171 comments

  1. debbie0040 says:

    I think Rudy made points when he nailed Ron Paul about Paul’s comments that our nation has not been attacked by another country in over 200 years. Rudy asked Paul where he was on 9-11.

    Fred is doing well and so are Huckabee and Romney.

  2. Icarus says:

    Fred’s first answer was horrible. He’s since improved a lot.

    Huckabee is probably still doing the best.

    Romney was doing great until he decided that it was up to attorneys to decide if he could attack Iran.

    McCain was doing O.K. until he decided that Florida and California have a veto power over energy independance, and that man made global warming is a real threat.

    Rudy, overall, still seems in control.

    Brownback has the most curious statement, that he’s the only one that has ever “worked in international trade”, because that was his topic as a white house intern.

    Hunter, Tancredo, and He Who Shall Not Be Named are playing to their (small) block’s worst fears.

  3. TrueConservative says:

    Fumbling Fred is stammering and is having trouble articulating anything of substance. He keeps looking at his notes ( I wonder if Joel wrote them). He is embarassing himself and all those sellout GA senators who are backing him. So far the winners are Huckabee with his passionate defense of the fair tax, and Rudy with his back shed whipping of that Mass liberal mormon.

  4. debbie0040 says:

    Fred is doing well in this debate. If I had to pick who is wining the debate I would have to say Rudy and Huckabee.

    Fred comes across as the strong Southern Gentlemen and someone that can be trusted to protect you. His age is his advantage. Fred is holding his own and doing well. Fred doesn’t mince words and is straighforward.

  5. TrueConservative says:

    “Senator Thompson”, how does a weak dollar impact America?”
    Senator Thompson: ” Uhhhh, Duhhhhh, yeah, ahhhhh.” Fred is cooked.

  6. debbie0040 says:

    Thompson came across as decisive, positive and upbeat. He did not win the debate, I would say that Rudy did. Thompson did not substain damage and did well for his first time.

    The headlines from the debate will focus on the Rudy-Mitt banter.

  7. Erick says:

    Debbie, I thought it was too Fred’s advantage that he was between Mitt and Rudy, towered over both, and looked parental as they fought each other.

  8. debbie0040 says:

    Ron Paul came across as angry and that is not good.

    Huckabee was impressive and so was Mitt but he was too polished. Brownback did well but was too polished as well. Brownback and Romney looked like Ken dolls on stage.

    Tancredo was a broken record about immigration.

    McCain suprised me and did better than I had expected.

  9. debbie0040 says:

    I agree Erick. I think Fred did well and did not back down from his anwers. Fred came across as someone you felt comfortible with and trusted. He did not come across as a slick politician.

    Fred makes you feel nostalgic …There is a reason that Fred polls consistently 1 or 2 in the polls. He is the most like Reagan. Reagan always made the American people comfortible and at ease.

  10. TrueConservative says:

    I think Dobson made a good point when he said, “Thompson could not argue his way out of a wet papper bag.”

  11. TrueConservative says:

    Comparing Thompson to Reagan is blaphemy… Reagan would support the marriage amendment, Reagan would not support McCain Feingold, Reagan would not lobby for abortion rights gruops and then lie about it, Reagan would not be a part of todays decrepit Hollywood scene, Reagan would not sell himself to the highest bidder as a lobbyist for hire to the highest bidder because I have no character or Christian conscience, Reagan would not marry someone that looks like his grandaughter. Debbie comparing him to Reagan is a slap in the face to all true conservatives. I am embarassed that we are running a lobbyist for President… What has happened to our party?True conservatives will take it back. Got to go to the Forsth GOP meating..

  12. debbie0040 says:

    True Conservative, if Fred were the nominee are you telling me you would support Billary?

    I can tell you that I think Dobson doesn’t like anyone that doesn’t cow tow to him . My Dad is a retired Independent Baptist ministers and thinks Dobson is out of line in his assessment of Fred.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071009/ap_po/republicans_debate

    http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0944307320071009?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1007/Matthews_pops_off.html

  13. debbie0040 says:

    Yes Fred is married to someone much younger. That blows away the theory that Fred lacks energy if he is keeping a much younger wife content and happy.

    The key is that Fred did not commit adultry while married to his first wife. I can’t tell you how many women came to the Fred booth at the GA GOP convention and inquired about whether or not Fred had a zipper problem. In fact, Fred’s ex wife and ex girlfriends will be hitting the campaign trail on behalf of Fred. Not quite sure how Fred pulled that off but he did. How many of you could pull that one off?

    As for the marriage ammendment, Fred is a Federalist as many conservatives are. Fred believes that powers not enumerated in the Constitution belong to the states. The whole marriage ammendment is a sticky slope and many conservatives have mixed feelings about it.

    How many times have we complained about the Federal Government intruding on State’s rights? It is rather hypocritical to say that we want the Feds to butt out but it is ok to usurp state’s rights in issues we agree with. Then again imagine 50 states having different definitions of marriage. You see what I mean? There are mixed feelings out there for those that very strongly oppose gay marriage. This issue merits further discussion.

  14. Erick says:

    So Phil, you hate “the liberal mormon” and you hate Fred, I’m sure you hate Giuliani too — those are your real choices unless you’re going to go third party or Democrat.

    Who are you supporting?

  15. new-guy says:

    Debbie, we’re you Fred’s first wife or something? You arent objective at all. I watched as a potential Fred-head but left wondering how i could even think of supporting Thompson. He was horrible.

  16. new-guy says:

    Debbie, are you actually saying its good to have a President that can get all of his former girlffriends and 1st wife on the campaign team? Are you okay?

  17. Icarus says:

    new-guy,

    If you can’t see how much finesse and talent that would require, I can’t help you.

    A gentleman that can love em, leave em, and keep them on good terms with each other, can certainly tell the dems to go to hell in such a way that they’ll be looking forward to the trip.

  18. TrueConservative says:

    There is only 3 acceptable candidates for President. Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, and Duncan Hunter. I will keep my integrity and vote for Huckabee as he resembles what true conservatives are all about. Huckabee is an adroit public speaker. He communicates his message in life-like, cogent terms, with compelling examples like the story he told (at the Ames Straw Poll) of what his then-11-yo daughter entered into the “Comments” section of a Visitors Book after visiting the Yad Vashem holocaust museum:

  19. Erick says:

    Huckabee also supports fair trade instead of free trade, high taxes instead of low taxes, government imposed salary caps within the free market, and all sorts of Not True Conservative stuff — things Reagan would be appalled by.

  20. Icarus says:

    Ole Huck almost had me thinking I should consider him until about the last 40 minutes of that debate. CEO salaries too high, need more unions, Don’t veto SCHIP because it’s the politically expedient thing to do…? WTF?

  21. souldrift says:

    Icarus raises a good point — that doesn’t make Rudy any less of a 9/11 crazed freak, but it does show that RP isn’t all that either. Unless RP’s comment (and I didn’t watch, so I cannot conclude) implied the American mainland being attacked, in which case 12/7/41 wouldn’t apply.

  22. Doug Deal says:

    Still not impressed with anyone. I wonder who Tancredo had in mind that he wouldn’t support if they got the nomination?

    Erick is right about ‘Hick’abee. I think he had his conservative credentials revoked.

    Fred was nothing special, and does not look as good as he does in the NYC DA’s office. He will not only have to sell Fred!eralism, he will have to sell old man.

  23. ToddH says:

    I think Erick and Doug Deal make a mistake by demanding a litmus test of free trade to determine conservative credentials. Seems to me like Conservatism is a political philosophy which attempts to preserve the status quo or those aspects of the past that are worth conserving and that it includes forms of other ideologies which are almost subsets within a broader conservative philosophy, which includes populism, protectionism and economic neoliberalism.

  24. TrueConservative says:

    Huck is for free trade, as long as it is fair. We are losing jobs because of an unlevel, unfair trading arena that has to be fixed. Behind the statistics, there are real families and real lives and real pain. Mike Huckabee is running for President because he does not want people who have worked loyally for a company for twenty or thirty years to walk in one morning and be handed a pink slip and be told, “I’m sorry, but everything you spent your life working for is no longer here.” As a aLawyer Eric you have no concept of this, and that is why you will fit in well in the very innefective Macon city council.

  25. Doug Deal says:

    ToddH,

    My biggest problem with Huck is his statements suggesting limiting maximum income and the US needing more unions. Maximum wage is something Marxists would bring out, not “True” Conservatives.

    I am not a unilateral “free trade” advocate. I believe in reciprocation, and I believe in cutting trade with countries that do not respect our patents, threaten us with violence, or are criminal regimes.

  26. ToddH says:

    DD,

    Understood. I remember reading about Huey Long’s “Share the Wealth” Program which included capping wages with a max. wage.

  27. TrueConservative says:

    He never limited maximum income, he questioned the disparity in income. There is a big difference Doug. Huck is a poster child for living the American dream… Solid social conservative values and he clearly articulates the fair tax= The best AMERICAN President ever……..

  28. landon says:

    I was under the impression that Huckabee was merely pointing out facts about income differences in America. It seemed to me he wants to encourage American businesses and corporations to focus more on profit sharing and incentive plans to retain the best employees, rather than padding the pockets of upper management.

    Furthermore, his comments following the debate when Kramer plugged him about around 6 45 this evening show that he does not want government to mandate anything like “maximum wage” reqirements. Rather, he is pointinng to a need for companies to rethink the way they treat employees, i.e., provide them with incentive to see the compnay do well, and therfore increase their individiaul productivity.

    Please let me know if I missed something.

  29. TrueConservative says:

    No need for inadvertent shots,Mitts record as a governor that was pro abortion, pro gun control and pro gay marriage is all the evidence we need.

  30. Doug Deal says:

    TC, I am not so sure about the NRST either. In concept it is good, but transition problems seem to be glossed over by the true believers, and it is impossible to take them seriously when they cannot even admit that it could have some harmful effects.

    Little Debbie cream filled oatmeal snacks are also really good in theory. But, if I transfered my economy over to just eating those, there will be all sorts of unpleasant transitions.

  31. landon says:

    “He never limited maximum income, he questioned the disparity in income” – TrueConservative

    Thanks for that clarification. I think Huckabee has an important message, because it is in tune with fiscal conservatives (fair tax) and social conservatives (marriage and pro-life issues).

    Couple that with an unsurpassed ability to stand out rhetorically with each passing debate, and you have a winning candidate, not a counterpoint to Hillary.

  32. Doug Deal says:

    landon,

    If that is what he wants, I am fine with that, however this is Mike “I won’t veto something if there is a political expediancy” Huckabee.

    How long before that turns into, “a maximum wage gives me votes, so why not?”

  33. landon says:

    As a Huckabee supporter, that SCHIP comment was quite a surprise. It seemed ripe for him to say he would have vetoed it because it did not fall in line with his patient-centered plan, which is similar to Rep. Price’s plan. Rep. Price voted against the SCHIP bill as far as I know.

    Maybe he was trying to criticize Bush for not being compromosing in order to move forward on other issues, since he is operating under conditions of divided government. If that is his point, it was valid but not clear. Either way, the question was worded in such a way as to get at whether he was a Bush-supporter. He chose the wrong way to distance himself from Bush. Hopefully something he will addresss in the future – i.e. don’t let a question get you off message.

    He should have stuck to his “patient-centered” health plan, and left Bush out of it.

  34. ConservativeCaucus says:

    Agreed landon… That was Huckabee’s worst answer. He started to answer that question very well: Bush let the message get away from him and let it snowball. Huckabee has been very clear that government healthcare is not an option, but he was not clear on that answer. I hope we get a chance to hear him expound on his answer.

    That being said, I thought his answer on whether a military strike against Iran needs to be approved by Congress was an excellent answer. At least he doesn’t need to consult his lawyers on whether or not he can defend the country.

  35. landon says:

    “Maximum wage is something Marxists would bring out . . .” DD

    I am sorry, but Marxists don’t make the Fair Tax, a national consumption tax based upon prmoting free market transaction, a major political initiative. It is very clear from everything Gov. Huckabee has said that he is quite far from being so far left as to devalue the workings of a free competitive market.

    And therein lies the criticism he is making – businesses need to promote a competitive labor market. Increasing localization of wealth within a business can lead to less competition between businesses for workers.

    Think Reagan and the break-up of ma bell. TR and antitrust legislation. It is the same principle, except then it was applied just to monopolies of specific industries – government action was required to promote competition. Monopolizing wealth within a business can have a similar micro effect, and Huckabee wants to promote, not mandate, that corporations avoid this pitfall.

    Merely by advocating a different way to approach workers in a presidential campaign, Huckabee is able to play on perenial themes that can appeal to both business owners and workers. Owners share some of their profit to incentivize productivity, and workers compete for higher paying jobs. That is his message, not Marxist wage caps.

  36. TrueConservative says:

    Janet Folger sums it up well “It’s all or it’s nothing: It’s Huckabee or it’s Hillary. The end to abortion on demand is within our grasp; so is the annihilation of every advance we have ever made. Values Voters: Are you ready to unite yet? ” Lets do this Georgia, we have been praying and fasting for another Reagan for twenty years. Just when I thought it would never happen, God has sent us Mike Huckabee who has a great chance of surpassing Reagan as the best President ever.

  37. SFrazier says:

    Governor Huckabee is a cool guitar player as well. He has my vote. My sister is a Dem but she is voting for the good Governor also. The fair tax will save this country, Governor Huckabee must be friends with Neal Boortz.

  38. debbie0040 says:

    I did not have a problem with Huckabee until he said he would not have vetoed SCHIP. Fiscal conservatives would have vetoed SCHIP. He gave other answers that were troubling as well and it put his fiscal conservative credentials in doubt. SCHIP also provided insurance for illegals.

    The 9-11 hijackers were trained and supported by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Last time I checked that is a country. Paul blew it with that answer.

    Thompson did not knock it out of the ballpark in the debate but he did hold his own. He made no gaffs.

    The debate was televised live at 4 est and was telecast again at 9 pm. How many GOP voters do you think watched either one? Many were at work at 4 and at 9 were putting kids in bed and getting ready for bed themselves. Most people will go by press reports and sound bites from the debate.

    My Presidential Choices:

    1. Fred
    2. Rudy
    3. Romney
    4. Huckabee

    The rest of you list your top 4 choices

  39. debbie0040 says:

    True conservative, it is more than just values that matters. You do have a few socially conservative Democrats that actually won last November. Some were more conservative than the Republican incumbent. True conservatives are both socially and fiscally conservative.

  40. ConservativeCaucus says:

    “True conservatives are both socially and fiscally conservative”

    Agreed… that is why I am supporting Huckabee.

    1. Huckabee
    2. Thompson (but falling)
    3. Romney
    4. Pray for Newt to reconsider

  41. souldrift says:

    Debbie: “The 9-11 hijackers were trained and supported by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Last time I checked that is a country. Paul blew it with that answer.”

    You’re really stretching on this one. Of course Afghanistan is a country, but if it were that simple we wouldn’t have needed to debate whether “State Sponsors of Terror” can justifiably be attacked–the State didn’t attack us. Did we not live through the same 9/11??

    I personally don’t give two craps which Republican you vote for, but don’t make a choice before you recognize (and admit) the facts about the candidates.

  42. debbie0040 says:

    Afghanistan gave the terrorists support and sanctuary while they trained and planned 9-11. Afghanistan was a co-conspirator in 9-11.

  43. souldrift says:

    Whatever, Debbie, obviously you’re impervious to reason. I give up. Luckily, I can say: I love New York.

    Yankee Stadium erupted in thunderous booing when Rudy Giuliani’s mug flashed on the jumbotron during the seventh inning stretch. Could New Yorkers’ chilly reception of their former mayor, (even in the middle of “God Bless America”), be the result of the fact that he continues to milk shamelessly for his own financial and political benefit their beloved city’s most horrifying trauma?

  44. TrueConservative says:

    Debbie that is the great thing about Huck. Herman Cain put it best ” When I spoke to Mike Huckabee, I found myself agreeing with everything he said.” The great thing about Huck is that he has a proven record , so it is just not campaign rhetoric like Mitt and Fred. Newt’s wife came to Hucks table at her husbands solutions event and told me how much she liked Huck.He espouses his values in his private life that he talks about in his public life.
    Hucks Administration:
    Pres. Mike Huckabee
    VP. Rick Santorum
    Secretary of state: Newt Gingrich
    A Baptist from the South, a Catholic from the North East, and the smartest policy maker ever.
    My son will have a great future. Debbie, you need to find Jesus…..

  45. Romegaguy says:

    All you Fred-heads are screwed when Debbie guarantees his victory and starts betting steak dinners…

  46. StevePerkins says:

    Not a whole lot of American history buffs here in the party of American patriotism! Ron Paul’s “haven’t been attacked by another country in 200 years” comment is technically true because Hawaii did not become a U.S. state until almost 20 years after Pearl Harbor. So it IS an accurate statement, although even it’s one that I wouldn’t have bothered trying to make because the point is too technical.

    As for 9/11, he’s certainly correct that we weren’t attacked by “a country”. If we were, then that country was Saudi Arabia.

  47. debbie0040 says:

    I found Jesus in 1967 and I found Reagan in Thompson in 2007. Even Thompson’s low key debate style reminds me of Reagan. I like Huckabee but was deeply disturbed by his answer to SCHIP veto. Deeply disturbed and shocked. I have to tell you that Huckabee did not come across as someone that was fiscally conservative last night.

    I am supposed to be impressed that a woman that had an adultrous affair with a married man is impressed with Huckabee? Is she impressed with his values?

  48. drjay says:

    hawaii was however a u.s. territory in 1941-if we want to get really nitpicky the philipines were a U.S. commonwealth until 1946 (president taft was once its governor)-by your definition i suppose it would not be an attack on america if castro did something crazy on his death bed and bombed puerto rico or the north korean guy decided to occupy guam or american samoa either, huh?? heck if d.c. were bombed (by your definition) i guess we’d still be in the clear too…

  49. Icarus says:

    Let’s not forget that Japan took out the entire Pacific fleet. Ships that were docked in an American territory. If He Who Shall Not Be Named really believes that’s not an attack on America, then he should be running for President of U-Cal, Berkeley.

  50. drjay says:

    i don’t know all the details of thompsons personal life–but i don’t know if it is prudent to disparage the personal affairs of others while defending thompson–who had a bit of a reputation as a ladies man after the divorce from his 1st wife–that included a romp w/ lorrie morgan whose own personal life rival liz taylor and zsa-zsa gabor as far as trips down the aisle go…i’m not saying–i’m just saying…

  51. TrueConservative says:

    Michael Reagan put it best this morning on Fox, ” There is little resemlence between Fred and my Dad”. As for Newt, I believe him when he says he has asked God to forgive him and would do it differently if given the chance. When Fred “romped” around with morgan and the rest of that Hollywood trash he was committing adultery. Some would argue with the book of Mark as there base that his current marriage is adultery. At best, not appropriate to marry a girl that could be his grandaughter. Huck has as only loved one woman, he stood by her when she had cancer and the doctor said she had little chance of livig or ever walking again. The bible commands us to love our wives like Christ loved the world. When I see Huck with Janet I see someone who would die for his wife. Every morning my pray is the same ” God I know you don’t need me, but please honor me by using me to put Mike Huckabee, your true servant that genuinely is after Your own heart, in office.”

  52. Icarus says:

    You know, we really should have talked Zell Miller into running for President on the Democrat Ticket.

    Think how much more fun it would be to watch the debates, since the KosKids and even Spacey are having so much fun with RP in ours.

  53. Doug Deal says:

    Steve and others,

    I am not a Paul supporter, in fact, I generally compare him to this guy. However, I did not take that same meaning from his statements that you did.

    My recollection was that he said that in 200 years, we have not had a situation where we were in a situation where we knew of an imminent attack where pre-emptive action would have been appropriate.

    With Japan, we were in negotiations with them up until the moment that we were bombed. We had not idea the attack was coming, and thus any action would have been premature by our understanding of the situation.

    So, in that sense, RP is right, that we have never had a case where our country was attacked where pre-emptive action could have been used.

    It is fine to dislike RP, but it is immature to try to turn everything he says into something more sinister than it is.

  54. debbie0040 says:

    I like Newt but there would have been issues if he had decided to run for President. Marianne Gingrich would probably scream very loudly about the fact not only did Newt leave her for another woman, but he tried to have their marriage annulled within the Catholic Church so he could marry Calista, his current wife.

    I think Newt would make a GREAT Cabinet member.

    True Conservative, please point out in the Bible where it says that you can not marry a younger woman and that it is adultery.

    I like Huckabee but I am being pragmatic and want someone that can defeat Hillary as well as being conservative. I am also concerned about osme of Huckabee’s answers in the debate such as SCHIP.

  55. drjay says:

    not to have an overly religious discussion–but i believe in both matthew and luke–it is mentioned that remarraige after a divorce, is adulterous unless the divorce has occurred for a very limited number of specific reasons…i think that is the point more than the age of his spouse…

  56. MSBassSinger says:

    I thought Thompson did well after the opening question jitters. After that, he
    was composed, articulate, and confident. I disagreed with him on how “rosy”
    the economy is, and the proper conservative concept of free trade, but I thought
    he did much better than the pundits thought he would. He was also the only one
    who referred, correctly, to our enemies as “Islamic”.

    I was most impressed with Huckabee and Hunter. Both were for the fair tax,
    both understood the economy is not as rosy as some make out, and both
    understood what we have with China and some other countries is not free trade.
    Tancredo didn’t stand out to me, but he was usually right on.

    Romney, Brownback, and Guiliani sounded ignorant and looked as crooked as a
    dog’s hind leg. Guiliani sounded ignorant when he kept saying the line item
    veto is unConstitutional. Brownback is no conservative, given his suport of amnesty for illegals. All 3 are big government Rockefeller Republicans
    that represent why Republicans are a minority in Congress. I guarantee you
    that if Guiliani is the nominee, most Christian conservatives won’t be voting
    for President. He is so little different from Clinton, it doesn’t matter.

    McCain sounded like the kid who keeps yelling “Pick me, Pick me!”. His past
    betrayal of conservatives makes him unelectable and a poor choice. His
    performance in the debate didn’t do anything to change that for me.

    Ron Paul, as he always does, sounded like the leader of the tinfoil hat brigade.

    If the Republican nominee is Huckabee, Thompson, or Hunter, I think we have a
    chance of winning. If it is any of the others, get ready for 4-8 years of
    obscurity for conservatives both in Congress and the White House, and in the
    Republican party.

  57. TrueConservative says:

    As Governor of Arkansas, Huckabee cut taxes and fees almost 100 times, saving the taxpayers almost $380 million. Mike left a surplus of nearly $850 million, which he urged should go back to the people.And lets remember Huckabee’s state legislature was 88% democrat and he still was able to accomplish this. Not even my Idol Ronald Reagan could have pulled that on off.

  58. SFrazier says:

    My brother lives in Arkansas and he says that Governor Huckabee was responsible for bringing Arkansas out of the dark ages. He said he would beat Bill Clinton in an election there now, never mind Hillary. People love him because he is articulate, smart, yet very down to earth. Lets not forget the FAIR TAX. That is the ultimate in Fiscal responsibility dude.

  59. MSBassSinger says:

    Honestly, I am most supportive of Huckabee at this point. The only area I have any apprehension is his position on the war against Islamic imperialism. I have not heard him say much about it, or directly address the Islamic core of it, like Thompson did yesterday afternoon, and in his past writings.

    As for tax cuts vs tax increases, keep in mind that the same Ronald Reagan that cut taxes also agreed to tax raises. He failed to veto the 1986 tax reform act that led to retroactive taxes that led to the savings and loan disaster. Reagan failed to consistently veto the annual bloated budgets that the Democrat Congress created, forcing them to override the veto if they could. On balance, Reagan cut taxes and that led to immense prosperity and a long economic boom. But Reagan did also raise some taxes and didn’t do all he could to stem overspending. If Reagan can be forgiven tax increases, I would urge the same for Huckabee – the end result was lower taxes and a better economy in both cases.

  60. debbie0040 says:

    What is with this Romney ad paid for by Log Cabin Republicans? Are they trying to help him or hurt him?

    http://citizengeorgia.wordpress.com/

    Is this a pro-Romney ad or is it not?
    Posted by citizengeorgia in Your Comments on Other issues.
    1 comment so far
    So we were flipping channels during the debate last night and came across this ad about Mitt Romney paid for by the Log Cabin Republicans. It seems to be a pro-Romney ad, but really is it?

  61. TrueConservative says:

    MSBassSinger, here is Huckabee’s response, much clearer:
    “I believe that we are currently engaged in a world war. Radical Islamic fascists have declared war on our country and our way of life. They have sworn to annihilate each of us who believe in a free society, all in the name of a perversion of religion and an impersonal god. We go to great extremes to save lives, they go to great extremes to take them. This war is not a conventional war, and these terrorists are not a conventional enemy. I will fight the war on terror with the intensity and single-mindedness that it deserves.

    The top priority of the president as Commander in Chief is first and foremost protecting our own citizens. While we live in a neighborhood of nations and must strive to be good neighbors, as President, I will ensure the peace, safety, and well-being of American citizens at home and abroad.

    While I prefer America to be safe and secure within her own borders rather than loved and appreciated abroad, I believe we can accomplish both goals. We can resurrect relationships with our allies and neighbors. With a focus on renewed diplomacy and inclusion, we can accomplish the goals of our nation without having to go it alone.

    When the sun rose on September 11, we were the only superpower in the world; when the sun set that day, we were still the only superpower, but how different the world looked. During the Cold War, you were a hawk or a dove, but this new world requires us to be a phoenix, to rise from the ashes of the twin towers with a whole new game plan for this very different enemy. Being a phoenix means constantly reinventing ourselves, dying to mistakes and miscalculations, changing tactics and strategies, rising reborn to meet each new challenge and seize each new opportunity.

    As president, I will fight this war hard, but I will also fight it smart, using all our political, economic, diplomatic, and intelligence weapons as well as our military might. The terrorists unfortunately have a great many sympathizers all over the world, folks who are happy to show up and be filmed shouting “Death to America,” but the actual number of those willing to blow themselves up is relatively few, and they train and plot in small, scattered groups.

    It’s an enemy conducive to being tracked down and eliminated by using the CIA and the Pentagon’s Joint Special Operations Command. We can accomplish a great deal, we can achieve tremendous bang for the buck, with swift, surgical air strikes and commando raids by our elite units, working with friendly governments, as we’ve done with the Ethiopians in Somalia. These operations are impossible without first-rate intelligence. When the Cold War ended, we cut back on our human intelligence, just as we cut back on our armed forces, and both have come back to haunt us. As President, I will beef up our human intelligence capacity, both the operatives who gather information and the analysts who figure out what it means.

    Right after September 11, with wounds fresh and emotions running high, President Bush declared that all other countries were either for us or they were for the terrorists. Such a black-and-white stance doesn’t work in the Arab and Muslim worlds, where there are more shades of gray than you’ll find at Sherwin-Williams. Is President Musharaff of Pakistan for us 100%? No, since September 11, he’s been playing both ends in the middle to survive. At the moment he’s pulled too far away from us. While we have been focused on Iraq, Al Qaeda and the Taliban have expanded their training camps in the Waziristan region of Pakistan with impunity. This bodes ominously not just for Afghanistan, but also for Al Qaeda’s plotting and training for more attacks all over the world, including here in the United States. This is the direct result of an ill-conceived autonomy agreement President Musharaff made with Waziristan’s tribal leaders. In fact the tribal leader Musharaff has praised for fighting foreign terrorists, Mullah Nazir, recently said that he would protect Osama bin Laden! We have to get tough with Mursharaff and re-calibrate the carrots and sticks we use with him. Pakistan is the fifth largest recipient of American aid, and right now we’re not getting real good value. We’re in a game of chicken with this military dictator: he warns us not to pursue terrorists across the border with Afghanistan, not to strike their bases on his territory because it could cause his government to fall and an even less friendly figure to take his job. But we have to make clear to him that he is of no use to us if he allows the Taliban and Al Qaeda to use his territory with impunity. The current situation highlights that, despite our generous aid, both the Taliban and Al Qaeda enjoy a disturbing degree of popularity in Pakistan. Ultimately it is this popularity contest, this war of ideas, that we have to win. Creativity and flexibility are Musharaff’s keys to retaining power.

    Creativity and flexibility are our keys to dealing with him and other Muslim leaders. Instead of asking if someone is for us, instead of demanding that every ally be at the level of Great Britain, I will ask if we should be for them, if they can be useful in any way, however limited, however temporary.

    The terrorists have succeeded in dividing us over how to fight them, but we are not taking full advantage of their divisions and of the broader divisions in the region. For example, Hamas, Al Qaeda, and Hezbollah are all terrorist groups, but Hamas and Al Qaeda are Sunni and hate Hezbollah, which is Shiite, as much as they hate us. We are worried about the Iranians extending their sphere of influence west, but so are the Sunni Arabs in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, who dislike the Iranians not just because they are Shiites, but because they are Persians. Fighting smart means learning the neighborhood, achieving a level of political, religious, and cultural sophistication about the Arab and Islamic worlds that will pay huge dividends for us. We have to know the cast of characters, not just the national political leaders and their leading opponents, but the clerics, the tribal and clan leaders. We get criticized for our arrogance, but it’s our ignorance that’s killing us.

    As for the underlying dispute between Sunnis and Shiites that’s been going on for fourteen hundred years, we don’t have a dog in that fight. Our enemy is Islamic extremism in all its guises. The Saudis want us to support extremist Sunni groups to counter growing Iranian influence. The Saudis assure us that they can control these groups and keep them from turning against us. We saw how well that turned out with Al Qaeda. I will support moderates, not extremists, with no favoring of Sunnis or Shiites.

    The long-term solution to terror is to empower moderates in the region. My goal in the Middle and Near East is to correctly calibrate a course between maintaining stability and promoting democracy. It’s self-defeating to try to accomplish too much too soon, you just have elections where extremists win, but it’s equally self-defeating to do nothing. First, we have to destroy the terrorists who already exist, then we have to attack the underlying conditions that breed terror, by creating schools that offer an alternative to the extremist madrassas that take impressionable children and turn them into killers, by creating jobs and opportunity and hope, by encouraging a free press and other institutions that promote democracy. The recent rising appeal of Al Qaeda across North Africa – Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia – shows why we have to do better in the war of ideas – and soon.

    In the past, we’ve been constrained from helping some of the good guys because our dependence on oil has forced us to support repressive regimes, to conduct our foreign policy with one hand tied behind our back. It’s time, it’s past time, to untie that hand and reach out to the moderates with both hands. Oil has not just shaped our foreign policy, it has deformed it. When I make foreign policy, I want to be able to treat Saudi Arabia the same way I treat Sweden, and that requires us to be energy independent. These folks have had us over a barrel – literally – for way too long. The first thing I will do as President is send Congress my comprehensive plan for energy independence. We will achieve energy independence by the end of my second term. We will explore, we will conserve, and we will pursue all avenues of alternative energy – nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen, clean coal, biodiesel, and biomass.

    If I ever have to undertake a large invasion, I will follow the Powell Doctrine and use overwhelming force. The notion of an “occupation with a light footprint” that was our paradigm for Iraq always struck me as a contradiction in terms. Liberating a country and occupying it are two different missions. Occupation inevitably demands a lot of boots on the ground. Instead of marginalizing General Shinseki when he said we needed several hundred thousand troops for Iraq, I would have met privately with him and carefully weighed his advice and his underlying analysis.

    Our current armed forces aren’t large enough – we have been relying far too heavily on our National Guard and our Reserves, we have worn them out. When our enemies know that we are spread thin, they’re more apt to test us by provoking a crisis. Having a sizeable standing army actually makes it less likely that we’ll have to use it. So I will increase the defense budget. We have to be ready to fight both conventional and unconventional wars against both state and non-state enemies. Right now we spend about 3.9% of our GDP on defense, while we spent about 6% in 1986 under President Reagan. I would return to that 6% level. I believe we can do this without raising taxes. I will limit increases in other discretionary spending and rely on the normal increase in federal tax revenue that is generated annually as Americans’ incomes rise.

    Crises arise suddenly and unpredictably, and no one has the database for every possible scenario. What we have to evaluate is the strength of a leader’s operating system, because if that’s sound, he can always add the data. I’ll be an effective commander in chief because I have executive experience and crisis management experience. My record as Governor shows that I’m intellectually curious, a quick study, and have sound judgment. I will get advice from a broad circle with differing perspectives and portfolios; encourage dissent and stay out of the bubble; refuse to wilt under criticism, but also be flexible and ready to change course if a policy isn’t working. I will communicate my rationale for our foreign and defense policies clearly and frequently to Congress and to the American people.”

  62. rugby_fan says:

    Debbie:

    LCRs don’t like Mitt, and Mitt doesn’t like them.

    Mitt is running from his pro-gay agenda so LCR is simply bringing that up so people remember how much of a flip-flopper the poor bloke really is.

  63. SFrazier says:

    Wow, the Governor is right on the money. Huckabee is made of the right stuff to be commander and chief.

  64. TrueConservative says:

    The only people that like Mitt are the people he has paid off…….. You can’t buy the white house or the votes of a true conservative.. Oh there are sellouts putting money before principle or God, but those sellouts will pay a price….

  65. debbie0040 says:

    I sent the video link to my Dad and asked if he had heard about it and this was his response.
    “I saw this on FOX. Romney has lost his marbles. He said he is for abortion opposed to the NRA–plus other suicidal statements.”

    I informed my Dad that he made those statements while he was Governor of Taxachusetts not now.

    If his opponents run ads with those statements.. man. Imagine the ads Billary will run if Mitt is the nominee

  66. SFrazier says:

    I wonder if Huckabee would include Boortz in his staff at the white house. Dude, that would be awesome.. It is all about the flat tax…..

  67. TrueConservative says:

    I would much prefer Santorum, not that I don’t appreciate your support for Huck, SFrazier. Because I like Americas mayor, I think he is a great leader. As a Christian his moral views bother me. But hey, maybe Huckabee could lead him to a true relationship with Christ. All things are possible through Him.

  68. SFrazier says:

    All I care about is the fair tax and national security. That is why I think this would be a good ticket. Rudy-Gov. Huck…

  69. debbie0040 says:

    Fred’s response to the debate:

    Dear Friends,

    Yesterday, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani continued their partisan bickering, this time over things like the constitutionality of the line item veto. While they played politics, Fred Thompson rose above it and took his conservative, small government, tax cutting message straight to the American people.

    He talked directly to the American people about keeping more of what they earn. He talked truth about entitlements. He talked about keeping America safe. He made it known that when it comes to our national security, it won

  70. TrueConservative says:

    Rudy is not for the fair tax and Hucks war on terror plan is pretty solid. We don’t need Rudy hurting our social agenda, but I will give Amercas Mayor this much. At least we know what we are getting, he is not flip flopping and lying about his past like Mitt and Fred. So for that I respect him.+++ He sure did spank that mormon yesterday in the debate. I thought Romney was going to cry…

  71. TrueConservative says:

    Please Debbie, thompson could not debate his way out of a wet papper bag, oh, did someone say that already…
    Oh yes Debbie, Mark 10 says ” A man who divorces his wife and marries another committs adultery”. Dust your bible off the shelf and read it. Timothy says you should not give a man power who can’t control his household. Thompson obviosly can’t, so if the bible is our guide, thompson should not be allowed to run. I love you in Christ, iron sharpens iron Debbie.

  72. SFrazier says:

    That christian fight is out of my jurisdiction since I am not a very good catholic who only attends churches at funerals and weddings. But I love the FAIR TAX and therefore I love Huckabee..

  73. debbie0040 says:

    Then Thompson and Reagan have something in common because they have both been divorced . According to your logic Reagan should not have been allowed to run for President. And here I thought you were a Reagan fan….

    Don’t worry, I love debating and don’t get upset if I don’t see eye to eye with someone.

  74. TrueConservative says:

    Reagan became a Christian after the divorce. Remember ,Reagan apologized for being a Democrat many times. He found a true relationship with Christ after the divorce and in becoming a Republican.

  75. MSBassSinger says:

    TrueConservative, thanks for the post. That gives me more confidence in him, although he got the “Powell Doctrine” thing wrong. In the 1st Gulf War, Powell’s strategy was foolish, though understandable since he followed the political track in rising through the ranks. Schwarzkopf, who came up through the field and was far more qualified than Powell, is reported to have threatened to resign rather than accept a strategy that woudl get a lot of men killed. Schwarzkopf’s plan was the one accepted by Bush 41, and Powell was politically smart enough to start acting like it was his own. Add to that the media and politicians with “guilty white man complex”, it became known as the Powell doctrine. In fact, Powell had little to do with it.

    But that piece of history aside, Huckabee does err when he says “Such a black-and-white stance doesn

  76. TrueConservative says:

    We are all new creatures in Christ. I hope and pray Fred finds Him. As for Dobson, I agree somthing is wrong with his tought pattern. A few of us from GA are going to DC to the FRC conference next weekend. If Dobson does not come out for Huckabee than we will have to conclude that he is on the take from Mitt and God will use us to call him on it. But I hope and pray brother Dobson will see the light.

  77. debbie0040 says:

    It doesn’t change the fact that they have both been divorced. You can’t say it is ok for Reagan to be divorced but not ok for Fred to. Double standard.

  78. MSBassSinger says:

    SFrazier, there is no way Rudy is even close to being Presidential material. He is nearly indistinguishable from Hillary on the issues. Reportedly, he has about as much control of his temper as Hillary, too.

    TrueConservative, I would withold judgement on Thompson’s divorce until more is known. There are clear, unambiguous exceptions in Scripture to the verse from Mark 10 you quoted. For example, if a Christian is married to a non-believer, and that non-believer wants a divorce, that is allowed. Remarriage is only an issue in Scripture when the divorce was an act of sin. You have to interpret Scripture in light of Scripture, and see what the whole says. We don’t know enough about the situation surrounding his divorce, and we may never know. I am more interested in whether his normal, daily life (especially before he began campaigning) shows evidence of being a Christian, or if he just fits the mold of a “cultural Christian”.

  79. TrueConservative says:

    I agree MBasssinger, thank you for the sound advice. I think the fact that he says that he only goes to church when he visits his mother would logicaly lead anyone to lean towards believing that he is a cultural Christian?

  80. MSBassSinger says:

    TrueConservative, what I have heard (which may not be accurate or the whole story) is what gives me a preference for Huckabee over Thompson. However, I would take Thompson over any of the others (except Huckabee and Hunter). I MUCH prefer Thompson to Romney, Guiliani, or McCain.

  81. SFrazier says:

    Trueconservative, Rudy is friends with scalia and Alito, I am confident he would give you christians the judges you wanted, especially if Governor Huckabee was his vice.

  82. TrueConservative says:

    I am sticking to a Huck-Santorum ticket with Newt as the secretary of state. Rudy is not for the fair tax Frazier.

  83. SFrazier says:

    That is why Governor Huckabee is my first choice (Fair Tax). But Rudy is the best on the war on terror. A moderate yankee with a fair tax southerner, it would work dude.

  84. jm says:

    Well I’m glad to see as much confusion and conflict on the other side of the aisle as on my side. This debate shows that Thompson is not the Reagan-messiah, that Ron Paul is only capable of winning on the Internet, and that whoever emerges in front will not be the arch-conservative desired by most rank and file Republicans. Same thing is happening on the other side. Lot of true-blue dems, including me, don’t want Hillary (20 years of Bush/Clinton dynasty – ugh,) and none of our other options really espouse true liberal principles other than the un-electable marginal candidates of Kucinich and Gravel.

    A pure liberal/conservative match-up would be what? Kucinich vs Paul? No chance in hell. So we all have to compromise….a Clinton/Guiliani rematch? Ugh.

  85. MSBassSinger says:

    SFrazier, I am unclear as to why Guiliani would be the best on terror. Just because he happened to be the unpopular mayor of NYC on 9/11/01 doesn’t make an expert on terror.

    Besides, there is no war on a specific tactic. Terror is not an enemy. Those who use terror are the enemy, and unless you know who they are (Islamic imperialists) and why they are fighting (establish a global Islamic kingdom, and kill or convert all non-Moslems) , you can’t sucessfully fight the war. Neither Bush nor Guiliani get that. Bush’s latest reiteration of his “religion of peace” ignorance gets my goat.

  86. MSBassSinger says:

    jm, here is a scorecard from this side of the aisle.
    Think of the positive X axis of a graph. Anything to the left of zero is the realm of liberalism/socialism/facsism. Left in the context of how I rank the candidates is how close to zero the candidate is IMHO. A consistent conservative is one who is conservative politically, socially, economically, theologically, and in their personal conduct (at least within recent times).

    Guiliani – Left
    McCain, Romney – Left-leaning, but pretend to be Right.
    Thompson – Secular Right with an understanding of the JudeoChristian basis of conservatism.
    Brownback – The Ignorant Right (e.g. amnesty for illegals) and Inconsistently Conservative
    Gingrich – Inconsistently Conservative and dead wrong on global warming.
    Huckabee, Hunter, Tancredo – Consistently Conservative.
    Paul – Tinfoil hat brigade completely off the axis in any direction. Definitely not conservative.

    Disclaimer: Protecting the US from its enemies is not a Left-Right issue, its a Right-Wrong issue.

  87. debbie0040 says:

    Thompson helped guide Chief Justice Roberts confirmation in the Senate.

    Also as for Rudy, Rudy said would appoint Justices like Scalia and Alito and is a Federalist. In other words, he believes in states rights.

    The polls consistently show Giuliani, Thompson, Romney then McCain, then Huckabee. Of course once the political ads start to hit the polls could change drastically.

  88. SFrazier says:

    Dude, Rudy has experience with terrorism, and he is very popular here at UGA. Here is a cool letter I found in my town papper, the Athens Banner Herald:

    I’m tired of hearing both the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates using each other as scapegoats for everything that is wrong. Scapegoating is the last thing this nation needs. It polarizes a society, preventing those involved in wrongdoing from realizing and admitting their wrongs. It does nothing to solve the problems at hand, but only leaves them to worsen.

    Republican Mike Huckabee is the only presidential candidate who is seeking solutions to problems, not scapegoats on which to place the blame. He is the only candidate with a proven track record in working with both parties to get things done without compromising his core values. Now more than ever, America needs a leader like Mike Huckabee, with proven leadership skills and commonsense vision to move our great country forward again.

    Phill Dacosta

    Ball Ground

  89. debbie0040 says:

    I met Huckabee and really liked him. I was deeply disappointed in some of his answers in the debate. IE: SCHIP I am being pragmatic in supporting Thompson over the others. I want someone that can beat Hillary and preferably is conservative.

    Are there any Republicans that would prefer Hillary over Giuliani, Thompson, Romney and God help me, even McCain?

    Having a deep Christian Faith and attending church on a regular basis is good but issues and a strong leader are more important. Remember Peanut Head Jimmy Carter held a deep religious faith and openly spoke about his faith and he also attended services regularly. Would you vote for him ?

  90. MSBassSinger says:

    SFrazier – Again I ask – what real experience with terrorism does Guiliani have? Being popular at UGA isn’t exactly a confidence builder. A certain do that licks himself on national TV is also quite popular on the UGA campus, but I’d rather not have him for president. 🙂

    If you want experience with terrorism, then lets run Oliver North. His experience against our enemies, including Islamic terrorism, and conservatism far outweighs anyone running now.

  91. MSBassSinger says:

    “Rudy said would appoint Justices like Scalia and Alito ”
    I can believe him when he can’t even keep marriage vows (note the plural)? Him saying that is like Bush41 saying “read my lips – no new taxes” and Bush43 saying “no nation building”.

    Guiliani doesn’t have a track record of being a federalist or appointing constructionist judges.

  92. TrueConservative says:

    By looking at Huckabee’s record we can forecast his future behaviour. Look what he was able to accomplish with a 88% democratic state legislature, extraordinairy, only with God. He has a solid 10 and half years of solid conservative executive experience that requires no explanation unlike the rest. This is the real thing. Conservatives, heck, all Americans need to seize this moment.

  93. MSBassSinger says:

    > This has become the Christian Coalition of
    > Georgia debate thread.
    I can only imagine the comments if some you were able to overhear our Founders trying to hammer out the Constitution. ‘Twould be far more immersed in that awful Christian talk.

    And please, do not lump me in with Georgia’s so-called Christian Coalition (GCC). They got off the reservation, so to speak, leaving the authority of Scripture behind. The GCC and Jerry Keen (their former leader) did a lot of harm with the HB1059 debacle. He and the GCC were warned by law enforcement and others that their approach would make matters worse, not better. The end result is the unnecessary harm to thousands of innocent women and children run out of homes and jobs, no additional protection for children from predators, and its contribution to the death of an innocent child in SE Georgia. You may remember that the law is what forced the boy and a truly dangerous sex offender into the same place.

    When the GCC returns to supporting citizens who are also Christian in their free speech role as citizens affecting government, then they will have my respect. I doubt any of them worry about getting that. 🙂

  94. new-guy says:

    Debbie, with all due respect I know your kind well. You hate McCain but embrace the bible. You constantly talk about Jesus but….. let me guess, your number one issue is…..Immigration. Its less about Illegal Immigration to you and more about brown skin. You praise Jesus six days a week and curse Mexicans looking for work seven days a week. Although you’re probably a great lady you and your beliefs are what’s wrong with our party today. Pleaase dont respond with a “I have a friend who is Mexican” either.

  95. debbie0040 says:

    I consider myself a Christian but don’t go to church every Sunday. I don’t go around praising Jesus six days a week. I even have a glass of wine two or three times a week.

    Immigration is the number one issue. What is there about illegal do you not understand? You pro illegal immigration people try to play the old race card so debate will be cut off and people will be afraid to speak out. Won’t work.

    I don’t have a friend who is Mexican but I do have friends from India and Pakistan. One is a co worker that is an Oracle DBA and he has been in the U.S. for three years. He is productive and doesn’t feed at the government trough of public assistance. His wife is also a DBA but is still in India waiting on a VISA. I told him to tell her to just go to Mexico and come in. There are thousands just like them from other countries that would not require public assistance that would love to come here and work.

    I have another friend that came here from Romania 15 years ago. She is now a US citizen. Her sister teaches disabled children in Romania and she wanted to come live here. She tried for 5 years to get a VISA and could not. She ended up going to Canada.

    It is racist to grant amnesty to illegals that are mostly from Mexico, Central and South America but make people in other countries follow the immigration laws.

  96. TrueConservative says:

    I am a Christian, and my Christianity permeates every area of my life, anything else and you are “cultural Christian” and not a “saved Christian”. Saved Christians support Huckabee, Brownback, Duncan.. Cultural christians support everyone else.

  97. SFrazier says:

    I am a bad Catholic, sometimes good, kind of hard at UGA… I like Governor Huckabee first and Rudy second.

  98. Icarus says:

    SFrazier,

    It doesn’t get any easier when you get out of UGA. Do the best you can, ask for forgiveness when necessary, and ignore the pharisees when they pretend to be better than you.

  99. Holly says:

    Wait, whoa. Big time, whoa.

    I made a decision to follow Christ at the age of six; I reccommitted at fourteen. I have a daily quiet time. I worked at a church – a Southern Baptist church, even. I promise you I know with certainty that I’m saved, and it is my responsibility to be a witness. I try very hard to be that.

    That said, I support Fred Thompson. There are saved Christians on this list who support other candidates, even Democrats. You can’t judge someone’s Christianity by their choice for president.

    By the way – and this is not meant to be taken as hostile, though I am curious – what authority do you have to judge that in the first place?

  100. Icarus says:

    Me or someone else? I’m not judging anyone here, I’m just trying to tell someone in college that, unfortunately, college is not the only period in his life that he might find religous practices inconvenient, nor the only time that his morals will be tested.

  101. Holly says:

    I was commenting to this comment by TrueConservative:

    I am a Christian, and my Christianity permeates every area of my life, anything else and you are

  102. Holly says:

    Oh also, no, college is not the only time your morals will be tested. I think it’s actually gotten harder as I’ve gotten older. 🙂

  103. TrueConservative says:

    The Christian experince of faith cannot be set alongside other aspects of life: it pervades all the other aspects of life. Therefore selecting a President is simply one more sector of existence in which an individuals faith in Christ is to be lived out.

  104. SFrazier says:

    1. Huckabee
    2. Rudy

    Everyone else is no good. I have to go to a Frat party and tell people about the fair tax and huckabee. I am out of here… later…..

  105. SFrazier says:

    Oh yeah, just one more thing, Debbie, racism against Hispanics is not cool man. My room mate is of Cuban, He is a good catholic, and his whole familly votes republican.

  106. jm says:

    MsBassSinger:
    You aren’t well versed in the whole left/right dichotomy, I can tell. No digs from me, just check out this web site:
    http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2007

    You will see not just a left/right axis, but also an up/down (authoritarian vs libertarian). The red dots trend towards the right and up, with Ron Paul about third in terms of Republican conservative (but least authoritarian…which I think is why you think he wears a tin hat).

    You can also take a quiz at the site and get your own left/right up/down rankings and see where you fit in.

  107. ConservativeCaucus says:

    TC,

    I have to disagree with you here. I am a very committed Huckabee supporter and I like Duncan Hunter as well. However, it is irresponsible to make a statement like that. Am I disappointed that more Christians are not YET supporting Gov. Huckabee, you bet. But to say that supporting one of those three candidates is a true Christian’s only choice is reckless. I know very devout Christians who are supporting Thompson, Paul, Giuliani, and almost all of the others.

    I could go through and list why I don’t like those three or any of the others, I believe it is irresponsible (and counterproductive as well) to make a statement like that.

  108. MSBassSinger says:

    jm, I don’t need a website to tell me what liberal and conservative is based on someone else’s idea. I am well-read and well-educated enough, and have enough horse sense to figure it out for myself without some spin.

    The website you recommend uses the Hans Eysenck model, which puts liberal progessives at the center of the compass. That explains why Dennis Kucinich is so close to the center of the compass in their graph. Nice try, but no cigar.

  109. jm says:

    So instead of basing it on a well-founded model you created your own that lumped socialism and fascism together on the left? That doesn’t work, and so I pointed you to a resource to clarify things.

    Or you don’t like it because it puts the GOP squarely in the fascist quadrant, where some in this nation fear we are heading (in terms of loss of freedoms and redefining certain vocabularies)

    OK, in reading your post again, I think you’ll agree we have common ground – that the front-runners (Romney/Rudy, Hillary/Obama) are not ideologically typical reps/dems. Voters from both sides, I think, are going to get a mild shock when things they believed about these people turn out to be untrue once the election is over.

  110. debbie0040 says:

    Sfrazier, don’t twist what I said. It is not racist to want the immigration laws to be followed. I have no problem whatsoever with LEGAL immigrants, I don’t care what their skin color is. I do have a problem with illegal immigration and granting amnesty. So YOU stop being racist toward people from India and Pakistan and other third world nations.

    I do have a problem with immigrants coming to this country and immediately start eating at the government trough of public assistance.

    BTW, my problem with McCain started long before the Immigration Bill. I can sum it up in two words – McCain-Feingold.

  111. debbie0040 says:

    True Conservative, you are full of crap. Who gave you the right to judge? Are you now the right hand of God? I know many Christians that support Thompson, Guilani, Romney,etc.

    My Dad is a retired Independent Baptist Minister. He preached the gospel for 35 years and pastored churches. He supports Thompson.

  112. debbie0040 says:

    Sfrazier, I am quite sure your room mate and his family followed the immigration laws and are in this country legally. I have no issue with that.

    You obviously are oblivious to the fact this debate is over legal vs. illegal not race.

    If you don’t have secure borders then how can you have a secure nation?

  113. Holly says:

    I don’t think it’s hateful to want our immigration laws followed.

    Look, in a time where there are those trying to sneak into the country in order to do harm to American citizens, I find it irresponsible to continue allowing illegals the ability to come into the country unchecked. Yet, it’s happening right now. It’s been happening for a long time, since before Reagan was president.

    The problem is that Americans tend to let go of a problem once it’s out of the news. However, I think that’s one of the reasons that the illegal problem got to where it is. Under the Reagan administration, the American public was promised that the border would be sealed. It wasn’t.

    Then the issue left the news, and it slipped from our simple little minds. We continued through Bush 41 and Clinton’s administrations largely not thinking about the issue. And then there were 12 million people here in a post-9/11 world where our intelligence community has admitted they know that Al-Qaeda is trying to smuggle more of their operatives to the USA.

    Even if you take out the idea that illegals in this country further strain our entitlement programs, which admittedly is the most heard argument from the right, the issue remains that we need to be in control of who enters this country.

    To me, sealing the border is about security, not racism. But hey, while we’re at it, let’s talk port security. That’s one of those concerns that we Americans don’t think about unless the media remind us it’s an issue.

    Hey, speaking of. . . could some of our reporters who watch this blog get back onto the port security issue? Constant reminders, guys. Constant reminders. 🙂

  114. MSBassSinger says:

    jm
    >So instead of basing it on a well-founded model
    >you created your own that lumped socialism
    >and fascism together on the left?
    Who says it is well-founded? Liberals? I told you whose leftist theories the model is predicated on, and that he puts liberal progressives at the center. Not exactly well founded to those who reason rather than feel. I don’t expect you to change your views, but at least be a little more intellectually honest. And yes, we conservatives can think for ourselves. Comes with the territory.

    >that the front-runners (Romney/Rudy,
    >Hillary/Obama) are not ideologically typical
    >reps/dems
    Sort of. Romney/Rudy are typical of the RINO Republicans that run the RNC and led (with Bush’s help) to the disaster of 06. They are not typical of the conservative part of the Republican party that ran things when they were chosen by the American people to be the majority in Congress, occupy the White House, and occupy the majority of state legislatures and governorships. It’s the RINO part of the party that destroyed that. Huckabee, Hunter, Tancredo, and Thompson represent the Reagan wing of the party – the conservatives. However, Hillary and Obama represent today’s Democrat party quite accurately. Liberal, socialist, lying, crooked, ignorant, foolish – how are those traits of Hillary and Obama any different than the Democrat Party?

    Now, if you mean the old Democrat party of Scoop Jackson and John Kennedy that was more hawkish and less socially liberal, don’t forget that was also the party of segragation and Jim Crow laws. Remeber that Johnson had to turn to Republicans to get the voting rights and civil rights acts passed because not enough Democrats would support it. You may also remember that John Kennedy and his brother Robert refused to support those bills when John was alive, and supported clandestine monitoring of King and otehr black activists.

    As for socialism and facsism, they are under the same roof. Conservatism is for small, limited government whose job is to protect and mediate between States. Conservatives believe government is a necessary evil that must be kept chained and starving, lest it take over and become a monster. Liberalism believes government is good, and should be large and in charge. Both socialism and fascism look for a large, strong government. Fascism is clearly defined as government control of private ownership. Socialism is where government owns and controls. Both have government as the prime authority. Conservatism puts government as subservient to people in a republic. Hitler’s facsist regime was the National Socialist Party. Hitler’s primary inspiration for Mein Kampf was Marx. Marx’s writings inspired Hitler’s tome. Name one fascist regime that was not a strong, authoritative government. It is liberals (RINOs) in the Republican party who advance the ideas of a strong dominating central government, not conservatives.

  115. new-guy says:

    Debbie, you prove my point again. You praise Ronald Reagan every chance you get when it was he who granted blanket amnesty. If you care so much about this issue why dont you boycot restaurants (where illegals often get jobs), vegetables (illegals probably harvested), living in your house (which illegals probably helped build). I too am against illegal immigration but you’ve set our party back at least a decade because instead of have a dignified debate on an important issue you decided to make it about skin color……Mexicans. You decided to blame people who were born in Juarez with nothing rather than having the guts to blame Ronald Reagan for starting this mess. If i was born in a third world country, feet from the wealthiest country in the world, I’d jump that border too to feed my family. You and your extremists friends turned a a needed policy debate in to hate. Because of it we can kiss Florida, New Mexico, Colorado and New Mexico good-bye next November. Go say your prayers now and get ready for four years of Hillary. Thanks Debbie.

  116. MSBassSinger says:

    Debbie, ignore the race-baiters. You are 100% right that the issue is illegal immigration. Allowing illegal immigration allows people to enter our country who are criminals, who carry diseases, and who seek only to take and give nothing back. Illegals have a net cost to us of untold billions each year. Immigration for the US is supposed to be allowing citizens of other countries to come here, supporting themselves, abandoning any allegiances to their former countries, swearing allegiance to the US, and adopting the traditional American culture as their own – including being able to read, write, and speak American English with some fluency. When we began to mix immigration with multiculturalism, it accelerated the decline of our country. Almost all illegals (and far too many legals) are not looking to assimilate, but to bring their backwards cultures with them, retaining their languages, retaining their allegiances to their home nations, and seeking only money. That is not what this nation needs.

    An American can be of any race, of any color. Being an American means adopting a culture and an allegiance that transcends color. That is not racist – that is just common sense and 100% in keeping with Scriptural Christianity – the same Scriptural Christianity that formed our nation, our common culture, and our form of government.

  117. MSBassSinger says:

    new-guy
    Ronald Reagan did make a mistake by signing the Ted Kennedy legislation to grant amnesty. He was promised by the Democrat leadership in Congress that if he went along with it, the borders would be secured. They lied, and he should have implemented “trust but verify” with the Democrats as well as the Soviets.

    We have the illegal immigration mess we have today about 30% because Reagan made a mistake trusting Democrats, and 70% because of Democrats seeking these government-dependant, socialist-minded future voters. At least Reagan was right far more than the Democrats have been.

  118. debbie0040 says:

    New-Guy, you are talking about the GOP losing those states because we did not grant amnesty to illegal aliens. You are talking the Rove strategy of granting amnesty to illegals and they will vote Republican. Yea right. Go sell that fantasy elsewhere.

    Do you actually belive that voters that feed at the public assistance trough are going to vote Republican and keep voting GOP? Get real….

    I have been a GOP activists since 1976, but I have been an American since I was born in 1958. I am a Republican but I am an American FIRST. I will not stand by and watch detrimental harm done to my country because it benefits the GOP . No way!!!

    The Cuban immigrants in Florida are vastly different than the illegal aliens. Cubans come to our country to escape a repressive regime and they are here LEGALLY. Background checks are done. They assimilate to our society and don’t feed at the trough of public assistance. They are self reliant. They do vote GOP.

    Legal immigrants do not support granting amnesty to illegals when they themselves followed the legal immigration process and laws.

    You are right again MB..

    Again I ask, how can we have a secure nation when our borders are not secure? How many terrorists have already come over the border with Mexico and are just lying in wait for the right opportunity to strike? We need to tighten up security in our ports and also the Canadian border.

  119. new-guy says:

    Keep useing National Security as an issue to cover up your racism…….if it makes you sleep better at night. Last i heard the 9-11 hijakers came via Canada. You’re hopeless.

  120. new-guy says:

    msbasssinger, “backward cultures”? another racist moment over the Immigration issue. Ever been to a Greek Wedding? An Irish Wedding? Ever been to China town? How about Ukranian Village in NYC?. Every been to the North Side of Chicago where the population of Pols is 2nd to only Warsaw? Most older Pols in Chicago still dont speak English. Have you demanded they assimilate? Have you or Debbie even left Georgia before? Nobody supports illegal immigration but we need to stop defending Reagan on this issue and focus our attention how to fix the problem. I’ve never had a problem with strict immigration policy it’s the racist rhetoric that extremists bring to the debate. You are both in absolute denial of this. I’d have more respect for you if you called your self a racist and then defended your way of thinking.

  121. MSBassSinger says:

    new-guy,

    Does that race card come with a deck of 52, or do you have to buy them one at a time? Calling the conservative view of illegal immigration racist, and especially calling Debbie racist, is a tacit admission you know your argument for amnesty is a lost cause and devoid of intellectual content.

    Personally, I interpret from your posts that you are compassionate, and have some understanding of how hard these illegal immigrants have it, and have mental images of how awful racism is from when it was much more prevalent 50 years ago in the US. You seem to want to reject hate, and all that is good and something we all should have in our character. But you should also reject the undeserved, intense hatred most of these illegals have for the US and our culture. If you are going to reject hate, at least be consistent, and don’t confuse the desire to protect ones country with hate. I think you are smarter than that.

  122. MSBassSinger says:

    new-guy,

    Yes, I believe the traditional American culture is the greatest culture that has ever existed on earth. It is superior to all others. Name one culture that has evern come close to doing what the American culture has done for the world. The American colonies were but one of many agrarian people groups on the American continents. All had access to ports, natural resources, and the same ability to provide education. Yet, only the US has risen to the heights it has. I wonder why – our culture and our form of government are different from any other nation. Why were we first in independence? Why was it the US who had to put a lease on the British Empire, come in and win two world wars, and defeat Soviet communism? Why is it that people from all over the world want to come here more than anywhere else?

    And unlike so many other cultures, ours is not for one race only. The US has the largest and most powerful economy in the world (by far), the most freedom, the highest standard of living (even for the poorest of Americans), and the strongest ability to protect themselves and others from outside threats. And unlike the Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, and the Soviet Union, we did it without conquering other lands, without stealing from other nations, without repressing freedoms.

    Again, you appear to have no idea what racism is – you just whip out that race card when you can’t intellectually win an argument. I have lived in several US states, travelled to Europe, worked and had friendships with Chinese, Koreans, Indians, Pakistanis, Latinos, Cubans, English, Canadians, and others. My education even in grade school was to include learning about other cultures, their history, values, and mores. You cannot appreciate how superior the traditionl American culture is unless you have a knowledge of other cultures.

  123. debbie0040 says:

    Reagan thought that amensty would help curb illegal immigration. He did not historical precedent to fall back . He had nothing to look back on to see that it did not work.

    We have that now.

    new-guy, don’t pretend you don’t support illegal immigration. Granting amnesty does just that.

    I like Fred Thompson’s quote on the Amnesty Bill that failed, “It is like putting lipstick on a pig”.

    That amnesty bill failed because millions of Americans started paying attention to the debate and flooded the Capitol with phone calls. So many calls were made the the Capitol switch board was bought down. Are all those racist too?

    Most immigrants do assimilate to our society while maintaining some our their culture.

    I have an friend that defected to this country in 1958 from the Russian army. He came from Hungary. He is angry that amnesty was even talked about and the fact he goes in Walmart in Lilburn and hears announcements in Spanish. He says that when he came over here, he was embarassed to speak in public until he was able to learn English. He felt was an American now and should learn English in honor of his new country.

    You pro amnesty, pro illegal immigrations type knew you would never win the debate using logic and facts so you tried to turn the debate to ridiculous claims of racism.

    You think that will silence those that oppose illegal immigration and amnesty. There legal hispanic immigrants that oppose amnesty, are they racist as well? You are so wrong. That just motivates us more and makes us angry that you would stoop to such low tactics.

    Repeat after me. S-E-C-U-R-IT-Y, S-E-C-U-R-IT-Y. I-L-L-E-G-A-L, I-L-L-E-G-A-L

    http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/mexicoflag.asp

    The letter below was written by a Border Patrol agent. Is he racist, too?

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/borderpatrol.asp

  124. rugby_fan says:

    Maybe one of these candidates will make a statement about everyone’s favorite congressman-in-waiting, Paul Broun.

    You would think one of the GOP candidates would come running to his side in helping him get sworn in.

  125. new-guy says:

    Now we’re superior! Keep proving my points. You are both in denial. If it was up to you two all we have to do is find 18 million pairs of handcuffs and we can solve this problem. Shouting ” no amnesty” is another way the ignorant racists actually say “we dont have a clue how to fix the problem” as well ask mask their racism. There are two issues here. 1- a fence, which i dont object to and 2-what do we do with illegals already here? Before you reply please take a minute to think of a real solution on how to handle as many as 20 million people already here. Think. Dont say “follow the rules on the books”. Be realistic. Think.

  126. debbie0040 says:

    You take away incentives for illegals to be and they will deport themselves.

    Senate Bill 529 proved that. The AJC has ran stories on the fact illegals are leaving Georgia.

    Bills that passed in Arizona and Colorado that would take business license away from businesses that knowingly hire illegals have had an impact on illegal immigrants in those states. There was a news story on that several weeks ago and how they are leaving those states .

    No need for mass deportation. They will deport themselves if you take away jobs, non emergency health care for adults, etc..

    I would love to see Georgia pass a bill that would take away the business license of an employer that knowing hires illegals. On first offense the license would be suspended for a week. On second offense it is taken away permently.

    It is not just the illegals that are the problem. It is also employers that knowingly hire them that are the problem as well.

  127. MSBassSinger says:

    new-guy,

    You apparently don’t understand that conservatives do think through the issues. That is why they are not liberals.

    The best way to get rid of the illegal immigrants here is to penalize and prosecute the companies and individuals hiring them. Pick a few egregious employers of illegals in multiple states, and consistently and thoroughly prosecute them month after month, year after year. When corporate officers start going to prison for employing illegals, you will see the jobs for illegals dry up and shift to employing Americans (and yes, they will take the jobs at fair and free market wages). The vast majority of employers of illegals will stop hiring them before they get prosecuted. Dry up the jobs, and most will go back home. The few others who stay are most likely involved in crime, and they will get caught.

    I agree with you on securing the borders. But conservatives need to stand up to the RINO and Democrat Chamber of Commerce types who want amnesty, which serves to maintain a modern-day slave class comprised of low paid illegal immigrants. Even with amnesty, they will still be treated as virtual slaves.

    By the way, the US deported over 1 million illegals in 1954 under “Operation Wetback” in a one year period. I think prosecuting law-breaking employers is a better way to handle it.

  128. ConservativeCaucus says:

    I am concerned about the GOP race next year… every one of the major candidates faces trouble with some aspect of the base, with the possible exception of Thompson and Huckabee.

    Giuliani – gun rights, tax reform, abortion
    McCain – McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy (immigration), always looked for a way to stick it in the eye of religious conservatives
    Romney – 2 years ago was a liberal Republican, perception of his religion

    I am yet to understand why Thompson is so appealing. I have him as 2nd in my book b/c he doesn’t fracture the party, but it is not because I am excited about him. He has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent “want to.” 🙂

    Look, no candidate in here is perfect. I think we will face a real problem if we choose someone who will fracture the GOP coalition of fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and civil libertarians.

Comments are closed.