Rollins/Urquhart Debate Open Thread
I was unable to attend today’s Rollins-Urquhart debate because of a work committment but several of you are either listening or attended. Use this thread to discuss what you’ve heard during the debate.
From what I gather on the Twitter coverage:
Rollins calls herself pro-life but supports abortion rights (she specifically mentioned rape victims). I’ve seen a lot of pro-choice activists actually use this type of language “pro-choice is pro-life.”
Rollins said that the Park51 Islamic center had the right to be built and it was a local NYC issue. Urquhart doesn’t think it should be built.
Urquhart hammered Rollins hard on WTC and TARP. It sounds like he put her on the defensive.
Urquhart thinks national debt is our greatest threat. (Greater than al Qaeda?)
Share your thoughts below.
Tags: DE-AL, Glen Urquhart, Michele Rollins
Urk is getting away unchallenged for a lot of basic wingnut premises.
He says “cut spending” but so far nobody has asked him what he would cut.
He attacks “debt” but so far nobody has asked him how that squares with his support of tax cuts for the rich.
He wants to increase defense spending but nobody asked him how that squares with “cut spending.’
I haven’t heard the whole thing yet, so maybe I missed something.
Rollins keeps returning to the theme “our free enterprise system is crumbling.” I guess that’s her talking point.
It is crumbling, but not in the way she thinks it is.
I tuned in for a few minutes to listen to two multi-millionaires talk about charitable giving. I got sick to my stomach and had to turn it off.
I’m listening because whatever they say can and will be used against the winner in November.
“The Scots have routed our English forces at the bridge, sir. Our army is lost, and the Urquhart have presented their terms. They… they want to force our English lords to accept more tax cuts, sir.”
Here’s the NJ’s take on the debate.
He is related to the ancestors in the castle on the edge of Loch Ness. Same Urquhart.
I always wonder how Christian conservatives decide which candidates are their own — e.g., Reagan, Claworthy, Urquhart. If I were looking for a political Christian role model, it would be Jimmy Carter, who has been excoriated by the Christian right. Turn the other cheek, feed the poor, heal the sick, share our abundance, let the little immigrant children come unto me — those are now socialist principles, not Jesus principles.
Amazingly, there is a video of the Urquharts in the castle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3YiPC91QUk
The Christianists who dominate our current political climate have no use for the New Testament part of the Bible, the origin of the socialist principles. They are much more interested in the theocratic authoritarian part of the Bible.
Anyone ever see the House of Cards series on the BBC? The main character’s name is Francis Urquhart and he is a Tory set on a fairly Machiavellian path to become Prime Minister. *That* Urquhart was gleefully immoral and power-mad and entertaining as all get out. Unlike our local specimen whose wit is limited to finding Nazis under his bed.