Cynical Nation

Well, I watched it and I thought that Ron Paul was the only one that was making some sense. Somehow, I liked that guy. I think the only one who is theoretically electable from this group is Romney who has a real lot of charisma. But practically, no republican can win in 2008.

I caught a bit of it too, and one thing I really liked was the questions. They were tough, fast, and straight to the point. I wish the same could be said for the answers.

Yeah, God bless Ron Paul, but I'm as likely to be elected as he is. Romney is smooth and polished and presents well in this kind of setting, but I just don't trust him.

McCain came the closest to saying what I wanted to hear. It was funny, but the pro-choice Giuliani was squirming uncomfortably to try to answer certain questions, while the pro-life McCain simply came out and said "yes" to ESC research, "yes" to evolution, and so forth. Plus he was the only one who seemed to have a real fire in the belly about restraining spending.

Romney looks like a toastmaster. McCain good but the forcefulness looked a little forced at times. Giuliani's balloon bursts with his abortion answer. Tommy Thompson thinks it's perfectly OK to fire gay people? Sam Brownback doesn't believe in evolution?

"McCain came the closest to saying what I wanted to hear."

Wow. I thought he was in another planet. In my opinion he has completely lost any contact with reality.

Giuliani was a big disappointment to me. McCain seemed almost "frail" to me and didn't say anything that got me excited. I think Romney "won" the debate and I especially liked his refusal to let hESC research stand as the holy grail of medical research. I was also much more impressed by Paul and Tancredo than I expected to be.

Nobody said anything last night that caused me to waiver in my support for a Fred Thompson candidacy, but I think Mitt overtook Rudy as my second favorite.

Tancredo presents pretty well, doesn't he? I heard him on a talk show a few weeks ago and I was amazed that he was so well-spoken and articulate. I guess I had bought into the media image of him as some kind of ignorant, knuckle-dragging Neanderthal.

Paul also comes off better than he's done in the past. I remember watching him as an occasional guest on the old Morton Downey Jr. show, and he was shrill and frenzied and often fell onto his knees while making a point, such was his fervor. Even when I agreed with him (which was often) I found him embarrassing.

Fred Thompson: savior of the GOP in '08, accomplisher of...well, give me a few weeks and I'll get back to you.

Actor, one-term Senator with a legislative record equal to John Edwards...yes, that's what we need...more inexperience.

"I especially liked his refusal to let hESC research stand as the holy grail of medical research."

I dont think Romney knew what he was talking about regarding stem cell research. Most of the statements of the candidates that "adult stem cell research" is as promising as "embryonic stem cell research" were, at the very least, misleading.

BW: give us a list of all hESC therapies to date so we can compare it to the list of hASC therapies -- oh, that's right, there aren't any hESC therapies to date.

fred: "Fred Thompson: savior of the GOP in '08, accomplisher of...well, give me a few weeks and I'll get back to you."

You weren't impressed when he broke open the Watergate case with his question to Alexander Butterfield?

I didn't watch. I also skipped the Democratic one so it wasn't a partisan thing. It was an I refuse to do this in early '07 thing. Anyway. Romney. How does he explain his tenure as governor in MA? Because I don't get how anything he's saying now is supported by what he actually did. Has he explained it? And could he be more disingenuous with his lifelong love of hunting (what is it, two trips spaced by some 30 years?) and his lifetime membership in the NRA (that he apparently joined the week he announced the membership)? Why are people giving the man money?

Actually, it was another GOP staff lawyer who asked Butterfield. Even if it had been Fred T, anything other than that in the intervening 34 years as far as relevant accomplishments? Oh, that's right, he had a long military career as the Rear Admiral in "Hunt for Red October."

"BW: give us a list of all hESC therapies to date so we can compare it to the list of hASC therapies -- oh, that's right, there aren't any hESC therapies to date."

WF, unfortunately your question shows that you do not understand the issues. Let me put it simply. The whole scientific world believes that embryonic stem cell research holds great promise for the future. Adult stem cells have been used since the 70s and have limited applications. There is no question that ESC is the only hope for the future.

Anyone opposed to Capital punishment, or one who believes "wars should be avoided at all costs," is being inconsistent and therefor immoral in supporting hESC research, BW.

I support Capital punishment, necessary wars (yes, even for economic reasons) and abortion (at least until such time as the fetus is viable outside the womb) and hESC research.

I respect the views of Catholics and Orthodox Jews who oppose ALL those things based on a "revererance for all life," but there's no way to respect those who are inconsistent because it shows that they are not guided by any consistent morality or ideology.

While I support hESC research, just as I oppose third trimester abortion (the fetus is viable outside the womb at that point), I WOULDN'T base my vote on that issue....I could very easily vote for a person who I disagreed with on that issue, so long as they were right on other issues - taxes, domestic security, race/gender preferences, gun rights, etc.

fred: "Actually, it was another GOP staff lawyer who asked Butterfield."

No, actually it was Fred -- look it up. You may be thinking about another line he came up with that was actually asked by his boss, Senator Howard Baker: "What did the President know, and when did he know it."

No, I knew Baker uttered that one.
I did a quick check earlier and found some staffer name--although it referred to the staffer who interviewed Butterfield prior to his public testimony. Perhaps Freddie T, in a more senior role, got to ask the question in the public hearing: "Y'all got any taping things in that thar Oval Office place, Mistah Buttahfield?"

"Anyone opposed to Capital punishment, or one who believes "wars should be avoided at all costs," is being inconsistent and therefor immoral in supporting hESC research, BW."

Wow...what was that all about? It does not make sense at all. Are you ok?

Fred's assistant, Donald Sanders, took Butterfield's deposition which uncovered the fact of the recording system, but it was Fred who put Butterfield on the witness list and asked the question in a committee hearing: "Mr. Butterfield, are you aware of the installation of any listening devices in the Oval Office of the President?"

""Anyone opposed to Capital punishment, or one who believes "wars should be avoided at all costs," is being inconsistent and therefor immoral in supporting hESC research, BW." (JMK)

"Wow...what was that all about? It does not make sense at all. Are you ok?" (BW)


It's simple logic, BW.

If you oppose the death penalty, you SHOULD also (logically) oppose both abortion and hESC research.

You've claimed that WF "does not understand the issue," but by holding an inconsistent viewpoint, such as supporting hESC while opposing Capital Punishment, seems to indicate that you haven't thought the larger issue out at all.

It's the same inconsistency that plagues those Liberals who rail against religious people demanding broadcasting content standards, while supporting very similar "content regulation" themselves, in the form of "the Fairness Doctrine."

Inconsistency is the hallmark of sloppy thinking.

"Inconsistency is the hallmark of sloppy thinking."

Tell that to Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Giuliani.

Yes, supporting Capital punishment and opposing abortion & hESC research is also inconsistent, but that doesn't make being inconsistent any less sloppy BW, only somewhat more popular.

The fact that virtually EVERY Democrat is inconsistent on this issue one way (favoring unfettered abortion and hESC research, while opposing Capital Punsihment) and that virtually every Republican is inconsistent on it another (opposing abortion and hESC research while supporting Capital Punishment) kind of makes the issue a wash, in that vain. They are BOTH inconsistent in regards to the issue of LIFE.

That should be no surprise, since so is the rest of the country inconsistent on that issue.

I think Giuliani had it close to right, but didn't have the words to match - while he claims to personally oppose abortion, boasting that adoptions increased 65% under his administration in NYC and abortions decreased by 16%, he seems to support unfettered first trimester abortion and opposes third trimester abortions - a stand in line with the vast majority of Americans.

65% of Americans support abortion, while about the same amount (64%) oppose third trimester abortion.

His words failed worst when he said that it would be "OK" if Roe were overturned and "OK" if it were not. Clearly to those on either side, it's not an "OK either way" issue.

After reviewing the debates, the moderator (Chris Mathews) seemed weak and ineffectual - very poor questions, which leads me to believe he didn't adequately prepare himself for that job...yes, and maybe the folks who wrote the questions were morons, but still, the worst of the candidates outshown the best parts of the broadcasting and moderation and that shouldn't be.