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

[angus]

"you tube" 

I still think that's such a funny name for a debate.  reminds me of a pair of socks.  especially that big white sock that Jason Biggs pulled out in American Pie.  Better uses for a tube sock,  but worse ones too.

well, hopefully this'll be as jarring and as unnerving as the last You Tube debate.  Remember that one?  five-year-old children asking questions.  complete idiots thinking out loud.  and, my personal favorite, a tube sock-wearing mulleted michigander asking what the Dems would do to protect his "baby"  His baby, of course, being a 30.06. 

Okay, they're finally starting. 

Ah, jeezus, this is a guy with a guitar.  Actually, he's a not bad.  nice voice.  Imagine Johnny Cash without the cocaine.   Hard to do, I know, but try.  That's how this guy sounds.

Okay, I don't actually hear a question yet.  and he's finished with the guitar. 

Man, this is getting as bad as professional football.  3 hours for a sixty minute game.  That's just for the sponsors, you know.  Makes 'em money.

Oh, here's a real question:  to Giuliani.  about immigration and sanctuary.  let's see...

Get back to ya later with my thoughts.

[angus]

whoa.

check it out, they are.  we got Rudy and Mitt in a catfight.  imagine Hillary and Janet Reno in the ladies' room arguing over whose ass is wider.  that's how these two bitches sound right now.  nice.

don't often get this in a GOP debate.  we're usually such a stodgy lot. 

I'm liking this.

[angus]

Thompson's trying out "coy"  Not a good look on him.  It's like the former head cheerleader, now a secretary at a marketing agency, who comes in to the bathroom and notices the catfight, but decides she's so much above them that she'll just pass insults over their heads.  As she daubs just enough cologne on her wrists to hide the funk of Marlboros on her clothing. 

Man, this is like a sensitivity class all gone wrong.  Who did the GOP hire?  Maybe that Candace Bergen character that Mister Weed hires on Family Guy to do "sensitivity training" for Peter. 

McCain's sober.  And a bit patronizing.  I think you guys just thing he's going long because he lacks inflection or emotion.  He can be funny, though.  Maybe he'll get a chance to try out his "tied up at the time" line again tonight.

Tancredo is actually expounding a little more.  And he seems particularly spirited tonight.

Hunter's on message as well.

Oh, now "ashley" is asking a question.  Ashley?!  When did mamas and daddies start naming their little girls after septegenarian English butlers?  Ashley, could you be a lamb and fetch us another scotch?  Yes, sir.  Will that be all, sir?

Oh, Now Huckabee's setting her straight.  I'm telling ya, I'm liking him more and more.  All that stuff about "likely Iowa caucus voters" turning to Mike?  That's me.   

[angus]

LeAnn from Pennsylvania just asked the most important question I have yet heard.  I also heard a similar question asked in the Democrat debate.  Unfortunately, Anderson Cooper let only Tancredo and Hunter speak about it.  And Hunter actually managed to change the subject.

I'm generally a Ron Paul Republican, and will probably caucus for him, but I have been thinking more and more about what "free trade" should mean.

I'm in the supermarket two blocks north of my house a couple of weeks ago, and I happened to glance down at the stack of Chicago Tribunes as I was waiting in line, and I saw a little black-and-white photo of a block toy my son has.  It's a Baby Einstein Plush Block, with a duck on one side, a mirror on another, and some words, etc., and it comes with a set of several other big plush blocks, plasticky and soft and fuzzy, and a big kangaroo puppet that teaches you about climate when you push a button.  So I picked up the article--and long story short--learned that a lab in Illinois found that this particular toy had 12000 parts per million lead in its plastic.  Way over the limit that the state of Illinois considers safe.  Now, 12000 ppm is 12 ppt, or 1.2 percent.  Unless I'm reading it wrong.  One point two fukking percent lead in the plastic!!!  We dutifully packed those particular blocks away, but he's been playing with them for three years.  And this isn't a cheapie WalMart toy.  It's a gift from a close personal friend bought at a nice department store.  And That's a particularly eggregious example, but it is one of many. 

Well, anyway, this is an important issue I'm watching closely, but apparently Anderson Cooper doesn't think it's very important.  Schmuck.  This part of why I can't stand that bastard.

Well, anyway, I'll be watching this issue closely. 

[angus]

I think we just found our next Jim Jones.  And he lives in Dallas.

Creepy.

[angus]

Huckabee is clearly winning.  His answers are clear and the crowd seems to like him.

I agree.  He even managed to take that Dallas whacko's question and give a considered, intelligent, non-preachy answer.

He's a good man.  Came to my school a few weeks ago.  I didn't get a chance to question to him directly, but I listened to about half his speech, between meetings and classes, from a back-row seat, and I was impressed with his compassion and his candor.  I'm not with him on every issue, but I trust his judgement.

I guess if it comes down to arm-twisting (and I think my precinct may only get a vote or two, so it likely will), and they do that "reorganize" schtick in the caucus, then Mike will by my number two choice.  I could stomach him if I end up having to reorganize after being identified as the only one in the room holding up my hand when they say "Paul?"

[angus]

All the Republicans hate gays so much that they are willing to bash the General, because he is Gay.

love yer logic.  By that logic we could also conclude that all Democrats apparently hate gays too.  After all, more Democrats voted for Bill Clinton that Republicans.  In fact, I think I'm the only registered Republican on this forum who voted for Clinton both in 1992 and 1996.  But it was Clinton who took a bad situation and made it worse with his assinine "don't ask/don't tell" policy.  And this, after he'd promised to make it better for them.

Don't bash gays.  Don't bash republicans.  Don't bash Clinton.  While I agree that it's unfortunate that we treat homosexuals as second-class citizens, I also think it's a complicated issue, and, as Ron Paul has stated, it stems from our movement away from the individualism that made us great to begin with.  When we forget that people aren't individuals but rather labels and demographics, that's when the hate starts.  Your comments aren't cute.  Your oversimplification also reminds me why I'm not a Democrat.  I need that from time to time, given how offensive the Republicans often are.  For that I thank you.

[angus]

Was Anderson Cooper pushing Romney on the gays in the military issue so hard perhaps because he himself (Anderson Cooper) is gay?

Cooper is CNN's version of Sheppard Smith.  I don't like either of them.  Schmoozey, patronizing, daft.  But much of America eats that crap up.  Remember, more of us can name the latest Survivor winner than, say, name the capital of any of the countries we're currently warring in right now.  At least he's not as bad as that bimbo Soledad O'Brien? 

Anderson Cooper 360?  Greta van Susteren?  Bill O'Reilly?  WTF is wrong with us?  Somewhere in the world today a volcano killed three thousand people, but I don't know about it because I'd rather watch a thirty-minute segment about Joren Van der Sloot and his current whereabouts?

Ah, well.  Free market, man.  It's all about the free market.  People want schlock, people get schlock.  Sensationalism and sex sells, so let it sell.  I shouldn't complain.  I am a registered republican, after all.

Pretty good debate.

Paul and Huckabee remain my faves.

[angus]

Anderson Cooper... is saying that they don't know about the gay general's Clinton connection

Anderson Cooper doesn't know anything that isn't scrolling through that blue screen in front of him.  What a bimbo.  Never trust a man with two last names.

anyway, that doesn't matter.  so what if that guy is working for clinton.  he makes a good point.  Both the Democrats and the Republicans are putting gay people on a par with the flatfooted, the nearsighted, and pregnant people.  But unlike those other folks, gay people can run fast, sneak around, and blow shït up.  And that's pretty much all you need in a footsoldier.  So there's really no good reason, other than the fact that some latently homosexual, outwardly homophobic, big hunk of a man feels threatened to have a man in his foxhole who may tempt him to come out of his little closet.  Well, get over it.  If we were arguing about whether blind men or gelatinous/obese men or pregnant bimbos should be fighting for our republic, then I'd be all for maintaining high standards.  But this whole anti-gay policy is illogical, and it removes from our military many excellent candidates for service, especially given that many of the butchest people I've ever met are bulldykes hell bent on killing men for any reason.  Put 'em in a uniform and let 'em defend the country.  They make fine combatants.  Let's get past this silly "don't ask/don't tell" policy.  A policy that was put in place, I might add, by a Democrat president.  And I don't care if it's one of Hillary's hitmen bringing it up.  The identity of the messenger doesn't diminish the quality of his testimony.

[angus]

...(end diatribe)

Yes, full disclosure is a valid point (conflicts of interests and all, and if they identify Norquist then they should similarly identify General what's-his-name.  I suspect they're all embarrassed, if it turns out to be true that he was a Clintonista, that they didn't do their homework.)   Actually, Cooper did say that this "should be investigated."  But I do think it was a reasonable statement that the general made.  And while we're on the subject, I have never bought into the notion that allowing two men to marry somehow diminishes the "sanctity" of my own heterosexual marriage.  It just blows my mind to think that we're still arguing over things like gay marriage and gays serving openly in the army.  I guess I was just ranting more about the subject of the question. 

okay, I'll get off my soapbox now.  It isn't that I'm insensitive to the plight of gay men and women in the world, but it just pisses me off that we spend so much time arguing about homosexuals when we're allowing the dollar to devaluate, we have a $200.3 billion in the third quarter of 2007, and our current national public debt is over nine trillion dollars (that's over thirty thousand dollars for every man, woman, and child!).  And this is my main objection to the "you tube" format, in which the great unwashed masses, clueless and driven by the same sensationalism that guarantees quality programming like "Cops" and "Survivor" and "Idol," inform what might otherwise be reasoned and intelligent debate about subjects that affect *all* of us.  gay or straight.  black or white.  man or woman. 

still,I have to admit that it's always fun to see grainy, home-made videos of a mulleted, shirtless man wearing cutoffs and knee-high tube socks sporting a semi-automatic weapon and asking whether the candidates will promise to defend his right to shoot off his left toe.  So, on balance, I'd have to say the You Tubesox debate should continue.  I'm only disappointed that they didn't have the general asking his question from a bubblebath while he was washing his pecs slowly with a loofah while sipping on a dry, buttery chardonnay and with scented candles on the tubside shelf.  You know, the way they normally do these “you tube” debate questions.  (stage the woman asking about lead in toys with two children, stage the guy asking about second amendment rights with a gun, stage the guy asking about inner-city violence as a negro boy with a free-weight set and a basketball in the background, etc.)  I think the fact that the "gay general" wasn't so stereotypically and blatantly staged the way every one else is probably the biggest testament to the fact that he was a last-minute choice.  This may explain why they didn't properly vet him.  They simply didn't have time.   

[angus]

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. 

ah, actually, the idea that fewer is better is commonly held here, so you're not alone.  I guess I can see that if you flush about half of them, then you have twice as much time, in any debate, for those who may have a real chance to get nominated.  And there's value in that.

but don't forget that there's also value in diversity.  society has long recognized that, though it's not clear to me why we forget that during these debates.  Tancredo's harping may be offensive to some (me), but securing the border is important to him.  And it seems to be important to many voters, both Democrat and Republican, so he's representative of a significant group of voters.  And of course many voters now agree with the idea that Iraq war was a costly mistake, and I'd guess that most voters despise imperialism, so Paul is in sync with huge number of voters.  And even Hunter adds to the debate.  His comments about hitting China in the pocketbook made sense to me.  Candidates get ideas on the platform, and out into the airwaves.  Some of these ideas may be disagreeable to you, but fortunately you are not King of the United States.  And, just as fortunately, neither am I.

I know you want to hear more from candidates with high poll numbers (except, oddly, that one candidate with high poll numbers who actually comes across as a decent fellow.)  But it isn't as though we don't all already know what Giuliani and Romney will say when you ask them about taxes and defense.  We have heard them speak ad nauseum about those subjects.  Whether you choose to believe them is up to you, but don't think that giving some enough time to say a thing a thousand times somehow makes that thing more likely to be true.  Remember that Bush, for example, had plenty of time to tell us, in his many one-on-one debates with Gore, that he'd have a humble foreign policy and that he doesn't think we should be in the business of nation-building.  And yet, allowing him all the time in the world to say that he'd operate in a less arrogant way than his predecessor didn't make it true, did it?

I think it is important to hear the voices of dissent both within and outside the party.  And if a man is masochistic enough to want to be president, then I say let him speak.  It's bad enough that two corporate-controlled parties control all the debates.  Now you want to limit the voices even within the party, the way the democrats have done.  I say that's a bad idea.  And I know lots of other republicans feel the same way, and from conversations with my colleagues I have learned that the smart democrats also know that it's a bad idea for them as well.  Let's not close our minds to possible good ideas just because we fear hearing a few bad ones from time to time.

[angus]

I was watching some questions on YouTube, and during the Bible question, when Rudy said "I read the Bible quite frequently," I chuckled.

Also, does Romney have a slight cold or nasal congestion?

I doubt it.  Mormons aren't allowed to get colds.  The virus that causes it isn't considered Kosher.

Frankly, I was so startled by the Jim Jones twinkle in that Dallas man's eye as he held out his bible that I really didn't hear what any of the candidates said in response.  You could just almost see the impression from the latex hose that he no doubt had just removed from his upper arm if you looked closely enough.  Nothing like a good hit of speed to get those Jim Jones wackos jumping and sweating and thumping their bibles.  "Do you believe in this book?  And I mean specifically this book" as he held the book spine forward to the camera just so you could be sure it was the King James Version of the Holy Bible.  If it ain't written by Shakespeare in 15th century English, then it ain't the lit'rel word of God, I always say.  Catholics, Jews, and Mormons need not apply.

You gotta figure that guy crossed Mitt and Rudy off his list pretty quickly.

[angus]

I don't think anyone got the purpose of the question. 

I think everyone pretty much understood the purpose of the question.  It's hard to miss.

But it's not like Romney can say, "You stoopid bigot, what cave did you crawl out of?  I'm amazed that CNN even put you on.  But then I know that they'll do whatever it takes to ensure a Democrat victory in 2008 so I shouldn't be surprised.  Anyway, why don't you just finish rolling your joint and smoke it and then roll your cousin over and give her a good lay.  And stay away from me."

And it's not like all the non-wasps in the audience would then stand up and applaud and say, "You tell 'em Mitt.  I'm glad at least one of you had the balls to call out that cracker for what he is."

No, Romney had to bite his lip and play it cool.  This is all part of the game.  I suppose those candidates have to put up with quite a bit of craziness on their campaign trails.  Then again, you'd have to be a little bit crazy to want the job of United States president to begin with.  There are much less stressful ways to make 400 thousand dollars a year, I'm sure.

[angus]

outstanding.  Musta been taking a leak or something last night when they did this bit.

There was a question about space exploration.  Huckabee seems to really understand that importance of basic science research.  He understands, moreover, the possibilities for spinoff technologies. 

I just keep liking that guy better and better, I have to admit.

The thing about these debates is that, unlike us junkies, most folks still haven't really decided who they like.  Or, even if they have, if they live in a caucus state--I hate that "caucus" B.S.  I wish we had primaries--anyway, if they live in a caucus state, then their second, and sometimes third, choices matter.  So some of us are still watching to decide who we like second best or third best.  All the more reason to have a crowded field.  Fringe candidates bring up important points that might not be brought up otherwise, and it forces the popular candidates to take concrete stands.  Huckabee's strength isn't that he stands with me.  In fact, he disagrees with me on a hell of a lot of things, his strength is that he seems to have the conviction to admit that he doesn't stand with me.

Obama's like that too, by the way.  I could vote for him if the GOP insists on nominating some neoconservative hell bent on ruling the world.  Let's hope that doesn't happen.

[angus]

outstanding.  Musta been taking a leak or something last night when they did this bit.

There was a question about space exploration.  Huckabee seems to really understand that importance of basic science research.  He understands, moreover, the possibilities for spinoff technologies. 

I just keep liking that guy better and better, I have to admit.

The thing about these debates is that, unlike us junkies, most folks still haven't really decided who they like.  Or, even if they have, if they live in a caucus state--I hate that "caucus" B.S.  I wish we had primaries--anyway, if they live in a caucus state, then their second, and sometimes third, choices matter.  So some of us are still watching to decide who we like second best or third best.  All the more reason to have a crowded field.  Fringe candidates bring up important points that might not be brought up otherwise, and it forces the popular candidates to take concrete stands.  Huckabee's strength isn't that he stands with me.  In fact, he disagrees with me on a hell of a lot of things, his strength is that he seems to have the conviction to admit that he doesn't stand with me.

Obama's like that too, by the way.  I could vote for him if the GOP insists on nominating some neoconservative hell bent on ruling the world.  Let's hope that doesn't happen.

Stupid question, how do caucus work?

not so stupid.  I'm still learning.  I've been a registered voter in six states now, and this is the first time I have had to deal with them.  First, unlike, say, California, where I could be unaffiliated (or DTS in Californiaspeak), and then choose to vote in either (but not both) party primaries, I have to pick one party here.  Toss of a coin yielded GOP.  Just kidding.  It was a hard decision, and I'm a centrist, but I gave Republicans a slight edge owing to the fact that by the time I registered here I was convinced that the Democrats would nominate Hillary with or without me so I'll probably be voting for either a Republican or an "other" for president.  Thus it kinda made sense to help shape that repubican.  so anyway, you pick a party (formally, when you get your license.  Cheap too!  25 bucks for a license.  Can you believe that?)  and you are then a Registered Republican, a Registered Democrat, or a Registered No Party person (No party is Iowaspeak for unaffiliated). 

Then, about a week later you get a little card in the mail telling where to vote.  Mine is at Cornfield Acres Evangelical Biblethumpin' Church out on Haystack Road.  (okay, I made that name up.  But it is at a church.)  Now, I haven't been yet, but this is my understanding:  On the night of January 3, Iowans gather by party preference to elect delegates to the 99 county conventions.  Presidential preference on the Republican side is done with a straw vote of those attending the caucus.  I'm not sure about the Democrats.  This vote is sometimes done by a show of hands or by dividing themselves into groups according to candidate or by jumping up and down and hollering when they call the name of your candidate.  My neighbors tell me it's a show of hands here.  In precincts that elect only 1 delegate they choose the delegate by majority vote and it must be a paper ballot.  It's not clear to me yet how many votes my precinct gets.  I live in a city of about 38 thousand, and my city is a suburb.  We live about 7 miles from the downtown center of the county seat, which is a city of about 70 thousand.  All together, my "metro area" has about 130 thousand people.  So you could call it a small city or a large town.  But that really doesn't say how large our precinct might be.  I'm guessing it's a big one, since any city in Iowa is a big city by Iowa standards.  (The biggest city in the whole state is maybe 200 thousand people.)  So, I'll assume we get somewhere between 1 and 4 votes. 

They'll call the candidates in alphabetical order, and I'll stick up my hand when they say "Paul."  In much of Iowa, I figure I'd be the only one.  But I do live in a University town.  And I do see lots of Ron Paul 2008 signs.  And I only live about a mile from the university (~14000 students), so I'm figuring I'm in a Paul-friendly precinct.  Anyway, we'll take a straw vote.  And if no one gets a majority, then we'll "reorganize" and take another, and another, and another.  I'm planning to be loud and obnoxious and caucus for Paul and debate for him and pull out my schlong and jump around and pretty much do whatever it takes to get more Paul votes.  But if it looks bleak, I'll jump on the Huckabee bandwagon.  If we get as many as 4 votes, I'm sure either Paul or Huck gets one.  If we get only 1, then it'll be tough. 

I'll report either that night or the morning after and let ya know how it goes.

[angus]

Well, I hope you do.  Among the Republicans that the serious Republicans take seriously, he's my favorite.

[angus]

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.

[angus]

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.

[angus]

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. 

Je recherche le mot juste. 

[angus]

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.

[angus]

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.

[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.