The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - The Review
NOTE TO DEMS: Obama, Hillary, who cares? Put Jim Webb on the ticket. Please!
By Mark Kilmer Posted in Face the Nation | FOX News Sunday | Late Edition | Meet the Press | Special Features | This Week — Comments (57) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Karl Rove and DCCC boss Chris Van Hollen were Chris Wallace's guest on FOX News Sunday, with Rove arguing that both frontrunners – Rudy and Hillary – could be in trouble if they lose Iowa and New Hampshire and the winners of the States have time to gain momentum. Van Hollen touched Rove inappropriately throughout the segment.
Mike Huckabee told host George Stephanopoulos of ABC's This Week that, contrary to Romney's assertions, he had more executive experience (13 years) than any other candidate and that he had been a pastor in the private sector, dealing with the real problems of real people.
Jim Webb is an idiot. On MTP, he equated the tribal leaders in Al Anbar and Osama bin Laden. He declared that Turkey was like Iran. When asked if Congress should continue to fund the war in Iraq, Webb accused the Bush Administration of using "scare tactics." Again, Jim Webb is an idiot.
On FTN, John McCain admitted that his stance on immigration hurt his campaign. He said that we absolutely must secure the border first. He called it an "emotional issue," saying that we've traditionally had a backlash whenever there is a "wave of immigration, legal or illegal." He cited "No Irish Need Apply." He pointed out that there is a humanitarian side to this.
Chris Dodd, on LE, did not argue that the surge is a success, but he argued that out big question is: Can the Iraqis sustain this after we withdraw our troops? He accused our soldiers of "keeping a civil war going in Iraq."
On LE, Specter and Levin disagreed on whether or not Iran should have been invited to Annapolis. They weren't, and Specter thinks they should have been while Levin disagreed.
On LE, General Ray Odierno did not stipulate that the surge was working. He argued that we are making progress. He said that Maliki & co. are not perfect, "but they are starting to take steps." We'll have a brigade (3,500 troops) home by Christmas, he said, and he predicted that we will be down to 130,000 soldiers in Iraq by the end of next July.
Read on for the show-by-show review…
ROVE AND VAN HOLLEN ON FNS. Host Chris Wallace opened this morning's edition of FOX News Sunday by talking to Karl Rove and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) boss Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland). Wallace pulled out some generic polls which show that those surveyed were more likely to vote for an unnamed Democrat than an unnamed Republican. Rove countered that this changes when specific names are used. Van Hollen argued that these polls show that the American people want Dem leadership. The Democrats still have the momentum coming off the '06 midterms, he argued, and Republicans are quitting Congress en masse.
"The American people want to see change," Van Hollen argued, putting both hands on Rove's left bicep. Wallace started talking about the taxes the Democrats have pledged to raise, or at least are discussing raising, and Van Hollen interjected: "We will not raise taxes." Rove laughed, which prompted more fondling by Van Hollen.
Van Hollen argued that the Republicans lost credibility when they failed to capture Osama bin Laden.
Rove argued that both frontrunners – Giuliani and Hillary – could be in trouble since neither is leading in the traditional "early States." He explained that "we're in uncharted territories," with nominating contests being held in rapid succession. He said that it remains to be seen if a candidate will have time to gain momentum after and Iowa or New Hampshire victory when there are only a few days in which to try to gain that momentum. Van Hollen, still groping Rove, added that "it's a fluid situation." Rove remarked that "Hillary could be in trouble."
Wallace asked them back, and both agreed, though Karl Rove had a proviso: "As long as you get him to stop touching me like that."
HUCKABEE ON TW. Mike Huckabee was host George Stephanopoulos's guest on ABC's This Week, and the governor argued that by law, he had to educate the children of illegal immigrants, and that it helped to "legitimize their being here," the aliens' ultimate path toward citizenship (or at least Green Cards?). Huckabee argued that we need "a sane, rational immigration policy, which we don't [now have]."
Steph played that goofy, little Romney ad in which that governor boasts that he ran a company and ran the Olympics before getting into politics; Huckabee, Romney argued, has been in politics all his life. Huckabee countered that some folks argue that he'd been a pastor in the private sector for too long. He explained the human situations, suffering, and tragedy with which pastors deal first hand. He said that his thirteen years as governor of Arkansas amounted to more executive experience than any of his opponents had.
Steph asked Huckabee if Mitt Romney were a Christian, and Huckabee responded: "Mitt Romney has to answer that." Huckabee said that he's not going to judge such things. Wallace cited one of the leaders of the Southern Baptists as arguing that Mormonism is often at odds with "organized Christianity," but Huckabee kept his distance from answering either way.
Huckabee denied that Dick Morris is working for him, but he knows Dick Morris and finds Dick Morris to be "one of the sharpest minds… in the business."
JIM WEBB ON MTP. Jim Webb, back from his first trip Iraq, was on MTP again. This is a national embarrassment, so I'll be brief. Russert asked Webb a simple question: Is the military surge in Iraq working? Webb said that this was a "complicated" question, what with its many "connotations," so he wanted to proceed with his explanation uninterrupted. Russert obliged.
Webb said that some elements in Iraq benefitted from the surge, while other elements in Iraq had "their own momentum," didn't need the surge to work. (This runs contrary to what he was saying pre-surge, that nothing was working and that there was no momentum.)
Webb argued that Al Anbar was working before the surge and would have worked without the surge. Webb does think that the current "sense of calm" in Al Anbar is a false one. He compared the tribal leaders in Al Anbar to Osama bin Laden, whom he said worked closely with us to drive the Soviets from Afghanistan then turned on us. (I don't know who fed Webb this bit about Al Anbar, but neither it nor anything else he discussed in any way related to what he saw or did in Iraq.)
Webb predicted that Moqtada al Sadr could come back and ruin everything.
Webb predicted that the international terrorists could return, and we have trouble in the Kurdish area. He compared democratic Turkey, which has made defensive moves over the Iraqi border, to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Webb pointedly refused to credit President Bush with the surge.
Russert asked Webb if Congress should continue to fund the war in Iraq, and Webb accused the Administration of using "scare tactics."
That's enough of that doltish twaddle.
JOHN MCCAIN ON FACE THE NATION. Bob Schieffer, host of CBS' Face the Nation, talked to 2008 GOP Presidential hopeful John McCain. Can he pass Rudy and Romney? (Another show skips Thompson.)
Is NH "make-or-break" for McCain? He doesn't know, but he thinks it's important. He's grateful for the endorsement of the Manchester newspaper.
McCain thinks he can compete in Iowa, "but we've got a lot of work to do."
On Huckabee, McCain argued: "Debates matter." He thinks Huckabee has performed well of late; "He's a force to be reckoned with." Schieffer brought up David Broder's chatter about a McCain/Huckabee ticket, but McCain thinks it is awfully early, given his current standing, for such talk.
Schieffer thinks immigration is the big issue for the GOP. McCain said that it is an emotional issue, "with broken borders." He mentioned this country's long history of fostering a "backlash" whenever there is a wave of immigration, "legal or illegal." He wants to "secure the borders first." He referred to immigrants as God's children and the terrible things happening: "There is a humanitarian side to this."
Schieffer pointed out that McCain was once the GOP front runner and asked if he had fallen because of his stance on immigration. McCain thinks it played a part, but he argued that "you've got to do what you think is right, Bob."
McCain thinks that both Giuliani and Romney "have changed their position on immigration." It's up to them, he argued, to prove that their reasons for the flip-flops are legitimate.
Schieffer asked McCain that since the surge is working, should we bring the troops home. McCain said that we could withdraw to the pre-surge level then assess the situation from there.
McCain asserted that those who said that the conflict in Iraq was lost "maybe ought to admit that they were wrong."
CHRIS DODD ON LE. Host Wolf Blitzer's first guest on CNN's Late Edition was the Doddster, 2008 Dem Presidential hopeful. Blitzer offered to Dodd that even Jack Murtha thought the surge was working. Dodd said of course it worked, but what are the Iraqis going to do once our troops leave? "That's really the issue for us."
Dodd argued that we should be in Afghanistan, where al Qaeda is, not in Iraq. He argued against staying in Iraq even if the Iraqis are not ready because "we've been there longer than World War II."
Blitzer quoted John Negroponte's prediction that the Iraqi government will get its political act together. Dodd said that he hopes this is the case, but we've heard this too many times in the past.
Chris Dodd accused our soldiers of "keeping a civil war going in Iraq."
Dodd said that he hoped the Annapolis meeting worked, but that the President had "walked away from the Middle East for the last seven years." That's why we have a problem with Iran, he insisted.
SPECTER AND LEVIN ON LE Blitzer next spoke to Senators Snarlin' Arlen Specter (in Philly) and Carl Levin (in Detroit). Specter thinks that the President should have invited Iran to the Annapolis peace conference. He wants to talk to Iran, work with Iran, and "impose sanctions" if Iran enriches uranium. He thinks that Ahmadinejad's talk of dismantling Israel is "very troublesome," but he predicted that the Iranian Borat won't be there forever. Levin agreed that it was wise not to invite Iran to Annapolis, as that is part of the diplomatic pressure we have to put on them.
Specter thinks things are "improving" in U.S.-Pakistani relations, but he wants to see what the January elections bring. Levin said that he's not "overly confident" that the elections will be "free and fair," but he is "hopeful."
Levin's not worried about Hugo threatening to shut his oil spigot. Specter is glad that the Venezuelans are challenging his attempts to be dictator-for-life. Both Senators want Congress to mandate automotive energy efficiency and hybrids.
They were cut off. Blitzer went to a commercial and talked to a more significant guest.
RAY ODIERNO ON LE Wolf Blitzer next spoke to General Ray Odierno, commander of the multi-national forces in Iraq. Blitzer put on the screen the greatly diminishing casualties. He asked General Odierno if it were fair to say, or if it were too early to say, that the Surge is working. The General said that we're moving in the right direction, and, "more importantly, the Iraqis are starting to reject terrorism."
Odierno said that they now have to increase services to the people, increase political accommodation, and continue to reduce casualties. "Maintain the stability." He mentioned including civilians, including the people, and he says they've just met with Maliki about this.
Odierno said that the Maliki government is not perfect, "but they are starting to take steps" and "there has been some movement." At the local and provincial levels, though, we're seeing the kind of progress we need.
He pointed out that the Iraq soldiers were better than they were, and turning over responsibility to them will be done in an orderly fashion only when they are ready. Odierno is confident that this will work.
Odierno said that we have between ten and fifteen Iranians in custody, but there has been a reduction in the number of Iranians weapons used against our troops. Syria, he said, is taking some additional responsibility to secure the border and keep foreign fighters out of Iraq.
Odierno announced that a brigade – about 3,500 troops – are on their way home. "We've reached a peak here in December," he said, and now we will see a gradual reduction until July. Blitzer asked him how many we'd have in Iraq at the end of 2008, and Odierno said we can't be sure yet. "Six months is a long time in Iraq." He put it at about 130,000 troops in Iraq at the end of next July, and he said that a recommendation will be made, pertaining to the end of 2008, next March.
=====
Have at it!
« The Sunday Morning Talk Shows: The Review — Comments (16) | The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - The Review — Comments (19) »
The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - The Review 57 Comments (0 topical, 57 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
From this you can garner that Rove was not the architect of "Touchy Feelie" conservatism (aka compassionate conservatism) as practiced by El Jefe Bush?
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party ! Pastafarianism anyone?
...Karl Rove keeps him DemocratMindControlRay(tm) strapped to his left bicep. Van Hollen was trying to prevent Rove from deploying it against him and the Fox studio staff.
--furious
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
McCain says that you must do what you think is right, in response to the question on whether his support for the Kennedy-McCain immigration bill cost him support in the primaries.
Does that mean that he still thinks that the Kennedy-McCain immigration bill is right? I thought he changed his views on immigration.
In other words, where is McCain on immigration now?
What does it matter that McCain just flip flopped again, everyone of the Repukes [And this would be where we all stopped reading. - Moe Lane] has flip flopped, one day it's to get the evangelical vote and the next day it's to get the gun lobby. Repukes had the gall to call Kerry a flip flopper while their positions are chameleon, changing day to day, depending on which group they are talking to.
As for the surge, how many commenting on this site have served in the military? Why aren't you in Iraq if you are so supportive of it. Calling the surge a success doesn't erase the criminal acts by the Bush administration to get us into the quagmire. This administration will be found to be the worst ever in the political history of the United States and all of you can brag about how you were a supporter of it, just like Nazi sympathizers did with Hitler, always in denial and total disregard for the laws of decency.
If we are so right in Iraq, why does the rest of the world condemn us? Apparently, to save the Iraqi people, we had to kill several hundred thousand of them and displace another 2 million. Here's Mitt Romney exhorting the war and justifying while he and his five sons run from serving their country in a time of war. They are all for the war, they just want someone else's children dying for it, not them.
Conservatives should look back on the history of mankind and see that continued progress puts conservatives always on the wrong side of progress. Whether it's the right to vote for women, or stopping the persecution of scientists for stating the world is round, Progressives, Liberals keep the world moving forward and away from archaic thought. Read Webster's definition of liberal and conservative and tell me which one you want to be associated with.
You are that 29% who says the world is flat, you are the 29% who say women should not be allowed to vote and you are the 29% of Americans who put their party loyalty over loyalty to your country. Liberals are realty based, Conservatives live in a rigid, intolerant world in which there is no tolerance for differences, whether they be cultural, racial, religion or wealth. Read Jesus's sermons and tell me which political party truly reflects Jesus's teachings? How many of you have invited homeless strangers into your homes? You live in a world of fear. one in which anything you don't understand, you try to squelch. God help all of you, as your fears and intolerance will only doom you in the end. This world is coming together as one as time moves forward so embrace change, don't run from it and don't judge others, you cannot stop the tides of history.
Those little talking points have been repeated and trashed in the past. And do not drag Jesus into this argument. His concern was private charity, not governmental confiscation and redistribution.
Why am I arguing with you? You aren't here anymore.
G'bye.
As for the surge, how many commenting on this site have served in the military? Why aren't you in Iraq if you are so supportive of it.
Me, and I am too old, however, my son is thinking about a career in the Military.
...it's a community-based reality. And, yes, if by "fear" you mean "fear that someone with your cranial handicaps would ever get a job teaching in the public schools". Oops, too late.
Good luck inviting Jesus into your tent, y'all being pro-choice and all.
--furious
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
Read your Scriptures one more time, especially Revelations, Daniel, Ezekiel, and Matthew. Your diatripe shows which side of Truth you are really on.
"Truth can stand on its own and needs no help from half-truths, shades of grey, white-lies, or plain lies"
Simple:
He still agrees with the jist if the bill, that we need both more border enforcement and a path to citizenship but now he's willing to delay a path to citizenship or guest worker programs until after all of the border security items are in place and functioning, because of the fact that the enforcement measures didn't work in 1986, and he knows people don't trust them because of it.
He's basically agreeing with Rep. Mike Pence's approach, or at least a modified Pence approach. Pence had both in the same bill, McCain would probably support them separately.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
So, McCain thinks that the Kennedy-McCain immigration bill is the right thing to do. But he wants to beef up enforcement first in order to build up trust among the public.
But who gets to decide when the public has decided to trust the federal government on immigration to the point of being willing to give a path to citizenship for illegal aliens?
If McCain becomes president, how do we know that he won't, after about 6 months worth of enforcement, say, "It's time for a path to citizenship for illegal aliens."
I have to admit. I don't understand where McCain is on this issue. Why be a co-sponsor on Kennedy-McCain on immigration and then back away from it and then later say that it was the right thing to do.
Well, I suppose you could say that, but that's not exactly accurate. It depends on how you look at it.
A lot of conservatives said that they would eventually accept a path to citizenship of some sort as long as we didn't continue to have the continuous flow of illegal immigrants over the border. One of the main attack points against the bill was that it allowed for guest workers and a path to citizenship for current illegals without making sure the border was secure first.
If the bill had said "Beef up border security, wait 3 years, see if it's working, then grant a qualified path to citizenship," it would have gotten at least 35 Republican votes in the Senate, arguably more, and would have gotten a large number of House Republican votes as well.
VERY few (I'd argue no) serious conservatives actually think that you can deport 12 million illegal immigrants, or that it would even be desirable without at least increasing legal immigration quotas, especially for guest workers for rural areas.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
He wants all the border state governors to conclude the border is secure before moving on to dealing with those in the country already. 2 are Rs, 2 are Ds. It makes sense if you believe that lack of trust in the feds is a big part of the immigration debate (as McCain believes).
Yes he still supports some form of guest worker or earned legalization, and he does NOT support deportation of 10-12 million people.
He has shifted to Enforcement First, not Enforcement Only. That's why he's not Tancredo nor outside the mainstream of the country.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
state!)
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
In other words, McCain still supports a path to citizenship for millions of (net) future Democrats.
As long as we are talkiing about the mainstream, perhaps we should ask if its a mainstream position to deceptively increase already high levels of legal immigration like McCain and Kennedy's bill would have done? I think we all know the answer to that.
emotional issue" BS.
I'm not any more emotional, if at all, about securing the border than I am killing terrorists, ending rule by judicial oligarchs or cutting taxes.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Immigration and illegal border crossing are issues which stir a vast lot of emotion. That works both ways on the issue, whether it be throw them all out or give them a humanitarian chance to live freely amongst the orchids.
They are not purely emotional issues, naturally, but that's not what McCain said.
Then again, I am not one to read John McCain's mind.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
to avoid the SUBSTANTIVE arguments on border security, the rule of law, the costs to communitities due to health care, prisons and schools, etc. Then they resort to the LIE that we want to bus them all back to Mexico in two weeks with a bus caravan. Then they tell us about the racist e-mails they get. Of course, every public figure gets e-mail from kooks om all issues.
"calm down Alice" - Jackie Gleason
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
That all depends. Why do you want to secure the border?
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
Essential element of national sovereignty isn't enough reason by itself? Even before all the other reasons for insisting that foreigners respect our right to give or withhold consent?
opponents, rather than argue the merits, label the issue an emotional one, so as to belittle said opponents.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Yes, Hispanic immigrants are always going to vote Democrat forever and ever. :rolls eyes:
Well, they certainly will if you look at them as a race as opposed to individuals and meet them with suspicion and hostility.
Anyhow, there is nothing un-mainstream about wanting to trade off illegal immigrants for legal immigrants. Poll after poll after poll shows people favor a guest worker program and a path to citizenship for those who qualify, so long as the borders are secured first.
Contrary to the lies they tell themselves, Tancredoism isn't popular nationwide. Not even among Republicans.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
People with low education vote overwhelmingly Democratic. People with low incomes vote overwhelmingly Democratic. People who reproduce without the mother being married to the father vote overwhelmingly Democratic.
Those whom "comprehensive immigration reform" would add to our voter rolls are far more likely to be in all of those overlapping categories. If somebody wants to admit more highly educated upper middle class Mexicans, who marry the mother/father of their children, they might be more likely to vote Republican, but those aren't the kind of Mexicans that McCain, Kennedy and Bush were trying to add to our voter rolls.
republican
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
I hadn't seen that, do you have a link or source I could look at?
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
after from 2001
dems try and register them and they choose repubs!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/15/wuspols1...
from 2001
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
... surprising
... and very good, and interesting news
... and, did I mention? Surprising.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
This will probably be the last time you will hear me say this: I agree with Carl Levin.
What in God's name good would it possibly do to invite Iran to Annapolis? So they could rant about the destruction of Israel?
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
Touching? That's what you got out of the Rove interview? Whats his face touches his elbow while Karl's flailing his arms around and that's what you get from that interview?
Rove's been out there blowing any shred of relevance or credibility claiming that the noodly-kneed Democrats pushed Bush into the war.. dragged our President kicking and screaming into Iraq and he does it again in this interview and your take on the interview is Karl was inappropriately touched. Sheesh.
This is why Republicans are retiring left and right and why it looks like Republicans will probably get creamed again in 2008. It's the lying, the incompetence, the spending. Rove also started complaining about big spending Democrats which made me hide my face in my hands. The National Debt is increasing at a rate of $1.49 BILLION/DAY since Sept. 2006 under Bush's budgets for Christ's Sake. We've added TRILLIONS of debt, Billions of dollars in CASH are MIA in Iraq. Fiscal responsibility is farcical under today's Republican leadership.
If the Republican party is to survive the next few election cycles the party has to grow beyond protecting a few people. Throw the bastards overboard, publicly, and refocus on the the people who are actually interested in the actual stated goals of the party. You can't run a party with a new scandal every week.
Quickly, because I'm not a regular. I voted Nader in 1999 because Powell didn't run. I voted Dem in 2003 because It was clear Bush was screwing up. Label me a troll if you want but at least think about what I said.
Steven.
----
The real base of Conservative is Conserve.
WOW!
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
Now piss off, troll.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I thought Senator Webb did a very good job on the interview.
But then I tend to lean towards people who know what they are talking about when it comes to military affairs (with experience).
You know been there done that mentality.
I thought it kind of strange too that Van Hollen's touching Rove's arm was a bit weird. Who does he think he is???
Jeff Gannon??
who is lacking in the savant!
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
issues. Dems would discover how few ever get invited on the Sunday shows and how 75% and up disagree with those like Webb who are regular co-stars.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
getting civilzed.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
"It takes two people to lie Marge"
"One person to lie and one person to listen...."
"The greatest gift our country can give to the Cambodian people is peace, not guns. And the best way to accomplish that goal is by ending
military aid now."
--Christopher Dodd. U.S. Senator.
Chris Dodd has ZERO credibility. Usually when anyone asks him anythings about Iraq and his "we need to get out NOW!" approach, he responds with, "well, it can't get much worse". And this man is a U.S. congressman. My God.
And former congressman.
And legacy (it is, after all, his old man's Senate seat).
Oh, and a dope - but we already knew that.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
"It takes two people to lie Marge"
"One person to lie and one person to listen...."
Alright, you got me on that one. But, you catch my main point.
I will listen to many sides of the Iraq debate, but former Congressman and current Senator Chris Dodd is someone that I usually just shake my head at and switch the channel on. His rhetoric really hasn't changed after all these years.
I thought the wolf blitzer interview was pretty good. Wolf was polite which is more than most people give Dr Paul. Dr Pauls points regardings McCains attack seemed spot on.
Giuliani and Huckabee both used Paul as a foil for good effect.
---
Red Mass Group
http://www.redmassgroup.com
In all fairness, many Paul supporters have switched to using actual foil.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
Huckabee's claim that he has more executive experience than Mitt Romney is laughable, if not just plain dishonest. As a McCain supporter I originally just found the guy to be funny, a good debater but I am baffled that conservative republicans are flocking to this guy - these people obviously aren't well informed on his record.
I've already said to many people that I won't vote if Guiliani is the nominee because of the compromise on social values (the guy is a dirt bag, plain and simple) but I also feel that if Huckabee is the nominee it is an equivalent sell out, he is not conservative in anything but social values and would be a disaster.
I can live with Romney, or Thompson, but a vote for Huckabee or Guliani is an absolute betrayal of conservative values and may lead this self-proclaimed political junkie to vote independent, or not vote, just to send a message to my party.
Mike Huckabee was governor of Arkansas for 13 years.
Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts for 4 years.
Mike Huckabee has more executive experience in government than any other candidate, Republican or Democrat.
Huckabee did not say he had more executive experience in government he claimed his work as governor and as a pastor - you've got to be kidding me. You can make an argument that he has been more consistent on social issues but the comparison on executive experience in my opinion is dishonest.
In addition - Mitt held multiple positions in the LDS church that are the equivalent (in religious executive experience) to a pastor - and this is non-paid work that equates to almost full-time hours.
In summary - none of the candidates compare in executive experience. Mitt Romney is seen as one of the most successful business executives in the US.
As I've had to argue more and more against Huckabee I'm actually beginning to lean more and more to Romney. Since I am also LDS I've kind of resisted supporting Romney since I thought I might be doing it just because he's LDS. I still like McCain but in the debates he keeps looking older and older.
"We're from the Government, and we're here to help".
Thanks but no thanks.
I'd rather have someone as President that actually ran a business, Mitt, or ran a legal staff that did real work, Rudy. Running Arkansas is not exactly the same as ether.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party ! Pastafarianism anyone?
are the religious right not conservative R's.
I as a conservative who is not religious find his taxes, illegal immigration stance and his general "we are the world" religious compassion and or compassionate conservatism which ever to be very unappealing.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
The good news for McCain is that it probably isn't fair to call him a flip-flopper. The bad news is that it means McCain is still a lefty on immigration.
Its clear from his rhetoric that he is a liberal at heart when it comes to immigration. "God's children?" Thanks for informing us of that Senator McCain, because afterall, most of us who disagree with him want to shoot illegals as they cross and round up an deport 12 million illegals overnight at gunpoint...Gestapo style.
And as long as Senator McCain is giving the nation a history lesson about the irrational xenophobia that motivates the unenlightened rubes who dare disagree with him, perhaps he could complete the story, and not leave out the key part about how ALL those past large waves of immigration came to an end. Yeah, they actually did end at some point. That is a critical fact of history that supporters of unending mass immigration never see fit to address. And that's fine so long as they don't use the whole "we've been here before" argument, because in fact we have not been here before. Its too bad that McCain doesn't realize that.
I am not sure where you get the idea that the influx of immigrants has ended, Aurelian. We still have massive numbers of people, from all ends of the world, arriving in our country every day. (Here is a table for the last few years: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2006/table03d.xls).
It has not ended, nor will it. We have just stopped being offended by their presence. We have become accustomed to the presence of Chinese, Indian and any number of other groups among us and think nothing of it when we see them.
Hispanic immigrants are the current exception. As Hispanic families and workers move away from urban areas and spread around the country, people who are not accustomed to them are getting their first look at the new ethnic wave. With Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs assuring us that Hispanics are living off the raw flesh of our children and waging secret, guerilla, germ warfare upon us, it is no wonder people are uncomfortable.
McCain is right. In a decade or so people will stop being offended by the presence of Hispanic immigrants and this whole debate will seem rather sad.
-Ben
I'm not sure how you get the idea that I think the current influx of mass immigration has ended, because I never said it. Obviously one would have to be living under a rock to think that.
What I actually said was that all the PAST waves of mass immigration eventually came to an end. And the point I was making is that it is wrong for people like McCain to use the whole 'we've been here before argument' to both marginalize opponents and to assure the nation that everything will turn out okay, because we have in fact not been here before. Under current law, the current wave could endure for decades more. The only think close to what we are experiencing now is the European wave of 1880-1920, but again, that wave came to an end. And of course the fact that past waves came to an end is only one differnce (though it is a huge one) between then and now that makes the position of you and McCain almost completely groundless.
The comments about Chines and Indians don't make much sense, because there are many more Hispanics in the United States than there are those two groups combined. Its much more likely that an American will have had contact with latinos rather than Chinese. The reason there is not as much concern about Chinese and Indian immigrants is because there is not nearly as many of them.
You comments on Buchanan and Dobbs are simply absurd, and mark you out as a leftist, at least as it relates to this issue, because that is how leftists think and argue. According to you, daring to object to unending mass immigration makes one guilty of demagoguery. The truth, of course, is that its your side that engages in demagoguery with attempts to stamp out rational debate with the type of ludicrous things you say.
As to the future; if you think that most Americans are going to one day be gung-ho about mass immigration, then you are mistaken. One thing McCain almost gets right is the part about past waves being greeted with similar anxiety and opposition, but again, the part he neglects to tell is that those past waves came to an end, thus easing tensions and concerns. That's what people like McCain and Bush don't get; that the critics of mass immigration in the past were not proven wrong, because they got what they wanted --- an end to mass immigration!
What will happen down the road if current trends persist is that the GOP will be demographically destroyed by mass immigration. And it will have little-nothing to do with the Tancredos and Buchanans of the party, and very much to do with the fact that most immigrants are naturally drawn to the Democratic party for other reasons. When this will happen is hard to say. I don't think you ten-year scenario will put us there, but it may be close. In ten years, immigration will have pushed California, New York, and Illinois even further out of reach. It will have pushed Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado towards purple status. Texas will be less red, and while its probably inevitable that it will become a battleground state, I don't know if it will happen w/in ten years or not. Basically, the more Hispanic a state becomes, the more Democratic it will be.
how inappropriate Van Hollen's touching was when Rove made mention to him about it....weird. He still did not stop though and it was hillarious after the game when Rove said he might come back if Van Hollen would not touch him:-)
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion