If I Were in the Debate Part 2
To be "bipartisan" I have treated the Republican primary debate the same as I did the democratic one:
Q: Knowing everything that you know right now, was it a mistake to invade Iraq?
A: Yes. Absolutely Yes. I thought it was a mistake knowing only what I knew at the time. My reaction at the time was that Bush gave Saddam no opportunity to prevent the invasion. Bush demanded that Saddam publicly destroy his weapons of mass destruction. But if he had none (which was my assumption at the time, though I had no idea if this was because he had already complied with the UN order to destroy them, or because he didn't have them in the first place) he couldn't destroy them. Thus he was doomed.
Q: If our top military commander in Iraq, General Petraeus, reports back to Congress this September that the surge hasn't significantly improved the situation on the ground, what then?
A: That depends on what Iraq needs? But the military should not be in Iraq. There might be a war in Iraq right now, but it is not ours. Our troops are NOT fighting a war in Iraq, they are occupying a sovereign nation with the consent of their government, but obviously not of the people.
Q: Do you have confidence in the government of Iraq the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, that he's going to do what needs to be done?
A: It doesn't matter. We do not have the right to change the government of a foreign sovereign democratically elected government, even if we did cause it to be formed in the first place.
Q: Do you agree with Senator Brownback that President Bush made the right decision in opening a direct dialogue with Iran?
A: Absolutely yes! I fail to see how diplomatic relations with the government of a foreign power could ever be a bad thing. The things you say might be bad, but the saying of them is never the mistake.
Q: If it came down to a preemptive U.S. strike against Iran's nuclear facility if necessary, would you authorize as president the use of tactical nuclear weapons?
A: A Question: Why is this necessary? If it is necessary, then there is no choice. I'm sorry bu this is an unfair and leading question. The options for answering are to A) say that you a willing to order a preemptive nuclear strike, or B) say that you are unwilling to do what is necessary. So I will answer a better question instead.
In what, if any, circumstances would I order a preemptive nuclear strike against Iran's nuclear facility?
My answer? Probably none. I am not well educated in the physics of our current ballistic capabilities, but I highly doubt that there is any possible nuclear facility that could be destroyed with a nuclear weapon that we could not also take out with a conventional weapon. I have such faith in the US military capabilities. However if there were such a facility that had actual, operational nuclear weapons, we still shouldn't use nukes. That would be a very bad move which would most likely start a war that that we can't finish.
Q: What are the consequences for the country if the current Immigration Bill is passed?
A: Well, there will, say a decade or two from now, be a lot less illegal aliens, because they will have mostly become US citizens.
I for one am not afraid of Mexicans, and believe that in a few generations there will be Americans worrying about the fact that the Hispanic Americans are losing their culture as the new generations are no longer learning Spanish at home and no longer understand or respect the difficulties and discrimination that their parents and grandparents had to face to join this great nation.
These Illegal Aliens that so many now fear or hate are Men and Women and Children who yearn to be Americans. They see our country and see that it is Good. If they wish to be Americans, I for one, will not deny them.
In other words, in the words of Emma Lazarus to be specific:
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
-Emma Lazarus, 1883
Q: Whether we like it or not, in cities across America, counties across America, including your district in San Diego, illegal immigrants are doing jobs that American citizens don't want, working on farms, in hotels, restaurants.
If they all leave this country, who's going to fill those jobs?
A: If the jobs are important, than the wages for those jobs will rise until there is someone willing to do them. The market will adjust.
Q: What do you say about this notion of a pathway toward citizenship for these 12 million illegal immigrants who are in the country right now? Under what circumstances would you let them begin that path?
A: Of course they should have a way to become citizens. It should be the same as for anyone else. I don't know if the current path is a good one as I got my citizen ship by Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis.
Q: OK. This question's for Governor Gilmore.
Conservative credentials is the topic, sir. You've gotten a lot of mileage out of lumping Messrs. Giuliani, McCain and Romney together by calling them Rudy McRomney.
Now, with former Senator Fred Thompson likely to join you at the next debate, in your opinion, is he conservative enough for America or are we changing the name now to Rudy McRomneyson?
A: That is a stupid question. No one should EVER make a decision on who to elect to the most powerful position in the world based how they conform to the ideals of a political party! Please, America, please vote for yourselves based on who you feel has the capability to lead our nation, has values and priorities that match your own, has integrity, compassion, resolve, wisdom, knowledge, and understanding.
Q: (directed at Giuliani) A Catholic bishop in Rhode Island said some words about your position on abortion, suggesting that it was similar to Pontius Pilate's personal opposition to Jesus Christ's crucifixion, but allowing it to happen anyway. How does that make you feel when you hear words like that from a Catholic bishop?
A: Wait, is the Catholic Church saying that the Crucifixion of of Christ was a bad thing now?
Q: Do you believe creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the nation's schools?
A: Did you seriously just ask if we should teach Genesis Chapters 1 and 2 in a science classroom? Of course not. However, it should be taught in schools. Religious education SHOULD be mandatory in public high school (I would suggest junior and senior years). The class should consist of an overview of the views, practices, and histories (both internal and external) of Christianity, with focus on Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, African Initiated Church, Pentecostals, Anglican Communion and episcopal Churches, Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, and Lutheran Churches; Islam with emphasis on Sunni and Shia flavors; Secular, humanist, agnostic, atheist, and anti-religious philosophies; Hinduism with emphasis on Vaishnavism, Shaivism, and Reform Hindus; Chinese Folk Religions with emphasis on the philosophies of Taoism, Confucianism, and vairous non-scriptural traditional beliefs; Buddhism with emphasis on Mahayana, Theravada and Vajrayana ("Tibetan"; Survey of Indigineous religions including Amerind and Asiatic indigenous religions; survey of traditional African religions; and Sikhism. This above list consist of religions or groups of religions with at least 20 million adherents. The course should also cover certain historically and culturally important religions and denominations with less than 20 million adherents including Judaism because of its role as progenitor of Christianity and Islam and its part in geopolitics, 'Mormonism' because of their American roots, Scientology because of its role in American culture, and Jainism, Shinto, and Zoroastrianism because of their traditional place in religious studies.
Now all of that being said, education is and should remain a power of the states. Thus conversation about education should only rarely be a part of presidential debates.
Q: Congressman Paul, you ran for president once before as a libertarian. What do you say about this whole issue of church and state and these issues that are coming forward right now?
PAUL: Well, I think we should read the First Amendment, where it says, "Congress shall write no law," and we should write a lot less laws regarding this matter. It shouldn't be a matter of the president or the Congress. It should be local people, local officials.
ME: I can't argue with that.
Q: Sea levels around the world are rising. Average temperatures are increasing. A U.N. report written by scientists from 113 countries recently said that climate change is very likely man-made and may affect us for centuries to come.
Is science wrong on global warming? And what, if any, steps would you take as president to address the issue of climate change?
A: I seriously doubt that "Science" is wrong on this. What steps should the president take? Convene a panel of experts nominated by the scientific community to determine what can and should be done. Then, with the help of the Congress, do it.
(Sheesh! You'd think that would be obvious, but apparently its not if you are a politician.)
Q: Do you have a problem at this time with these oil companies making these huge profits?
A: Obviously I don't have that much of a problem, else I would stop giving them money. I DO have a problem with my my tax dollars going to Oil Companies. There is no good reason to give them subsidies. I also have a problem with fight wars that are in any way about protecting the interests of Oil Companies.
Q Most of our closest allies, including Great Britain and Israel, allow gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military. Is it time to end don't ask/don't tell policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the U.S. military?
A: Hmm... I actually disagree to an extent with Ron Paul here. OK, actually I completely agree with his argument, its just his conclusion that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is fine that I disagree with. I feel that that particular policy is unnecessary and harmful. As I said in the Democratic debate, there should be no policy at all regarding sexual orientation in the armed forces.
Q: Mayor Giuliani, recently we've learned that several talented trained linguists -- Arabic speakers, Farsi speakers, Urdu speakers -- trained by the U.S. government to learn those languages to help us in the war on terrorism, were dismissed from the military because they announced they were gays or lesbians.
Is that, in your mind, appropriate?
GIULIANI: "This is not the time to deal with disruptive issues like this. [...]"
ME: Um... So because we are involved in military actions around the world, especially in Arabic speaking nations we should NOT review a policy that causes Arabic speaking soldiers, which we desperately need, to be dismissed? You, Mr Mayor, are an idiot.
OF COURSE it is inappropriate to be kicking desperately needed personnel out of the military because they are gay!
[Not one Republican candidate supports allowing gays to serve openly in the military; not one Democrat opposes it. I have problems accepting that these are the honest view of the candidates.]
Q: How would you use George W. Bush in your administration?
A: Keeping in mind that I have no desire whatsoever to serve as president, I would use Bush as a special liaison for US-Dumbass relations. (OK, seriously I would not use him at all. I have no confidence in his opinions or abilities.)
Q: Governor Huckabee you served, as you reminded us, a long time as a governor, Republican governor of Arkansas. Your old job is now in Democratic hands. Here in New Hampshire, the GOP has suffered some significant losses as well. And the Republicans lost the majority in the House and the Senate, as you well know.
Simple question: What's happened to the GOP?
A: I don't know. I don't care. I wish all political parties in the US would immediately be disbanded if not outlawed.
Q: Would you pardon Scooter Libby?
A: No. Washington Politician must learn that the only things they cannot get away with are lying and obstructing justice.
Q: And we have a question regarding the government in Iraq. Everyone's talking about, "Pull our troops out; pull our troops out." Well, considering they've lived under a dictatorship for the last 30 years or so, what are we going to do to make sure they have a government in place before we do pull our troops out and they're able to help themselves? Otherwise, we're just putting them in a position to accept another terrorist leader.
A: We already gave them a provisional government and aided them as they formed their own Constitutional Democratic Republic. It is now up to them to keep it.
Q: My question is whether you believe that a conservative platform can also include a conservationist agenda. And, if so, how?
A: That is a stupid question. The correct question is, should government be involved in Conservation? The answer is yes.
Q: I know a business owner in northern New Hampshire who was on vacation in Spain last year for about three weeks. While he was there, he had to buy refills for prescription drugs, brand name drugs, and he discovered in buying those drugs that he could buy his refills there for $600 less than he could buy them here in New Hampshire. So since then, he said he is going to take a trip over to Spain and get his vacation paid for to buy his drugs.
My question to you is, why is this? And if you are elected president, is there anything you would do to address it?
A: Drugs prices are higher here because our patent system grants a temporary monopoly on ones invention, and the drug companies use this monopoly to fund future drug research.
I would do nothing to change this system.
Q: Millions of Americans are dissatisfied with the current state of our health-care system, and U.S. employers are at a disadvantage due to the high cost of health insurance. What would you do to fix the health-care system? And would you support implementing a single-payer system, in which the government acts as the insurer in order to save enough money to cover the millions of uninsured and to lower premiums for the rest of the U.S. population?
A: I don't understand why Republicans are so opposed to the idea. Letting the Government run a not-for-profit insurance company DOES NOT mean that the government is taking over health care, it means that the government is taking over health INSURANCE. And this does not mean that we must do it the same way as Canada or any other country. In fact we can look at their systems learn from them. However it is important to remember that insurance can NEVER reduce the cost of something, it only redistributes the costs in such a way as to reduce or remove the risk. So don't expect any health insurance plan to lower the overall costs of health care in this country.
There are ways to lower costs, but they involve reducing the amount of treatments needed by employing prevention and improving the cost efficiency of the providing institutions.
Q: In your opinion, what is the most pressing moral issue facing this country today? And, if you're elected president, how would you address that issue?
A: A general disregard for the constitution at all levels of society from private citizens to a Congress that does things it does not have the authority to do and a president who suspends basic rights.
Q: Knowing everything that you know right now, was it a mistake to invade Iraq?
A: Yes. Absolutely Yes. I thought it was a mistake knowing only what I knew at the time. My reaction at the time was that Bush gave Saddam no opportunity to prevent the invasion. Bush demanded that Saddam publicly destroy his weapons of mass destruction. But if he had none (which was my assumption at the time, though I had no idea if this was because he had already complied with the UN order to destroy them, or because he didn't have them in the first place) he couldn't destroy them. Thus he was doomed.
Q: If our top military commander in Iraq, General Petraeus, reports back to Congress this September that the surge hasn't significantly improved the situation on the ground, what then?
A: That depends on what Iraq needs? But the military should not be in Iraq. There might be a war in Iraq right now, but it is not ours. Our troops are NOT fighting a war in Iraq, they are occupying a sovereign nation with the consent of their government, but obviously not of the people.
Q: Do you have confidence in the government of Iraq the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, that he's going to do what needs to be done?
A: It doesn't matter. We do not have the right to change the government of a foreign sovereign democratically elected government, even if we did cause it to be formed in the first place.
Q: Do you agree with Senator Brownback that President Bush made the right decision in opening a direct dialogue with Iran?
A: Absolutely yes! I fail to see how diplomatic relations with the government of a foreign power could ever be a bad thing. The things you say might be bad, but the saying of them is never the mistake.
Q: If it came down to a preemptive U.S. strike against Iran's nuclear facility if necessary, would you authorize as president the use of tactical nuclear weapons?
A: A Question: Why is this necessary? If it is necessary, then there is no choice. I'm sorry bu this is an unfair and leading question. The options for answering are to A) say that you a willing to order a preemptive nuclear strike, or B) say that you are unwilling to do what is necessary. So I will answer a better question instead.
In what, if any, circumstances would I order a preemptive nuclear strike against Iran's nuclear facility?
My answer? Probably none. I am not well educated in the physics of our current ballistic capabilities, but I highly doubt that there is any possible nuclear facility that could be destroyed with a nuclear weapon that we could not also take out with a conventional weapon. I have such faith in the US military capabilities. However if there were such a facility that had actual, operational nuclear weapons, we still shouldn't use nukes. That would be a very bad move which would most likely start a war that that we can't finish.
Q: What are the consequences for the country if the current Immigration Bill is passed?
A: Well, there will, say a decade or two from now, be a lot less illegal aliens, because they will have mostly become US citizens.
I for one am not afraid of Mexicans, and believe that in a few generations there will be Americans worrying about the fact that the Hispanic Americans are losing their culture as the new generations are no longer learning Spanish at home and no longer understand or respect the difficulties and discrimination that their parents and grandparents had to face to join this great nation.
These Illegal Aliens that so many now fear or hate are Men and Women and Children who yearn to be Americans. They see our country and see that it is Good. If they wish to be Americans, I for one, will not deny them.
In other words, in the words of Emma Lazarus to be specific:
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
-Emma Lazarus, 1883
Q: Whether we like it or not, in cities across America, counties across America, including your district in San Diego, illegal immigrants are doing jobs that American citizens don't want, working on farms, in hotels, restaurants.
If they all leave this country, who's going to fill those jobs?
A: If the jobs are important, than the wages for those jobs will rise until there is someone willing to do them. The market will adjust.
Q: What do you say about this notion of a pathway toward citizenship for these 12 million illegal immigrants who are in the country right now? Under what circumstances would you let them begin that path?
A: Of course they should have a way to become citizens. It should be the same as for anyone else. I don't know if the current path is a good one as I got my citizen ship by Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis.
Q: OK. This question's for Governor Gilmore.
Conservative credentials is the topic, sir. You've gotten a lot of mileage out of lumping Messrs. Giuliani, McCain and Romney together by calling them Rudy McRomney.
Now, with former Senator Fred Thompson likely to join you at the next debate, in your opinion, is he conservative enough for America or are we changing the name now to Rudy McRomneyson?
A: That is a stupid question. No one should EVER make a decision on who to elect to the most powerful position in the world based how they conform to the ideals of a political party! Please, America, please vote for yourselves based on who you feel has the capability to lead our nation, has values and priorities that match your own, has integrity, compassion, resolve, wisdom, knowledge, and understanding.
Q: (directed at Giuliani) A Catholic bishop in Rhode Island said some words about your position on abortion, suggesting that it was similar to Pontius Pilate's personal opposition to Jesus Christ's crucifixion, but allowing it to happen anyway. How does that make you feel when you hear words like that from a Catholic bishop?
A: Wait, is the Catholic Church saying that the Crucifixion of of Christ was a bad thing now?
Q: Do you believe creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the nation's schools?
A: Did you seriously just ask if we should teach Genesis Chapters 1 and 2 in a science classroom? Of course not. However, it should be taught in schools. Religious education SHOULD be mandatory in public high school (I would suggest junior and senior years). The class should consist of an overview of the views, practices, and histories (both internal and external) of Christianity, with focus on Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, African Initiated Church, Pentecostals, Anglican Communion and episcopal Churches, Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, and Lutheran Churches; Islam with emphasis on Sunni and Shia flavors; Secular, humanist, agnostic, atheist, and anti-religious philosophies; Hinduism with emphasis on Vaishnavism, Shaivism, and Reform Hindus; Chinese Folk Religions with emphasis on the philosophies of Taoism, Confucianism, and vairous non-scriptural traditional beliefs; Buddhism with emphasis on Mahayana, Theravada and Vajrayana ("Tibetan"; Survey of Indigineous religions including Amerind and Asiatic indigenous religions; survey of traditional African religions; and Sikhism. This above list consist of religions or groups of religions with at least 20 million adherents. The course should also cover certain historically and culturally important religions and denominations with less than 20 million adherents including Judaism because of its role as progenitor of Christianity and Islam and its part in geopolitics, 'Mormonism' because of their American roots, Scientology because of its role in American culture, and Jainism, Shinto, and Zoroastrianism because of their traditional place in religious studies.
Now all of that being said, education is and should remain a power of the states. Thus conversation about education should only rarely be a part of presidential debates.
Q: Congressman Paul, you ran for president once before as a libertarian. What do you say about this whole issue of church and state and these issues that are coming forward right now?
PAUL: Well, I think we should read the First Amendment, where it says, "Congress shall write no law," and we should write a lot less laws regarding this matter. It shouldn't be a matter of the president or the Congress. It should be local people, local officials.
ME: I can't argue with that.
Q: Sea levels around the world are rising. Average temperatures are increasing. A U.N. report written by scientists from 113 countries recently said that climate change is very likely man-made and may affect us for centuries to come.
Is science wrong on global warming? And what, if any, steps would you take as president to address the issue of climate change?
A: I seriously doubt that "Science" is wrong on this. What steps should the president take? Convene a panel of experts nominated by the scientific community to determine what can and should be done. Then, with the help of the Congress, do it.
(Sheesh! You'd think that would be obvious, but apparently its not if you are a politician.)
Q: Do you have a problem at this time with these oil companies making these huge profits?
A: Obviously I don't have that much of a problem, else I would stop giving them money. I DO have a problem with my my tax dollars going to Oil Companies. There is no good reason to give them subsidies. I also have a problem with fight wars that are in any way about protecting the interests of Oil Companies.
Q Most of our closest allies, including Great Britain and Israel, allow gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military. Is it time to end don't ask/don't tell policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the U.S. military?
A: Hmm... I actually disagree to an extent with Ron Paul here. OK, actually I completely agree with his argument, its just his conclusion that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is fine that I disagree with. I feel that that particular policy is unnecessary and harmful. As I said in the Democratic debate, there should be no policy at all regarding sexual orientation in the armed forces.
Q: Mayor Giuliani, recently we've learned that several talented trained linguists -- Arabic speakers, Farsi speakers, Urdu speakers -- trained by the U.S. government to learn those languages to help us in the war on terrorism, were dismissed from the military because they announced they were gays or lesbians.
Is that, in your mind, appropriate?
GIULIANI: "This is not the time to deal with disruptive issues like this. [...]"
ME: Um... So because we are involved in military actions around the world, especially in Arabic speaking nations we should NOT review a policy that causes Arabic speaking soldiers, which we desperately need, to be dismissed? You, Mr Mayor, are an idiot.
OF COURSE it is inappropriate to be kicking desperately needed personnel out of the military because they are gay!
[Not one Republican candidate supports allowing gays to serve openly in the military; not one Democrat opposes it. I have problems accepting that these are the honest view of the candidates.]
Q: How would you use George W. Bush in your administration?
A: Keeping in mind that I have no desire whatsoever to serve as president, I would use Bush as a special liaison for US-Dumbass relations. (OK, seriously I would not use him at all. I have no confidence in his opinions or abilities.)
Q: Governor Huckabee you served, as you reminded us, a long time as a governor, Republican governor of Arkansas. Your old job is now in Democratic hands. Here in New Hampshire, the GOP has suffered some significant losses as well. And the Republicans lost the majority in the House and the Senate, as you well know.
Simple question: What's happened to the GOP?
A: I don't know. I don't care. I wish all political parties in the US would immediately be disbanded if not outlawed.
Q: Would you pardon Scooter Libby?
A: No. Washington Politician must learn that the only things they cannot get away with are lying and obstructing justice.
Q: And we have a question regarding the government in Iraq. Everyone's talking about, "Pull our troops out; pull our troops out." Well, considering they've lived under a dictatorship for the last 30 years or so, what are we going to do to make sure they have a government in place before we do pull our troops out and they're able to help themselves? Otherwise, we're just putting them in a position to accept another terrorist leader.
A: We already gave them a provisional government and aided them as they formed their own Constitutional Democratic Republic. It is now up to them to keep it.
Q: My question is whether you believe that a conservative platform can also include a conservationist agenda. And, if so, how?
A: That is a stupid question. The correct question is, should government be involved in Conservation? The answer is yes.
Q: I know a business owner in northern New Hampshire who was on vacation in Spain last year for about three weeks. While he was there, he had to buy refills for prescription drugs, brand name drugs, and he discovered in buying those drugs that he could buy his refills there for $600 less than he could buy them here in New Hampshire. So since then, he said he is going to take a trip over to Spain and get his vacation paid for to buy his drugs.
My question to you is, why is this? And if you are elected president, is there anything you would do to address it?
A: Drugs prices are higher here because our patent system grants a temporary monopoly on ones invention, and the drug companies use this monopoly to fund future drug research.
I would do nothing to change this system.
Q: Millions of Americans are dissatisfied with the current state of our health-care system, and U.S. employers are at a disadvantage due to the high cost of health insurance. What would you do to fix the health-care system? And would you support implementing a single-payer system, in which the government acts as the insurer in order to save enough money to cover the millions of uninsured and to lower premiums for the rest of the U.S. population?
A: I don't understand why Republicans are so opposed to the idea. Letting the Government run a not-for-profit insurance company DOES NOT mean that the government is taking over health care, it means that the government is taking over health INSURANCE. And this does not mean that we must do it the same way as Canada or any other country. In fact we can look at their systems learn from them. However it is important to remember that insurance can NEVER reduce the cost of something, it only redistributes the costs in such a way as to reduce or remove the risk. So don't expect any health insurance plan to lower the overall costs of health care in this country.
There are ways to lower costs, but they involve reducing the amount of treatments needed by employing prevention and improving the cost efficiency of the providing institutions.
Q: In your opinion, what is the most pressing moral issue facing this country today? And, if you're elected president, how would you address that issue?
A: A general disregard for the constitution at all levels of society from private citizens to a Congress that does things it does not have the authority to do and a president who suspends basic rights.