Just a really boring debate tonight. Almost no new material other than a few new twists on immigration and Iraq, already the most over-asked topic of the debates thus far. Interestingly, the questions to almost all the candidates were very tough. Next time someone says Fox is just cream puffs to Republicans send them a tape of this debate.
For the leading contenders on stage not much changed. John McCain clearly had his best night in a while. Decisive, firm, and knowledgeable. His campaign is still running on fumes but one can sense the "John McCain revival" story on the tips of some reporters typing fingers waiting to be written if anything else good happens for McCain in the near future after this debate.
Rudy Giuliani was pretty good, though he took a beating from the Frank Luntz focus group on Fox right after the debate concluded. They didn't like the New York City-centric answers. Neither did Rich Lowry and former Rudy-hand Patrick Ruffini has lamented a similar such problem in the past. That being said, Giuliani is still pretty darn good even when he's not having a great night.
Likewise for Romney. Even when he's on his heels from tough questions, like tonight, he holds together well. He wasn't quite the model of polished articulateness on all his answers as is expected of him now by the pundits. He also doesn't always give the most forceful answer on issues that are not already determined. That may serve him very well as a prudent Executive but gives others the chance to pounce in debates where cute lines sometimes beat intelligent ones in the post-debate spin game. But he still looked solid and stayed gaffe free. That's probably the ultimate goal for both he and Giuliani at this point without Fred Thompson on stage.
Huckabee was his usual charming, witty self, including his performance of the obligatory Ron Paul smackdown. If he can ever raise some coin and get an actual Presidential campaign together he might make some real progress.
Now, will someone please get Ron Paul off the stage. He'd almost be comical if it weren't for his loony answers that provoked even the moderators to spare with him. Likewise this idiotic statement in the midst of the most gutless answer I've ever heard from any potential President on a major foreign policy question:
"'The President goes to Congress to find out if there's a threat to national security.'"
Excuse me? No, the President is supposed to act like an Executive. To lead. To make difficult decisions and act with the appropriate consultation and support of Congress where needed. Take your isolationism and go home, please.
Which reminds me, any candidate not yet mentioned probably shouldn't be on the stage either. Maybe they shouldn't be forced out, but the writing is on the wall and few people are learning anything about the votes they'll cast for President by hearing from them further in such settings.
UPDATE: I see from the comments this post has been captured by the Internet news feeds of the Paulites. Sigh. Tell you what fellas, your guy cracks 5% in any independent national poll or a poll in any of the states voting/caucusing in January and maybe we'll start to care. But, I doubt it.
UPDATE II: Last paragraph fixed.
Posted by Eric Earling at September 05, 2007 10:04 PM | Email ThisI would think it would be clear by now, every time the 60% of the shrinking/shrunken GOP attacks Ron Paul on Iraq, then the other 40% think even more highly of him and coalesce around him. I hope they keep on attacking, but the lies are getting a little bizarre and blatant. And I predict we will have a REAL convention with multiple ballots for the first time in 50 years.
By the way Fox had people phone in text messages to vote in a poll for the winner of the debate tonight. I am sure that they only allowed one vote per cell phone. Guess who one.
Yep for the umpteenth time: Ron Paul at 30+%, twice that of the next person, with the rest all closely grouped nearby and only a couple at less than 5%.
It is shaping up to be one of the better races for President in my life time, and I am over 50. Real issues are being discussed, with real deep seated and important philosophies being actually debated. I never thought I would get a chance to see it!
Posted by: DenisL on September 5, 2007 10:13 PMOn June 5, 2007, in Manchester, New Hampshire, Rep. Paul was asked if he would end the federal raids on medical marijuana patients in states that have approved its use. He responded, "That's something that the president can do. I could just say, 'state law overrides federal law,' instead of federal law coming down with a heavy hand. I think you can do a lot to end that war without congressional changes because we have the authority, especially if you're a state -- states willing to take on some of these issues. So if a state wanted to start using that authority, they would be allowed."
Here is the only Republican candidate I could consider right now.
Posted by: Publicbulldog on September 5, 2007 10:34 PMI have to disagree when you call a Constitutional response "loony" or "idiotic."
From Article 1, Section 8:
"The Congress shall have Power... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water"
This has to be the most uninformed quotes I have read all night.
"Excuse me? No, the President is supposed to act like an Executive. To lead. To make difficult decisions and act with the appropriate consultation and support of Congress where needed. Take your isolationism and go home, please."
First off its the Executive Branch, not the CEO. Despite recent trends in the White House, the president himself is not the Supreme Leader who can do what he wants, where he wants, when he wants and to whom he wants. Ever hear of Checks and Balances? That is an ideal that prevents Dictatorial powers from falling in the hands of the one who will "lead".
Next, the Constitution clearly states that the President must have congressional approval to start a war. I would think that faced with a difficult decision of sending young American men and women to die, We the People would consider it common sense to consult with a elected body of representitives (Congress). Apparently the founding fathers understood that power breeds corruption and gave us the wonderful amendment to guide our government during such times as these.
And finally, "support of congress where needed"? How about support of congress when the law says it is required? You make Congress out to seem like a tool of the President when the fact is Congress and the president themselves are the tools of We the People.
Take your Face-ism (see the authors superficial quick debate thoughts) and go watch re-runs of Law and Order.
Our country is at stake here Mr. Earling, and sound politics must take a back seat to the truth.
One of Our forfathers said that very same thing.
So you wrote this article to bash Ron Paul? Care to comment on your gaffe regarding presidential powers? Or do you stand behind your Eye of Sauron interpretation of the American Presidency?
Forget the debates and polls that you see on the mainstream media. Your site is FAR from mainstream and your I hate Ron Paul and Freedom talking points are losing big time to the Constitutional Patriots in this forum.
You posted an article bashing Ron Paul with little more than second thought. You got called out on it, and now you are going to turn your article in to an internet issue.
If it wasn't for the internet, you wouldn't be getting a free education on the constitution. So maybe rather than digging up old excuses for Ron Pauls popularity, you should go out and do some research and formulate an informed opinion.
5%?
Send me an email in November and tell me you were not kidding.
Congress can declare war all they want but it is the executive's job to carry out war. Ron Paul likes to stick to the wording of the Constitution, well, Declaring War = ooooh I'm scared, using military force=President's job. Did you also notice that a state is allowed to wage war without approval of Congress if it was invaded or if there is a mere threat of imminent danger?
Posted by: Doug on September 6, 2007 06:53 AMOk now here is a national poll of over 39,000 participants done by grassfire.org...
Ron Paul is at 13%... 'Can you hear me now'?
quote - "When asked whom they would vote for if the Republican primary were held today, 28 percent preferred Fred Thompson (up from 26 percent in May), whose closest rival, Mitt Romney, gained 14 percent of the vote (down 2 percent from May). "Despite talk of Thompson's stalled campaign this summer, conservatives have not lost confidence in the former Senator," says Grassfire.org President Steve Elliott.
Rep. Ron Paul showed the biggest gain from Grassfire's May poll, rising from seventh position (6 percent) to a solid third position (13 percent) -- a more than a 50 percent increase in support among grassroots conservatives. Mike Huckabee's support also rose, from 3 to 7 percent. "Paul's rise shows that conservatives are not all that thrilled with the anointed frontrunners," says Elliott. "Paul's message is resonating with many conservatives, and it would be wise for the other candidates to take note."
Ok now that a 'national poll' has him at over 5% and FOX NEWS had a text message poll with Ron Paul at 33%, what do you have to say now?
Gosh we are all waiting....
Posted by: Dan Warner on September 6, 2007 08:18 AMI saw the guys for the first time last night. Paul, Tancredo and my guy, Hunter, looked out of place. Huckabee was Presidential, but he is only a governor of Arkansas- hardly a good training ground.
And Fox did ask tough questions. No wonder the Ds didn't want to be there.
Posted by: swatter on September 6, 2007 08:27 AMOr more likely they didn't want to answer questions submitted by Bill 'skitzo' O'Riley.
That said, I agree with you somewhat about what he said. Perhaps not to the same degree, but yes, Paul has a very warped view of the Executive. I agree with him on the limits of federal power, but not on this, at all.
Only one that believes, and practices, limited gub'mint.
The R's have left the party of limited government, low taxes, and keeping their nose out of my bedroom, and morphed into a differently named liberal party.
The only way to get the ship back on course, is to pay attention to what the Federal charter is.
Ron Paul does that. I wish he had a snowballs chance.......
When my Fremont Liberal friends start saying they like the guy, which they have, you gotta give him credit.
Eric--turn off your diss machine.
The Geez
Posted by: The Geezer on September 6, 2007 10:22 AMIt's a stretch to call the GOP liberal -- certainly, some elements of the party lean liberal on some issues, like Bush and the Congress on No Child Left Behind, but that doesn't mean the GOP as a whole supports it, and I am not even sure a majority does -- but yes, it's gone too far to the left. And that is why I am glad Paul is there: he can help pull the rest of the party back to the right.
As to your Fremont Liberal friends, there's not a snowball's chance in hell they would ever vote for Paul once they learned about all of his views. Elimintate Social Security, Medicare, FDA, FTC, OSHA ... no liberal (by today's definition) could support Paul and still be called a liberal. He is in every way the antithesis of liberal. He's not even liberal on most federally relevant social issues, since he is anti-abortion and anti-gay-marriage!
Posted by: pudge on September 6, 2007 02:06 PMRon Paul is against abortion, yes, but believes it should be up to the states to decide (as it is on many other similar issues); a stance that Romney has now decided to take as well. I would like to know where you learned that Ron Paul is anti-gay marriage. Everything I have heard Paul say on this and similar issues is that he supports any association by choice, whether it be a business, personal, religious association is irrelevant.
Posted by: DavidM on September 6, 2007 03:37 PMWhy is that important? Well, if you're a Democrat or independent that dislikes, or even hates, President Bush and/or the "neocon" agenda, you might consider having another neocon presidential candidate too much of a risk.
If you then, at the same time, feel that there isn't much difference between Clinton and Obama, you would probably cross-over and vote for the only anti-war Republican. If only to prevent another 2004-style neocon vs. socialist matchup.
Look for Ron Paul to do very well in the early primaries. His message of liberty and peace attracts a much broader audience than the candidates playing to the "base".
BTW, cell phone text message polls are probably much more accurate than the polls where they call land-lines during the day. If grandmas where a powerful constituency then the "national" polls would mean something.
Posted by: Joe on September 6, 2007 04:00 PMRon Paul is against abortion, yes, but believes it should be up to the states to decide (as it is on many other similar issues)
Yes, which liberals don't want. They want this to be a federal issue, so they don't have to worry about North Dakota banning it.
I disagree with Paul here anyway: it SHOULD be federal. As Paul himself has said: "If you can't protect life then how can you protect liberty?" And how can the government defend the liberties of all people in its borders if it cannot define who those people are? This is the same basic reasoning we used to intervene in the slavery issue, and just like those who said slavery was a state issue, people who say abortion should be a purely state issue are wrong.
I would like to know where you learned that Ron Paul is anti-gay marriage.
From a debate where he said he opposed gay marriage. From his statement in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (which was voted on the year before he took office). Like abortion, he believes federal government should have no involvement in the issue.
This position may be easier for many liberals to swallow, for the time being. But eventually they will want that federalized too. He is attempting to even disallow lawsuits in federal courts on the subject of gay marriage and gay rights, along with abortion and public displays of religion on government property, which would be something pretty much anathema to every liberal.
I agree with him on gay marriage in both his public and personal views; I agree with him on his personal abortion views, but less so his public ones. But liberals disagree with him in whole, or significantly in part, on all counts.
Joe @ 24:
It takes a lot more than a proper understanding of the Constitution to be President.
Posted by: pudge on September 6, 2007 04:12 PMActually, Ron Paul supports a U.S. Constitutional Amendment to acknowledge that children in the womb (from the moment of conception) have the unalienable right to life. (So I've been told by one of his biggest supporters who works on his campaign)
Pudge @ 26,
I thought I remembered you being on the opposite end of that states rights thing about a year ago and the comparison with slavery. Am I wrong? If not, I'm glad you've come around.
Posted by: Michelle on September 7, 2007 01:00 AMBy keeping contentious and deeply emotional social issues at the state level, we make it much harder for a small group of people to greatly impact the lives of everybody. It's a liberty thing.
If these issues are dealt with on a state by state basis, it creates a sort of competition among states that drives them to be more attractive to the citizens. If there are big differences in the 50 states on a given issue, people and businesses will vote with their feet and move, causing declining tax revenue and dragging down the economy in the states losing people. That creates political pressure in the state legislatures to "do something" to make the state more attractive to people and business.
Now if we just social ideology as a blanket federal policy, we eliminate the competition of policy and reduce our liberty.
You just have to realize that people are never going to agree on some things. The only way for us to live happily then is to have the states cater to the varying ideologies amongst the citizens. The people in North Dakota are probably not going to agree with the people in California, so why should California be able to dictate to North Dakota?
Now don't tell me that the Senate is the check on that. Ever since the 17th amendment made senators popularly elected, the equal representation protection has greatly diminished. Popularly elected senators lost their immunity from purchasing power of large constituents and corporations.
Prior to the 17th amendment, the states were the largest PACs at the federal level because they had to represent their state's interests or lose their jobs. Now, unfortunately, we have senators from the MPAA, Microsoft, and Exxon rather than senators from California, Washington, and Texas.
In the current federal representation system, we have to fight hard for increased federalism or we will continue down this path of increasingly angry factions of the electorate getting completely irrational in their thinking (e.g. America must lose in Iraq so that MoveOn.org can win the argument).
Federalism is the way to cool off the culture war and bring it back from the bitter brinkmanship we've seen in the last 18 years.
Posted by: Joe on September 7, 2007 10:50 AMThe states didn't agree on slavery. Should we have left it up to each state to decide?
Posted by: Michelle on September 7, 2007 12:09 PMI understand that. But it doesn't change the fact that the federal government is obligated to decide who the Bill of Rights applies to.
As I mentioned, as Michelle said: this is not significantly different from slavery. Yes, slavery was mentioned in the Constitution, but that is a distinction without a difference, since the Constitution left it up to the states. As Abigail Adams said, there is an inherent disconnect among people who have claim to have a "passion for Liberty" yet engage in "depriving their fellow Creatures" of the same.
The Constitution speaks directly to the rights of The People, both individually and collectively. It makes no sense for the federal government to punt on just who The People are.
Yes, it is not easy. Yes, there will be disagreement. We had a Civil War over slavery. And that's why I am more Lincolnian on this: I am for the eventual abolition of abortion. I don't want to make it illegal tomorrow, at risk to the union. But I do want it abolished, because (paraphrasing Lincoln) "there is no reason in the world why the [unborn] is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence -- the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
He went on, criticizing Douglas directly: "When Douglas invites any people, willing to have slavery, to establish it, he is blowing out the moral lights around us. When he says he 'cares not whether slavery is voted down or voted up' -- that it is a sacred right of self-government -- he is, in my judgment, penetrating the human soul and eradicating the light of reason and the love of liberty in this American people."
So too do I believe that saying that it is the sacred right of self-government to allow the unborn to be killed "penetrates the human soul and eradicates the light of reason and the love of liberty in this American people."
Federalism does not mean "everything should be done by the states." Federalism means everything not granted, explicitly or implicitly, to the federal government should be done by the states. The existence of a Bill of Rights that grants rights to The People implies we know who The People are, and thus crying Federalism is beside the point.
I agree with everything you are saying, from the folly of the 17th Amendment to the brilliance of Federalism and role of the states ... but not in the case of fundamental recognition of a human's existence such that they can have their rights recognized. No. On this I will not bend, however, I will not rush to have it accomplished immediately, either.
Posted by: pudge on September 7, 2007 01:45 PMI like him, except for that one issue, but it happens to be a significant issue. The pro-life is a red herring issue that too many republicans are hung up on. As long as the candidates will not fund abortions by the Government, I am OK with it.
The pro-life zealots will help get Hillary elected by not voting. Guilliani had better rectify his position on funding of abortions, or he won't win due to the pro-life zealots.
Posted by: KS on September 7, 2007 10:25 PMFirst, a majority of Democrats agreed it was a Good Thing. Kerry even said, just after the invasion, that he agreed with the invasion. Yes, they didn't start it, but a majority of the country and overwhelming majority of both houses of Congress were behind it, and pushing it along.
Second, Bush was (re)elected in 2004 by the greatest number of voters ever, right in the middle of this war.
Of course, none of that matters since he has no chance to win the nomination, no chance to win the general if he did win, and no chance to be capable of governing if he won the Presidency. I like Ron Paul and agree with many of his stands, but even if I agreed with him on every issue, he simply could not win, and could not govern if he did.
Posted by: pudge on September 7, 2007 11:53 PMConservatism used to mean avoiding foreign policy entanglements that could jeopardize our liberty at home.
The only true conservative in the race is Ron Paul.
When Ron Paul loses the Republican nomination, then I will be voting Libertarian, because it feels good to defend your values, and your vote will not determine the outcome anyway. Voting for the lesser of two evils just puts your moral stamp of approval on all the evils your lesser-of-two-evils candidate backs.
I vote Libertarian, and sleep well at night.
A good deal.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on September 8, 2007 11:33 AMAnd yes, big government conservatism IS an oxymoron, which is why I am not a fan of Huckabee, and I am leery of Giuliani, and I am angry at Bush and the formerly Republican Congress.
But to say Paul is the only true conservative ... please, don't be so dishonest. Tell me, how is Fred not conservative? Or McCain? And don't give me one or two examples, because I can do the same of Paul. For example, to be conservative also means to follow the Constitution and rule of law, yet Paul falsely states that the Iraq War was illegal, and that "the people" can't be held responsible for the acts of "a few neocons," even though "the people" re-elected Bush. Not very conservative there.
Of course, you could come up with more McCain examples than I could Paul examples. But more Fred examples than Paul examples? I doubt it.
I vote Republican, and I sleep VERY well at night.
Perhaps TOO well.
Hmmmmm.
Posted by: pudge on September 8, 2007 12:03 PMI simply don't think he would be a good President. Even if I agreed with him on foreign policy (for example, he was right when he said that Osama attacked us in significant part for things we'd done, though he was wrong to apparently imply that therefore we should not have done those things; further, he is dead wrong when he says we should abolish the CIA, though it could use some serious reform), and even though I agree with him mostly on domestic policy, I still think he would be an absolutely terrible President.
Being right isn't enough. John Adams was far more right than Thomas Jefferson, and JQ Adams than Andrew Jackson, yet both Adamses were ineffective Presidents, because they were men without parties. We know a President without a party cannot work and we know that's what Paul would be. He wouldn't be able to get anything done, which I realize is the Libertarian's dream, but while it might be beneficial in many cases, it would be terrible in others.
Paul cannot win the nomination, as his foreign policy is largely wrong according to Republicans (even apart from the Iraq War), and I agree with them. If he did win, he cannot win the general election, because liberals and moderates, who comprise the majority of the country, would correctly see him as far too radical. If he did win that, he could not govern effectively for very long, because the Congress would refuse to work with him on most things.
Feel free to LIKE Ron Paul. And to vote for him. But let's not pretend he has a chance to win, or to succeed if he does.
Posted by: pudge on September 8, 2007 12:13 PM