The Debate Winner
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (77) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Hands down, my friends, hands down, Mike Huckabee won tonight's debate.
You can have your favorites. I have no desire to vote for Mike Huckabee. But he totally, fully, and completely dominated this debate.
Coming in second was Rudy (I really do like the guy. Can't vote for him, but man he's great), with McCain very close to him, perhaps even a tie. Kudos to McCain for standing up for what he believes in when immigration questions came up. I think you could probably get by with saying McCain came in second, though I think Rudy's answers seemed to have a bit more energy and less filibustering. McCain really seemed to talk a lot to try to get his points across.
Rudy did great on all the war on terror questions, but Huckabee shined on every single question. Well done to him. I think Huckabee rises to the top tier and Brownback sinks to the second tier.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | GOP Debate Open Thread — Comments (219) »
The Debate Winner 77 Comments (0 topical, 77 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
as he was in the last debate the most underrated candidate imo and one of my favs.
Rudy was strong
Mitt was off a step or two I thought in some of his answers
McCain gave the performance he's been practicing for years he tries to hard to be presidential imo... big turn off but he spoke well and stands by his beliefs which is commendable - I just wish they were conservative in practice.
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
No doubt, Huckabee did well. I think he's really earning that VP slot. I have to say that I'm impressed with his sincerity. Whomever the final nominee, I almost feel like the VP HAS to be Huckabee.
I think with some time as VP, Huckabee makes the best nominee in 2012 or 2016.
The debate win tonight goes to McCain for straight talking on the war in Iraq, immigration reform, and for speaking the truth to the people of New Hampshire.
Romney is like a shiny penny -- both of them tarnish and get dirty after a while.
http://michiganformccain.blogspot.com/
"In war, my dear friends, there's no such thing as compromise. You either win or you lose."
-John McCain
Yes, sincerity is exactly the word. I think that his politics are easily the worst of the field and I could never support his candidacy under any circumstances, but I can't help but like him personally. In terms of genuine character, he's essentially the anti Romney.
-exits
Huckabee's performed well at the debate although I didn't witness a victory. I think that nothing was changed by this debate.
I believe Giuliani really came out on top of this one again, he really looked like a person when he got up and spoke directly to the audience. After he did it several candidate followed, but he spoke the best and really talked directly to the people.
Reuben A. Ingber
Founder, InformedStudents.net
I think it was McCain which stood first, and it was a great moment which really summed up McCain well.
Huckabee did very well and his sincerity came through clearly everytime.
I've often thought that out of the current field, Huckabee was the only "next tier" candidate that had the chance to break through and compete with Rudy, McCain, and Romney. His answers tonight were clear, direct, and sincere. He is a good spokesman for Republicans and, more importantly, conservatives.
That said, with Fred Thompson entering the race, Huckabee will never break through. There's just not enough oxygen available for all the candidates, and Huckabee is destined to remain the best of the candidates that don't have a shot.
He is, however, relatively young. He would do a great service for Republicans by picking up a Senate seat in Arkansas. By doing so, it would also round out his experience, and give him some insulation from his record of raising taxes (which arguably, was forced on him by unfunded federal mandates).
Huckabee is a good man and a good candidate. There's just not room for him this year.
I believe exactly the same thing: only Huckabee had a chance to challenge Rudy McRomney but with Thomson entering the race it leaves no oxygen in the room. Huckabee's performance in the last debate was fantastic, I still haven't watched tonight's yet the Mets are playing a great game...
Spitballs?!?! / Yo No Soy Marinero, Soy Capitan
An Arkansas Supreme Court decision forced Gov. Huckabee to raise taxes in order to provide a fair and adequate public education. See Lakeview. This was not an unfunded federal mandate, but rather the result of years of state litigation and multiple decisions by the state high court (as a side note, this week the State education system came out from under court supervision). While I am not a Huckabee supporter for president, his record on taxes was not entirely his own doing. The matter was subject to voter approval, which did occur (overwhelmingly I might add). That said, other aspects of his tenure were troubling, see statewide smoking ban, but on the whole I think the State is better off now than it was ten years ago when he came into office.
We repeatedly hear some cry "Giuliani won!", and after two or three days we start seeing his lead in key states disintegrate, to the point that he's now in 4th and 5th place in states where he was the front-runner a few weeks ago.
Maybe we should come to an agreement as to what "winning" means.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
I can't imagine how everyone keeps ignoring Ron Paul. He's the only candidate up there that uniformly wants to adhere to the Constitution. His comments on Iraq are right too; we're not making anything better over there anymore. Since when did Republicans and Conservatives start approving of pre-emptive war to enforce UN (an illegal, unconstitutional, unwise organization for the US to be a part of) decrees? We can't bring democracy or freedom to those nations, not without systematically reforming their societies with decades of heavy handed indoctrination and more force than we have the political will to exert. We ought to let the rest of the world take care of itself and defend ourselves by locking down the borders and destroying aggressors who attack us (Iraq didn't attack us). Ron Paul tried to do this when he introduced a bill that would have authorized a Constitutional solution to the problem, the issuance of Letters of Marque and Reprisal against the individuals who attacked us. A brilliant move that was ignored in favor of an unwise and unnecessary venture into war.
In terms of domestic policy Ron Paul again shines as the only candidate uniformly in favor of scaling down the national government, having less legislation not more. Remember what Reagan said, government isn't the solution to our problem, government IS the problem.
I'm sorry, but preemptive war is necessary sometimes.
Are you suggesting that we should wait for somebody like Iran to nuke us before we do anything to them?
In the pre-proliferated world, I'd have agreed with him. But we're in a proliferated world now and the idea that we should always be on our heels and await attack before taking assertive action is simply loony.
And that's why most people ignore Ron Paul. Because he lives in a dream world.
Somebody on Ron Paul's staff should have given him a twix and told him if anyone asks you a foreign policy question eat it quick and think while you are chewing before answering.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
was stunning. I was very proud, and very glad that he addressed this issue forcefully and eloquently. He is, no doubt, a superb debater.
There were also some other great answers, among those Giuliani's and McCain's answers on immigration towards the end of the debate. They both gave very good performances.
I give the debate to McCain. He has been the most consistent and gave a stronger, more eloquent performance than he had before. I'd give second place to Giuliani, who has improved in every debate. I don't know if I can support him, but I am a little more comfortable with him than I was previously. I'd give third place to Huckabee and fourth place to Romney.
and obviously a superb public speaker. More about him is available here.
...was Duncan Hunter.
I really, really like that guy. He's probably not a viable national candidate. But the more I hear him, the more I like him.
Huckabee was good, yes.
Is there any way we can get Tancredo and Paul out of these debates? They're an embarrassment.
he cited the example of the raid on a Swift plant in Iowa which arrested illegals working on the cheap. The next day the plant was open and American workers were lining up to take the jobs - at $18 per hour.
Early polls have him collapsing in CA, SC when Fred's included.
we're talking about a solid red state closer to Tennessee than to New York, both ideologically and distance-wise.
But his *record* on illegal immigration can be summed up in one word: Permissive. On the man's watch as governor of Arkansas, the illegal alien population in Arkansas exploded as Tyson Foods brought in cheap (slave?) labor to raise, slaughter, and process chickens. He has a carefully cultivated stump speech that he delivers where he attempts to divert responsibility for the problem solely to the federal government, carefully ducking any possible responsibility he might personally have for what went on in his own state.
So far, he has not been challenged to account for any of this. But his own actions and omission of action place him, as far as I'm concerned, in the same company as the man who currently occupies the Oval Office. So if continuity on the issue of illegal aliens and border security is what you want, Huckabee may be your man.
Some of you may like him for other reasons. He is pro-life, for example. But the man will not get my vote. And if he gets the nomination, I will write in "Mickey Mouse" in the general election, because that choice will be no worse than either of the other two candidates.
We didn't wage pre-emptive war against any other nation in the past, we had a strong defense so that any attack made by someone against us would be suicidal. Iran is a weak country, it can't threaten us and it can't attack us even if it gets a nuke if we'd properly secure our borders. If you start down the road of pre-emption where is it going to end? Nations that are allies today might be enemies tomorrow (Pakistan for example) so you'd have to pre-emptively strike those friendly nations too. Let's go back to the founding father philosophy where we ally with no one and trade with everyone, where we don't go abroad seeking to slay dragons.
Have you EVER taken an American History class? And passed it?
We didn't wage pre-emptive war against any other nation in the past, we had a strong defense so that any attack made by someone against us would be suicidal.
Entering WWII the USofA was the 17th best military power in the world. It has only been since we had our A** handed to us at Pearl Harbor that we woke up to the fact that we HAD to maintain a military second to none in order to protect our nation -- and our nation's interests.
Funny you should mention suicide -- since Jihadists have no qualmes at all about using suicide as a weapon to achieve their ends. And they have thousands willing to use that weapon.
They came here on 911. Since 2003 they have been pinned down in Iraq. Not such a bad thing for us. Oceans no longer protect us from foreign entanglements. We no longer can afford to be isolationists. There were no nuclear weapons in colonial times, nor madmen willing to use them.
It would probably be more accurate to say that since 2003 the US has been tied down in Iraq. The Jihadists can leave anytime they want and go anywhere they want. It's the US that is talking about having troops in Iraq for years (decades?) to come.
They have a somewhat different view.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
They didn't invade our country. They did detain and enslave some of our citizens -- overseas. For the first few years after our founding, our country's official policy was to pay tribute. In more modern terms, it's what we're doing with the NoKo's: Appeasement Payoffs. Funny thing, though -- the tribute didn't seem to stop the practice. It just got us more of it. (Sadly, though, Adam Smith was busy writing a very important book in Scotland at the time. Problem is, we needed it before paying the first tribute. Heck, there are people today who need to read about how subsidizing something just begets more of it. But I digress...)
In 1805, Thomas Jefferson decided he'd had enough and sent Stephen Decatur over to kick some butt. And he did, leaving Tripoli burning. And after that, the Barbary States didn't bother us anymore. But I reiterate: The Barbary Pirates never attacked our shores. But we did go after them.
Japan attacked us. We attacked Germany before they could attack us -- which is what preemptive means. And, frankly, it doesn't stop there.
Moreover, the concept of MAD doesn't apply in a world where there is both an active jihadist movement that is uninhibited in its use of force and a continuing proliferation of nuclear weaponry.
I've no problem with not going abroad to slay dragons, sir. I'm not saying we should attack China. But this insane notion that Mr. Paul has -- such as Iran being "not a threat to us" is dangerous in today's world.
MAD was a fine doctrine during the Cold War years. And it was so because we knew that the Soviets no more wanted nuclear devastation than we did.
Well, trust me on this, the jihadists want nuclear devastation.
And since when did something being "suicidal" stop the jihadists from doing something? Hell, just about every attack they make is suicidal. They're happy to die for their cause, honored to.
Sorry, but anybody who thinks that anticipatory self-defense isn't justifiable in today's world gets nowhere with me. The nexus of WMDs with people who will use any weapon at their disposable with reckless abandon makes it an unfortunately necessarily evil.
Hitler declared war on the USA immediately after Pearl Harbor, before we attacked Germany. And months before that Nazi U-boats were already engaging in unrestricted warfare against our shipping. So your point has no basis in reality.
But our entry into the European theater of WWII had nothing to do with this "unrestricted warfare" from the U-boats of which you speak. That's a red herring, and a frequently used one as well.
If it hadn't have been for Pearl Harbor, we may never have entered either theater of WWII. It was the catalyst that moved us into that war. It was not because of U-boats stopping our trade routes.
And Hitler's declaration of war, likewise, had nothing to do with it. We were already committed to entering the European theater and had been resisting it for well more than a year by 12/7/41.
Why do you think we had been gunning up so much? Because we began our military investment long before Hitler's declaration of war -- and long before Pearl Harbor.
As I said, PJB makes a very strong -- if, for me, unconvincing -- case against our involvement in the European theater of WWII. And he does so on the basis that Germany presented no threat at the time of our entry to US interests.
We entered that theater because the prospect of a German-dominated Europe was unacceptable to us. And we did so before they had chance to attack us.
Do you think it would be logical to commit what we committed in Europe simply because U-Boats were intercepting our trade vessels? Of course not. So, how in the world would you consider that an "attack" on us in the same way that Pearl Harbor or 9/11 were attacks?
...using this logic, our invasion of Iraq in 2003 wasn't preemptive either.
After all, Iraq had been firing on US and British patrol planes in the no-fly zone in Northern Iraq for years. Moreover, they'd flouted at least 4 of the provisions of the UN ceasefire agreed to in 1991.
So, if Saddam was shooting at our planes, does that mean that our action was provoked?
It would certainly seem so if you argue that the U-boat deal was provocation. But, of course, that stuff happened well before we ever entered Europe in 1942. And it had little to do with our decision to go there -- if only to provide one more bullet point on the list of justification.
I think most reasonable people understand what an actual attack is and can distinguish it from something other than an attack.
Using your logic, we'd have been justified in going to war -- with provocation -- when China intercepted our E3 spy plane back in 2001. Is that an attack?
I think you folks are putting too much stock into Fred Thompson.
First and foremost, does he even have the desire to be President? Does he have the fire in the belly?
I think not.
Being President is tough. Getting elected President is tough. If someone doesn't have the fire in the belly do we really want to elect that person President?
Also, we've got some pretty good candidates in the race.
Ann Coulter apparently doesn't think he's conservative enough.
If we could just get her to attack him on Hannity & Colmes once a week, he can probably appear "moderate" enough to pick up a few purple states.
I like Ann Coulter, but for the record, she didn't say Fred Thompson wasn't conservative enough. What she said was she didn't agree with Fred's vote not to impeach Clinton out of office. Although Ann is a loyal conservative, on this issue she is wrong. 11 republicans voted the same as Fred Thompson. Fred voted based on his interpretation of the law rather than his personal dislike of Clinton. If anything, Fred Thompson should be saluted for putting the constitution above partisan politics.
I'm not an agent, I just write books
I don't have a problem with FDT's vote not to convict.
And I agree with Icarus above -- I have no problem with Coulter staying as far away as possible from whomever I decide to support.
We didn't pre-emptively attack Germany, they declared war on us as soon as their ally Japan attacked.
The jihad movement needs to be fought against, but it needs to be fought against in the right way. Iraq under Saddam was not a jihad state, it was a conventional military power led by a conventional dictator. The proper way to fight against groups is not to fight the nations they reside within, but to fight them directly. Dr. Paul's Letters of Marque and Reprisal would have accomplished this goal splendidly. As things stand now we've invaded two countries and scored relatively few terrorists, but probably created who knows how many more.
In what way is Iran a threat to us? It can't attack us directly or indirectly without inviting total destruction (we can tell where nukes come from). If we lock down our borders properly there shouldn't be any weapons coming in from any source, Iranian or otherwise.
There has been some suicide bombing to be sure, but the notion that whole nations, like Iran, is willing to die isn't a sound notion. You didn't see bin laden running planes into towers, he recruited some pawns to do that. Do you think those corrupt old mullahs in Iran want to be vaporized by committing rash acts of aggression? If that were the case they would have attacked and died already. They don't want to die anymore than anyone else even if they do get some pawns to die for them from time to time. The japanese used suicide attacks too, if you'll recall, but nuclear retaliation brought them to their knees quite rapidly.
Pre-emptive war is inherently unwise in virtually every circumstance and has proven most ineffective in ending terrorist attacks. The ongoing resistance our soliders have faced in the theaters were pre-emptive war was carried out have made no headway in stopping terrorism, but instead merely becoming casualities of it. How long does a strategy have to fail before we turn to the old wisdom that made us great?
They didn't attack us first. We were pre-emptive -- meaning we attacked them before they attacked us. We knew it was coming and we hit first.
It's like the old saying: when in a fight, hit first and hit hard.
Look, if you want a serious discussion about WWII from somebody who truly and genuinely opposes the idea of anticipatory self-defense, go read Pat Buchanan's "A Republic, Not an Empire". Pat's a smart and serious guy and he believes just as you do. And, in this book, he argues that we were wrong to get involved in the European theater of WWII.
And, FTR, this book came out well before Iraq and the WoT. So the idea that we were justified in attacking Germany before they attacked us is hardly accepted among isolationists.
But, again, all this is moot in the present world. We have never before in our history faced an enemy that will attack us without inhibition. They will use any weapon in their arsenal, the more destructive the better.
The fact that we're facing this enemy at a time when WMDs are proliferating the world is not an accident and requires us to reassess a lot of our presumptions....one of which is the doctrine of "just war" that Mr. Paul talked about this evening.
He's right that we've deviated from it -- necessarily so. The Cold War era involved nuclear weapons -- but possessed only by countries that didn't want to use them. The early battle against the jihadis didn't involve the prospect of WMDs.
Now, we're venturing into a world that is both nuclear and filled with people who have no compunction against using them.
So give it up. You're not living in the real world.
Germany attacked U.S. ships prior to either party declaring war. Both countries had to declare war due to the Axis Pact.
If Buchanan thinks that we could have avoided fighting Germany in WW2, he is crazy.
Actually, he's not crazy. He makes a very solid case -- and addresses this non sequitur about US ships.
The Reuben James is the only US ship that was actually downed by the Germans prior to our entry into the war -- and that was because it was piloted in between two hostile ships! The USSRJ was a neutral flag ship and was the warfare equivalent of a referee in a boxing match who takes a left hook to the jaw while trying to break-up two fighters.
Besides, I never said I agreed with PJB. In fact, I firmly disagreed with him -- when he wrote the book in 1999 and now.
But the point is that debates over anticipatory self-defense are not new. And the notion that we've never preemptively attacked anybody is false. There are a number of examples -- and Germany, I maintain, is one of them.
There could not have been a U.S. pre-emptive attack on Germany after war was declared by both parties. When Pearl Harbor happened, this was a pre-emptive attack because war had not been declared. After Pearl Harbor, the Axis Pact meant that we had to declare war on both Japan and Germany because Germany and Italy were obliged to declare war on us.
What specific U.S. action would have been pre-emptive prior to, or after Pearl Harbor? It is not pre-emptive warfare if both countries have already declared war on each other.
I agree completely with your analysis of the debate. Huckabee was the clear winner tonight. Hit on all the right themes at the right moments and with bold and appropriate conviction.
Giuliani a close second with McCain at his heels.
Romney was acting like he was alone on the stump instead of engaged in a conversation. That's the best way I can put it. He clearly came in with a plan to hit on the broad Reagan themes, and failed to improvise when the moment demanded thoughtful, reasoned responses, particularly to the audience questions.
The disappointing aspect of this for a Romney supporter is the wasted opportunity w/regard to McCain. McCain served him up a softball yesterday by going on the offensive in defense of his immigration bill. All Mitt had to do was respond with the lines that Hunter and Huckabee used (it's about border control, stupid. Build the wall. [Hunter] and all the American people want is for us to get control over who enters the "stadium" and who leaves. Then they would be open to talking about what to do with those already here [Huckabee].
Instead, he burned what little opportunities CNN gave him to instead talk about the future of our products and services? I liked what he said, it was just out of place. I didn't get him tonight.
McCain and Giuiliani showed tonight why they have had such staying power in politics. Mitt needs to go back to the drawing board for the next debate.
I think that the biggest loser tonight was Wolf and CNN. Even Ron Paul had a better night than Wolf and his 'questions'( i would call it his opinion on how he thinks the world should be run). I am reserving all judgement on Fred T until I actually see him in a debate. Time to lose about 3 of the contestants.
He was consistent, had passion, humor, sincerity and really made his points.
Romney didn't stand out tonight as in the past.
However, except for Ron Paul, I think all of them did a good job. We have some great candidates. The GOP should be proud.
___________
As long as Democrats keep getting elected, conservatives will never get what they want.
Gamecock DeVine in
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
-ing Rev Mike and Da Mayor eveytime they spoke.
Rudy never missed a chance to forcefully assert himself on the war, homeland security incl border security and reigning in the size and reach of the federal government. He looked like a real leader that can take it to the democrats, the press, the UN and the enemy, all the while inspiring American and its troops and inspiring those that yearn for liberty abroad. The man is on his game now.
The lazy Rudy I have bemoaned for months is no more.
And Huckabee was simply awesome, like a lot of baptist preachers are. Can anyone say MLK, Jr? Huckabee's invocations of God were moving. I love the guy.
Yes, he moves up there with the big 3 and may well replace McCain in third soon.
That said, I still lean to Mitt, but we have a field to be proud of.
Gamecock DeVine in
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Huckabee has been solid in every debate, he's emerging as the VP pick for any one who wins the nomination (coughFREDcough). Rudy did a great job tonight too, loved his answer on healthcare.
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
If Fred! wins the nomination (coughGODWILLINGcough), I don't see any way another Southerner will be on the ticket. Clinton Gore did it as democrats to break up the Solid South of the Republicans. We won't pick two from our own geographic base.
...Hunter, Tancredo, Gilmore, and T. Thompson now, and then revisit in a month. I think Huckabee is the only non-big-three announced candidate who earned the right to move on.
Fred, Mitt, Rudy, and McCain. Instead of just sound bites with just these 4 the debate could be engaged in complete paragraphs.
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
The candidates will insist on rules they feel will make them look good. At that point the debates become uninteresting.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Fox needs a good summer replacement series.
We have all the candidates who aren't Fred, Rudy, McCain, or Mitt debate before a panel of judges each week.
Let's say, Alan Keyes, Ann Coulter, and Tony Blankley
The next night, after a public vote by calling 800 numbers, the loser is asked to give a farewell speech while the credits roll.
Eventually we get down to one contestant, who will go on to finish a distant fifth place in all primaries.
It would probably at least make a horribly bad SNL sketch...
Duncan Hunter answered the questions with as much detail as anyone could in 60 seconds. On substance, Hunter was the run away winner tonight. Here is the list of the top 4 the field....
Duncan Hunter
Jim Gilmore
Mike Huckabee
Rudy Giuliani
Hunter and Gilmore showed that they clearly are the only true conservatives in the race. Huckabee did well on the social issues, yet I'm not impressed with his tax increases in Arkansas. Of the "name ID" candidates, Giuliani did the best, although his position on immigration is bogus, he sounded good.
The two biggest losers tonight were John McCain and Mitt Romney. McCain is showing his true colors and an enemy to conservatives. And Romney is showing that it takes more than good looks to win the nomination.
I'm not an agent, I just write books
I was actually very impressed with Hunter, and before tonight I don't think I could have picked him out of a crowd. I don't have McCain quite so low but that's based more on the way he responded rather than the content. I think he did well, given the difficult nature of his positions.
I agree about Romney. He seems to have the same answer on too many issues: "Sure, I used to say that, but I've thought more about it, and I believe something else." One issue is understandable, but it seems to be his response to everything. I just don't know if there's much substance there; more than Obama, of course, but there still seems to be very little. He makes me respect McCain and Rudy more; they have said and done unpopular things, but they stand by them knowing the costs.
is pro-choice. Give me a freaking break. Gilmore wasted everyone's time tonight and he needs to drop out of the race and do something productive.
The only one not living in the real world here is you when you can stare a failed policy in the eye and pretend its a good plan. Pre-emption has failed.
Your analysis of history is likewise flawed. It isn't pre-emption to go attack someone who has declared war on you. Pre-emption is when you go attack someone because you think they might down the road. Bin laden and his terror network declared war on us, we should have hit them back (Ron Paul wanted to). Iraq didn't declare war on us, they didn't attack us, and they had no reason or ability to attack us. We attacked them to enforce UN resolutions and all we got in exchange was a new killing ground where our soliders are exposed to relentless terrorist attacks.
But go ahead and dismiss rational anlysis of the issue as "not living in the real world." I hope you'll be happy in the tyranny we're going to wake up in when the last scraps of our Constitution have been made away with by liberal big government pretend Republicans.
But it's entirely wrong that preemption has failed. Saddam Hussein will never be attacking the US, its interests, or its allies.
It isn't pre-emption to go attack someone who has declared war on you. Pre-emption is when you go attack someone because you think they might down the road.
Er, how do you figure? If somebody says "let's fight" and I hit him before he gets a chance to hit me....who started it?
How do we even know that, for instance, Hitler was serious about declaring war on us? By your logic, Iran has already declared war on us by publicly stating "Death to America", right? Or do we only selectively apply the doctrine that we'll wage a war because of words somebody utters?
Because Hitler never attacked us until we attacked him. And that's simply a fact -- these conflations of merchant ship interceptions with "attacks" notwithstanding.
Anyway, as I keep saying, all of this is moot in a world with proliferated WMDs and a concerted effort by jihadists to bring down Western civilization. History's never faced a situation like we have now before -- so its lessons to us are going to be limited.
We've got a war going on with radical Islam, wisely or not Iraq was entirely about advancing a strategy in that war, and that we're in this war is not a matter of our choice. All that's left is whether we win or lose.
Some people, like Rep. Paul and Sen. Edwards, still seem to be stuck in a world where this war is some matter of choice.
So, you'd better get used to people not taking him seriously. He's off in the Twilight Zone -- and it's not an accident that he's the only one of the 10 up on stage singing that tune....even considering the president's dismal approval ratings.
You said, 'If somebody says "let's fight"'
Who said that? Certainly not Saddam, and certainly not Iran.
It was OBL who said that, and right now he's sitting in the mountains in Pakistan laughing himself silly over our 'problem' in Iraq that's draining our military and costing us a fortune. Not to mention, alQaeda is growing and getting stronger.
No, pre-emptive war has proven to be a failure.
So I have stepped back on the horse race for some time but that is over. It feels somewhat akin to 2000, so far as Senator McCain is involved.
He is just trying too hard and the answers did not appear sincere. His recent characterizations against folks not supporting the immigration bill will be the final straw.
I looked passed his dimissive comments on our 1st Amendment and even the nonsense over enemy noncombatants. But immigration was the coupe de grace. What does he stand for? Who knows, every time McCain is really needed it appears he is on the other side.
I do not want a for a personal sychophant, but it would be nice if there was not always a burning question whether McCain even shares the same basic values.
Look past NH to the first Republican only primary. IMO it is shaping up to be 2000 deja vu.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
but I think McCain sounded pretty good too, and Tancredo before he really hurt himself on immigration. Tommy Thompson sounded like a candidate tonight.
People say Mike Huckabee would rise up except that Thompson is getting involved. If Mike is getting his support from a certain segment of the Republican base, I don't think it's the same base as Thompson.
Don't rule out a Huckabee who looks good, sounds good, and wins Iowa. He just moved his campaign headquarters.
This from the Huckabee guy;-)
BTW, moved where? To your basement.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5G3kH1PvvU
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/341dcd7e-30f5-4f05-935f-ddd57928a021
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/356cbdd4-ddd4-45d3-895f-a69cfdc8c0da
Gamecock DeVine in
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
about giving Brownback a second look. He lost me tonight when the lady in the audience whose brother was killed in Iraq asked a question. His response about dividing Iraq into 3 pieces was the weakest and most nonresponsive answer that he could have given this lady. I don't agree with Erick about Huckabee. This time I thought nobody from the 2nd tier excelled. I think right now it is narrowed down to 4: Fred, Rudy, Mitt, and McCain. One of those 4 will be the next POTUS. I lean Fred.
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
Every time I hear Duncan Hunter speak he earns further respect. In a perfect world, he wins the nomination just for being succinct, informed and principled. Hopefully the wallets will open for him as fundraising is obviously key.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
And the winner is:
Fred Thompson, who wasn't even there!
http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/06/gop-presidential-candidates-debat...
With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see right.
Ron Paul was the clear winner in the two debates in which he participated. And he's the clear choice for President. It's most refreshing to be able to vote for a candidate on his/her merits rather than voting for someone so someone else does not win, thus eliminating the lesser of two evils syndrome.
The purpose of a debate isn't to score some vague points on being different. The purpose is to sway voters your way.
Unless you think he won Republican votes he woudln't have gotten before the debates, he won diddly.
Run like Reagan!
Oh woe is me. I'm sorry.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I'm going to borrow that if you don't mind...
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
LOOK! THERE HE IS!
Jim Tomasik
Jim Tomasik
Tie for second. Paul could have had an honorable mention but he killed himself with defense questions and a need to spout of on it.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777