Principle or political expedience?
His answers:
Gay rights: he opposes discrimination, but he does not favor gay marriage.
Abortion: he changed his stand.
Guns: he has not changed his stand as being pro-gun.
Santorum is challenging Romney on his record on gay marriage, which is great. I want Romney to address these issues, to make us comfortable that he is conservative, not moderate.
Perry’s right. If Holder knew about the operation, he should be fired and possibly prosecuted. If Holder did not know about it, he should be fired for incompetence.
The Attorney General is ultimately responsible for every operation undertaken by the Department of Justice. The buck stops with him. He can’t claim ignorance and be absolved.
Why do I get the feeling that he’s been looking for an opportunity the whole night to throw that factoid in there. And, I wonder how relevant it is.
The candidates in this debate, almost uniformly, have attacked Obama, rather than attacking each other. This is quite a change from the last several debates. They are all practicing for the general election campaign.
Ron Paul is off his nut. He has a great view of the Constitution, but even religiously devotees can be crazy, and Paul is. His policy on Iran is not just dangerous, it’s criminal, and should be, of itself, automatically disqualifying.
Hardcore Paul supporters are also almost religious in their devotion to him, and their booing of the other candidates who challenge Paul is classless and does not reflect well on him.
“I’ve done that.”
Romney doesn’t believe we should have Congress overseeing the justices. But that’s precisely how the Constitution is set up. Can somebody get every one of these candidates a copy of the Federalist Papers?
He’s right, the courts have gotten too dictatorial. But the Constitution has processes inherent in it that allow for checking that power, and re-balancing the federalism. Bachmann is addressing that. Take back the Constitution!
Newt wants to abolish courts. I’d rather see the legislature take steps to impeach egregiously errant judges. Ron Paul just suggested that, and he’s right. Newt’s way could make the courts more of a political football than they already are.
Romney: the free market will decide what sectors will grow in the next 10 years, not the government. I like that answer (because, of course, it’s right).
“This president thinks America is in decline. It is if he’s president.” HA!
Ron Paul has three answers to every question—(1) too much spending, (2) retreat from the rest of the world, (3) it’s not in the constitution. That’s pretty much it.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.