GOP Presidential Candidates:Thanksgiving Family Forum

For those of you who were unable to view the Thanksgiving Forum which the GOP Presidential candidates participated in last week I have posted the entire forum for you to see. This was an outstanding forum. If you had to see only one of the forums/debates this would be the one I would recommend for you to see. I was extremely impressed with all of the candidates and their answers. At the beginning of the video there is a moving and powerful movie video. Then, the forum starts at about the 36 minute mark. It is a very long video but well-worth the viewing. Frank Luntz and his assistants asked some great questions of the candidates.


H/T Ron Paul 2012 

Senator Pat Toomey On The Debt Debate

I am proud to say that my senator, Senator Pat Toomey, has been outspoken and at the forefront of these debt talks. He is one of the co-sponsors of "Cut, Cap, and Balance" and has strongly criticized both the Democrats and the President on how they have handled the debt talks. Here is a speech which Sen. Pat Toomey gave on the Senate floor a few days ago. In the second video he talks with Sean Hannity on the whole debt debate drama.

Debt Limit Talks, Cut Cap & Balance, and What is the Principled Thing To Do?

I have been watching this whole debt debate and as it rages on it seems that the debt ceiling negotiations are getting nuttier by the day.   We are seeing the clash of philosophies go head to head.  Democrats and Obama believe in playing the class warfare card.  The President refuses to mention with specificity even one thing that he is willing to cut from the budget.  In contrast the President has laid out in great specificity how he wants to tax the "rich". He wants to raise taxes while Republicans do not.  IMO, the crux of the problem lies with Obama.  The philosophies of both the conservatives and liberals are so far apart that they don't agree on much, if anything, in the way of how to fix the debt problem.  While the President likes to portray the GOP as being ideologically entrenched and unwilling to compromise his own words have shown that this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.  For example, Eric Cantor realized that the two sides are two far apart to agree on a "grande bargain" so he stated that he would be willing to move a a short-term debt limit increase alongside smaller spending cuts but then Obama, the man-child President, said to Cantor “Eric, don’t call my bluff." Then according to Eric Cantor he told reporters that “He (Obama) shoved back and said ‘I’ll see you tomorrow’ and walked out."  Obama has shown that he can't stand to be challenged politically, and that he takes it personally so I can believe that this happened the way Eric Cantor portrayed the event. 


Do you think that Eric Cantor was political posturing? Or do you think that Obama was political posturing?

Back in 2009 Obama stated that he wasn't looking to raise taxes until possibly 2013.  But now he is so entrenched and committed to raising taxes. 

"So, when you hear folks saying, “Well, the president shouldn’t want massive job killing tax increases when the economy is this weak.” Nobody’s looking to raise taxes right now. We’re talking about potentially 2013 and the out years."

So why does Obama want to raise taxes when our economy is so weak and on the verge of a double dip recession?  We shouldn't be raising taxes on anyone while our economy is so weak. 

What is a principled stance for the Republicans?  Do you think that it would be irresponsible for the GOP not to raise the debt ceiling or would it be irresponsible for them to raise the debt ceiling?  Or should the GOP raise the debt ceiling ONLY IF the President and Congress goes along with their Cut Cap and Balance Pledge?  Or a similar plan? In all likelihood it would seem that in all probability that there is going to be some sort of compromise by both parties.  Or do you think that the GOP should stand firm and risk the U.S. hitting the debt ceiling?  And thus possibly defaulting?  Then we have President Obama who is using fear mongering tactics, saying we may not have enough money to pay out social security, medicare and medicaid, and military benefits in order to put pressure on the Republicans.  If the debt ceiling isn't raised then Obama might actually be forced to make some immediate and necessary budget cuts but that is something he isn't willing to do.

The Weekly Standard explains that the revenues would cover social security, medicaid and medicare, and military benefits.

The BPC study found that the United States is likely to hit the debt limit sometime between August 2 and August 9. “It’s a 44 percent overnight cut in federal spending” if Congress hits the debt limit, [Jay Powell of the Bipartisan Policy Center]said. The BPC study projects there will be $172 billion in federal revenues in August and $307 billion in authorized expenditures. That means there's enough money to pay for, say, interest on the debt ($29 billion), Social Security ($49.2 billion), Medicare and Medicaid ($50 billion), active duty troop pay ($2.9 billion), veterans affairs programs ($2.9 billion).

I just saw this on Eric Cantor's Facebook Page: "This debate is not a question of personalities; it is about doing what is right for the country."  


I agree.  

The Cut, Cap, and Balance Plan consists of :  



1.  Cut - We must make discretionary and mandatory spending reductions that would cut the deficit in half next year.

2.  Cap - We need statutory, enforceable caps to align federal spending with average revenues at 18% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), with automatic spending reductions if the caps are breached.

3.  Balance - We must send to the states a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) with strong protections against federal tax increases and a Spending Limitation Amendment (SLA) that aligns spending with average revenues as described above.




Then we have Mitch McConnell's plan which would basically cede power to Obama and allow him to raise the debt limit three times during the rest of his term. This lame brain idea would put the onus of the blame for the skyrocketing debt on Obama.  That option would mean that both parties would be kicking the can down the road.  Old Geezer Mitch must have left his brain at home that day because this plan is absurd.  The American people don't want McConnell to wave the white flag of defeat to Obama & Co.  The American people want solutions and not political chicanery. Clueless McConnell needs to stop playing political games and instead concentrate on trying to find a solution to the debt crisis, stop acting like a wimp and stand up to Obama.  


In your opinion what do you think is the principled position for the Republicans?  What are your thoughts on the debt and debt ceiling issues?

Rick Santorum On Meet The Press

From the Daily Santorum:

Gallup shows that Rick Santorum's numbers have tripled in the past three weeks from 2 to 6 percent.

Last week's announcement blitz ended in the Meet the Press studio, which even in these times of fragmented media can still hold the nation's attention. The video is above, cribbed from YouTube with a somewhat odd "clean video available" disclaimer on there (perhaps the censors were a bit concerned after looking up their guest on Google). David Gregory goes for the you-knew-it-was-coming gotcha moment by showing Rick on the show in 2002 -- side note: he hasn't aged a day in eight and a half years -- saying, "The last thing we need to do when we are concerned about the national security of this country is to be concerned about deficits."

Santorum replied that the difference now is the scale: "We were talking about deficit I think at that point of $100 billion to $200 billion, not $1.5 trillion. Not something that is, that is grinding our economy down."

At the end of the interview, Santorum made his near-daily Social Issues Comment That Burns Up the Liberal Blogosphere (TM), from the transcript:

MR. GREGORY:  One more question on abortion, an issue you care deeply about. I, I want to be clear on this.  Do you believe that there should be any legal exceptions for rape or incest when it comes to abortion?

SEN. SANTORUM:  I believe that life begins at conception, and that that life should be cut--should be guaranteed under the Constitution.  That is a person, in my opinion.

MR. GREGORY:  So even in a case of rape or incest, that would be taking a life?

SEN. SANTORUM:  That would be taking a life, and, and I believe that, that any doctor who performs an abortion--that--I would advocate that any doctor that performs an abortion should be criminally charged for doing so.  I don't--I've never supported criminalization of abortion for mothers, but I do for people who perform them.  I believe that life is sacred.  It's one of those things in the Declaration of Independence.  We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, and the first is life.  And I believe that that life should be protected at the moment it is a human life.  And at conception it is biologically human, and it's alive.  It's a human life, it should be a person under the Constitution.

Perhaps he's worried about losing the God endorsement, but that seems to contrast with Santorum's stance on Meet the Press debating Bob Casey in 2006 when the late Tim Russert asked him about the same issue:

MR. RUSSERT: Senator, if you believe that life begins at conception, then why do you support exceptions for rape, incest, and life of mother?

SEN. SANTORUM: What I said is—yeah. What I said is that I would vote for things like that. I think that, that...

MR. RUSSERT: But it’s the taking of a life.

SEN. SANTORUM: I, I said I would, but so does the Hyde Amendment allows rape, incest, life of the mother. That’s what I talked about is that if, if that is the common ground we could get, I would support that.

MR. RUSSERT: But by your standards, it’s the taking of a life.

SEN. SANTORUM: It is, there’s no question it’s the taking of a life. But if it—it is an attempt for me to try to see if we can find common ground to actually make progress in limiting the other abortions. So yes, that’s what I would do.

Finding "common ground" is something Santorum the legislator had to do, while Santorum the presidential candidate vying for tea party support has to take a no surrender approach. In a field of mostly governors Santorum must draw on a long history of tough votes in Congress -- and the Club For Growth is already hounding him for some fiscal positions -- and that could put him on shaky territory at times.

The Schedule: Tonight is the big New Hampshire debate, which is being treated like the first debate even though it's the second, because of Front-Runner Romney's presence. Warm up with a good drinking game, and tune into CNN at 8.

Two Environmentalists Debate On Climate Change

Here is a fascinating debate between two founders of Greenpeace, one follows the whole climate change is caused by humans mantra and the other does not believe in human-caused global warming/climate change. 

From MercatorNet:

In February, MercatorNet published a controversial article by Patrick Moore, a founding member of Greenpeace in which he explained why he had turned his back on the organisation and its key policies. Rex Weyler, a director of the original Greenpeace Foundation and author of a history of the organisation, plans to respond. Below is a debate between the two men which summarises many of the key disputes over climate change policies.

* * * * *

Rex Weyler: Patrick, I’ve had some requests to comment on your book. So far, I’ve avoided critiquing your ideas in public, out of deference for our friendship. You know from our discussions over beer that I disagree with most of your positions, but now that you’re in print, your ideas bear some scrutiny.  As you know, you’re getting plenty of praise from the usual suspects, National Post, Fox News, etc, so you certainly have your backers.

Patrick Moore: My new book, Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist, was debuted in the Vancouver Sun, has been reviewed by the Calgary Herald, featured on many radio talk shows such as Mike Smyth on CKNW, and in the Toronto Star, hardly a bastion of the right. I do regular interviews on National Public Radio in the US and with Bloomberg News. I also take interviews with Fox Business News and the National Post. If you refer only to the conservative outlets that are interested, then you are hardly producing a balanced critique.

Rex Weyler: I’m sending you this note as a heads up that I may appear in print with a more critical review of your ideas.

Patrick Moore: Thank you for doing so. Has Greenpeace asked you to critique my new book? In other words, should I be expecting the Greenpeace party line from you? Or a more sensible approach?

Rex Weyler: My main objection is that there remains a considerable gap between the scientific data before us and your analysis of that data.

Patrick Moore: You mean like the considerable gap between your certainty about human-caused climate change and the lack of scientific data to prove such a claim? I give plenty of examples where the extent of our knowledge is insufficient to warrant certitude, climate being the main one. As Michael Crichton said “I am certain there is too much certainty in the world.” So I don’t really see what you are getting at here. Is it not more a question as to which set of uncertainties one takes issue with?

Rex Weyler: You portray yourself as “sensible” and disparage all non-corporate environmentalists, but you don’t act scientific. You employ rhetorical devices such as: “There is no alarm about climate change,” since “the climate is always changing.” I’m sure this plays well at corporate speaking gigs, but you should google the fallacy of “misplaced concreteness.” I assume you are aware that you erroneously presume a word means the same thing in different contexts.

Patrick Moore: I hardly think Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalogue, is a corporate environmentalist, more of a loveable hippie with a big brain. Do you think Bjorn Lomborg is “corporate”. I don’t agree with either Brand or Lomborg on everything but at least they cause me to think rather than people who repeat a memorized party-line. I also admire James Lovelock even though I find him enigmatic. All three of these environmentalists that I admire are non-corporate. Which “corporate environmentalists” am I allegedly admiring?

I believe I am sensible and have been all my life, as in common sense. But I suppose that is a matter of opinion.

As to acting “scientific” the highest duty of a scientist is to retain a healthy scepticism about all hypotheses, especially regarding subjects that have many variables like climate. I think you are aware that I hold an Honours BSc in Biology and Forest Biology, a PhD in Ecology, an Honorary Doctorate of Science and have received the  the US National Award for Nuclear Science and History from the Einstein Society, affiliated with the Smithsonian Institute. Would this not make me at least as credible as any member of the IPCC?

If you are referring to the word “climate” you must elaborate as I fail to understand what you mean here. First, you have added in the word “since,” which makes my statement a syllogism. When you do write your critique of my new book, I do hope you will not manipulate my words in that way.

Second, I did not say “there is no alarm about climate change,” but that “there is no REASON FOR alarm about climate change.” The fact that there is such alarm I blame in part on Greenpeace itself.

And finally, as to the “misplaced concreteness”, I refer to climate as a scientific subject, measurable and real. Following Alfred North Whitehead’s definition of this fallacy, I see no misplaced concreteness there.

My belief that there is no reason for alarm has no bearing on the fact that the climate is always changing. I can imagine the public outcry when you accuse me of “misplaced concreteness”, Lordy Lordy.

You and your allies love to use the words “corporate” and “industry” as if they are epithets, swear words, put-downs, etc. with the implication that something sinister is going on. My public appearances are in public, usually with media present.

Rex Weyler: You make claims that have been refuted by the people you reference. This may be okay over a beer, but seems reckless in print. You say DDT was “discontinued for use in malaria control by the World Health Organization and USAID.” But surely you know that WHO and USAID representatives have already told George Monbiot that they never stopped using DDT for malaria control. (“A Charming Falsehood,” The Guardian). Why would you restate this, knowing that WHO and USAID have refuted it?

Patrick Moore: I have provided you with a link to the UN media release titled, “Reversing Its Policy, UN Agency Promotes DDT to Combat the Scourge of Malaria,” UN News Center, September 15, 2006.” Here is the link again where the WHO announces that it is reversing its policy to discontinue the use of DDT after nearly 30 years.

USAID made the same decision in 2006. This reversal stemmed from the negotiations towards the Stockholm Convention on toxic, persistent, bioaccumulative chemicals which, in the end, despite strong opposition from Greenpeace and WWF, provided an exemption for DDT use for malaria control.

I realize there is a major effort at Greenpeace to rewrite the history on this subject as I have been informed by a Greenpeace spokesperson in the UK that “Greenpeace was never opposed to the use of DDT for malaria control.” This has to be one of the most blatant examples of historical revisionism I have encountered. Of course there are other examples, such as their contention that I “played a minor role in the early years” etc. I hope you are not buying into that one. Anyway, if you trust George Monbiot as a reliable source then you’ll get a lot of things wrong, although on nuclear power, he has come a long way in his understanding. Have you noted that George has come out in favor of nuclear energy this week?

And who knows, maybe the WHO and USAID are also trying to cover their tracks. After all it does not look good that health and aid agencies were implicated in the unnecessary deaths of millions of people because they caved into political pressure against DDT in the ’70s. CONTINUED

Which do you think made a good case for his position?  It is plain as day that one environmentalist focused more on attacking the other person's character rather than refuting the other's position.