Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.
Former Gov. James Gilmore, R-Va.
Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, R-N.Y.C.
Former Gov. Mike Huckabee, R- Ark.
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas
Former Gov. Mitt Romney, R- Mass
Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Col.
Former Gov. Tommy Thompson, R-Wis.
And away we go....
Sam Brownback: If there is ever a strong, conservative candidate that the Religious Right could rally around, it would have to be Senator Sam Brownback. Brownback is pro-life, opposes gay marriage, doesn't believe in evolution and favors the teaching of intelligent design in public school, and opposes embryonic stem cell research. Brownback made his views well known in the debate. In the first question that moderator Chris Matthews posed on how to win the war in Iraq, Brownback answered:
I think we win the war by standing up for our values and working with those who will work with us.
I think you have to remember that while we’re in a war on terrorism, there are a number of people that are with us, that work with us around the world, and we -- also in the Islamic world. We’re partnering with a number of moderate Muslim regimes, and that’s something I think we need to convey into the Muslim world as well, that these are -- these are groups, the al Qaeda group, the militant Islamic fascists. They’re trying to unseat moderate Muslim regimes. And I think we need to engage those regimes, regimes in Pakistan, the regimes in Egypt, as long as we also confront those regimes, like in Iran, that are the lead -- Iran is the lead sponsor of terrorism around the world, and we’ve got to be very confrontational and very aggressive there.
So it’s to engage those that will work with us, contain and confront those that won’t, and convey that to the Muslim world.
You've got to love this answer here--stand up to our [Christian] values in fighting against these [Muslim] terrorists. If I didn't know any better, Brownback is practically advocating a return to the Crusades, with Brownback claiming we have allies of "moderate Muslim regimes." I'm still trying to figure out the names of these "moderate Muslim regimes" that Brownback is referring to--the Muslim nations in the Middle East are actually authoritarian dictatorships. But then again, Brownback is selling himself to the hard-lined conservatives here.
And that is the big problem with Brownback--he is way too radical here. Brownback may be able to sell himself to hard-liners and the Religious Right, but his extensive Senate record, and his opinions on the issues, makes him way too much of a hard-lined conservative for the moderates, and possibly the independents, to swallow--remember, Brownback said the repeal of Roe v. Wade would "Be a glorious day of human liberty and freedom." For the Republicans to win the 2008 presidential race, they are not only going to need to rally the conservatives to their camp, but also the moderates and independents--and those same moderates and independents are deserting the Bush administration. What the Republicans need to do is to find a candidate who is both popular with the American people, and relatively unknown regarding the opinions on the current issues. In other words, the Republicans need to find another George W. Bush for 2008.
Sam Brownback does not believe in evolution.
Ron Paul: Ron Paul is a contradiction within the Republican Party. Paul is the only Republican to have opposed the Bush war in Iraq, and voted against the congressional authorization for the Bush administration to go to war with Iraq. In fact, Paul provided some of the harshest criticism against his Republican peers' continued support for the Bush war in Iraq. From YouTube:
It is incredible at how Ron Paul lays down the harsh truth about this pro-war Republican Party. The polls really show that the American people want to get out of Iraq, and the Republican candidates are completely clueless about this. They are choosing to side with a president who has a 30 percent job approval rating, who is basically using this troop surge as a means to keeping whatever presidential legacy President Bush has left, intact. Go back and look at what Mitt Romney had to say about the public opinion polls and why the president shouldn't listen to them. Let me quote this:
MR. HARRIS: Governor Romney, in that same NBC Wall Street Journal poll that Chris mentioned, 55 percent of Americans say victory is just not possible in Iraq. They’ve made up their minds on this war. Why shouldn’t they have a president who will listen?
MR. ROMNEY: Well, if you wanted to have a president that just followed the polls, all we’d need to do is plug in our TVs and have them run the country, but that’s not what America wants. It’s not what America needs. We need leadership that’s strong and that shows America what we can do to lead the world. Ronald Reagan was a president of strength. His philosophy was the philosophy of strength -- the strong military, the strong economy and strong families.
We shouldn't just have a president just follow the polls, we instead need a president who is a strong leader, that leads by a philosophy of strength. Romney contradicts himself here in saying that a president should lead by a philosophy of strength, and not according to the will of the American people, as reflected by the public opinion polls. In other words, the president should be able to do whatever he wants, and the American people be damned. And yet, we've seen this type of leadership style of philosophy of strength with the conduct of the Bush administration's war in Iraq, the ignoring of the changing tide of American public opinion against the war, and the resulting Republican defeat in the 2006 midterm elections. Romney is correct that there are times when a president should go against the tide of American public opinion regarding certain issues, a good example would be President Truman's firing of General Douglas MacArthur during the Korean war. But a president had better be damned sure that he or she is correct in going against the will of the American people, and be able to clearly explain their decision in the face of harsh criticism for going against the will of the American people. The Bush administration has never clearly explained their rational for invading Iraq, providing excuses after excuses that have been completely discredited. And each of the Republican candidates are still goose-stepping to the Bush administration's troop surge and continued war with Iraq. All except for Ron Paul.
The sad thing here is that the Republicans are going to ignore Ron Paul, even though Paul has some strong things to say about our foreign policy. Paul is somewhat correct that we should have a foreign policy of non-intervention. This does not mean that we should go back to complete isolationism, but rather allow nations to pursue their own self-interests, just as we have our self-interests. And if we do have to intervene in another nation's affairs, then we better make sure a majority of the world's nations supporting us on such an intervention. The Republican Party, as controlled by the PNAC people, can never accept this line of reasoning. They want the United States to be the sole superpower of the world, where the U.S. would dictate its terms and the rest of the world would subserviently follow. The PNAC people are still in control of U.S. foreign policy under the Bush administration. They are going to reject and ignore the alternative views of such thinkers as Ron Paul.
This brings up an interesting comparison here with the Democratic debate last week. The two debaters in both the Democratic and Republican debates that generated the most media buzz was Democratic presidential candidate Mike Gravel, and Republican Ron Paul. The incredible aspect of both of these candidates is that they have both looked at the war, read the public opinion polls, and have recognized the trend of American public opinion turning against the war. Both Gravel and Paul are out in front of the supposed mainstream American political opinion--both Democratic and Republican--and their political views are somewhat similar in regards to U.S. foreign policy in Iraq. Both candidates want to immediately pull the U.S. out of Iraq. Both candidates want to pull the U.S. away from being the sole superpower, rejecting the PNAC Doctrine of U.S. dominance in world affairs. Both candidates have different methods of how the U.S. should conduct itself in world affairs, with Paul advocating a U.S. policy of non-intervention, while Gravel is advocating a U.S. policy of treating the world's nations as co-equals. Gravel's policy of treating the world's nations as co-equals is also very much a policy of non-intervention as well. In other words, both candidates have a common libertarian streak regarding how the U.S. should conduct its foreign policy in the world. And it is fascinating how this libertarian streak has surfaced in both of the main political parties as a result of the U.S. war in Iraq. Ironically enough, DKos user D Bad also recognized this libertarian streak between Gravel and Paul and wrote a post on it here. The post and the comments on it are interesting to reflect on.
James Gilmore: I'll be honest, I really didn't see anything special about Gilmore as I was watching the debate, at first. But then going through the transcripts of the debate, I found some interesting comments by Gilmore regarding the issues of abortion, Karl Rove, and mothers in prison. When moderator Chris Matthews went down the line asking the candidates that if Roe v. Wade is repealed, then would it be a good day for America? Gilmore responded, "Yes, it was wrongly decided." Then Matthews asked a follow-up question:
MR. MATTHEWS: We’re looking for nuance here. Governor Gilmore, you have said in the past that you believe in the first eight to 12 weeks of pregnancy, that a woman should have the right to have an abortion. Do you still stick with that exception?
MR. GILMORE: I do, Chris. My views on this, my beliefs on this are a matter of conviction. And they’ve always been the same, and they’ve never changed the entire time that I’ve been in public life.
However, my record as governor of Virginia, I think, has been one that the pro-life community, of which I am a part, would be very proud -- passing a 24-hour waiting period, passing informed consent, passing parental notification, signing the partial-birth abortion law in Virginia. So I think the record is there. But my views -- my views are strongly and fundamentally believed, and been held that way.
There is a contradiction here. At first Gilmore said that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, and then agrees with Matthews' statement that a women has a right to an abortion in the first eight to 12 weeks of a woman's pregnancy. But then right as Gilmore agrees with Matthews' nuanced question, Gilmore turns around and cites his legislative record of restricting abortions as the governor of Virginia. I will say this, Gilmore was very smooth in shifting away from a previously publicized pro-choice record, while at the same time elevating himself as a pro-life candidate. Gilmore was so much better at explaining away this question on abortion than Rudy Giuliani's own wishy-washy, flip-flopping answer on abortion.
There was another interesting question that Matthews posed to Gilmore here:
MR. MATTHEWS: Governor Gilmore, you know Karl Rove and you’ve worked with Karl Rove. And -- is Karl Rove your friend? (Laughter.) Do you want to keep him in the White House if you get elected president as the president’s chief political operative?
MR. GILMORE: You know, at the end of the day, the responsibility for this government and for its policies rests with the president of the United States. And the president is able to choose the people that he wants to choose in order to implement his policy; the president has chosen Karl Rove.
MR. MATTHEWS: But you, as commander in chief and chief executive, would you employ Karl Rove?
MR. GILMORE: It isn’t a matter of Karl Rove. What’s important to this nation is not Karl Rove. (Laughter.) What’s important to this nation and to this party is the acquisition of a philosophy and values that we are as Republicans.
There is a time now for us to reach out and to say that we’re spending too much money in government, that it’s taking too much of the resources of this nation, that we have got to do something about government spending, create more jobs and higher revenue and a better opportunity, and thereby to cut taxes for regular people. I did that as governor. I’m a consistent conservative that keeps his word and does what he says that he’s going to do.
You have got to love how Gilmore refuses to answer whether he would employ Karl Rove in the White House, trying to claim that it is not about Karl Rove, but rather about the philosophy and values as Republicans. The YouTube video of Gilmore's hypocrisy in answering the Karl Rove question is priceless.
Excuse me Mr. Gilmore, but Karl Rove is currently working for a Republican president in the White House. Since Karl Rove is working for a Republican president in the White House, does that also mean that Karl Rove is expressing the philosophy and values of the Republican Party? And since you have refused to answer Matthews' question about whether you would employ Karl Rove in your administration, we can pretty much expect Rove to transition his employment from the Bush administration to a potential Gilmore administration.
Interestingly enough, Matthews posed the same question to Congressman Tancredo, and Tancredo replied that Karl Rove would not be working for a potential Tancredo administration. And as much as I would have to admit, I'll take a Tancredo administration over your administration, if it would mean keeping Karl Rove out of the White House.
There was one question that really didn't surprise me here. Moderator Jim Vandehei posed a question to Gilmore about women prisoners who were non-violent, first-time offenders with children. It is an interesting question about an issue that I'm certain that Gilmore had no clue on how to answer. So how does Gilmore answer this question? Does he admit that he never considered this issue, and say that he will need time to study up on it? Of course not. Gilmore responds by stating that good little Republicans must follow "the obedience to the law." So all those first-time offender mothers with children are just going to have to sit behind bars, because President Gilmore isn't going to do a damn thing about it. What is even more insane about Gilmore's answer is that Gilmore tries to turn this question about mothers in prison, who were first-time offenders, into a September 11th terrorism issue. Excuse me Mr. Gilmore, are you saying that all those mothers who are first-time offenders in prison, with children, are actually terrorists? What does 9/11 and terrorism have to do with a question of first-time offending mothers in prison with children? Gilmore never explains himself on this issue.
Mike Huckabee: The one question that really threw Mike Huckabee for a loop was Vandehei's question of whether Huckabee believed that global warming exists. Huckabee refused to answer the question. Here is the YouTube video of Huckabee's non-answer.
First Huckabee claims that the scientists are still going to have to study global warming, and whether humans were responsible for the climate change, even though Vandehei had specifically stated in his question that, "Thousands of reputable scientists have concluded with almost certainty that human activity is responsible for the warming of the Earth. Do you believe global warming exists?" In effect, Huckabee is stating that global warming does not exist.
Now for the hypocrisy of Huckabee. This is just priceless:
It’s the old Boy Scout rule of the campsite; you leave the campsite in better shape than you found it.
I believe that even our responsibility to God means that we have to be good stewards of this Earth, be good caretakers of the natural resources that don’t belong to us; we just get to use them. We have no right to abuse them.
There is really a double standard here regarding Huckabee's answer on how humanity must "Be good stewards of this Earth, be good caretakers of the natural resources that don't belong to us; we just get to use them." The key phrase here is that we just get to use them. Huckabee wants Big Business and corporate interests to exploit the natural resources "that don't belong to us," at the cheapest cost for Big Business. And if that means that Big Business should be allowed to overtly pollute the air, the water, and the land, then President Huckabee is going to give a free pass for Big Business to pollute as much as they can--and the issue of global warming can be damned. According to the Republican Party, Big Business profits trumps any sense of social responsibility to the environment, or government intervention and regulation and pollution by Big Business and corporate interests.
But the Huckabee hypocrisy doesn't even stop there. Look at this question that Matthews posed to Huckabee:
MR. MATTHEWS: Governor Huckabee, the question is, how do you unify the country the way Reagan did, a good portion of the country?
MR. HUCKABEE: I think it’s important to remember that what Ronald Reagan did was to give us a vision for this country, a morning in America, a city on a hill. We were reminded that we are a great nation not because government is great; we are a great nation because people are great.
Chris, I want to go back, though, to say why we’re a great nation. We are a culture of life. We celebrate, we elevate life. And let me just say, when hikers on Mount Hood get lost, we move heaven and Earth to go find them.
When coalminers in West Virginia are trapped in a mine, we go after them because we celebrate life.
This life issue is not insignificant, it’s not small. It separates from the -- us from the Islamic fascists who would strap a bomb to the belly of their child and blow them up. We don’t do that in this country.
America is great because the people are great. We celebrate, we elevate life. When coalminers in West Virginia are trapped in a mine, we go after them because we celebrate life. I find it ironic how Huckabee wants to elevate the rescue attempt of the coal miners in the Sago Mine disaster here as a reason why America is great because her people are great--we'll even toss in a Ronald Reagan Morning in America vision of a city on a hill. But now look at what Huckabee ignores regarding the lax safety violations of the Sago Mine. Here is the Wikipedia entry regarding the Sago Mine disaster, the lax safety violations and previous inspections. I have also included the links to the original citation references.
In 2005, the mine was cited by the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) 208 times for violating regulations, up from 68 in 2004. Of those, 96 were considered significant and substantial.[15] Additionally, West Virginia's Office of Miners' Health, Safety and Training issued 144 citations over that year, up from 74 the previous year.
Some of those citations were for violations that could have been factors in the accident, such as failure to control methane and coal-dust accumulation, failure to properly shore up shafts against collapse and overall deficiencies in emergency planning.
Ken Ward, Jr., in a January 3, 2006 story in the Charleston Gazette, "Sago mine has history of roof falls", wrote that the most recent MSHA inspections, from early October to late December, resulted in 46 citations and three orders, 18 of which were “serious and substantial.” (S&S) Violations include failure to follow the approved roof control and mine ventilation plans and problems concerning emergency escapeways and required pre-shift safety examinations. From early July to late September, MSHA found 70 violations, 42 of which were S&S. MSHA found 52 violations from April to June, of which 31were S&S.
Ward explains, "These "S&S" violations are those that MSHA believes are likely to cause an accident that would seriously injure a miner."
Davitt McAteer, MSHA chief during the Clinton administration told Ward, "The numbers don’t sound good....[they are] sufficiently high that it should tip off management that there is something amiss here. For a small operation, that is a significant number of violations." McAteer said the roof fall frequency "suggests that the roof is bad and that the support system is not meeting the needs of the roof [16].
On January 3, 2006, Tom Foreman interviewed Bruce Watzman of the National Mining Association, for Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN. According to the Association's website, it is "the voice of the American mining industry in Washington, D.C." and "only national trade organization that represents the interests of mining before Congress, the Administration, federal agencies, the judiciary and the media."[17]
Asked by Foreman, "And in making a quick review of these violations, you don't see anything there that leaps out at you as endangering miners' lives?" Watzman says no and when asked to explain, replies, "They could be paperwork errors, they could be reporting errors. A lot of violations, but many of which were not significant to really impact minor safety."[18]
McAteer, in contrast, told Christian Science Monitor reporters Mark Clayton and Amanda Paulson for their January 6, 2006 story, "Sago raises red flags for mine oversight", "If you have a widespread practice of S&S violations over an extended period of time like we have here, it suggests that you've got much more serious problems than just paperwork violations."[19]
Originally MSHA reported on its website that none of the violations were considered to be an "immediate risk of injury" and that all but three violations, related to shoring up the roof, were corrected by the time of the accident. The current posting, however, says, "Of the 208 citations, orders and safeguards issued in 2005, several involved significant violations that were the result of high negligence and MSHA ordered that mining cease in the affected area until the unsafe condition was addressed. However, less than half of the overall citations against Sago Mine in 2005 were for "significant and substantial" violations – and all but eight of the overall citations have been corrected by the operator. The eight remaining issues were being abated by the operator in compliance with the abatement provisions of the Mine Act.
"Mining operations at the Sago Mine more than doubled between 2004 and 2005, and the injury rate was significantly above the national average. This prompted MSHA to dramatically increase – by 84% – its on-site inspection and enforcement presence. As a result, MSHA also took significantly more enforcement actions – 208 in total – against Sago Mine in 2005, requiring the operator to quickly correct health and safety violations in accordance with federal Mine Act standards."[20]
Relying on MSHA records, Ellen Smith, the editor of Mine Safety and Health News, comments on her publication's website in an article, "Sago Mine Facts," "Sago's accident rate was 17.04 for 2005, with 16 miners and contractors injured on the job. Sago’s accident rate was 15.90 in 2004 when the national average was 5.66.
"Compare this accident rate to another small mine in West Virginia, Kingston Mining No. 1 Mine, which had and accident rate of 1.21 in 2005."[21]
What have to understand here is that Huckabee ignores the fact that it was the lax safety standards by the owner of the Sago Mine, the International Coal Group, which helped caused the deaths of the 12 miners. ICG wanted to increase their profit margin, and safety standards are a cost that eats into the ICG profits. Had ICG been following the correct safety procedures in operating the Sago Mine, there is a probable chance that the 12 miners could have lived. But Huckabee doesn't want you to know that it was ICG's rush for selfish profit-making and reduced safety standards which resulted in the deaths of these miners. Huckabee wants you to think about how we Americans celebrate life, and will move Heaven and Earth to save those poor, trapped, West Virginian coal miners. Huckabee wants to make sure that you know as president, Huckabee will also celebrate life, and will make America great again. The hypocrisy here is just incredible.
Of course, Huckabee really shows himself to be a complete hypocrite. Moderator Chris Matthews poses another question to Huckabee on his comments regarding Mitt Romney's faith and the public life. Here's the transcript:
MR. MATTHEWS: Governor Huckabee, you’ve criticized Governor Romney for saying his faith wouldn’t get in the way of his public life, his governing. Do you want to back that up tonight?
MR. HUCKABEE: I’ve never criticized Governor Romney for that.
MR. ROMNEY: Thank you! (Laughs.)
MR. HUCKABEE: I’ve said in general, and I would say this tonight to any of us, when a person says my faith doesn’t affect my decision- making, I would say that the person’s saying their faith is not significant enough to impact their decision process.
I tell people up front my faith does affect my decision process. It explains me. No apology for that. My faith says, "Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you."
MR. MATTHEWS: But you answered a question that George Stephanopoulos of ABC -- about this governor, one of your rivals -- and you answered it in this way. "I’m not as troubled by a person who has a different faith. I’m troubled by a person who tells me their faith doesn’t influence their decisions." That’s in direct response to George Stephanopoulos on February 11th of this year. Why are you changing that point of view now?
GOV. HUCKABEE: Well, I didn’t know I was changing the point of view.
MR. MATTHEWS: No, you’re changing your quote.
GOV. HUCKABEE: I’m saying that of anyone, whether it’s Governor Romney or Governor Gilmore --
MR. MATTHEWS: But you answered in direct response to the -- Governor Romney and his Mormonism. Why are you pulling back now?
GOV. HUCKABEE: I don’t mean to be puling back. I want to state very clearly: a person’s faith shouldn’t qualify or disqualify for public office. It shouldn’t do that. But we ought to be honest and open about it. And I think it does help explain who we are, what our value systems are, what makes us tick and what our processors are.
MR. MATTHEWS: Okay.
I went back to the original ABC News video of This Week with George Stephanopoulos, and pulled the Stephanopoulos' question to Huckabee out. Here is the transcript that I could write out from the video. The question is found 9.5 minutes into the video:
Stephanopoulos: Governor Romney, his religion is a Mormon. It has become a big part of his campaign, clearly. You're a Southern Baptist, a former Southern Baptist preacher, and that denomination teaches that Mormonism is a cult. How big a hurdle is that going to be for Governor Romney and his campaign?
Huckabee: Well, I'm not sure. I don't know if anyone knows. What I can tell you is about my faith, and what it really means. I think people ought to look at every person that runs for office, and they ought to ask them questions about who they are, and what they are about, and what drives their decisions. I’m not as troubled by a person who has a different faith. I’m troubled by a person who tells me their faith doesn’t influence their decisions. Because if a person says to me, "Here's my faith, but it doesn't influence me at all," what it says to me is that my faith isn't very significant.
What you have to understand is that Huckabee is really parsing the language here. First, the Southern Baptists believe that Mormonism is a cult religion. And I'm guessing that, as a Southern Baptist preacher, Mike Huckabee probably reinforced the notion to his Southern Baptist congregation that the Mormonism is also a cult--perhaps not by overtly claiming that Mormonism is a cult, but rather by ignoring the issue. When Mitt Romney announced that he is running for president, as a Mormon, you can bet that the evangelicals--and especially the Southern Baptists--were going to question Romney about his Mormon faith. This becomes a Catch-22 for Romney--he can either attempt to reassure the evangelicals and Southern Baptists that his Mormon faith will not affect his decision-making, hoping that the evangelicals will accept Romney's argument, or Romney can embrace his Mormon faith, knowing that his faith is probably going to anger a large segment of the evangelical Republican voters. Whichever strategy Romney selects for explaining his Mormon faith, Huckabee is given a free wedge issue to attack Romney on his religion. If Romney attempts to explain to the evangelical voters that his Mormon faith will no affect his decision-making abilities as president, Huckabee can bring up his argument that faith should influence a president's decision-making abilities. And since Romney is arguing that his Mormon faith does not influence his decision-making abilities, then Romney's Mormon faith is not very significant. If Romney attempts to embrace his Mormon faith, and tell that to the voters, then Huckabee remain silent on the issue, knowing that the Southern Baptist voters will still consider Mormonism as a cult, and that probably a significant portion of the Southern Baptists never vote for Romney because of his religion. It is a rather cynical, and hypocritical means of attacking Romney on his religion by Huckabee.
One final little detail to include here--Mike Huckabee does not believe in evolution.
I'm going to stop here now, and include the rest of the GOP candidates in a Part Three analysis of this debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment