Republican Debate tonight in South Carolina

[Riot]

Yes, there is yet another Republican debate tonight in South Carolina. Huntsman is out. It will be Romney against Santorum (TM) (new darling of the homophobic evangelicals***), Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich. Oh, yeah, and Ron Paul.

The debate is hosted by Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. 9:00pm.

Meanwhile, in other news today:

Republican candidates invoke MLK's memory in South Carolina while demanding voter suppression http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...ion?via=blog_1

*** Accusations of voter fraud fly among Christian conservatives after Rick Santorum endorsement www.dailykos.com

[Cannon Shell]

The rare double dailykos.com link post...

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The rare double dailykos.com link post...

I'd link from RedState, but it's still mostly just pleas to make Rick Perry our President.

We'll see if, between Wall Street Journal and Fox News, anybody even mentions Dr. Martin Luther King tonight.

[Riot]

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

I'd link from RedState, but it's still mostly just pleas to make Rick Perry our President.

We'll see if, between Wall Street Journal and Fox News, anybody even mentions Dr. Martin Luther King tonight.

Something a bit more mainstream would be a welcome change

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Something a bit more mainstream would be a welcome change

Here you go. Newsweek? Andrew Sullivan? The Daily Beast? Surely that must please you. Four pages, but well worth the read.

Andrew Sullivan: How Obama's Long Game Will Outsmart His Critics
Jan 16, 2012 12:00 AM EST

The right calls him a socialist, the left says he sucks up to Wall Street, and independents think he's a wimp. Andrew Sullivan on how the president may just end up outsmarting them all.
-------------------

You hear it everywhere. Democrats are disappointed in the president. Independents have soured even more. Republicans have worked themselves up into an apocalyptic fervor. And, yes, this is not exactly unusual.

A president in the last year of his first term will always get attacked mercilessly by his partisan opponents, and also, often, by the feistier members of his base. And when unemployment is at remarkably high levels, and with the national debt setting records, the criticism will—and should be—even fiercer. But this time, with this president, something different has happened. It’s not that I don’t understand the critiques of Barack Obama from the enraged right and the demoralized left. It’s that I don’t even recognize their description of Obama’s first term in any way. The attacks from both the right and the left on the man and his policies aren’t out of bounds. They’re simply—empirically—wrong.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...s-critics.html

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Here you go. Newsweek? Andrew Sullivan? The Daily Beast? Surely that must please you. Four pages, but well worth the read.

Is this somehow related to the debate tonight?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Is this somehow related to the debate tonight?

Yes.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes.

BTW Andrew Sullivan is a radical left winger and I dont mean a hockey player.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012...itics-so-dumb/

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

BTW Andrew Sullivan is a radical left winger and I dont mean a hockey player.

LOL. In whose dream? Andrew Sullivan doesn't have any reputation whatsoever other than as conservative.

"Radical left winger" BWAAAHAAAAAAAAAAA !

Yeah, he's friends with that anarchist George Will.

Andrew Sullivan a "radical left winger". BWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA !

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

LOL. In whose dream? Andrew Sullivan doesn't have any reputation whatsoever other than as conservative.

"Radical left winger" BWAAAHAAAAAAAAAAA !

Yeah, he's friends with that anarchist George Will.

Andrew Sullivan a "radical left winger". BWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA !

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...h-times/16701/

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...-matters/6445/

http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dis...ld-ctd/185859/

10.58 pm. I'm not sure what to say about this evening, except I want to take a shower. I've rarely been repulsed by the atmosphere of a debate as I was tonight. But this is the Republican core of South Carolina. One of the biggest applause lines was about waging war on the federal government. I suspect that if any Latinos or African-Americans were watching this, Obama's support just jumped.

From my perspective, Romney was cringe-inducing, shudder-worthy, and plastic beyond measure. I suspect he's going to try and rig this year's tax returns to hide his far lower rate of taxation and far, far, far higher income than 99.999 percent of the population. It was a weak answer.

We also had a strong endorsement of child labor, largely for African-Americans. I suspect that Santorum helped himself tonight, as did Perry a mite. Gingrich also showed his ability to reach the Southern vote, and Romney tried to fake it. Gingrich's diatribe about blacks getting paychecks rather than food stamps earned him a standing ovation

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....-the-rich.html

I cant find anything by him that sounds remotely like a conservative.

[Cannon Shell]

In 2004, Sullivan reluctantly decided to support John Kerry's presidential campaign, due to his dissatisfaction with the handling of the postwar situation in Iraq by the Bush administration, their views on gay rights, and their fiscal policy. In 2006, he supported the Democratic Party. Sullivan (like a number of other conservatives) endorsed Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic Nomination in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election, and Rep. Ron Paul for the Republican nomination. Sullivan endorsed Obama for President on the eve of the election.

In January 2009, Tunku Varadarajan, Elisabeth Eaves and Hana R. Alberts, writing in Forbes magazine, ranked Sullivan #19 on a list of "The 25 Most Influential Liberals In The U.S. Media", writing that "he clings unconvincingly to the 'conservative' label even after his fervent endorsement of Obama. His advocacy for gay marriage rights and his tendency to view virtually everything through a 'gay' prism puts him at odds with many on the right."

The guy has some libratarian takes on economic issues which is strange considering his love affair with Obama. The idea that this is some straight line conservative along the lines of George Will is simply untrue. But of course since his article was linked at Dailykos.com we know at least where it cme from.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I cant find anything by him that sounds remotely like a conservative.

Your own frank unfamiliarity with this long-time, well-known Reagan conservative doesn't set any standard. For example, you might look at one of his books:

In The Conservative Soul, one of the nation's leading political commentators makes an impassioned call to rescue conservatism from the excesses of the Republican far right, which has tried to make the GOP the first fundamentally religious party in American history. In this bold and powerful book, Andrew Sullivan makes a provocative, prescient, and heartfelt case for a revived conservatism at peace with the modern world, and dedicated to restraining government and empowering individuals to live rich and fulfilling lives.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

But of course since his article was linked at Dailykos.com we know at least where it cme from.

LOL - Sorry, no. The article was published in Newsweek Magazine, and linked by me at the conservative website, The Daily Beast, here http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...s-critics.html The Daily Beast is the conservative-trending website that conservative Andrew Sullivan writes for.

So I guess all your distractive author attack means you didn't bother to actually read the article - which has some nice attacks on "the left" you could probably enjoy

"BTW Andrew Sullivan is a radical left-winger".

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA !

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Your own frank unfamiliarity with this long-time, well-known Reagan conservative doesn't set any standard. For example, you might look at one of his books:





LOL - Sorry, no. The article was published in Newsweek Magazine, and linked by me at the conservative website, The Daily Beast, here http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...s-critics.html The Daily Beast is the conservative-trending website that conservative Andrew Sullivan writes for.

So I guess all your distractive author attack means you didn't bother to actually read the article - which has some nice attacks on "the left" you could probably enjoy

"BTW Andrew Sullivan is a radical left-winger".

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA !

Whatever. I read some of his rantings. He isnt a conservative and the Daily Beast is hardly a conservative website. Of course you dont think you are liberal either so how could you tell??

[Dahoss]

Pains me to agree with Riot, but Andrew Sullivan is not a radical left winger. Not even close.

[bigrun]

[SOREHOOF]

I didn't realize the Blacks in S.C. don't have any I.D.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

I didn't realize the Blacks in S.C. don't have any I.D.

Apparantly there's a whole mess of 150 year old, freed slaves, with no birth certiicates.

[Riot]

The Justice Department said the requirement could harm the right to vote of tens of thousands of people, noting that just over a third of the state's minorities who are registered voters did not have a driver's license needed to cast a ballot.

"The state's data demonstrate that non-white voters are both significantly burdened" by the law and "disproportionately unlikely to possess the most common types of photo identification" needed, Thomas Perez, head of the Justice Department's civil rights division, said in a letter to the state.

Under the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act, certain states like South Carolina must seek approval from the Justice Department or the federal courts for changes made to state voting laws and boundaries for voting districts.

... South Carolina did not offer any evidence of voter fraud that was not addressed by existing law and that "arguably could be deterred by requiring voters to present only photo identification at the polls."

The Justice Department said plans by state officials to provide exemptions to the photo identification requirement were incomplete and vague.

12-23-11 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45779698...ce-department/

Fact: any change to voting law that disproportionately affects only part of the population is voter suppression, and must be changed so that does not occur.