1

How about a lucky number question 13?:

Which candidate said he would support a nation-wide Federally imposed ban on smoking in public?

13.b.
Where's that in the Constitution?

2

7. Which two candidates said they would potentially use tactical nuclear weapons to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon?

If that's what it would take to keep Iran from getting nukes, what would you do? What other options would you take off the table, Joe?

3

If that's what it would take to keep Iran from getting nukes, what would you do? What other options would you take off the table, Joe?

How about the assured destruction of Iran if they even thought of using a nuclear weapon? It worked well enough during the Cold War, only this time it wouldn't be mutually assured destruction... it would be a one-sided victory.

4

It pays to follow the links. For example, Joe's question #9:

Which candidate once said he "will not support a specific proposal unless it taxes investment income" and ran newspaper ads denouncing the flat tax as a "tax cut for fat cats"?

Romney was opposing Forbes's flat tax which would have replaced all income taxes with a flat 17% tax on wages. He argued that the 'flat tax' should include invesetment income as, well, income. A 17% tax rate on capital gains would generally be a lower rate than the current rate and presumably if investment income was included in the tax base the 'flat rate' could be less than 17% (let's say 15%).

5

Off the top of my head, I got 7.5/12 correct. For question #8 I answered "Huckabee." Huckabee has said essentially the same using language just as, if not more, inflammatory. Thus the direct quote tells only half the story.

While Huckabee stopped just short of endorsing government intervention in setting CEO pay, he denounced corporate salaries and argued that "the line between capitalism and greed has to be very clearly delineated." One wonders just where Huckabee would make that delineation and what he would propose the federal government do about it. Unfortunately, it is becoming clear that Huckabee deems himself worthy of deciding what qualifies as an appropriate expression of capitalism and what is, in Huckabee's words, "sheer unadulterated greed." - Club for Growth

6

All the more reason to vote for Fred Thompson.

7

How about the assured destruction of Iran if they even thought of using a nuclear weapon? It worked well enough during the Cold War, only this time it wouldn't be mutually assured destruction... it would be a one-sided victory.

Well, since they are already thinking of using them, you favor an immediate nuclear strike? Somehow I don't think that's what you mean. I suspect you mean that we should do little or nothing to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons and when they finally do, threaten them with destruction if they ever use one. Of course, I suspect even that overstates what you would do. Would you be willing to launch a full scale attack on Iran if they launch a nuke not at New York City, but at Tel Aviv, Cairo, or Ridayh? Somehow I doubt it. It also ignores the impacts to the regional balance of power that a nuclear Iran would have. What do you think the response of Sunni nations like Saudi Arabia or Egypt would be to a nuclear Iran? Do you think they might decide to develop nukes of their own? I bet they would. Then what? What happens to the likelihood of a terror group getting a nuke when half the Middle East is nuclear?

8

Which candidate took large payments from companies engaged in promoting stem cell research and "morning after" contraception?

9

Joe,

I think you've succeeded in showing that McCain, Giuliani, and Romney are imperfect vessels of conservative orthodoxy--which makes it all the more puzzling that conservative elites (the National Review, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Brit Hume's all stars, Limbaugh) have unanimously decided on Huckabee as the man who must be opposed at all costs.

Can pundits stop Huckabee when "ordinary" Americans who see and hear him like him in large numbers?

No doubt the opposition of the conservative elites will hurt him--but how much? They have wedged their punditry staves into a fault line, and they're leaning back with all their might, but do they really have enough leverage to stop the earth from moving?

Maybe.

But if they don't, then the sane ones will learn to like Huckabee too come the general election.

10

Israel already has an estimated 300 nukes and you can bet theirs will work better and have higher yields than anyone in the area. Saudi Arabia is thought to have a nuclear arsenal. If Iran gets nukes will the fact that Israel can retaliate with more and better nukes and better delivery systems deter them from attacking Israel? If you answered yes, you may have a brief career in the diplomatic service as all western diplomats follow Greek thinking and believe that all things can be negotiated. The core beliefs of religious fundamentalists are not negotable. I know, I am one.

11

Mike O,

It may not make the Mullahs think twice, but it may make some of the high ranking officers in the military think twice. At least some of the generals in their military are probably patriotic enough to consider a coup in the event that the Mullahs make a decision that would effectively end over 3,000 years of Persian civilization.

12

Several of those can also be answered with Huckabee.

Like Embryo Destructive Research.

While Romney happens to be invested in a company that, as part of its research does that dispicable practice, Huckabee actually gets paid by them for speaking engagements.

Also, it would seem more credible to say that Huckabee has the worst record raising taxes since he's more responsible for the taxes raised in Arkansas than Romney is for the taxes raised in Taxachussettes.

Which candidate said he would meet with i'manut? How about which candidate is supported by the nut. Huckabee.

13

Darn it, my response seems to have gone off into hyperspace. It may be too late, but any way, here's what I think I was trying to say :-) ....

I think you pretty much stated my position accurately, ucfengr (thanks by the way, it's nice to not have to deal with someone twisting your words).

As far as attacks on Tel Aviv, Cairo, or Ridayh, their defense is their own problem. As far as an imbalance of power in the Middle East... who cares? In fact, that's been historically good for the West. Transport the Great Satan from the West to the Middle East and you've got a bunch of primitive warring tribes (even if they do have electricity now) preoccupied with each other.

What happens to the likelihood of a terror group getting a nuke when half the Middle East is nuclear?

Why try to regulate what can't possibly be regulated? Suitcase nukes may be a little bit science fiction-ish at this point, but if Al Qaeda doesn't already have nukes in some form, they will soon enough. Why should America go through such pain and depletion of resources in a quixotic attempt to stop the inevitable?

14

As far as attacks on Tel Aviv, Cairo, or Ridayh, their defense is their own problem.

What about London, Rome, or Paris?

As far as an imbalance of power in the Middle East... who cares?

Well, since most of the world's easily recoverable oil resides there, I guess everybody cares, or at least should. Regardless of what the Presidential candidates say, we are going to be dependent on oil for at least the next couple of decades. Even if we were to reduce our dependence, the people that would be least hurt are going to be the lowest cost produced, in other words, the Middle East.

15

"lowest cost produced" should read "lowest cost producers".

16

What about London, Rome, or Paris?

Not our problem. Besides, Europe is already well on its way to becoming an Islamic stronghold through its immigration policies. If that's what they want for their future, who are we to say otherwise?

Well, since most of the world's easily recoverable oil resides there, I guess everybody cares, or at least should.

They've got to sell it to somebody. I'm fairly certain they'll be more likely to sell it to countries who don't actually have armies there meddling in their affairs.

17

Let me add that alliances with Western Europe against the Russians may have been in our interests at one time, but defense of Western Europe should no longer be a priority for the USA. It's well on its way to becoming the Western Middle East. If they don't want to save themselves, then we certainly can't save them.

18

Let me add that alliances with Western Europe against the Russians may have been in our interests at one time, but defense of Western Europe should no longer be a priority for the USA. It's well on its way to becoming the Western Middle East. If they don't want to save themselves, then we certainly can't save them.

Talk about a bunker mentality. Are you sure you are not a RonPaulite?

19

Let me add that alliances with Western Europe against the Russians may have been in our interests at one time, but defense of Western Europe should no longer be a priority for the USA.

Make a note of this Joe, this is an example of a true bunker mentality. We hole up and hope the world leaves us alone. Of course it involves ceding the strategic initiative to our enemies. Yielding the initiative to the bad guys is never a good strategy.

Talk about a bunker mentality.

My thoughts exactly.

20

Let me add that alliances with Western Europe against the Russians may have been in our interests at one time, but defense of Western Europe should no longer be a priority for the USA. It's well on its way to becoming the Western Middle East. If they don't want to save themselves, then we certainly can't save them.

JJ, I must note that the lack of historical perspective in this statement is stunning. In the 1970s it was pretty easy to envision a Communist Western Europe, much easier than it is now to envision a Jihadist Western Europe. Why do you think saving Europe from the Communists was any more important than saving it from the Jihadists now?

21

Or for that matter, saving it from the Nazis in the 1940s?

22

To Ed J: Rush Limbaugh supports Huckabee?? You've got to be kidding me! Do you even listen to him? The closest he's come to support for anyone is by saying Fred Thompson is the only true conservative in the race. He's also said positive things about Romney. But Huckabee?? Come on.

23

RE 20, 21
Gee, I don't know Uncenger, maybe it's because the threat from Jihadists is overblown and can be handled by law enforcement?

24

Gee, I don't know Uncenger, maybe it's because the threat from Jihadists is overblown and can be handled by law enforcement?

Gee John, maybe you should read the post I was responding to, before spouting off; you will look less like an idiot. Here's the post I was responding to:

Let me add that alliances with Western Europe against the Russians may have been in our interests at one time, but defense of Western Europe should no longer be a priority for the USA. It's well on its way to becoming the Western Middle East. If they don't want to save themselves, then we certainly can't save them.

So in that context, your reply makes no sense. This, John is why I generally don't respond to you.

25

Talk about a bunker mentality. Are you sure you are not a RonPaulite?

Did the fact that I take the principled conservative position instead of the neocon position on various issues give away my support for Ron Paul?

But that's beside the point. I'd like to hear an explanation of how not wanting to spend American blood, money, and resources to defend countries who don't even want to defend themselves against the Jihad is a "bunker mentality"? Honestly, that's getting to the point of being a bunch of ad hominem baloney. Not that this is new... without a doubt the most shrill arguments against Ron Paul come in the form of ad hominem attacks from neocons... "...he...he's crazy... he's nuts.... he's just... bunker mentality....".

We hole up and hope the world leaves us alone

Not at all. Charges of "bunker mentality" against "RonPaulites" (and probably others who oppose the neocon agenda) can be proven factually wrong. Ron Paul supported military action in Afghanistan against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. He also is a supporter of strong diplomacy and free trade. Personally, I have no problem with fighting the Jihad militarily when the time comes. If "bunker mentality" = "hole up and hope the world leaves us alone", then the charges are quite obviously unfounded, and nothing more than emotional rhetoric.

So far, this is the logic I've seen that gets one labeled as having a bunker mentality:

(A) is opposed to depleting American resources to police the world and bring about World Demokratic Revolution (especially in the Middle East... an expensive but fruitless task when you understand that the region is basically a collection of warring tribes fighting centuries old battles)
(B) is opposed to using American resources to defend countries who do not want to defend themselves against Islamification

26

Why reinvent the wheel? The following article does a more eloquent job than myself of describing the difference between isolationism and non-intervention. And for ucfengr, it also gets into your question about the difference between the Nazis and Iraq:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/duffy-p3.html

27

J.J,

People who say about Ron Paul: ...he...he's crazy... he's nuts.... he's just... bunker mentality..... are people who don't take the time to think for themselves, but just swallow whole whatever the media tells them.

I may not agree with all of Ron Paul's ideas and policy positions, but he is right about Iraq. Also, he has integrity and is able to work with other who have different views.

28

Mike O

If you answered yes, you may have a brief career in the diplomatic service as all western diplomats follow Greek thinking and believe that all things can be negotiated. The core beliefs of religious fundamentalists are not negotable. I know, I am one.

Strange isn't it then that Iran just doesn't go to war with Israel. After all, they have missiles (like Saddam did), that can reach Israel. They have planes, ships and troops. If casualities don't matter just attack already. Why the 'proxy wars' that look a little bit like a minature version of the Cold War.

If Mike O's assertion is correct it would seem that the 'core belief' of Iran's mullahs is to fight Sunni Muslims before anyone else and fight Israel only in the most indirect ways.

29

And for ucfengr, it also gets into your question about the difference between the Nazis and Iraq:

It might, if I was comparing the Nazis to Iraq, I wasn't. You thanked me stating your position accurately, how about extending me the same courtesy. You said it doesn't make sense to save Europe from Islam, but it did make sense to save it from Communism. I asked why. You went off on an unrelated tangent.

30

But that's beside the point. I'd like to hear an explanation of how not wanting to spend American blood, money, and resources to defend countries who don't even want to defend themselves against the Jihad is a "bunker mentality"?h

The short answer is that it is not in the US interest for the Middle East to become Jihadi stronghold and thereby in control of a significant portion of the world's oil reserves. The wishes of the population of that part of the world is largely irrelevant to whether it is in our interest or not.

And for ucfengr, it also gets into your question about the difference between the Nazis and Iraq:

I didn't try to compare the Nazis and Iraq under Saddam. I was responding to your statement that it made sense to defend Western Europe from Communist domination (and I suppose Nazi domination), but not Islamic domination. Again, why did it make sense to defend Europe against Communist domination but not against Islamic domination?

31

Sorry for the double post, for some reason post 29 did not show up prior to post 30 and I thought it got lost.

32

Are there Islamic armies trying to invade Europe?

33

As far as I've been able to tell, Romney's view on stem cells and embryos is the same as Bush's, and Thompson and Huckabee have pretty much the same view. Giuliani and McCain have a much more liberal view. See Ramesh Ponnuru.