To talk or not to talk

DB has been tied up this week, so apologies for the light blogging. I'm also a little late getting into this topic, but here's some scattered thoughts about the dust-up between Clinton and Obama over their answers to a YouTube debate question.

Here's the brief synopsis: The candidates were asked if they would, in their first year in office, speak with the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela. Obama came right out and said yes. Clinton said she would increase the diplomatic efforts, but she wouldn't promise to meet them in her first year, not wanting to be used for propaganda purposes. Since then, Clinton has called Obama naive. Obama has responded by saying that voting to authorize the war in Iraq was naive.

Time will tell who comes out on top. The media, naturally, jumped on the experience vs. judgment angle. I think there are other elements to this disagreement that make it interesting.

International diplomacy is more than simply one president calling another or rolling out the red carpet at the ranch. Obviously, that's important, but diplomacy is a multi-dimensional endeavor and the Bush Administration has been ineffective not just because the doors at Kennebunkport or Crawford weren't wide open, but because the doors at the State Department were essentially closed. It goes without saying that the nation's top diplomat has been more successful at shoe shopping and raising awareness of golf as a sport than she has been at bringing countries together to solve major international problems. The answer to our failed diplomatic record needs to be more than simple cosmetics.

On the other hand, who cannot recognize the absurdity of Bush's notion that it's somehow a form of punishment to be told you can't meet (or get a back rub from) him?

This debate is giving me some flashbacks to 2004 because it's not much different than when John Kerry said he could "fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history." Dick Cheney responded by mocking Kerry for wanting to show al-Qaeda our "soft side." Obviously that wasn't the point Kerry was making, but in the general election, Cheney's bottom-feeding quip was effective enough.

Clinton's answer was clearly more thoughtful. Obama's was more appealing emotionally. Will the Democratic primary voters choose thoughtfulness over emotion? It doesn't look like it.

Then there is the post-debate debate. I'll just say that I think Obama's response (that it was naive to vote for this war) was a pretty good stinger, at least as far as the primary goes.

The point I think will be lost in all this is the idea that a president should do the right thing for the right reasons. The GOP came into power believing that everything President Clinton did was, by default, wrong. If Clinton did it this way, we'll do it that way. Just ask New Orleans how that worked out. Bush's policies are catastrophically bad across the board and the damage he has done will require extensive repair. But the decisions the next president makes have to be more than just opportunities to repudiate George W. Bush.

If the next president is going to speak to another world leader, it has to be because America is ready to talk at that level, not just because a talk is overdue (though it most certainly is). If it takes two or three years of strong diplomatic efforts to get to the point where a talk between top leadership can be productive, that's how it ought to be done. However, if the president feels that a meeting in January 2009 will send the right statement to the world, then that's a justifiable reason to do it, too.

But we cannot allow the next administration to exist solely to prove it's not the Cheney administration. The best way to do that is to be thoughtful and to do what's best for America.

In case you think that sounds too much like Lieberman, keep in mind that I'm not saying it to stop anybody from disagreeing with me. Or to keep America in some sort of insane biblical conflict.

Fear Factor

John McCain said during the GOP debate tonight that he would "take the lead in fighting this transcendent issue of our time: the battle and struggle against radical Islamic extremism." He might have even exceeded Rudy in describing the vastness of the threat facing our nation:

It is a force of evil that is within our shores. Look at the events of the last few days at JFK, attempts at Fort Dix, the London suicide bombers.

My friends, this is a transcendent struggle between good and evil. Everything we stand for and believe in is at stake here. We can win. We will never surrender, they will. I am prepared to lead. My life and my experience and my background and my heroes inspire me and qualify me to lead in this titanic struggle which will not be over soon, but we will prevail.

This was, of course, a common thread among all the Republican candidates (save Ron Paul). "These are real problems," said Rudy. "This war is not a bumper sticker. This war is a real war."

Another wonderful moment of unanimity was this:

MR. BLITZER: Is there anyone here who believes gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the United States military? If you do, speak up now. (Silence.)

So here's the hypothetical DB would greatly appreciate hearing in the next GOP debate:

The questions in this round will be premised on a fictional, but we think plausible scenario involving terrorism and the response to it. Here is the premise: Three shopping centers near major U.S. cities have been hit by suicide bombers. Hundreds are dead, thousands injured. A fourth attack has been averted when the attackers were captured.

U.S. intelligence believes that another larger attack, possibly involving a nuclear bomb, is planned and could come at any time, but the attackers do not speak English and the only person immediately available who speaks Arabic is openly homosexual.

What do you do?

How amazing would that be to watch?

What a day

Scooter gets the sentence he deserves, Schlozman gets the grilling he deserves and Rudy gets interrupted by God while explaining why he's not Pontius Pilate.

Some days I have nothing to blog about. Today, too much to know where to start.

First 100 Days

One of the most interesting questions in last night's Democratic debate was posed by an audience member:

BLITZER: Let's go back to Jennifer.

VAUGHN: OK, Wolf. We have Ivy Merrill with us tonight. You are a substitute elementary schoolteacher.

QUESTION: Yes, I am.

VAUGHN: What's your question tonight?

QUESTION: Well, thank you for being here. Given that the circumstances in this country and in our world were essentially the same when you take office, what would be your top priority for your first 100 days?

Well done, Ivy. Too bad the answers and debate ended like this:

BLITZER: Senator Dodd, very quickly. We've got five seconds.

But it really is a great question. I'd like to know what readers and other bloggers would do in their first 100 days as president.

To get the ball rolling, here's what DB would do at the beginning of the Dover Bitch Administration:

Restore habeas corpus and all our Fourth Amendment and other Constitutional protections

Issue an Executive Order reaffirming that torture has no place in American military or intelligence operations

Close Gitmo and bring our processes back into the best traditions of American law

Ask my top military commanders for a plan on my desk detailing the U.S. exit from Iraq that I would expect to complete by the end of the calendar year with no permanent bases

Repair our armed forces and ask the Defense Dept. to prioritize our pursuit of al-Qaeda worldwide and our work in Afghanistan

Ask Congress to fully fund the physical and mental health care our returning soldiers require and courageously earned with their service

Restore our National Guard to its proper role protecting America at home and ask Congress to fund the restoration of its equipment and capabilities

Require DHS to outfit our nation's first responders within nine months with the interoperable communications systems they need to do their jobs well and with a minimum of risk to themselves

Permanently and immediately end the indentured servitude, forced prostitution and forced abortions in American territories like the Marianas

Create a pro-business, bipartisan task force to address practical, immediate and effective solutions to climate change, and a similar, ancillary task force to address energy independence

Declare the U.S. aversion to bilateral talks with other nations over

Demand aggressive action from the United Nations and countries and corporations with leverage in Sudan to put an end to the genocide, with a simultaneous commencement of a strategy involving possible intervention by NATO

Ask Congress to fully fund an intensive effort to round up the world's loose nukes by the end of the calendar year

After my first 100 days, I would roll up my sleeves and start working on these important issues, all of which will likely take an entire term to even make a dent in solving:

Sensible immigration reform

Rebuilding our country's education system with a focus on early childhood development

Fulfilling Bush's promise to rebuild New Orleans

Fixing our broken Health Care system

Replacing every unqualified hack at every level in every facet of the government who was installed by the Bush regime for ideological reasons

What would your first 100 days look like?

Democrats Debate

Tonight's debate was surprisingly substantive. CNN deserves some credit for that, but they also negated any kudos they might have gotten from DB by tossing out those ridiculous hand-raising hypotheticals. While I am the last to blame a network for having unexpected technical problems, in this case the mics not functioning properly, the network's conscious decision to have camera operators running around behind the candidates was unnecessary and distracting. This is a presidential debate, not VH1's Behind the Music.

OK, that's out of the way. How about the candidates?

I thought Obama was doing a sensational job for the first 40 minutes or so. He called out Wolf Blitzer on the silliness of a question about making English the official language of the United States. He also handily shot down John Edwards when the former Senator said that Obama wasn't leading when it comes to Iraq, noting that Edwards was four years late coming around to his position. Edwards followed up by admitting that he was wrong about Iraq. Refreshing as it is to hear a leader admit mistakes in this day and age, if there's a time you don't want to be admitting you were wrong, it would be after having your attack thrown back in your face during a live debate.

But Obama's command disappeared quickly. An audience member with a son in Iraq asked why soldiers cannot choose what hospitals give them care. Obama responded by praising the VA for negotiating cheaper medications. If there was a worse answer for a soldier's mom than "your son has no choice because it's cheaper," I'm not sure what it could be. Mike Gravel hammered away at Obama for the problems at Walter Reed, which is under Obama's oversight as a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Quite frankly, there's no way to come out of that looking good. I don't think Obama really recovered.

Edwards was not impressive to me tonight. In addition to being swatted away by Obama, he did himself no favors with some of his other answers. He was asked how he will keep gas prices down as president. I braced myself for what I knew would be his answer: Launch investigations of the oil companies. Ouch. This is the kind of answer I would expect from a candidate for the House of Representatives, not the White House. Not only will "investigations" never yield any real answers or have any effect on actually lowering prices, this answer distracts from the larger issue of intelligent energy policy. The answer isn't cheaper oil, it's less need for oil. I am grateful for Edwards' extraordinary focus on poverty. I am very concerned, however, that his answers will lead a dangerous number of voters to conclude that he has contempt for capitalism in general. To be sure, I believe the oil companies have been unscrupulous and I'm disgusted by many facets of the industry. I just don't think that blaming the oil companies as your primary answer is wise politically. People want solutions and all he provided in that answer was fodder for the Republicans who will accuse him of "class warfare."

Hillary Clinton fared the best in my opinion. She made no major (even minor) gaffes and she took the initiative on several occasions. She also shot down Blitzer's use of hypotheticals, describing her husband's attempt on Osama bin Laden. Other people will have different opinions I'm sure, but I am always satisfied to hear a politician remind voters that Bush kicked out the weapons inspectors. Despite Dennis Kucinich's attempts to blame his fellow Democrats for the war, Hillary did quite well to put the blame back where it belongs.

Chris Dodd simply did not get enough time to make the impact he needed. He had the most gratifying answer of the night: In his first 100 days, he will restore our Constitutional protections. Thank you, Sen. Dodd.

Joe Biden, full of fury, had an excellent answer to a different question (about earmarks). Biden called for public financing of campaigns. Well done.

I'm afraid Gov. Richardson is going to be out of this campaign before anybody else. He wasn't particularly bad. He just wasn't particularly anything. His best chance of getting into the White House in 2009 is as an ambassador in Hillary Clinton's cabinet. [UPDATE: I didn't give Richardson enough credit for highlighting the need to improve our country's education system, particularly in the area of giving very young children a great start. I applaud him for that.]

A final comment... The Democrats as a party are fielding candidates who are light years better than the GOP. Every single one of them would be a better president than anybody the GOP is offering.

Debates: The morning after

Over at FDL, scarecrow writes the post I wish I wrote last night but I was too tired after breaking it all down. Here's a sample, but read the whole thing:

They do not see a nation angry at them about the war nor shamed by a government that sanctions torture. With their Reaganesqe optimism, they do not see families struggling with health care costs, job security, retirement security, and college tuition. They don’t seem to worry whether the government is doing enough to protect us from unsafe working conditions, unsafe products, unsafe foods and drugs. They apparently don’t see global warming as a national security or economic threat. American democracy is not threatened; the Constitution is not under siege, and Americans don’t hate the Bush regime for what it has done to our liberties (Paul excepted). Attacks on the rights of women, gays, and immigrants and anyone who looks like the “enemy” are non-issues.

The collective denial shown by these men was even more surprising because one of the first questions asked concerned the fact that about only 22 percent of the American people think the country is on the right track, but you’d never know it from listening to these men. And because they seem so completely disconnected from what the American people believe, there is no possibility that any of these men could successfully address the nation’s concerns. Last night, the Republican Party declared itself to be in denial and irrelevant except as an out of touch opposition party with no ideas left for any of the hard questions of governnance.

I missed spelled Giuliani a bunch of times last night, so that's been corrected.

Ron Paul has now dropped to 30% positive, 30% negative now in that MSNBC poll, with 53,972 votes in. He's still the only candidate without more unfavorable ratings than favorable ones, but he now trails Romney by one point in the positive ratings. It must be his "optimism."

Debates: Other thoughts

First of all, thanks to the International Herald Tribune for the debate transcript I've been using.

Here's some final thoughts on the debate, in no particular order:

Tommy Thompson's answer that employers should be allowed to fire gays was not only a low point for DB (of many), it actually seemed to bring the debate to a brief pause. There really seemed to be an uncomfortable pause after he answered. In any event, he offered a weak retraction after the debate.

[UPDATE: Thompson offers a full retraction and expands on his answer to the question about racism.

Good for Thompson. DB still finds there to be a lack of any serious discussion about race among the GOP hopefuls and party in general.]

Mitt Romney's attack on Patrick Fitzgerald was pathetic.

I can tell you that I think it was outrageous for the prosecutor, knowing that Scooter Libby was not the source of the leak, to go ahead and begin interviewing him, gathering information, setting up a case against him. I think it was prosecutorial indiscretion.

Memo to Mitt: Libby lied multiple times to investigators before Fitzgerald was even appointed. This lame answer from Romney shouldn't come as a surprise since Barbara Comstock is one of his advisers.

Romney apparently wanted to look presidential and probably succeeded enough to convince some people he could play one on TV for four years. There's nothing else there. He's probably wondering right now why Duane Wade really wants to be in Charles Barkley's "Five."

When John McCain said he'd follow Bin Laden "to the gates of hell," DB shuddered. Not because of McCain's insane forcefulness. I just felt a tremor in the force when all the writers at The Corner slid off their seats at the same time.

The questions were better than the ones asked at the Democratic debate. But politico.com ducked the good ones that were submitted. Chris Matthews' question about Bill Clinton is exactly why I can't stand him.

For the most part, this was a chance for 10 men to talk about how much they love Ronald Reagan and hate abortion.

Ron Paul won't win the nomination, and I probably wouldn't vote for him in a general election, but he was the one candidate who said things I was happy to hear.

Jim Gilmore actually seemed reasonable in many ways, but didn't say anything extremely memorable or revolutionary.

Rudy Giuliani did not do well. I think he's doomed.

Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are fighting for the same turf. Hunter wins that battle.

Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback are also vying for the same votes. But not DB's, so I can't say who will come out on top.

Debates: Immigration

There were no really no surprises in the debate for immigration issues. Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo dueled for the Lou Dobbs vote.

Hunter:

REP. HUNTER: You know, it's a way to win, but we need to win the right way. And you know, about a hundred miles south of here is the -- in my town of San Diego we built the border fence. When we built that fence, we had a border out of control, and we built that fence. And it's a double fence, it's not that little straggly fence you see on CNN with everybody getting over it.

He built a fence, Tom. Can you top that?

REP. TANCREDO: I would say pardon [Scooter Libby], but right after or before you pardon Ramos and Compean, two people who are presently serving in -- prison time for actually doing their job on the border.

Zing! Hunter?

REP. HUNTER: You know, we won World War II, World War I and the Cold War with a major industrial base. We're losing our industrial base through bad trade policy right now. China is cheating on trade. I would enforce trade laws. That's something that the president is not doing.

China! Tom?

MR. VANDEHEI: Congressman Tancredo, David Kim from here in California wants to know, beside yourself, who do you think should be the Republican nominee for president of the United States, and why?

REP. TANCREDO: ...I am telling you this; that there are issues that I believe have not been addressed tonight, not in full, and I believe that they do separate us, and I certainly believe the issue of immigration and immigration reform and what's going to happen to this country unless we deal with this forthrightly.

No more platitudes. No more obfuscating with using words like, "Well, I am not for amnesty but I'm for letting them stay." That kind of stuff has got to be taken away from the political debate, as far as I'm concerned, so people can understand exactly who is where on this incredibly important issue.

And when they see that, I think, frankly, I'm --

MR. MATTHEWS: Okay, time.

Oh! Sorry, Tancredo. Hunter wins the Lou Dobbs portion of the debate.

Debates: Health care, stem cells and science

It's hard to believe this was a presidential debate in the 21st Century.

Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee all raised their hands to say they don't believe in evolution. That's simply a deal-breaker for DB.

This was all former Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson had to say about his plan to modernize health care for America:

I would transform the health care system a lot different than the president's talking about.

Sign me up.

John McCain, who wants a $3000 tax cut for health care, was the only one firmly supporting federal funding for stem cells. There were some others of various levels of support. Mitt Romney had the most interesting answer:

Altered Nuclear Transfer creates embryo-like cells that can be used for stem cell research. In my view, that's the most promising source. I have a deep concern about curing disease. I have a wife that has a serious disease that could be affected by stem cell research and others, but I will not create new embryos through cloning or through embryo farming because that would be creating life for the purpose of destroying it.

As far as health care goes, we learned that Mitt loves his plan and hates Hillary Clinton's. What exactly is Romney's plan? Who knows?

Rudy Giuliani hates Clinton's plan, too. His solution? Fix health care with optimism.

We're a country that has the greatest health-care system in the world.

It's flawed. It needs to be fixed, but we should fix it from our strengths. We shouldn't turn it into socialized medicine. Those are the things that Ronald Reagan taught us. You lead from optimism.

UPDATE: Oh yeah, cloning is bad.

Matthews on 'pro-choice'

During the post-debate banter, Chris Matthews said:

Should a person have a right to end a pregnancy? And what would be the conditions that would require them to be allowed to do it or not.

These are tough questions of philosophy, of metaphysics, of deep religion and belief about human life. They are not open to a clever one-liner that gets you out of trouble. Rudy Giuliani is pro-choice. I don't like the phrase "pro-choice." It sounds too frivolous.

Is that right? Or is it only frivolous when it's applied to Republicans?

DEAN: This administration continually wants to insert themselves into the family's business, the Terri Shiavio case, that's the family's business, not the government's business... all these abortion cases, that's the family's personal business. That's not the government's business and we'd like to keep the government out of the people's private and personal lives.

MATTHEWS: So the Democrats are the pro-choice party, period.

DEAN: Well, the government...

MATTHEWS: The Democrats, your party, is the pro-choice party.

DEAN: No, my party respects everybody's views, but my party firmly believes that the government should stay out of the people's personal lives.

MATTHEWS: But, you're the pro-choice party, are you not? You sound like you're against them for being pro-life. Are you pro-choice?

DEAN: I'm not against people for being pro-life. I actually was the first chairman who met for a long time with pro-life Democrats.

MATTHEWS: This is a complicated thing for people. The people believe the Republican party, because of its record, supports the pro-life position. Does your party support the pro-choice position?

DEAN: The position we support is, a woman and a family has the right to make up their own mind about their health care without government interference.

MATTHEWS: That's pro-choice.

DEAN: A woman and a family have the right to make up their own minds about their health care without government interference. That's our position.

MATTHEWS: Why do you hesitate at the phrase "pro-choice?"

DEAN: Because I think it's often misused. If you're "pro-choice" it implies that you're not also pro-life. That's not true. There are plenty of pro-life Democrats. We respect them, but we believe the government...

MATTHEWS: Do you believe in abortion rights?

DEAN: I believe the government should stay out of the personal lives of families and women. They should stay out of our lives. That's what I believe.

MATTHEWS: I find it interesting that you have hesitated to say what the party has always stood for, which is the pro-choice position.

DEAN: The party believes that government does not belong in personal decisions.

MATTHEWS: OK. I'm learning things here about the hesitancy I didn't know about before. We'll be right back with Howard Dean.

DEAN: You know what you're learning...

MATTHEWS: Now, you're getting hesitant on the war and hesitant on abortion rights. It's very hard to get clarity from your party.

Debates: Reagan

The name "Reagan" was mentioned 30 times, sometimes referring to Nancy, in attendance.

Giuliani said the name five times, with McCain and Romney coming in tied for second with four mentions.

The most ridiculous mentions?

MR. GIULIANI: It really depends on what our intelligence says. I mean, the reality is, the use of military force against Iran would be very dangerous. It would be very provocative. The only thing worse would be Iran being a nuclear power. It's the worst nightmare of the Cold War, isn't it, the nuclear weapons in hands of an irrational person, an irrational force. Ahmadinejad is clearly irrational. He has to understand it's not an option. He cannot have nuclear weapons. And he has to look at an American president, and he has to see Ronald Reagan. Remember the -- they looked in Ronald Reagan's eyes, and two minutes they released the hostages.

Sigh.

UPDATE: Think Progress also notes that George W. Bush's name was uttered only once, and barely that.

Also, by their count, the candidates mentioned former President Reagan 19 times. DB had included "Nancy Reagan" and also moderator Chris Matthews' mentions in the 30 total. Giuliani still wins with five.

Debates: Iraq

There were no surprises with regards to Iraq. John McCain was the most forceful in his support, trying also to distance himself from Bush's administration of the war. Interestingly, he was the only person on DB's "surrender" and "defeat" checklist. He even said them back to back:

My friends, when the majority leader of the United States Senate says we've lost the war, the men and women that are serving in Iraq reject that notion. And if we lost, then who won? Did al Qaeda win? When on the floor of House of Representatives -- they cheer. They cheer when they passed a withdrawal motion -- that is, a certain date for surrender, what were they cheering? Surrender? Defeat?

Ron Paul, absolutely against the war. Everybody else, supportive.

The interesting comments on Iraq came from Tommy Thompson:

MR. MATTHEWS: Governor Thompson, if you're commander in chief and you want to win this war in Iraq, what do you need to do to win it?

MR. THOMPSON: First, you have to support the troops. There's an undying bond in America that any time an American soldier is in harm's way, we have to protect him.

Beyond that, there are three things that I've laid out. Number one, I believe the al-Maliki government should be required to vote as to whether or not they want America in their country. If they vote yes, it gives us a legitimacy for being there. If they vote no, we should get out.

Secondly, there are 18 territories in Iraq, just like we have 50 states in America. I would require those territories to elect governments, just like we do in our states.

And if you do so, the Shi'ites will elect Shi'ites, Sunnis will elect Sunnis, Kurds will elect Kurds, and you won't have this internecine civil war.

Third, I would split the oil reserves -- one-third to the federal government, one-third to the state government, and one-third to every man, woman and child. If every man, woman and child is getting part of the oil proceeds, they're going to have a vested interest in their country. They'll be purchasing goods, they will be investing in small businesses, and they'll be building the country on democratic grounds in Iraq.

It's nice to see he's been thinking about things, but what is he talking about? It's pretty clear already the Iraqis want us out. And that means it's too late to organize 18 elections. He's out-Bidened Joe Biden!

The sad truth about Iraq is that our military didn't lose. Our politicians lost. And now they want the troops to pull out a miracle.

Mitt Romney was the only candidate to mention Afghanistan:

But I will go to work not only to win the war on terror as it relates to Iraq and Afghanistan, but on a global basis, not only with a strong military -- we need at least 100,000 more troops, more military spending -- but at the same time we have to strengthen our economy and make sure that somebody who's been in the private sector all his life can protect American jobs and finally strengthen the American family.

Not much of a discussion on Afghanistan, was it?

Debates: Iran

Duncan Hunter wins the Chris Matthews award for most eager to fight Mahmoud Amahdinejad in a dark alley.

Without a doubt, Hunter was the most adamant about the immediate need to act against Iran militarily.

MR. VANDEHEI: Congressman Hunter, Maggie from Highland Park, Illinois, wants to know if you consider yourself a compassionate conservative, like President Bush.

REP. HUNTER: Answer: yes. And let me take the rest of my time on Iran. You know, right now -- (laughter) -- right now Iran is moving equipment into Iraq that is being used to kill Americans. Iran has crossed the line, and the United States has absolute license at this point to take whatever actions are necessary to stop those deadly instruments from being moved across the line, being used in explosives, roadside bombs, inside Iraq.

And lastly, you know, we should not get to the edge of the cliff on this enrichment of uranium and plutonium to be used for nuclear weapon in Iran. The United States needs to move very quickly.

John McCain, who, like the other nine candidates, never mentioned anything about attempting to collect loose nukes around the globe, stated that his "greatest fear is the Iranians acquire a nuclear weapon and give it to a terrorist organization. And there is a real threat of them doing that."

But McCain added that there "are lots of additional efforts that can be made and must be made before we consider that option. There's lots of things we can do. That is the ultimately final option, and I don't think we need to exercise it at this time."

Tom Tancredo awkwardly answered a question about aiding Israel in an attack on Iran:

REP. TANCREDO: I say that, look, when we -- if you look at this issue and stand back for just a second and say there are two kinds of Irans that we are going to have to deal with here, one headed by a gentleman who believes that he is going to be responsible for the coming of the 12th imam, and the guy with a bomb, that should put us in the position of saying that anything we can do to stop that is imperative.

And if Israel is put in that position, and if we need to be involved in order to protect both ourselves and the Israelis, then of course we respond in the appropriate fashion.

There were a few scattered mentions of Iran elsewhere in the debate.

Debates: On Women and Race

Overall notes: Ten middle-aged, White men talking about things that concern middle-aged, White men. Nothing significant about women's issues (other than near unanimity in overturning Roe), nothing about AIDS, nothing about Katrina.

On race: Practically nothing.

MR. VANDEHEI: Governor Thompson, is racism still a problem in our society? And can a president do anything about it?

MR. THOMPSON: A president can do a lot of things. A president can -- can set a vision that's going to abrogate as much as possible racism in our society. A president's got to be able to get out and speak and be able to unite. And the great thing about Ronald Reagan was he was a uniter, and that's exactly what I tried to do as governor of the state of Wisconsin. I tried to bring people together. And if you do that, you can reduce and abrogate racism to a very great degree, and the president of the United States has got to be the number-one person in doing that.

Uh, so is racism still a problem? Answer: Ronald Reagan was terrific.

There was also this unreal exchange:

MR. VANDEHEI: Mayor Giuliani, Bradley Winters of New York would like to know if there's anything you learned or regret during your time as mayor in your dealings with the African-American community.

MR. GIULIANI: There's a great deal that I learned and a great deal that I regret during the time I was mayor, and a great deal I was very, very satisfied with.

I tried very, very hard to treat everyone in New York City the same. We reduced crime by 67 percent. Some of the biggest beneficiaries of that would have been in the poorer neighborhoods of New York City, not necessarily the African-American community, but a lot of the communities of New York City. And I worked very, very hard to try to move hundreds of thousands of people out of welfare. I think -- we actually followed Tommy Thompson's program, and we had the most successful welfare-to-work program in the country. We moved 600 and -- 60,000 people off welfare. And I think one of the reasons that crime is still down in New York today --

Good job, Rudy. You were asked about the African-American community and all you could think to talk about was crime and welfare.

On women: Practically nothing (other than the fact that they are practically unanimous in opposing abortion). There were two questions about women's issues. Beyond that and abortion, John McCain mentioned "women" three times, as in "young men and women in Iraq." That was it.

Here's how the candidates dealt with the two questions relating to women. First, Jim Gilmore:

MR. VANDEHEI: Governor Gilmore, this question comes from Malika in Washington, DC. Women are the fastest growing prison population. Most are mothers who are non-violent, first-time offenders. What will you do to address the issue of mothers behind bars and the children left behind?

MR. GILMORE: You know, when I was governor of Virginia I had to deal with a great number of these issues, and I think that we have to insist upon the obedience to the law. And that means that we have to let the courts and the juries make decisions based upon all of those matters.

When I was a prosecutor, I was an elected prosecutor, I had to address these issues all the time, and the fact is that we just simply have to have the law apply in an appropriate way.

Shorter Gilmore: What will I do? Nothing.

Next up, Tom Tancredo, courting the ladies:

MR. VANDEHEI: Congressman Tancredo, this reader requests a yes or no answer. Will you work to protect women's rights, as in fair wages and reproductive choice?

REP. TANCREDO: I will work to product -- to protect women's rights. The reproductive choice part of that, if I heard you correctly, is a reference to abortion. The right to kill another person is not a right that I would agree with and support.

Shorter Tancredo (if that's possible): Women's rights? Uh, yeah... no.

Every other mention of women had to do with abortion and the fact that everybody would be glad to see Roe overturned. Gilmore and Giuliani support limited abortion rights. Brownback said the end of Roe would be "glorious."

But I suppose I should be "reassured" by this display. Or, at least, I "need to understand" that it is "reassuring."

HOWARD FINEMAN: Keith, if you look at that picture and took away all of the writing and all of the words, and just had the image, could the American people tell that those were Republicans? I think the answer is yes. There is a hierarchical, there is, dare I say it, male, there is an old-line quality to them that some voters, indeed a lot of voters, find reassuring. And this is something that the Democrats need to understand. The Democrats are the “we are family” party, which is great, but this is the other side of the conversation and this is their home here. We really are in Reagan country.

Debates: Paul on the Internet, privacy

DB can barely recognize "conservatism" anymore. Ron Paul was a breath of fresh air at the GOP debates.

MR. VANDEHEI: Congressman Paul, Carrie from Connecticut asks, do you trust the mainstream media?

REP. PAUL: Some of them. But I trust the Internet a lot more.

MR. VANDEHEI: Okay.

REP. PAUL: And I trust the freedom of expression, and that's why we should never interfere with the Internet, that's why I've never voted to regulate the Internet, even when there's the temptation to put bad things on the Internet. Regulation of bad and good on the Internet should be done differently.

But, no, there's every reason to believe that we have enough freedom in this country to have freedom of expression, and that's what is important. And whether or not we trust the mainstream or not, I think you pick and choose. There are some friends and some aren't so friendly.

Republicans, please nominate this man.

REP. PAUL: I am absolutely opposed to a national ID card. This is a total contradiction of what a free society is all about. The purpose of government is to protect the secrecy and the privacy of all individuals, not the secrecy of government. We don't need a national ID card.

[...]

REP. PAUL: I certainly would continue on my earlier theme that foreign policy needs to be changed. Mr. Republican, Robert Taft -- we have a statue of him in Washington -- he advocated the same foreign policy that I advocate. I would work very hard to protect the privacy of American citizens, being very, very cautious about warrantless searches, and I would guarantee that I would never abuse habeas corpus.

Amen. Plus, he called out Scooter Libby for his role in spreading lies to lead us into war. Well done, Paul.

By the way, as I post this, with 16,982 votes in, Paul appears to be the only candidate in the MSNBC poll with more positive ratings than negative.

Pre-debate notes

A few thoughts before the GOP debates...

DB will be keeping track of how many times the candidates use the word "surrender" and how often they try to paint people opposed to the war as embracing "defeat."

Who will be the first to invoke the repulsive memory of Jeane Kirkpatrick?

Fred Thompson is getting a disproportionate amount of attention today. Chuck Hagel's name has come up. I guess we don't need to wonder how successful Newt Gingrich has been with this: "I am seeking to create a movement to win the future by offering a series of solutions so compelling that if the American people say I have to be president, it will happen."

The love affair with Ronald Reagan is bordering on psychotic.

Does anybody expect anything surprising at all tonight? DB is a debate fanatic, but I thought the last Democratic debate was a real snoozer. This one has the potential to be the pure cable NyQuil.

When are the Republicans going to give an older, White man a chance to voice his opinion? (Yes, that's my idea of snark)

UPDATE: Thirty minutes before the debate, Keith Olbermann brings up Newt.

UPDATE II: Thinking about my last point reminds me that one of the more painful parts of any debate in the last six years, to me, was when Dick Cheney answered a Gwen Ifill question about HIV-infection rates in African-American women by saying he wasn't aware it was an epidemic. He then lamented the loss of productivity in parts of Africa. I wonder (but not too much) if there will be any discussion at all about the issues facing women today. Other than their obvious positions on abortion, of course.

UPDATE III: Last pre-debate point. Digby wonders if the questions tonight will be as trivial as during the Democratic debate. I hope not. Not that I think the GOP deserves to be treated with more seriousness. I think they both should be asked difficult and serious questions.

The only thing we have to fear

Once again, Atrios beats DB to the punch.

Our leaders showed more courage when they informed us that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself " instead of telling us to be scared all of the time. True leaders will move us past the notion that what we want is a Great Protector to keep away the demons.

I didn't get to write anything about the debate last week because I was heading out of town that night. But, for me, the worst part of the entire thing was when Biden was asked what three nations represent the biggest threat to America.

The answer to that is what Atrios wrote. Fear is the top enemy facing our country. If the last six years have taught us anything it should be that we do stupid things when we act out of fear. There is a small, but loud, group of people in America who want nothing more than all-out war. They are, quite frankly, lunatics.

But when the entire country is in a fear-driven tailspin, as we were after 9/11, these nutcases start sounding reasonable to the average person. Especially somebody too busy with work and family to pay attention to all the details and comb through the dissembling.

Who are the top three enemies? That question doesn't deserve an answer because looking at the world that way is a recipe for disaster. The Axis of Evil was a blunder of epic proportions. Foreign policy based on a ranked system of threats to be eliminated is a worldview underscored with death, not diplomacy.

By the way, here's how Biden answered:

Brian Williams: Time is up, Senator.

Senator Biden, from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, what three nations, other than Iraq, represent, to you, the biggest threat to the United States?

Biden: The biggest threat to the United States is, right now, North Korea.

Iran not as big a threat, but a long-term threat.

And quite frankly, the tendency of Putin to move in a totalitarian direction, which would unhinge all that's going on positively in Europe.

And it requires us to make two fundamental changes in this administration's policy.

We have to jettison this notion of preemption as a doctrine, and we have to jettison the notion of regime change. Replace it with prevention; open our ears and talk, before things become crises.

And, two, we have to move in the direction of making sure that we deal with the one thing that no one's talking about, and that is conduct change, not regime change.

Think of the folly of what this administration has acted on. It has said, "By the way, give up your weapons, the very thing that's us from attacking you. And once you give them up, then we're going to take you out."

That's the logic of this administration. That's why we've lost respect all over the world.

My goal would be to reestablish America's place in the world.

It's not a horrible answer. Conduct change as opposed to regime change sounds like a winning strategy to me. But it would be nice if some of our leaders would remind us all that America is the greatest force for good in the world when we keep a level head about us. When we are so scared that Bill Kristol speaks for the majority... that's not so pretty.