1) Chris Matthews is an artificial looking self-important douchebag who needs to STFU.
2) Huckabee and Hunter are the two dumbest people on any given stage at any given time.
3) If Brownback and teaching evolution in public schools are basically what Kansas has to offer, we should nuke them before Iran.
4) I still like that Tancredo keeps these guys honest, and he's self-effacing & likeable, but he's from Colorado, so fuck him.
5) McCain, Romney, and Giulliani are virtually indistinguishable from each other apart from thesaurus and delivery. Between the three of them, there's a complete human...mostly.
6) Fred Thompson might as well be some guy off the street who looks smarter than your average pedestrian. He's about to earn the waffle label. He's like water, and starts to parrot things that get a rise from the crowd.
7) Ron Paul absolutely kicked these guys asses, despite the on-going issues he has responding to questions in rapid-fire fashion. Absolutely kicked their asses up and down the stage.
__________________
"I respect faith but doubt is what gets you an education."
- Wilson Mizner
"Once you label me, you negate me."
- Soren Kierkegaard
I'm getting increasingly sick of Giulliani, and the bullshit ad-hoc manner in which Matthews just kind of starts conversations with one of the "top 3", giving them tons of extra time.
Giulliani came within a pussy hair of agreeing with the suggestion (from Matthews) that an FCC-type body might be needed to police the internet. Fucking yikes.
Chris Matthews really is a douche bag, who is just as guilty of trying to influence the outcome of these debates as some of the Fox douche bags. Ask the questions and provide equal time for all participants -- other than that, just STFU.
I hate that prick Matthews, I hope someone beats him with a bag of door knobs. Every poll I've looked at gives the debate to Paul by 50% or better margins.
Thompson, as predicted here, is just some dumbfuck. The entire field with the exception of Paul is worthless. What is the GOP missing here?
I hate that prick Matthews, I hope someone beats him with a bag of door knobs. Every poll I've looked at gives the debate to Paul by 50% or better margins.
Thompson, as predicted here, is just some dumbfuck. The entire field with the exception of Paul is worthless. What is the GOP missing here?
I have read close to a dozen stories on that debate and Paul's name hardly ever came up in any of them. The only candidates who are mentioned and/or being taken seriously are Romney, Giuliani, and Thompson (only because this was his first debate). The only story I saw that mentioned Paul said something about his "trained groupies flooding poll lines and sites to make it look like he won..." In fact, Matthews was mentioned far more often than Paul.
The Nation -- Call it the Alberto Gonzales approach to the system of checks and balances.
Asked whether he would obey the Constitution and consult Congress before sending US troops into combat, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney says he would consult his lawyers first.
Just as President Bush turned to Gonzales for legal opinions that the disgraced former White House counsel and Attorney General wrote with the purpose of absolving the commander-in-chief of any duty to uphold the Constitution, so Romney says that he would take his cue from contemporary counselors rather than the Founders of the American experiment.
The question in Tuesday's Republican presidential debate in Michigan came from MSNBC host Chris Matthews, who asked, "Governor Romney... if you were president of the United States, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iran's nuclear facilities?"
Romney responded, "You sit down with your attorneys and (they) tell you what you have to do. But obviously the president of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat. The president did that as he was planning on moving into Iraq and received the authorization of Congress..."
Matthews interjected: "Did (President Bush) need (a go-ahead from Congress)?"
"You know," Romney replied, "we're going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and what he didn't need to do."
Most of the other GOP contenders paid at least a measure of lip service to Constitutional niceties, with Arizona Senator John McCain and former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson displaying relative respect for the separation of powers while former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee adopted the mad-bomber line.
When all was said and done, however, only Texas Congressman Ron Paul actually challenged Romney's disregard of the essential document.
Matthews asked, "Congressman Paul, do you believe the President needs authorization of Congress to attack strategic targets in Iran, nuclear facilities?"
"Absolutely," said Paul, who in 2002 was one of six House Republicans to vote against authorizing Bush to attack Iraq. "This idea of going and talking to attorneys totally baffles me. Why don't we just open up the Constitution and read it? You're not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war."
Paul went on to dismiss the whole notion that Iran poses a threat to the US. "The thought that the Iranians could pose an imminent attack on the United States is preposterous. There's no way. This is just... war propaganda, continued war propaganda, preparing this nation to go to war and spread this war not only in Iraq, but into Iran, unconstitutionally. It is a road to disaster for us as a nation. It's a road to our financial disaster if we don't read the Constitution once in a while."
Later, Paul would attempt to explain to Rudy Giuliani that the September 11, 2001, attacks were carried out by terrorists, rather than a foreign government. When the former New York mayor again attempted to use the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as justification for preemptive attacks on sovereign states, Paul explained with regard to September 11: "That was no country. That was 19 thugs. That had nothing to do with a country."
Giuliani wasn't having any of it. "So imminent attack is a possibility, and we should be ready for it," the Republican front runner ranted, before declaring that "we have to be willing to use a military option" against Iran.
That dust-up may explain one of the more intriguing exchanges of Tuesday night's debate.
"Congressman Paul," moderator Matthews asked, "do you promise to support the nominee of the Republican Party next year?"
"Not right now I don't," Paul replied. "Not unless they're willing to end the war and bring our troops home. And not unless they are willing to look at the excess in spending. No, I'm not going to support them if they continue down the path that has taken our party down the tubes."
People interpret the outcomes of debates to match their inbound prejudices.
That's true, but I deliberately looked at frequency of mention in many stories rather than what people were saying about the candidates as a more objective measure of their success, rather than trying to interpret the comments through my own biased mind.
Linear Mode
