The Repub candidates

[burninbush]

Last eve was the first MSNBC Repub debate -- 10 of them showed up.

They didn't disagree about much, except for Ron Paul, who disagreed with everything.

One thing I noticed, none of them bragged about anything dubya has done. A few went so far as to diss the way the war has been conducted, but 9 of them had no regrets about going into Iraq, and 9 again would be happy to invade Iran.

There was a funny moment -- moderator asked McCain if he believed in evolution, and he actually had to stop and think about it for a minute before answering yes -- you could practically see him calculating how many red-staters he'd lose with that answer. Then the moderator asked if any there did NOT believe in evolution and 3 raised their hands! Huckabee, Tancredo, and Romney. So much for science, these guys don't want it.

Thompson didn't know how many Americans have been killed and wounded in Iraq.

And only a couple would agree to use an embryo that was on it's way to being flushed for stem cell research. Think Guiliani and Paul were the only ones who approved of Roe v. Wade.

They're wasting their time, IMO -- it's going to a Democrat in 2008.

[BlueOvals]

I did not watch it, but heard a bit on the radio, most questions, like you mentioned re: "evolution" were really dumbass ones, especially from Chris Matthews. He had another looney one when he asked about who would favor a Constit. Amend. to let the likes Arnnie run for prez.!!!! Looked like an attempt to "marginalize" the whole group, by some of the crypto-libs like Matthews. That, sadly, was the closest to a real question on Immigration, unless I missed it. I heard on a morning talk show today that the hosts thought the Repubs, on balance, were more "serious" and "adult" in demeanor compared to the Dems in their debate. Dunno what that means, but seems to ring true just by observing the Congress of late. But these "dirty dozen" displays don't mean much, especially in the weird stretched out political season this time. After the weeding out, on both sides, we'll see some real debates, one on one; those will be the ones an Independent (about 9% of the voters) can watch and help to decide who he is going to elect as the next president ;)

[351driver]

Originally posted by burninbush:
They're wasting their time, IMO -- it's going to a Democrat in 2008. I agree that probably the only way the Dems can lose is if they pick the most far-left candidate they can find....which they will probably do!

[BlueOvals]

Like a moth to a flame, I predict, they, Dems, will pick another unelectable, like Hillree, with her 48% negatives (that's poll number for who would, no matter what, never vote for her, includes me, duh!). And the Repubs haven't even begun to dig up dirt on her yet!

[351driver]

Blue - I was listening to Sean Hannity's radio program one day this week and they played of clip of a Bill Clinton speech while he was still in office. I believe he said something like" mark my words....Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, and he will use them".

It amazes me that the Dems love to say that George Bush lied about WMDs, but they forget Bill's words. It also amazes me that they claim that George Bush is stupid, but at the same time he fooled them and millions of other people. If GW is so stupid, what does it say for them? ;)

[burninbush]

It amazes me that the Dems love to say that George Bush lied about WMDs, but they forget Bill's words. >denny

++++++++++++

Think this is often based on the stretching or just lying about the intel that they were actually getting from the CIA. Check all those 'mushroom cloud' statements -- no basis for that in our intel. Various admin figures [dubya, Cheney, Rice] tried hard to make us believe that Saddam had a nuclear program going, pre-invasion.

Don't think you'd find anything about mushroom clouds [nuke weapons] coming from Clinton. Not all WMD are the same.

Amazingly, Tenet was awarded the Freedom Medal for his mistakes -- go figure that.

[BlueOvals]

Biological weapons may be worse than a nuke, in overall effectiveness (rememeber the Black Plague of the 1350's!!), at least the kind of nuke (several kilotons) a terrorist may be able to deliver, although, a big one (1 megaton plus) could fit in a container at a port, concievably. So even if Bill was only talking about chem and bio, instead of nukes, it is still not to be poo pooed. Either way, no sane president face with the possiblity would ignore it, flawed intel or not; besides even the KGB said they had them (WMD's), and, remember, they were "cozy" with Iraq for decades before 9/11. Were did Iraq get its tanks, airplanes, rifles, scuds, etc. etc. from??

[burninbush]

Biological weapons may be worse than a nuke, in overall effectiveness (rememeber the Black Plague of the 1350's!!), at least the kind of nuke (several kilotons) a terrorist may be able to deliver, although, a big one (1 megaton plus) could fit in a container at a port, concievably. >blue

++++++++++++

Ah, I don't disagree with that above, I was responding to what we libs think re how dubya and other admin figures lied to get us into Iraq. Not everything, but the big scare item was a nuke and that's what they lied about. No intel from the CIA supported that notion, they said the opposite in fact.

[BlueOvals]

I saw Tenet on "meet the press" this am, and did quite a dance around the questions on intel, particularly with regard to "complicenecy" ( I can't spell worth sour apples w/o speel chek!!) of Iraq in 9/11 attack. Tenet said to Russert, "I sent this memo, we did this analysis, Powell and I were up for 3 days, I talked to the president, I did not read this speech, but I did that one, I was out of the country, Pearle said this, I said that, etc, etc". True, lot's of mistakes were made, and he, I give him credit, owned up to some of them himself.

[burninbush]

I saw Tenet on "meet the press" this am, and did quite a dance around the questions on intel, particularly with regard to "complicenecy" ( I can't spell worth sour apples w/o speel chek!!) of Iraq in 9/11 attack. >blue

+++++++++++++

If there's a hell, Tenet and Powell will both be in it. Either of those two men could have stopped the war cold by resigning before the invasion -- but they swallowed their doubts and played along like good little soldiers, and now we're approaching 3400 dead in Iraq -- and still have found nothing that threatened America.

Nothing Powell said on that afternoon of testimony at the UN has proven true; Tenet was sitting right behind him the whole time. So ... Tenet trying to blame it on Cheney is BS -- he could have shut Cheney down by resigning.

[BlueOvals]

BB, I don't blame either Tenet or Powell, things are confusing at the time, clear in retrospect, not fair for us judge, especially for a liberal, and appeaser, those who's ilk almost got us all killed this century, as in our confrontation with fascistic regimes in WWII. Neville Chamberlain made the hugest misjudgemetnt of the entire f'ing centry, but it still turned out ok, after millions, not a few thousand were dead, such are the vargaries of History.

[BlueOvals]

Bloomberg, mayor of NYC. Don't know anything about him, except he has big bucks (1 billion in war chest if he runs), and wants to run as an Independent. I need to know more; he may be what I'm looking for, but there is a danger. I've always wanted a third choice, but they have to be a viable choice, i.e. they have a chance to actually win, rather than throw an election off in an indesireable direction the way Perrot did to Bush and Nader did to Gore. Depends on you party affiliation, that word "undesireable". Will need to research the history of elections with 3 running, and pluralities, and other fun subjects.

[BlueOvals]

In second Repub debate, more reasonable questions by Fox news team esp. Hume, compared to ones that dumbass Matthews from MSNBC asked last time. However, still too many "will never make its" on the stage, time for them to drop out so we can see the main two or three compete. I like Rudy so far, and Romney contiues to really impress me; he is the only conservative up there, with a chance that is. A ticket of Rudy and Mitt would be a good one, even with the heavy NE US weighting. Tencredo still is the most on the money re: immigration reform, but has no chance, unfortunately, because border control is key to fighting the world wide Jihadist movement (the correct way to characterize the battle we are in as opposed to a "war on terror") as Romney has stated. "Jihadist" makes the correct religious and countries of origin connections. McCain has pretty much disqualifed himself on the "concern about world opinion" answers over American security in an imminent terroist attack where we need information, and may need to torture it out of the Jihadists. Rudy said he'd use "whatever means are availble"; the right answer. He keeps it up, he'll be formidable against ANY Dem candidate, IMHO.