CNN Republican You-Tube Debate -- Wednesday, November 28, 2007
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:57:17 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  CNN Republican You-Tube Debate -- Wednesday, November 28, 2007
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9]
Author Topic: CNN Republican You-Tube Debate -- Wednesday, November 28, 2007  (Read 12340 times)
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #200 on: November 29, 2007, 09:12:33 PM »

Well, I hope you do.  Among the Republicans that the serious Republicans take seriously, he's my favorite.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #201 on: November 29, 2007, 09:51:05 PM »

1. Romney was awful.  He was snarky and condescending on immigration towards Giuliani, an issue Romney has no right to condescend on given that he supported the ridiculous amnesty plan.  He declared his opposition to gays in the military, then looked at Anderson Cooper the way a cow looks at an oncoming train when Cooper asked if he still looked forward to a day when gays could serve.  He refused to even answer a questiona bout waterboarding.  You jusat get the feeling the air is coming out of the balloon, don't you?  He looks scared and defensive at all times, and he has no rationale for his candidacy anymore.

2. Giuliani struggled with immigration, largely because he got rattled by the crowd.  Did CNN let Romney stack the audience?  It wouldn't be the first time Romney had stacked an audience and not the first time CNN had allowed it.

3. I remain unsure why Fred Thompson is here.

4. Maybe someday all those youngsters who back Ron Paul will grow up and realize that pacifism and the gold standard aren't very good ideas and they'll become actual conservatives.  Here's to hoping.

5. John McCain had the best night to me.  I know msot people were impressed with huckabee, but then again most people are easily impressed.

6. Speaking of Huckabee, we all realize the media keeps pushing this guy because they know he'd be a catastrophic general election candidate, right?  He has an exclusively fundamentalist religious education, he does not recognize evolution or the big bang, he has a tax plan that was designed by the Church of Scientology, he has said he thinks the purpose of gun rights is to make possible violent resistance to the Federal Government, he has no foreign policy expertise, he is economically illiterate, he can't raise money, and he believes Christianity should be the basis for public policy.  His simplistic one line answers to every question play well in cattle call debates, but in one on one engagements they are likely to look shallow and poorly thought out when compared to Hillary Clinton's detail heavy answers.  He is a joke and should be treated as one.

don't hold back out of politeness.  tell us how you really feel.  Smiley


One thing I have always liked about John is that his tact usually ranges between sharp sword and blunt instrument.  He always knows how to break something complex down to it simplest points without losing the complexity of a situation... and his observation is generally right on.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #202 on: November 29, 2007, 10:00:34 PM »


Also, on Huckabee, why haven't any Republicans called him a tax-and-spender yet? That would be the easiest way to slow his momentum if you're Romney or Giuliani or McCain. He called the Club for Growth the "Club for Greed". Fred did last night in his ad but didn't follow up on it forcefully enough.

The problem with that argument is it's a double-edge sword.  Overall, Huckabee cut taxes for the state of Arkansas.  However, he was in charge as Arkansas saw large economic growth, leading to larger tax revenue.  It's like what happened here in PWC.  Our housing values shot up fast, forcing the county to cut our taxes to the lowest rate ever, yet the county saw higher tax revenue still.  So, did we get a tax cut?  Of course.  Did we pay more taxes?  Of course.  The same is true with Arkansas at the time, as well as most states.
Logged
DownWithTheLeft
downwithdaleft
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,548
Italy


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #203 on: November 29, 2007, 10:01:55 PM »


Also, on Huckabee, why haven't any Republicans called him a tax-and-spender yet? That would be the easiest way to slow his momentum if you're Romney or Giuliani or McCain. He called the Club for Growth the "Club for Greed". Fred did last night in his ad but didn't follow up on it forcefully enough.

The problem with that argument is it's a double-edge sword.  Overall, Huckabee cut taxes for the state of Arkansas.  However, he was in charge as Arkansas saw large economic growth, leading to larger tax revenue.  It's like what happened here in PWC.  Our housing values shot up fast, forcing the county to cut our taxes to the lowest rate ever, yet the county saw higher tax revenue still.  So, did we get a tax cut?  Of course.  Did we pay more taxes?  Of course.  The same is true with Arkansas at the time, as well as most states.
Upon watching that ad I thought:

WOW THAT GUY WAS IMMENSE!!
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #204 on: November 29, 2007, 10:03:46 PM »


Yeah.  I've forgotten how big he was back then.  Talk about an amazing change.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #205 on: November 29, 2007, 10:04:23 PM »

In one sense, Ron Paul is about the opposite of conservatism.
Logged
Eraserhead
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,405
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #206 on: November 29, 2007, 10:33:03 PM »

I like Huckabee's stance on the death penalty and immigration (kind of). That is about it though.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #207 on: November 29, 2007, 10:33:11 PM »

In one sense, Ron Paul is about the opposite of conservatism.

I don't think he'd agree with you.  I think he'd speak of the "old right"  In France he'd definitely have been seated as far to the King's right as there are chairs.  And he is opposed to economic interventionism.  And he's totally against the current imperialism, which is really a big waste of U.S. capital and diminishes U.S. security.  Anyone that concerned with money and security, in a real economic sense, is far more conservative than most.  On the political spectrum of candidates, he's about as far to the right as we have among the candidates debating in both major parties.  Just as Kucinich is as far to the left as there is.  Most of us are neither libertarian nor socialist, but rather somewhere in between.  Just as Paul isn't a libertarian and Kucinich isn't a socialist (despite talking heads' frequent comments otherwise).  But as the American political spectrum goes (which isn't very far when you compare it to all that has been), they represent the extremes.  Paul is the quintessential small government conservative.  The guy in the mansion on the hill who doesn't allow morality to inform his politics.  (Just as Kucinich is the peasant with a lighted torch ready to flame his mansion and who allows morality and the tyrrany of the masses inform all of his.)  I respect them both.  Immensely.  They are about as near purist as we have.  Most Republicans aren't really conservative, just as most Democrats aren't really liberal.  In fact, ever since its first national convention in Pittsburgh in 1856, it has been Nationalism, and not Conservatism, that has been the defining characteristic of the party.  Mine Eyes have seen the Glory of the coming of the Lord.  He is trampling through the vintage with his terrible swift sword.  And all that.  Wrap oneself up in God and The Flag.  This is a constant in the Republican Party.  So just because Paul doesn't agree with most Republicans (on a few issues) doesn't make him "the opposite of conservatism."  Especially in light of the demonstrable fact that "conservativism" has never been the defining characteristic of the Republican party.  Nationalism is. 

Now, in that since, he may not be as "republican" as most republicans, since he isn't particularly nationalistic, at least in the manifest ways that come to mind nowadays.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #208 on: November 29, 2007, 10:44:35 PM »

In one sense, Ron Paul is about the opposite of conservatism.

I don't think he'd agree with you.  I think he'd speak of the "old right"  In France he'd definitely have been seated as far to the King's right as there are chairs.  And he is opposed to economic interventionism.  And he's totally against the current imperialism, which is really a big waste of U.S. capital and diminishes U.S. security.  Anyone that concerned with money and security, in a real economic sense, is far more conservative than most.  On the political spectrum of candidates, he's about as far to the right as we have among the candidates debating in both major parties.  Just as Kucinich is as far to the left as there is.  Most of us are neither libertarian nor socialist, but rather somewhere in between.  Just as Paul isn't a libertarian and Kucinich isn't a socialist (despite talking heads' frequent comments otherwise).  But as the American political spectrum goes (which isn't very far when you compare it to all that has been), they represent the extremes.  Paul is the quintessential small government conservative.  The guy in the mansion on the hill who doesn't allow morality to inform his politics.  (Just as Kucinich is the peasant with a lighted torch ready to flame his mansion and who allows morality and the tyrrany of the masses inform all of his.)  I respect them both.  Immensely.  They are about as near purist as we have.  Most Republicans aren't really conservative, just as most Democrats aren't really liberal.  In fact, ever since its first national convention in Pittsburgh in 1856, it has been Nationalism, and not Conservatism, that has been the defining characteristic of the party.  Mine Eyes have seen the Glory of the coming of the Lord.  He is trampling through the vintage with his terrible swift sword.  And all that.  Wrap oneself up in God and The Flag.  This is a constant in the Republican Party.  So just because Paul doesn't agree with most Republicans (on a few issues) doesn't make him "the opposite of conservatism."  Especially in light of the demonstrable fact that "conservativism" has never been the defining characteristic of the Republican party.  Nationalism is. 

Now, in that since, he may not be as "republican" as most republicans, since he isn't particularly nationalistic, at least in the manifest ways that come to mind nowadays.

Paul is anti-government. He is probably the most anti-government candidate in the whole field. He is against the military government, yay, and the financial government, and the social government, and the so called world government. Even the insurgent nature of his campaign channells heavily on an outsider theme and a not a small dose of his special kind of populism either.

On the other hand, what was Louis XIV's motto again? "L'État, c'est moi". So I'm not sure that he'd be quite on the side of the Bourbon monarchy. It's in that sense that they are opposites.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #209 on: November 29, 2007, 10:47:19 PM »

Apres moi, le deluge! 

Ha.  Well, I suppose Louis wasn't particularly conservative either.  He was a richer, less moral version of opebo, wasn't he.  Okay, fair enough, but don't confuse Paul's motives.  The fact that Paul and Kucinich happen to be in complete agreement on the biggest issue of the day needn't confound their polar opposition.  particularly in light of the fact that they reach their conclusions from entirely different postulates.  (not unlike the Christ and the Buddha, both of whom ultimately argue that suffering can only be overcome by humility and rejection of greed, even though they start in entirely different places.  one never postulated the existence of any gods, the other that he is the in fact the incarnate son of the one true god of the universe.  This is homology--convergence--and it happens all the time in philosophical arguments.)  Don't equate Paul's disagreement with The Bush Doctrine as "opposite of conservatism."  Now, if you want to call The Bush Doctrine the "opposite of conservatism" you'll get no argument from me.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #210 on: November 29, 2007, 10:52:29 PM »

In one sense, Ron Paul is about the opposite of conservatism.

I don't think he'd agree with you.  I think he'd speak of the "old right"  In France he'd definitely have been seated as far to the King's right as there are chairs.  And he is opposed to economic interventionism.  And he's totally against the current imperialism, which is really a big waste of U.S. capital and diminishes U.S. security.  Anyone that concerned with money and security, in a real economic sense, is far more conservative than most.  On the political spectrum of candidates, he's about as far to the right as we have among the candidates debating in both major parties.  Just as Kucinich is as far to the left as there is.  Most of us are neither libertarian nor socialist, but rather somewhere in between.  Just as Paul isn't a libertarian and Kucinich isn't a socialist (despite talking heads' frequent comments otherwise).  But as the American political spectrum goes (which isn't very far when you compare it to all that has been), they represent the extremes.  Paul is the quintessential small government conservative.  The guy in the mansion on the hill who doesn't allow morality to inform his politics.  (Just as Kucinich is the peasant with a lighted torch ready to flame his mansion and who allows morality and the tyrrany of the masses inform all of his.)  I respect them both.  Immensely.  They are about as near purist as we have.  Most Republicans aren't really conservative, just as most Democrats aren't really liberal.  In fact, ever since its first national convention in Pittsburgh in 1856, it has been Nationalism, and not Conservatism, that has been the defining characteristic of the party.  Mine Eyes have seen the Glory of the coming of the Lord.  He is trampling through the vintage with his terrible swift sword.  And all that.  Wrap oneself up in God and The Flag.  This is a constant in the Republican Party.  So just because Paul doesn't agree with most Republicans (on a few issues) doesn't make him "the opposite of conservatism."  Especially in light of the demonstrable fact that "conservativism" has never been the defining characteristic of the Republican party.  Nationalism is. 

Now, in that since, he may not be as "republican" as most republicans, since he isn't particularly nationalistic, at least in the manifest ways that come to mind nowadays.

Paul is anti-government. He is probably the most anti-government candidate in the whole field. He is against the military government, yay, and the financial government, and the social government, and the so called world government. Even the insurgent nature of his campaign channells heavily on an outsider theme and a not a small dose of his special kind of populism either.

On the other hand, what was Louis XIV's motto again? "L'État, c'est moi". So I'm not sure that he'd be quite on the side of the Bourbon monarchy. It's in that sense that they are opposites.


That's over-simplifiying him, for example he supports banning abortion.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #211 on: November 29, 2007, 10:58:25 PM »

In one sense, Ron Paul is about the opposite of conservatism.

I don't think he'd agree with you.  I think he'd speak of the "old right"  In France he'd definitely have been seated as far to the King's right as there are chairs.  And he is opposed to economic interventionism.  And he's totally against the current imperialism, which is really a big waste of U.S. capital and diminishes U.S. security.  Anyone that concerned with money and security, in a real economic sense, is far more conservative than most.  On the political spectrum of candidates, he's about as far to the right as we have among the candidates debating in both major parties.  Just as Kucinich is as far to the left as there is.  Most of us are neither libertarian nor socialist, but rather somewhere in between.  Just as Paul isn't a libertarian and Kucinich isn't a socialist (despite talking heads' frequent comments otherwise).  But as the American political spectrum goes (which isn't very far when you compare it to all that has been), they represent the extremes.  Paul is the quintessential small government conservative.  The guy in the mansion on the hill who doesn't allow morality to inform his politics.  (Just as Kucinich is the peasant with a lighted torch ready to flame his mansion and who allows morality and the tyrrany of the masses inform all of his.)  I respect them both.  Immensely.  They are about as near purist as we have.  Most Republicans aren't really conservative, just as most Democrats aren't really liberal.  In fact, ever since its first national convention in Pittsburgh in 1856, it has been Nationalism, and not Conservatism, that has been the defining characteristic of the party.  Mine Eyes have seen the Glory of the coming of the Lord.  He is trampling through the vintage with his terrible swift sword.  And all that.  Wrap oneself up in God and The Flag.  This is a constant in the Republican Party.  So just because Paul doesn't agree with most Republicans (on a few issues) doesn't make him "the opposite of conservatism."  Especially in light of the demonstrable fact that "conservativism" has never been the defining characteristic of the Republican party.  Nationalism is. 

Now, in that since, he may not be as "republican" as most republicans, since he isn't particularly nationalistic, at least in the manifest ways that come to mind nowadays.

Paul is anti-government. He is probably the most anti-government candidate in the whole field. He is against the military government, yay, and the financial government, and the social government, and the so called world government. Even the insurgent nature of his campaign channells heavily on an outsider theme and a not a small dose of his special kind of populism either.

On the other hand, what was Louis XIV's motto again? "L'État, c'est moi". So I'm not sure that he'd be quite on the side of the Bourbon monarchy. It's in that sense that they are opposites.


That's over-simplifiying him, for example he supports banning abortion.

I never said he was a libertarian, far from it. He's just run the most anti-government campaign in general, when you take into account the issues that he emphasizes. He doesn't emphasize abortion much, and when he does, he focuses more on a states' rights argument. IIRC, in the last debate, he apparently does not equate abortion with murder, as he doesn't support charging a woman who has an abortion with a crime.

angus, it looks like we differ on exactly what is meant by conservatism, but that is ok. American conservatism wasn't well defined before the 1950s anyway.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #212 on: November 29, 2007, 11:14:14 PM »


Jfern, Funny you'd bring that up.  Today I got a 4x8 inch flyer about "Doctor Ron Paul, candidate for United States President" that was all about Paul's pro-life record.  I'm not sure it's germane to either the factor's or my point, unless you include one's stance on abortion an important indicator of one's "conservatism" but I do think it's interesting that you bring it up, mostly because I was struck by the fact that there were all the photos of Paul holding babies, and quotes from him, "...that's why I introduced HR1095, which prevents federal funding of abortion..." and "I'm also a proud sponsor of HR300, which would negate the effect of Roe by removing the ability of federal courts to intervene with state legislitation... and end the federal court tyrrany that ...has caused the deaths of 45 million people..."  stuff like that.  What was interesting is that there was nothing to attract the average voter.  People like me.  Or so I would have thought.  I don't really care that much what a candidate's position is on abortion.  Well, I do think abortion should be legal under all circumstances, but I can't see someone losing my vote just because they disagree.  It's just not one of the major issues, imho, and I find it to be a grossly overplayed issue.  Particularly in 2000, although to some extent even now.  And with Paul there would have been so many interesting things to say.  His signature issues include deficit reduction and adamant opposition to socialized medicine and the like.  Yet this is what the pamphlet they're handing out in Northeastern Iowa.  The whole point of the document was to let the voter know what an adamant pro-lifer Ron Paul is.  Is it possible that I'm not a typical Northeastern Iowa republican?  possibly.  At least that's my current conclusion.  And in that light the pamphlet gives me a great deal of insight in to the local electorate.  That maybe those talking heads are right when they say that the "Iowa caucuses are so totally ideologically polarized, with the GOP being very traditionalistic and the Democrats being very moralistic.  Abortion plays big in Iowa GOP caucuses just as universal health care plays big in the Iowa Democrat caucuses."  Stuff like that.  This would also explain the preponderance of John Edwards yardsigns in my neighborhoods.  So your comment is interesting because it reminds me of that conclusion.

the factor, yeah, that's all okay.  I get your point.  I usually enjoy the wordplay we get into sometimes.  I'm rather old-fashioned about language, although not much else.  I'm stodgy like that.  Conservative, you might say.  Wink

Je recherche le mot juste. 
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #213 on: November 29, 2007, 11:21:18 PM »

Ah, so I was misinformed about Paul's beliefs. When I saw him answer that he wouldn't charge a woman with a crime I automatically assumed he didn't consider abortion murder, since an accomplice to murder always deserves to be charged with a crime.

Hey, given that 'moralism' and 'traditionalism' are not polar opposites, one can see how Kucinich and Paul might arrive at the same conclusion from different premises.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #214 on: November 29, 2007, 11:40:48 PM »

But paul isn't a traditionalist or a moralist.  (To be clear I'm using Jacob Elazar's terms regarding political culture.)  Paul is an individualist.  At least as far as I can tell.  A cowboy, as it were.  Individualists often reach the conclusion that US foreign policy must necessarily be non-interventionist.  In fact, it is the two other groups (moralists, in the case of always wanting to aid rebels attempting to overthrow right-wing fascists, and traditionalists, in the case of always want to aid rebels attempting to overthrow left-wing dictators) who generally support intervention.  There are two ways for me to be able to talk you into going to war in Iraq:  mention Saddam's brutality, putting people in paper-shredders, oppressing speech and assembly, and the like; or mention that he's intent on destroying the good Christian American way of life, and has the weapons to back up his plans.  One of those arguments works with bleeding-heart moralists, and the other works pretty well with traditionalists, or the so-called religious right.  And Bush had some success on both counts, clearly.  87 senators giving him authority ain't too shabby, right?  That's a coup.  Then again, at the time his approval rating was about 75%.  Distant memory. 

Anyway, Paul is just a small-government conservative.  But he's also a federalist.  And that's significant in explaining Jfern's point.  Federalists, whether anti-abortion or abortion-friendly, really don't want federal courts getting in the business of legislation.  To them, it isn't whether the judge will overturn or uphold Roe.  And on that federalists of all stripes agree.  It's a question of sovereignty.  Sure, Paul happens to feel sympathy for foeti, and that's not all that surprising given his chosen original profession.  It's just that he thinks such decisions, as well as all decisions, should be made by the people, through their state legislatures, and not by judicial fiat.  Of course a soundbite or a pamphlet needn't go into to all that.  The purpose of the pamphlet is to gain votes, not to educate.  And it needn't be comprehensive in pointing out anyone's views on anything.  In fact, full disclosure and complete information, about any candidate, is more likely to lose rather than gain votes.
Logged
HardRCafé
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,364
Italy
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #215 on: November 29, 2007, 11:44:49 PM »

I think it's precious people here treated this like a real debate.
Logged
Jake
dubya2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,621
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #216 on: November 29, 2007, 11:52:38 PM »

I think it's precious people here treated this like a real debate.

Whether or not it was an actual debate (let's be clear, there hasn't been one of those in American Presidential Politics in ages) the media treats it as a debate, the public watching hears debate, and they judge it as they would a debate.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #217 on: November 30, 2007, 11:23:01 AM »

I think it's precious people here treated this like a real debate.

I agree with Jake.  On the one hand, I also bitch and whine about having nine or ten people on a stage and have probably also said, "why do they call this a debate?  why not just be honest and call it a forum?"  But debate sounds sexy.  It hints at the possibility of men ripping their shirts open, Superman style, to reveal rock-hard abs, then taking each other and slamming them against the floor.  It's an emotionally charged word that reminds us arguing, fighting, mudslinging, and drunken bar-room brawls.  Of scantily clad women coming around the room to take your order, and maybe give you a lap dance.  Remember, CNN and Fox and all the rest have one job:  to make money for their owners.  You can talk about news ethics and honest journalism all you want, but ultimately Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch are capitalists, and they have started private companies.  And private companies exist to make a profit.  CNN calls this a "forum" and no one will watch, and when the Nielsen ratings come out they will no longer be able to sell thirty-second spots for several million dollars.  You know that.

Also, bear in mind that many of us still are making up our minds.  Republicans and Democrats alike.  As well as swing voters, who are watch both sets of debates with roughly the same interest since we want a chance to see what both parties' likely nominees are thinking.  And, frankly, as we can see in this forum, both parties are big tents.  There are republicans of all stripes, and we have seen that there are democrats of all stripes.  And letting candidates come on and be asked questions gives us a feel for the breadth and width of an appropriate platform.  And at this juncture, these "debates" are as much about informing future platforms as they are about selecting a nominee.  Sure, the You Tube format is jarring and unnerving.  And even a bit surreal.  Mulleted gun-nuts and young children (who probably won't even bother to vote once they're 18) are asking questions, but don't freak on the messenger.  Groove on it.  Enjoy the show.  And remember that those questions, no matter who is asking it, are legitimate, because it gives a glimpse into the mind of the candidate when he's forced to reckon with an issue he hasn't been prepped for and trained for.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #218 on: November 30, 2007, 01:35:04 PM »

But paul isn't a traditionalist or a moralist.  (To be clear I'm using Jacob Elazar's terms regarding political culture.)  Paul is an individualist.  At least as far as I can tell.  A cowboy, as it were.  Individualists often reach the conclusion that US foreign policy must necessarily be non-interventionist.  In fact, it is the two other groups (moralists, in the case of always wanting to aid rebels attempting to overthrow right-wing fascists, and traditionalists, in the case of always want to aid rebels attempting to overthrow left-wing dictators) who generally support intervention.  There are two ways for me to be able to talk you into going to war in Iraq:  mention Saddam's brutality, putting people in paper-shredders, oppressing speech and assembly, and the like; or mention that he's intent on destroying the good Christian American way of life, and has the weapons to back up his plans.  One of those arguments works with bleeding-heart moralists, and the other works pretty well with traditionalists, or the so-called religious right.  And Bush had some success on both counts, clearly.  87 senators giving him authority ain't too shabby, right?  That's a coup.  Then again, at the time his approval rating was about 75%.  Distant memory. 

Anyway, Paul is just a small-government conservative.  But he's also a federalist.  And that's significant in explaining Jfern's point.  Federalists, whether anti-abortion or abortion-friendly, really don't want federal courts getting in the business of legislation.  To them, it isn't whether the judge will overturn or uphold Roe.  And on that federalists of all stripes agree.  It's a question of sovereignty.  Sure, Paul happens to feel sympathy for foeti, and that's not all that surprising given his chosen original profession.  It's just that he thinks such decisions, as well as all decisions, should be made by the people, through their state legislatures, and not by judicial fiat.  Of course a soundbite or a pamphlet needn't go into to all that.  The purpose of the pamphlet is to gain votes, not to educate.  And it needn't be comprehensive in pointing out anyone's views on anything.  In fact, full disclosure and complete information, about any candidate, is more likely to lose rather than gain votes.

No, I have no objection to using Daniel Elazar's political cultures to categorize Paul or the branches of American politics in general. Still, the most conservative branch of that is not necessarily the individualist branch. Individualism is geographically in the middle and one could argue that it's politically in the middle as well. Of course, not if personal liberty is your number one  hot button issue. Then it's not in the middle at all- it's at one extreme.

Yes, there is a certain moralist case for intervention. This is what Bush was running against in 2000 when he stated that he was not in favor of nation-building. I really think Bush kept his promise there. For the last 4 years he has largely resisted nation building in Iraq, but that has cost him. Now that he's putting more of an investment into law and order in that country to save his legacy, he's getting at least some better results.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #219 on: November 30, 2007, 02:19:59 PM »
« Edited: November 30, 2007, 02:57:29 PM by angus »

Yes, there is a certain moralist case for intervention. This is what Bush was running against in 2000 when he stated that he was not in favor of nation-building. I really think Bush kept his promise there. For the last 4 years he has largely resisted nation building in Iraq, but that has cost him. Now that he's putting more of an investment into law and order in that country to save his legacy, he's getting at least some better results.

That's an excellent description, I think.  Succinct.  Never get that in history textbooks.  One day some egghead will stretch what you said out into nine or ten pages.  Sometimes I think dissertations just train us in how to take as long as we possibly can to come to the point.

Also, I don't think Elazar was going for a spectrum, and to frame it like that defeats the whole purpose of his dissertation.  Too often we have these linear frames, where your ideology is more X than his is, or whatever.  His "political culture" subverts that paradigm.  So I'm not sure I can buy into your analysis in the first paragraph on that basis.

Speaking of political spectra, the little info lines below your icon made me remember to take that matrix test, since I haven't for quite some time.  My results just now were
Economic score: +2.15
Social score: -5.04

Not much movement from last time I think.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #220 on: December 01, 2007, 05:51:35 PM »

On the one hand, I also bitch and whine about having nine or ten people on a stage and have probably also said, "why do they call this a debate?  why not just be honest and call it a forum?"

I think what HardRCafe is more complaining about is his conservatively-motivated opposition to YouTube (and the Internet in general).
Logged
defe07
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 961


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #221 on: December 01, 2007, 08:05:03 PM »

I think the debates should be done head to head within the same week.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.076 seconds with 12 queries.