debates: Page 1
At the 11/10/15 GOP debate, Marco Rubio said, to wild applause, "I don't know why we have stigmatized vocational education. Welders make more money than philosophers. We need more welders and less philosophers." Transcript at , video below.
At the September 4, 2014 California gubernatorial debate between Jerry Brown and Neel Kashkari, Kashkari admitted that he would have signed the same law as Jerry Brown that gave driver's licenses to illegal aliens. Scan forward to 3:40 on the clip below for the short version of what Kashkari said, then scroll back to the beginning for the full segment.
"Governor Romney, the few times and I think it was only once, that they experimented with self-deportation, only a handful of individuals voluntarily left. What makes you think that -- that program could work?"
Republican Presidential Debate January 8, 2012 (NBC News, Facebook, New Hampshire, Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, Ron Paul, Huntsman, David Gregory) - 01/08/12
The second worthless GOP debate of 2012 starts today, January 8 at 9am Eastern. This is apparently the first morning debate of this presidential campaign season, but don't expect it to be any different from all the others. You can watch the debate live on Facebook, but it will also be shown on NBC later in the day depending on your location (reportedly the same time slot as Meet the Press).
NETWORK: NBC News
CNN Republican Presidential Debate October 18, 2011 (Las Vegas, GOP, Romney, Cain, Perry, Ron Paul, Bachmann, Gingrich, Santorum) - 10/18/11
Tonight CNN will be conducting yet another of their worthless debates, this time a GOP debate in Las Vegas in conjunction with the Western Republican Leadership Conference (WRLC). Show time is at 8pm Eastern, 5pm Pacific. Feel free to leave comments below before, during or after the debate. This post will be updated after a transcript becomes available.
Tonight Bloomberg and the Washington Post will be conducting yet another worthless GOP debate. Feel free to leave comments below before, during or after the debate. This post will be updated after a transcript becomes available. This debate stands to be just as bad and as much of a public disservice as all the others.
Tonight Fox News will be conducting a GOP debate in conjunction with Youtube, with some of the questions to be asked having been submitted via Youtube. Feel free to leave comments below before, during or after the debate. This post will be updated after a transcript becomes available. This debate stands to be just as bad and as much of a public disservice as all the others, especially considering the involvement of Youtube.
Last year, Teapartiers threw dollars bills at and mocked a Parkinson's victim (see the video on tea parties). Their encore was at last night's GOP debate where at least two teapartiers shouted "Yeah!" on whether to allow the uninsured to just die. Video below. Yes, it was just two or three teapartiers, but it's an illustration of the teapartier mindset and where libertarian policies lead.
Tonight CNN will be conducting a GOP debate in conjunction with the Teaparty Express organization. Feel free to leave comments below before, during or after the debate. This post will be updated after a transcript becomes available.
Tonight at 8pm Eastern, seven declared or possible GOP presidential candidates will debate at New Hampshire's St. Anselm College. Feel free to leave your comments about the debate below; some live coverage might also be provided. When a transcript is available I'll highlight the immigration-related parts in an update.
Those debating are (see each link for more):
At last night's GOP debate, Rick Santorum gave the Democrats a pass on immigration - the issue where they're most vulnerable. Not only that, but he might have exposed a weakness on the immigration issue that's worse than just giving the Democrats a pass.
Here's what Santorum said:
The president had a year where he had control of the legislature could have passed any bill he wanted. They didn't take a vote in the senate and never proposed a bill this is a political issue for the president. He's playing political games with a very important group of people in America. We need to stop the political games and get the solutions. That's not what they are doing in Washington.
So, what's wrong with that? Let's see:
1. Santorum is falsely assuming that we need some form of major legislation. He isn't going after the root of the problem: we don't need new major legislation so much as we need the current laws to be enforced. Santorum isn't concentrating on why the current laws aren't enforced and he isn't taking actions that would make it more likely that they're enforced.
2. Santorum isn't going after the Democrats where they're weakest. For instance, in their response to his comments , the Democrats point out how it was the Republicans who blocked the DREAM Act. That's a *good thing*, but Santorum is acting like it was a bad thing. The DREAM Act is an openly anti-American bill that would allow the illegal aliens covered by it to take college educations from U.S. citizens. Instead of pointing out that the Democrats want to take college educations away from U.S. citizens in order to give them to the illegal aliens covered by the bill, Santorum is (falsely) pretending that the Democrats were the roadblock to that bill.
3. Santorum is implicitly supporting Hispanic ethnic nationalism and he's assuming that all Hispanics are the same; not all Hispanics support illegal immigration. Instead of calling on Hispanics - Cuban-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Puerto Ricans, etc. - to support our laws and calling out the far-left ethnic nationalists among them (Luis Gutierrez, Bill Richardson, etc.) who support illegal activity, Santorum is assuming that all oppose our laws and do so out of ethnic solidarity.
The debate - as have all the other presidential debates - was a waste of time that did not do a public service. And, Santorum didn't rise above it.
 The Democrat's response is at democrats.org/news/may5debate/
fact_check_santorum_on_immigration, which includes among other "fact checks", this AP headling:
AP: Senate Republicans Doomed An Effort That Would Have Given Hundreds Of Thousands Of Young Immigrants A Path To Legal Status After They Voted To Block The DREAM Act. [AP, 12/20/10]
If you've been following along with my coverage of former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, you already know that he's incredibly wrong on immigration. If you haven't been following along, see his name's link for my detailed discussion of why he's wrong, such as the questions I asked him on Twitter that he refused to answer.
Live coverage of the "debate" at Hofstra University between John McCain and Barack Obama commences now.
McCain is taking BHO to task for the "Sarah Palin is a ****" t-shirts and for BHO's implication of widespread rabble-rousing at McCain/Palin rallies.
And, BHO is stumbling. He indeed has a "glass jaw", yet no one wants to take advantage of his lack of experience at being challenged.
Live coverage of the John McCain/Barack Obama town hall "debate" - concomitant with me weeping for those who want to turn our political system into something closely approximating the Soviet Union - begins now. The questions I've seen so far are simply allowing them to replay their stock speeches.
You bet BHO supports nuclear energy. His contributors depend on it.
Youtube and/or CNN censored the list of video replies to their raw footage of the recent CNN/Youtube GOP debate.
On November 29, 2007 I uploaded two highly critical videos about the previous night's debate, and added them as replies to two of the CNN/Youtube-provided videos. My videos were in the list of replies for between one and three days, but then sometime on or before December 1 were deleted from the list. (Note: the videos themselves weren't deleted; they were only deleted them from the list of replies).
The "Iowa Brown and Black Forum" was held yesterday. Edwards gave a shout out to Obama and said he wants to raise the minimum wage to $9.50; B. Hussein Obama agreed. Then, the card games began, with Obama saying:
The presidential debates so far have been a mockery of a sham, featuring shallow questions, few follow-ups, and even worse in the case of the last CNN debate.
Just started watching, and so far both questions CNN has gone to the audience for had major issues.
First, the claim that the questioner was racially profiled is just that: a claim, not a fact.
The only thing Russert did was press them to answer the question; he didn't call them on any of the ensuing misleading statements nor did he point out the downsides of their support. He is simply a hack and isn't willing to call the candidates on their BS.
Please go to campaign appearances and ask the candidates tough questions - the type that hacks like Russert won't ask - and then upload the responses to Youtube. Everything will change if people start doing that: the candidates will realize they have to start dealing with issues, and the MSM will be damaged by being revealed for the hacks they are.
UPDATE: A purported transcript is here. This part does not comport with my recollection of events:
[Allison King of New England Cable News]: So, Senator Biden, yes or no, would you allow the cities to ignore the federal law [via sanctuary laws for illegal aliens]?My recollection is that he would allow sanctuary cities, but I'll wait for excerpts to verify that. Also, King was introduced as having "has been sift[ed] through thousands of questions from across the country". That's one heck of a sifter she's got there, since the question on sanctuary cities was the only one on immigration, and there were no doubt several more worthy questions, including the ones I submitted via their online form.
In his "answer", Biden also said:
Pick up the New York Times today. There is a city not far across the river from my state that imposed similar sanctions... And what they found out is, as a consequence of that, their city went in the dumps -- in the dumpsters. Stores started closing, everything started to happen and they changed the policy.So, either a U.S. Senator bought the NYT's propaganda, or was trying to retail it.
Then, Chris Dodd says:
The Immigration Service came in an raided basically homes in [New Haven, Connecticut], causing a great deal of disruption, disrupting the relationship that was being developed with community leaders...One would hope that a U.S. Senator wouldn't support a potentially corrupt mayor and "community leaders" that are collaborating with a foreign government, but he's a Democrat so what do you expect. Then, after endorsing Bill Richardson's stock "reform" speech, he says:
If it means temporarily engaging in a sanctuary protection here, then so be it if that protects our country.Sanctuary policies would allow illegal aliens who are terrorists to remain here to plot and carry out attacks; see the remarks from September 11 Commission member John Lehman.
Then, after Kucinich reads what's on the Statue of Liberty and after Hillary and Obama try to evade the question but both end up answering in the affirmative after issuing standard talking points, we come to Mr. Incoherent, aka former Senator Mike Gravel:
What's going on? Again, we're in fantasy land. We're talking about a problem -- we're scapegoating the Latinos of our society because we as a society are failing in education, we're failing in health care, we're failing in our crumbling infrastructure, and we're failing by invading countries and spending our treasure.These answers are indicative of journalistic incompetence of the worst degree. All of those candidates should have been torn to shreds if Russert and King weren't simply paid hacks.
UPDATE 2: Video of most of the sanctuary cities question is here. While Biden does say "No" just like is in the transcript, Russert did ask all of the to speak up if they thought the federal government should do something against the cities with those policies. All of them stood there with their hands down until Kucinich started in with his blather. So, Biden got confused somewhere along the line.
Here's something I support 100% (link):
Here is an idea that can be the activist centerpiece of the 2004 campaign. It can also be used in gubernatorial, senatorial and future campaigns. It will generate more excitement among activists than anything else we've done. It is a venture that will create bigger audiences, publicity and support at a fraction of the cost and effort of previous efforts.