On the debate .......

Had to do my radio show so I missed the Republican debate and I am watching the replay now. BTW, listen to my show with The Prophet of Doom. It will blow you away.

My initial reaction to the debates? Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter are underrated. They are the ones to watch.

Giuliani is the top contender. He won it. Romney was too wooden.  He has to work on that. He is a great candidate but lacks spontaneity.

McCain ought to put us all out of our misery and jump the aisle. If I hear him crying about "torture" one more time I am going to go water boarding. Puleeeeeze. His brain is broken. When Brit Hume posited a hypothetical - that an impending terror attack hung in the balance and he had the  suspects in custody, would he approve  tough interrogation tactics?  McCain nearly started crying. Well, not really but you get my meaning. He emphatically railed against torture and he looked ridiculous (not to mention that he destroyed the election process with McCain Feingold AND undermined the Republican majority with the gang of 14. He usurped the will of the American people with the gang of 14.  Any shot of promoting the Republican agenda was obliterated with the gang of 14.) I hate him.

We have no time for silliness.

Where is the candidate that says, it's a war on Islamism? Discard the nonsensical "war on terror." It's a politically incorrect, unintelligent marketing term. In that case, it's a war on IEDs too, and homicide bombers yada yada yada.

I am waiting for the man who calls the enemy by its rightful name. I am waiting for the candidate that cuts through all the horseshit and talks straight to America.

Someone ought to tell Ron Paul he can play straight man to Michael Moore .......... Laurel and Hardy go libtard. The fact that Ron Paul came up first in the FOX text poll is more proof that leftards have no life.

UPDATE: According to FOX news, the final text poll results have Romney winning the debate (very unscientific.)

Comments

[Underzog]

I think that's a howler of an idea -- having Ron Paul and Michael Moore do a Laurel and Hardy reprise.

These Libertarians are good computer geeks so I can understand why Ron Paul came in so high in the debate (even though he was the worst person there).

"There's no need to fear; UnderZog is here!"

[turn]

McCain's rationale for his 'no torture' stance is that "if we do it to them our enemies will feel justified in doing it to us".

Hello...is anybody home?

This while aq in iraq have three of our best.

[Ripper]

Huckabee and Hunter - strictly second stringers. Rudy (our next President) clearly won. Romney though was impressive. There is no way a man with the last name of Huckabee is going to be elected President. Ron Paul is a Lew Rockwell anarchist.

[Kristopher]

I can't get on board with torture either.

Shoot the AQ puke on the spot ... or even threaten his home village with carpet bombing.

But torture?

Nope. I have no desire to become what I wish to fight.

[Go Spencer!]

TOM TANCREDO FOR PRESIDENT! Yes, he is truly the man to be watching. Did you hear how he answered Ron Paul and actually said that "the violence is dictated by their religion, at least part of it". The man gets it! Tancredo isn't afraid to ignore political correctness! Tancredo has a weakness, more precisely that he stumbles on words, but he still gets his message across more clear than any of the other candidates. He is non-compromising! He is a hero!

[Douglas V. Gibbs]

Hunter clearly showed the most class and ability, with Huckabee in a close second.

[Mega]

Tancredo's the only who moves me. But I could get behind Guiliani, because the alternative is the Clintons. Guiliani needs to straighten out his rap on a few issues (abortion, whatever) so as to stomp out the media "questions concerning Guiliani's ..." campaign before it becomes a meme. The media know damn well Guiliani is potentially the Clinton killer, so I expect they will be ruthless beyond anything we've seen, ever. Rudi, puhleeze nail down all your talking points so they're smooth, coherent, and convincing. "I'm morally against it, but it should be legal because someone else may think it's moral" is not convincing; it's a cheap cop-out and everyone knows it. Why prosecute murder or kiddie porn - are there not people who feel those crimes are OK? Oh wait, some things are wrong and shouldn't be allowed, period. Rudi, it is time for you to pick a position and stick to it. I don't care which position, just pick one. We need a leader to stand up to the Arab hordes and I could give a f' what that person thinks about abortion. But you are not going to get elected in this country with a Clintonesque waffle. Especially since you're trying to run as the law and order, decisive guy.

[john jay]

friends:

if you have not as of yet, please click on pamela's broadcast last night on "the prophet of doom."

i don't agree with all that was said by her guest, and, in fact, disagree with some of it quite strongly.

but, he was thought provoking to say the least, and some of what he said, including calling a spade a spade and insisting that we are involved in a religious conflict, a conflict of values and ideas, i could not agree with more.

pamela's guest thinks that islam can be defeated by ideas alone, a concept i do not share, e.g., i believe that we have to beat them with blood and sacrifice. for those of you who cannot bring yourselves to the concept, that means "war."

but, before we can do that, we have to understand what we face, and we have to formulate the ideals and beliefs that will enable us to fight back. in other words, we have to cease being self indulgent, pleasure seeking twits, and we have to return to the values of our forefathers, and sound our behaviors in devout adherence to religious and moral precepts.

that is the source of our strength. and in that, i could not believe more fervantly.

as per usual, our friend pamela was quite brilliant in showcasing the core beliefs of her guest.

please, listen to this broadcast.

john jay

[Brentwood Conservative]

Atlas: You have asked the only question that really counts..."Where is the candidate that says, it's a war on Islamism?" Every time I watch this crowd I'm left wanting for the candidate that can break through and speak the plain truth in an unambiguous way. I think that candidate might be Fred Thompson. And how about John Bolton as a running mate?

[Harcourt Fenton]

Pamela - You are being drawn into a game of the definition of "torture". The United States does NOT use or condone torture, never has, and should never do it. True torture - i.e., pulling out fingernails, burning, cutting off body parts, blinding, starvation, infecting with disease, breaking bones and other gross brutality (i.e., Sopranos like beating and kicking), and Abu Graib type offenses, etc. - doesn't work - not only is it against our moral culture, it makes people say whatever it is that they think you want them to hear. Water boarding is NOT torture; it is incredibly uncomfortable and terrible (and perhaps cruel and unusual), but not deadly or significantly injurious. When John McCain says he doesn't believe in torture, he is not wrong - and he knows torture - (how dare anyone say he doesn't - his broken body is proof) - but he is not really saying - as you assert, that forceful questioning is prohibited. The Middle Age church and the Inquisition used torture - the rack, etc., screaming pain - to make Jews confess to blood libel, etc. Is that what you are advocating Pamela? Of course not. This is about what the definition of "is" is and we shouldn't be drawn into semantic battles by letting our enemies define "torture".

I would give McCain slack on this, but, in any event, Rudy is the go-to guy. He threw Arafat out of the Met, he told a Saudi prince where to stick his $10 Million and he viscerally understands, like Bolton, what we are up against. He also is the closest one on the stage to being a libertarian - i.e., let people alone and stop trying to legislate morality - we need to focus on economic health and security concerns. We need a President who can bring together the center and the slightly left of center and the slightly right of center. We need someone who can make a point without tripping over his words and concepts. the left can say what it likes about Giuiliani, but even fathead Michael Moore can't call him a chimp, a bumbling idiot or incompetent.

[magnus andersson]

Harcourt Fenton: You are never afraid that the method of be concerned about what M.Moore and the left will say, or to conform to the left in order to not take the risk of not gain power in itself equals to lose the focus on real issues, to subjugate reason and to lose all what brings soul and inspiration into the political thinking? No, I guess you are'nt.

In Sweden it seems that the (former) right party lost its non-socialistic discourse as soon it started to take positions in order to gain votes. It may have resulted in victory in the voting, but the polls shows a huge fall in the opinion now.

And here we are many right minded ppl stuck in this (I guess) exotic country with no political alternative...

But if Rudy shape up his message so he get M MOore call him a chimp and a bumbling idiot or incompetent, then Rudy is good. Not else!

[Harcourt Fenton]

Sorry Marcus - I'm not sure I understand what your are getting at. I don't give a tin nickel what Michael Moore says about anything. To use a phrase - he's a big fat lying white man. My point about Rudy is that - as a former prosecutor and former leader of a City that is more difficult to lead than most states and countries (it has a population as large or larger than your Sweden and the ethnic mix of 140+ countries) - he commands respect, even if you don't like what he says. The Bush as Incompetent meme (even if untrue) is hard to shake when Pres. Bush seems like a deer in the headlights. Guiliani IS the headlights.

[jenni]

At first I wrote this really long "humanist" essay about why torture is wrong, and about how our country isn't worth a whole lot if we're willing to sacrifice our values to possibly save our hides.
Luckily, I realized that those kind of sentiments don't usually fly with the right-wingers.
so let me quote a line from a movie. I think it's apt, and sums up pretty nicely the "practical" reasoning against torture.

"If you f***ing beat this prick long enough, he'll tell you he started the go**amn Chicago fire, now that don't necessarily make it f***ing so!"