That was a nauseating read. If his connections and actions related to these horrible events are as implied and described, he is without morality and without redemption. If it is true, I hope those witnesses and victims will step forward to the press and their voices are heard by all. Huckabee can then be rightly shown a very speedy exit.
Is even worse than Michael Dukakis’ Willie Horton moment.
A serial rapist is a serial rapist is a serial rapist. They DO NOT change. Whether the guy was a sexual psychopath or a sexual sadist (my guess is both) only the complete record could tell us.
There are a wide variety of risk assessment instruments that have been around for years that would have demonstrated that this offender should never again see the light of day. I have used them many, many times. Any Forensic Behavioral Assessor worth their credentials would conclude that this guy, at some point, would begin to murder his rape victims in order to prevent them from testifying against him.
I Already ...
Have concluded that Huck the Hick hasn’t any kind of a prayer to get the GOP nod - THIS just seals that educated guess.
The Dumond story plays directly into Rudy’s strength on crime-fighting...and sorry, if voting for Rudy means a soft spot for liberals, so be it. I’m pretty much a wishy-washy middle-of-the-roader, so I don’t mind Rudy’s moderate stances on social issues.
Giuliani and the other candidates don’t need to do anything on the Dumond story. The media will play it big, and it will seriously damage Huckabee with conservative voters. Whether it finishes Huckabee is an open question. He could do major public contrition for the story and maybe dull its impact.
If I had to vote for anybody right now - and sooner or later I’ll have to vote for somebody - I’d pick Rudy. My guess is that he’s the second choice for the Powerline guys, as well.
Despite sniping over his messy personal life, I think Rudy will win through to the nomination. Won’t be easy, but McCain will drop out fairly early, and almost all of his support will go to Giuliani. No way McCain voters swoon for the Bible-thumper, and I don’t think flippety-floppety Mitt has much appeal for them, either. Thompson is all but gone from the race already.
Put McCain’s support together with Rudy’s current numbers, and he looks quite strong though by no means inevitable.
The Democratic side? Don’t look now, but meet Mr. Obama. The base loves and trusts him in a way they just don’t with Hillary. I know, she’s got big national numbers on her side, for now. But a few early setbacks could melt those numbers like snow in May...even in Minnesota (wink).
I would never count the Clintons out. I also believe Rudy could easily beat her. Maybe anyone but Huck and Ron Paul could, I’m not sure though. Voters are very superficial in some ways, just like decrepit, old, BobDole had no chance against a younger and slicker Clinton, I doubt America would be eager to elect a bible thumping, creationist man named Huckabee.
Despite sniping over his messy personal life, I think Rudy will win through to the nomination. Won’t be easy, but McCain will drop out fairly early, and almost all of his support will go to Giuliani. No way McCain voters swoon for the Bible-thumper, and I don’t think flippety-floppety Mitt has much appeal for them, either. Thompson is all but gone from the race already.
I agree with this. In fact Huckabee’s surge does two things to help Rudy. First, it eliminates Romney’s hope for a sweep of the early states to catupult into Super Tuesday as the favorite. That’s not going to happen. Second, as the un-Rudy, Huckabee makes Rudy look good. The more we learn about Huckabee, the more we appreciate Rudy’s strengths as a crime-fighter, tax-cutter, and as a warrior against Islamofascism. Huckabee is none of these things. His surge will appeal to a minority within the party--about 20% of all Republicans, a majority of them evangelicals. The rest of us will eventually coalesce around Rudy.
if you believe in moral absolutes, then shouldn’t a candidate be either moral or unmoral, not “too moral” or “just immoral enough”, etc.?
Anyway, I’m glad McCain is popular here on this board. I think he does have some moral high ground he can claim.
As far as other sentiments in support of “gloves” off guys like Gulianni… where does the slippery slope end with all you pro-waterboarding guys? how do you say what is too far to go when dealing with the “real bad guys”?
I suspect no limit is perceived as being necessary. please confirm.
if you believe in moral absolutes, then shouldn’t a candidate be either moral or unmoral, not “too moral” or “just immoral enough”, etc.?
Anyway, I’m glad McCain is popular here on this board. I think he does have some moral high ground he can claim.
As far as other sentiments in support of “gloves” off guys like Gulianni… where does the slippery slope end with all you pro-waterboarding guys? how do you say what is too far to go when dealing with the “real bad guys”?
I suspect no limit is perceived as being necessary. please confirm.
Let’s just put it this way. I don’t lay awake at night fretting over what the good guys might be doing to the bad guys while they’re trying to protect me and mine.
I find the arguement that if we do it, they, or someone down the road might do it, to be vacuous. The Nazis tortured, the Soviets tortured, the Red Chinese tortured, the North Koreans and Vietnamese tortured.
Who is it that you’re looking at in a future conflict that won’t do it if we promise to never do it? I’d love to know.
As to the current group of bad guys who enjoy slitting people’s throats while the camcorder is running, or better yet, actaully beheading them with a dull blade while the camcorder is running, to be somewhat indifferent to the coffee house crowd in the black turtle necks, tut tutting and tsk tsking about waterboarding.
Anyway, I’m glad McCain is popular here on this board. I think he does have some moral high ground he can claim.
Not with me.
I find McCain to be completely wrong on this issue and hate it when he brings it up, because of his past experience.
The United States of America does not torture. Never has. Never will.
(And that includes waterboarding, which almost all of us don’t consider torture.)
What was done to John McCain by the NVN was torture.
What we did to prisoners or detainees at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib was not.
If you care to argue this any further, there is a 150 page long thread here where you can do just that, so please go there.
McVain’s views on “torture” are one of the many reasons he won’t be getting my vote.
Let’s just put it this way. I don’t lay awake at night fretting over what the good guys might be doing to the bad guys while they’re trying to protect me and mine.
I find the arguement that if we do it, they, or someone down the road might do it, to be vacuous. The Nazis tortured, the Soviets tortured, the Red Chinese tortured, the North Koreans and Vietnamese tortured.
Who is it that you’re looking at in a future conflict that won’t do it if we promise to never do it? I’d love to know.
As to the current group of bad guys who enjoy slitting people’s throats while the camcorder is running, or better yet, actaully beheading them with a dull blade while the camcorder is running, to be somewhat indifferent to the coffee house crowd in the black turtle necks, tut tutting and tsk tsking about waterboarding.
well I’d use terms like “slippery slope”, “creep” and “precedence” to discuss this because of concern that there is a “Once you unleash Pandora’s Box” aspect to this.
So waterboarding becomes okay - for “bad guys” only - by America’s standards in 2007. is that still the controversial limit of what we’re willing to do by 2017? and has our vague definition of “bad guys” gotten EVEN more broad by then?
Time has a way of helping the erosion of the moral principals of an irresolute nation.
b.t.w. define “bad guys”. help me understand that by contrasting a true “bad guy” with the easily confused “not-quite-bad-guy”.
well I’d use terms like “slippery slope”, “creep” and “precedence” to discuss this because of concern that there is a “Once you unleash Pandora’s Box” aspect to this.
For the second time, I tell you to go to the torture thread (at the top of the list right now).
Please, we’ve had this “argument” ad nauseum here for 6 weeks.
You may be new at posting here, but your arguments aren’t;
it’s all on Meliorist’s thread, I promise.
Let’s just put it this way. I don’t lay awake at night fretting over what the good guys might be doing to the bad guys while they’re trying to protect me and mine.
I find the arguement that if we do it, they, or someone down the road might do it, to be vacuous. The Nazis tortured, the Soviets tortured, the Red Chinese tortured, the North Koreans and Vietnamese tortured.
Who is it that you’re looking at in a future conflict that won’t do it if we promise to never do it? I’d love to know.
As to the current group of bad guys who enjoy slitting people’s throats while the camcorder is running, or better yet, actaully beheading them with a dull blade while the camcorder is running, to be somewhat indifferent to the coffee house crowd in the black turtle necks, tut tutting and tsk tsking about waterboarding.
well I’d use terms like “slippery slope”, “creep” and “precedence” to discuss this because of concern that there is a “Once you unleash Pandora’s Box” aspect to this.
So waterboarding becomes okay - for “bad guys” only - by America’s standards in 2007. is that still the controversial limit of what we’re willing to do by 2017? and has our vague definition of “bad guys” gotten EVEN more broad by then?
Time has a way of helping the erosion of the moral principals of an irresolute nation.
b.t.w. define “bad guys”. help me understand that by contrasting a true “bad guy” with the easily confused “not-quite-bad-guy”.
I’m not justifying anything by what anybody else has done. The argument McCain makes is that if we “torture”, then in the future, our enemies will torture our guys.
My point is, so what’s new? In almost every war we’ve been in this century and in the last, our prisoners were tortured by our enemies. Why should we expect differently in the future? Unless of course, you expect to be fighting the Vatican, Sweden or a convent of nuns sometime soon.
Question: If this issue had not been brought up by mostly the democrats, for political advantage, how would you ever know what the policies of interogation of the United States, were or are?
Some things are just best left for the experts, especially when so many people have no clue as to what is the reality of the world.
I would rather have our interrogation techniques decided by people who know what they’re doing, rather than coffee house whinners or politicians looking to score points with nitwit soccer moms or by appearing sanctimonious and holier than thou.
Jentheneocon is correct and I will comply with her wishes. As to the point of this thread, I do not want a commander in chief who makes any kind of national security decision based on what is or is not “the christian thing to do”.
In matters of war and national security, I’ll take the whiskey drinkers over the milk drinkers every day.
Priests, rabbis and preachers have their place in this world. In my humble opinion, that place is not in the commander in chief’s office.
I would rather have our interrogation techniques decided by people who know what they’re doing, rather than coffee house whinners or politicians looking to score points with nitwit soccer moms or by appearing sanctimonious and holier than thou.
me too. so lets throw out these guys who think torturing works and get someone who, as you say, knows what they’re doing!
