Republican Debate @ 9pm Eastern on MSNBC

Open thread.

Could Be... that a couple of campaigns may be bringing up Sessions' questionnaire and confronting McCain on his willingness to answer it.

Can't say for sure. It's a possibility, though, I hear.

Streaming Video... here.

Ouch! Ron Paul just asked McCain a question about economics that he doesn't seem to understand.

And McCain did previously confessed his weak grasp of economics.

WTF? ...was Romney's answer on Brady/Assault Weapon Ban? Was that gibberish or what?

As far as I can tell, he's saying he would have signed these bills, as Bush would have, and he was right to take that position, but now he doesn't think we need more laws controlling guns.

He doesn't even bother offering a reason why his past position is different from his current one.

I guess he's had too many flip-flops and can't afford to admit he's flip-flopped on this, too.

Did he flip-flop? I'm still not sure.

Romney's Position: I wrote to the campaign and asked them to explain that dog's breakfast answer. From his site:

"I believe that the Second Amendment protects a truly fundamental individual right.

"I believe that every law-abiding American has the right to own a firearm for hunting, personal protection, skeet, trap or target shooting, or for any other sporting purpose or as part of a collection.
"I do not support any new gun laws including any new ban on semi-automatic firearms. As president, I will follow President Bush's precedent of opposing any laws that go beyond the restrictions in place when I take office. The laws I do and will support include decades-old restrictions on weapons of unusual lethality like grenades, rocket launchers, fully automatic firearms and what are legally known as destructive devices and would include similar restrictions on new and exotic weapons of similar or even greater lethality.

"I believe in safe and responsible gun ownership. I also applaud the efforts of Second Amendment supporters – particularly in the aftermath of the terrible crimes at Virginia Tech – to support measures to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System as a screening tool to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those judged mentally incompetent. I will protect the promise of a fair and instant check and oppose any effort to expand the NICS beyond its original purpose. I was pleased, in fact, that recently, Congress passed the NICS Improvement Act with NRA support and over liberal opposition to finance, improve, and streamline the current NICS system.

"I believe that any discussion regarding firearms and crime control must focus on the criminal. Unfortunately, many in Washington believe that restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners will diminish violent crime. They are wrong. Over the years, the idea that it is possible to curtail crime by banning firearms has run up against a mountain of empirical evidence that forces one to conclude that gun control laws fail because they rely on the cooperation of a very unlikely element – the criminal. Any measure that fails to focus on the criminal and infringes on the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans will be a non-starter for me.

"My message on the Second Amendment is simple: the rights of law-abiding gun owners will be protected in a Romney administration.

"On the other hand, if you're a criminal, here is your warning: I will ask every law enforcement agency across this great land to enforce the gun laws that are already on the books so that those who use guns illegally will know that they will be caught, prosecuted, convicted and jailed.

"I believe the right to keep and bear arms is a cornerstone of our personal freedoms. Should I be fortunate enough to become President, I will stand up and fight against any attempt to weaken or infringe upon our Second Amendment rights. And I will do this without any apology and without any hesitation."

Eh. He seems to be claiming consistency on the issue because he was/is willing to continue anti-gun laws already in effect (as the assault weapons ban was and Brady is) but is not willing to sign any new gun control measures into law.

That's sort of an odd position, relying as it does upon sheer happenstance to determine if a law is good or constitutional. I suspect it's a retrofitted explanation to avoid the charge of another "flip-flop."

But his position is, I guess, that he will not sign a new Assault Weapons Ban law into effect. Brady he'd reauthorize, if it were to come up for a vote, which I don't think it's going to, as I don't think it sunsets and so just remains on the books until affirmatively repealed.

JESUS!!! How many times are they going to ask Mike Huckabee the same fucking question about his religion that allows him to pose as a victim and thrills his supporters for his "standing up for Jesus Christ"?

They've now asked him this same question with minor tweaks ten times.

One would almost imagine they're serving up big fat hanging curveballs to their new favorite Christian "conservative" deliberately, just to keep him in the game.

MIKE HUCKABEE LOVES JESUS.

STOP ASKING QUESTIONS WHICH EASILY LEND THEMSELVES TO MIKE HUCKABEE TELLING US ABOUT HIS LOVE FOR JESUS AND START ASKING HIM ABOUT POLICY AND CHARACTER.

posted by Ace at 09:37 PM

| Access Comments