Tuesday, May 15th 2007
Second GOP primary debate
I actually missed it, and I missed most of the second showing, so I won’t have too much to say until I watch it online. But if any of y’all have anything interesting to say, consider the comment section an open thread.
By the way, I like Alan Colmes a lot, but he asked what has to be the single least well thought out question I’ve ever heard asked in a post-debate interview. Talking to Sen. McCain, regarding Iraq, he asked the following question (emphasis mine, slightly paraphrased):
“You know, one big argument people have is that if we leave Iraq, they’ll just follow us over here. They said that during Vietnam, too, and of course that didn’t happen. I mean, what are they going to do? What, are they going to hop on planes and fly over here?“
That was great! Even though I’m not a fan of the Senator, I hope he turned it around on Colmes and made him look like an idiot.
Comment by Andy Nevis — 5/15/2007 @ 11:21 pm
It’s no wonder the Democrats fear deabating on Fox News. The moderators don’t let you get away with anything. Chris Wallace and Wendell Goler did a great job of getting answers out of the candidates that tried to evade the questions. It would be nice to see Obama sweat each time he is called out for answering a policy question with his usual platitudes. I especially enjoyed it when they asked Gov. Gilmore to “name names” after he questioned the conservatism of Giuliani, McCain, and Huckabee without directly referring to them.
The MSNBC debate before this one had kind of a get-along and play nice attitude, but Fox tried to pit candidates against each other, which made for a much better and more enlightening debate.
I am really tired of Ron Paul wagging his finger at us, but I wouldn’t mind him as a Supreme Court Justice, where his finger wagging has more use. McCain seems to be losing steam, and he needs to think of a new joke about congressional spending. The sailor who supposedly e-mailed him should probably get royalties each time Mccain uses his joke.
I think Giuliani and Huckabee tied. Giuliani took advantage of the opportunities during the debate to higlight his tough commander-in-chief qualities, especialy with Ron Paul’s comment about 9/11. Huckabee came off as very sincere and likeable, since he seemed less of a politican, and more of normal guy who just cared deeply about his country. I was moved by his comments regarding Giuliani’s “I hate abortion, but I’m pro-choice” stance. I hope Huckabee knocks out McCain and joins the so-called “Big Three” with Romney and Giuliani, but that doesn’t seem very likely.
Comment by A Quinio — 5/16/2007 @ 10:50 am
I tried leaving comments last night, but for some reason it didn’t come through. A pro-Giuliani conspiracy, no doubt.
You’re right, Giuliani did do quite well for himself, but Huckabee totally painted him into a corner with the abortion stance. If I recall correctly, Giuliani’s response was “There’s no circumstance I can imagine anyone supporting slavery” but that “People of good conscience differ on abortion.” Someone should have pointed out that there used to be many circumstances in which people - of good conscience - supported slavery. Would he have said “I hate slavery, but I support a Southerner’s right to own slaves” in 1850?
I didn’t see any huge changes in positioning after this debate, except that Ron Paul came across as a lot less of a nice but senile granddad and a lot more of a crackpot. Also, I hate to keep bashing on Tommy Thompson, but man, he is not a good speaker. His signature line seemed to be “I’m the only candidate up here that has over 1900 vetoes” - which seems a little arbitrary and random.
Oh, also, speaking personally, I can’t help but like Tancredo. Not in the sense that I’d vote for him, but he seemed nice and sincere and incredibly nervous, which got him sympathy points in my book.
Kudos to McCain and Brownback on their tough but heartfelt answers to torture and abortion, respectively.
Oh, and I feel bad for Gilmore. In the good old days of party bosses and smoke-filled rooms, he would definitely be the consensus compromise candidate (a la Lincoln). He’s quite solid and seems like a good guy, but he has the misfortune of running in the same year as a bunch of people who totally overshadow him.
Which brings me to my final point (perhaps this should have just been a post…) about the strength of the field. It seems like half the blogosphere is drooling over the prospect of a Fred Thompson candidacy, for no other reason than that none of the current candidates is Ronald Reagan, and Fred Thompson is an actor, therefore he’s more likely to be the next Reagan.
Seriously, we have a pretty strong lineup already (think about it - as someone at NR pointed out, we have an anti-corruption war hero, the uber-successful businessman who saved the 2002 Olympics, the mayor who changed NYC from a den of crime to a beautiful and safe city, and the leading advocate for pro-life causes in the gov’t today) and we really shouldn’t be looking for another Reagan. It’s 2008, not 1980.
Comment by jfullmer — 5/16/2007 @ 11:10 am
Crackpot? Only in your delusional world, James. Everything Ron Paul said was backed up by the 9/11 Commission Report. Giuliani said he’s never heard THAT explanation for what happened on 9/11, revealing that he probably hasn’t read the 9/11 Commission Report. Pathetic.
Comment by Chancey — 5/16/2007 @ 7:05 pm
i have and read the 9/11 commission report. the reason why Bin Ladin initially hated the United States was the first Gulf War. he had no love for Saddam or Iraq, but resented the fact that the Saudi Arabian regime invited the US to have bases on Muslim soil to deal with the threat of Saddam. Bin Ladin thought the Saudis should have let him lead the charge. just thought id clear that up.
also, the 9/11 commission report did not recommand a return to 19th century isolationism. in fact they recommend (on page 367) the US government identify potential terrorist sanctuaries and that we keep the terrorists “insecure and on the run” and work with other countries that can help. doesnt sound like isolationism to me, but thats just my opinion of what the 9/11 comission meant.
dont mean to express an opinion one way or the other on Ron Paul or Giuliani or anyone, its just when i see the 9/11 commission report invoked, i felt a need to express what it actually said, for other readers to see.
Comment by anonymous2008 — 5/16/2007 @ 8:33 pm
Chancey, I never said it was Paul’s comments on 9/11 that made him a crackpot. He had a very good point, actually, and I’m fully aware of what the 9/11 commission said, and of Giuliani’s disingenuousness in claiming he’d never heard that explanation before.
My problem with Ron Paul comes with 1) the conclusion he drew from that (which the poster above alluded to) but primarily 2) with his having turned constitutionalism and libertarianism from something pragmatic to something ideological.
Comment by jfullmer — 5/16/2007 @ 11:24 pm
anonymous2008: “in fact they recommend (on page 367) the US government identify potential terrorist sanctuaries and that we keep the terrorists “insecure and on the run” and work with other countries that can help.” That doesn’t sound like military intervention either, just to make that clear. Ron Paul’s position isn’t “isolationist,” it’s non-interventionist—there’s a big difference. Non-intervention means not intervening in matters where we aren’t directly involved. Terrorist sanctuaries that are threats to us involve us. This is why Ron Paul fought so hard to keep this country focused on finding and killing Osama bin Laden.
James: I think I’ve pretty clearly corrected the anon poster above and addressed you first concern. Second- Constitutionalism and libertarianism are ideologies. Pragmatic means being unprincipled at times in terms of the principles of each ideology. If you like pragmatism in this respect, you don’t have faith in the principles of constitionalism or libertarianism. That’s fine, make up your own inconsistent ideology then. No one says you have to be a constitutionalist or libertarian.
Comment by Chancey — 5/17/2007 @ 11:24 am
See, I don’t see pragmatism and ideology as being necessarily opposed to each other. I may be ideologically for a small government, but that’s because I believe that that ideology leads to the best practical results.
Paul doesn’t come across that way; he comes across as an ideologue for the sake of being an ideologue. He doesn’t do a good job of explaining why it would be a good thing to eliminate the Dept. of Energy, but rather says we must eliminate the Dept. of Energy because it’s not in the Constitution.
If he wants to be taken seriously, he has to explain why adhering to constitutional limits on government are a good thing to hold to and not just take for granted that everyone already understands this.
Comment by jfullmer — 5/17/2007 @ 1:01 pm
What you describe for yourself isn’t ideology. Or at least, the part you say is ideology isn’t. Your ideology, in that case, would be “best practical results should be sought” (including your definition of “best”).
Strict ideological libertarianism is at severe odds with strict ideological constitutionalism, and it doesn’t make sense to say someone supports both.
Comment by Beetle — 5/17/2007 @ 1:56 pm
Not exactly, because I don’t believe in the “ideology” of “best practical results should be sought.” I don’t trust my own judgment enough to figure out how to achieve the best practical results, so I seek out an ideology that makes better decisions than me.
Other than that, I don’t see the reason for being ideological.
Comment by jfullmer — 5/17/2007 @ 2:08 pm
I don’t see how that’s any different from “best practical results should be sought.” It’s just a recognition that you aren’t the one who should do the seeking.
What motivates folks to seek and champion an ideology is often morality. So when you say “I don’t see the reason for being ideological,” people see that as “I don’t see the reason for morality.” My belief in libertarianism, for instance, comes from a belief in a fundamnetal human right, not from practical effectiveness.
From a persuasive perspective, pragmatic libertarianism is designed to fail. Saying “this system gets the best results” just invites people to say “I have a better idea!” or “my results are more important” or whatnot, and then you have no basis for argument. Most people don’t care about the economics of policies that will cost them eight more cents when they buy a hamburger. They want to be able to do what they want to do, and want other people to not do what they don’t want them to do, and without a shared ideological basis, there’s nothing you can say to convince them otherwise.
Comment by Beetle — 5/17/2007 @ 2:27 pm
Fair enough. I used to consider myself very libertarian, but especially over the past year I came to realize that adhering very strongly to a libertarian ideology meant I had to be okay with a lot of things that I wasn’t okay being okay with. I suppose this fits into your description of “seeking the best possible results.”
I do think that Paul fails to make a persuasive case to anyone who isn’t already or hasn’t at some point been libertarian, and comes across as a crackpot in general, whether or not that has anything to do with his ideologicality (???) or pragmatism.
Comment by jfullmer — 5/17/2007 @ 6:19 pm
Hey guys, haven’t commented here in a while but this is a topic I consider important. You can be sure that I would be pushing Ron Paul here on this blog if I were still a student. I have always considered him the best politician in recent times, even when I, regretfully, held somewhat neoconservative foreign policy views. My social and economic beliefs have always been libertarian, and now I understand why a non-interventionist foreign policy must be part of the package.
The current Republican Party is concerned about one thing, and one thing only: war. You can dissent about abortion, gun control, taxes, spending, and basically anything, but if you question our foreign policy, suddenly you are no longer welcome. Think about how Joe Lieberman is a hero to Republicans solely because of the war. Contrast that to how the GOP wants to ban Ron Paul from future debates, even when he’s the only one articulating classic conservative positions on many issues. Republicans don’t even talk about fiscal conservatism and small government these days.
The thunderous applause for Rudy’s ignorant comments made me sick. The right-wing media disinformation about Ron Paul makes me sick, Fox News especially. Check out this clip of Michelle Malkin, dishonestly calling Paul a 9/11 conspiracy theorist instead of discussing the legitimate policy of foreign policy “blowback.” All of these smears do, however, make me optimistic about Ron Paul’s chances. Right-wing talk show hosts, bloggers, and hacks wouldn’t spend so much time attacking Paul if they weren’t scared that he threatens their very existence.
70+% of this country disapproves of the war, and disapproves of Bush. More Republicans than you think are sick and tired of what’s going on. As evidenced by the response to Rudy, the base of the party is now an echo chamber. Republicans are going to lose 2008 by historic margins. They would have a chance with Ron Paul or Chuck Hagel, but I seriously question whether primary voters are going to see the light. Who knows though, as the body bags keep piling up in Iraq and more people start to find out about what has been going on.
In any case, we should thank Ron Paul for finally forcing the public to think deeply about the consequences of our foreign policy. Hopefully many Republicans will wake up; the rest of the country has. Ron Paul has went from zero name recognition, to being applauded on shows like The View (btw James, these women are hardly libertarian). Rudy may think that he won the debate, but Paul received a huge boost in profile that is priceless. Look for him to lead the 2nd tier of candidates or maybe even join the 1st tier in the next few polls.
Paul is doing a great job explaining his views, in my opinion, and the only thing holding him back is that he gets half the time and half the questions compared to the other candidates in the debates. But Paul also has a congressional record spanning 3 decades, multiples books, and hundreds of articles published. Out of every single candidate, there is the most information available about Paul because he isn’t afraid to hide what he believes. You know what you’re going to get, if you bother to find out. Don’t just listen to what lies Fox airs.
I’ll end with this: neoconservatism is dying and libertarianism is rising. The right, including BCR and the Patriot, has been on the wrong side for quite some time. Ron Paul is winning the hearts and minds of the younger generations, especially those that frequent the Internet. I bet he’d be very popular on the Berkeley campus. There are lots of Democrats and independents who are libertarian at heart. Maybe it would be wise to hop on board and do something positive for our country.
This election is going to be very interesting, and very important.
Comment by patr84 — 5/17/2007 @ 8:38 pm
I didn’t mind Ron Paul’s arguments of blowback and our disengagement from the messy politics of the Middle East, but what did concern me was when he said, “I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us…” He seems to support a foreign policy that cowers to acts of violence and terrorism. Perhaps he simply wasn’t articulating his point very well, because examining why we were attacked is completely different than catering to those who attacked us. Hopefully, Libertarians are themselves making the distinction between a non-interventionist America and a submissive America.
Also, his assertion that terrorists attack us because “we are over there in the Middle East” is also fuzzy. America isn’t the only country dealing with terrorism. Philippines and Indonesia, for example, both deal with elements of Islamic extremism, but neither country is meddling in the Middle East.
Comment by A Quinio — 5/18/2007 @ 11:05 am
You’re right Andrew, examining why we were attacked is completely different than catering to those who attacked us. The latter is submission. However, the former requires honest, national introspection and debate over the consequences of our past policies and the possible consequences of future actions. Up until now, both parties have failed in this area. Every Republican, aside from Ron Paul, is content with the old “they attacked us, we attack them” routine. There is no higher-level thought, just plain revenge. There is no debate, just “they hate us because of our freedoms!” Fear kept people in line.
If you’re being an asshole and someone kicks your ass, then maybe you should stop being an asshole. Not because someone kicked your ass, but because being an asshole is the wrong thing to do regardless. Are you going to keep from doing the right thing, just because you don’t want to “cower” to acts of violence? By all means, punish the guy who attacked you, he had no right… but think about why it even came to this.
Your examples are just completely off topic. The problems in the Philippines have been going on for hundreds of years. It’s an internal separatist problem, like Ireland, Quebec, or the Basque. They need to figure that stuff on their own, and we only make ourselves targets if we get involved. Indonesia faces Islamic fundamentalism in a mostly Muslim country. How is this different from Christian fundamentalist in the US? Oh, they actually got into power in one of these countries and are affecting policy. But an Islamic extremist threat in the US? I can hardly see it happening. Muslims here are too busy being Americans. I’m more afraid that some social outcast is going to go postal, though the chances of that or being killed by other forms of terrorism are close to nil.
Basically, I just want to know why we’re in so many countries. Why we’re giving aid to so many countries, even those at odds with each other and even our own country. Why we haven’t dealt with bin Laden (something that Ron Paul voted for), but we have found ourselves in a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with 9/11. Why we’re causing so many people around the world to hate our foreign policy that they would give their lives to oppose what they see as injustice. This is a debate people should be having, and if that is the only thing Ron Paul accomplishes with his campaign, he has done the country a massive favor.
Comment by patr84 — 5/18/2007 @ 1:57 pm
I agree that national introspection would be a good thing. But even if we came to the conclusion that we were assholes with past foreign policy, I have a feeling it won’t do much to stop the ass-kicking. If we were to decide that the US will never again interfere in the Middle East, I’m not that optimistc that the Islamic Fundamentalists will quickly drop their grude against us. We can stop caring about Israel for example, but Bin Laden won’t stop caring about the Palestinians. Al-Qaeda, unlike the separatist groups in the countries I mentioned, have bigger ambitions than the ETA or the Quebec liberation front.
Comment by A Quinio — 5/18/2007 @ 2:31 pm
Al-Qaeda’s larger plans involve winning a Middle Eastern civil war that will end in their control of the religion. Of course they will lose if they decide to engage themselves into a war with fellow Muslims, but it’s the best place for al-Qaeda to die. Our careless approach in the region actually helps give al-Qaeda credibility as they’re seen as the ones standing up to the bullying USA.
Comment by Chancey — 5/18/2007 @ 4:33 pm
Andrew, every Republican in the debates, except for Ron Paul, caters to fear. From Romney’s “double Guantanamo” to Giuliani using 9/11 for political reasons, they all want to fan fear from every threat imaginable.
All this to support a ham-fisted, irresponsible and often hypocritical approach. You claim, not doing that would be submissive and weak. I say that the evaporation of our rights, the suspension of habeas corpus, the growth of a large and intrusive government all show that indeed WE ARE. (….Well a large majority of Americans)
Comment by Ghost of Clark Kerr — 5/18/2007 @ 4:39 pm
Hey, let’s not forget the irony. Suppose terrorists actually do “hate us because of our freedoms.” The current administration would be doing a great job catering to the terrorists by taking away those freedoms one by one.
Comment by Chancey — 5/18/2007 @ 4:43 pm
We have to remember though that the candidates aren’t making up the fear; 9/11 actually happened and our fellow citizens were actually killed. Certainly it is inappropriate to use the tragedy for political purposes, but it would be just as egregious to pretend that it was a marginal incident.
As for the irony of our supposedly eroding freedoms, I would take the Patriot Act over Sharia law any day. I doubt Al-Qaeda is claiming victory because librarians have to assist federal agents.
Comment by A Quinio — 5/18/2007 @ 5:32 pm
9/11 has been exploited by the neoconservatives since day one. Holding the 2004 Republican National Convention in NYC is a particular egregious example. Rudy is the living embodiment of 9/11 political exploitation, as evidenced by his substance-free Ron Paul slam. Also, how about when he said there would be another terrorist strike if Democrats won? It’s all just fear. Keep us afraid and we’ll accept anything.
The Patriot Act. The Military Commissions Act. Wiretapping. Department of Homeland Security. Real ID. Attacking Iraq. Attacking Iran.
Have any of these things made us safer? The neocons have pushed all of these through, or are in the process of doing so. We lose our rights. The federal government grows stronger. Civilians die. Terrorists are born. Rudy gets a standing ovation while the rest of us suffer the consequences.
I don’t want the Patriot Act. I don’t want Sharia law. I want liberty.
Comment by patr84 — 5/18/2007 @ 6:19 pm
“but it would be just as egregious to pretend that it was a marginal incident.”
Would not getting Osama Bin Laden and then focusing all energy on a war in Iraq (basing it on a threat that was never there) be considered marginalizing 9/11?
Comment by Ghost of Clark Kerr — 5/18/2007 @ 7:44 pm
Only if you think Osama Bin Laden is the sole element of terrorism. I agree we shouldn’t forget about finding and destroying Bin Laden, but Mitt Romney was right when he said, “it’s more than Osama Bin Laden.”
It would be very shortsighted to spend billions of dollars on finding one guy, and ignore the rest of the jihadist threat. When we catch him, it will be a great day, but considering the determination of his followers, Bin Laden’s death certainly won’t be the end of islamist terrorism.
Comment by A Quinio — 5/19/2007 @ 12:05 pm
And it would be shortsighted to ignore and disregard root causes of terrorism and the consequences of our actions, in favor of grandstanding and hawkishness. You don’t really care about the “jihadist threat”, since you are perfectly fine with feeding its root causes.
Comment by Ghost of Clark Kerr — 5/19/2007 @ 10:11 pm
Again, I am fine with acknowledging the consequences of past policies, but they aren’t the one and only root cause of terrorism. Islamic extremists aren’t going to ignore everything they have blamed us for if we simply promise never to do those things again in the future. 19 men were hell bent on crashing jets into the WTC; I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t have been satisfied with the US telling the world, “we were wrong. oops.”
If we concentrated all of our resources on catching Bin Laden, wouldn’t that still be “grandstanding and hawkishness.” And according to the logic in some previous comments, wouldn’t we just create more terrorists if we killed Bin Laden?
Comment by A Quinio — 5/19/2007 @ 10:57 pm
Why is it you think some people in the Middle East hate us?
Killing or arresting Bin Laden would not crate much of an uproar, especially if we did it with clear purpose in mind…while still having the good will after 9/11 and people still believed in the sincerity of our rhetoric. Throwing all that away, creating a humanitarian disaster in Iraq and being the only nation in the world backing Israeli injustices in Lebanon last year…that pisses people off. And yes, it is too late now to prevent the mistakes of the past, but it is not too late to change course and not make further mistakes.
Comment by Ghost of Clark Kerr — 5/19/2007 @ 11:15 pm
“I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t have been satisfied with the US telling the world, “we were wrong. oops.””
You’re right. Saying oops wouldn’t do anything, but policy change sure would. Actions speak louder than words. This might help explain why our “liberation”-speak fails to convince Muslims of our supposed noble work in the Middle East, and why, instead, our actions have served to radicalize many and make people like Osama bin Laden more popular than they would be otherwise.
Comment by Chancey — 5/20/2007 @ 1:18 am
Many in the Middle East didn’t even support our campaign in Afghanistan, and a good portion still doubt arab terrorists were behind 9/11. I think we are a long way from receiving “good will” and I’m not too worried about pissing off former allies who want to pretend that muslim extremism is just some alternative lifestyle that has no effect on the rest of the world. And if we are going to talk policy change, the Muslim world needs it a lot more than the US. Televised beheadings and bombed out markets have failed to convince me to take the same self-depricating look at US policy that some of you are taking.
Regarding the Isreli-Lebanon conflict, Condi Rice was urging restraint on both sides- We didn’t support Israel enough last summer in their attempt to obliterate Hezbollah.
Comment by A Quinio — 5/20/2007 @ 11:05 pm
Yes, we only supported it enough for it to obliterate Lebanese civilian infrastructure.
People with this kind of attitude that seems to reflect an irrational paranoia should “be out in the street, shouting and hollering with a cardboard sign and selling pencils from a cup.”
Comment by Ghost of Clark Kerr — 5/21/2007 @ 4:14 pm
We should seriously just obliterate all of the middle east. Remember 9/11!
Comment by Martin Laney — 5/21/2007 @ 4:17 pm
Also, what makes you and us so high and mighty in your with of US vs Middle East.
Don’t we have jails that are overcrowded with people who have committed minor crimes? We still use the death penalty. Our government and executive thinks its OK for him to overstep his constitutional power and spy on the people. We have elections, but on important matters government policy is largely controlled by a very small, tight group of unelected people, who also have significant power over influencing the rest of society. I could be talking about Saudi Arabia or Iran or Egypt, could I not?
Comment by Ghost of Clark Kerr — 5/21/2007 @ 4:21 pm
You know, the Bible says not to point out a speck in someone else’s eye when you have a log in your own.
Comment by Jerry Falwell — 5/21/2007 @ 4:23 pm
Yes, a President who had to be subjected to a re-election, lose a supportive congress in another, forced to fire one of his top political advisers out of popular political pressure, defer to unelected judges regarding wartime decisions, in a country whose capital punishment system includes a long, fair trial process, an appeals process, and death by lethal injection. Sounds exactly like Saudi Arabia or Iran or Egypt to me.
America has it’s flaws, but it is absurd to compare it to a country like Saudi Arabi or Iran. My parents immigrated to the United States because of the ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Middle East certainly didn’t offer them the same incentives. So if you want to know why I think the US is so “high and mighty” you just have to remember the ideals that the US stands for, and the ideals that many silenced reformers in the middle east are striving toward.
Comment by A Quinio — 5/21/2007 @ 6:12 pm
Yes, and I’m sure they were not looking to live in country where the president can declare martial law without restraint *cough Marcos* and yet within the last year this has become the case.
(And by “political pressure” do you really mean “disastrous record of accomplishment?)
Comment by Ghost of Clark Kerr — 5/21/2007 @ 7:51 pm
Get real. Bush is no Marcos and you know that. Laura Bush is definitely not an Imelda.
Comment by A Quinio — 5/21/2007 @ 10:13 pm
But of course! *America is such a country that it will defy all historical presidents and its regime will remain unchanged forever without being vigilant. It’s leaders are so pure and virtuous that even when entrusted with ever increasing powers they will use them wisely and prudently. Unlike in all other countries our leaders can be trusted to look out for our own best interest and will never violate that trust if left unchecked.*
Get real? What delusional fantasy world are you living in?
(As a side note, isn’t it the position of the right to increase the use of the death penalty or limit the appeal process or extend the crimes capital punishment can be applied to? Just because we are not as brutal as they can be in administration of punishment now, cannot seriously be your defense of the legal system.)
Comment by Ghost of Clark Kerr — 5/22/2007 @ 1:17 pm
I didn’t say we shouldn’t be vigilant toward our government, but you did compare Bush to Marcos. That is incredibly out of touch with reality and insulting to every person who suffered under Marcos’ dictatorship.
Comment by A Quinio — 5/22/2007 @ 2:48 pm
That’s an extraordinary statement, as someone whose parents came to this country, that they came because they didn’t understand how much Bush is like Marcos.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for why my parents are idiots.
Comment by Giuliani — 5/22/2007 @ 4:22 pm
Is it really? Any person who suffered under the Marcos regime probably wished that he (an constitutionally elected leader) did not have the unchecked power to declare martial law. In analyzing our situation and Military Commissions Act of 2006, what would they say?
Comment by Ghost of Clark Kerr — 5/22/2007 @ 4:28 pm
They still probably wouldn’t compare Bush to Marcos and then point out Hamdi v. Rumsfield.
Comment by A Quinio — 5/22/2007 @ 6:05 pm
*Rumsfeld
Comment by A Quinio — 5/22/2007 @ 6:06 pm
I don’t really get the diehard love you Berkeley Republicans have for President Bush. The guy has eroded personal freedoms and increased the size of the government, all in the name of “security” — an issue for which Bush has no credibility. Consider his weak border control and proposal for amnesty (padoning of a federal crime), to his widely ignorant position that terrorists attack us because they hate our freedoms (a statement contradicted by our CIA officials and the 9/11 Commission Report). The guy is dangerous for our safety and, in reality, a fan of big centralized government.
You Berkeley Republicans are the personification of unprincipled drones. My only hope is that Bush somehow convinces you to enlist and fight in Iraq. If we’re going to sacrifice anyone, it should be people without brains.
Comment by B Quinio — 5/23/2007 @ 10:40 am
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55824
Still in denial, Andrew?
Comment by Ghost of Clark Kerr — 5/25/2007 @ 11:52 pm
I’m not sure what you think signing a statement that says “I can seize dictatorial power at any time” means. If he has the power to do that, he’d have that power whether or not he signed such a statement. If he doesn’t, signing such a statement isn’t going to accomplish much.
Comment by Beetle — 5/26/2007 @ 12:11 am
WTF are you talking about Beetle? Trying to be one a smart ass again? That’s the fucking problem with you. You’re always stuck in that mode.
The presidential directive (not a ’statement’) actually outlines a course of action and is very important from a bureaucratic standpoint.
But who cares what the effects are, as long as the “liberals” are angry.
Comment by Ghost of Clark Kerr — 5/26/2007 @ 9:44 pm