Don't know if anyone subjected themselves to the Republican debate last night but there was quite a spirited back & forth on Iraq between Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. Worth watching the video if you can find it out there.

 

 

Huckabee said that we essentially "broke" Iraq. We broke the country and now we can't leave it in a broken state.

 

Paul arguing that we were the agressive invading country and have no business being there, should bring our troops home.

 

 

Pretty surprising that Huckabee went that far. He was still in favor of staying there & trying everything we can to stablize the county but to say that "we broke Iraq" is pretty strong. I think he's gained some momentum & confidence after the Iowa straw poll.

 

I know Ron Paul is a Republican but after every comment you could hear candidates around him literally giggling. He did get some cheers from the audience though. It says something about where the parties have gone in recent times, that IMO Ron Paul would get just as many cheers at a Democratic debate.

The fact that they allow people like Paul, Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback and Duncan Hunter to participate is the reason I didn't watch live. An absolute waste of everyone's time when they speak.

 

It's too bad McCain has run such a poor campaign, I really really like the guy's positions/strength. I wan't a candidate who isn't going to go limp when things get tough like the current administration has.

 

I think McCain had easily his best public performance since his campaign began with Rudy in 2nd place. I think overtime depending on what Thompson does when he goes head to head with these people, Romney may become the one to beat, not Rudy.

Oh I agree, McCain was very strong. I still wish he had won the Republican nomination in 2000. I think he'd have done a lot of good. Now I think he's just missed his window.

 

Rudy did not do particularly well. Can't make every answer "look what I did in New York!"

 

Brownback, Tancredo, and Hunter don't seem to have any reason to stick around.

 

I do appreciate them keeping Paul in the debates though, #1 because of the web support he's gotten, and #2 becuase he's the only Republican who will go against the grain a bit on some issues. There is no reason at all a Republican shouldn't have an anti-war candidate to get behind. I don't think he has a realistic chance at winning the nomination, but that's just my opinion.

 

Yeah Mitt's the guy I've felt was the one to beat, once McCain slipped.

Oh I agree, McCain was very strong. I still wish he had won the Republican nomination in 2000. I think he'd have done a lot of good. Now I think he's just missed his window.

 

Rudy did not do particularly well. Can't make every answer "look what I did in New York!"

 

Brownback, Tancredo, and Hunter are awful. Tancredo essentially said he'd approve torture in certain circumstances. Way to separate yourself from the pack.

 

I do appreciate them keeping Paul in the debates though, #1 because of the web support he's gotten, and #2 becuase he's the only Republican who will go against the grain a bit on some issues. There is no reason at all a Republican shouldn't have an anti-war candidate to get behind. I don't think he has a realistic chance at winning the nomination, but that's just my opinion.

 

Yeah Mitt's the guy I've felt was the one to beat, once McCain slipped.

I agree with that, I was saying for superficial reasons, he did well. (His stances/views/talking points are pretty elementary in my view)

 

I laughed when Brownback and Hunter pulled out the family values card when talking about Craig. I'm so sick of that garbage. I'm glad Brownback got boos when he proposed a constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriage. What a waste of air.

 

I wish the moderators would have pushed some/any question on health care. It wasn't even discussed.

your right - it is sad that when someone with some real base line conservative values (like paul) is made to feel like he doesn't belong at the party something is sad and wrong

Ron Paul's Libertarianism =/= Conservatism

 

Ron Paul is not a Reagan conservative (which I feel is the essence of conservatism)

low taxes, small government, local control over federal regulations, spending american dollars to help out issues in america and not wanting to debt spend our way into chinese control - sounds pretty conservative to me

 

then again after a good decade of redefining conservatism to mean social more than fiscal i would expect the current mold to scoff at such ideas - which is the main reason i no longer relate to the modern republican party

 

i don't agree with everything Paul says and think he's off the mark enough on a couple issues that it will really hurt him - however, his recognizing that things are broken right now and standing by his principle to walk the walk has me liking his style

 

these many of us disgruntled ex-republicans out there who are being brought back in by him

 

and to limit any candidate from a PRIMARY debate is asinine - especially one that is finishing top 3 in any straw poll you can find

 

btw - it's not a bad thing that democrats would like a candidate either - that's kind of the goal imo - find a man of principle with strong ideas that people on both sides of the isle can relate to which can act as a unifying force - it's not like democrats are evil people who want to run down the country, i just don't believe they know how to spend my money better than I do - if they are OK with low taxes and a more localized gov't, then welcome aboard

Did I say he shouldn't be allowed? The network can do whatever they want, it's people like him and the others I mentioned that have absolutely zero chance of winning (seriously using Straw Polls results to equate a candidates chances is like using Wikipedia as your only source for a college thesis) is why I personally don't watch these debates live or give them much credence or usefulness. It has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with them.

 

The more candidates, the more it becomes nothing but a generic sound byte event. I'd like to see the 4-5 legitimate candidates then those fringe ones.

 

Paul is extremely hardheaded in my vew. It's one thing to think we caused turmoil in the middle east, it's another that now we are very much there in the midst of a surge, to promote complete withdrawl. It's not only stubborn, but it is extremely dangerous.

i don't agree with the complete withdrawl and will also recognize that he's hard headed

 

i personally like seeing the wide range of candidates - it brings new and fresh ideas into the public light and can help force issues that the major 3-4 candidates would rather not get caught on tape on

 

it also gives those candidates a chance to respond to someone seriously challenging their view

 

i find there is good value in such things

 

i also didn't bring up a straw poll to say he has a chance of winning - mainly pointing out that his ideas are gaining enough interest and mobilization that it would be a shame to not have them presented on a larger scale

What was actually forced or new or fresh that was brought to light last night besides what HC posted?

 

The debate was largely a whole bunch of nothing and the only significant thing I took away from it was how impressive McCain was (finally).

 

I'd like to see a more town hall type atmosphere with loosely moderated Q&A sessions from the audience. Much better than the current format.

i agree with a more town hall type environment - without the scripted safe questions

 

remember this was a fox news production last night - chris wallace was a complete biased prick as well

 

get a real debate going on, with real questions by real people

 

you can't blame the candidates though if the moderators do a poor job

I'd like to see a more town hall type atmosphere with loosely moderated Q&A sessions from the audience. Much better than the current format.

I'd like to ATTEND a town hall type debate.

 

I think I'm with PhxPhin on Paul. I'm a very disgruntled "Republican" [closest thing to a Libertarian that can vote in primaries] looking outside the party for ANYONE who makes some sense. This "family values" nonsense needs to be left at the door. Focus on real tangible problems that you can fix.

 

Talk to me about an energy plan that gets us off of our dependence on foreign oils.

 

Talk to me about how you are going to get us out of the clusterf**k we call Iraq.

 

Talk to me about how you are going to balance the budget.

 

Talk to me about how you are going to SUNSET the Patriot Act.

 

Don't talk to me about gay marriage, family values, some bs health care system that will never be implemented, or "fixing" a social security system that is a complete waste and needs to be put to sleep [ unless you are going to tell me how you are going to get rid of it!].

Those are all 100% legitimate points and questions for one to have.

 

I'm surprised that one who has those questions/problems would want Ron Paul as the leader of this country.

 

Paul supports complete isolationism. Isolationism is a failed policy. Islamic extremists are not the USSR. Islamic extremists are not going to collapse under their own weight like the Soviet Union did. It's not even close to the same.

 

If Paul doesn't like something he wants to disband it, simple as that. IRS, FBI, doesn't matter to him. My way or the highway. As much as I hate things like our current welfare system, completely destroying it is not a viable or realsitic option. You have to have solutions and remedies, not an iron fist.

 

If people think George W. Bush is a polarizing figure, Paul is 100 x's that and possibly much more.

I'm surprised that one who has those questions/problems would want Ron Paul as the leader of this country.

I'm on the Paul bandwagon not because I want him to win, but because I want some of his ideas to permeate throughout the party.

 

He is to the Republican Party what Malcolm X was to the Civil Rights movement - a little bit crazy, but a little bit right.

agreed - some of his beliefs just aren't feasible - but a lot of it makes sense from a core value perspective - espeically from a fiscal perspective - by supporting him we can show the party that we do have some weight and hopefully inspire future politicians to adopt some of these beliefs - similar to how the "moral majority" railroaded inane issues like gay marriage into the forefront

agreed - some of his beliefs just aren't feasible - but a lot of it makes sense from a core value perspective - espeically from a fiscal perspective - by supporting him we can show the party that we do have some weight and hopefully inspire future politicians to adopt some of these beliefs - similar to how the "moral majority" railroaded inane issues like gay marriage into the forefront

Bingo. That's EXACTLY my line of thinking. We need to get back on the right track. If it takes a major bump from the extreme to get us back on - so be it.

Here is the video if you did not get a chance to see it. Huckabee: "if make a mistake, we make it as a single country, we stand behind it" huh?????

 

Ron Paul: "When we make a mistake, it is the obligation to correct the mistake, not to continue the mistake" Too much common sense.

Paul's 'correction' on a 'mistake' is to scrap the whole thing and get the hell out of Dodge.

 

Brilliant.

 

Also, a lot of common sense by Paul saying a 'few people hijacked our foreign policy', yeah that is why congress authorized military force.

 

All this guy is, is sound bytes, hot air, and the 'internet vote'. Whatever that is.

i agree with a more town hall type environment - without the scripted safe questions

 

remember this was a fox news production last night - chris wallace was a complete biased prick as well

Chris Wallace to Ron Paul after saying something about wanting to pull out of Iraq:

"So you'd let AL QAEDA dictate our foreign policy??!!!" (In that accusatory tone)

Real objective there...

 

I think it'll wind up being somewhere in between the two.

 

Can't really do a total 180 and leave the mess that we've made, nor do I think there is the political will to undergo some plan that keeps a large force there for the next decade+.

 

Probably a slow withdrawl while we continue to train police & enact most of the Iraqi Study Group's recommendations. & some redeployment to other countries.

Also, a lot of common sense by Paul saying a 'few people hijacked our foreign policy', yeah that is why congress authorized military force.

That is, essentially, what happened. Just look at what it did to our domestic policy alone. The Patriot Act was the absolute worst piece of legislation passed in my life time. We were so busy being reactionary and giving up our civil liberties that by the time the dust had settled the American People didn't know what had happened.

 

Why is our country where it is today? 9/11. Plain and simple.

Yeah, my life has totally changed because of the Patriot Act.

 

Give me a break.

 

I'm not going to even debate it because if anything I'm indifferent to it.

 

When Paul doesn't like something he becomes a human wrecking ball. No change, no remdy, no compromise, disband it. This guy is about as fringe as you can get on a national scale.

Ron Paul's Value Over Replacement Senility: 78.3

 

Huckabee made a few good points last night. That was unexpected to say the least.

Yeah, my life has totally changed because of the Patriot Act.

 

Give me a break.

You don't even know.

 

Since you all love wikipedia so much:

In particular, opponents of the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; "sneak and peek" searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner?s or the occupant?s permission or knowledge; the expanded use of "National Security Letters", which allow the FBI to search telephone, email, and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to government records, including library and financial records.[2] Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and Federal courts have ruled at least one provision unconstitutional.

Just a little more:

Eight states (Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana and Vermont) and 396 cities and counties (including New York City; Los Angeles; Dallas; Chicago; Eugene, Oregon; Philadelphia; and Cambridge, Massachusetts) have passed resolutions condemning the Act for attacking civil liberties. Arcata, California was the first city to pass an ordinance that bars city employees (including police and librarians) from assisting or cooperating with any federal investigations under the Act that would violate civil liberties (Nullification). The Bill of Rights Defense Committee is helping coordinate local efforts to pass resolutions. Pundits question the validity of these ordinances, noting that under the Constitution's supremacy clause, federal law overrides state and local laws. However, others have opined that the federal employees, in using such procedures for investigations, violate the Constitution's clauses in the fourth amendment, and in these cases, the Constitution overrides the USA PATRIOT Act's provisions.

Again, it's simply the PRINCIPAL that I am opposed to.

Again, that's fine. Doesn't mean it affects my life because it doesn't. Like I said, if anything, I'm indifferent and anyone it prevents from attacking us is just a bonus.

 

It's not an issue for me personally.

 

Ron Paul doesn't like the Patriot Act so instead of ammending or just getting rid of it he will disband the NSA. Awesome!