Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Setting the Stage: The Republicans' First Debate

Tonight the ten -- that's right TEN -- candidates running for the Republican presidential nomination square off for the first time.

The Fix didn't make the trip out to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California for the gathering, but I'll be watching -- and live-blogging the event -- starting tonight at 8 p.m. Eastern Time. (I will be in South Carolina for the second Republican debate on May 15) You can watch along with us tonight on on MSNBC.

With ten candidates on the stage -- seven of whom are virtually unknown to the American public -- it's not unreasonable to expect some fireworks as the lesser-known candidates seek to make their mark in a brief appearance in the national spotlight.

Below you'll find The Fix's best guesses at what each candidate will say and do during the debate as well as whether they come in with high or low expectations.

Let's Set the Stage...

Rudy Giuliani: Giuliani faces two challenges tonight. First he is the frontrunner according to national polls -- ensuring that he will be the prime target of any barbs that are thrown. The second is that he hasn't participated in a political debate in a decade (the New York Times' Kit Seelye nicely dissects Giuliani's debating history here) and could be a bit rusty. To date, Giuliani has deflected questions about how a candidate with his profile on social issues (pro abortion rights, pro gay rights, pro gun control) can represent a party whose base stands opposite him on each of those issues. He might come in for some more serious scrutiny tonight.

John McCain: Image may well be everything for McCain tonight. While McCain won't be the oldest candidate on the stage (that honor goes to Texas Rep. Ron Paul), the Arizona Senator has faced a barrage of questions about his vigor that he can go along way toward answering with a lively performance tonight. McCain must present himself a serious-minded politician ready to lead America while also letting a bit of his witty side out. McCain is quick on his feet and genuinely funny -- both attributes that should accrue to his benefit tonight.

Mitt Romney: Unfortunately for Romney, what we know about him as a debater comes from snippets posted on YouTube to show how he has shifted his positions on a number of hot-button issues over the years. That said, Romney is the most telegenic candidate in the field and the most naturally gifted as a politician. To come out of tonight a winner, Romney needs to avoid what seems like a natural tendency to try and please everyone in the party. If not, we may be in for another love of hunting incident.

Sam Brownback: Confrontation isn't the Kansas Senator's style -- a story detailing his 1996 Senate debate against Democrat Jill Docking noted it was "bummer for those who came...in hopes of seeing a knockdown, drag-out debate ." And, that's unfortunate. Brownback is the most viable conservative alternative to the big 3 at the moment but he is little known to a national audience. A pointed exchange between Brownback and Romney and/or Giuliani tonight might help Brownback raise his profile. Heck, maybe he's a Fix fan and will heed our advice. Somehow, we doubt it.

Mike Huckabee: Once considered a real comer in the race, Huckabee has struggled to raise money or build an organization that befits the potential many observers believe he possesses. Can he turn it around tonight? Huckabee has a GREAT story to tell -- from his weight loss and focus on health in Arkansas to his previous career as a Baptist minister. He's likely to benefit simply from being on a national stage with the top candidates. But given the Huckabee organization's stumbles to date it's hard to see him translating a strong performance tonight into any real momentum.

Tommy Thompson: Like Huckabee, Thompson remains virtually unknown in national politics but has a compelling story to tell. During his time as governor of Wisconsin -- 1987 to 2001 -- Thompson was widely seen as one of the most innovative chief executives in the country. The question is whether he gets to tell that story tonight. Thompson remains an asterisk in most state and national polling and the bulk of the questions typically go to the frontrunning candidates. And, when Thompson does get his chances can he show some foreign policy chops despite focusing almost exclusively on domestic policy during his time in office?

Duncan Hunter: Hunter is the odds-on favorite to win the Reagan primary -- and by that we mean the candidate on the stage tonight who mentions the former president the most times in the space of the 90-minute debate.

Jim Gilmore: The former governor of Virginia is one of seven candidates who will try to use tonight to show why he is a truer conservative than Giuliani, McCain and Romney. Can he be the one to break through? Sure. Will it matter in the end? No.

Tom Tancredo: Tancredo is a single issue candidate and is likely to use almost any question asked of him to talk about the dangers posed by illegal immigration. As evidenced by his repeated clashes with the White House over the issue, Tancredo isn't afraid of a fight so he may well be the candidate most likely to make the frontrunners squirm -- a la Mike Gravel.

Ron Paul: McCain isn't the only candidate on stage to tonight who has run for president before. Paul, too, has a bid for national office under his belt. In 1988. As a Libertarian. Nuff said.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 3, 2007; 1:15 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Wag the Blog Follow-up: Readers' Advice for the Dems
Next: GOP Debate Underway

Comments

Ron Paul won hands down most of the polls show it but msnbc, fox, cnn, will never report it they dont care about we the people

Posted by: truth | May 7, 2007 8:26 PM | Report abuse

"Ron Paul: 'Nuff said."

Yes, 'nuff said about the only man who doesn't lie his way to the top... the only candidate who is against the war in Iraq and reflects the views of the American people.

You are dismissive of a man who deserves the utmost respect. You would have looked down at Abraham Lincoln as an uneducated backcountry lawyer, Thomas Jefferson as a crazy guy who wrote a document declaring war, and George Washington as a man with wooden teeth.

Posted by: Georgia | May 5, 2007 2:05 AM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: anonymous | May 4, 2007 10:51 AM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: anonymous | May 4, 2007 10:42 AM | Report abuse

USAT points out that photographers weren't allowed to take pictures of Rice and Moualem shaking hands. Many see the meeting as a sign of a change in policy from an administration that until recently refused to talk to Syria and even criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for traveling to Damascus.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 8:09 AM | Report abuse

(Waste of a good pie, maybe. Children are starving in Africa. Finish your vegetables.)

Posted by: Robert | May 3, 2007 10:55 PM | Report abuse

I used to be a RapEthePUBLcbecauseICAN PARTY_OVER_COUNTRY kinda guy


BUT since I have quit smoking satan , I have decided to look at and for the truth...


Now I see that the current Administration is CORRUPT BEYOND BELIEF AND I HAVE FOUND MY WAY!!!!


I WILL NEVER SUPPORT THE RapEthePUBLcbecauseICAN PARTY AGAINST THE CITIZENS OF THESE UNITED STATES AGAIN!!!!!!!!

I HAVE FOUND MY WAY!!!! I will stand against evil , and support the citizens of my COUNTRY INSTEAD OF MY PARTY!!! HAL LE LU AYAH!!!


Posted by: feel free to use the humour... | May 3, 2007 10:55 PM | Report abuse

Ann Coulter was attacked with a pie?

Awesome!

What flavor?

Posted by: Robert | May 3, 2007 10:53 PM | Report abuse

way things are going,

soon Americans wont be able to live in America...


Any house of Saud, ROYAL BANKS in your neighborhood? I have 3 within seven miles....that I know of.


Any small stores whose main business is selling a few spainish newspapers and wiring money out of country? I have three that I know of within 2 miles of my home...


stop out sourcing, or regulate it, and define an American company as one that employs Americans, not has its CEOs living here...


ARREST _THE_EMPLOYERS_ of _ILLEGAL_ALIENS_


ENFORCE the laws... its what you are paid for, not take advantage of them...


Hey Robert, any luck?


Posted by: the | May 3, 2007 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Clinton recession...

I must have missed that one...


is that the one where all of the countries income went into invading another country on false premises?


as all of the middle class jobs were out sourced and those incomes lost ?


perhaps it is the fact that 3 out of four former factory workers are now working retail?

outsourcing, downsizing and selling to internationals who move manufacturing overseas...


could that be the bush recession that you are talking about,


what is the fastest growing sector of job creation in the United States?


debt collection...


what are you stupid?


maybe you should read the Washington Post Labor Day article called Devaluing Labor, by Harold Myerson...

heres a small portion of it:

Devaluing Labor

By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, August 30, 2006; Page A19

Labor Day is almost upon us, and like some of my fellow graybeards, I can, if I concentrate, actually remember what it was that this holiday once celebrated. Something about America being the land of broadly shared prosperity. Something about America being the first nation in human history that had a middle-class majority, where parents had every reason to think their children would fare even better than they had.

The young may be understandably incredulous, but the Great Compression, as economists call it, was the single most important social fact in our country in the decades after World War II. From 1947 through 1973, American productivity rose by a whopping 104 percent, and median family income rose by the very same 104 percent. More Americans bought homes and new cars and sent their kids to college than ever before. In ways more difficult to quantify, the mass prosperity fostered a generosity of spirit: The civil rights revolution and the Marshall Plan both emanated from an America in which most people were imbued with a sense of economic security.

That America is as dead as the dodo. Ours is the age of the Great Upward Redistribution. The median hourly wage for Americans has declined by 2 percent since 2003, though productivity has been rising handsomely. Last year, according to figures released just yesterday by the Census Bureau, wages for men declined by 1.8 percent and for women by 1.3 percent.

As a remarkable story by Steven Greenhouse and David Leonhardt in Monday's New York Times makes abundantly clear, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of gross domestic product since 1947, when the government began measuring such things. Corporate profits, by contrast, have risen to their highest share of the GDP since the mid-'60s -- a gain that has come chiefly at the expense of American workers.

Don't take my word for it. According to a report by Goldman Sachs economists, "the most important contributor to higher profit margins over the past five years has been a decline in labor's share of national income."

for the rest of the Washington Post article:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/29/AR2006082901042.html

Posted by: yet another tactic is blaming what ever happened on Clinton | May 3, 2007 10:11 PM | Report abuse

Loudoun Voter,
"he had nothing to do with the state's current prosperity." We have the prosperity with the car tax cuts still in existence. The point is that if the car tax cut completely screwed up the economy of Virginia, it would no longer be in existence. But it is. And Virginia is fine. And, i guess in your view, its pure coincidence that Virginia's economics improved when the national economy improved and came out of the Clinton recession. Additionally, northern Virginia is a technology center that is second to probably only silicon valley. Gilmore created the nation's first state Secretary of Technology and established a statewide technology commission. Yet another coincidence? Lower taxes, better schools, plenty of high tech jobs and an economy that weathered a national recession fairly well. But none of that could be due to him, right?

On a side note, assuming you are from Loudoun county, happy 250th (birthday of Loudoun county).

Posted by: Dave! | May 3, 2007 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Is Sen. McCain ill? Maybe his age is showing more, but he seemed almost desparate. TOo bad. Rudy looked good mostly, as did Romney. I like Romney's upbeat manner, and Rudy's reputation and his more centrist views. Tommy Thompson looks out of place, as did a couple others. I think its a race between Rudy and Romney when all is said and done.

Posted by: Barney | May 3, 2007 9:52 PM | Report abuse

"Nuff said"? Give me a break - Ron Paul, pro-life, anti-illegal war, an MD who has delivered thousands of babies, a solid Texan Republican who criticizes Bush's war, and you can't find anything interesting to say about him? Pretty cowardly of the as-usual liberal Post.

Posted by: Chris Inwien | May 3, 2007 9:50 PM | Report abuse

during the inquisition it was considered liberal to be against torture...


labels have a way of being convenient for the strawman position...

make up a buncha crap about someone , give it a label and say , "thats you,"


very amateurish, and mostly what the managers of politicians do, as far as helping their candidates...


since many candidates are really just inherited wealthy with no real skill set , it passes for their intellectual ability


sort of a dandified name callying.

Posted by: back | May 3, 2007 8:53 PM | Report abuse

top of that conscripting the men and women overseas that work for the war profiteers would give them a better health coverage and full retirement after 20 years...


and make a lot of bad people very unhappy,


do it, have some fun! its your country.

Posted by: on | May 3, 2007 7:51 PM | Report abuse

if Beelzebubb, otherwise known as dubya..


instigates a war with IRAN,


you are looking at martial law, and a draft...


sort of like a little cruise through nazi land...

doubt me ? You do know that duhyas Grandpa invested in the NAZIS in WWII right?


think I am lying? good check it out

search on Bush Crime Family, Prescott Bush


see what comes up in your face...

duhyahs has a Trust Fund made up exclusively of funds from SLAVE LABOR of JEWS at Auschwitz...


know who you serve by learning something besides how to hide the pea in the shell game,


sometimes you have to grab their wrists , and make them pick all the shells up , to see who you are dealing with


why would someone DESIRE DEEPLY, NO OVERSIGHT?


Crooks , Criminals... most likely


Patriots?.... Sucker born every minute PT BARNUM if you chose that one, spank yourself and go to bed without dinner...

Posted by: and listen | May 3, 2007 7:45 PM | Report abuse

for America?


stop outsourcing , arrest _employers_ of illegals...

regard our infrastructure as a NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE...


seperate the instigators of IRAQ from profiting from it by Nationalizing BIG OIL and using that money to address problems with our infrastructure that make us vulnerable to foreign takeover..

ON TOP OF THaT, conscripting the men and women employed by war profiteers... Halliburton/Blackwater/Bechtel/Carlyle Group and subsidiaries

would give us the troops we need and at a better price...


mandate 3 or 4 day work weeks for FEDERAL EMPLOYEEs where practicable , and mandate telecommuting on FEDERAL jobs where most of the work is done by computers...


require that all US companies have at least 95 Percent [%] of their workers in all branches by AMERICAN...


start working on city infrastructures to make living within them a safe , pleasureable experience and set them up for commuting ... rail systems, bus lanes, etcetera...


start working on managing resources by preserving them and making less work to recover from them by not using them...


reduce population load, by taking care of the citizens that you have and educating them...

and so on... I know labels are more important to you than actions, but deal with it.

Posted by: what would be a good thing | May 3, 2007 7:39 PM | Report abuse

haunter of mens rooms on the Highway Number one to Mount Vernon is copying my style


hello Robert... King of Zouk...

Posted by: and now the | May 3, 2007 7:30 PM | Report abuse

In my opinion all Democratz and Republicans are full of it and might as well be terrorists. That said, Hilary Clinton has an 82% chance of becoming PressAdent. Kinda sucks...

Posted by: J.J. Dud | May 3, 2007 7:30 PM | Report abuse

by Americans for America...

BEING REPUBLICAN MEANS CHOOSING PARTY_OVER_COUNTRY...


and selfish ness over citizenship... would a republican choose a rich international over a US born citizen? need you ask????????


check the record... Check James Baker the IIIs Record with the IRAQ DEBT RESTRUCTURING...

search on that and his relationship with the Bin Laden FAMILY...


JAMES BAKER THE III is _THE_MOST_RESPECTED_ Republican in Washington...

search on his name linked with the Bin Ladens and with the Iraqi Debt Restructuring to find out what you can expect from REPUBLICANS....

he helped elect 4 REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS... learn more about him so you can understand what it means to be a REPUBLICAN...

neo ConARTISTe'


not that I care , the name Republican is a label... who it points to changes moment by moment...


but there is a big block of dirty ice in the water glass of Washington DC ...


it is called corruption...


and it needs to be thrown out... no matter how much flavor you add, dirt still tastes dirty...

Posted by: and now for a public announcement | May 3, 2007 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Funny how Bill Frist and George Allen were going to be part of this list a year ago . . .

Posted by: jojo | May 3, 2007 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Honestly, I can't wait for this debate. Democrats are taking on issues that really matter to the American people. From health care to education, these issues take precedence over an ever inflating military budget that seems to bring no resolve for any country involved. I would like to know what Republicans have to say on the same issues.

I am actually a finalist for the Politico online contest to pick questions from online users. I asked about what they feel is the impact of global poverty on terrorism and how they would address the needs of the UN Millennium Development Goals to end global poverty. This is important to me because, according to the Borgen Project, just $19 billion annually can end starvation yet Bush has chosen to spend over $340 billion in Iraq without any success. These funds would make a huge difference in changing the world if they were invested elsewhere.

Posted by: fps | May 3, 2007 7:03 PM | Report abuse

I'd be interested in voting for any republican who supports the following:

Equal rights, a woman's right to choose, racial desegregation enforced by busing and quotas, a ban on the manufacture of non-military, not law enforcement firearms and ammunition, the immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq, affordable, universal health care, ending arms exports, levying large windfall profit taxes on the oil industry and the top 2 % of wealthy Americans, a total ban on oil drilling in pristine wildlife areas and off shore, a vast investment in public education and alternative fuels, a radical reform of the penal system emphasizing rehabilitation rather than punishment for victim-less crimes, and an all out effort to avert disasterous global warming, overfishing of the worlds oceans, and complete re-imagining of America's foreign policy, with achieving detentes with rogue states as the first priority.

I know my positions are somewhat to the left of Attila the Hun, but I'm confident all my fellow conservatives will give these issues their utmost consideration.

Posted by: Brian Becker | May 3, 2007 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Dave!: "the state is in great fiscal shape."

Dave, there have now been two democratic governors since gilmore. he had nothing to do with the state's current prosperity. when he left office the state's finances were a mess. facts is facts. the man is a joke.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | May 3, 2007 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Libertarian,
"Bill Clinton campaigned to the liberal left and ran to the center after election. Reagan's campaign appealed to the right, but under his tenure, the size of the Federal Government rose as fast as ever." Clinton at first tried to govern liberal left (gays in the military and nationalized healthcare) but then, to his credit, moved center and experienced more success. Reagan did increase government spending, a lot of which was DoD which is what he campaigned on. But as a percentage of GDP, federal expenditures grew slightly from 21.6 percent in 1980 to 21.8 percent in 1990.

Posted by: Dave! | May 3, 2007 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Anon,
"I don't know how David! enjoyed it, because virtually everybody got screwed, while they saving a relative pittance on their car tax." Well, there was no recession caused by Gilmore. There was the national recession and Virginia suffered just like most of the rest of the country. My family saved close to 1500 dollars a year. I am probably not rich like you so to me, that is not a pittance. Today there is still no tax on cars first $20,000 and the state is in great fiscal shape. I am at a loss to see how everybody got screwed. I certainly didn't.

Posted by: Dave! | May 3, 2007 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Gooid stuff, CC. The real pressure will be on Romney. He needs to make a lot of Republicans pay attention to have any shot.

Here's another debate preview.
http://political-buzz.com/?p=171

Posted by: matt | May 3, 2007 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Too bad Spartan left. I saw that they they were still looking for a broken Democrat promise.

Clinton in the 1992 campaign promised Middle Class tax cuts. The Bush 41 Recession made that close to responsibly impossible (it could always have been done irresponsibly; we all know about that now).

Clinton reneged and instead was forced to take the Fiscal Discipline Road. The result, a broken promise leading to the longest sustained period of economic growth in U. S. History.

Democrats, you can't trust them. Look what happens.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

"i live in Virginia and enjoy his legacy of tax cutting and prospering." - David!

Gilmore and tax cuting go together.

Gilmore and recsssion go together.

Gilmore and prosperity, do not go together.

He was about the most fiscally irresponsible Governor the Commonwealth has ever had.

I don't know how David! enjoyed it, because virtually everybody got screwed, while they saving a relative pittance on their car tax.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

anon-its obstruction both ways, dont get it confused. im tired of this, im off to the bar. later all

Posted by: spartan | May 3, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

"the house sends the bill to the senate and now the repubicans there are holding it up.(obstructionism)"

So is it obstructionism when the republicans do it and good government when the Dems do it?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 5:42 PM | Report abuse

It should be about as fascinating as the Dems, which wasn't very. I will enjoy learning about (or hoping to learn about) the "other 7" candidates. I have to say that i have not heard or have heard little of Hunter, Tancredo or Paul. Gilmore i know because i live in Virginia and enjoy his legacy of tax cutting and prospering. Tommie Thompson i know from being on the forefront of many nifty ideas on welfare reform and education. I know him to be not very photogenic but effective and full of really good ideas. I got to see some of the Dodd / Brownback debate which was very interesting. Found out a lot about both candidates-it was nice there were only 2 of them. I found both to be very full of common sense and very low on being photogenic. Huckabee has some buzz but i know virtually nothing about him. That said, tonights debate probably won't help in that respect. It is a shame that the other Thompson won't be there. He would probably do well in this format.

Posted by: Dave! | May 3, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

yes i did, and i called you on it,saying its not true. you obiously dont know how the federal government works. the house sends the bill to the senate and now the repubicans there are holding it up.(obstructionism)
"spartan you did debate civilly although weakly given your proclivities"
how would you know? put across my points forcefully. and civilly might i add. but in this thread alone you called people dense and blamed liberals for basically everything except the sun rising?

honestly we wasted hours arguring about how many angels that can fit on a needle instead of talking solutions. wanna give it a rest?

Posted by: spartan | May 3, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Bombing an abortion clinic is designed to kill the doctors at the clinic. I guess you don't have a problem with killing doctors. It's definitely not as bad as throwing a pie, though. I know I'd much rather be killed at work than suffer dessert-based humiliation.

Yes, I think calling someone an anti-gay slur is hate speech. That's pretty much the definition of hate speech. And so what that my example was Coulter? She clerked for a supreme and is a best selling author. Many, many people take her seriosly. why should we take you seriously?

Posted by: Blarg | May 3, 2007 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Blarg -- Abortion clinic bombings? Yes, they count, and the abortion doctor snipings, but do notice that they were condemned by mainstream conservatives. The rest of your examples? No: Koresh was no conservative, neo-Nazis are authoritarian socialists, not conservatives (Nazi is short for "National Socialist"), and bin Ladin is a revisionist, not a conservative.

Posted by: Webster | May 3, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

While Ron Paul will probably be marginalized and treated as a side show attraction like Mike Gravel was in the Dem's debate, I'm looking forward to what he has to say. If nothing else, Ron Paul, like Mike Gravel, is his own man not at the behest of any special interest groups and tells it like it really is, not the fluff that party hacks and loyalists who vote in the caucuses want to hear.

As someone else already stated, Ron Paul's pro-constitution, anti-war stance places him head and shoulders above his peers, but the MSM and the Republican Party establishment has and will continue to do all they can to marginalize his candidacy.

I've been a lifelong Republican, but Barry Goldwater was right, other than their stated positions on the Iraq war, pragmatically there's not much difference between the "leading" Republican and Democratic candidates.

When you cut through the rhetoric, regardless of who gets elected, unless it is someone like Ron Paul or Mike Gravel, we'll continue to get more of the same, regardless of party.

Bill Clinton campaigned to the liberal left and ran to the center after election. Reagan's campaign appealed to the right, but under his tenure, the size of the Federal Government rose as fast as ever.

It would be refreshing if a principled, highly educated person like Ron Paul attracted a substantial following that altered the tempo of the campaign.

When you look beyond the media hype and personalities (a war hero; an actor; a mayor who rallied his city on NYC; a few boring ex-governors; former head of an Olympics, etc.), other than Ron Paul, I'm not impressed by any of the other candidates.

Ron Paul, whether you agree with him or not, has a consistent, verifiable voting record and refreshingly he is one of the few, if not the only candidate not running away from his public voting record.

Posted by: Libertarian | May 3, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

The Top 10 list of likely and potential republican candidates looks more like a David Letterman list that was taken a bit to literal from those who watch Leno and have no idea the list is a joke.
with Mcain and Guliani's numbers going south - the GOP should look to the north and to seasoned and steady handed former Governor Pataki who handily won 3 terms as a moderate republican as republicans, democrats and independents voted Governor George Pataki to lead the empire state all three times he ran for election. GOP - GO Pataki !

Posted by: Scott - Washington, D.C. | May 3, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

"it all started when i asked can he post any link to where the dems broke campagin promises"

which I did and was ignored.

spartan you did debate civilly although weakly given your proclivities.

"now he's resorted to insults and lies"

Uh, no that would be your fellow travellers. show me.

"at least linked to my stories" - a marginal attempt at best but better than most.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 3, 2007 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Is bombing an abortion clinic designed to harm of hurt liberals specifically? Or perhaps just the activity.

you really want to compare what ann coulter said (who is a pundit and paid entertainer who specializes in hyperbole) to the things harry reid and other elected officials (who BTW, promised civility and bipartisanship)said. are you that clueless not to see the difference? you think calling a blow-dried candidate, who spends 400 on a haircut and can't think of a moral base, who brags about childhood humiliation as a means to get votes, who reneged on an important vote for war because it is now a better way to get votes, you think calling him a fa**ot is hate speech. I think your sensibilites need tuning. It seems the WaPo is sensitive about this word too. PC run amok.

I can tolerate no more of this inane conversation today. you Dems try to come up with a single defensible issue and I will humiliate you again soon.

I look forward to your review fo the debate. I am sure it will be as content free as your policy and platform is.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 3, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

hello folks, i would like to apologize for taking up this thread for the last 4 hours. it all started when i asked can he post any link to where the dems broke campagin promises. now he's resorted to insults and lies. since being a stooge for drindl and i suspect lylepink, i have taken the initive to try to put the thread back on track. as one representing the left side of politics i have tried to at least linked to my stories,not insulted(well at least tried)people,and debated within acceptable means. how ever koz(or zouk) had resorted to insults and the like. now if anyone would like to continue with the conversation ill join you.

Posted by: spartan | May 3, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Oh, I see. You asked for incidents of violence committed by conservatives, but you meant rude statements and throwing pies. Bombing an abortion clinic doesn't count as violence; blocking a parking lot does. Silly me; I used the common definition of the word, not the one you just made up.

Anne Coulter, who you respect and take seriously, wrote a whole book saying that all liberals are traitors. Oh, and she used a pretty bad word about John Edwards. Is that violent enough for you?

Posted by: Blarg | May 3, 2007 4:56 PM | Report abuse

And George Wallace's family, too.

Posted by: Webster | May 3, 2007 4:53 PM | Report abuse

"find a liberal pundit or speaker who has been assaulted."

"That guy is a major league a-hole."

Posted by: bsimon | May 3, 2007 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, are you that dense that you would think that is what I was talking about? Is this just silly banter to cover up the truth? I am talking about political speech and action.

find a quote wherein George Bush said something disagreable and similar in tone to what dirty Harry Reid has said about him. go ahead, I dare you. find a liberal pundit or speaker who has been assaulted. find a crime done to liberal voting mechanisms.

this blog is useless if you all continue to put up nonsense in the face of actual events. going back to watergate may make your liberal heart swell but it is not on point in the least. I get the feeling you have no legs to stand on and will concede the field as usual.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 3, 2007 4:50 PM | Report abuse

www.mediamatters.org
what facts are you talking about?im sorry accusations that you think liberals did really dont count in this day and age. how about citing links, stories ect? i just gave you a link to mediamatters it should keep you busy for a while. i only speculated on who threatened obama nor do i have and connections to senator byrd. honestly are you really in academia? do you have a life outside of being the scourge of all liberalism?

honestly you want to continue fine, give me your e mail and we can cross swords there. if not just ignore me and ill ignore you.
enjoy

Posted by: spartan | May 3, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

I see the towering intellect of the Liberal wing of the party is here again. Ooops, sarcasm, gotta get off that stuff. must be peer pressure. Yawn. I expect the conversation to sink into the abyss now with silly nonsense and fictions about some 60s ideas that never quite made it. and don't forget the insults and character assasinations. no use talking policy or fact - if you have to tell the truth, you will never win on that account.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 3, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, don't see Fred Thompson name yet.

Posted by: yngheart | May 3, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

"Please point to a single incident of violence by any conservative."

Do abortion clinic bombings count? How about Dick Cheney shooting a guy in the face? David Koresh? The Oklahoma City bombing? Hell, Osama Bin Laden is pretty conservative; can we count 9/11?

Posted by: Blarg | May 3, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Spartan, the last posts I made to outside facts were ignored. If I post these facts again and they don't comport with your creative writing, what will you do?

You didn't hear about ann coulter being attacked with a pie. you didn't hear about the vans being sabotaged? you didn't haer about the blockade in the parking lot at AU?

My question was more to your claim - you said conservativs spew hate speech. show me. you find a link. and while your at it, creat some more fiction about the klan theatening Obama. cite your internal connnections to Byrd's office.

without any substance, your atrocious claims ring hollow. Welcome to the Dem platform. you will fit in nicely.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 3, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

mikeb-only in koz's mind that im taking orders from drindl. cool points for using the wiley Coyote refernce to zouk.


Many, many people take her seriosly. why should we take you seriously?
um because i dont go around calling presidental canidates f*ggot!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

KOZ: "who breaks into campaign offices and ruins them - liberals do."

Yeah, G Gordon Liddy and the creeps from CREEP who broke into Democratic HQ at the Watergate were all card-carrying libs.

Nice grasp of history, numbnuts.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | May 3, 2007 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Huckabee resonates with TRUE conservatives as evidenced by his win in at the Spartanburg County Republican Party Convention a few weeks ago and his second place showing in the Greenville County Republican Party's straw poll that same day.

All thought former Mayor Guiliani would wow the crowd, he did not. Many thought Romney, the pick of the Spartanburg County Republican Party Leadership would win. He did not.

The only candidate to receive a Standing Ovation after speaking? Gov. Huckabee.

It would be nice if the MSM cover ALL candidates rather than focusing on the top 3 in both DEM and GOP fields.

Posted by: UpstateLee | May 3, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

"do you really want people to take you seriously?"


By mentioning ann coulter I am disqualifed? She clerked for a supreme and is a best selling author. Many, many people take her seriosly. why should we take you seriously?

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 3, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

care to post links where the big bad liberals constantly threaten and imtiminate repubicans?

and no, not all canidates dont get secret service protection, they get it from their home state, until they win their parties nomination. barrak obama however was probably threatened by some klansman or some nitwit trying to be famous. so he merits this.

Posted by: spartan | May 3, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Spartan - Maybe I'm missing something here but are demeaning drindle? drindl is a thoughtful and insightful poster. I enjoy what she(?) has to say. Same for Zach, bsimon, Rufus, lylepink, and you for that matter. The posts aren't scripted, the thoughts and ideas genuine, and the reasoning usually very sound. Of the conservatives, Chris, Dave! and William usually are worth reading...and at times nail points I overlooked. The loose canons are the anonymous right wing posts and KOZ, which don't just cross the line, they run over it on rocket propelled roller skates ala Whily Coyote.

Posted by: MikeB | May 3, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Who throws pies at speakers - Liberals do. who breaks into campaign offices and ruins them - liberals do. who calls the president of the US the most offensive names - liberals do. Who slashes tires on get-out-the-vote vans? Liberals do. who blocks parking lots and slimes speakers cars? Liberals do.

Please point to a single incident of violence by any conservative. that was ann coulter's point and you tried to avoid it by slurrring her for no reason. then you fault conservatives for doing what you just did.

If you want to see hate, examine what your own dear moonbats (you know who I mean) write on this site. guess who the target of this animosity is and the origin.


Presidential candidates always have secret service attachments. Is this news?

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 3, 2007 4:24 PM | Report abuse

I wish people would take a closer look at Tommy Thompson's abominable record and stop referring to him as some "innovative chief executive." His welfare-to-work policies have largely failed due to underfunding, while his shameless exercise of political patronage was definitely a display of old school corruption. He left the state with a record deficit after getting tax breaks for his campaign contributors. Tommy also seems to be getting a free pass on his numerous extra-marital affairs (as with married state Rep. Betty Jo Nelson)and his fondness for appearing drunk in public, as in his speech to Packer fans after the Packers last lost the Super Bowl, or while riding his Harley from bar to Wisconsin bar. And after his recent anti-Semitic remarks I wish the media would recognize he's not ready for prime time, or any time, for that matter.

Posted by: Mildred Machiavelli | May 3, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Ask the Kennedy family how important it is to protect candidates. Don't make a political post out of it.

Posted by: Webster | May 3, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Can't you two just exchange emails or something so these pages are not always filled with off-topic bickering?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

I think we should lower our expectations in the early "debates" -- they're really only a chance for the candidates (especially the ones that can't afford a lot of TV ads) introduce themselves to us.

Posted by: Webster | May 3, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

ok i take the sarcasm remark back.
you just dont have a sense of humor. and using ann coulter as a example,do you really want people to take you seriously?

and in other news

Illinois senator and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has been placed under the protection of the U.S. Secret Service, the agency said Thursday.

The Secret Service would not divulge the reason for the protection.

The organization said in a written statement that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, "after consultation with the congressional advisory committee, authorized the United States Secret Service to protect presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama.

"As a matter of procedure, we will not release any details of the deliberations of assessments that led to protection being initiated," the Secret Service statement said
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/

i was afraid of something like this happening. but not suprising considering how righties like limbaugh, savage and zouk's hero coulter has been broadcasting hate 24/7. we wonder why the public discourse has gotten so brutal now.

Posted by: spartan | May 3, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

We will have more to say after the debate. What is it you know now that is so interesting to say about Republican candidates?

chris had to do this topic but is a vapid one.

I think we will see how muscular the R response is to war questions, especially compared to the spineless one offered by the Dems. (other than that butch hillary, of course).

I predict there will be a rush to cut expenses, opposite of the profligate Dems.

Is that surprising or unpredicatable?

I don't think anyone will have trouble saying who their moral source is. I don't think Romney's hair will become an issue. I don't think a single topic/issue will disqualify you from the nomination, as it can with Dems. (name a pro-war Dem, an anti-choice Dem, etc.)

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 3, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Sarcasm puts you right on par with drindl, JEP, ignorant coward, loudon and the rest. It is not helpful, it is not insightful, it is usually negative and cyncical, It is not amusing or humorous after about 20 years of it, it does not advance the debate and it points out the weakness of your argument. Was a straighforward response to the facts beyond your Liberal abilites to respond.

I am reminded of Alan colmes when he is forced to confront Newt or some other intellectual. It is always so embarrassing for poor alan, so obviuosly out of his league with indefensible picayune banter. I always wonder if the producers force him into that or if he really believes that tripe.

ann coulter made him look like a mental midget last night. I don't care much for her style but she has good points to make and leave her adversary stumbling and bumbling for words.

she stated that it is Libs who throw around all the uber-rabid insults, destroy offices, get violent, etc.. the retort was something like Repubs did robo-polling. Interesting try but feeble none the less.


the issues of broken promises and Dem corruption is still open.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 3, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

bsimon-yeah pretty much.

Posted by: spartan | May 3, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Strange how the conservatives don't have much to say about the Conservatives' debate tonight.

Posted by: bsimon | May 3, 2007 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Zach - I will not condemn Jefferson or Delay until a jury of their peers does so. but I would suggest they step down from certain congressional responsibilites while a cloud hangs over thier head. notice which party practices this voluntary policing and which doesn't.

As far as blocking those bills, are you seriously advocating that they all get voted through despite long standing opposition from Rs? am I a special interest because I support the war? do you flatly state that not a single R Senator has any convictions about his votes whatsoever? that would seem to reflect the Dem congress actually who voted agaisnt the war once certain earmarks were incorporated. that is conviction for you.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 3, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

and by the way zouk, my last post was sarcasm, if you didnt get that, please move away from the computer and enjoy life. despite what you think of liberals we dont want you to waste your life, so please from one american to another just stop, your not winning.

enjoy life and have a nice day

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

The whole benefit of a blog is that it is a free-flowing discusssion by the users, not the sponsor of the blog.

But considering that Obama thinks is is OK to usurp a private individuals website for his own purposes, I am not surprised you Libs think freedom of speech to be a minor inconveneince when weilded against you. Maybe you should call for more censorship of attitudes you don't approve of. the whole fox news debate is just so silly as to be embarrassing for you. they spread the opinion between two sides on almost every newscast or opinion show. were you so accustomed to hearing only the liberal side on "your" networks that broadcasting dissenting opinion is vile? this is philosophically indefensible and pitifully weak in character. and you expect anyone to think you can defend this nation with that surrender default reaction. Stop the presses!

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

And, speaking of bipartisanship, I see the Senate passed a drug allowing the importation of prescription drugs - on a 63 to 28 vote.

Posted by: bsimon | May 3, 2007 3:48 PM | Report abuse

KOZ - it's the GOP that's blocking all the bills you are talking about. Dems have 51 votes, not 60. You're party is blocking those bills because their special interest buddies told them to block it.

As for corruption, what Jefferson did was repugnant. He shouldn't be in the House anymore. But his constituents re-elected him. I condemned Jefferson, will you condemn Delay?

Posted by: Zach | May 3, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

koz-I suppose that is the best you can do. But WTF was the point of becoming drindl's stooge. do you strive to sink to her level. you are making progress in that direction.
-wow you made a funny,congrats. sorry i would respond further but im preparing to announce my intentions to run for the dem nomination to become senator. if you want a response your going to have to send it thru cerified mail, with a campagin contribution, im sure my campagin mangager blarg will direct the funds and my press secetary lylepink will give a response next week.

Posted by: spartan | May 3, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

KoZ writes
"Next loser step forward."

Hey - an on-topic post from the King!

Posted by: bsimon | May 3, 2007 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Spartan - I suppose that is the best you can do. But WTF was the point of becoming drindl's stooge. do you strive to sink to her level. you are making progress in that direction.

Next loser step forward.

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

you're absolutely right about feinstein. should have recused herself. i agree with you that all represenative and senators who wives or husbands are lobbyists should recuse themselves from all matters pertaining to their spouses area.

I'll even start wiht a Dem -- Joe Lieberman should recuse himself from bills relating to Big Pharma and Big Finance. Now, is there a single Republican member of congress whose spouse isn't a lobbyist?

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

Question for all
If you win the Republican nomination will you invite GWB to campaign for you

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

koz writes :"the most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history", which proved to be complete BS post-election ."

And the list of corrupt dems just keeps getting bigger! I guess it only matters if they are R.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein has abruptly walked away from her responsibilities with the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee after a report linked her votes to the financial well-being of her husband's companies, which received billions of dollars worth of military construction contracts she approved.


The Congressional Record shows that as chairperson and ranking member of MILCON, Feinstein was often involved in supervising the legislative details of military construction projects that directly affected her husband's defense-contracting firms," Byrne's report said.

"Sen. Feinstein has had a serious conflict of interest, a serious insensitivity to ethical considerations," Wendell Rawls, of the Center for Public Integrity in Washington, told Metroactive.

"The very least she should have done is to recuse herself from having conversations, debates, voting or any other kind of legislative activity that involved either Perini Corp. or URS Corp. or any other business activity where her husband's financial were involved."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54932

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

you heard it hear folks, zouk wants me to run for senate.

well i dunno, my state has two great senators but if elected i will piss off zouk more by repealing the tax cuts, voting for benchmarks to get out of iraq and take away the king of title. sorry, we dont have royalty in this country.

but since zouk doesnt understand how the federal government works im sure he will just go back to baseless attacks and half truths and translating my english in to senseless babble.

now please, the adults are talking, go watch go diego go and complain about illegal immigration it promotes.

Posted by: spartan | May 3, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

"Mr Cillizza: You either don't know or don't care about the issues in this debate. Instead, you focus on age, looks, and other silly details designed to appeal to people with no discernment. 'nuff said.
Posted by: Ken Caudill | May 3, 2007 02:17 PM"

Ken: it works for Fox News.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 3, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

MikeB points out "Today, however, Pelosi's opening is being taken advantage of and Rice is in face-to-face talks with them."

That would be a nice topical question for tonight's debate. Get them to comment on diplomatic efforts to get Iraq's neighbors involved in the fight - good idea or bad? What place does diplomacy have in finding a solution in Iraq?

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

'I do not respond to noname cowards or raving moonbats like drindl, JEP, rufas, '

--coz he's chickensh*t and afraid of the truth and the light, like all things that are white and squishy and live under rocks.

you wonder why you get so much attention, king of fools? because you are on here posting lies and baselessly smearing 'Libs' every 4 minutes for the whole day, welfare queen.

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

It will be interesting to see the GOP debate tonight and how it will change the poll numbers published in the Des Moines Register today (taken April 27-30) for likely Iowa caucus-goers:

March 2007 April 2007
REPUBLICANS (Pre debate)
McCain 29% 26%
Giuliani 29% 19%
Romney 10% 14%
F. Thompson 12% 13%
Gingrich 7% 8%
Huckabee 0% 2%
Tancredo 1% 2%
Brownback 0% 1%
Gilmore 0% 1%
Hagel 1% 1%
T. Thompson 1% 1%
Hunter 0% 0%
Paul 0% 0%
Undecided 11% 13%

DEMOCRATS (post debate)
Edwards 33% 27%
Clinton 34% 23%
Obama 16% 19%
Biden 2% 6%
Richardson 1% 5%
Dodd 1% 2%
Kucinich 1% 2%
Clark 2% 0%
Gravel 0% 0%
Undecided 10% 16%

A few things jump out at you.... assuming many caucus goers watched the Dem debate, they helped Biden and Richardson. Clinton took a big 11% dive, and according to David Yepsen this is partly because they don't think she can win in the general and don't like the "faux rural accent" she's using on heartland audiences.

For the GOP, Giuliani has dropped 10 points while Romney has gained 4. Yepsen credits Rudy's drop to lack of effort in Iowa in the way of time and staff.

One of the more interesting numbers is Fred Thompson who is more than holding his own in fourth place and hasn't even announced.

One thing seems clear for latecomers like Gore, the electorate is still looking since the Undecided % is rising, especially for the Dems.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | May 3, 2007 3:15 PM | Report abuse

What, no Fred Thompson? He'd get a guaranteed poll boost just by being on stage with the others. And double that if he could come up with a gruff-but-fatherly Law and Order-style one-liner that zings one of the leading candidates.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 3, 2007 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Translation from Spartan - I give up but claim victory anyway.

You should run for Senate majority leader with that sort of delusion. You will fit right in.

I knew the facts would overwhelm you.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 3, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Loudoun Voter - And, what is really intersting is that KOZ and the other right wing bloggers were calling for Pelosi's arrest for treason two weeks ago for visiting wih the Syrian Foreign Minister. Today, however, Pelosi's opening is being taken advantage of and Rice is in face-to-face talks with them. The depths of hypocracy of the Bushies is boundless. They take their "talking points" from paid talk show baffoons, all funded by wealthy Bush supporters. It makes a lot more sense to just listen to them or watch Fox and not worry about some mindless troll like KOZ messing up the mesage.

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

LOL people are finally ignoring KOZ and he is stomping his feet in the hopes of getting attention.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | May 3, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Chris's Prediction: The big money "rich" candidates who bought their way to the top in the polls will mysteriously be the winners of this debate, in the same order in which they are polling. And the "poor" candidates will end up dead last, and will be labeled as not serious.

Posted by: nuckree | May 3, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Spartan - do you always claim victory after a single punch? not interested in what the opposition has to say? I would think you are a big supporter of the war then?
-do you always claim victory after swinging and missing?im interested in what the opposition says, but i have a right to say its right or wrong.no i dont support the war. my grandfather had a saying dont assume,because someone will make a ass out of you.

I really don't expect you to go down one by one and concoct some lame explnation for each, although I know Dems are good at that kind of spinning
-i just explained it. the senate will take it up later,are you that impatient zouk? can you wait a few months, like you want us to wait for the surge working?

-im not going to address the rest of the post because i would rather go back on topic and you have this strange fixation on winning political points.and so far you havent made any but proved that your a rabid partisan.

have a nice day but im sure you wont.

Posted by: spartan | May 3, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Re: "(Romney) was on the tonight show last night and he came across as likeable"

Romney has a lot of experience in dealing with public appearances, and an interesting background. What we'd need to hear about are ISSUES; but he does seem to contrast to the Borg Collective.

What would wake up the electorate is Colin Powell running, and crossing party lines and winning the whole thing. His only "sin", at this point, is in believing Bush's "intel" and embarrassing himself at the U.N..

(I have a problem in using the words "Bush" and "intelligence" in the same sentence, so bear with me ...)

This would be akin to that season of "Dallas" where Bobby Ewing's demise was "just a dream"; but what the American people lack right now is a "dream", so what the heck ...

Posted by: pb | May 3, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Source: The Hill

By Susan Crabtree
May 03, 2007
Rep. Gary Miller (Calif.) helped secure several earmarks in the 2005 transportation bill that would benefit projects of his business partner, Lewis Operating, according to House sources and an analysis of the bill's earmarks and San Bernardino County, Calif., land records.

In the years leading up to the bill's passage, Miller's financial ties to the company, one of the largest privately held real-estate development companies in the country, have grown. The year before the transportation bill passed, Miller borrowed $7.5 million from Lewis Operating to purchase land from it. Lewis Operating Corp. is also one of Miller's top campaign contributors; employees of the company have donated $22,150 to Miller's campaign committee since his election to Congress in 1998.

Miller also has partnered or been involved with a number of real-estate transactions with the company in the past five years, making $1.1 million to $6 million in profits from deals involving Lewis Operating in some part of the transaction, according to the lawmaker's financial disclosure reports.

The FBI has been investigating several of Miller's land deals, particularly the sale of 165 acres to the city of Monrovia in 2002. Miller made at least $10 million on the deal, but has faced scrutiny for avoiding paying capital gains taxes on the land by telling the IRS that the city had threatened to seize the land through eminent domain, and subsequently reinvesting the profit into land purchased from Lewis Operating.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/miller-earmarks-aided-partner-2007-05-02.html

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Spartan - do you always claim victory after a single punch? not interested in what the opposition has to say? I would think you are a big supporter of the war then?

the original topic you requested data on:
What happened to pay-go?
What happened to minimum wage?
What happened to five day work weeks?
break the link between lobbyists and legislation
Cut the interest rate on student loans in half
Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients
Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds
lower gas prices

I really don't expect you to go down one by one and concoct some lame explnation for each, although I know Dems are good at that kind of spinning.

the point about corruption was Dems promised to fix it. they didn't.

the point about bi-partisanship was it is non-existant. Examine the votes.

you can trade barbs and wallow in detail but the overarching point remains that Dems are not qualified to lead this country. their philosophy is a remnant of the 60s and has mostly been proven false or ineffective. All the programs they espouse sound good on paper and end up failing miserably. the only policy victory they claim in the last 40 years is welfare reform, vetoed twice by clinton and finally passed after finding out he could beat dole if he signed it. If you must lay claim to that despite the obvious dissonance, go ahead.

But stop pretending that your leaders are doing anything to benefit americans and that they represent even half of the population.

for some solutions to our problems that might actually work, watch the debate among the adults tonight. After, you can ask them for your allowance and go out and look for interns.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 3, 2007 2:46 PM | Report abuse

I will record this debate tonight and watch it later.

I suspect there are several R analogs to Kucinich and Gravel who will make at least 4 of the others appear moderate and centrist.

There is so much I do not know about all these men except Sen. McCain, whom I have always respected, that I will watch intently.

As with the Dem debate, if the questioning is absurd and about trivia, the usefulness will for me will be diminished.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | May 3, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

bsimon-thank you, back on topic, im kind of rooting for mitt romney. only because he was born in michigan. he was on the tonight show last night and he came across as likeable( a shock really) and he didnt seem to be the evil arch conservative like the others. personally i would like to hear more from him. hopefully the 2008 election can be about ideals

Posted by: spartan | May 3, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

do not respond to noname cowards or raving moonbats like drindl, JEP, rufas, etc. Make sense if you want to participate in a debate.
-funny you accuse others of schoolyard taunts and you call them moonbats. typical projection.

What happened to pay-go?
What happened to minimum wage?
What happened to five day work weeks?
break the link between lobbyists and legislation
Cut the interest rate on student loans in half
Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients
Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds
lower gas prices
-see here's this little thing called a senate, let me say this slowly so you can under stand. the senate hasnt acted yet, we do not have a parliment where it can be instantly enacted. didnt they teach you that in high school? oh im sorry you were too busy taunting others to care.

Posted by: spartan | May 3, 2007 2:36 PM | Report abuse

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading this blog... thank you zouk and spartan

Posted by: berkeleybound | May 3, 2007 2:35 PM | Report abuse

"so what he said about reid was true then?"

Sounds like what he said about Reid was an opinion. You asked about bipartisanship, to which I provided a response. Apparently you don't like it, and now wish to discuss other topics. May I suggest the GOP Pres candidates' debate? Which candidate do you expect to thread the needle and win the nomination? Or not shoot himself in the foot tonight? The look like a bunch of opportunistic has-beens to me. Which isn't to say the Dem lineup is a whole lot better, just that the GOP appears inable to cut their losses (the Bush admin) in favor of a compelling vision for the future. Maybe they'll only be out of the WH for 4 years, because the way they look right now, there's no chance they're gonna be there in Jan 2009.

Posted by: bsimon | May 3, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

If they can increase the participant count by two, they can stage a revival of "Twelve Angry Men", and fight over the Lee J. Cobb role.

Act II will be appearing to support Bush, while attempting to detach themselves from the failed policies that they've backed.

Posted by: pb | May 3, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

koz-what points, you still havent answered any of my questions, and your still changing the subject.

Tom Delay left congress and is still not convicted of anything
-ok fine, but he is still charged with multitude of crimes. do you dispute that?

Yet to hear Dems he is evil and Jefferson is innocent still.
-um thats not the dems,its the overall culture of corruption. and jefferson is still isnt charged with any crime as of yet. thats the difference.

Murtha said when offered a bribe that he would accept it later when it was larger, (now that he knew one was available).
-http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10426
sorry i had to "cherry pick" and invent that fact zouk

According to you that is OK?
-in my opinion no.is it ok for repubicans to do the same no. dont try to make it look like one side is doing it.

Hastings released wire-tapping info and was subsequently impeached. now he can be trusted?
no, if you got a problem with that take it up with the people of hastings district. they elected him.

the list of corrupt Dem pols is very long including Feinstein and McDermott in the last two days.
-i guess you tottaly missed renzi and doolittle, not to mention flecher of kentucky winning his primary in a month and more adminstration officials resigning or being dragged infront of congress?

What happened to bi-partisanship?

-i think bisimon answered that already

you have done a typical Dem response. find one question you can answer which may have a shade of interpretation and attempt to discredit the entire treatise as a result.
-arent you doing the same thing, besides who said you were credible anyways?

We are on to your game. you are not fooling anyone but your own fools
-yes change the subject and troll the thread. yup you caught me. only problem is im winning. care to give up?

Posted by: spartan | May 3, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Nice balanced coverage of the best candidate, Ron Paul. Libertarians are the only political party with a real clue.

Posted by: Jason B | May 3, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

It'll be fun to watch Ron Paul speak for a grand total of about 5 minutes, but other than that this'll just be another snoozefest "debate". The fact that Ron Paul is the only anti-war candidate among the bunch should give him an advantage in that it makes him the only electable Republican.

Posted by: brody | May 3, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse

bsimon - I thought after the broder article where he pointed out what an imbecile Reid was, that he was banned from the Dem plantation. now that he is useful, he is forgiven. so what he said about reid was true then?

examine the votes so far this session. all down party lines except one or two strays.

response to broke promises so far: chirp, chirp

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 3, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Watch out for Tom Tancredo & others brag about their forefather's immigrating legally into the country conveniently leaving out the fact that forefather's of the overwhelming majority of the immigrants today (who are non-white) couldn't have done it if they wanted to - and don't expect the moderator or others to challenge him on that - who wants to be accused of 'playing the race card'! And ofcourse they are all for 'legal' immigration even if they oppose reforms to end the current ugly quota system to eliminate backlogs - hell, they actually want legal immigration reduced when the economy is expanding - thats how much pro-legal they are!!

Posted by: Sam | May 3, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

I do not respond to noname cowards or raving moonbats like drindl, JEP, rufas, etc. Make sense if you want to participate in a debate.

I encourage the rest of you to ignore the bad behavior.

What happened to pay-go?
What happened to minimum wage?
What happened to five day work weeks?
break the link between lobbyists and legislation
Cut the interest rate on student loans in half
Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients
Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds
lower gas prices

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 3, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

hilarious! okay, so the repugnant-cans do have supporters! history, if it is written without the usual lies, will tell who can hold their head up when all is revealed.

so far, the last three hundred years have been shameful, hurtful and challenging for the people that were HERE first. have to say, though, as an insider outsider, it looks pretty grim for the wingnut types these days. if you were planning well, you might have "privatized" the net. bad move.

either lie or be stupid, try not to be both at the same time, it just gets irritating.

Posted by: pre AmeriKKKan | May 3, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

KoZ asks
"What happened to bi-partisanship?"

According to Broder in today's Post (hit that link in the upper left of your browser), it is underreported - but is going on.

Posted by: bsimon | May 3, 2007 2:18 PM | Report abuse

I am always very amused at the attention I get on this blog
-say something inflammatory and people jump all over you. can you say troll?

I state policy facts and challenge the opposition
-most of your facts are wrong, and when someone calls you on it, you get offended and go in this "woe is me im so right" speech you are in right now.

In reply I get called names and a liar. then the posters obsess over when I log on, who else am I, what sort of medication I take, etc. anything to avoid the points made
-not my fault that you post under razorback,sand flea,general pelosi and others. but if you want people to ignore you as a right wing flake ok, your ignored.

Are your arguments so weak as to warrant ignorance and school yard taunting.
-stop projecting, i can easily go back in the archives and post about how many times you insulted, got facts wrong and been a total pest.

After I post the facts, the opposition goes curiously quiet. you will not see spartan reply further about broken promises since the sham is now revealed. He will obfuscate and try to change the subject or personalize it. but never respond to the actual point. this is the tactic of the left.
-*ahem* i am still talking on this site. you havent revealed any sham and i never obfuscate and change the subject. in fact you did. the article was about the repubican debate and you wanted to start talking about democratic corruption, are the gop canidates so poor that you have to change the subject?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Mr Cillizza:

You either don't know or don't care about the issues in this debate. Instead, you focus on age, looks, and other silly details designed to appeal to people with no discernment.

'nuff said.

Posted by: Ken Caudill | May 3, 2007 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Spartan - cherry picking the response with selective half retorts doesn't refute the points made.

Tom Delay left congress and is still not convicted of anything. Yet to hear Dems he is evil and Jefferson is innocent still. Murtha said when offered a bribe that he would accept it later when it was larger, (now that he knew one was available). According to you that is OK? Hastings released wire-tapping info and was subsequently impeached. now he can be trusted? the list of corrupt Dem pols is very long including Feinstein and McDermott in the last two days.

what happened to the ethics bill?

A very simple question.

What happened to bi-partisanship?

you have done a typical Dem response. find one question you can answer which may have a shade of interpretation and attempt to discredit the entire treatise as a result.

We are on to your game. you are not fooling anyone but your own fools.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 3, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Regardless of the source (If it had been my own thoughts, you would have accused me of lying)
-now i havent accused you of lying, asking you what campaign promises the dems broke. you havent answered that, and you gave easily debunked points.

the facts stand
-im sorry all i saw was talking points and spin try again.

you and your leaders are frauds
-now your attacking me, gee how novel, im a fraud. as apposed to you and your "leaders" well they have been more than truthful right?

I am not as adept as you at inventing 'original" facts.

dont assume,at least i can back up my facts.

do you concede that Dems are liars and break all promises? If so we can move on. If not, think up some school-yard names for me.

ALL POLITICANS ARE LIARS. not just one side. and why should i, just so i can stoop to your level and so you can say the same talking points over and over again. nope sorry

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

I am always very amused at the attention I get on this blog. I state policy facts and challenge the opposition. In reply I get called names and a liar. then the posters obsess over when I log on, who else am I, what sort of medication I take, etc. anything to avoid the points made. Are your arguments so weak as to warrant ignorance and school yard taunting.

After I post the facts, the opposition goes curiously quiet. you will not see spartan reply further about broken promises since the sham is now revealed. He will obfuscate and try to change the subject or personalize it. but never respond to the actual point. this is the tactic of the left.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 3, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Dems Won't Find Enacting 9/11 Ideas Easy: Remember how Pelosi & Co. was going to implement every single one of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations? Well, forget it
-http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR1: the senate will act on it later. blame senator reid for not acting fast enough for your tastes.

Well, they promised the most "honest, ethical, and open Congress in history"
-a welcome change from the last congress.

ethically challenged Rep. John Murtha for House Majority Leader
-well did he take the bribe or not zouk? and plus he lost to steny hoyer for that job. he lost, get over it.

she wanted impeached former federal judge-turned-House Rep. Alcee Hastings to chair the House Intelligence Committee as well.
-really? well that didnt happen,when silvestre reyes became head of house intel.

once again, can you post actual campaign promises that the dems broke or are you just going to toss out half truths and distortions?

Posted by: spartan | May 3, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, November 8, 2006:

"The American people voted for a New Direction to restore civility and bipartisanship in Washington, D.C. Democrats promise to work together in a bipartisan way for all Americans."

[...]

"We will work with Republicans in Congress and the Administration in the spirit of partnership, not partisanship."


Regardless of the source (If it had been my own thoughts, you would have accused me of lying) the facts stand. you and your leaders are frauds. I know you will reply with personal attacks and ignore the points made.

I am not as adept as you at inventing 'original" facts.

do you concede that Dems are liars and break all promises? If so we can move on. If not, think up some school-yard names for me.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 3, 2007 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Ah, yes, the master debaters! I'm so not Bush. No, I'm less Bush than you are. I never liked Bush. It's Cheney's fault, he misled Bush. No, I support Bush...now, but wont in the general election. It'll be like a coffe clatch meeign of a bunch of Alzheimer patients. And, KOZ would fit in just *perfectly*, the most masterful debater of them all!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 1:52 PM | Report abuse

I hope to see these candidates address the issue of global poverty. The Millennium Goals were agreed to by the US in 2000 and yet we are not doing much to see that they are met. According to the Borgen Project aproximately 1 in 5 people live on $1 a day or less. This indicates that poverty is an extreme, widespread problem which will not go away without our help. Do any of the candidates have a plan to reduce poverty?

Posted by: taylor | May 3, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

But instead of allowing Republicans to fully participate in deliberations, as promised after the Democratic victory in the Nov. 7 midterm elections, Democrats now say they will use House rules to prevent the opposition from offering alternative measures, assuring speedy passage of the bills and allowing their party to trumpet early victories.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

yawn, took you 10 minutes to come up with that.plus you cut and pasted it.

cant you come up with a original thought?

Posted by: spartan | May 3, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Dems Won't Find Enacting 9/11 Ideas Easy: Remember how Pelosi & Co. was going to implement every single one of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations? Well, forget it. ...


† Democrats Split On How Far To Go With Ethics Law: After months of yammering about the "culture of corruption" on the other side of the aisle, Dems are dancing as fast as they can away from their promise of a "complete overhaul" of Congressional ethics rules. ...

Well, they promised the most "honest, ethical, and open Congress in history", which proved to be complete BS post-election after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi not only let it be known that she was throwing her full support behind the ethically challenged Rep. John Murtha for House Majority Leader, but that she wanted impeached former federal judge-turned-House Rep. Alcee Hastings to chair the House Intelligence Committee as well. Neither are going to happen, as we now know, but the fact that Pelosi would support either shows the intent and will to completely disregard that campaign promise not even a week after the Democrats won control of Congress.

http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/11/30/promises-made-promises-broken-a-retrospective-on-pelosis-9-11-commission-promises/

http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2007/01/02/more-democratic-broken-promises/

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 3, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

hi zouk-tired of posting under other screen names? can you post what campaign promises you think the dems broke?

Posted by: spartan | May 3, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Spartan - its called fulfilling a campaign promise, something the Dems can't seem to ever do.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 3, 2007 1:31 PM | Report abuse

now if i was asking the questions to the repub canidates if i was moderating the debates.

senator mc cain-since you are the public face for the surge, can you give us assurances that it will work or do you have a plan b in place?

mr rudy-what experiences do you have in millitary and forigen policy do you have other than saying that im america's mayor?

govenor romney-can you clearly state your ever changing positions?

brownback/tancredo- both of you have single issues campaigns, those issues were solved tomorrow, what other ideals can you offer to america?

tommy tompson- can you tell us who you are?

jim gilmore-can you tell us how you are the true conservative in the race?

ron paul-are you a credible canidate?

Posted by: spartan | May 3, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Gilmore will have to defend his decision on the car tax which sent us into an economic hole. "Nuff said"

Posted by: Simon | May 3, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Nice synopsis of why the Republicans should be planning an attempt to re-take the White House in 2012. Perhaps the likes of Huckabee and T Thompson will be more compelling then...

Posted by: bsimon | May 3, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company