Republican Debate on CNN from Florida

[MaGZ]

Tonight there will be a Republican debate on CNN from Florida. (8 p.m.) ET

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/28/debate.main/index.html

[rikzilla]

Maybe the youtube snowman will ask Paul why so many of his supporters are racists, cranks, pimps, or just plain nuts.

:popcorn1

[MaGZ]

Maybe the youtube snowman will ask Paul why so many of his supporters are racists, cranks, pimps, or just plain nuts.

:popcorn1

Thirty minutes into the "debate" Ron Paul finally gets to speak in response to the North American Union highway and the challenge to our national sovereignty.

[rikzilla]

Huckabee...
notice the cadence of his voice...body language....gestures....

If I didn't know better I'd swear he'd studied NLP as taught by Tony Robbins.

-z

[Dr Adequate]

Thirty minutes into the "debate" Ron Paul finally gets to speak in response to the North American Union highway and the challenge to our national sovereignty. I don't suppose there's the slightest chance he responded by explaining that it's a looneytunes conspiracy theory that appeals exclusively to people who should be kept in padded rooms.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I don't suppose there's the slightest chance he responded by explaining that it's a looneytunes conspiracy theory that appeals exclusively to people who should be kept in padded rooms.

Heh, nope. He said that "The NAFTA super highway and NAU are real. The information is out there for you to find. It is a conspiracy of ideologies." Or some such nonsense.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

My highlights summary:

Romney was successful at deflecting Giuliani's attack on hiring illegal immigrants.

McCain liked to kick Ron Paul, who got mixed cheers and boos, for being anti-war and isolationist.

McCain's "veto pen" wasn't a very successful prop.

Giuliani's ad had good jokes about him reducing snow levels in NY.Thompson's ad was really mean, attacked Romney and Huckabee. Most everyone made fun of Hillary.

Huckabee got a lot of questions and preformed favorably. He successfully rebutted immigration scholarship claims.

Ron Paul said he was a Republican all the way.

Thompson was really slow and really really old and tired looking, McCain seemed less energetic as well.

Tancredo was still a ***.

Hunter likes guns, that's all I learned about him.

Best moment:

Gay soldier kicks all their asses, in video and in person. **** yeah.

I declare him the winner of the debate.

[Lex Luthor]

Each of the candidates had their staff prepare a YouTube video for the campaign. Fred Thompson's ad said nothing about Fred Thompson, and was simply an attack ad against Romney and Huckabee.

Fred Thompson brings nothing to the table.

[Lex Luthor]

And Mike Huckabee looked like a lunatic when he joined Ron Paul in calling for the elimination of the IRS.

[Oliver]

Maybe the youtube snowman will ask Paul why so many of his supporters are racists, cranks, pimps, or just plain nuts.

:popcorn1


That may be true - but would make me wonder what Giuliani-supporters
are? "America-hating, stupid, masochist, war-mongering, tax-wasting-loving,
morality-denying ... ?" - nuff said... :p

[Corsair 115]

Thirty minutes into the "debate" Ron Paul finally gets to speak in response to the North American Union highway and the challenge to our national sovereignty.It's a shame though that the "North American Union" and "NAFTA superhighway" are complete and utter myths.

It goes to show it's really not that hard to get folks to believe in stuff that's totally not true. Just distort a couple of basic facts, leave out a few others, repeat a few key buzzwords, and you're good to go.

[Rika]

That may be true - but would make me wonder what Giuliani-supporters
are? "America-hating, stupid, masochist, war-mongering, tax-wasting-loving,
morality-denying ... ?" - nuff said... :p

If only this made sense.. if only..

[Undesired Walrus]

Huckabee is so likeable. Shame he is a fundie.

I was suprised by being slightly impressed by Ron Paul on a few moments of the debate, but on abortion the man returned to a blittering nutcase and completely chickened out.

Rudy had the guts to say he would not overturn Rowe Vs Wade. And given his performance, I'm hoping he gets in on 08' (Obama as his running mate would be a dream).

[Phrost]

I think Huckabee won that debate, and I am no fan of Huckabee. (Go Ron Paul!)

Thompson and McCain looked like it was past their respective bedtimes.

[Undesired Walrus]

(Go Ron Paul!)

Why??

Thompson and McCain looked like it was past their respective bedtimes.

McCain put Romney in his place over waterboarding. Respect for that.

[Phrost]

Why? Because the federal government was never designed to be anywhere remotely as big as it is and States should be handling at least 50% of what the Federal Government has its hands in.

[Kerberos]

Why? Because the federal government was never designed to be anywhere remotely as big as it is and States should be handling at least 50% of what the Federal Government has its hands in.

Random question: Are you actually just arguing for decentralisation, rather than actually a significantly smaller governement?

[Phrost]

Random question: Are you actually just arguing for decentralisation, rather than actually a significantly smaller governement?

I'm arguing for a smaller federal government like the one intended by the founders of the country. If an individual State wants to have a bloated government, so be it. I can then move to one that doesn't.

[dudalb]

I wonder if Ron Paul's allegience to the GOP will actually hurt him,since a lot of his supporters really are gearing up for a Independent run,since it is pretty clear his chances of getting the Nomination are minimal at best.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I wonder if Ron Paul's allegience to the GOP will actually hurt him,since a lot of his supporters really are gearing up for a Independent run,since it is pretty clear his chances of getting the Nomination are minimal at best.

Maybe he'll do a Unity ticket while still keeping the Republican label.

[Undesired Walrus]

I'm arguing for a smaller federal government like the one intended by the founders of the country. If an individual State wants to have a bloated government, so be it. I can then move to one that doesn't.

Listen buddy, I'm still bemused as to why you guys have to always stick to what the founding fathers wanted. They also wanted the arguably moronic second ammendment, doesn't make it right today.

What's wrong with a government that has state education for example?

[Phrost]

Listen buddy, I'm still bemused as to why you guys have to always stick to what the founding fathers wanted. They also wanted the arguably moronic second ammendment, doesn't make it right today.

What's wrong with a government that has state education for example?

Are you being facetious about the Second Amendment being moronic, or do you not get the concept that it's a check against the likely threat of a government turning to tyranny by disarming the population?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I'm arguing for a smaller federal government like the one intended by the founders of the country. If an individual State wants to have a bloated government, so be it. I can then move to one that doesn't.

You mean the one where senators weren't elected and the States were free to take away as many rights as they pleased?

[dudalb]

Maybe he'll do a Unity ticket while still keeping the Republican label.

That is sort of hard to do when the GOP has an official candidate.
Frankly, Paul would have been smart to not bring up the topicor dodge the question.. Now if he does decide to go independent, he will be backtracking and his opponents can make hay out of that.

[dudalb]

Listen buddy, I'm still bemused as to why you guys have to always stick to what the founding fathers wanted. They also wanted the arguably moronic second ammendment, doesn't make it right today.

What's wrong with a government that has state education for example?


Why are you so violently against Private Gun Ownership,guy?

[Cleon]

Are you being facetious about the Second Amendment being moronic, or do you not get the concept that it's a check against the likely threat of a government turning to tyranny by disarming the population?

Er, I'm for gun rights, but that's not the purpose of the Second Amendment. The purpose of the Second Amendment is spelled out right in the text: A well-regulated militia.

The point was not to cow a possibly tyrannical federal government in the face of possible armed uprising. The point was that the framers of the Constitution did not foresee the country having a large, full-time, professional military, but rather having a small professional force and a much larger militia composed of the citizenry to be called up as-needed, as was the situation when the document was written.

[WildCat]

Er, I'm for gun rights, but that's not the purpose of the Second Amendment. The purpose of the Second Amendment is spelled out right in the text: A well-regulated militia.

Another proponent of interpreting "the people" to mean only members of an organized militia. If you really want to take that route be prepared for the 1st, 4th, 9th, etc. Amendments to be interpreted in that way.


eta: I feel dirty posting in a MaGZ thread.

[Cleon]

Another proponent of interpreting "the people" to mean only members of an organized militia.

No, not at all, as you'd know if you took the time to read my post beyond the second sentence. The intent (as was, again, the situation at the time), was that the militia would be composed of "the people."

[WildCat]

No, not at all, as you'd know if you took the time to read my post beyond jerking your knee at the second sentence. The intent (as was, again, the situation at the time), was that the militia would be composed of "the people."
Then why the comma? Why not use "the militia" instead? Why use a meaning "the people" different than in any other part of the Constitution? The words were not chosen accidentally, and defense of the country was well-taken care of in the Articles.

[Cleon]

Then why the comma? Why not use "the militia" instead?

Er, because they didn't want the right to bear arms to be limited to an organized military body, such as a professional military. A "militia," in this sense, is an ad-hoc military force comprised of the people. In times of war, the government calls up the militia, and anyone who wants to volunteer shows up with their gun and says "here I am, let's go fight for God and country."

That was the purpose of securing the right to bear arms for the people. So that in times of war, the people could take their guns and defend "the security of a free state."

:bwall

[WildCat]

Er, because they didn't want the right to bear arms to be limited to an organized military body, such as a professional military. A "militia," in this sense, is an ad-hoc military force comprised of the people. In times of war, the government calls up the militia, and anyone who wants to volunteer shows up with their gun and says "here I am, let's go fight for God and country."

That was the purpose of securing the right to bear arms for the people. So that in times of war, the people could take their guns and defend "the security of a free state."

:bwall
Bang you head all you want, but that makes no sense to me. "Militia" has one meaning that according to Websters (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/militia) is "the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service". So why use "the people" instead of "the militia"? Call me crazy, but IMHO "the people" means "the people" wherever it may arise in the Constitution.

[Cleon]

Bang you head all you want, but that makes no sense to me. "Militia" has one meaning that according to Websters (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/militia) is "the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service".

Essentially correct, but IMO Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia) has a better definition:


The entire able-bodied male (and perhaps female) population of a community, town, county, or state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State), available to be called to arms.

Questions of legal responsibility (to say nothing of gender) are secondary to the overall concept of "militia" in this sense. It is not a full-time, professional military force, like the US Army. It is an abstract body composed of the people, designed to be convened to fight as necessary.

Switzerland, for example, has no standing army. It does have a militia, an armed populace, that should the need arise will be called for duty to defend the country. The idea here was somewhat different; there was a standing army, but it was very small. The bulk of the military force was comprised of the militia--a defense network consisting of an armed population ("the people").

So why use "the people" instead of "the militia"? Call me crazy, but IMHO "the people" means "the people" wherever it may arise in the Constitution.*sigh* At no point have I disagreed with that. In fact, I am saying exactly the opposite. So I repeat:

:bwall

[WildCat]

We'll hear from the SCOTUS next summer at any rate. Hopefully they won't dodge.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

We'll hear from the SCOTUS next summer at any rate. Hopefully they won't dodge.

Totally, though I am half expecting them to write it off due to technicality, which would be very disappointing.

[The Painter]

The militia at the time was "the minutemen". Everyday people who would grab their own guns and come out and fight when called to arms. The people.

[Tailgater]

Listen buddy, I'm still bemused as to why you guys have to always stick to what the founding fathers wanted. They also wanted the arguably moronic second ammendment, doesn't make it right today.

What's wrong with a government that has state education for example?

I assume by "state", you mean national? I live in a state that has affordable "state" health insurance with some federal funds mixed in (I'm not an expert on it), but it is run by the state. I like our state government. Good state governments can be good role models for other states.

You live in London. What do you you think of programs legislated for you to pay for with your taxes, or laws to abide by that make no sense for someone in London because Spain and Germany like things a little different (it could be any other country)? Are you ok with the EU becoming just one country with no identity for each country?

[Drudgewire]

Listen buddy, I'm still bemused as to why you guys have to always stick to what the founding fathers wanted. They also wanted the arguably moronic second ammendment, doesn't make it right today.
From my arguably cold, dead hands. :cool:

[The Painter]

From my arguably cold, dead hands. :cool:

Molon Labe!

[Oliver]

Ron Paul should have made the point that he wants to abolish the IRS
since he's advocating this since decades.

Instead Huckabee declared that he wants to abolish it and was hyped
for this remark while Ron is a Nut to say the same thing... :boggled: :rolleyes:

You gotta love the term "Fair and Balanced".

[Cleon]

Ron Paul should have made the point that he wants to abolish the IRS
since he's advocating this since decades.

Instead Huckabee declared that he wants to abolish it and was hyped
for this remark while Ron is a Nut to say the same thing... :boggled: :rolleyes:


Huckabee supports the "FairTax (http://www.fairtax.org)," which is a scheme to replace the federal income tax with a national sales tax. The plan has some support among some "smaller government"-type Republicans and Libertarians. Paul, for some reason, has yet to hop on the "FairTax" bandwagon.

So the difference here is that Huckabee has an alternative to the IRS, and Paul does not. In other words...Huckabee has a platform and plan, and Paul is just throwing out slogans.

Dislaimer: I am not endorsing the "FairTax." I personally am very skeptical that it's workable.

[Phrost]

You mean the one where senators weren't elected and the States were free to take away as many rights as they pleased?

What? How is that remotely anything like what I said.

If you're not going to argue with some sincere integrity, please don't bother arguing with me.

[Oliver]

Huckabee supports the "FairTax (http://www.fairtax.org)," which is a scheme to replace the federal income tax with a national sales tax. The plan has some support among some "smaller government"-type Republicans and Libertarians. Paul, for some reason, has yet to hop on the "FairTax" bandwagon.

So the difference here is that Huckabee has an alternative to the IRS, and Paul does not. In other words...Huckabee has a platform and plan, and Paul is just throwing out slogans.

Dislaimer: I am not endorsing the "FairTax." I personally am very skeptical that it's workable.


From what I learned so far about this Issue, Paul believes that the
Government is able to work very well without it - as long they don't
waste money. And Paul points out many occasions on which the
Government literally trashes your tax-money.

So if you like to the support the military industrial complex Troops
by sending them into lied wars, then don't even consider any tax-cuts.

However: Paul never voted for Taxes. That's a fact to me unless you
can point out some contradicting facts about him.

And nevertheless. Paul made a clear statement and I trust him based
on his records regarding taxes. The "Fair-Tax" - on the other hand, is
just a compromise between both opinions...

[Kerberos]

Huckabee supports the "FairTax (http://www.fairtax.org)," which is a scheme to replace the federal income tax with a national sales tax. The plan has some support among some "smaller government"-type Republicans and Libertarians. Paul, for some reason, has yet to hop on the "FairTax" bandwagon.

So the difference here is that Huckabee has an alternative to the IRS, and Paul does not. In other words...Huckabee has a platform and plan, and Paul is just throwing out slogans.

Dislaimer: I am not endorsing the "FairTax." I personally am very skeptical that it's workable.

Arent sales taxes regresive BTW?

[Cleon]

From what I learned so far about this Issue, Paul believes that the
Government is able to work very well without it - as long they don't
waste money.

No, not quite. Paul wants to slash everything the Government spends money on. He wants to eliminate all social programs, education, federally funded research, the FDA, and so forth. This is neither desirable nor practical.

But again, you make my point. Huckabee has a plan--it's a silly plan, in my opinion, but a plan nonetheless. Paul does not. He has slogans, and a vague, idealistic vision of how he thinks the country "ought to be."


So if you like to the support the military industrial complex Troops
by sending them into lied wars, then don't even consider any tax-cuts.

This is called a "non-sequitir." It simply doesn't follow. Being against tax cuts, or being for them, has nothing to do with whether one supports the war or not.

Clue: All of the major Democratic candidates, with the possible exception of Clinton, are against the war. None of them are trumpeting the "abolish the IRS" idea.


However: Paul never voted for Taxes. That's a fact to me unless you
can point out some contradicting facts about him.

It's not relevant.

[quixotecoyote]

Arent sales taxes regresive BTW?

Normally yes, but apparently the fairtax plan involves a Cost of Living Rebate for food/clothing/necessities so you only end up paying sales tax on non-essentials. Kind of like a luxury tax.

At least that's the concept.

[Cleon]

Arent sales taxes regresive BTW?

My knowledge of such things is limited (economics gives me a headache), but yes, I believe so.

Part of the "FairTax" designed to compensate for this is that every month an individual or family would get a "prebate" from the government. The specifics are here (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq_answers#3).

[corplinx]

Huckabee is so likeable. Shame he is a fundie.



Mike Huckabee comes across as decent and sincere. When he supports the wrong thing, he does so far all the right reasons.

Bill Hicks once made a joke about having a guy who believes the world is about to end having their finger on the bomb, but then again Bill Hicks was a JFK assassination nut.

I'm sure many people are torn by Mike Huckabee. He's the Obama of the right. He seems honest and sincere though sometimes misguided.

[corplinx]

Normally yes, but apparently the fairtax plan involves a Cost of Living Rebate for food/clothing/necessities so you only end up paying sales tax on non-essentials. Kind of like a luxury tax.

At least that's the concept.

Even then, the regressive nature of the sales tax is a boogeyman with no fangs. Poor buy generic food, middle class buy normal, and rich people pay other people to go buy food from the Fresh Market for them.

Poor people buy powdered milk, middle class buy what ever is cheapest, rich people buy the cow and have it pumped full of chocolate syrup to see if that idea they had when they were a kid works or not. (does anyone buy name brand milk over store brand anymore?)

I think national sales tax exemptions are just shields against the inevitable REGRESSIVE TAX OH NOES ad campaigns that opponents will use to try to shoot the proposals down by scaring the uninformed.

There are of course items like baby formula where the regressive hit can be felt. A year worth of formula is about 2800 dollars.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

What? How is that remotely anything like what I said.

If you're not going to argue with some sincere integrity, please don't bother arguing with me.

That was how things worked under the founders' plan. It kinda sucks compared to today's democracy.

[billydkid]

Listen buddy, I'm still bemused as to why you guys have to always stick to what the founding fathers wanted. They also wanted the arguably moronic second ammendment, doesn't make it right today.

What's wrong with a government that has state education for example? "state education" - has kind of a creepy ring to it doesn't it? Oh, I see, we will only ever good guys running the government so we don't have to worry about education being controlled by the state. History has proved that over and over again. What was I thinking?

[Cleon]

"state education" - has kind of a creepy ring to it doesn't it?

Oh, well, that's a perfectly good reason to be against state education. Because it has "kind of a creepy ring to it." :rolleyes:


Oh, I see, we will only ever good guys running the government so we don't have to worry about education being controlled by the state. History has proved that over and over again. What was I thinking?

History has shown that to be a healthy, prosperous nation, state-mandated education is a necessity.

Don't believe me? Fine. Prove me wrong. Show me one healthy, prosperous nation without it.

[Undesired Walrus]

Why are you so violently against Private Gun Ownership,guy?

Because it's damn ugly. Humans are terribly designed, and I simply cant see why they should be arrogant enough to presume they can handle a weapon of mass destruction.
Doesn't mean somebody who knows how to do it like Darth shouldn't though, but even he can't confirm he wont go senile or read Catcher And The Rye.

P.S, It's a fair point about the EU and influence over national education. I'm not a fan of them too much.

[Undesired Walrus]

Mike Huckabee comes across as decent and sincere.

I like his opinions on the treatment of the children of immigrants (Or something like that, I remember it was surprisingly liberal) and his show off with Romney on it. He even managed to make 'working since 14' come off well.

I'm sure many people are torn by Mike Huckabee. He's the Obama of the right. He seems honest and sincere though sometimes misguided.

VP material? Rudy isn't much of a religous guy.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I really like Huckabee.

I disagree with him on nearly all the major issues. But he seems really nice. It's like you could have an honest conversation with him.

I'm not a sucker, though, and I would never vote for him.

[UserGoogol]

"state education" - has kind of a creepy ring to it doesn't it? Oh, I see, we will only ever good guys running the government so we don't have to worry about education being controlled by the state. History has proved that over and over again. What was I thinking?

You know what also has a creepy ring to it? Random people being able to squeeze life out of their crotches whenever they are able to pull together the necessary ingredients and then be free to spend the first twenty years of that person's life molding them into whatever perverse monstrosity they may have in mind.

State education is creepy because all education (all child-rearing in general) is creepy.

[MaGZ]

My highlights summary:

Romney was successful at deflecting Giuliani's attack on hiring illegal immigrants.

McCain liked to kick Ron Paul, who got mixed cheers and boos, for being anti-war and isolationist.

McCain's "veto pen" wasn't a very successful prop.

Giuliani's ad had good jokes about him reducing snow levels in NY.Thompson's ad was really mean, attacked Romney and Huckabee. Most everyone made fun of Hillary.

Huckabee got a lot of questions and preformed favorably. He successfully rebutted immigration scholarship claims.

Ron Paul said he was a Republican all the way.

Thompson was really slow and really really old and tired looking, McCain seemed less energetic as well.

Tancredo was still a ***.

Hunter likes guns, that's all I learned about him.

Best moment:

Gay soldier kicks all their asses, in video and in person. **** yeah.

I declare him the winner of the debate.

I declare CNN the looser of the debate because it was learned you gay soldier was a Democrat plant.

[MaGZ]

It's a shame though that the "North American Union" and "NAFTA superhighway" are complete and utter myths.

It goes to show it's really not that hard to get folks to believe in stuff that's totally not true. Just distort a couple of basic facts, leave out a few others, repeat a few key buzzwords, and you're good to go.

If so, then please direct me to the links that show how these urban myths were created.

[MaGZ]

Huckabee is so likeable. Shame he is a fundie.

I was suprised by being slightly impressed by Ron Paul on a few moments of the debate, but on abortion the man returned to a blittering nutcase and completely chickened out.

Rudy had the guts to say he would not overturn Rowe Vs Wade. And given his performance, I'm hoping he gets in on 08' (Obama as his running mate would be a dream).

How was Ron Paul a nutcase on abortion? You do know he is an obstetrician,don’t you? What surprised me is his statement coming from a man who has deliverer 4,000 babies that he never seen a pregnancy that threaten the life of the mother. I would think Ron Paul would have the most authentic view on abortion when compared to the other candidates.

This just in on MSNBC "Hardball":
Ron Paul has twice as many yard signs on the lawns in New Hampshire as all other candidates signs combined.

[Dr Adequate]

"state education" - has kind of a creepy ring to it doesn't it? Austin Powers: Only two things scare me, and one of them is nuclear war.
Basil Exposition: What's the other?
Austin Powers: Excuse me?
Basil Exposition: What's the other thing that scares you?
Austin Powers: Carnies. Circus folk. Nomads, you know. Smell like cabbage. Small hands.

[Tricky]

I declare CNN the looser of the debate because it was learned you gay soldier was a Democrat plant.
Democrats have the right to ask questions of Republicans too. And what's your source on that?

And the word is "loser". "Looser" is an adjective.

[fishbob]

I really like Huckabee.

I disagree with him on nearly all the major issues. But he seems really nice. It's like you could have an honest conversation with him.

I'm not a sucker, though, and I would never vote for him.

Although very personable, Huckabee is a self-professed creationist.
Honesty does not count for much with creationists.
Good thing you are NOT a sucker, because with suckers really nice usually beats honest.

[Corsair 115]

If so, then please direct me to the links that show how these urban myths were created.Start here for the story behind the "NAFTA superhighway": In Search of the NAFTA Highway to Hell (http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20071008_110123_110123&source=srch) courtesy of Maclean's magazine.

The "North American Union" is self-evident foolishness, since political union means the death of Canada and Mexico, not the United States. It means Canada and Mexico having to adopt the American political system, governmental structure, and currency, as well as adopting American rules, regulations, and procedures. All the U.S. does is get bigger and has to add some stars to the flag and some seats in Congress.

I can't speak for Mexicans, but I am quite certain Canadians are not about to give up their nationality without a fight. Woe to any politician here who gets a little too friendly with the U.S.

[boloboffin]

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/Norquist.png

I live stripped this debate, and actually found one that didn't violate Rule 10. If you like, you can read the whole thing here (http://www.stripcreator.com/comics/boloboffin/sets/repukeyoutube/). It's a clip art comic-making site, so from left to right, that's Grover Norquist, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, Ron Paul, and John McCain.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I live stripped this debate, and actually found one that didn't violate Rule 10. If you like, you can read the whole thing here (http://www.stripcreator.com/comics/boloboffin/sets/repukeyoutube/). It's a clip art comic-making site, so from left to right, that's Grover Norquist, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, Ron Paul, and John McCain.

XD "By the golden plates of Mormon!"