The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - The Review
By Mark Kilmer Posted in 2008 | Face the Nation | FOX News Sunday | Late Edition | Meet the Press | This Week — Comments (61) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Sunday, December 9, 2007
On FNS, 2008 GOP Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee argued that the question should not concern a candidate's religion; rather, the voter should ask if the candidate can be believed.
Next on FNS, host Chris Wallace mentioned that neocon Bob Kagan had argued that the latest NIE had destroyed U.S. credibility abroad. Well, 2008 GOP Presidential hopeful John McCain countered that the Europeans were skeptical of the latest NIE, ad they themselves could see what Iran is doing.
On TW, 2008 Dem Presidential hopeful Joe Biden argued with a straight face that 20% - 30% of what we pay for a barrel of oil is because of President Bush's rhetoric. He boasted that he is "everybody's second choice" and promised that he'd quit the race of if he performed as poorly as recent polls have suggested. Joe Biden called for a special council to investigate the destroyed interrogation vids.
Also on TW, Newt Gingrich argued that he is skeptical of the latest NIE because it is the product of three former State Department employees who do not like the Bush Administration. Gingrich said that we do not need a special council to investigate the destroyed interrogation vids, as the FBI could handle it.
On MTP, Rudy Giuliani was splendiferous, and anyone who disagrees is not to be trusted as a human being whose soul is not a clod. (No, I'm not a, per se, Giuliani supporter.)
On FTN, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller stated that diplomacy can work to reduce the danger of Iran, and he cited North Korea as an example. Committee member Chuck Hagel explained that intelligence is not a tidy, little box; rather, it is like a mosaic.
On LE, a defensive Pervez Musharraf told host Wolf Blitzer that it's not up to him whether Benazir Bhutto or Nawar Sharif run for office next month, and he criticized the Western media for using the terms of dictatorship to describe Pakistan. He objected to President Bush's statement that the U.S. would move into Pakistan to capture OBL if we had "actionable intelligence," saying that this was the job of the Pakistanis.
And Congressman John Boehner was in good form in a hostile environment.
The complete, show-by-show review is beneath the fold…
MIKE HUCKABEE ON FNS. Host Chris Wallace opened this morning's edition of FOX News Sunday by talking to 2008 GOP Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee. He asked him about that 1992 survey publicized by an opposing candidate in which Huckabee talks about quarantining patients with AIDS. Huckabee denied calling for such a quarantine; rather, he said they should look at established medical protocol rather than "political correctness." He said that his answer was based on our limited knowledge of AIDS in 1992, and Wallace countered that the CDC had published in 1985 that AIDS could not be transmitted by casual contact. Huckabee noted that there was the case of the girl who was infected by her dentists, so we weren't sure. Huckabee pointed out that he had two friends die of AIDS, including one who might have been a homosexual.
Wallace asked Huckabee about religion and public office. Huckabee said that the question should be: does he say and believe what he's always said and believed? Mormonism, Huckabee argued, should not be an issue.
JOHN MCCAIN ON FNS. Next up for Wallace was John McCain, who argued against torture.
Wallace brought up that "neocon" Bob Kagan had averred that this latest NIE had destroyed U.S. credibility abroad. McCain argued that it was the Europeans who were skeptical of the latest NIE, as they've seen for themselves what Iran is doing.
Wallace brought up a spurious attack on McCain by Mitt Romney. Evidently, Romney is mailing fliers which claim that McCain wants to give Social Security to illegal immigrants, which Wallace pointed out was not true. McCain pointed out that Romney has been all over the map with his stated policy positions, and he'll have to explain that to voters. McCain suggested that Romney was concerned about the polls in New Hampshire, and he reaverred that he would win New Hampshire.
Wallace asked McCain why none of the "big five" Republican candidates seemed to be catching fire in the imaginations of the voters, and McCain suggested that this was because there was "no establishment candidate."
JOE BIDEN ON TW. To host George Stephanopoulos, Joe Biden declared that Iran is a "problem," not something which requires the use of military force. He said that the Europeans were "embarrassed" by the United States. He said that there was "no such thing as a surgical strike" against Iran's nuclear program, but the real problem is not Iran. The real problem, Joe Biden said, is Pakistan.
Joe Biden called for a special council to investigate the destruction of the interrogation tapes.
Joe Biden told Steph with a straight face that 20% - 30% of what we pay for a barrel of oil is because of President Bush's rhetoric. Steph challenged this slightly, but he let Biden sputter and his claim remain.
Asserted Joe Biden: "Our credibility internationally has been absolutely devastated, absolutely devastated." For the duration of the ABC interview, Biden moved back and forth between this theme and another that we still had credibility which President Bush would absolutely devastate if he did this or that of which Joe Biden did not approve.
"This Administration is out of control," Joe Biden observed in an act of projection.
Host George Stephanopoulos brought up that Newt Gingrich thinks that the latest NIE is an act of sabotage by disgruntled former State Department employees. Joe Biden quipped: "I like Newt Gingrich – I really do – but who are you gonna believe?"
Steph showed a poll showing Biden in the law single digits in Iowa. Joe Biden smiled, cocksure: "I'm everybody's second choice." With a broad smile on his face, he promised Steph that he would drop out of the race if he did as badly as the polls indicate.
JOE BIDEN: THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S SECOND CHOICE.
NEWT ON TW. Host George Stephanopoulos next spoke to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Newt said that the NIE was the product of three former State Department employees who do not like the Bush Administration. He said that the entire report was "mushed together" and didn't say what our headlines assert. He said that the information came from a defector who could be a plant.
Newt said that we did not need a special counsel to investigate the destruction of the interrogation tapes, as the FBI could do a fine job.
Advice for Hillary? Newt said that Hillary should recruit women, telling them that she was their best hope for a female President and that such a President (Hillary, woman) would be the historic "change." Hillary herself must become the answer to Obama's Oprah.
RUDY GIULIANI ON MTP. Tim Russert's guest on Meet the Press was 2008 GOP hopeful Rudy Giuliani – part of his "meet the candidates" shtick. Russert opened by showing him the NBC/Mason-Dixon polls which shows Mike Huckabee crushing the nearest opposition, 32% to 20%, with Rudy a distant fifth place with 5-perecent. Russert asked, "Is that a problem?" Rudy chuckled tightly and said that he wished Russert had shown Florida, where he has an 18-point lead. He pointed out that some polls show him ahead and that polls show that he's leading in most States. He promised to "work hard, maybe surprise a few people in Iowa, in New Hampshire." He's basing his campaign on doing well in Florida.
He said that if he wins "a couple" early – "Florida for sure" – then he goes into February 5th with leads in New York, Illinois, California, New Jersey, Connecticut… "YEAAARRRRGH!" (Blue States, the lot of them.)
Rudy says he's "in," even if he loses Iowa and New Hampshire.
Russert asked Rudy about the latest NIE. He asked if it removed the option of a pre-emptive military strike against Iran. Rudy said that it did not, as everything must remain on the table. The NIE admits that it might not be correct. He pointed out that Iran has shown that it is susceptible to the pressure of the threat of the use of military force, as the NIE said that it backed off its nuclear program in 2003, the year the United States militarily deposed Saddam Hussein. They realized that they could be susceptible to the same thing.
Russert asked skeptically if Rudy were trying to claim that Iran stopped its nuclear program because we deposed Saddam Hussein. Rudy answered no, but we have to look at what was going on in 2003. If the report is correct, and he reminded Russert of the NIE's own caveats, Iran stopped its program at the same time as we deposed Saddam, acted in Afghanistan, and Libya's Qadaffi at long last gave up. The pressure was on. He suggested using the NIE with our allies, showing them that the pressure worked.
Russert quoted Giuliani advisor Norm Podhoretz as arguing that we should bomb Iran ASAP and that he was pretty sure Rudy agreed with him. Rudy said that his opinion was what he had just said to Russert, that the use of force was a last resort but should not be taken off the table.
Russert's questions often bordered on childish, such as the one about cutting diplomatic ties with Qatar, but Giuliani was an adult. I'm not a Giuliani supporter, per se, but he came across as prepared to be President. (Rudy was splendiferous, and anyone who disagrees is not to be trusted as a human being whose soul is not a clod. Scratch that. I'm teasing.)
ROCKEFELLER AND HAGEL ON FTN. Host Bob Schieffer, for this week's Face the Nation on CBS, offered us two members of the Senate Intelligence Committee: Democrat Jay Rockefeller and Republican Chuck Hagel.
Rockefeller said that it was a very good question: Why were the interrogation tapes destroyed? He speculated that there might have been things on the tapes which they didn't want anyone to see or that they might have wanted the discussion to be dropped. Rockefeller said that he found out in 2006 that the interrogation vid had been destroyed.
Rockefeller said that he cannot say anything about what he's learned about torture on the Intelligence Committee – not even with "Chuck" – though he did say that he was disturbed by it. The committee is going to call FBI Director Michael Hayden.
Hagel said that there was no justification for destroying the tapes. He said that everyone has confirmed to him – including a Washington Post story – that torture "doesn’t work" in interrogation. If it doesn't work, he asked aloud, why are we doing it? We are saying what to the world? That the Army field manual applies only to the Army, not to the CIA and those in the field? Hagel wants to know "how far this goes up in the White House."
Schieffer asserted that Harriet Miers was told about it and simply asked them to stop it but didn't tell the President. Hagel is convinced that "senior members of the White House" had to have been told, what with it "rattling around" for years.
Schieffer wondered it there were other tapes, and Rocky didn't know. He finds it curious that they started taping in 2002 and stopped it in 2002.
Rocky and Chuck want Congress to investigate the tapes, not a special council.
On Iran, Hagel explained that intelligence is not a tidy, little box; rather, it is a mosaic. The latest NIE is the product of 16 agencies coming to a conclusion. He argued that Iran was still dangerous.
Schieffer said that this was the opposite of what the Administration has been telling us for three years.
Rocky said that "diplomacy can work," citing North Korea as his example.
PERVEZ ON LE. Wolf Blitzer's first guest on CNN's Late Edition was Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, an interview taped "this weekend." He was wearing a three-piece suit, tan with a green-ish tie, but am I color blind?
No medals.
Blitzer asked him if it would be okay if the U.S. acted on "actionable intelligence" and authorized US forces to march into Pak to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Pervez did not agree, saying that we share intelligence and "within Pakistan, the Pakistani forces will act."
Blitzer suggested that various people in Pakistan's military and intelligence are sympathetic to al Qaeda, and Pervez took very strong exception. "We are suffering, here," and he cannot imagine anyone sympathizing with those who are killing their brothers.
Pervez said that there has not been a failure of Pakistani intelligence; rather, it is a failure of combined U.S. and Pakistani intelligence.
Those who criticize, he said, do not understand the situation on the ground.
Well, Musharraf was defensive.
Wolf quoted Afghan President Hamid Karzai talking about terrorists crossing from Pakistan into Afghanistan and he tried to goad Musharraf into attacking Karzai. Pervez explicitly refused the bait and speculated that the terrorists were crossing from Afghanistan to Pakistan. "The real backbone of everything that's happening here is in Afghanistan, not in Pakistan."
After a commercial break, Musharraf pledged that the Pakistani elections in January will be "free and fair." Blitzer quoted Benazir Bhutto and Nawar Sharif, the two ex-prime ministers, as having declared that the elections will be "rigged: (Sharif's word). Musharraf talked about how he's changed the law to make the elections more fair, which things we not done during the tenure of the former prime ministers. Musharraf said that they were "preparing for defeat." He suggested that they should "accept defeat."
Wolf kept asking him if Bhutto and Sharif would be allowed to run. Musharraf pointed out that the media in the West treats every country like a dictatorship. He argued that there is a system in Pakistan, basically a rule of laws and not men. It is not his place to allow or to disallow anyone from running for anything.
There was an old photograph behind Musharraf's right shoulder, under a lamp.
Musharraf said that he had to remove the former chief justice of the Pakistani high court, "and he's not coming back." He asked us to "please understand us." He would like to be interviewed by all media organizations, see the environment on the ground in Pak and don't judge him by the situation on the ground in the United States.
JOHN BOEHNER ON LE. Wolf's next guest on LE was House GOP leader John Boehner. This one was live.
Wolf wondered if our aid to Pak were well spent, and Boehner suggested that it was, although what has been happening in the past few months has been "troubling." He expects the State of Emergency to "go away" soon.
Blitzer asked him about the NIE on Iran. Boehner wondered how we went from a dangerous, nearly nuclear armed Iran one moment to one without nukes now. Either he doesn't have confidence in what the NIE told him a few months ago, he said, or he doesn't have confidence in what they're saying now. He doesn't understand why it has changed so dramatically.
Boehner suggested that Iran was still dangerous, "its leadership on the border of being crazy."
Blitzer asked him about the CIA destroying the vid in 2005. Boehner said that the-then CIA chief, the President, and Congress were not aware that this happened. He wants to get to the bottom of it. Wolf said that Biden had called for a special council, and Boehner thought there was no need for that.
Boehner accused Congressional Democrats of "blackmailing the President" for domestic spending when we need money to support our troops in Iraq. (It's the latest Dem bill.) Blitzer played a clip of Steny Hoyer asserting that Bush has borrowed more money from foreign governments than anyone else combined. Blitzer argued that the Dems want only $11-billion. Boehner said that $11-billion was a lot of money. Blitzer argued that the Republicans had increased the national debt. He accused the Republicans of seeking to shut down the government and defunding the war simply because they refuse to give the Democrats a measly $11-billion. Boehner said that the money was a waste and they have to reduce spending, streamline the government.
=====
Now have it.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Gooooood morning, Democrats! — Comments (15) »
The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - The Review 61 Comments (0 topical, 61 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
and they are still in place, but I saw a Rudy Giuliani who was comfortable answering any manner of question, no matter how silly from Russert, and answering them confidently and with at least the appearance of a breadth of knowledge.
What didn't you like about Giuliani in this interview?
Do we really want this man to be the Republican nominee? Nominate Giualiani and this is what we can expect... more talk about his alleged corruption. At least with Fred, John, Mitt, and Huck there might be some discussion about the conservative agenda.
Seriously, he spent a great majority of the interview on the defense, squirming, and rearranging chairs on the Titanic.
"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."
-George W. Bush
Sorry 'bout that.
"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."
-George W. Bush
a serial liar and furniture thief, we absolutely want Rudy.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."
-George W. Bush
I don't think Rudy Giuliani is a liar, and I believe he was an outstanding Mayor who did what nobody thought he could... I do, however, think he is an increadibly flawed former leader of an incredibly flawed city. We are NEVER going to get away from troubling political appointments, fighting with his kids, his three marriages, his businees relationships, on and on and on.... Seriously, it is a soap opera the Republican Party doesn't need.
"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."
-George W. Bush
and a candidate with absolutely no plan to accomplish anything. The Clinton Machine will make short work of him and you can kiss the SoCon movenment good bye. The guy's record will catch up with him, you just better hope it's before the nomination because Bubba Jr in the general will make 1964 look like a runaway victory.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I just wanted to verify which one amongst us thinks the best way to push our guy is to trash fellow Republicans.
"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."
-George W. Bush
I can't remember ever seeing a single criticism of Huckabee that wasn't automatically responded to with about half a dozen versions of "yeah, but look at how bad Romney is."
I think most people do indeed know which candidate's supporters seem to think the only way to push him is by trashing others (although I guess when 90% of your record is liberal that is your only option).
It has gotten nasty on both sides. That doesn't make it right.
"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."
-George W. Bush
1. I'm not a Rudy supporter, I am not committed to any candidate yet.
2. Pointing out that Bubba Jr. is a liar is not trash talk. He flat out lied about the fuel tax issue when he didn't have to.
3. BJ makes Slick Willy look like a bumbling fool. His statements on every issue are right out of SW's playbook. His comments on Dumond make "is" look pretty good.
4. His support for the Fair Tax is about the most disingenuous thing I've seen in politics.
5. He's getting a media pass because they'd love to chop him to pieces in the general.
6. He's a candidate that House and Senate candidates will have to run from in Nov when it's obvious he's GWB with more compassion no guts at all.
7. If you think this is "trash" just wait and see what the pros do to this hayseed. He's got all of SW's bad traits and none of his political ability outside of the single issue Republican base.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Amen to Giuliani being a "flawed former leader of an incredibly flawed city". He's an absolute unneeded liability to the Republican Party.
I would feel more comfortable voting for Thompson or McCain than for Rudy Giuliani, but I evaluated how Giuliani handled the interview, and I thought he did very well.
I didn't want to mix it up with the bots.
______________________________
"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
I thought McCain did vote to let illegals have social security benefits.
As I remember it, the McCain-Kennedy bill would allow illegal aliens who received their path to citizenship (which some call amnesty) and who had used fake social security numbers while they were illegal aliens and working in the United States to get Social Security benefits based on the work they did.
Now, you can say that this isn't "giving Social Security benefits to illegal aliens." But isn't it? It seems to be giving illegal aliens both Social Security benefits and citizenship. Now, we argue about whether this is a good idea, about whether it is only the practical and compassionate thing to do to give illegal aliens a path to citizenship and credit for the work they did while illegal with respect to their Social Security benefit calculations.
But I am not sure Chris Wallace or McCain is correct when he says that Romney's attack is incorrect.
I guess it comes down to what Romney's fliers said. Did Romney's fliers say that Senator John McCain voted to allow illegal aliens to get Social Security benefits? This is basically true, since McCain was advocating a Senate immigration bill that would have given illegal aliens a path to citizenship and credit for the work they did under the Social Security program while they were illegal aliens working here.
If Romney is using the present tense, however, saying that McCain currently supports giving Social Security benefits to illegal aliens, this is probably not true, because McCain has recently reversed himself on his immigration views. He seems to think that border enforcement must precede a "path to citizenship" for illegal aliens. Still, this begs the question: If in the future it is determine that we have secured our border. Do we offer a path to citizenship for illegal aliens already in the United States? And do we give these illegal aliens Social Security credit for the work they did while they were illegally in the US? Do we grant them this credit even if they used fake documentation to "prove" that they were legal citizens when they were not, in fact, legal at the time?
These are important questions and I don't think either Chris Wallace or John McCain answered them sufficiently.
There was the Ensign amendment on the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill. The Ensign amendment was defeated on a 50 to 49 vote.
Senator Ensign proposed an amendment to the immigration reform legislation on the Senate floor that would guarantee that illegal aliens cannot accumulate credit to qualify for Social Security using false Social Security numbers.
John McCain and most Democrat Senators voted to successfully defeat the Ensign amendment. The vote took place in the middle of May of 2006.
I just wanted to clarify what I meant when I wrote that McCain did vote to allow illegal aliens to receive Social Security benefits, once they completed their path to citizenship, based on work they did while they were illegal and using a fake social security number.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR200605...
Money Quote:
And last week McCain said that denying illegal immigrants Social Security and other entitlements is akin to forcing them to "ride in the back of the bus."
Here is a post by the Power Line Blog titled Ensign Amendment Defeated
Here's one paragraph from that Powerline Blog post.
Yesterday there was a lot of discussion yesterday about whether it is fair to say that the Senate bill provides "amnesty" for illegal aliens. (John McCain's "Call it a banana" was one of the low points of that debate.) Under the Senate bill, illegals will get Social Security credit for contributions made when they were working in violation of the law, resulting, in many instances, in their receiving benefits that far exceed those contributions. In view of that fact, it's hard to see how the "amnesty" label can be considered inappropriate.
So, in what sense is Mitt Romney's flier attacking McCain on immigration misleading?
McCains’ infamous bill would have given "amnesty" to illegal’s. If you gave all the illegal’s here a free pass and made them citizens they would have a SS# and thus be eligible for SS benefits- just like those of us who have actually been paying into the system. McCain only reversed his position after his "amnesty" bill was widely criticized by the American public. McCains’ turnabout on immigration is what I call a 10 on the flip flop scale.
Romneygirl
and I ask you to complete your gymnastics practice elsewhere.
The bill supported by McCain offered a difficult path to citizenship for some illegal aliens. It did not offer social security to illegal aliens. Period.
What about the fake Social Security numbers used by illegal aliens? That's why Senator Ensign offered his amendment to the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill. It would have prevented illegal aliens who might eventually obtain citizenship from gaining Social Security benefits based on work they did when they were illegally in the country and illegally using a fake Social Security number.
In that context, can you really say that Romney's flier attacking McCain is "spurious?"
I'm just curious about spurious.
Illegal aliens eligible for social security benefits
______________________________
"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
If the bill McCain supported would have allowed U.S. citizens to use their illegal social security numbers and receive benefits based on the work they did while here illegally, that is a problem unto itself, but it is not offering social security to illegal aliens.
This should not be too difficult to understand.
It depends on what you consider is a Social Security benefit. Is it the benefit of accruing time toward retirement, or is it the benefit of receiving a check at the appropriate age. Illegals could get the credits, but not the checks, until they received legal status. There is no law on the books that states that a person must be a citizen to receive Social Security. A person only has to be a legal resident. Illegals would only have to wait until they got their green cards.
I believe this was a fair assessment. McCain would have given illegals their Social Security benefits retroactively. I don't think McCain voted for the Ensign Amendment which was needed to keep illegals from getting Social Security benefits based upon their illegal time in country.
Dear RomneyBot
You are quite correct, McCain was wrong on immigration and his backing of the President's plan, he knows it and has said so. But funny thing, McCain figured it out and has changed his tune and it wasn't even an even number year signifying an election year flip flop like Mitt.
Before you open the can of flip flop charge, be careful, very careful about the stench from that very can which is the smell of the utter hypocrisy on so very many issues that is the core of say anything Mitt Romney.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Uh... I think you got me confused with a Ron Paul Robot. I convey an intellectual point not some Robotic one liner like many of the Ron Paulers do. “Ron Paul will save us all”- over and over! Now that is robotic.
Anyway, Romney has changed his stance once on abortion- from pro choice to pro life and he did this the first time a bill come to him that he would have to support ending life- which was his first year as GOv of MA and long before this election race . He admits it was an honest err in judgement.That is not my definition of flip flop. The reason people want to label him as a flip flopper is because he does not have the skeletons, ethics violations, bad bills, affairs, lies, etc. that the other candidates have.
McCain however supported that Amnesty bill up until it was chewed up and spit at him. He supported it full force during this election. Notice during the last debate the boos he got when he began to lie about it. He DID NOT change his stance until it was defeated and he saw or rather felt the public abhorrence of it and him- which was during his pres. campaign.
Romneygirl
Romney is allowed to as you say "He admits it was an honest err in judgement. That is not my definition of flip flop. The reason people want to label him as a flip flopper is because he does not have the skeletons, ethics violations, bad bills, affairs, lies, etc. that the other candidates have."... and yet McCain is not allowed to say he got it wrong on the immigration issue, and that he now gets it.
Well I guess we now get it. I'd call that 'Bot dom 101, detectable without much work.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
"But funny thing, McCain figured it out and has changed his tune and it wasn't even an even number year signifying an election year flip flop like Mitt."
This was the point I was arguing. Writer said McCain changed before he was chewed up by the public for his stance. I argue he was still in full support up until the bill failed.
Writer said Romney changed during his run for president. I argue he did not. His Ma record supports me on that.
I do not condem anyone who realizes they were wrong, amends, and takes reponsibilty. That is what Romney did under his own personal growth. McCain realized that his numbers went in toliet so he then changed his stance out of concern for his numbers.
Mitt's "personal growth" as you put it seems to come every two years, or when ever he's running for election. You can try to spin it otherwise, but I think most people get that point.
Mitt is the velveta cheese candidate in this race, over processed and devoid of any real meaning or even worthy of being called cheese.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
If you choose to call a man who leads with honesty and integrity processed then that is your loss. However, your personal opinion of his mannerism does not substantiate your accusation that he has changed his stance on anything other than abortion. Which as I stated was a matter of his personal growth in accepting he could not support ending life when he felt it was unconscionable. If you have FACT that he has changed on other subjects please share.
What Mitt really means when he says lower taxes, higher fees.
On the presidential campaign trail, Romney brags about a $3 billion budget shortfall he said he closed as governor, without any tax increases. He doesn't mention the more than $400 million in fees he raised instead.
Source: Boston Globe.
Mitt's just too cute by half around the edges on everything he says and does. He makes Slick Willy look like a piker when it comes to poll driven policy.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Here's an excerpt from the Club for Growth White Paper on Mitt Romney's record as Governor of Massachusetts.
On balance, his record comes out more positive than negative, especially when one considers that average spending increased only 2.22% over his four years, well below the population plus inflation benchmark of nearly 3%.
Now, compare that growth in spending to Huckabee's, which was three times the rate of inflation.
I suggest people read all of it, not just that one particular excerpt because there are some good and bad aspects of Romney's record. In fact, I think it would be great if we were are very familiar with the entirety of all of the White Papers the Club for Growth has prepared for all of the major Republican candidates. This way, we could focus in on those parts that we believe are most important.
Romney Opposes the Boy Scouts' Ban on Homosexual Scoutmasters
* Despite the over 2,500 pedophilia cases now on record involving homosexual scout leaders, Romney stated, "I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation." In the same article, a BSA official criticized Romney for opposing Scout policy.
- Boston Globe, 10/27/1994
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Wrong, He closed loopholes in the MA tax code that gave businesses a blanket for tax exemption statuses that they were not supposed to get. This is how he balanced a severly deficeted Ma budget. The loopholes that these businesses were using was robbing MA of funds to run vital programs and keep taxes low for private citizens.
TRY AGAIN! Closing loopholes used by greedy big business is hardly a flip flop. Hell I give him a standing ovation. You really need to stop reading media clips and pull up his history as Gov. that is legally documented. I do not get my info from some biased article or the Mitt Romney web site.
Romney administration ordered Justices of Peace to perform homosexual "marriages" when asked - or be fired!
* Gov. Romney's Legal Counsel issued a directive to the Justices of the Peace that they must perform same-sex marriages or "face personal liability" or be fired. The directive was given to perform the homosexual marriages without citing any statute permitting this, though a statute is cited as a basis for not marrying out-of-state homosexual couples. (No date is given on the directive; it was apparently issued approximately 4-27-06.) Said Romney's Chief Legal Counsel, David Winslow: "Your task is straightforward and can be summed up in three words: follow the law."
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
You probably should start a separate blog post. Otherwise, all of us who participate in this discussion about Romney's record on this blog post could get banned for threadjacking.
The title of this blog post is the Sunday shows and we're getting off topic.
So, one of us should consider posting a comparison of records between the candidates, with some commentary and then we can debate away.
Sound good to you?
Sorry, you are right, I am wrong and I have been TJ'ing a bit here. I'll knock it off now.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
I just put up a new blog post on Governor Romney. Feel free to comment away over there. And that goes for pro-Romney folks as well as opponents of Romney.
Are you serious? What is thread jacking? I just became a member a few days ago. Can you not discuss what you want to here?
Like talking about baseball now would be a threadjack.
______________________________
"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
away from the original topic. In this case, discussing Romney's performance as governor in a blog about the Sunday Shows.
Proper form would be to write a separate blog addressing the TJ subject. Keeps things focused that way.
Generally speaking, you're free to discuss any political - and some non-political - topics. Off the top of my head, only two are off-limits that I can think of. Ron Paul discussions until you've been here long enoigh to establish cred, and theology - specifically discussions of Mormonism.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
May 17, 2004, as a result of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health same sex union became legal in MA. After the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling, efforts began to overturn this decision by amending the states’ constitution. This effort was defeated by the state legislature on June 14, 2007. As a result, same-sex marriage will remain legal in MA until at least 2012, unless another decision by the MA Supreme Judicial Court or the US Supreme Court comes about.
On November 19, 2006, Gov. Mitt Romney led a rally against the tactics that the Massachusetts legislature used to delay and possibly prevent a vote on the same-sex marriage ballot initiative. The Gov. office can only deny an application based on character. What was he supposed to say “all gays” are of bad character?? He took an oath to uphold MA law and that is exactly what he did. A governor cannot legally apply a statute selectively.
This applies to McCain because he accused Romney of flip flopping.
What new radio ad says: "As governor, Mitt Romney didn't wait on Washington. He acted to make our immigration laws work. Mitt Romney is the exceptional governor who took a stand so State Police could enforce federal immigration laws."
The record: Romney announced in June 2006 that he was seeking an agreement with federal authorities to allow State Police to arrest illegal immigrants. He signed the pact in December, during his last weeks as governor. But before the troopers had completed their training, Deval Patrick rescinded the agreement in January just after becoming governor. He replaced it with a plan to identify illegal immigrants in the prison population and deport them once they serve their sentences.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Steve...If you are saying Romney is a phony on this issue. I agree. But, I am not too sure who isn't. Patrick probably did something more productive for the folks.
McCain should be forgiven based upon whether his stated reasons for being wrong on illegal immigration are adequate. In Iowa, McCain only says he was wrong because he didn't realize that the country wanted a secure border before anything else. He still wants to give everybody amnesty. McCain hasn't said that he was wrong on anything else pertaining to the original comprehensive immigration reform bill. McCain thought he was getting the support of the "cheap labor" lobby, but they couldn't help him. The backlash will cost him the nomination.
mchick1
Only fools and Tom Tancredo believe that there will not be something done to not send the 25+ Million illegals home as part of fixing the immigration mess. The issue is just too contentious, there is something called a Democratic party and something called business to pretend that some form of normalizing illegal aliens already here won't occur.
McCain has been wrong on this issue before, and I have a hard time with him over this, but he's dead right on the point that the heated rhetoric coming from some on this issue will do the Republican party no good.
McCain has finally gotten the message that we the American people don't trust the government, Republicans and Democrats alike to do what they say they are going to do, and we demand that the border is secured before anything else. I'm pretty happy with that.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Heated rhetoric on illegal immigration has done good in the some situations. An Iowa poll just said that it was a top issue. It won't do anything for CA Republicans. The GOP won't carry CA anyway. " It is the land of the fruits and nuts."
I never said that I thought all the illegals should be deported. I just think the devil is in the details of the next bill. There are other things such as penalties for employers and self-deportation. We are mostly interested in what McCain would do to deter future illegals. He hasn't proposed anything except that we need to enforce the borders. I would being willing to compromise in some cases.
The man has his failings and his accomplishments, but this interview was a hurdle and he cleared it. Until recently, I've felt four candidates had a plausibe shot, but if Mitt keeps sinking in Iowa and Fred can finish third or better, we're up to five candidates who could win.
It's important to remember that Reagan almost won in 1976 after losing a bunch of contests at the outset. It's not only Giuliani who might win after suffering an early dry patch. Romney could lose Iowa and win New Hampshire. Thompson could break through in South Carolina. Huckabee could win Iowa and then nothing more until South Carolina.
- Extramarital affair
- Kerik
- Security costs for extramarital affair
- Shady accounting for these costs
- Possible shady business clients and an unwillingness to reveal who they are
All of these were discussed and I thought Guliani looked very uncomfortable. Makes me wonder if we were watching the same show. He looked the worst when he was talking about his business clients (which, I think he is justified in not releasing).
It will be a long, very entertaining, election year if Guliani gets the nomination - "My candidate is less unethical than yours...Oh yeah, what about...."
Giuliani lost me as a supporter today. Not because of his answers, but because there is too much in his past that will overshadow his policies. If the campaign is about policy, we have an advantage because this country is conservative. If the campaign is about personal lives - well then it becomes a toss up. I really like Rudy as a person, but his personal life/corruption stories will cost us the election.
Although I HATE John McCain's immigration position, I am moving into the McCain camp because he is the most electable Republican.
I thought Rudy did very well today handling Russert's punches. His demeanor was likeable. His answers were clear, and understandable to the point of credibility. He seemed honest and genuine and wasn't afraid to admit mistakes and sins.
I judge Rudy as not slick or slippery; what you see is what you get. None of his positions alienated me and he did a good job advocating for the foreign policy view I care about.
I lived in Massachusetts during the Romney years, even voted for the man, but I can tell you I was not impressed with him at all after the election. He really didn't do a thing for the people of Massachusetts other then spend most of his time preparing to run for President. He is a political opportunist who will say and do anything to be elected.
In my opinion Rudy is the exact opposite. He has flaws yes but to be honest most of them are way overblown as to how much they will actually affect his run for President. A small vocal few from the extreme right have the most issues with Rudy. Most Americans do not care. Also it will be hard for the press to make a big issue out of his flaws because if his opponent is Hillary they will be forced to open a can of worms that she cant afford to have opened. This in the past has been a advantage to the Democrats because the Republican candidate refused to fight back and call attention to the bias and the flaws of his opponent.
This will not be the case with Rudy.
Rudy is exactly what the G.O.P. needs right now. Not an unelectable minister nor another polished political hack.
I prefer the minister stays in church, the politician stays in Massachusetts, and the leader and fighter be elected as President.
Worst moment for Rudy
MR. RUSSERT: Using that reasoning, would it be appropriate for a president to provide Secret Service protection for his mistress?
MR. GIULIANI: It would not be appropriate to, to do it for that reason, Tim, and that isn’t, that, that isn’t the right way to—you know, that isn’t the right way to, to analyze it or to say this.
If Rudy is going to stop the bleeding on this issue, he needs a better story. His whole argument was that the NYPD made him accept security for his mistress. Russert using the M word threw Rudi badly. His answer to this question can't just deal with why security was given, but address the deeper issue of adultery.
A better answer would go something like this.
"First, the fact that Judi was under a threat was due to my poor judgment in having a relationship outside of marriage, and I take full responsibility for that. But I was unwilling to allow my poor choice to endanger her life. So when the NYPD recommended that she be given security I said yes."
______________________________
"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
""First, the fact that Judi was under a threat was due to my poor judgment in having a relationship outside of marriage"
Judi had a choice first of all and decided to be with Rudy. Second Rudy took down the mob, is mayor of New York, and a political figure. The fact that he was advised she would need a security detail and excepted it shows good judgment. Would you rather he left her unprotected?
Another thing, nor you or I know what his marriage was like at that point. I do know that Donna Hannover did decided to preform in the Vagina Monologues against her husbands wishes and was often gone. I am sure if Rudy wanted to he could dish out some dirt on his ex wife to defend himself, but he has chosen not to.
Most Americans have friends, family, bosses, co-workers, even dare I say fellow church members who have been in a bad marriage and have been in this situation as well. This is a fact that seems to be lost on the extreme right wing of the Republican party.
We have officially moved from the Bush Derangment Syndrome to Rudy Derangment Syndrome the right.
Rudy will be nominated.
Rudy will be President.
But I hope you're not suggesting he tell the electorate, "Look, I cheated on my wife because she was gone a lot and was in the Vagina Monologues." Sheesh, that would be the worst answer to any question I've ever heard.
And there's a HUGE difference between being in a bad marriage, and choosing to cheat on your wife during a bad marriage. Cheating on your wife, even if she's gone all the time or in the Vagina Monologues, or even if she curses at you and throws furniture at you every night, is a reason to divorce your wife in a civil society, not a reason to start shacking with some other woman.
I'm not saying Rudy can't win; I'm just saying I thought he handled the question in a reasonable way, and that your suggestion to him would sink his nomination.
I thought Guiliani looked terrible, which may have been more due to Russert's questioning. I'd like to hear more about what you thought was so great about his performance. I was squirming in my chair as I watched him. Even though I don't support the guy at all, I was uncomfortable to see him do so poorly.