MotherJones Blog: GOPers Debate (Nicely) in Florida; Here Are the Whoppers of the Night

«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»

GOPers Debate (Nicely) in Florida; Here Are the Whoppers of the Night

At Thursday night's Republican presidential debate, the GOP contenders did their best not to make any news. No one attacked anyone; no one disagreed on any major policy matter--except regarding a proposal to establish a national catastrophic insurance fund that would back up private insurance firms. (Rudy Giuliani, playing to Florida homeowners, voiced his support for it; Mitt Romney supported the general notion; John McCain attacked legislation that would set up such a fund as a $200 billion boondoggle.) Generally, the candidates made up a chorus for tax cuts and fighting--make that, winning--the Iraq war. (Then there was Ron Paul.) At times, the candidates hailed their rivals. It was so.... un-Democratic. No nastiness--even though McCain and Romney, essentially tied for first place in the Florida polls, have been hurling negative ads at each other. (A Romney ad assails McCain for flip-flopping on tax cuts; a McCain spot blasts Romney for...flip-flopping on tax cuts. McCain is actually comparing Romney to John Kerry.)

If you were forced to pick a winner--and in the absence of policy disputes, the debate was all about the horse race--you'd probably have to choose Romney, who seemed quasi-commanding and who this night, for some reason, looked more like Hollywood's idea of a president than usual. But no candidate hurt his own prospects. That doesn't mean, though, they didn't come out with some whoppers. Here's a sampling:

* Moderator Tim Russert asked McCain about a comment McCain had supposedly made--"I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues; I still need to be educated"--and McCain shot back, "I don't know where you got that quote from; I'm very well-versed in economics." Well, McCain did tell the Baltimore Sun, "The issue of economics is something that I've really never understood as well as I should." So much for being "well-versed."

* Asked whether it was un-American for U.S. banks to seek infusions of billions of dollars in capital from foreign sources, Giuliani said there was nothing wrong with that as long as "they're transparent." Giuliani, though, still refuses to be transparent about his own multi-million-dollar business dealings, declining to release information about the clients and foreign officials he has worked with as a consultant.

* McCain said that the invasion of Iraq was justified because Saddam Hussein was "hell-bent on acquiring" weapons of mass destruction. Actually, he wasn't. Saddam might have desired WMDs. But for years prior to the invasion, the Iraqi dictator had suspended his WMD program and done nothing to pursue WMDs, according to the final report of Charles Duelfer and his Iraq Survey Group.

* Mike Huckabee, voicing his support for Bush's invasion of Iraq, said that just because the United States didn't find WMDs in Iraq that "doesn't mean it wasn't there." The aforementioned Duelfer report--and Duelfer took over the Iraq Survey Group as a hawk who had believed Saddam possessed WMDs--made it clear that Saddam not only had no weapons in the years leading up to the war, he had no WMD program. In other words, there were no WMDs to be found in Iraq--period.

* Romney praised Bush for mounting the Iraq war and making sure al Qaeda could not gain "a safe haven" in Iraq "for launching attacks against us." That was certainly not an issue prior to the invasion. Saddam had no operational ties with al Qaeda. And now there's little, if any chance, that the small and unpopular al Qaeda outfit in Iraq could take over Iraq, pushing aside the Shiites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds.

* Romney claimed that under Hillary Clinton's universal health care proposal, everybody will get their coverage "from the government." Here's how Clinton describes it: "If you have a plan you like, you keep it. If you want to change plans or aren't currently covered, you can choose from dozens of the same plans available to members of Congress, or you can opt into a public plan option like Medicare." That's not a government-only plan.

* Huckabee said that Americans "ought to be able to respect people who don't have any [faith]." Yet in a book he co-wrote in 1998, Huckabee huffed, "Men who have rejected God and do not walk in faith are more often than not immoral, impure, and improvident (Gal. 5:19-21). They are prone to extreme and destructive behavior, indulging in perverse vices and dissipating sensuality (1 Cor. 6:9-10)." That just doesn't come across as a respectful attitude regarding people who don't have faith.

But the candidates sure did behave nicely.

Comments

Your site says: Smart Fearless Journalism.

That is a lie. This article is neither.

Posted by: afterforever on 01/24/08 at 9:00 PM Respond

I have to agree with alterforever. You have displayed neither journalistic qualities nor smart.

Posted by: Michael D on 01/24/08 at 9:56 PM Respond

John McCain said "I know how to keep Israel independent". That might be the funniest thing any one of these jokers has said. Since when is it the job of an American president to "keep Israel independent"?

Posted by: Andy Winford on 01/24/08 at 10:06 PM Respond

Apparently, there are those people don't like it when someone calls "BS" on the GOP.

The amount of ink it would take to accurately deconstruct every lie that the GOP candidates utter is bewildering. Gawdy love ya for wading into the cesspool and giving it a try, David.

The fact that many of the GOPERS are attempting to rewrite the history of WMDs ought to be a signal that they are in a crash dive. In a recent poll, 80% of respondents said they thought that Bush deliberately lied to Americans about the reasons to go to war.

Apparently none of these clowns got the memo.

-Wexler

Posted by: William W. Wexler on 01/25/08 at 5:42 AM Respond

Andy, Jews contribute 50% of the campaign dollars, so the candidates listen to their contributors. Look, California has two Jewish Senators and they only make up 2% of the population. Whatever happened to affirmative action? Oh, I am sorry, it only applies against the goys.

Posted by: Rudy on 01/25/08 at 6:22 AM Respond

This is my first post. I learned about this site after watching the Colbert report last night (which was hilarious!!). So far, I have found that the articles are honest and refreshing. I feel like I am actually getting accruate info about ALL of the candidates instead of the watered down version that is being served up by the mainstream media. Keep it up!

Posted by: Tanisha R on 01/25/08 at 9:43 AM Respond

Thanks for a good laugh...especially on the quote from Huckabee!! Pretty scary stuff.

Posted by: silverlucie on 01/25/08 at 9:52 AM Respond

--------------------------------------NO WINNERS IN BULLY'S ASSAULT

----------------------------------What could we possibly "WIN" in "Iraq"?
Our invasion of Iraq was completely uncalled for and an insult to every intelligent person on earth! It has caused the death of hundreds of thousands of humans, mostly innocent women and children, and destroyed billions of dollars of homes, buildings,factories, businesses, and infrastructure. There never was a valid reason for this mayhem and to hope for a win, is insane! What can we possibly win from a beaten down and destroyed Nation of peoples who have lost so much?What do the Iraqis have to lose, that we could possibly want? Or, want to win?Is it practical to want to kill every last Iraqi Muslim, or every last Iraqi who despises the invaders who savaged their relatives, and ravaged their country? If this is the win that is proposed, envisioned and so ingeniously sought by those who believe we must win at all costs, it is the evil work of insanity. And when this is finally accomplished, any threat that Iraq might have posed to the sanctity of life of the United States and it's citizens prior to our invasion March 20, 2003 will be multiplied tenfold.
Thereafter wherever American Citizens travel, the threat shall follow! Is this the win we seek?
-----------------------------------------------J.H. 5/20/2007

Posted by: Jim Hanley on 01/25/08 at 12:19 PM Respond

Until the officials that concocted this poor excuse for a war are held accountable and tried as war criminals, there's not much to say.

Posted by: Richard G. on 01/25/08 at 1:07 PM Respond

And their economic solutions? Making the Bush deficits permanent, cutting taxes and deregulating business. Oh, that has worked so well the last eight years, and in the Reagan Years too. John Dean is right; that conservatives who hate government should be the minority voice.

Posted by: Jim Downing on 01/25/08 at 2:11 PM Respond

I don't get it. This article does exactly what every other news site does. You mention Ron Paul, but only in passing. (And then there was Ron Paul.) What the hell is that? If you claim fearless journalism, you should give Paul his dues.

Posted by: Darren Pope on 01/25/08 at 5:41 PM Respond

And just to prove my point: Paul is ahead of Giuliani in delegate votes, but you report on him. That's crap.

Posted by: Darren Pop on 01/25/08 at 5:45 PM Respond

Demos need to have a Truth Squad to be on TV immediately to follow the Repub debates and publicise the lies told on national TV just as you have done here although to a smaller following.

Posted by: JDickB on 01/25/08 at 5:53 PM Respond

Ron Paul is arguably the third place candidate at this time considering the Huckabee campaign is struggling financially (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jj1OpSh324Pp_hkt_lVThrI2RIegD8UB450G0), and Giuliani remains unable to get any significant amount of votes. Meanwhile, Ron Paul placed second place in both Nevada and Louisiana.

Its a shame Mother Jones and other so-called progressive media sources (like the Nation) continue to toe the mainstream media line when it comes to Dr. Pauls candidacy.

Posted by: Ryan Schwab on 01/25/08 at 6:57 PM Respond

It is disappointing that you wrote the article excluding Ron Paul entirely. I have come to rely on Mother Jones to be honest and trust worthy to report on the issued in a fair and balanced way. So much for that I guess.

Posted by: Ira Kaur on 01/25/08 at 7:16 PM Respond

This doesn't matter. Romney will be the next President because the one with the most money always wins. All of them are corrupt, but Hillary is corrupt AND dislikeable. Romney has experience in serving the interests of corporations, a perfect fit for the Presidency! Plus he has an amazing ability to speak out of both sides of his mouth at the same time!

Posted by: John Mulligan on 01/25/08 at 8:48 PM Respond

I understand your frustration about coverage of Dr. Paul's campaign. I'm not sure what he has to do before the press will recognize that he is a political phenomenon and the GOP's best chance to drag themselves back from the edge of the pit, albeit kicking and screaming.

However, it would be natural for him to get almost zero coverage in an article about GOP debate whoppers. I've never heard Ron Paul say anything that wasn't either true or at least a well-reasoned opinion.

Posted by: William W. Wexler on 01/26/08 at 5:15 AM Respond

The Huckabee comments are based in the Bible. They're meant to be a warning to do "good", not an indictment on those who don't.

Posted by: Richard Tunstall on 01/26/08 at 7:13 AM Respond

This criminal president has proven that Republicans are filthy, traitorous liars who will take this country to war for political gain. Scum. This batch isn't any better, including that batshit crazy, cancerous leper, John McCain.

Posted by: Timmy Tweed on 01/26/08 at 9:02 AM Respond

Not surprised Dr. Paul is under covered in the press. He wants to move back to the days of Robber barons and worse. Isolation as policy is unacceptable. Yes, he is against the current war, because he would not engage events on the world stage. And has anyone envision a return to a gold standard would mean? BTW, A few making a lot of noise and crowding the blogs sounds more like American Idol, not a serious movement. Please.

Posted by: Phillip on 01/26/08 at 10:48 AM Respond

And then there was Ron Paul? Are you kidding me. He's come in second now in two primaries and that is all you can dedicate to him?

He is not interested in isolationism, he is interested in taking care of ourselves, having free trade with the world, and not pushing our views onto the world through the barrel of a rifle. As someone who held that rifle for four years I agree with him.

Posted by: David Shatto on 01/26/08 at 9:52 PM Respond

"And then there was Ron Paul? Are you kidding me."

How much does MoJo have to cover Ron Paul? Does a 4% candidate need that much coverage?

The Paulites only want to hear about Paul - nobody else is even interested.

Posted by: capt on 01/27/08 at 4:06 AM Respond

Why do you ignore Ron Paul? He wants to end this senseless war and restore our economic stability. He wants America to be a sovereign nation (not isolationist). He wants our Constitutional rights restored to us. What are you reporters afraid of? The other candidates in my opinion are greedy warmongers who do not care about the majority of the American people.

Posted by: Paula Rosser on 01/27/08 at 7:36 AM Respond

Ron Paul is a non-sense candidate, and read non-sense and not 'no non-sense' candidate. There is nothing refreshing about his candidacy, he only evokes a sort of Reaganite charm/terror. Stabilize our economy? That's the assumption that this capitalist machine is innately stable. Protect the borders? From whom, brown people? Ron Paul is a conservative with no ideas different from the other candidates. Maybe he isn't as hawkish as the others, but his domestic policies are just as racist. I would appreciate more coverage of him, if only to expose him for what he is.

Posted by: Justin Hubbard on 01/27/08 at 9:32 AM Respond

Justin, why do you care about the GOP? Real progressives are concentrating on the Democratic primaries. Get with the program or be branded a Neanderthal.

Posted by: Louis on 01/27/08 at 12:24 PM Respond

I kept scrolling down looking for more on Ron Paul, but was sorely disappointed. What's up with that? Is MoJo now censoring our choices like mainstream media?

Posted by: Katie on 01/27/08 at 6:14 PM Respond

what about john edwards? he is the ONLY candidate who really cares about the constitution and the rights of the working poor and middle class. you know, the ones with no voice.

Posted by: mary on 01/28/08 at 4:34 AM Respond

Louis, haven't you ever heard of the saying, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer"? That sums up the importance of all of us paying attention to the tactical moves of BOTH sides. Talk about a Neanderthal....

Posted by: Paul Miller on 01/28/08 at 6:14 AM Respond

Thank you Thank you. I was getting sort of sick to my stomach reading all of the "Ron Paul is our saviour!" crap. Paul's economic plan is idiotic, and involves the familiar GOP cut to capital gains and estate taxes. It's the tired Republican "trickle down economics" hooplah. Can't we all agree that that doesn't actually work?

Posted by: Kristina on 01/28/08 at 7:02 AM Respond

Paul, who said "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer"?

Posted by: Louis on 01/28/08 at 7:05 AM Respond

The only way a progressive could support Ron Paul is if the only thing they care about is the Iraq War and they haven't looked into the rest of his positions. In many ways, he is the most conservative candidate running.

Posted by: bizona on 01/28/08 at 7:14 AM Respond

"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."

~ Sun-tzu
Chinese general & military strategist (~400 BC)

Posted by: capt on 01/28/08 at 8:12 AM Respond

A great source for quotes or to find a quote:

http://www.quotationspage.com/

The search is weak (one word) but it is a good source just the same.

Posted by: capt on 01/28/08 at 8:14 AM Respond

Nice if our own leaders followed Sun-tzu's plan, huh, capt?

Posted by: Paul Miller on 01/28/08 at 8:21 AM Respond

"Nice if our own leaders followed Sun-tzu's plan, huh, capt?"

No doubt, I would settle for leaders with any plan.

Posted by: capt on 01/28/08 at 9:02 AM Respond

Mr. Corn,
Still trying to convince people he knows more about the relations between Saddam's Baath party and members of al Qaeda than members of Saddam's Baath party and al Qaeda members themselves...

David, you forgot, likely willingly, that hundreds of Saddam's guys in custody (as well as countless al Qaeda members in Iraq) have been caught working with al Qaeda and many admitted prewar cooperation (see www.regimeofterror.com), including Saddam's right hand man Izzat al Douri.

Forgive me if I take their actions and words over a partisan writer.

Posted by: Mark E. on 01/28/08 at 12:57 PM Respond