Monday, October 16, 2006

Discuss the debate here

7:55 - The candidates are in the studio. The panelists are ready. We'll be live on C-Span and we're told CNN wants to show some of it live too.


The TRUBL Zone said...

Obviously the Religious Right Wing Republican Christians are watching a MUCH different debate than I am.

I'm seeing two candidates that leave a bad taste in my mouth, however, it comes to the lesser of two evils. Talent cannot run a clean campaign without false advertisements, and yes, his ads are false, if you disagree, you really need to learn how to use the internet and news services for research because you obviously only get your information from Conservative radio.

McCaskill isn't my first choice for Senator, however, Talent is surely toward the bottom of my list as he seems to have little to no true morality or honesty.

There aren't any good candidates in this situation, however, Talent has done nothing but allow our fuel prices to go through the roof and support a war that has done nothing but get us further in debt and lessen our reputation in the world as a whole.

Talent caters to the church far too much for my taste, the Religious right needs to leave politics alone or their churches need to start paying heavy taxes instead of building these huge monuments to money (CC and 65 for example). Talent is not the choice for Senator, he needs to be removed.

Mechphisto said...

Actually, Talent spent more than half of his opening on attacking McCaskill; McCaskill spent only 30 seconds attacking Talent, and her attacks weren't personal but professional.

Actually, the entire thing was ad space for the two largest political parties that are barely indistinguishable. There are two other candidates on the ballot, and if we're ever going to have a chance at a government that doesn't cowtow to lobbyists and special interests and the top 1% tax bracket, we need quality air time given to other party candidates such as Libertarian candidate Frank Gilmour.

The Libertarian Guy said...

Say, mechphisto... you wouldn't be one of those non-RepubliCrat independent-minded infidel voters, would you?

Me, I'm proud to wear that kind of badge. If you are too, more power to you and others who refuse to believe that only RepubliCrats can cure all our boo-boo's with government-issued ointment and bandages.

Betty B. said...

Claire did a great job of defending herself and elucidating her moderate, common sense and fiscally responsible position.

Too bad Talent could not stop parroting his attack ads long enough to answer the questions. What a wimp.

Mechphisto said...

Talk about incoherent, during the question on Iraq all Talent kept saying was "come home with a victory in our pockets" and "victory" this and "victory" that and just spouting the party line almost like he believed it. But nowhere does he define WHAT a so-called "victory" would be. No one in the administration has said WHAT a victory would be. But they all say they want one and won't be satisfied without one.

All he could do is bandy about the idea of "at least Saddam isn't invading his neighbors now and supporting terrorism," more party lines witn no thought behind them. Saddam never support terrorism, in fact, he and Binladen despised each other. One was a religious zealot and the other a secular dictator. The people who actually supported terrorism, the Taliban, happen to be regaining support in the country we've all but abandoned (Afghanistan) in favor of invading a country with no exit strategy or post-invasion plan. And shadey motivations and outright lies getting us in there in the firstplace.

But Talen continues to parrot "no victory, no leave" like a good lackey.

On the other hand, McCaskill was able to quote knowlegeable people in the military, Republicans even, who understand the nuance of combat and not just cartoon-like ideologies and expectations of the administration, who are willing to examine the situation and advise a change in tactics instead of wearing blindfolds made of "Mission Accomplished" banners.

Not surprising considering Cheney and Rumsfield both advised Nixon on sending more and more soldiers to Viet Nam, more lives spend in waves and waves of death, on a war we had no right being in, was deceived into starting, and wouldn't admit to losing until the bitter end.

And yeah, I am a moderate Libertarian, or, pre-Reagan Republican at worst. Both major parties are corporate owned mockeries of statesmanship dressed up emperor's clothing, caring nothing for liberty or freedom or privacy or even real security. The GOP has been usurped by Religious Right theocrats zealots who wouldn't mind an American Taliban, and the Democrats pay lip service to "the plight of the works," and that's about the only difference between them.

As long as the government is bought and paid for by corporate lobbyists, the longer the country is run by the corporations and "by the people, for the people" be darned.

The Libertarian Guy said...

What's "fiscally responsible" about EITHER of these candidates? Both will increase the size and scope of government, and that will cost *us* money, no matter which one wins.

boyd said...

Let me say first I thought the questions were pretty good, however these two act like a couple contestants on a reality show and like typical lawyers will not answer a question directly. If you define insanity as " doing the same thing but expecting a different result" then we are crazy if we think either of these two will change anything in Washington. Remember all you have to do is serve one term in the senate to receive life long retirement and benefits. How about asking them about that next time since they are both so worried about federal spending?

Mechphisto said...

Bobicus, there is a difference between ethics and morality and standing behind them...and believing you were ordained by God to rule and that your religion is the "right" one that should be followed by all and instilled in other countries.
Bush is a zealot and a hypocrite, but as the new book "Tempting Faith" points out, the higher ups in the government consider the religious with disdain. The people promoting an American Taliban are people like Farwell and the Dobson and the rest of the Religious Right who have made the GOP their political arm of their zealotry.

Their definition of a "victory" is blindly ignorant to the reality of the situation. It's half-baked and impossible to reach. Just as winning the "War on Terrorism," which is both grammatically and ideologically incorrect. Terrorism is a tactic, not a thing. As long as there are human beings and one group holds power over another, the tactic of terrorism will exist. As for Iraq, part of the supposed victory is instilling democracy to "stabalize the region." Well, our invasion, the resulting civil war and insugency, and the elected leaders over there, have all destroyed the middle-class that existed in Iraq before the invasion. They have left or died or have become destitute so that what there is now are the poor and the rich. Infrastructure is still devastated. Iraqis are killing Iraqis. And the situation there has exacerbated conflicts with Israel and Palestine, and increased tensions with Iran, and has made the US hated among all Muslem countries, even the moderates. Not to mention despised by most of the Western world. Nice.

So the administration can go on blithely expousing their rediculous, short and narrow sighted ideas of victory that can't happen, or they can FINALLY listen to people they have been ignoring since 2001, oh like, the generals in the field and Pentagon advisors, and change tactics. And possibly admit we screwed the pooch but royally and get out and let the Iraq civil war we started work itself out. At least then it'll only be Iraqis dying (bad enough) and not the hundreds of American soldiers a month, lives wasted for nothing. Not to mention the billions of dollars wasted.

The TRUBL Zone said...

RepublicFamily has offically proven my point, for such a "peaceful" religion (Christianity) the far right wingers are no different from fanatical muslims, they just go about their attacks in a verbal and more subversive way (shooting abortion doctors for example).

I am quite proud that I have a vote in how I believe religiously, it's a right that's going to be scarce if the Religious Right continues to tighten it's stranglehold on US Government issues that right may be gone soon, we may become a religious theocracy where people like me are FORCED to go to church, at that time, it will be a sad state of affairs in our country.

True Christians except people of different beliefs, most of my best friends are Christians of that true caliber, however, ones with views such as the view expressed by RepublicFamily are what has destroyed the Christian Church and led to numerous groups of people who hate Christians around the world.

And yes, I am the master of socio-political subversion.

WeezieWeaver said...

I agreed with Talent on one thing, and one thing only. Certainly one of the last things I want to see walking down the street is another Jim Talent.

In all honesty, neither candidate really answered the exact questions. Talent was the worst. What does the so-called partial birth abortion have to do with stem cell research?

Politics is all about the soundbite these days, even on Meet the Press. No format's going to help that.

The TRUBL Zone said...

If you understood history libertarian guy, you would see that unlike the Christians, the Muslims havn't gone through a reformation, the acts of attrocity that a select few racial muslim groups are comitting are no different than the actions of the Christians during the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, try and rebuke that all you want but it's a fact, it's not up for discussion, it's a fact.

This is a free country, not a country where ONE religious group holds all the power like the Christians, and honestly I should rephrase that, the radical christians like The Assemblies of God (Jesus Christ INC who are the biggest joke in the history of that particular religion).

What gives Christians the right to say that Marriage is their thing? That it only exists between a man and a woman because it's in their happy little book? I could've sworn, oh no, here comes another fact, THE EGYPTIANS, GREEKS AND ROMANS ALL HAD MARRIAGE BEFORE THE CHRISTIANS!

It's high time that the Christians realized that they are not the end-all-be-all of the world and just let everyone else be. Live and let live, but the Christians and the fanatical muslims can't have it that way, oh no, they have to control everything like two seperate sects of Nazi Germany, they have to be in control and everyone has to goose-step their way.

The TRUBL Zone said...

Oh yeah, and one more point to show that the Fanatical Christian Right is a bunch of liars. Amendment two, IT'S NOT CLONING! IT'S NOT ABORTION! It's utilizing Stem Cell Research (that means both natural AND SYNTHETIC stem cells) to develop cures that ARE POSSIBLE. Believe me on this, I've researched it as my mother is afflicted with Rheumatoid Arthritis and dormant Lupus, and feel free to leave her out of your prayers Christians, we've had enough of worthless remedies.