Iowa GOP Debate: No to Questions on Immigration, Yes to Global Warming

Photo of Matthew Balan.

NewsBusters.org - Media Research CenterFollowing up on Al Gore’s reception of the Nobel Peace Prize, Carolyn Washburn of the Des Moines Register asked the Republican candidates several questions on the issue of "global climate change" and related topics. At the beginning of the debate, Washburn stated "we won't talk a lot about issues like Iraq or immigration. They're important issues, no doubt, but Iowans say they know where the candidates are coming from on those." But Washburn gave no indication that Iowans actually wanted to hear more about the Republican candidates’ stance on climate change.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

The discussion on "global climate change" during the debate, which aired on all three 24-hour cable news channels, began near the bottom of the 2 pm Eastern hour. Washburn, prompting for a show of hands, asked who agreed that "global climate change is a serious threat and caused by human activity." Fred Thompson objected and said, "I’m not doing hand-shows today." Washburn then asked Thompson for a yes or no answer to her question. Thompson asked for a minute to answer, and was promptly denied by Washburn. After Thompson again refused to give an answer, Mitt Romney asked for 30 seconds to give a reply. Again, Washburn denied the request.

After repeating her question one more time in a failed attempt to get a show of hands, Washburn directed the question to John McCain, who seemed to be willing to give an answer. McCain said he believed that "climate change is real," and offered a motivation for the adoption of "green technologies." Washburn then prompted Rudy Giuliani for an answer, who said he "agreed with John," but parsed it a bit by saying, "Climate change is real. It's happening. I believe human beings are contributing to it."

Washburn directed her next question to Romney. "What impact on the economy would be acceptable in order to reverse global warming and greenhouse gas emissions?" Romney focused on investing in "new technologies to get ourselves off of foreign oil," in order to "help both the environment and the economy and national security." Washburn then prompted Keyes to answer the question, who instead focused on "the betrayal of our sovereignty," among other things.

Instead of asking the rest of the candidates for an answer to her initial question, Washburn went on to the related "green" topic of biofuels. She asked Mike Huckabee if he was willing to increase government mandates for biofuel use. The former Arkansas governor didn’t think that was necessary. Washburn then directed the question to Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo. Hunter pushed incentives for biofuels over mandates, as well as incentives for other alternative energy sources. Tancredo, whose answer ended the discussion of "green" topics, replied that he was opposed to increasing government mandates.

The full transcript of the "global climate change" discussion from Wednesday’s Republican debate:

CAROLYN WASHBURN: I want to take on a new issue. I would like to see a show of hands. How many of you believe global climate change is a serious threat and caused by human activity?

FRED THOMPSON: I'm not doing...

(CROSSTALK)

THOMPSON: I'm not doing hand-shows today.

WASHBURN: No hand-shows today?

THOMPSON: No hand-shows.

(CROSSTALK)

WASHBURN: And so, does that mean -- is that yes or no for you? Do you believe that global climate change is a serious threat and caused by human activity?

THOMPSON: Well, you want to give me a minute to answer that?

WASHBURN: No, I don't.

THOMPSON: Well, then I'm not going to answer it.

(LAUGHTER)

WASHBURN: OK.

(APPLAUSE)

MITT ROMNEY: How about 30 seconds?

WASHBURN: No. You know...

THOMPSON: You want a show of hands. I'm not giving it to you.

WASHBURN: We're going to follow up on that, but what I need to know is: Who believes global climate change is serious and caused by human activity? And then we'll talk in more detail about it.

(CROSSTALK)

JOHN MCCAIN: I think that climate change is real and I...

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

WASHBURN: I'm going to start with Senator McCain and come back to Mayor Giuliani.

MCCAIN: I've been involved in this issue since the year 2000. I have had hearings. I've traveled the world. I know that climate change is real. But let me put it to you this way. Suppose that climate change is not real and all we do is adopt green technologies, which our economy and our technology is perfectly capable of. Then all we've done is given our kids a cleaner world. But suppose they are wrong. Suppose they are wrong and climate change is real and we've done nothing. What kind of a planet are we going to pass on to the next generation of Americans? It's real, we've got to address it, we can do it with technology, with cap and trade, with capitalist and free enterprise motivation. And I'm confident that we can pass on to our children and grandchildren a cleaner, better world.

WASHBURN: Mayor Giuliani?

RUDY GIULIANI: I agree with John. Climate change is real. It's happening. I believe human beings are contributing to it. I think the best way to deal with it is through energy independence. And I...

WASHBURN: Who doesn't...

GIULIANI: And I think energy independence is...

WASHBURN: Who doesn't agree?

DUNCAN HUNTER: He said contributing, but not totally.

GIULIANI: Yes. Yes.

HUNTER: OK.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

GIULIANI: And I think that our party should embrace this as an issue for us and our...

WASHBURN: Let me come at it this way. Let me come at it this way. What impact on the economy would be acceptable in order to reverse global warming and greenhouse gas emissions? Governor Romney?

ROMNEY: Well, it's going to help our economy because we're going to invest in new technologies to get ourselves off of foreign oil. And as we get ourselves off of foreign oil, we also dramatically reduce our CO2 emissions. That's good for the environment. It's also good for our economy. Because buying $300 billion or $400 billion worth of oil a year from other people who use it against us, that's bad for our economy. It's also bad for the environment. We can do these things in a way that help both the environment and the economy and national security. That's the beauty of what we're talking about here, which is, yeah, is global warming an issue for the world? Absolutely. Is it something we can deal with by becoming energy independent and energy secure? We sure can. But at the same time, we call it global warming, not America warming. So let's not put a burden on us alone and have the rest of the world skate by without having to participate in this effort. It's a global effort. But our independence is something we can do unilaterally.

WASHBURN: Mr. Keyes, what do you think about this?

ALAN KEYES: Well, what I think is that a lot of folks out there ought to understand that what you're watching represents the situation in our country. Ask yourself who represents the people they don't let you hear from. And you'll know who you should vote for in the Iowa Caucuses. Who represents the voice that they're absolutely determined to overlook in the discussion of our sovereignty and the betrayal of this people's sovereignty, on the border, on our moral principles, on the major export overseas, which is our jobs. These folks represent the very elite who year, after year, after year, have destroyed our Constitution, betrayed our rights, and undermined our strength created by our people in the world.

WASHBURN: Ambassador?

KEYES: And yet the one person willing to talk about that is overlooked, time and time again. That person...

THOMPSON: I agree with Alan Keyes' position on global warming.

(LAUGHTER)

WASHBURN: Let me come to...

KEYES: I'm in favor of reducing global warming. I think the most important emission we need to control is the hot air emission of politicians who pretend one thing and don't deliver.

(CROSSTALK)

WASHBURN: Let me come back -- let me come to a question that Iowans may not let you out of answering. Governor Huckabee, you've said you support increasing government mandates, requiring motorists to use 36 million gallons of biofuel by 2022, which is six times what we're producing this year. Are you willing to increase that mandate, even if it will drive up feed for livestock producers or force consumers to buy flex-fuel vehicles?

MIKE HUCKABEE: I don't think that's what's necessary. And the reason that this issue ought to be important is because we don't own this Earth. We are simply stewards of it, caretakers. And I know on a day like today, it's hard to believe there is global warming, if anybody's been in Iowa on a day like today. But climate change and who's causing it is of less importance than what Senator McCain said. He exactly right. We have done no harm if we take better care of this planet and give it to our children with cleaner air, cleaner soil, and cleaner water. We have done...

WASHBURN: So are you willing to increase the mandate?

HUCKABEE: I am willing for us to make the decisions which will not necessarily create the mandates. And let me tell you how we do it. You know who one of the biggest energy users is in the whole country? The United States government. If the government commits to being the primary user of alternative forms of energy, we have a market built in and, therefore -- the big argument against having alternative energy is there's no market for it. Let the government be a marketplace, and we'll create the kind of demand that lowers the price rather than raises the price.

WASHBURN: Congressman Hunter?

HUNTER: You know, I'd say, instead of mandates, incentives. The problem with mandating only biofuels -- and you know, ethanol is not the greatest thing in show business. You use a lot of energy to create ethanol and there's other biofuels out there -- biodiesel, etc. But by giving incentives in R&D, and by bringing our government laboratories together with business, with our educational institutions, the United States can become the center with a grand new industry of energy innovation. We can be the leaders in the world in this.

But you don't want to push away things like hydrogen fuel cells and others things. Incentives is the way to go, and we should take the entire array of alternative energy sources and give incentives to private enterprise to get involved, to get into the business of delivering us a great product. And we can produce a great new industry for this next generation.

WASHBURN: Congressman Tancredo, what would you do about mandates?

TOM TANCREDO: No, I don't believe in mandates. I don't believe that they should be increased. I believe that the market is the best determinant of exactly how these problems should be addressed. I don't mind and I would not be opposed to any investment in research and development. But the idea that the government knows the right amount somehow, some way, some brilliant analyst, usually some politician who hasn't the slightest idea of the issue, will make a decision about what is the right amount of mandate to impose on the rest of the country. And you know what? It never works out right. Let the market -- I trust the market more than I do the government.

—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

We keep hearing about "the

We keep hearing about the power of "the new media", yet Republicans keep letting the same "old media" shape the political debates. Why?

Great Question, Chris

We know how the pols all love to speak in sound bites....so where is the "new political paradigm"?

I just don't see it.  Nor understand it, actually. 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Hey Blonde, how you doin'?

Hey Blonde, how ya doin'? It all sounds good and impressive, but it's all still the same old same old. Sort of like all that impressive sounding stuff that was promised for the new CBS Evening News with Katie and then we got the same old crud. 

Yeah, Chris

It's absolutely the same old.

I do wish someone would just tell the fools to STFU and get on with it.  Run the libs over with their own stupidity.

As to how I am....back from vacation is how....nice. 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Well I hope you're tanned,

Well, I hope you're tanned, rested, and ready. I've learned that being Republican means I have to constantly be ready to be disappointed. Know what I mean?

Yes, Unfortunately

I am ready to be disappointed.

But I suspect the early political maneuvering...as well as the press coverage of the same (hello...Iowa & New Hampshire???) won't mean a thing in the long run.

South Carolina....then the big 5, (or 7?) which includes Florida, will be fascinating.

The news we get here is that Rudi is way ahead...but I've yet to talk to one conservative (besides the non-native New Yorkers) who are FOR Rudi....but the press has him up by a mile here.

So....we shall just have to wait & see. 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

I think we have a tendency

I think we have a tendency to imbue Republican candidates with our energy, frustrations, and desire to give as good as we get. When they come out saying things like, "I worked across the aisle, with my good friend and colleague, Ted Kennedy, to solve that problem and help the American people...", we all know that what we hoped for just ain't gonna happen. That hiss you'll hear is the air going out of hopefulness balloon, yet again...

you're right Blonde

When you take away media and "powers that be" influence, Rudy isn't really popular outside of New England. I never met anyone in the Carolinas who liked him and I've yet to meet anyone in Minny who likes him.

candance

The really interesting thing will be the way the middle of America feels about the (R)'s.

I used to get totally bummed out...Florida used to be a "late" state to the election.

But with the information age....it's a new thing...the media hasn't recognized this yet.

They (the old media) are going to have their heads handed to them....for going on and on (ad nauseum) about the old paridgms.....

We'll be laughing in June....when we nominate the (R) president....it won't be Rudy....as much as the old media would like to shove it down our throats.

 Wait for it.  It will be great! 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Well ya'll, this here

Well ya'll, this here native NY'er has been a pro-Rudi guy, but it's true that a lot of that is knee-jerk from having a first-hand account of how he cleaned up the act around here.

Once I have a new TV (flatscreen, maybe? ;)) I will diligently watch all the remaining GOP debates. How many of these things are left, btw? 400? 500?? :p

I will say, Fred's upside is his height. Tall (or the taller) candidates usually win. Guy is, what, 6-5 ?? GW Bush has been the exception to the rule (a modest 5-11) although he only squeeked by Gore (who's only an inch taller) and then in 2004, as an incumbant and in the middle of a war, Kerry, who was much taller, could have been 8 feet tall and still wouldn't've stood a chance.

 

"No wonder I turned out so amazingly amazing."

-- Leon (Robin to Professor TP&C's Batman)

Kerry, who was much taller,

Kerry, who was much taller, could have been 8 feet tall and still wouldn't've stood a chance.

Yeah Mr. Shy but he still has all those purple hearts to hold close to his chest at night!

Even if they are a bunch of nonsense on just on band-aids at a republican convention...

Wait a minute...real life too!!!

LOL....

lol bigtimer..ps hey Shy!

John Kerry needs those medals to keep him warm now that America has turned on him. That Swift Boat business really took a bite out of his hide. And to think, had they not raised that money themselves to get the word out, Kerry could easily have hoodwinked the country.

Speaking of which, I'm still mad at BOR for refusing to interview them.

 

hey candance (& bt)

Yeah, I never quite followed the whole swiftboat thing and the details of it. BOR refused to interview the soldiers that were there? Why?

 

"No wonder I turned out so amazingly amazing."

-- Leon (Robin to Professor TP&C's Batman)

Swift Boating 101

Here's a basic history of all that:

Kerry served in Vietnam for a four-month tour and never went back. While there, he hurt his own self and applied for Purple Hearts. Upon getting three bona fide "injuries" he applied to leave his tour and come back home.

He returned home, joined up with Jane Fonda's anti-war movement, made a public spectacle of throwing away his medals, and testified before Congress that US soldiers in Vietnam were killing and raping.

Then in 2004, he magically appears as a proud veteran who is humbly "reporting for duty." His fellow soldiers who actually lived with him in Vietnam recognized him and launched a campaign to stop his lies.

BOR refused to interview them on The Factor because he didn't believe them and thought they were slinging mud for Republicans.

Swiftboating 101(a)

candance...you'll need to brush up on the course material before you continue with the Swift Boating lectures:

--O'Reilly did indeed interview John O'Neill, the organizer of, and lead spokesman for, the Swift Boat campaign against Kerry...I watched it.  The next day I printed out a transcript and reread it.  And, by the way, it was an incredibly softball interview with BOR basically agreeing with O'Neill's major points.  About the only pro-Kerry statement I recall made by O'Reilly was his belief that he was a patriot and was an "honorable" person.  Otherwise, he generally agreed with O'Neill.

--Of the twelve men who served directly with or under Kerry, eleven "backed up" Kerry's statements concerning the purple heart incidents.  The one who didn't...wasn't present at the relevant times.

--I believe in an earlier post you asserted that Swift Boaters were self-financed.  Well no, not exactly.  T. Boone "I'd rather shut up than put up" Pickens, for example, kicked in millions.

Jer

Hey cd... What is really

Hey cd...

What is really a riot is one guy is offering Kerry a cool million to disprove any of the truth that was told about his lying that was made public....

HE CAN'T...

...and we all know it too....us simple folk out here in the real world.

Swift-Boated yet once again...all by himself!

why yes bt

...when WILL Kerry release all lose documents to prove he was really telling the truth?

cd... The answer is

cd...

The answer is never.

He will be made the liar he is....now won't he?

I remember him telling Russert he would release all of those on such a such date....

Still waitin'....

Once a liar always a liar.

candance

Thanks for the 101 :) I knew it was something like that, but didn't know the specifics.

And well, that's something I admire about BOR though, that he DOES at least try to be fair to both sides (of the aisle)... but I agree, he should have had them on. I think he tried too hard -- overcompensated -- to appear neutral in 2004.

 

"No wonder I turned out so amazingly amazing."

-- Leon (Robin to Professor TP&C's Batman)

Mr Shy...Please refer to my

Mr Shy...Please refer to my response to candance and her Swift Boating 101 tutoring.  And, by the way, any one who thinks BOR was "neutral" during 2004 must not have been a regular viewer of The Factor.  I was...and he wasn't.

Jer

One more thing...Kerry has released all of his records.

Come on Jer... truth

Come on Jer... truth up.

Kerry has NOT released all his records. This is well documented, unlike Kerry's records.

But on a general point, I really do hope the Democrats re-run the 2000 and 2004 elections next year. They lost both times, so it's always good when your opponents keeps reminding folks that they lost.

That's really gonna inspire voters.

Check out my exclusive edit of BBC News America's interview with Mrs Clinton: It's news to me!

Jack...Again, my

Jack...Again, my understanding is that Kerry has released all of his military records, the final release effected pursuant to an authorization Kerry executed [I believe] in or around March of 2005.  Of course, I realize there is now a demand for his personal journals and videos.  [I guess after that would be an insistence on seeing every letter he ever wrote which simply mentioned the words "Viet Nam".]  In any event, I think Kerry has provided far more than George Bush has in connection with the latter's equally controversial military service.

As far as bringing up 2000 and 2004, I'm not sure what you are referring to.  The only time I've mentioned it is when responding specifically to a post which has raised the issue.  But maybe yours was just a general observation.

Jer

I was rooting for them to

I was rooting for them to tell the woman to shut up. And take over the debate themselves.

Thompson and Keyes came the closest.

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

danbo... Exactly!! I

danbo...

Exactly!!

I was hoping for more...that would of been just delicious, the talk of all the networks and Thompson and Keyes would be very very noticed...heheheheee

Because the old media

Because the old media lefties are far sharper than the Republicans.   It's that simple.

One can no longer be honest in todays dumbed down society - read ignorant masses.   It's either be honest, and lost elections, or lie, and win them.  With all of the media types now available as opposed to 100 years ago, the masses still insist on using it for googling, youtube, Friends, and other non-important issues.  But the old media, and new modern liberals understand and fully grasp the "new" media potential to control the dumb downed minds of our masses.  And that's why in the end, they will win the votes and total control of the country.

Q: What kind of totally clueless twit

asks for a show of hands in a debate?

A: A liberal one.

The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.

What they failed to realize

What they failed to realize is that this school marm character is the single representative of all Iowans.

Will she also be doing the Democrat debate or was she a plant to try to corrupt the GOP debate? 

Leftist debate mistress

"What they failed to realize is that this school marm character is the single representative of all Iowans."

This Iowan objects to that stereotype.  She represents the leftist leanings of the Des Moines Register.  The debate was also produced for and conducted at Iowa Public Television.  That undoubtedly added to the prissy atmosphere.

When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.

Liberal clueless twit is

Clueless twit is redundant.

Liberal clueless twit is doubly redundant.

Wasting time on liberals.

Can we have a debate with conservative candidates, for conservatives, with a conservative moderator please?

Leave CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, and Rudy McRomney out of it.  They are wasting my time.

Don't know what debate you

Don't know what debate you were watching.  Romney was easily the winner today.

Romney is fine if you don't

Romney is fine if you don't care about his flip-flopping and his liberal record and if you want Republicans to stay home or vote third party in record numbers on election day.

Other than that, he's fine.

Gov. Mitt vs. Prez. Mitt

If Romney had, as governor, been doing all the things he promises to do as President, he would be the ideal choice for GOP nominee.

Too bad about the "if".

Evolving isn't "flip-flopping"

Otherwise, you have to call Ronald Reagan a "flip-flopper", too.

Romney's "flip-flops"

"Evolving isn't 'flip-flopping'"

I agree.  I suppose I may give Romney more benefit of the doubt on the abortion issue because I have had the same experience.  When I was younger I considered myself "pro-choice" because no one was going to tell me what to do with my body.  I also didn't truly understand the details of what abortion involved, and I didn't quite grasp the concept of "right to life."

As time passed, I learned about issues and life in general, and I began to understand the concept of right to life, and over time I realized the true horror that is abortion.  I now consider myself pro-life.

Do I consider myself a flip-flopper?  Absolutely not.  I absolutely agree that people's views can "evolve" and that is not equivalent to "flip-flopping."  There is a difference.

First of all, I don't buy

First of all, I don't buy that "Republicans staying at home"/3rd Party threat.  Republicans will find plenty enough motivation to vote based on who's the Democrat opponent.  Besides, if there's any Republican who would cause other Republicans to stay away, it's Huckabee.  Taxation and illegal immigration are two of the most important issues Huckabee is on the wrong side of.  He ain't up to scratch.

Turnout for Huckabee

I'm not endorsing Huckabee, but I wouldn't discount the possibility that evangelicals will turn out for him now that it looks like he's gaining some traction.  And I don't think evangelicals would be voting against Romney as much as they're voting for Huckabee.  Huck has been appearing prominently some relatively visable Christian media the past few months, and that raises his profile in that community.

There's no perfect candidate this time out, but I think I can support any of the men who have a real shot as emerging as the nominee in spite of any reservations.  Any of them is far superior to what the Democrats will offer. 

When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.

Huckabee is a soft

Huckabee is a soft candidate.  The Democrats are drooling at the possibility of him getting the nomination because they think they'll clobber him.  If Huckabee gets the nomination, I will vote for him...but I don't like what I've seen from him so far.  He's soft on illegal immigration and has a history of raising taxes repeatedly.  It's fine to be sympathetic to evangelicals, but Huckabee seems beholden to them...as if his faith is the only reason recommending him.  If you have to elevate your candidacy by arousing suspicion of a rival candidate because he's Mormon, I don't think that says much about what you have to offer.

I agree

"If you have to elevate your candidacy by arousing suspicion of a rival candidate because he's Mormon, I don't think that says much about what you have to offer."

I totally agree.  This is just one reason why I am skeptical of Huckabee.

RomneyCare vs HillaryCare.

Liberal RINO vs. liberal democrat.  Not much motivation there. 

Pick someone besides Rudy McRomney, and you won't have to worry about Republicans staying home or voting third party on election day.  It's not difficult.

Has it occurred to you that

Has it occurred to you that Romney might have learned from his mistakes?  He knows that he's not going to get the support of Republicans if he goes the same path on health care that he did in Taxachusetts.  As for Rudy, he may be personally pro-choice, but all he can do regarding the abortion issue is nominate judges.  He says he will select someone in the Roberts/Alito mold...that's all any President can do.  That's good enough for me.  Look, I agree with Romney...I want the next President to be one of the men on stage at today's debate, because the alternative is unthinkable.  And I'm a Thompson supporter.

fitz... you may be wrong.

We have so many RINO's running this time around, I may be forced to stay home for the general election.

I absolutely refuse to vote for anymore RINO's! It is they that have almost destroyed the GOP. If the GOP wants my vote they better start acting like it again.

Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/ Rush then stated that the conse

Look, Clear thinker.  I

Look, Clear thinker.  I agree that we have too many RINOs in the primary.  As a Californian, I am well aware of what happens when a RINO capitulates to the left.  But I voted for Arnold Shriver again this time because there was at least the possibility that he would veto the crap that came out of the California State Legislature.  Phil Angelides, a socialist, would have signed every socialist tax grab.  It was a defensive maneuver, but given the alternative, it was the best we could do.  Same this time.  I don't care if Ron Paul gets nominated.  I'm going to vote to stop Hillary/Obama/Edwards from taking over the country with an irresponsible Congress to support their inevitable tax grabs.  Romney and Rudy may not be your cup of tea, and you may think that you're standing up to your party as opposed to wilting to theirs, but staying away is a gutless choice.  Rush Limbaugh hinted that Thompson was the only conservative in the Republican field...but he also said that he would be voting for whomever came out of the convention as the nominee.  And, I, too, am a Fred Thompson supporter. 

fitz

I suspect many of us feel the same way.

But it will be very interesting....once we get out of the idiotic Iowa / New Hampshire paradigm.

The "real" voters get a chance....I think there will be a real shake up once that happens.

The media hates Fred....but many of us don't.  At this point...I'm leaning Fred's way.

So, we shall just have to wait and see.

And won't the media be surprised?  Bawahahaha. 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Blonde, I appreciate your

Blonde,

I appreciate your point-of-view on this issue.  I can understand how people might feel that 2008 will be a "hold your nose and vote" election.  Nobody seems "ideologically pure".  George Bush burned us in many ways.  But I believe these candidates understand that they cannot take us for granted like Bush often has.  I think they've accepted the fact that the left isn't going to be on their side no matter what.  They're going to give up trying to appease them because they have seen from George Bush that appeasing the left only alienates the right.  With everything George Bush has given them, with all the bridges he's built to the left they still hate him.  These candidates realize that there's nothing to be gained by catering to the left...so they won't this time.

fitz

I refuse to accede to the media's take on who is going to be the (R) nominee.

F' em all.  I want to see who WE pick...not who they pick.

So, I am waiting...and I shall vote...soon.

Nice way of doing things, yes?

We can tell these media whoredogs to piss off. 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Fair enough, Blonde.  But I

Fair enough, Blonde.  But I think that if WE pick Mike Huckabee, that's exactly who THEY would have us pick.

fitz

I'm still thinking FRED.

Unless something goes haywire in the next few weeks.

And I think alot of us are not listening to the media.

So, we shall just have to see, yes? 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Yes.  Fingers crossed.

Yes.  Fingers crossed.

blonde & fitz

YES, the entire whore-ish MSM can go scr*w themselves... that's what I've been saying. Vote for an (R) that's a real (R) if that's what you believe in. Stay true to your convictions.

 

"No wonder I turned out so amazingly amazing."

-- Leon (Robin to Professor TP&C's Batman)

Sorry fitz, I must have

Sorry fitz, I must have come off wrong. I'm not trying to start and argument with you. Here's how I see it.... do we vote for a slow slide towards Socialism, or do we vote for the really quick slide?

I could never vote for the Dems (quick slide). And I won't vote for a RINO (slow slide). 

Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/ Rush then stated that the conse

Clear has a point

I'm not saying I refuse to vote for Romney or Huckabee or whatever, but this does represent the gradual slide into liberalism we're going.

Ten years ago, no way we'd consider putting someone like Rudy on the national nod.

Now we're considering him to stop Hillary.

In another ten years, we'll be voting for Wesley Clark to stop Fidel Castro.

cd... In another ten

cd...

In another ten years, we'll be voting for Wesley Clark to stop Fidel Castro.

Say it isn't so!

Please!!

Just kidding ya know...it do get spooky at times...but that was a great comparison to sliding and siding just to win at any cost. 

Good post, candance. Yes

Good post, candance.

Yes I too will probably vote for a RINO in order to spare us from the Dragon Lady or any Dem since they all advocate forced government run health care, among numerous other things that would do immense damage to our country and to our individual freedoms.

 But we sure do keep moving to the left. Your last comment, "In another ten years, we'll be voting for Wesley Clark to stop Fidel Castro" is exactly the troubling point. The GOP keeps moving more left but since the Dems also keep moving still further left (incredible as that is!) and keep increasing in their corruption and disgraceful new lows in what they're willing to do for politics, the gap between the parties remains the same and thus people are still okay with the better of the two. It'd be like living in a house with the temp set at 70 in the winter vs. 50 ten years ago. And now the choice is between it set at 55 vs. 35. 55 is chilly to live in. But... it's still better than the alternative and by the same degree! (in this case I should say degrees!).

 

A liberal persuaded against his will is of the same opinion still.

You know, I say don't allow

You know, I say don't allow Hitlery and her MSM accomplices to scare all of you/us into voting RINO. If you're staunch, then elect a hard-right person. This country IS polarized (the sensible ones and the out-there, la-la-land, head-firmly-in-sand moonbats) so I say, to all you Conservatives... VOTE CONSERVATIVE! (say it loud, say it proud :))

 

"No wonder I turned out so amazingly amazing."

-- Leon (Robin to Professor TP&C's Batman)

If anything, the MSM wants

If anything, the MSM wants to scare us into voting for a no-hoper...whomever that may be.  But judging by your post, I'm guessing that you're not in the Giuliani camp...and it seems that Romney's not that popular among posters here, either.  Let's attack it this way: what do you find so objectionable about Giuliani (or Romney if you don't like him)?

fitz

Actually, no, I quite like Guiliani. I really posted that as more of a bystander, seeing how a lot of people here say they're tempted to vote RINO out of fear that a hard-leaning Repub could lose to Hillar. I say, vote for the one you believe in, and let the chips fall where they may.

I really don't know yet who I like. I need a working TV first :p

I know a bit aobut Fred, and very little about Romney. Their religious beliefs don't carry much weight for me, as I'm not religious. However, a reasonably faithful Christian candidate would be just fine in my book.

 

"No wonder I turned out so amazingly amazing."

-- Leon (Robin to Professor TP&C's Batman)

Mr. Shy

I hear you, Mr. Shy.  I like Fred Thompson, but he doesn't seem to be gathering any momentum (though the same could be said for John Kerry pre-Iowa...and he ended up with the nomination).  Being a New Yorker, my wife is a big Rudy supporter.  I don't like him as much as my wife does, but I find him to be a perfectly acceptable candidate for President.  Romney has really impressed me over the last few weeks, and I'd support him if he got the nomination.  Huckabee really bothers me...I think using suspicion of Romney's religion (and we're not talking militant Islam here) as leverage to gain ground in Iowa was cheap and cynical.  It seems to me that Democrats are licking their chops at the prospect of facing Huckabee because he's too similar to Bush.  I fear he may get the nomination and then get it handed to him next November...but I'll vote for him if he gets nominated.  The alternative is unthinkable.

shudders

I'm glad I'm not the only one who got angry at Huckabee for doing that. Geez, the guy gives a speech saying he believes in God, knows Jesus Christ, and wants to follow his convictions -- but that's not good enough because he's the wrong denomination.

Well guess what, I'm not Southern Baptist, so who am I supposed to vote for??

I want to vote for an envangelical as often as I can. But if Huck is the best there is, don't expect me to get excited.

If he gets the nod I will reluctantly vote but refuse to defend him when he messes up. 

my beef with Giuliani

As you guessed it, my beef with Giuliani is his social liberalism. I know, I know, he can appoint conservative SCOTUS people, but that really isn't the point.

I do agree with Huckabee on one thing: when it comes to an issue like abortion, being literally life or death, we cannot have 50 different versions of who deserves to live.

I'm not saying I refuse to vote for Rudy, because he's done a lot of good and would probably cut more taxes...but if he gets the nod it'll be some long nights spent in prayer before I committ.

Is that good enough for now? :p

I just don't see the appeal

I just don't see the appeal of Huckabee.  If we thought Bush was soft on illegal immigration, just imagine Huckabee.  He seems to have learned nothing from the immigration debate earlier this year.  Also, the last thing we need is a President who is as eager to raise taxes as he's been.  And when you consider that the only thing that a President can do to affect abortion law is nominate Justices to SCOTUS and that Rudy has promised to nominate strict constructionists in the mold of John Roberts and Sam Alito, I don't really see the problem.

No worries, Clear thinker. 

No worries, Clear thinker.  And I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to start an argument with you or anyone else here.  As I see it, the ideal candidate(s) is (are) never going to run.  Rudy, Mitt, Fred, Mike and the others are the only Republicans to have accepted the challenge to run for the nomination.  I would love to vote for John Bolton, but he isn't running.  We can only vote for those who have chosen to run.  We may not like the choices we have, but there are better ways to get the message across.  What we need to do is be glad that RINOs like Lott and Hagel won't be running to weigh down the party.  We need to support conservative candidates not just for President, but for the House and Senate...and doing so, we'll send a message to the next Republican President (whether he be a true conservative or a RINO) that he's expected to follow conservative principles.  You can bet that's what the Democrats are doing at the other end...they want a monopoly of House, Senate, White House, Judiciary and Media.  We can't accept that.  I share the great frustration many Republicans have with George W. Bush.  He owes his Presidency to loyal conservatives who supported him through the lies and abuse from the left over the years.  And how did he thank us?  By trying to shove an amnesty bill down our throats, by letting Scooter Libby twist in the wind and by allowing Agents Ramos and Compean to face a malicious prosecution and a decade each in solitary confinement.  But what did staying away from the polls get us last time?  Nancy Pelosi sicking her socialist San Francisco values on us, Harry Reid betraying our troops and the country on an almost daily basis and Chuck Schumer effectively running the Justice Department.  We cannot accept Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John Edwards poisoning the Supreme Court with the legislative rubber stamp of a left wing Senate.  We cannot afford to have whichever candidate the DNC Convention craps out taking charge of the health care system and ruining the economy with their frivolous taxing and spending.  Do we really need the ACLU and CAIR dictating the parameters by which we can defend ourselves against militant Islamic terrorism?  Do we really need to continue providing in-kind welfare to the incompetent, corrupt Mexican government through toothless immigration policies?  Gray Davis was recalled because even in a State as liberal as California, we realized that he was making the cost of doing business here far too high.  Do we want that in the rest of the country?  I sure hope not.  Please, please do not stay away in '08.  

fitz...

Your comments explain why I won't vote for a RINO. You wrote...

 "And how did he thank us?  By trying to shove an amnesty bill down our throats, by letting Scooter Libby twist in the wind and by allowing Agents Ramos and Compean to face a malicious prosecution and a decade each in solitary confinement." 

I fought like hell for dubya because I thought he was a Conservative. Never again will I be fooled by cute slogans like "Compassionate Conservatism!" 

Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/ 

So, who among the Republican

So, who among the Republican candidates for President is, by your definition, a RINO?  And why?

Unfortunately, it's not

Unfortunately, it's not just an issue of a debate. This is not about getting a medal for winning a debate.

It's about,  who do you trust to protect this country. Who do you trust leading not the party but the country.

And I'm not anti Romney.

If one of these gentlemen wins the election. He'll be dealing with BS as this woman every day. So he needs to lead, and speak over the BS.

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

All right, Fred!  Way to

All right, Fred!  Way to sort out that obnoxious, partisan dummy.  It's about time that these dishonest "moderators" were put on the defensive for their regurgitation of DNC talking points.  Standing up to these bullies will definitely rally the base.

and the media will say he

and the media will say he was being intemperate or something to that effect. To which, should be replied, "Oh, shut up".