The Pundits Live Blog the Alternative Universe so I don’t have to
Posted: May 5, 2011 Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, John Birch Society in Charge, religious extremists, Republican politics, Republican presidential politics | Tags: Republican Primary Debate South Carolina 46 CommentsThere’s a Republican debate going on right now sans Mittens Romney. There’s a lot of live blogs going on out there. I’m putting
this thread up but telling you that I really have no desire to watch a train wreck. It’s being held in Greenville, South Carolina.
Live blogs:
GREENVILLE, S.C. — The 2012 election season begins Thursday in earnest with the Republican Party’s first presidential primary debate here at 9 p.m. ET.
But only five GOP hopefuls are taking part, as some hang back and wait to fully engage (like former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman) while others have yet to commit to a bid for the Oval Office (see former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and current Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels).
Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty is the biggest name taking part at Peace Center for the Performing Arts, though Rep. Ron Paul (Texas) certainly has the most enthusiastic fanbase. Others hitting the stage include former Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.), former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, and former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain.
and if you really want to watch it, it’s on FOX surprise, surprise, surprise!!! NOT!!!
The twitter channel is #SCdebate.
Things you really want to know or not:
All of the hopefuls but Herman Cain would release OBL’s photo. (whew, they GOT the big one out of the way) and now they’re all singing the praises of ‘enhanced interrogation’.
Please, deliver us from EVIL!!!
peej
Carissa
ecocatwoman
mablue2
Mama Lopez
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
What happened to Newt? Did he drop out of the race already?
Have you heard that Mike Pence is running for Governor of Indiana now? I guess that means Daniels must be running.
{{shudder}}
I think this is a premature debate it’s probably to get name recognition for some of them.
Hey I think Newt is in…Fox has canceled Gingrich and Santorum’s contracts.
Just was putting that in my draft of the morning posts …. Huckabee still has his show.
Ah….interesting.
This is so funny and very sad. Raygun has been mentioned and Bush’s famous line “you’re either with us or against us” by “man on dog”. The economy talk was kill medicare,social security, and medicaid and rich people need takes. They are noe going to talk about unions.
Rich people need tax breaks,sorry about the spelling.
Ron Paul thinks government should stay out of marriage but supports DOMA.
He also thinks government should be interested in the contents of a woman’s uterus at all phases of a pregnancy. Ayn Rand would throw him out of her parties if she were still around. He’s only a libertarian when it suits him.
omigosh they still haven’t purged the entire party yet!!!
nationaljournal National Journal
Rare #scdebate moment by Gary Johnson, when he said: I support a woman’s right to choose. http://njour.nl/kRhk5W
Ayn Rand also threw people out of her parties for not divorcing their wives because said wives happened to be Presbyterian, or for not displaying sufficient rationality by smoking. SO that’s really not a good standard.
He seemed to adore her enough to name a son after her … I’d say that’s obsessive frankly.
According to Rand Paul, he was born Randall, which became Randy, which his wife decided to shorten to Rand when they got married.
http://libertymaven.com/2009/05/20/rand-paul-talks-about-his-name-and-ayn-rand/5796/
I want to hear his father deny it.
Besides, from the (albeit limited) time that I’ve spent around Ron Paul, he’s never struck me as obsessive, or anything other than a nice, old man who dislikes being told what to do.
I’m sure he’s as pleasant as any one. I’m simply saying you can’t call yourself a small government anything without recognizing the right to self-determination for an adult. He’s only for less government control when it’s convenient, and the state’s right thing is a complete cop-out. It simply means you allow a state rather than a central government to control other people’s freedoms. It’s hypocritical.
Isn’t that a bit like demanding to see the long form? 😉
Well, he did get named by his mom and dad, I presume … he didn’t spring forth from a lotus in the middle of a lake 😉
They might be opening the Morganza spillway. The last time that happened, in 1973, it was because flooding on the Mississippi scoured the river bed under what is called the Old River Control Structure and almost swept it away. The ORCS is the only thing stopping the Mississippi River from sending the bulk of its flow down the Atchafalaya, leaving the lower 300 miles of the Mississppi as a bayou with a series of ox bow lakes.
Think there might be something they’re not telling us now?
He seems to think heroin should be legal too…but damn those women, who don’t have the brains to make their own decisions as to what they can do with their uterus.
Ron Paul – Republican Debate – Heroin | Mediaite
Has Rick Santorum mentioned dogs and people getting married yet?
Paul thinks that each state should be allowed to set its own policy on marriage. And abortion. And drugs. And those are double-edged standards because they would also prevent the wicked, kitten-eating (half-joking) Republicans from using control of the fedgov to jam their ideas down the throats of the nation as a whole.
The state shouldn’t be in the business of sanctioning marriage one way or another. It’s simply a registrar of public record. That’s a completely idiotic stand based on nothing but appeasing your religionist base.
Paul’s base is much less religious than the GOP as a whole. By far.
state’s rights is nothing but a historical code word for letting states get away with slavery and racism … it is now used to make women chattel. It’s meant slavery then and it means slavery now.
LOL
Ignorance iz funny
-puts on his respectable hat-
I mean, uh, you should read about these little things called PERSONAL LIBERTY LAWS that were used to nullify (OH HORRORS) the Fugitive Slave Act in the name of (shcked gasp) states’ rights.
They’ve played games with state’s rights ever since they discussed how to pull the country together on both sides of the issue. That was more like beating them at their own stupid game … consistency in laws across a jurisdiction is a good thing. The only reason ‘state’s rights’ came up was to deal with the slavery issue. It’s been ping ponged back and forth for all kinds of stupid things since then.
The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, which were created to oppose the Alien and Sedition Acts, do not mention slavery.
Neither did the anti-federalists, who opposed the centralization which would be brought about by the Constitution because they believed that it would lead to the creation of a tiny ruling class. (cough)
Consistency is only important, or even a consideration, when there are too many laws. Local control is important because the decisions made on a local level are always more likely to reflect the wishes of the people affected than are decisions made on even a national or state level.
the state’s rights arguments has historically been the national cop out rationale for everything … it’s usually been used by religious people to pass laws that they can enforce locally on others … blue laws come to mind … you’ll recall the abolitionists were basically using an opposite religious argument against slavery originally. It’s a collectivist law that lets groups of people impose their conscientious objections or damnation of things on other people. It is most likely use to abuse the rights of individuals or to deny them of rights. When they can’t find a compelling state’s interest to interfere with other people, they scream state’s rights. It’s a hive mentality argument.
Which verse of the bible talks about the REAL ID act and medical marijuana?
Oh … And what about all those compelling arguments against the real I’d act based in “the mark of the beast”?
still moral issues … bible or new age or what
I think the compelling arguments are based more on the expense, the extreme undesirability of having a national ID card, and, to be totally honest, the desirability of denying the government the ability to absolutely prevent people from creating identification.
Then, argue the merits of that rather than screaming state’s rights. It’s capricious to have laws that are based on the whims from state to state and community to community. Blue laws are the best example I can think of … it’s okay to have access to alcohol depending on the day of the week? your geography? What compelling interest does any government have in that? Driving, yes I understand that … but based on which foot is in a county line or if it’s Sunday Night.
All I have learned from this debate is that republicans believe government is bad and should stay out of our lives except women who need to be told what to do.
“Man on dog” says women work because of radical feminism when he lost.
Now he says they should choose to work or stay home,but if you stay home you are a better woman.
Thanks for watching so I don’t have to. I don’t think I could handle it right now.
Oh, me either! Thanks, now to read this post! ! I have been watching The King’s Speech…it was fantastic!
Republicans always believe government is bad until they want to use it to tell people when they can drink and buy liquor, which days are official ‘holidays’ and why it’s necessary to have a national ‘prayer’ day, which drugs are ‘ok’, when sex and marriage are ‘ok’, and all that kind of stuff…
They asked Paul if Bachman has surpassed him with the tea party and he said “I am here and she is not” with a big smirk.
“Man on dog” said we should not judge Newt because he cheated only Clinton who he trashed.
Hey, at least Paul doesn’t get 250k a year in ag subsidies while attacking wasteful spending.
very true … and he’s got smarts at least … I’m never sure Bachmann is all there.
While “State’s Rights” have a history of being invoked by racists, they have origin in the 10th amendment in the constitution.
Because of the 10th amendment, the federal government ought not be able to enforce prohibitions against medical marijuana in the face of state laws permitting it, or states even legalizing it. Because of the 10th amendment, the federal government can’t stop states from recognizing gay marriage without a constitutional amendment. likewise, abortion prohibitions is not for the federal government to decide.
Reasonable, the war on drugs is as unconstitutional as alcohol prohibition would have been without the 18th amendment.
It was invented to provide an escape hatch for slave states. Madison was an unrepentant slave owner until the day he died. It has been used for a lot of things but that amendment was patched together to keep the slave states in the fold and to provide shelter for them to do what they wanted. It was a political maneuver and a bargain and it’s basically used to strip rights from people still. It’s also used as the basis to stop similar moral encroachments with the same rationale instead of actually having to face and argue the merits of the law. If a practice encroaches on people in one state then using it to block encroachment in another is a disingenuous move. Its used to avoid fighting out the actual merits of the issue and the correctness of the law at any level. It is the ultimate Cop out clause.
-sigh-
Right on, Dak.