The Candidates Debates

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Obama didn't seem to question the veracity of the witnesses. Why would it be helpful for you or I to do so when we are trying to figure out why Obama voted the way he did? (I think Obama's solution was to build "comfort rooms" so they would have a nice place to refuse to treat the baby, rather than leave them in a linen closet.) And I'm not questioning anyone's veracity except Obama's. If the attorney general were to stand up and say, "we'd been prosecuting people for letting babies die after failed abortions." I'd believe him. But he didn't say that. He said something more like, "under that old law, I can't prosecute them for letting babies die after failed abortions."

no, obama is not going to grandstand and challenge what the witness says, as any politician heading a hearing does he thanks the person and moves on.

the point I made was that you challenge everyone involved who is on the other side of the issue , using the word "lies", and you take as certain statements by those who support your position.

a very credible situation is the attorney general isn't prosecuting people because they aren't breaking the law. the law is on the books, and there are many qualified people who have the opinion that it is adequate.

I believe them. you don't.

That that was public record, and was the reason that the new law was proposed leads me to believe that Obama knew about it. If you want to believe that Obama didn't know about it, then you must think that Obama is just about the worst legistlator in the history of legistlators.

no, the reason the new law was proposed (in the view of many legislators and doctors) was to restrict a woman's right to obtain an abortion by way of the proscribed regs in the proposed law.

[eyeroll] First, this isn't the argument Obama keeps repeating to the public. This had nothing to do with the paragraph he said it requred, and was never part of his, "there is already a law" argument. From the debate you quoted:
Obama's position is incredible, which is why he's been trying to obscure it with different stories.
Second, I view it as beneficial to have laws protecting the lives of innocents. You obviously don't want any laws governing medical practice. (oooh, that is an easy tactic!)

I think that the fact that you are having such a hard time rationalizing Obama's votes is pretty good evidence of just how far to the extreme left he is.

what? there is not a "hard time rationalizing", in fact there are several reasons for opposing the new law. of course, you view having multiple reasons for opposition as evidence that the reasons must be "lies'.

there ARE laws in Illinois governing medical practice. that is the point! they don't need more.

obama is not "repeating to the public" the responses that I have given to your demonizing of the doctors. he doesn't typically need to respond to people who do what you have done, portraying doctors as people who have no desire to provide care when it is needed.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I think you have hit on the real issue here, which is: What does it mean to be a "conservative?" Insofar as the Republicans are concerned, there are three competing camps, each with their own claim to the mantle. There are the fiscal conservatives, the social conservatives, and the pro-military-deployment conservatives. What we are really talking about is not whether McCain is "conservative," because clearly he is. What we are talking about is whether McCain is a strong "Republican." Those two are not the same thing. Not these days, anyway.

No, the issue is NOT whether McCain is a strong Republican. The issue, which I believe that you raised, is whether McCain is a good representative of conservatism.

Forget about the Presidential race for a moment. If the pundits (or the general public, for that matter) had been polled 2 years ago and asked to identify which Senator(s) embodied conservatism, how far down the list would McCain have been? Would he have even made the list? Personally, I don't think so.

BTW, while we are at it, I don't think being "pro-military deployment" is really a conservative position. Support for a strong military, yes. But "pro-military deployment" is something different entirely.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

no, obama is not going to grandstand and challenge what the witness says, as any politician heading a hearing does he thanks the person and moves on.

the point I made was that you challenge everyone involved who is on the other side of the issue , using the word "lies", and you take as certain statements by those who support your position.

a very credible situation is the attorney general isn't prosecuting people because they aren't breaking the law. the law is on the books, and there are many qualified people who have the opinion that it is adequate.

I believe them. you don't.



no, the reason the new law was proposed (in the view of many legislators and doctors) was to restrict a woman's right to obtain an abortion by way of the proscribed regs in the proposed law.



what? there is not a "hard time rationalizing", in fact there are several reasons for opposing the new law. of course, you view having multiple reasons for opposition as evidence that the reasons must be "lies'.

there ARE laws in Illinois governing medical practice. that is the point! they don't need more.

obama is not "repeating to the public" the responses that I have given to your demonizing of the doctors. he doesn't typically need to respond to people who do what you have done, portraying doctors as people who have no desire to provide care when it is needed.

Your transformation into Alan Colmes is nearly complete.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

No, the issue is NOT whether McCain is a strong Republican. The issue, which I believe that you raised, is whether McCain is a good representative of conservatism.

Forget about the Presidential race for a moment. If the pundits (or the general public, for that matter) had been polled 2 years ago and asked to identify which Senator(s) embodied conservatism, how far down the list would McCain have been? Would he have even made the list? Personally, I don't think so.

BTW, while we are at it, I don't think being "pro-military deployment" is really a conservative position. Support for a strong military, yes. But "pro-military deployment" is something different entirely.

If McCain is not a good representative of conservatism, what the hell is the Republican Party doing nominating him? Is the party moving away from its conservative views? Or is it just sitting this one out, and McCain is the sacrificial lamb?

If the pundits or the general public had been polled two years ago--or better yet, today--on which public servant, Senator or otherwise, embodied conservatism...who would they choose? What would your list look like, KG? I'm assuming Guiliani wouldn't top the list. I'm assuming Romney would have problems, too. He's pro-choice, right? (So many litmus tests when it comes to earning your "conservative" badge these days.)

The GOP needs to get some help for its schizophrenia. It needs to figure out what its identity is going forward. I can't imagine it is going to help the party much to keep on rolling candidates out there who don't embody conservative views.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

If McCain is not a good representative of conservatism, what the hell is the Republican Party doing nominating him? Is the party moving away from its conservative views? Or is it just sitting this one out, and McCain is the sacrificial lamb?

If the pundits or the general public had been polled two years ago--or better yet, today--on which public servant, Senator or otherwise, embodied conservatism...who would they choose? What would your list look like, KG? I'm assuming Guiliani wouldn't top the list. I'm assuming Romney would have problems, too. He's pro-choice, right? (So many litmus tests when it comes to earning your "conservative" badge these days.)

The GOP needs to get some help for its schizophrenia. It needs to figure out what its identity is going forward. I can't imagine it is going to help the party much to keep on rolling candidates out there who don't embody conservative views.

I had a several paragraph reply typed out, and it vanished into thin air.

The gist of my reply was that I don't know what the Republican Party is doing, and I agree with you that the Party is in the midst of an identity crisis. McCain was most likely viewed as a moderate who could appeal to moderate Democrats and independent voters, and the assumption was that the base would vote for McCain rather than the alternative. Of course, the problem with throwing somebody out there that the base isn't fired up about is that you need the base to be enthusiastic if you're going to win the ground game in close elections. Then they chose Palin, who fired up the base, but her selection may well have alienated some of the moderates and independents to whom McCain was supposed to appeal.

These are interesting times. I think conservatism still has a broad appeal, but it needs better messengers.

[92bDad]

At the end of the day it looks at though we all agree.

When McCain was first nominated, I was less than enthused. He is Moderate at best. But the alternative of Obama was even worse.

Yes, Palin excited the base. She talked a good Conservative talk and has a bit of a track record to support that talk. So from the base we got excited...but then we go back to McCain and although he is a Hero to this nation, a true servent...there is much that we don't know.

The media has done an excellent job of alienating America towards McCain and we have seen little fight in McCain to retaliate the negative talk. If anything, he has been honorable in trying to minimize the fear of Obama that many of us have. It's almost as if he wants Obama to win as a sacrificial lamb, knowing that Obama and his administration will FAIL miserably and thus open the door for a new Era of Conservatism in America.

That is one theory...the other conspiracy that I've heard, is that several underground Democrats registered as Republicans and voted for McCain in the primaries in an effort to give the Democrats a shot in the General election.

Now I don't believe that actually happened, but it was funny to hear this come out...being as the Democrats are pretty good and conspiracies themselves.

Best wishes to all of us American...I hope the fear that both parties have presented will be FALSE and that the best days are in front of us. And I hope that in the next 4 years, the Conservatives rise up and find themselves a truly political savvy representative to lead the Republican party and regain a majority in our government. I hate to think about what this Radical Left Wing Nuts will leave our future generations.