Republican Debate live thread Jan 7

[ladyliberal]

It's just starting now. Anyone else watching?

 

[ladyliberal]

The difference between Romney and much of the rest of the field: Romney says the stimulus could have been better directed. Others have falsely claimed that it created zero new jobs.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Santorum is full of Santorum. He just said the most important issue we face is Iran.

but, in all fairness, I think almost all of them are just itching to bomb Iran and if not Iran, they'd be happy declaring war on somebody.

 

[ladyliberal]

How the field has changed: Santorum has gotten several chances to talk, and Perry hasn't gotten any questions yet.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

…and Perry hasn't gotten any questions yet.

That’s likely a plus for Perry.

 

[ladyliberal]

Romney: I can't imagine a state banning contraception.

That shows a real lack of imagination on his part, especially if we include the "morning-after pill" in the category of contraception.

Romney also seems to be surprisingly ignorant of the relevant history. He didn't seem to know that the Supreme Court had struck down state contraception bans, but then he seemed to begin to recall it as he steered the discussion to striking down Roe v. Wade.

 

[ladyliberal]

If I understand Paul's take on the contraception issue, it seems quite bizarre. He said the fact that contraceptives were sold state-to-state and thus subject to Congress's ability to regulate interstate commerce meant that states couldn't ban contraceptives. This seems both very odd and contrary to what I thought Paul's philosophy was.

 

[KSoze]

Why are they spending so much time on gayness? You can find out how each of the candidates feel about homosexuality really easily.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What a stupid waste of time discussing gay/lesbian marriage. Back to football for me.

 

[ladyliberal]

Gingrich complains that the news media covers homophobia more than homophobiaphobia, suggesting that the Catholic church should be able to receive federal funds to discriminate against gay people.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If I understand Paul's take on the contraception issue, it seems quite bizarre. He said the fact that contraceptives were sold state-to-state and thus subject to Congress's ability to regulate interstate commerce meant that states couldn't ban contraceptives. This seems both very odd and contrary to what I thought Paul's philosophy was.

Likely because Paul has no idea what he’s talking about.

It has noting to do with interstate commerce, it has to do with the right to privacy and substantive due process:

The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. See Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 516-522 (dissenting opinion). Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Griswold v. Connecticut

 

[KSoze]

How predictable, Perry wants to divert back to homosexuality, Huntsman is being rational and now Newt is talking about nukes and war.

 

[ladyliberal]

Aargh. Perry: We're going to see Iran move back in literally at the speed of light.

I hate the non-literal use of the word "literally". Perry's not the only offender, of course.

 

[Gadawg73]

Romney: I can't imagine a state banning contraception.

That shows a real lack of imagination on his part, especially if we include the "morning-after pill" in the category of contraception.

Romney also seems to be surprisingly ignorant of the relevant history. He didn't seem to know that the Supreme Court had struck down state contraception bans, but then he seemed to begin to recall it as he steered the discussion to striking down Roe v. Wade.

Abortion is a non issue anyway.

 

[Gadawg73]

Even if Roe was overturned most states would allow abortion.
Nothing much would change.

 

[ladyliberal]

If I understand Paul's take on the contraception issue, it seems quite bizarre. He said the fact that contraceptives were sold state-to-state and thus subject to Congress's ability to regulate interstate commerce meant that states couldn't ban contraceptives. This seems both very odd and contrary to what I thought Paul's philosophy was.

Likely because Paul has no idea what he’s talking about.

It has noting to do with interstate commerce, it has to do with the right to privacy and substantive due process:

The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. See Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 516-522 (dissenting opinion). Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Griswold v. Connecticut

Right, that's the conventional view, and the one described by others, both candidates and moderators. There have been a few times when Paul, who refers fairly often to the Constitution, seems to have demonstrated very a idiosyncratic interpretation.

 

[ladyliberal]

Even if Roe was overturned most states would allow abortion.
Nothing much would change.

Supreme Court rulings matter a great deal. Most states have regulations making abortions more difficult that could be struck down on certain interpretations of Roe v. Wade. And even if it were just a few states, it would still matter. A number of US states are big enough to be substantial countries on their own. And no one said that certain state laws didn't matter (here I'm thinking of the Jim Crow South) simply because they didn't apply in most states.

 

[ladyliberal]

Santorum defines himself as the platonic anti-Marxist: "There are no classes in America."

It's a memorable rhetorical flourish, even though it's not true at all.

 

[ladyliberal]

Bleah. Probably the least interesting debate yet. Maybe it's getting repetitive, or maybe it's the lack of Bachmann and Cain. At least this debate was fairly negative, lending it some dramatic conflict.

 

[ladyliberal]

Biggest miss from the moderators: They didn't ask Perry to defend his viability after he paused to "reassess" his candidacy.