Official CNN South Carolina Debate Thread

[angus]

Um... I guess the GI Bill doesn't exist in Paultardia...

In Paultardia, there exists no government programs which jack up the administrators to a level 15 times as high as the highest-paid faculty, so no one is faced with the harsh reality of having to pay 60 thousand dollars a year for an education that would cost 5 thousand dollars a year without government meddling.  

[angus]

South Carolinians clap quite a bit.  Just about every response is followed by an applause.

If I ever have to give a stand-up routine, I hope it's in South Carolina.

[angus]

Wow... Gingrich really is a pompous wind-bag...

This is breaking news?

If he wins SC you'll hear none of the "home field advantage" garbage you heard with Romney in NH.  Suddenly no one will realize that he's a politician from a neighboring state.  

But, yeah, I'm still gonna be surprised if he wins.  Even in SC they recognize pomposity and wind.

[angus]

Gotta say, Santorum is a great debater. Exciting to see him get time to shine.

I kinda thought so too.  I'm not sure why these guys are so hard on him.  Groupthink in action.

[angus]

"when I'm the nominee..."

Not "if I'm the nominee" but "when I'm the nominee..."

Put some stank on it, Mitt!

[angus]

Oh G-d, Mitt. Maybe? That's... bad. That could be very bad.

It could be, but I don't think so.  He is reluctant because he's rich. We all know this.  It is not news.  He didn't create those tax-shelter laws, but he'd be a fool not to exploit them.  You would, if you were in his size-13 shoes, and so would I.

As far as Daddy is concerned, we all inherit from Daddy.  I got my good looks from Daddy.  And my charming manner.  And the fact that I drink too much.  Didn't get no funds from Daddy, though, because he was poor.  Now, if I'm asked about what I inherited from Daddy, what do I say?  I say "nothing."  Mostly because I wouldn't remember, on the spot, that I probably inherited lots of things from Daddy.  This is the way it is.  Mitt probably inherited his good looks from Daddy, and his cockiness, and, unlike my Daddy, his Daddy might have had a few dollars in the bank.  That doesn't mean his Daddy was better than my Daddy, just had a different set of attributes to bequeath.  What are we, French?  Do we suddenly guillotine our rich people?  No, we're Yankees.  We don't have any aristocracy, and therefore we don't need to make a pretense of the need to revolt against it.  Let's stop pretending that we don't know that Mitt Romney is rich.  Of course he's rich.  FDR was rich.  Bush was rich.  Kennedy was rich.  We had lots of rich guys run for office, and most of 'em would say that they're self-made men.  They might have inherited a million or two from Daddy, but that million or two is chump change for them.  Most of the money in his bank account he earned.  Yes, he should pay a much higher percentage of it to the federal government--and no, I"m not a Libertarian, so my attitude should come as no surprise--but that's a matter for the congress to decide.  Don't hold the laws against Mitt.  He's just living within them, not writing them.

[angus]

Whoa, Newt is a bit more sensible than most Republicans on immigration. That's..surprising?

a little.  It's the one issue where I agree with Newt more than the others.  

Most Republicans have bought into the hard anti-everybody except us dogma, which is really weird, because those of us over 40 remember when anti-Mexican equated to a solidly leftist/progressive attitude.  Pro=union and all that.  The GOP was always forgiving when it came to hiring illegal immigrants to clean the golf course, under the table of course.  But in the past couple of decades the Republicans have co-opted that issue from the Democrats.  At the worst possible moment, given the current demographic trends!

Anyway, I'm not a libertarian, but I'm with the libertarian on these types of issues:  people should be able to come and go as they please.  Borders are for police states.  No major candidate in either of the two major parties actually adopts my position, but Newt's is a little closer than most of the others.  Not that I'd ever trust the bastard, and I hope he crawls back into whatever hole he crawled out of, but he's a little gentler on this issue than the others so I have to credit him here.

[angus]

Just started watching - can an unbiased person please tell me who's probably the biggest winners and losers thus far?

You're not going to believe any of us because Romney is barely beating John King for 4th best.

LOL.

Tmthforu94, it's better with only 4 actually.  I thought I'd miss Perry, but this is just as entertaining.  Santorum actually looks reasonably now that he has some time.  Ron Paul is Ron Paul.  Mitt has said some things that may or may not crush him--I"m banking on the average SC voter being better informed than most here are thinking--and Newt has actually said a thing or two that has made him look a bit gentle, if you can believe that.  Maybe it's good coaching.  

Mostly, it's just a lot of clapping by residents of South Carolina.  They're very much into clapping.

[angus]

Man, how can anybody not vote for Ron Paul?  Seriously.

[angus]

Paul, this is one of the many reasons why I could just never support you.

?!

Dude, WTF?

Ron Paul is Ron Paul.  Tonight he is no different than any other night.

What's your beef with Ron Paul?

[angus]

Yep, overly sensitive. That's me. Proven by the fact that I've been here for how long as basically the lone Santorum supporter, right?

Phil, you're making the case with posts like these.

Probably we all are.  Ah, it's down to 4, and by now we're all stereotypes of the supporters of our favorite candidates, I suppose.

[angus]

Paul, this is one of the many reasons why I could just never support you.

?!

Dude, WTF?

Ron Paul is Ron Paul.  Tonight he is no different than any other night.

What's your beef with Ron Paul?

My beef is that, despite how I think he's more sane than any of the other candidates currently running (within reason), I disagree with him on many issues.  Abortion is one of them.

I'm not exactly sure what your position is on abortion, we'll probably have to discuss that in another thread.  I'm not an obstetrician, so my position is probably different than Ron Paul's, but I"m in favor of safe and legal abortion, and in that respect I'm probably in the mainstream of US voters.  Moreover, I've been there.  I've been a 19-year-old with a pregnant girlfriend, being scared and worried, and hoping that she won't decide to actually have the baby.  Wanting to blurt out "Oh, sh**t, you're not actually going to have the baby, are you?" but also being man enough to keep my mouth shut because it's her decision.  By law!  And, frankly, by reason and by ethical and historical moral conditioning.  I've had to cough up half the money for the procedure, in a time when coughing up half of 400 dollars wasn't easy.  I've walked past those irritating protesters with their rosaries and their placards with giant pictures of aborted babies--as offensive as they are, as taxpaying citizens they had every much right to occupy that sidewalk as we had to walk upon it toward the door of the clinic--abortion is not a political issue.  It's a personal issue.  And it's one that pregnant individuals must make without interference of their government.  I don't want a state like China, where a pregnant woman can be forced to abort a child, and I don't want a state like Ireland, where a pregnant woman must leave the country to have a legal abortion.  Luckily, I don't live in China or Ireland.  I live in the USA, where we have a constitution that allows each person, via his legislature, to make laws.  This is where Ron Paul stands.  And this is where I stand.

Ron Paul wants you to be in charge of your future.  He doesn't want others in charge of your future.  Yes, this human fetal abortion is tricky, because it is one issue in which one human must necessarily be somewhat in charge of the issue of another.  But that is between two people connected by an umbilical chord.  There is no bond in nature as strong as that between a mammal and its mother, and no god or government can come between it.  I think Ron Paul fundamentally understands this.  Do you?

[angus]

I hope she would choose to have the child. I have two younger sisters who were pregnant last year though not married. I personally believe, and this is up to you, Choosing life for that child would be so much a blessing, not without challenges, for both families. My sisters did.

And that's a commendable sentiment.  I assume Ron Paul shares it.  I don't want to argue this any more, and I don't usually post in the abortion threads because people who feel passionately about it one way or the other are generally not to be convinced otherwise, which is fine.  I wouldn't put abortion in my top ten most important issues anyway.  I generally don't find myself moved to vote for or a against a candidate based on his attitude about human fetal abortion, but I realize that there are some for whom this is an important issue.  There are those who think that terminating a pregnancy is so immoral that it should be outlawed in all cases, and they base that on deeply-held moral convictions, so I can't really fault them for that.  In contrast, there are those who think that the right to terminate a pregnancy for any reason and at any time is fundamental, and they base that on deeply-held moral convictions, so I can't really fault them for that.  But I can't figure out why no one who is moved by this issue wouldn't respect Ron Paul's position.  It seems reasonable, moral, and based on the same precepts of American democracy as outlined in the Constitution as all his other positions are based.  Yet, the hardcore anti-abortion crowd and the hardcore pro-abortion crowd both hate him for his position.  It's mystifying.