Republican Presidential Candidate Debate #2 - Columbia, SC 05/15/07 - Official Discussion Thread

May 15, 2007

[CounterCounterCulture]

Republican Presidential Candidate Debate #2 – Columbia, South Carolina 05/15/07 - Official Discussion Thread

Watch live coverage of the First-in-the-South Republican Party Presidential Candidate debate on FOX News Channel and FOXNews.com on Tuesday, May 15, at 9 p.m. EDT (6 p.m. PDT).

• Sam Brownback
• Jim Gilmore
• Rudy Giuliani
• Mike Huckabee
• Duncan Hunter
• John McCain
• Mitt Romney
• Ron Paul
• Tom Tancredo
• Tommy Thompson

The 90-minute debate will air from 9 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. ET (6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.) and will be moderated by "Special Report" anchor Brit Hume. Questions will be posed by two panelists — "FOX News Sunday" host Chris Wallace and White House correspondent Wendell Goler.

[Antoninus]

Many of us Conservs are thinking RUDY is the best choice.

If you think Rudy is the best choice, you are either a very shallow conservative, invincibly ignorant, or a DU troll.

Rudy is no conservative. He's a notch better than Hillary--maybe. And if he's the guy, he'll destroy the GOP. But I'll bet that makes you feel warm and fuzzy all over, doesn't it?

[Reagan Man]

Rudy Toot is a liberal.

A life long supporter of liberal issues and liberal causes.

You’ve either been hoodwinked, or you’re a liberal yourself.

[mylife]

Its tangled and twisted at this point 9/11 changed things.

We need to step up as a nation

[The Pack Knight]

I was paraphrasing RiverRafter's own question to me with that line. This was how RiverRafter characterized Paul's position. It happens to be fairly accurate, even if Paul won't say so is so many words. His comments on 9-11 clearly implied that we should adjust our policies to better suit our enemies. He has stated that we should have attacked only those individuals directly responsible for 9-11, which he estimated at 200 individuals, as if no one outside of al-Qaeda and the specific plotters of 9-11 were responsible for a continuing threat of further attack.

Opposing Bush's latest strategy doesn't equal taking Paul's position. Paul opposed Bush's war plans before "Mission Accomplished", as you put it. He opposed invading Iraq in the first place, and made the laughable assertion that we've accomplished nothing there.

I may have had problems of my own with the President's handling of the war, and preferred to focus on Iran first rather than Iraq at the time. However, I liken my issue with the President's decisions to the dispute between the Europe Firsters and the Pacific Firsters in World War II. I would have done things differently, I'm not the one who makes those decisions. The President did what he thought was best for this country, and I won't argue for his failure just because I disagree with him.

Dr. Paul, on the other hand, would rather the President concede defeat, withdraw, and lick our wounds while we wait for the consequences. He advocates a return to the policies of the '20s and '30s, which worked so well... for the Germans and Japanese. As far as I've heard, the only action he supports against our enemies is to target specific individuals, to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal, as if we haven't already laid bounties on the heads of senior al-Qaeda members, and to "be friends with nations and trade with them" (his words), as if we haven't done just that in much of the Middle East.

By the way, the "Mission Accomplished" banner was referring to USS Abraham Lincoln's mission, not the mission of the entire campaign. If you have an issue with her crew hanging that banner in celebration of their return home, I suggest you take it up with them. Of course, I don't suppose that will stop anyone from taking it out of context to make the President look foolish, even years later. Pointing out the President's supposed gaffes is an easy way to make oneself seem sophisticated these days, after all.

[txradioguy]

Ummm Colmes is a dyed in the woll Liberal Democrat.

Sean says repeatedly that he’s a Libertarian.

Perhaps if you actually LISTENED to the show and didn’t get your info from Media matters you’d know this.

Why do you think him and Boortz get along so well?

Or do you think Boortz is a Lib too?

I’ve listened to Rush since 1991...what he wa saying then is what he is saying now.

Can you say anything that isn’t a talking point from someone or somewhere else?

Or is shallow unoriginal drivel all you’re capable of?

[TigersEye]

If its our job to attack aggressor nations then why didn’t we attack the Soviet Union or China? Why do we only attack nations when its politically expedient for the President in office at the time? Why aren’t we trying to occupy all of Africa right now? Since when did we become a nation bent on policing the world?

Your first two questions succinctly answer the third. Don't they?

[CAluvdubya]

Not any sillier than to keep touting “But Rudy promised to nominate conservative judges...” Why would you believe a promise made during a campaign when it goes against what he states he believes in? Now that’s silly!

[VegasBaby]

“The new assault weapons ban that is now being pushed through Congress would ban most every common firearm except a few single shots and bolt action rifles.

I doubt Romney would know enough about it to veto it if it came to his desk.”

That’s very presumptious of you considering you are referring to a guy whose made billions of dollars from years of analyzing, disecting and turning around multi-million dollar companies for the past 30 years. Yeah, I’m sure that he’d not be able to understand the ramifications of a proposed law. Um, yeah.

[jwalsh07]

Go read the Constitution, Article 2 Section 2 and I quote “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States...”

Oh, I get it now, you can't understand English. Second language?

Two different thoughts here friend, the first is a declaration: "“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy of the United States.." End of story there, the POTUS is the CIC of the Army and Navy.

The second phrase is conditional meaning the POTUS becomes the CIC of the "militia of the several states" when they are called into service.

Now that's the end of the Constitutional Lesson for today. I would suggest you spend some time reading explanations of the various clauses in the US Constitution because you're understanding of the document is woefully inadequate.

[EternalVigilance]

What part of Mitt Romney’s comment tonight in support of an assault weapons ban do you fail to grasp?

[HonestConservative]

Do you agree that the media on both sides are TRYING to ignore DH?

[WFTR]

Frankly, besides Ron Paul, I’d take any of these guys over Hillary/Obama!!!!

If all I knew about Giuliani and McCain was what I saw tonight, mabye I could support either of them. However, their past records argue strongly against them. As Mr. Tancredo pointed out in the after-debate interview, Mr. McCain talks about cutting spending, but he's been someone who voted for more spending. Rudy Giuliani has shown himself to be an extremist liberal on abortion and gun control. He's been part of the attitude that gave us the illegal immigration problem. I can't vote for Mr. Giuliani, and I hope I don't have to vote for Mr. McCain.

Still, your point is right. All of them looked better than Hillary or Obama tonight.

[TigersEye]

That should have been; your first three questions succinctly answer the fourth.

[HoundsTooth_BP]

“Ron Paul is not a bad guy. I’d just much rather have a President who puts the emphasis on making the terrorist-spawning countries consider the ramifications of what THEY do, instead of spewing random death like a suicide bomber on an Israeli bus.”

Ron Paul would do that. If a nation supported terrorism and we were attacked Ron Paul would get a proper declaration of war and then he would fight to win. What he wouldn’t do is invade nations that we don’t need to and then sit around letting troops die instead of doing what it takes to kill the enemy. Iran should be afaid of US nuking THEM, not the other way around.

“To try to pin the blame for present situations on a few narrowly selected events long ago (cherry-picked to support a particular ideological position) is not supporting reason, it’s just sophistry.”

That’s true, but that isn’t what is happening here. We are currently at this moment making poor decisions. Pointing out that we made poor decisions in the past, which we should have known were poor at the time, merely illustrates the current mess.

“Retrospective second-guessing of hypothetical alternative universes is delusional and useless, no matter how it’s dressed up.”

Learning from the past is helpful though.

[Reagan Man]

That is an opinion I don’t agree with.

Rooty can’t be trusted. No liberal can be trusted.

[FreeReign]

We should defend ourselves and our interests and let the world take care of itself.

Al Qaeda is in Iraq. We fight Al Qaeda in Iraq.

[LibertarianInExile]

“You know the one thing you Liberaltarians are consistient with...besides your utter lack of understanding of the Constitution and Foreign Policy...is your never ending arrogance.”

Funny how you’re the one demonstrating the arrogance and utter lack of understanding throughout the thread, while I’m the one simply pointing out the clear statements of the candidate and stating the facts. I guess it must be “arrogance” to make you party hacks defend your lies and spin in the face of reality...or how do y’all define it this week down at the RNC, lapdog?

[traviskicks]

Why, is it protecting us?

[sonic109]

He’s a notch better than Hillary—maybe.
Major exaggeration there my friend .you might want to rethink that one . We talking about the same Hillary ? Maybe Marx is a notch away from her , is that who you meant ?

[Beagle8U]

“When the time analysis is done, I reckon we’ll find that just as in the last debate, Hunter was given the least amount of time to speak.”

In the first full hour Hunter got 2 questions, thats 2 minutes of air time.