GOP Presidential Debate

[glitter]

Both parties have much to be ashamed of - the way things work in Washington is ridiculous and we should just keep on voting out the career politicians. And vote in a few all over the place who are also willing to lose some of their ridiculous benefits.
I do not like any of the Republicans and Paul scares me to death-Obama
is just as scary.
I don't understand how he gets all the credit for getting Osama when those intelligence guys had been working on getting him for years and they finally succeeded. Good for them. Lucky for Obama.

[YLGuy]

I think it is absolutely ridiculous how much effort is/was put into making sure that we all know that Obama had nothing to do with killing Osama.  It happened under his term.  He authorized it.  He gets credit for it.  How about a, "job well done?"  I am sure it would kill anyone on the right to give Obama credit for anything.  The Republican Party is so pitiful.  They will do anything to get Obama out of office no matter how much it hurts the country. SHAMEFUL!

[cariad]

I think it is absolutely ridiculous how much effort is/was put into making sure that we all know that Obama had nothing to do with killing Osama.  It happened under his term.  He authorized it.  He gets credit for it.  How about a, "job well done?"  I am sure it would kill anyone on the right to give Obama credit for anything.  The Republican Party is so pitiful.  They will do anything to get Obama out of office no matter how much it hurts the country. SHAMEFUL!

Well-said and agreed.

Like it or not, he said he would do it and he did it. If he had failed (as Bush did, completely) we would never have heard the end of it. He also said he would pass healthcare reform, and did. He has taken out dangerous terrorists quickly and efficiently. As Bill Mahr has said "Don't f*ck with Obama!" It's true. I would like to know precisely why Republicans hate Obama so much. What has he done? (This must be something he has actually done not some parroting of Fox News alternate reality....)

[Gerald Lively]

True, Obama has been victimized by a huge slander campaign (birthers, racists, religious right, etc.), but even with that he would have succeeded as an effective President if Congress would have treated him fairly.

Regarding Universal Healthcare; every President since World War II has proposed some form of universal healthcare, yet, only Obama has been labeled a socialist/communist.

Perhaps the right-wing is so outrageous that it draws the headlines. I suspect real America is elsewhere in their thinking.

[hubbyhatesdialysis]

I feel Obama is a propagandist, I think the only reason he got elected was because Bush did such a poor job that everyone wanted "CHANGE" and "HOPE". Personally I haven't seen any CHANGE... I also really don't like how Obama has a problem with putting his hand over his heart during the pledge of allegiance and I also have a hard time with the fact that Obama had such a hard time with showing his "birth certificate" (which I'm not sure is even real) I mean the American people have EVERY right to see his birth certificate and to know things about the person leading our country. I think Obama is a good guy but don't think he should be leading our country. All I know is Obama will NOT be getting my vote in 2012 election!!

[MooseMom]

I'm curious...what does someone's birth certificate and what they do with their left hand while saying the Pledge of Allegiance have to do with economic policy, foreign policy and healthcare policy which are the things that are really important?  I have to wonder about your priorities, sorry.

Romney and Gingrich are also preaching "change", but they are not saying what kind of change they want.  Mr. Gingrich wants the capital gains tax rate to be reduced to 0%, so I guess THAT is a change.  I don't know what Romney is preaching because after having watched all of the debates, I am not sure what all of these nominees are standing for (although Ron Paul HAS been quite specific, I'll grant you that.)

But before another day passes, I demand that we see the birth certificates of ALL of the GOP contenders.  I also want to see more tax returns for all of them, too.  I am personally uncomfortable with Mr. Romney donating so much money to a "church" that many Christians don't see as being Christian at all.

Does anyone ever wonder why none of the GOP potential nominees have offered to show their birth certificates?  No one has asked them, I bet.  Why ever could that be?

Mr. Gingrich is a nasty piece of work who, when he is confronted by his past lewd and lascivious behavior, doesn't apologize to the nation and to his party.  Instead, he pulls a bait and switch and turns it into a slang fest against John King.  Mr. Gingrich is old school politics and is a sexual predator which is anathema to what the GOP base say they want.  What we have in Mr. Gingrich is the king of the politics of resentment.

I resent the 4 year Republican campaign that seeks to cast our democratically elected President as "other" or "not one of us" or "unAmerican", and I feel that your comment about his birth certificate perpetuates that mindset.  I can understand disagreement with policy, but this constant fight to personally degrade our President is nasty and is against what this country should be about. 

It is a mistake to run the world's leading superpower as a business, which is why Romney is a poor choice.

It is also a mistake to run the world's leading superpower from a platform of resentment and loose personal morals, which is why Mr. Gingrich is a poor choice.

I would have liked to have heard more from Mr Huntsman, but the right wing base made sure he was discarded before the rest of us could get a good look at him.

I'll tell you why Mr. Obama got elected.  Mr. Obama resonated with those people who were tired of partisan politics and wanted everyone to work together to solve this nation's problems.  Interestingly, I have noticed that the likes of Romney and Gingrich are saying exactly the same things.  I don't know if they are lying, but they are standing in front of this nation's people and are claiming that they will work for ALL Americans, not just those of one party.  Mr. Obama, once elected, tried to give the voters what he had promised, ie bi-partisan support for legislation, but he was distinctly naive in this hope.  That was his big mistake, and his followers have now taken him to task and have demanded that he be just as intrasigent as his opponents.

Hubbyhatesdialysis, what do you think Mr. Gingrich or Mr. Romney have to offer to the American people?  What specific policies have they outlined that you support?

As you think that President Obama's birth certificate is not real, I feel the same about Mr. Romney's recently released tax returns.  I think he is hiding something, a very big something, maybe even something illegal.  I think he may have been evading taxes, so I want to see everything...all financial records.  I want to know much, much more about his offshore accounts.

I also want to know if Mr. Gingrich has ever had an STD, seeing that he has had a hard time staying faithful to one partner at a time.  I think a potential president's health records should be available for all to see.

Neither of these men will be getting my vote in 2012 because neither of them have a handle on what is true conservatism.

(some of this is written slightly tongue-in-cheek, but I'll leave you all to decide which bits...)

[YLGuy]

Hmmm...

[MooseMom]

None of us are perfect, but most of us aren't running for President, either.

OK, so Mr. Gingrich made a "mistake".  But to make such a mistake AGAIN?  And to blame it on working too hard because of the passion he feels for his country?  What?

I truly do not think that Mr. Gingrich has the temperment for the office of the President.  If he has some good ideas for job creation, let's hear them.  I'm sure the President would love to hear anyone's ideas for how to create more jobs.  But we cannot have someone like Newt Gingrich have a hand in the conduct of our foreign affairs in such a volatile world.

[lmunchkin]

Hey Gerald Lively, I might consider myself an independent/moderates if I knew exactly what they stood for.  Could you fill me in on that please?  What exactly their differences from Democrats/Republicans.  Thanking in advance.

lmunchkin

[Gerald Lively]

I am ill at the moment.  I just got back from (you know where).  I'll try later.

[lmunchkin]

I understand totall, Gerald.  Whenever you feel up to it.  I just wondered what Ind/Mod would do differently to prosper than what Dem/Rep have done! If they know of something different, I would love to hear it.  Or if anyone else out there wants to answer, please, be my guest.  I would really like to know! Have heard people say they are Independent, but really don't know what they stand for that distinquishes them from a Demo or a Replic.

But really & trully, I have not seen to much in any of them to vote either way.

Thanks,
lmunchkin
 

[cariad]

I'm curious...what does someone's birth certificate and what they do with their left hand while saying the Pledge of Allegiance have to do with economic policy, foreign policy and healthcare policy which are the things that are really important?  I have to wonder about your priorities, sorry.

No kidding.

He showed everyone his birth certificate and I find it the height of paranoia (or sleazy politics for those who know better) that anyone thinks or claims that it is anything but genuine. This just proves that he was right all along: no matter what he does, people who want him out of office will stop at nothing, not even malicious, divisive, fear-mongering. He won in a landslide. The people have spoken. It's time to come to terms with the fact that your candidate lost. Even McCain had to defend Obama against his own fringey supporters in the end. Why would anyone want to set up one's own candidates to have to talk down some unkempt, muttering, desperately pitiful person? It did McCain no favours.

The thing about the pledge of allegiance is new to me, and I suspect totally false, but that's really beside the point. WHO THE HELL CARES? Sad that everything I hear from the Republican side I just have to automatically assume is the lowest form of fiction.

No one has offered to answer my question above, what specifically has Obama done that so enrages those of you that hate him? I hate George W. Bush and could give you all the reasons in the world, actual, specific, horrible things he has done, said, and authorized. Even still, I have been known to give him credit where it's due, which is almost never, but it has happened. Does no one on the anti-Obama side realise how fanatical you all appear when you can never, ever say a single, positive word about him? And trust me, this will be a question when it comes to the two-party (or more) debates. You know what the wrong answer would be to "What do you admire about your opponent?": Nothing. The Republican candidate will have to think of praise for Obama, because to fail to do so will be political suicide.

I love what you wrote, MM. Nicely done. Have to disagree about Huntsman, though. I see no loss there.

[Gerald Lively]

Munch:

Some context:  I am a registered Democrat.  I think of myself as a moderate but I haven’t voted for a Republican presidential candidate, ever.  I am very much a liberal on social issues, a moderate on budget issues and a Keynesian on economics. I rarely vote for the candidate.  I study the issues, then I determine who supports what.  In this manner I determine who and how I vote for. 

The Issues:

1.    Budget!  For 15 years I prepared a budget for local government based on my estimate of economic conditions, revenue forecasting, and by the seat of my pants.  I never missed a revenue estimate by more than one-half of one percent doing a $200 million budget covering 3,000 employees.  This experience tells me that the Republicans are suicidal on Congress.  Prosperity, not frugality, should be the goal.  Pay your debts when you have the bucks, skate when you don’t.
2.   Tax Equity!  There is a strong argument for a complete revision of the US Tax Code, but the opportunity to write in favors for special interests will defeat the best intentions of others.  If your see yourself as a middle-income family and you pay (say) a 28% income tax, then the same should be true for everyone.  One of the most frightening ideas confronting the GOP is a return to the Tax Code under the Reagan administration.  Such a revision would almost immediately place the federal government on a solid financial footing.
3.   I have never seen or heard such a blatant disregard for the elderly, poor, children and the disabled as I have during this campaign.  What kind of crazy fool would advocate the demise of Social Security, Medicare and Veteran Healthcare?
4.   The US has been at war since WWII.  So much for world peace.  We can’t kill ‘em all.

So, what is a moderate?  This is a person who considers the issues based on their idea of what is best for America, has no ideological axe to grind, wants more information, and believes in moderation.  The pressure against a moral government is increasing daily all because there are too many people in this world. (Malthus)  Power is the modern goal of the candidate instead of what is best for you and me.  I don’t think we should cut down the redwoods but I think a sound policy should be executed for our National Forests.  I don’t think we should go to war everytime some radical in the middle east sends us an insult, but I do believe in clandestine  projects to preserve our national interests (I did this for the military in 1958 thru 1960).  I believe Congress is corrupt.  I think campaign laws are insane.  And I haven’t decided who I would vote for.  I can say that the GOP is making an ass of themselves, yet, it is very early in the game.

I have witnessed a very sharp turn to the right in national politics.  I rather like Nelson Rockefeller back in the day, but who is around that thinks as clearly as he did?  Instead, the GOP has an front man who looks like a pig, is named after a lizard, and has the moral values of an alley cat.  One cannot say they are a true moderate on a two-dimensional spectrum as skewed to the right we see in both the left and right without acquiring the label of a liberal.

Sorry folks, I have a very green stomach, am dizzy and I hate dialysis.  I wanna die, and I am not thinking clearly.  I am not going to proof this one, I’ll just go somewhere and barf.  Sorry ‘bout that!

Gerald Lively

[YLGuy]

I am sorry you feel so awful.  I hope you feel better.  Thank you for answering even though you don't feel well.

[Gerald Lively]

Please forgive me for being so strident.  My head is swirling and I don't know what is going on.

gl

[MooseMom]

I am currently reading a most fascinating book called "American Nations:  A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America" by Colin Woodard.  It explores how and by what kind of people the various regions of the US were originally settled and how this has given rise to current political thinking.  We all know that politically, the Deep South tends to vote one way while New England tends to vote another.  Why?  This book gives some insight into that history.

This book reinforces the idea that what we perceive to be the role of government is the central conflict, the universal American question.  This debate is embedded in our DNA.  We have always asked this question and probably always will.

My husband is a pretty staunch liberal, but last night he was complaining about the lengthy and complicated amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act.  As a city attorney, he has to translate this sort of legislation into practice.  In him I heard the complaints of many Republicans about "too much regulation".  It made me think about the role of the federal government in how businesses operate.

Since most of us here on IHD have experience with physical limitations, let me pose some hypothetical questions.  These are not meant to be political questions but, rather, philosophical queries that you don't need to answer here but may be interested in asking yourself.

Do you think that the federal government should compel businesses and employers to obey certain rules that make life a bit easier for those with disabilities?  Is it fair for a business to be compelled to spend money to make their premises wheelchair accessible?  Should businesses be left to make these decisions for themselves?  Should prospective employers be allowed to ask a prospective employee about their medical status?  Is it any of their business if you have had a transplant?  Or, maybe, should individual states implement their own Disabilities Act without interference from the Federal Government?  If you think that is a better solution, would you be OK with this patchwork arrangement, especially if you may want to move to another state where you may not have these protections.

Do you think that  broader social issues like desegregation or women's suffrage or marriage should be within the purview of the federal government?  Should the southern states have been forced to desegretate their public schools?   

What about the rescue of the auto industry just a few years ago?  Only the federal government had the resources to save the industry.  But business is business, and some businesses fail every day and do not get the benefit of a government rescue.  Should the federal government have a role in this regard? 

The government has an enormous role in dialysis care because it is Medicare that pays for it almost exclusively.  Is that appropriate?  Instead of a government program like Medicare paying for dialysis, should we instead take government out of it completely?  Who should pay for keeping you alive?  On a more general note, should government have any role at all in health care?  Should the federal government pull out of all centrally funded medical research?

Should the government have any role in formulating a national energy policy?  There is nothing about energy policy in the Constitution as written by our Founding Fathers.  Some states have oil reserves, some have lots of water for hydroelectric power, some states are better suited to harness wind and/or solar power, some have natural gas...should it be up to each individual state to find a way to provide energy to their residents and businesses?  And if a particular state can't find a way to do this, well, that's just too bad.  Businesses will just leave that state and set up shop where conditions are better.

So, how do you see the role of government in society and in our private lives?  In your personal experience, has the federal government intruded in such a way that you feel is unconstitutional?  How would you illustrate and/or define the difference between "spending" and "investment"?

[lmunchkin]

Thank you for answering so promptly, Gerald!  Hope you get to feeling better soon and get back to your "Lively" self again.

lmunchkin

[Gerald Lively]

During my tenure in county and city government, I have always said that I needed two best friends; the City Attorney and the Auditor.  I am pleased to hear that your husband is one of these.

The notion of “too much regulation” in government cannot be addressed unless we are more specific.  Too many of us confuse the definitions of regulation and policy; one being the enabler of the other.

Most of the policy questions your raise are a derivative of the constitutional interpretation of equality, or anti-discrimination.  Since this is from the Constitution, it must apply to all states.  Yes, we fought a Civil War over this issue.  Yes, women must have the right to vote.  Ethnic Blacks are no longer 2/3rds of a person.  A naturalized citizen has the same rights as a person born in any of the 50 states.  (A government for the people, by the people and of the people)

The suggestion raised by Republicans today, when commenting on too many regulations, may better be described as “what are the limits of government involvement?” Reagan once said the FAA had too many regulations yet, we changed almost nothing in those regulations and during the past few years, there has been a real improvement in accident rates (for passenger flights).  Does this validate regulations?  As more flights develop, where are the limitations?  Do we say “this many airplanes and no more?” Isn’t that private enterprise?  Is the airspace above us, territory owned by our government?

So, where do we draw the line in government involvement in discrimination issues.  Ron Paul is telling us that private businesses, such as restaurants, should not be subject to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Really?  Just exactly where is the line in the sand?  Well folks, that is policy question and that is why you vote for one candidate over another.

The question of who makes these regulations might be raised.  In general they are created by people, like your husband, who write regulation for the purpose of implementing a given policy.  These government employees are appointed, not elected.  So, who do you criticize?  That’s right, you vote for policymakers, not the employees.  Go ahead, run for Congress, employ a whole bunch of people to streamline regulations – and suffer the criticisms of enlarging government and creating regulations whose purpose is to deregulate. 

There is a neo-con concept that is amazingly familiar to Alaskan Natives who, in ancient times, placed the elderly and the ill on ice flows.  In this manner, the old folks and such were not a burden on an already stretched local economy.  Or, otherwise stated, unless you contribute to the economy, you should not gain by it.  Yes, it is true that compassion has become a policy matter (social conservatives).  After WWII we had the GI Bill.  We had the Veterans Administration.  We had a President in Truman who tried to pass a universal healthcare bill.  In this policy issue, we must ask ourselves what the limits are on compassion.  Who do we take care of and who do we place on the ice flow?

Private lives?  One cannot declare that government stops at my front door because the question of child abuse arises.  Yet, sex is my business as long as it is with a consenting adult.  And private enterprise should never be allowed to grow so large that its failure would damage the national economy.  (AIG, General Motors) We have anti-trust laws, why not use them?  And whatever happened to usury laws?  And why can’t I grow Cannabis?

Holy Mackerel, what a can of worms?

[Willis]

I'm curious...what does someone's birth certificate ... have to do with economic policy, foreign policy and healthcare policy which are the things that are really important?

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but the only reason the issue of a birth certificate is important for a presidential candidate is because it is a Constitutional requirement for the office just like having to be 35 years old. If someone 30 years old was running would that not be an issue? Would some say "Why does age matter?" Well, it matters because it would break the law.

Now place of birth makes no difference for any other office. So that is why it is an issue for President. This is not meant to question President Obama's place of birth or whether or not he is a "natural born" citizen. That is water under the bridge.

 

[MooseMom]

Willis, I understand that there are requirements for President as set out in the Constitution such as place of birth, etc.  But apparently there are still people who don't believe that in President Obama's case, it is indeed water under the bridge.

Why do you think there are still people who believe the certificate may be fake?  Why has no one demanded to see the birth certificates of the GOP potential nominees?  Could there be a racial undertone here?  Just asking.  It's all part of the attempts to present the President as "other", and I don't think this serves us well.

[Hemodoc]

Willis, I understand that there are requirements for President as set out in the Constitution such as place of birth, etc.  But apparently there are still people who don't believe that in President Obama's case, it is indeed water under the bridge.

Why do you think there are still people who believe the certificate may be fake?  Why has no one demanded to see the birth certificates of the GOP potential nominees?  Could there be a racial undertone here?  Just asking.  It's all part of the attempts to present the President as "other", and I don't think this serves us well.

Please don't go there. My wife is brown skinned and all of my children have black hair and brown eyes. Race has nothing to do with this issue of the birth certificate or anything else. Despite the grand introduction of the birth certificate, there are still issues with his account and the certificate itself. Nevertheless, no one gives credence to these things and it is NO LONGER an issue politically.

If you want to bash conservatives and have a great time in doing so, so be it. But please don't spread inflammatory falsehoods. I am sick of the false accusation of being a racist simply because I strongly disagree with the Presidents politics. False inflammatory accusations are what don't serve us well and will lead to a political season dominated by protests and open blood shed in the streets. Haven't we seen enough of that around the world?

[YLGuy]

Hemodoc, just because you are a conservative and not a racist does not mean that the questioning of the birth certificate does not have racial undertones.

I thought this was interesting:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/01/gingrich-admits-abc-claim-was-false-112344.html

Gingrich is very scary.

[Willis]

So Newt's two daughters would not count as witnesses? ABC didn't want them as witnesses because from what I've read they have taken their father's side on most of these divorce issues. I'm not divorced, but I've had friends that got divorced for various reasons. I went to the child custody hearing for one friend and if that was all you knew about him based on his ex-wife's accusations you'd think he was a deadbeat child-molester with an IQ of 60. (He's an engineer.)

 

[YLGuy]

That is what you got from the clip? Really?

[cariad]

Please don't go there. My wife is brown skinned and all of my children have black hair and brown eyes. Race has nothing to do with this issue of the birth certificate or anything else. Despite the grand introduction of the birth certificate, there are still issues with his account and the certificate itself. Nevertheless, no one gives credence to these things and it is NO LONGER an issue politically.

If you want to bash conservatives and have a great time in doing so, so be it. But please don't spread inflammatory falsehoods. I am sick of the false accusation of being a racist simply because I strongly disagree with the Presidents politics. False inflammatory accusations are what don't serve us well and will lead to a political season dominated by protests and open blood shed in the streets. Haven't we seen enough of that around the world?

Of course racism plays a role in the birth certificate nonsense. John McCain was born in Panama - why was there no outcry there from the conservative side? Why did we never hear: where are the witnesses that his mother was on American military grounds when she gave birth? Hmmm, maybe because he looks the part of an American and a Presidential candidate? The birther movement is disgustingly racist and I apologise to no one for calling it like I (and many others) see it. That does not mean I believe all birthers are racist, but the leader, that Orly Taitz psycho, I have zero doubts. If no one "gave credence to these things" then we would not have comments like the one above that this still bothers people. I would personally not want to ally myself with such a hateful loon as Taitz, but that may just be me. Esquire did a terrifying article on this movement a few years ago if anyone wants to have a look inside the fringe. Interestingly, some of these same people also tried to abuse the law to oust George W. Bush. This makes me long for a British legal system where nuisance lawsuits are too risky to undertake. http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/obama-birthers-movement-part-one-080409

Hemodoc, just because you are a conservative and not a racist does not mean that the questioning of the birth certificate does not have racial undertones.

Hemodoc, this is true. You seem to be quick to get defensive as of late and appear to be taking this conversation quite personally. You do not represent all conservatives and I have seen no indication that MM or anyone else was implying that they were talking about you. You have admonished people in a few different places over the past few months to not ask certain questions, and have come on to this thread in particular to say you do not want to talk about something, which is of course talking about it. I found MM's point to be relevant and I would request that you not try to shut down legitimate discussion by saying "don't go there". Why not? She is not talking about you, nor all conservatives.

Discussing racism, while often a maddeningly delicate issue, is one of the most important discussions we can have in this country. Blacks in this country suffer markedly poorer health outcomes than whites, even when you adjust for income, healthcare access, education, etc. Really, the only explanation left is racism, which causes stress which is code for an excess of stress hormones, which leads to a plethora of health issues. If we do not call out racism when we see it, we are doing an injustice to all people of color in America, including your wife, Hemodoc.

Seriously, would anyone who cares about minorities in this country, or just cares about this country in general, want Newt "Let Me Teach The Blacks How To Earn An Honest Wage" Gingrich in charge? I am so glad I am married to a Brit. At least I have an escape route....