Tuesday night we were graced with more invocations of Ronald Regan, and messages about the total assault on American life. Each candidate had a message, and each message was just a little bit more bothersome than the last.
Mike Huckabee:
“We all would believe that Ronald Regan is the one who ended the Cold War, and Ronald Regan is the one who helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union. But there’s a group of people who don’t believe that; and that’s the Taliban.”
Thank you Mr. Huckabee, you have now invoked Goodwin’s Law via the Taliban. You may sit down now and stop pretending to run for President. Oh, and did everyone know that he believes in Creationism? I guess this is why Huckabbe sits with only 3% in the Republican Nomination polls. Keep up the good work Mikey.
What is amazing is that post coverage takes these kinds of comments 100% in stride. Wolf Blitzer was good at keeping the candidates on topic, but no outlet was actually listening to what these people were saying. It’s not far fetched for Republican politicians to invoke national security, or to warn about external national threats. That’s what the party is all about these days, a strong protective presence. But please. There’s a difference between an honest warning, and scare tactics that call back to McCarthyism.
“Are you or have you ever been a member of the Terrorist Party?”
Although I am wont to agree with her Hillary Clinton had a point in the Democratic Debate. When she said she thinks the U.S. is safer now than it was just after 9/11. She’s probably right. The Bush Administration did flood tons of money into a wide variety of enforcement locations. And speaking in the strictest terms of security we’re probably better off, but what did we exchange for that security? It has a cost; never forget that.
Tuesday night focused tightly on overall Terrorism, the War in Iraq, and Immigration. Each candidate had their talking points, but I found myself being more and more impressed with Mitt Romney of all people.
Wait, what the fuck?
Yeah, the Mormon, the one guy that believes that his religious text came from magic glowing plates inside of a hat. He stood on the stage and regularly delivered solid policy plans coupled with a sense of competency. I don’t care that he’s Mormon, I care that he was the only candidate on the stage with reasonable sounding plans on the three topics. Enforce the laws we have, Iraq could have been handled better, and that starts with border security, and widespread amnesty in immigration doesn’t make the most sense. I could tolerate a Romney presidency.
It’s crazy, he was the most sound speaking candidate in the room. McCain is close, and he had some brilliant moments of candor and honesty, especially in opposing an official language for the United States, and speaking directly to the sister of a fallen soldier. But the dude backed the tourture bill, and has been a political insider more than he’d ever admit.
And let’s not get started with Rudy. Oh Jesus, what a bloodsucking leach. There was no one on that stage that was quicker to point out that Americans should be scared, and he was “America’s Mayor”. That man has squeezed more out of a few hours of National Tragedy than anyone else alive. He is running for president using his fifteen minutes of fame as presidential credentials. I had a mayor on September 11th his name was John Fernandez, he didn’t do much, and the city isn’t that famous but he was the mayor. Not Mr. Giuliani.
Mr. Giuliani spoke about the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill:
“It’s a typical Washington mess. Everybody compromises- four or five compromises. The compromises leave you with the following conclusion; the litmus test you should have for legislation is it going to make things better? And when you look at these compromises it will make things much worse.”
It’s admirable that Mr. Giuliani opposes this immigration bill, that’s his prerogative as a presidential candidate, and as a citizen. But for him to stand there and attack compromise as a function of legislation is to attack the fundamental philosophies of how the United States Government evolved and functions. There’s a bold term in every American History textbook that comes with a definition. The term is “The Great Compromise“. I hope that Mr. Giuliani reads about it. Mr. Giuliani is correct that legislation should be judged on how it will improve the lives of those that reside in this country, no one argues that. I argue that Mr. Giuliani does not have the credentials to carry the case that he’s a Washington outsider.
There were other candidates on the stage. They were white, conservative, and dudes. Some more racist than others. Mr. Tom Tancredo actually claimed that not having English as an official language would Balkanize the United States. He equates bilingualism with national disintegration. I guess all thosenationalist white nutbags in Montana have a candidate on CNN now. You had Representative Hunter from California staying very undistinguished on the stage.
And Ron Paul….
Bless his heart, he was cut out of the debate. His heart is really in the right place. But his policies! My God! Do people actually read them all? He’s an advocate for a return to A GOLD STANDARD!!!! Not only does he want to tie the value of our money to a commodity that isn’t in wide supply, but he also called Roe v Wade a case that destroyed it for everyone.
Open to the internet:
He’ll never get more than online buzz. This isn’t cynicism, it’s because his policies are as flawed as the next guy. He can talk right, but he can’t win. He’s a white Al Sharpton. And Sharpton gets airtime.
I think that the Republicans are doing a better job of keeping it interesting. There is greater variety on their platforms over Democrats, but it’s still a bunch of conservative white dudes, that think they’ve got it all figured out by invoking American Flags, family ideals, tough foreign policy, and America for Americans. On another note, nearly all the candidates were in agreement about phasing Mr. Bush out of politics.
..maybe the republicans are less crazy than we all think…
~C
(x posted)

Roe v Wade is bad for the exact same reasons you are complaining about the other candidates.
The federal government has no authority to regulate abortion on way or another….period.
Don’t you get it? He wants to remove the federal government from almost all aspects of our lives…and that means the ones you like AND the ones you don’t like.
I personally disagree with Dr. Paul’s belief that abortion is wrong. But he doesn’t think it is the role of the federal government to decide for you. If you allow Roe v. Wade, you allow another court in 20 years to make abortion ILLEGAL everywhere. Do you really want that?
That is why the federal system was designed. 50 states with 50 different policies. More and more we keep getting spoonfed the same one sized fits all policies that I am sure upset you greatly. Well, getting rid of federal power means getting rid of it in the places you support the outcome, I’m afraid.
As far as gold, the federal reserve is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people, and the inflation tax robs the lower and middle classes blind, while transfering that wealth directly to the bankers. You don’t need a large supply of gold to make it a money….you just decrease the increments, (son instead of trading in ounces you trade in grams) and add new commodites to money. You can use silver, platinum, palladium, nickel, copper, gold….and more if needed.
If you want to learn more about how our monetary system is robbing us blind, google video “money Masters”
I don’t believe in the system of total state control. It’s a philosophy that was proven false during the Civil War. That’s why our nation has a strong central federal government. It’s what has evolved, not only through the intents of government but through continued support of the voters. This isn’t a 100 year bait and switch. Americans generally support a strong federal system. the 50 states 50 policies died with Nullification.
This is why I don’t vote Libertarian, and neither do most people.
Roe vs Wade isn’t about state vs federal rights. It’s about personal rights, and what is considered protected and unprotected. Right to life is commonly derived from moral and religious beliefs. Right to choose is derived from what constitutes a personal freedom.
Deciding on what is a government protected freedom, and what is not is well within the scope of government control.
Roe v. Wade will not be overturned either. Saying that it will is a scare tactic. Abortion is an easy issue to divide the entire country into voting blocks, much like gun control laws. In the end Abortion has been in practice in the U.S.A. for over 30 years, and it is fiercely defended by those that support and practice it.
If it was overturned, and that’s a big if, the protests, illegal acts of abortion, and doctoral protests would be overwhelming. Law enforcement would have to concentrate policing specifically on underground abortion clinics. It would create a veritable “war on abortion”. It would be a failure on the scale of Prohibition. Making abortions illegal, and enforcing that ruling are two very different things. And it’s been law for over 30 years, that alone carries volume in the litigious world.
And in regards to banking and money…
Gold standard. You really support that? We’re not talking about a commodity based standard in general, Ron Paul advocates for Gold.
In a broader sense a fixed good that carries a dollar value creates a huge system of imbalance between the nations that have gold, and those that don’t. The USA left a fixed standard because it didn’t work.