Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

In our living room, we thought McCain looked old, tired and simple minded arguing about the definition of ‘timetable’.  I wish Romney had said something about it being a standard term in the biz world too.

1. Romney’s “dodge” on supporting the surge is bogus.  He did.  Here’s the link…
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/01/10/romney_backs_bushs_surge_in_iraq/
(hattip: freerepublic)

2. Romney didn’t say the US was the only power.  He said that America was the representative of one of four forces that would impact the future of the world, (i.e., the clash of civilizations) The first were countries like Russia (and by implication, ME OPEC nations) trying to become dominant via the industrial world’s dependence on fossil fuels.  The second was China, with a strange blend of [quasi] Communism & “wild west capitalism” (i.e., chinese nationalist fascism).  The third was Al Queda, and the fourth was western democracy coupled with free market capitalism.

Besides, didn’t you say *Major* power.

Mitt’s worst moment was not called out in the debate but it is coming.  Mitt said that entitlements are the biggest issue facing us (fiscally) right now and we need to reduce them. Correctomundo! 

But Mitt attacked John McCain in Florida two days ago for voting against expanding Medicare entitlements.  Why?  Mitt wanted to hurt McCain with retires (which Florida has a lot of). 

It is a classic Romney move.  Mitt is so upset that someone would misquote (as he claims McCain is doing to him on Iraq)--then he does it flat out in the debate right back. 

It is too bad Mitt has these character flaws about stuff like this, because the sad part is he is talented guy.  The truth is while Mitt did not flat out call for withdrawal, Mitt Romney was a weasel on Iraq.  Mitt has been a weasel on a lot of issues.  We can go on and on. 

Mitt is an Eddie Haskell.

Eh, this debate was nothing but the usual crap.

McCain promoted his personal narrative, while avoiding addressing conservative concerns.

Huckabee made his jokes and Ron Paul his rambling.

Finally Mitt Romney stuck to his script of dumping out as many conservative platitudes as he can between his esoteric explanations of his past and proposed future policies—all of which seem to be based around him proverbially getting his fingers in to micromanage everything (ie not conservative).

Just a couple of side points, for all his flaws I like Huckabee’s rhetorical approach to addressing federalism.

Second, I agree about Romney’s silly answer regarding the state of geo-politics. It sounded like a characterization premised off a power point pie-graph. (By the way, why are people still bringing up the silly Huntington “Clash of Civilaztions” thesis? Do you believe that Western Europe simply hasn’t gotten the memo yet? Why don’t we bring up the “End of history” while we’re at it?...)

I miss Fred….

MC-
I’m glad you like Fred, as did I, but he was a snooze-fest, and his record wasn’t exactly super-conservative.  He does better when reading from a script, a skill you seem to hold against Romney.

The ‘Clash of Civilizations’ is a silly premise?  Uh yeah.  That War on Terror is just a bumper sticker, and Russia and China are just 3rd world also-rans.  Maybe you should be voting for Ron “The world does not exist” Paul.

Yeah, Huckabee really advances the Federalist cause with a few well-timed Confederate flag jokes.  I agree with you on one thing:  He’s never seen an uncomfortable, campaign ending question that can’t be “answered” with an “ah shucks, I shouldn’t be running for President if I’m stupid enough to answer your question truthfully” joke.

Romney is the only one even saying he cares what the base wants, yet the GOP is dangerously close to shunning him for a plurality candidate that openly opposes their key principles because “he’s a straight talker” and because supposedly “he can win”.  To which I say: John Kerry.

Joe-
McCain’s mis characterization of Romney’s support for the surge isn’t just a claim, it’s a fact.
Follow the link…
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/01/10/romney_backs_bushs_surge_in_iraq/

Romney’s statement that our enemies would just “lie in the weeds” [waiting for the clock to run out] is obviously an explanation for why all the talk of public timetable for withdrawal was/is an idiotic idea.  The idea that McCain would offer that as proof that Romney believed in a timetable is just laughable, and more evidence of a trait he claims as evidence of his “judgment”:  The unwavering adherence to whatever idea he’s attached himself to, regardless of what the evidence says.  (Amnesty bill?) We’re lucky that Gen. Petraeus pulled it off.  If it hadn’t, that “judgment” would be indistinguishable from “Heckuva Job, Brownie” and Medal of Freedom Winner George Tenet.

Have to agree with the good professor about the overall result.  Romney may have scored some technical points (and probably only with the most engaged), but not enough to make a difference.

I’m a McCain guy, but he needs to build a forward-looking, positive response on the economy onto his lines so far.

Bruinrefugee....What makes up a McCain guy?  Are you serious? He’s a lifetime politician, who is not leaning but kneeling on the left, handing out favors for endorsements and on and on...not conservative...just the same old same old crap.  And he has no class, just a grinch grin. Mr Grinch Grin McCain!!!  wd

I agree that Ron Paul needs to make people know that he would know how to diplomatically deal with the world and use the military if need be.

But he speaks like Reagan otherwise, albeit with a raised voice and a speed that comes from knowing the liberal media won’t give him much time to talk.

Conservatives should be ashamed for not recognizing that the liberals hate him the most. The MSM love McCain and McCain got the endorsement of the New York Times.

That, alone, is reason not to vote for McCain.

So what happened to the Pajamas/Instapundit crowd of right wing bloggers?

You guys are all buying into the memes that the MSM are giving you.

Here is an example: Clinton and McCain were on the ropes going into New Hampshire and then they both got blown up like big balloons. This development was totally against the interest of conservatives, yet you don’t seem to care about the recount and funny business with the Diebold machines. No...that is all “conspiracy theory”.

Another example: I may happen to agree with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) view of foreign policy, but I also agree that they exist. So when guys like Ron Paul complain about how they vet both Dem and Republican candidates, I won’t disrespect my own intelligence by acting like Ron Paul’s recognition of the existence of the CFR is some kind of “conspiracy theory”. The fact is that they do exist, they do vet candidates, and Ron Paul happens to disagree with me and them.

Finally, Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo are the only Republicans in Congress who have been standing up to John McCain’s vicious Internet regulation policies where McCain sees everyone on the Internet as someone needing a background check. This needs to be talked about. Google the IMBRA law for instance. Look at COPA falling under restraining order for unconstitutionality.

McCain Guy,

Please go to FreeRepublic to see that much of the Republican base would actively campaign AGAINST McCain if he “wins” the nomination during the primaries. If Romney/Huckster/Paul keep McCain below the 1191 delegates during the next 6 weeks, there is little chance of McCain winning at the brokered convention.

This is because the McCain delegates are largely only committed to McCain on the first vote and there will be several votes (on each vote, more McCain delegates will be allowed to change their mind).

What happens when the man you have been unfairly or gratuitously sliming for the past 5 years suddenly, and despite your best efforts, gets elected POTUS?

There has been a lot of talk recently about McCain making his mea culpas on Limbaugh’s show in order to win back the base. HOW DARE THEY?!

Who, but a fringe 10%, CHOSE Limbaugh as the Conservative Pope/father confessor? When did Malkin become the high priestess of Conservative purity? Who elected Hewitt and Hannity the Scylla and Charybdis of the Hell that is Conservative talk radio? When did Laura Ingraham or Mary Ham regress into Conservative Vestal virgins?

Although the symbolism above is mostly Pagan and Christian, the truth is that the Conservative blogosphere is behaving like a bunch of Wahhaabi Imams, issuing fatwas, death threats, charges of heresy, demands for tribute!

For those named above and the others who blindly follow their rulings, John McCain is an APOSTATE, and they have tried mightily, and fortunately unsuccessfully, to strike off his head.

But beware: the former goat-herd, Rufus, shunned and bullied as a boy, became a Caesar, and soon taught the shunners and bullies a lesson they never forgot!

The Church of Conservative Purity should be glad that John McCain is not a vindictive man!

“There is a special place in Hell reserved for those who mislead the ignorant” (Talmud)

I assume that was a sarcastic warning to McCain voters that they will unleash Hell if they vote for this vindictive guy. The bellweather for who will be OK for the average Republican male voter would be Mens News Daily at http://www.mensnewsdaily.com.

Read the latest Marc Rudov article called “GOP Snubs Men”.

Mark- I’m assuming Mitt Romney didn’t make all of his volunteers sign an avadavat that they would become angry and inchoate when challenged. It’s certainly not convincing me to support your guy.

The insults aside, anyone who’s actually read Huntington’s thesis critically can easily surmise that (as with all such forecasting efforts) it has proven 98% wrong. On it’s way to collecting dust on every beltway quasi-intellectual’s shelf, it gained a new popular lease on life after September 11, 2001 when people needed an easy explanation (and before the reams of literature were out on the subject) to what was suddenly an immediate concern. Is there a strain of Islamic extremism that wants to make a world caliphate? Yes. Has the present US government striven to the resist this through the promotion of the strength of our values? Yes. Has the broader West rallied behind us while the Islamic peoples rallied in one banner to oppose us in a great conflict between the Western world and the Islamic world, as Huntington’s prediction suggests they should? Er…..only in some people’s fantasies.

Throwing in China and Russia, simply because they offer specific challenges and are culturally and socio-politically different to the US, only compounds your deductive fallacy. Who exactly is rushing to join in civilizational solidarity with these two states?

Geo-politics is still primarily about individual states and state interests. The biggest change since the end of the cold in this regard has not been a solidifying “clash of civilzations,” but rather the broad rise in influence of non-state entities.