That torture hypothetical was about the most asinine, front-loaded question I’ve ever heard. Kudos to McCain for saying he still wouldn’t use torture. Giuliani just lost the tiny shred of consideration I was giving to voting for him over Hillary.
Brownback is fucking psychopath. It’s surreal to me that the use of torture is now even considered to be a reasonable topic of debate. What has happened to this culture?
Ron Paul is the only one up there who seems to have the faintest connection to reality. It’s like watching one sane guy trying to talk sense to the inmates of an asylum.
Who is Jack Bauer?
“Brownback” is the new “santorum.”
Lead character in the Fox TV show “24” (warning: opinionated article).
So – who “won”?
The thought of any one of these men, save for maybe Ron Paul, being elected to the office of president of the United States is terrifying. I’m actually rather uncomfortable because something seems way off. They seem to hold positions the majority of the electorate has rejected and yet here they stand proudly talking about torture, denying evolution and global warming, saber rattling with Iran, talking about doubling the size of Guantanamo, seeing no problems with Iraq or “the war on terror” and, as an afterthought, mentioning not liking the idea of abortion being legal even in cases of rape.
Can someone advise? Do they want to go down in flames or do they know something I don’t? One of these guys WILL get the Republican nomination, yes?..
To win the nomination, you have to appeal to the party base which has no problem with torture, would love to shoot up the whole Middle East except Israel, never understood evolution, has abortion as their number one concern, and thinks that tax cuts are desirable no matter what the budget situation. McCain claiming “we don’t torture” was quite unsettling, you could tell that he was lying and he knew it. Ghouliani waves the bloody flag of 9/11 just about as much as Bush does. What a whore.
That sounds like the Tommy Thompson I knew and loved when he was my Governor.
How, exactly, did he get in the field of “serious presidential contenders”? The man is a hick and a hayseed through and through. You know that “folksiness” that Dubya has as a veneer to hide the little weasel within? That’s Tommy.
-Joe
But not the Republican base.
Well, it’s still early in the cycle. There’s plenty of time for others to announce.
Yep. Fred Thompson is probably enjoying himself right now. The longer he can sit on the sidelines and not have to open his mouth and actually articulate a position the better he looks against the rest of those mooks. At some point after the Republican establishment realizes that none of these guys are electable, he can ride in on a white horse and present himself as the true heir to the Reagan Throne. He was an actor after all…
Mike Huckabee is great. Despite our completely divergent political beliefs, one might say I heart him.
Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is the only one of the candidates who’s a better speaker than Huckabee, and he’s got the war chest and the front runner cred, not to mention that intangible presidential air. Barring any unforeseen scandals, and recognizing that it’s ridiculously early, I’m pegging Romney as the presumptive Republican nominee.
Tom Tancredo had the best line of the night, however, what with his “I trust those conversions when they happen on the road to Damascus, not on the road to Des Moines.”
Please, please do not ask me to try to explain the logic behind anything Michelle Malkin, Brit Hume, and Dick Morris yammer about when they get in a room, let alone Fox and Friends.
Wait a minute… we don’t even have to coin a new word do we?
Which candidate got off the line about Congress spending “like John Edwards in a beauty parlor”?
Huckabee. His one blemish. For shame, Mike. shakes head
Newt! Newt! Newt!
(OK, I’ll stop. Well, I’ll try…)
Sullivan claims/points out that Guiliani flat out lied about what Ron Paul said in order to score cheap “toughness” points: anyone disagree? Sullivan alleges that it was the FoxNews questioner that ratcheted up the rhetoric, and Paul only generally spoke about avoiding the problem of blowback.
I also think Sullivan was pretty dead on when he noted that of all these guys, only McCain and Paul have an actual policy on Iraq: Paul wants us to leave, McCain basically wants us to stay forever. The rest have just a sort of mushy “fighting makes us look tough” stance with no commitment to any specific policy or acknowledgment of what the goals are.
I think this is a gross mischaracterization of an extremely complex issue. “Leave now” and “stay forever” are the easiest stances to summarize in a one-phrase soundbite, sure. But if you actually think that means that the other eight candidates don’t have a policy on Iraq, that’s ridiculous.
What is Giuliani’s plan?