*** LIVE THREAD MSNBC GOP PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE, 24 JANUARY 2008 ***

MSNBC | 24 JANUARY 2008 | EEE SUBSTITUTING FOR COUNTERCOUNTERCULTRE

[icwhatudo]

The thinking is that it was the mcCain mom story they were reacting to.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

With that logic we could have nuclear weapons. There have to be some sort of limits.

Careful. The nuclear weapon argument is the preferred strawman of the Brady crowd. Assault weapons are a thousand orders of magnitude more discriminating than any weapon of mass destruction. I can defend my home with an M-16 or a Mac-10 without violating the rights of my neighbors. It may be more difficult to do than with a .22, but it can be done. Whereas, it would be impossible not to violate the rights of everyone within 20 miles of my nuclear weapon.

[CottonBall]

Why are you going on and on? I responded to the poll YOU posted. That one clearly shows Romney ahead of the top 3. I even said the MSNBC poll in my post to you.

I think you don’t like their results, so you can’t accept it.

[CottonBall]

It’s amazing the Republicans have done as well as they have over the decades considering all the voter fraud AND the MSM bias.

[CottonBall]

Plus, as you said it’s hard to fight an entity when you play fair and they play dirty.

[mtnwmn]

Must confess know very little about weapons. However, the logic was flawed. Trust me, I’m not a member of the Brady bunch or the NRA. I guess it shows;o)

[JohnBovenmyer]

AWB isn't the only way to diss the 2nd. The 1st isn't the only amendment McCain has dissed. He got a F- from GOA in spite of his AWB vote and they claim his pro 2nd votes are pandering, that his votes on the 2nd come from momentary political advantage not from principles, i.e. the same thing the anti-Mitt folks say against Romney. If you want purity on the 2nd your only remaining choices are Huck and Paul, according to GOA. If you can't stand them because of other issues then you'll either have to accept less than purity on the 2nd, go 3rd party, or go pout in the corner. But to pick McCain over Romney on claims of 2nd amendment purity is short sighted.

If you can't trust your own analysis trust the enemies. NY Times loves McCain and hates Mitt.

[nfldgirl]

Nah, it’s not you...I actually thought Russert and Williams went easy on McCain compared to Romney and Rudy. Russert and Williams were disgusting...when interviewing Repubs., Russert always has this serious, solemn look on his face...when he’s sitting across from a Hillary or BC-type, he gushes like a little kid. He’s disgusting!

[LordBridey]

How do they get away with this?

That is very interesting and would explain why Romney appeared to be the dominating force during the debate. If you are getting over a quarter more time than the second guy and a third more time than everyone else, something is going on. Might be, he just can't answer questions very succinctly. Great, we'll get the hot air king as president.

[allmendream]

I agree. I will not vote for Huckabee under any circumstance. He will oppose ideas I agree with that he opposes, and besmirch the ideas I agree with that he endorses. Luckily I think it unlikely he will be the nominee or the VP pick.

But I will vote in the election; come hell or highwater. I am a ‘broken glass’ Republican and i never miss a vote, even if I don’t actually support all the GOP nominee’s or issues.

You catch a lot of flack LLS, for telling it like you think it is. I don’t agree with you, but stick to your guns. And encourage EVERYONE to vote this November for any and all conservative issues and candidates that you could conceivably support.

[Miss Didi]

Clarified: Why I Might Not Vote for the GOP Nominee in November

[Sunnyflorida]

Hey, if the Dems can run two presidential candidates (Bill and Hill), why can’t we run three (Fred as the moral compass, Rudy to kill and torture terrorists, and Mitt to run Washington like a business.)

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

That’s alright. The question of limits is valid, but it’s also very tricky.

[Actually_in_Tokyo]

Thank you for this review. It is so helpful for those of us who could not see the debate.

[AliVeritas]

FYI, NYTs Mc and Hill for primary choices (because of the tight schedule, cough). That tells you all you need to know.

Even TPM caught the economics quote. I give credit where it’s due.

Here’s the buzz:
http://www.memeorandum.com/

[AliVeritas]

BTW, re: NYTs/Mc via Dan Riehl

Some Insight Into The Times Endorsement Of McCain
Via something I saw at The Politico. One could say, no wonder. Or perhaps, ... why would any conservative Republican bother meeting with the New York Times in order to gain their endorsement? Evidently, only one did.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/8096.html

Snip:
Not surprisingly, McCain kept up his reputation for rarely denying access to journalists: he was the only Republican candidate to meet with the editorial board.

Congratulations Senator. You got what you were looking for.

Note: As always, consider the sources.

[AliVeritas]

To those who were figuring out the other whisper, C&L has the video via Riehl (consensus is ‘raise taxes’.

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/

[AliVeritas]

Oops, the NYTs picking Mc is prominent on his web site... he doesn’t get it.

http://johnmccain.com/Informing/News/NewsReleases/Read.aspx?guid=9487560b-dd96-4d7d-a6b0-c3897ae9faeb

[LibLieSlayer]

When have Conservatives not caught flack? Not in my lifetime. Have you ever wondered why Conservatives remain true to their core ideology while the world migrates into marxism? Have you ever wondered why Conservatives always have the same positions on the issues of our day? It is because we are proud to be Conservative... that we actually believe that Conservatism can fix any problem that we encounter... that Conservative principles should be the benchmark for whether a policy or position is the proper direction for America to take. We do not change our stripes to pander and appease... we do not change our ideology to fit the candidate... and we are tired of being taken for granted and having the definition of our very way of life changed for political expediency.

I believe that the Republican party is so fractured that we will not win in 2008. We are at a crossroads of our future... one path leads to socialism... albeit slower on the Republican side... and one path leads to Reagan's "morning in America". All I see today is mourning in America.

Maybe I’m wrong... but look at who is saying the same things. Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Fred Thompson and any number of Conservative Republicans. If we are wrong... rinos rule and we continue on the path of big government Republicanism... if we are right... then the Republican Party will have to be destroyed (as we know it) and be rebuilt from the ground up to have a chance of winning in 2012. Forget the midterms... we will lose more seats if hildy wins.

LLS

[Miss Didi]

Rush had an interesting theory regarding Mitt and women--imagine how angry the Drive-Bys and Clinton Inc. will be when the ladies swoon for the hunk Mitt and not old Bill!



Something is happening out there: "Mittens" are smitten.

RUSH: Watch Out for the Arousal Gap