Shorter GOP Debate
Tim Pawlenty: Why can't we have a strong, heavily government regulated / socialist / Communist / bubble-based economy like China or Brazil?
Michelle Bachman: I have secret, breaking news: I'm running for president.
Newt Gingrich: We need to return to the good times of banks lending indiscriminately and Enron lying through its teeth. Things were great back then.
We're not a developed country because of NASA.
Mitt Romney: I hate myself for implementing a successful policy. If Obama asked, I'd tell him not to do what Mitt Romney did. The following words polled well so I'll just throw them out: States. Power grab. Repeal.
Ron Paul: This country has been declining since 1933.
Herman Cain: I have 0 qualifications for this office.
Rick Santorum: ...
***
I'm done listening. If you want to indulge yourself feel free to add your own summary of the debate in the comments.
Michelle Bachman: I have secret, breaking news: I'm running for president.
Newt Gingrich: We need to return to the good times of banks lending indiscriminately and Enron lying through its teeth. Things were great back then.
We're not a developed country because of NASA.
Mitt Romney: I hate myself for implementing a successful policy. If Obama asked, I'd tell him not to do what Mitt Romney did. The following words polled well so I'll just throw them out: States. Power grab. Repeal.
Ron Paul: This country has been declining since 1933.
Herman Cain: I have 0 qualifications for this office.
Rick Santorum: ...
***
I'm done listening. If you want to indulge yourself feel free to add your own summary of the debate in the comments.
Labels: Rabid Conservatives
posted by Armen Adzhemyan at 5:30 PM
26 Comments:
Proud Ron Paul supporter checking in. The only politician who actually offers solutions to our problems. No surprise he has absolutely no chance.
Ron Paul at least comes off as honest. With that said, Romney is so obviously going to sweep this thing. Disappointing though not surprising to see so much bigotry w/r/t teh gays. This ship indeed be sinking.
I find it completely insane that Republicans not only take criticism for supporting gay marriage (well ok, like none do, but they would if they did), but also for supporting CIVIL UNIONS. I mean, for god's sake, Republican base, now you're just being a dick. Who has a problem with civil unions? Don't those poll at like 80% approval? The Republican party has truly lost touch.
My general impression was that on gay rights issues, the candidates just did not want to talk about it. Their answers re DADT were pretty equivocal: "I'll listen to my generals" "We should have waited until the end of combat" "we should punish conduct, not groups" etc. I don't think any of them came out and said, "No I don't think gays and lesbians should serve their country." That's a pretty remarkable change from elections past.
On the other hand, this cycle's boogey-man is pretty clearly Islam. Cain sounded like a total bigot: "Umm when asked if I'd appoint a Muslim, I thought of terrorists and said no. What? Honest mistake right guys? Right?"
Hahaha, wait until combat ends. Good one!
I disagree w/r/t the gay rights issue Armen. I see very little progress, and certainly none that is remarkable. Nearly all of the candidates, including the frontrunner, said they would push to amend the Constitution to define marriage as b/w a man and woman. Not only is this bigoted but it shows true ignorance of constitutional law and history. Also, with regard to DADT, the President already did listen to his generals, and used the results of the largest U.S. Military survey ever taken, and a clear majority of servicemen/women and their leaders had little or no opposition to serving with openly gay soldiers. Equivocating indeed, but sounding ignorant in the process. I do agree that Islam is the clear boogeyman this cycle, but its not like there is a real tone of equality w/r/t teh gays.
- 8:45p
8:45, I don't think we disagree. I'm just viewing this from the perspective of past election cycles. Bush won two terms on a platform of constitutional amendment. Now, the platform is much more disjointed. I think Ron Paul's call to get government out of marriage got the biggest applause. Far, very far, from ideal. But gay rights just doesn't appear to be the galvanizing issue for the far right that it once was. That's progress to the extent it reflects a shift in public attitudes.
Armen, you do know that Republicans in states across the country are using gay marriage ballot amendments wherever possible as a 2012 turnout tool, right?
Matt, I'm not sure what your point is. I'm not suggesting that the right has completely given up their fight against gays and lesbians. But not too long, the issue was a clear winner for GOP presidential candidates to turn out the vote. Now, it's not. Is there anything remotely contestable about that?
I guess my point is that you can't conclusively say it's no longer a successful turnout issue for Republicans - or the far right, for that matter - if it turns out to be a successful turnout issue in 2012.
If anything, it might be that the far right is getting, well, farther (and therefore, smaller).
Matt - is gay marriage really being used as a turnout tool in 2012? So many states used such tactics in 2000, 2004 and 2008 that I sort of assumed there weren't any states left. I was under the impression the new gay marriage turnout tool is propositions banning sharia law (honestly the biggest threat to american culture today).
With the eclipse of Christian Conservatism by a more Tea Party-style focus on economic issues, I would have expected something like "socialism" to the main 2012 bogeyman.
But as Armen and Toney mentioned, the Islam comments were what really jumped out in this debate. Nearly every candidate's response was shocking and terrifying, not to mention offensively uninformed.
For example, Rick Santorum said: "I am not anti-Islam, first. What I’m doing is just recognizing the reality, and the reality is that the version of Islam that is practiced in the Middle East, that is growing and spreading, [is not] one that we are going to be able to deal with very easily. It's one that requires... reformation. It requires some sort of retrospection within the Islamic world…”
Among the many, many problems with this statement is (1) there are many versions of Islam "practiced in the Middle East," (2) any version that Santorum could intelligibly dislike is more analogous to the Protestant Reformation and puritan impulse than pre-Reformation Catholicism, (3) the conventional wisdom is that recent political developments show that the views Santorum presumably doesn't like are not "growing and spreading" as rapidly as religious-social views he presumably doeslike, and (4) Santorum presents not being against *all* Muslims as some kind of reasonable compromise position, instead of defending his shocking assertion of a right to disagree with religious choices made by *any* individual in a sovereign nation far beyond his jurisdiction.
I thought Tea Party types like Santorum were supposed to fetishistically revere the Constitution and the founding principles contained therein. Freedom of Religion?
I was repeatedly grateful that Ron Paul was there to be the voice of reason. Then I thought about that, and was even more horrified.
I absolutely assert the right to disagree with the religious choices made by other individuals in other countries. Especially when those choices have a profound impact on the way those individuals treat other members of their societies.
This applies equally to radical islam, aggressive zionism, the hindutva movement in india, and many radical christian sects here.
The constitution prevents government from actively interfering with religion, but it does not require me or anyone else to condone or approve of any particular religious choice.
That being said, I simply don't believe that Santorum really distinguishes between different sects of islam.
11:13, you are right. I agree that both you and Santorum have the right to disagree with whoever you want, on whatever basis you want, and irrespective of what country they live in.
What I should have said is that I personally disagree with Presidential candidates who think it is my country's national interest to use their public pulpit to call for sweeping changes to the religious beliefs of people in foreign countries, particularly when the Presidential candidate in question is abnormally ignorant about the nature of those beliefs.
That's more than fair.
--11:13
Tyler - I've never really considered Santorum to be a "tea party type". He's more an old school Catholic social conservative. He's barely focused at all on economic issues - the majority of his talking points have been straight line social issues, like criminalizing doctors who perform abortions, etc.
I mean, he keeps his stillborn baby in a jar as a reminder of how precious life is. WTF. That counts as automatic disqualification from the highest office IMO.
Also, he's not a serious contender as long as these are his top two Google results
Hmmmm
I'm pretty excited to see Huntsman jump in the ring. If there really are moderates in the GOP, he should take the nomination.
Toney, Minnesota will have it on the ballot. Iowa wants to, too. And I've heard rumblings that a few other states probably will. So yep, it'll be back.
I think the states that already have laws defining marriage as a man and a woman could go one step further and again use gay marriage as a turnout tool. All it would take is redefining marriage as "a super-straight man and not-gay-at-all woman".
We all selfishly need obama to win and he's already down 5 points. Republican president means ryan bill passes ibr is canceled and our assets are seized as collateral for defaulted student loans...
obama better win
what assets. lol.
I need a job fast. And yes, Mr. previous commenters, make that barrista at starbucks, McDonalds, etc...
I need a job and thereby income.
I'm also looking at applying for barista jobs how do you plan on explaining your jd to interviewers
"Had to drink a lot of coffee during law school, so I know what goes into a good brew."
6:40,
a simple I am in the middle of a career transition will probably suffice.
For barrista jobs they aren't expecting to keep you for that long and hopefully while we bring in some income we can find a job that we like.
Post a Comment
<< Home