“The idea of Bill Clinton back in the White House with nothing to do is something I can’t imagine.” Romney GOP debate

ABC has thus far had the best debates. MSNBC's debate was the boorish usual debate it always has, and the old questions were asked and rehashed a zillion times. In other words, it was a snooze fest. Guliani reiterated for the thousandth time about giving the Saudis back their check, McCain kept going over his same mantra about how the GOP is with him (Not!), and Romney looking presidential, went over his tax record again. Huckabee, well, he is becoming a non-entity in this race to the White House, but he continued trying to convince us that fees are not taxes. Maybe Schwarzenegger might agree with him. How about some new material?

It is widely known the media by and large has a liberal bias except for a few unconventional outlets such as Fox. So why do the GOP candidates continue to debate at these formats? - Because they don't want to appear as cowards. In an instant, the blogosphere can now keep the media accountable. In one GOP debate MSNBC planted questions from so-called independents. Within the hour, the blogosphere was abuzz. It had vetted the plants, and discovered by using mere Google searches that the questions were posed by liberal activists.

During Thursday's debate, it was evident from the style of the questioning that MSNBC was going to continue to throw out soft ball and "gotcha" questions that had nothing to do whether or not the candidate was capable of being commander in chief. The following "gotcha" question posed by Brian Williams is an example.

Williams: Governor, we've got an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll coming out in the morning that says, among a lot of other things, 44 percent of respondents say a Mormon president would have a difficult time uniting the country. And I know you've answered similar questions about what you were able to do with the Catholic vote in Massachusetts, but 44 percent nationally, is a large number.

In the same poll, it said an evangelical preacher would have a 46%, (a higher percentage than Mormons) difficulty in uniting the country, but Bryan neglected to ask Mike Huckabee the same question. It is obvious to anyone by now that Mike has no chance of coming close to the nomination. This question was made to make Romney look like an idiot: Romney answered it fine, "I don't think for a minute that people will say they won't vote for a secular position based on a candidate's church."

And of course there was the mention of how Guliani thought of McCain's endorsement by the NY times. For conservatives, that would be a reason not to vote for McCain. The left doesn't understand this.

There have been some 11 or 12 debates thus far, and there is still a lot that has not been said. Who knows about the new energy bill that Bush (rapidly becoming one of those progressives except for the war) signed after being approved surreptitiously by both the house and the senate, a bill that is going to kill a lot of jobs. What do the candidates think about it? Does McCain regret the McCain-Feingold bill? What about McCain putting Dr Juan Hernandez, a former employee of President Fox and an open-border immigration proponent as McCain's Hispanic outreach director? What about drilling for oil? McCain is against the drilling in Alaska, a pinprick of a cold and bitter wasteland in the middle of nowhere. I didn't hear anything about nuclear energy. I didn't hear anything about immigration. I didn't hear anything about how Bush saved the economy from going into a recession after 9/11, and how well the economy has been doing since then. The candidates acted as if we were already in a recession. The candidates should have been more upbeat on the economy. And, the war on terror was barely even mentioned.

We need debates in the style of the French when Nicolas Sarkozy debated Segolene Royale. In that debate the candidates sat at a round table, and they discussed what they would do in depth to solve France's problem. It wasn't about the ten second sound bite.

There were some interesting observations however.

Russert asked McCain about his assertion that he didn't know much about the economy. McCain then lied and said he never said that, and that he was very well versed in economics and he didn't know where Russert had gotten that quote. I guess Alzheimer's must be setting in with 72 year old McCain since it was just a few weeks ago he had stated he didn't know much about the economy but he was reading Greenspan's books. www.factcheck.org came up with several other instances of his dubious knowledge on the economy. What was most puzzling is Russert stopped there and didn't press him on it. The reason of course is the Media's desire to pump up John McCain and deride Romney.

McCain continued his rant on global warming. His argument goes something like this. If global warming is not true we will still have a cleaner planet no down side, but if global warming is true, we will have saved the planet. That sounds nice, but it's hogwash. I like the fact he is for nuclear energy even if it is because of global warming. However, he wants to institute a cap and trade system. Europe's cap and trade system has been an abysmal failure. He talked about a catastrophe fund for Florida and related it to global warming, "We are seeing more and more violent weather patterns," McCain said. McCain believes we need a global agreement. Do we really want other governments telling us what to do? I am sure Europe will do what is in the best interest of the United States. McCain also said he was working with Lieberman on a cap and trade system. McCain is always working with some Democrat on something, and he knows Lieberman is the most palatable of the Democrats to the GOP. I respect Lieberman a lot and his stance on the war, but he is social on everything else. This is only the tip of the iceberg of the global warming myth McCain has embraced, and he will institute policies on global warming that are anathema to the conservative base.

Rush Limbaugh has stated that if McCain were to be elected president, he would tear the Republican Party asunder. That is for you to decide. If McCain is nominated, I will support him because he is 100 times better than Hillary, and he does have some good attributes like his character and his stance on the war on terror. I do believe though once we get to winner take all states where independents can't cross over, McCain will lose front runner status. McCain has lost his conservative base. To date Romney still has the most delegates, but the polls have Romney and McCain running neck and neck in Florida with Guliani a distant third. Time will tell.

The other candidates support global warming if you can believe it, but they won't destroy the economy with global warming policies as McCain will do.

As much as I dislike Ron Paul on foreign policy, I like what he says about congress' willingness to overspend and deflate the dollar. In his remarks, he mentioned we are spending ourselves into oblivion, and he believes in lower taxes and deregulating the economy. He mentioned in particular the Sarbanes-Oaxley act. For all of you neophytes in accounting who don't know what the Sarbanes Oaxley act is – it was congresses overreaction to the Enron and World-Com debacle post dot-com. There were some good provisions like making the CEOs sign off on the company's financials making them more accountable, but it could have been called the full-employment act for accountants. The cost for public companies to do audits has been significantly increased. I doubt this act will have any impact on CEOs or interested parties that are determined to embezzle funds from their companies. Its only effect will be to increase the cost of doing business, and that cost will be passed on to the consumer.

Huckabee loves the idea of his fair tax and abolishing the IRS. Does anyone thing we will ever get rid of the IRS? Who is going to administer the flat tax? It will have to be some bureaucracy. The idea that the fair tax is a panacea for the ills of our tax system is foolish. Those who are already retired or who are living on their savings will be taxed twice since their earnings have been taxed once, and they will be taxed again with a consumption tax. In addition, the housing market will be thrown in disarray since the mortgage deduction will go away. You think the markets are in a downturn right now, wait until you see Huckabee try to pass a flat tax. Of course, then there is congress. Reagan tried to overhaul the tax system, and because of the myriad of special interest groups, he made a tax system that was difficult to understand to a tax system that was impossible to understand. A flat tax will only pass in Huckabee's delusional mind.

I shudder to think what this country will look like in four years if Obama or Hillary becomes president. I hope Republicans can get their act together and realize what is at stake this election.
 

Edward Morissey at Captain's Quarters makes a commpelling case for Mitt Romney. Click on Captain's Quarters.

The CNN Republican Debate or How to plant questions.

It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.-- Mark Twain

And so it goes with CNN in last night’s debate.

Conservatives have always said there is a liberal bias in the drive by media, but liberals counter and say, “There is no such bias.” well last night, as Al Gore would say, “The debate is over.”

In the last Democrat debate by CNN, every one of the undecided voters were plants as shown in this video. I guess none were really undecided.



Okay, so that was a Democrat debate. Now we have a GOP Youtube debate, and you think CNN would have learned from the first debate. Within seconds of this video, and with a simple google search, Kevin Aylward of www.wizbangblog.com discovers a Democrat plant.



From the style of the question, it was obvious he was a plant, obvious to anyone but CNN. Retired gay general Brigadier Keith Kerr is affiliated with the Hillary campaign, and he is also on Kerry’s steering committee for gays, lesbians and transsexuals.

His question was concerning the “Don’t ask don’t tell” policy of the military. Do they forget? That was a policy instituted by the liberal's beloved saint Bill Clinton.

Bill Bennett mentioned the plant on CNN. CNN said the General had lied to them. CNN said the general said he was a Republican. So, if that is true, then CNN is incompetent for not doing the proper vetting. The pajama media sitting at home using just simple google searches finds the general pop up numerous times. On the rebroadcast, CNN skipped his question.

But does it stop there no – with more investigation (and not much at that,) more plants are discovered.

As the night drags on, bloggers continue to find plants.

The Free Republic finds these plants

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1932078/posts

Michelle Malkin www.michellemalkin.com notes about the weeding out of Keith Kerr on the rebroadcast. “Keep pulling those weeds.” Of course, if they pulled all the weeds, we would have 15 minutes of commercials and no debate. Would that be a bad thing?

And then there was the guy who asked a question at both youtube debates. What are the odds of that? This is at National Review On Line.

The upside to this debate was it exposed the liberal bias in the drive by media. And as Al Gore succinctly points out, “The debate is over.”

Now on to some of the more salient points of the debate.

Why in every GOP CNN debate, does there have to be some seemingly crazed lunatic toting an AK-47 or cocking a rifle and asking a question about gun control?

On waterboarding – Mitt Romney did not make his point very well. He went along the White House line of not disclosing what we consider torture (with which I agree). “This is not 24” scowled McCain while refusing to look Romney in the face. It was more the facial expression Romney gave McCain. His facial expression (ie: his body language) basically said, “I am talking with a guy that was tortured so he knows more about this.” The one incontrovertible fact was that Romney was uncomfortable talking about torture to a man who was tortured. Romney’s facial expression made him lose that round.


We all know that McCain is a hero for enduring what he did during the Vietnam years, but you don’t have to be tortured to believe that if waterboarding is going to save lives, then it is justified. (We dropped two atom bombs on Japan to save American lives.) He also keeps referring to the fact it’s a violation of the Geneva Convention. Well first, the Geneva convention applies to a uniformed military, not terrorists or insurgents in civilian clothes.

Mccain is right on the war on terror, but wrong on so many other issues.


On Illegal immigration and Sanctuary cities – Guliani tried to use a phrase to elicit a chuckle from the audience. It didn’t work. When Romney accused Guliani of using New York as a sanctuary city, (which Guliani denied), he said that Romney lived in a sanctuary mansion, because he had illegals working for him. These workers were contracted out, and the contractor is responsible for determining who is or who isn’t illegal, not Romney.

This exchange between Romney and Guliani was somewhat petty.

It is troubling that Guliani did operate New York as a sanctuary city, and he calls for a virtual fence instead of a real fence on the border between the United States and Mexico. I heard one talk show host comment, "maybe they should take down the fence in front of the white house and put up a virtual fence." He is in favor of a national ID card for non-citizens. That is good, but I hope he will not be another Bush when it comes to immigration. The problem is I still believe he is the only one who has a chance against Hillary.

Why doesn't Guliani just come out and say, "Although I was not as hard as I was on immigration in New York, my views changed after 9/11, and I now believe that our security is paramount." That would end the discussion. People's views change especially after some dramatic event such as 9/11. Of course, it's too late for that strategy. Changes in views, however, can't be suspect as Romney's flip-flop on abortion seems to be because of political expediency.

Would Jesus support the death penalty? What a stupid question! Another obvious plant. Read Romans written by the apostle Paul. From Romans, one could deduce the death penalty is left up to the state.

Do you believe this book? Another plant lifts up the Bible, the obvious assertion being "do the candidates believe the literal interpretation of the bible?" One of the reasons for Europe’s decline is because Europe has become devoid of faith. They live for their 35 hour work week and their social benefits. Unless there is a principle for which one is willing to die, (not a work week), a nation will not survive. Islam is taking over Europe because Muslims believe it is a religious duty to convert or conquer the Infidel. Europe is on a downward spiral. In Europe, churches are empty, and relativism has replaced Christianity. I hope we are not headed in the same direction.

Farm Subsidies – Both Guliani and Romney were for subsidies because they said other countries subsidize agricultural products. Of course,subsidies destroy the foundation of a free market. Alan Greenspan talks about a bill in May of 2001 regarding a 200 billion dollar handout on cotton and grain that reversed hard-fought earlier initiatives to scale back agricultural subsidies, and heaped new subsidies on everything from sugar to chickpeas. It passed. The remedy of course would have been a presidential veto. Farm subsidies today are in large part to enhance the ethanol fraud to make ethanol seem cheaper than it really is.

Black on black crime – Why is their black on black crime? Why do blacks kill blacks? Isn’t it obvious? 60% of Blacks are born out of wedlock, and the father’s leave. Stop that and you stop black on black crime. Of course, this was another obvious plant.

Here is my recommendation for the next Republican debate. The candidates should boycott CNN and have their debates on Fox News. They should use conservative moderators such as Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, Brit Hume or other well known conservative bloggers or commentators.

CNN spun this debate to make Republicans look bad. They do not understand conservatism nor do they understand what is good for this country. CNN plants known activists they call "undecided voters" and spins the debate towards issues that are not important to Republicans. Much of the debate was on silly questions about who to charge with a crime on abortion, gays in the military, etc. If there were an issue important to Republicans, it was worded in a way that gave it a liberal spin. There was no question on the war on terror except for torture and with a liberal spin. Other inane questions included: Do you believe in this book (referring to the bible)? while some obvious planted atheist flails a bible in the air or what would Jesus do (with reference to the death penalty)? by another obvious plant.

Liberals can't even figure out why someone would be pro-life and still be for the death penalty. When you can't comprehend even that, how can liberals presume to ask the more complicated questions that concern Republicans.

Questions should be asked by serious Republicans who understand the essence of what they are asking. We do not need any more inane debates like the Democrats seem to enjoy.

Why can Republicans debate on a CNN forum or on a Fox Forum, but the Democrats refuse to debate on Fox? It should be obvious.

Questions need to be hard hitting and not softball. Questions such as the diamond/Pearl question posed to Hillary Clinton in the last debate (which by the way was not the question the individual wanted to ask) are just a reflection of the idiocy driven by nescience of the average voter.

And on one final note. I learned what a log cabin Republican was last night. I had never heard that before. The log cabin Republican questioner was posed by a Barack Obama supporter.