1950.

Please do not assume that because some heavily spun (and demonstrably incorrect) interpretation is bouncing around a few mediocre right-wing echo chamber blogs that it is fact.

As to why the guy was fired, it might have had to do with being totally incompetent by claiming that, despite all evidence, that there had been no net reduction.

Posted by: a scientist | May 16, 2007 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Chris Matthews is a joke. He is all about himself. His debate formats are designed so that he can interrupt people and shout at them and draw more attention to himself. He is an annoying megalomaniac.

Posted by: Joel | May 16, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul is gone. History. He's an extremist libertarian who stole Howard Dean's talking points on the war.

Huckabee got off some good lines and moves up some.

I'm not fooled by Romney's slickness and am unimpressed by the "outrage" of Guiliani. He put the command center in the World Trade Center, for God's sake. Stupid move. He's also a flaming liberal lefty. Not gonna fly in SC or in most other places.

McCain looked old and tired again, but did talk some sense, and at least didn't grin maniacally after saying he'd follow Bin Laden to hell.

Posted by: Nhguy | May 16, 2007 12:31 PM | Report abuse

No matter you are a big republican or democrat, no matter you are for or against the Iraq War. You have to admit the FoxNews sponored debate last night is so much better than the MSNBC via Chris Matthew. The moderators speak less and allowing the candidates to speak more and the moderators encouraged the candidates to speak against one and others.

I honesty to god believe last night debate format is alot more fair than the one before. I am actually impressived with the Fox News people.

Posted by: Richard | May 16, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

the problem is, RON PAUL is right. OBL said directly that 9/11 happened because US presence in Sadi. And we took our planes out thereafter. And our friends and enemies a like, worldwide have told us, for years, that our Israeli policy , the palestine question, is the reason for ME problems. IS THIS NOT TRUE? What's the matter with the truth?

Posted by: PAUL'S TRUTH | May 16, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Keep detainees at Gitmo so that DO NOT HAVE access to lawyers. This is not what we are fighting for. Guiliani supports waterboarding. Maybe he should try it first. I found the whole lot of them, with the exception of Ron Paul, to be very scary.

Posted by: msimon | May 16, 2007 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Romney = biggest loser. He flip-flops on everything and cannot be trusted.

Who cares if he's raised the most money? He cannot be trusted.

Posted by: Nancy | May 16, 2007 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Wow, so Razorback, are you a PSYCHIC wild pig? You could probably get a job in a zoo or something. Good for you!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 12:10 PM | Report abuse

I was referring to the Huckabee joke, which The Fix described in his post. Did you miss that, PTBGOP?

The Republicans are all talk and no action when it comes to "smaller government" rhetoric. They have proven that they just can't be trusted to control spending, no matter what McCain says. In fact, they are afraid to make the tough choices that might incur the wrath of independent voters who support federal programs which irk the conservative minority.

Posted by: Progressive | May 16, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Zouky, Zouky, Zouky...

First of all, it's not "Dem science." It is the agreed consensus of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. Because you can't or refuse to understand it does not invalidate it, not at all.

Secondly, in re: "Can we start to ditch some of the losers soon?" - don't let the door hit you in the a$$ on the way out...

Posted by: Bokonon | May 16, 2007 12:07 PM | Report abuse

All the Razorback haters (even drindle)should not the similarities between CC's conclusion about winners and losers and my conclusions stated at the first of CC's previous post "At Second Debate, a Few Sparks Fly".

Posted by: Razorback | May 16, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Congressional Democrats' latest attempt to leave our troops in Iraq high and dry comes in the form of amendments to, of all things, the Water Resources Development Act.
As Congressional Quarterly noted this week, since taking over Congress this year, the Democrats have only passed 26 laws, 12 of which "changed the name of a federal building, post office or national recreation area."

So much for the "new America" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised, transformed by fresh measures on energy, health care and campaign finance. Maybe we should be grateful: Better they do nothing than something utterly wrong or even harmful.


http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=264123134498383


Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP writes
"McCain spoke out strongly against the huge increases in spending since 2000 by the Rs. He brings it up all the time, because it goes against conservative principles and he is running on a platform of bringing back fiscal responsibility."

McCain is the next-best-candidate for the Ron Paul supporters. The problem with McCain is he's convinced there's a military solution in Iraq.

Posted by: bsimon | May 16, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Climatologist Fired For Exposing Warming Myths
University of Washington climate scientist Mark Albright was recently dismissed from his position as associate state climatologist, just weeks after exposing false claims of shrinking glaciers in the Cascade Mountains.

no facts please, we're Dems

Posted by: Dem science | May 16, 2007 12:00 PM | Report abuse

I now see why the Dems won't debate on fox news. they might actually have to answer a difficult question. they might actually have to float a policy. Britt and co. made mathews look like a clown.

but certainly if hillary can't stand up to fox, how will she stop Iran? She won't. the Dems are in full supine surrender mode.

the branding of Edwards is now complete. B. hussain Obama is next. Can we start to ditch some of the losers soon?

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 16, 2007 11:50 AM | Report abuse

" they fail to point out that the out-of-control spending during the last six years was done by the Republican White House and the Republican Congress. "

Huh?? progressive, you must have missed that part of the debate. McCain spoke out strongly against the huge increases in spending since 2000 by the Rs. He brings it up all the time, because it goes against conservative principles and he is running on a platform of bringing back fiscal responsibility.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 16, 2007 11:48 AM | Report abuse

If Giuliani becomes the GOP nominee last night's debate will be remembered as the moment that he righted the shift. The sincerity of his anger was really much much jarring even than his verbal retort to Paul. Giuliani's decisiveness in seizing the moment calls to mind Reagan's "I paid for this microphone" moment in the 1980 NH primary debate.

But then there is a whole lot of campaign left, so it will be interesting to see if last night proves truly significant.

Posted by: Matt McGuire | May 16, 2007 11:46 AM | Report abuse

The winner not mentioned here is the media. After the first two debates it seemed that Miss America contestants would have more challenging questions than the presidential contenders.

"What would you like to accomplish during your presidency?"
- The canned answer "World Peace".

The debate moderators asked serious questions and challenged candidates on their positions. They sought clarification and seemed to maintain a fairness about time and difficulty among the candidates. It is a shame that some of the candidates decided to answer questions other than the ones that were asked.

The only "beauty contest" aspect of the debate was that Foxnews let viewers text in their votes for the winner of the contest.

Posted by: gdaw | May 16, 2007 11:45 AM | Report abuse

CC - I agree with your picks, and let me just add that, in my estimation, Guiliani's rebuttal of Paul was a triple but McCain's response to Romney was a home-run! He delivered the line swiftly and without malice, proving his ability to think and respond quickly to this unpredicted comment from Romney. I think Guiliani had a bit more time to develop his reply to Paul, and may have anticipated it it in advance.

Will Wallace, Goler, and Hume get to question the dems now?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 16, 2007 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Someone should find out just how much money Romney spent on HIS haircut.

When Republican candidates attack Washington's free-spending ways, they fail to point out that the out-of-control spending during the last six years was done by the Republican White House and the Republican Congress. Their party has lost all credibility on this issue.

Posted by: Progressive | May 16, 2007 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Ron Paul is dead in the water. Not just because of his stupid 9/11 comment, but he also answered the question "what three programs would you cut to spending". His response was eliminate the departments of homeland security, Education, and transportation.

You don't have to worry about terrorists blowing up schools when there aren't any, and how would they get there anyway since there won't be any roads. But hey your taxes will be low.

Posted by: Andy R | May 16, 2007 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Will any of the Republican candidates join Obama, Dodd, and Clinton, in voting for and supporting Feingold-Reid?

http://www.obamaforpresident.com

http://www.clintonforpresident.com

http://www.doddforpresident.com

Posted by: Race Watch | May 16, 2007 11:29 AM | Report abuse

They're all LOSERS.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 16, 2007 11:29 AM | Report abuse

We can parse positions and who had the best joke, but who evokes emotion will win the nomination and WH. Romney and McCain are dry at best. Guiliani had the only goosebumps moment- and that's what people remember. And what wins campaigns.

Posted by: James O'Brien | May 16, 2007 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: J. Reyes | May 16, 2007 11:19 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company