Tonight's Republican debate was at times thrilling, at times maddening, at times a bore.
The lede will be Fred Thompson taking an absolute hammer to Mike Huckabee - or as Jonathan Martin aptly said, Thompson dropped a "daisy cutter" on him. Huckabee also stumbled to answer questions about his campaign chair's dismissal of the Reagan coalition and a Mike Wallace question to him on tax hikes and the growth of government in Arkansas.
Fred was on fire tonight, no doubt leaving many an early backer thinking "where has this guy been for the last few months?" But truth be told, Thompson giving Huckabee a beating as part of his last stand in South Carolina probably only helps John McCain, the man most likely to beat Huckabee in the Palmetto State. If I was part of the Huckabee campaign, I would not be thrilled Thompson is going to spend the rest of his time until the 19th in South Carolina going after Huck if he does so with any of the same vigor that he displayed tonight.
Speaking of McCain, not enough people realize he's the closest thing this crazy race has to a front-runner. If he wins Michigan and South Carolina - both real possibilities - he becomes the clear leader by depressing default. He has to be taken back down a notch by the other candidates, which really didn't happen...even though he may have bled just a little bit near the end during the discussion on immigration.
Props, however, to Rudy for calling McCain on his continued rhetorical device of sounding like the only person who is right on issues like the surge. Such "I'm the only one who ever believed this" type of oratory is obnoxiously sanctimonious.
The only other highlight of the evening was the foreign policy joke that is Ron Paul. McCain was almost openly laughing at him, even aside from Paul's Admiral Stockdale moment of apparently not being able to hear anything and being chided by Brit Hume for giving a bizarre answer. I realize he has an "R" next to his name but he is ridiculously outside the mainstream of Republican Party thought on major foreign and economic policy issues. He shouldn't be part of the January 24th debate in Florida, especially as the race continues to narrow after Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina.
All that said, it seemed like a pretty status quo affair aside from the the Fred v. Huck beatdown and the Ron Paul shenanigans.
Last point, does anyone else agree Chris Wallace's line of questioning the first 15 minutes was useless? The federal government can do very little in the short-term to seriously affect a recession, beyond making moves that solidify the long-term confidence of the market and the populace with the American economy. The federal government certainly can't "fix" a recession.
Tax cuts to non-affluent American offer some stimulus but not a great deal, especially in the long-term. Tax cuts that boost investment activity help the stock market in the short-term, and thus consumer confidence to some degree, plus that investment activity obviously creates jobs in the long-term. But there is very little the federal government can do to immediately (and positively) influence an economic cycle. Thus, Wallace's continued insistence on hearing how the candidates would offer short-term fixes was inane...even before you consider the fact such proposals would have to go through that speedy institution called "Congress."
Posted by Eric Earling at January 10, 2008 08:06 PM | Email Thisand he laughs at Dr. Paul - how sad this all is .
Posted by: truthseeker on January 10, 2008 08:10 PMI think Huckabee will get a good long-term bounce from this debate, he looked good and was pretty convincing on explaining why it is that we select Governors to be Presidents and not Senators. Rudy held his own with McCain, so obviously he can't be counted out.
Chris Wallace was just continuing his lobbying softballs at Romney to begin debates. I don't think he does Fox network any good - not as bad as Blitzer and CNN though.
Posted by: Doug on January 10, 2008 08:11 PMThe fact that the man couldn't be bothered for 15 years to check to see what someone was doing in his name COMPLETELY disqualifies him from being even remotely worthy of the office of President. The president has a lot of people who do things in his name. Life or death things for a great many people. I want someone in that position that cares just a wee bit more about what people do in his name than Ron Paul has clearly shown.
Posted by: M. Sanchez on January 10, 2008 08:18 PMI am ashamed of how people are so blind to this truth in a country that I love so much. (PS - I am an immigrant ;)
...jerk
Posted by: Dmitriy on January 10, 2008 08:27 PMCan we PLEASE get all the Ronbots off this thing?
Posted by: cliff on January 10, 2008 08:32 PMFirst, you're wrong about Paul, in two ways. First: he is not outside the mainstream so much on economic policy, as monetary policy specifically. The rest of his economic policy is very mainstream. I suppose I could say the same for his foreign policy: it's very mainstream, except for where it isn't. :-)
And while those differences are not insignificant, to say he is not a Republican is terribly silly. That's just as bad as The Reagan Wing calling Romney or McCain -- or you -- a RINO. Seriously, it makes you look bad to make the implication.
Second : he absolutely should be in the debate. As Fred rightly said, this is about the heart and soul of the Republican Party, and if someone has some ideas and generates a significant amount of interest, he should be on that stage. Period.
As to McCain being the closest thing to a frontrunner, yes, but qualified yes. If he wins SC and MI, sure. But if he wins SC and Mitt wins MI, then no. So he is the closest thing to a frontrunner ... but he isn't one. Mitt is still most likely to win MI. We'll see.
And as to Thompson, he still has a chance here. Probably not to win the nomination outright, sure, but if he can pick up a significant number of delegates, he could become the consensus choice at convention. For the most part, neither Romney nor McCain supporters hate Thompson, but they hate each other's candidate an awful lot. :-) If we have (picking numbers out of a hat) 35 percent Romney, 35 percent McCain, and 20 percent Thompson ... look out. He could become the VP nominee that way, sure, but he could even become the Presidential nominee that way.
It's unlikely though. Not because he won't get 20 percent -- though that's unlikely too, of course, but if he catches fire now, you never know -- but because even if we don't have a nominee before convention, we very well could have other candidates drop out "for the good of the party" for the sake of the apparent frontrunner, if there is one.
One more thought: I keep hearing Fox is trying to kill off various candidates: Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, Huckabee, Romney, Paul. Maybe they are trying to kill of Paul, but as to the rest, it seems like every other week (or few days, now) they are pumping up a different candidate. Tonight, it was Fred.
But hey, enough of my yakkin'! Whaddya say? Let's boogie!
Posted by: pudge on January 10, 2008 08:33 PMYes, he talked about how he would solve every problem, both real and imaginary, but the problem his, that his solutions would likely make things worse. Isolationism, a gold standard, and essentially dissolving the federal government are not effective policies for the 21st century. Fortunately the more people hear form Paul the less they like him.
Posted by: Giffy on January 10, 2008 08:44 PMYou must have just turned 18 and think this has always been the GOP. Well guess what dipshit, Ron Paul espouses the ideals of the Republican party all the other candidates reminisce about.
Dr. Paul doesn't have to reminisce about it, he still lives it.
WAKE UP YOU ASSHAT!
Posted by: Enlightened One on January 10, 2008 08:48 PMYou must have just turned 18 and think this has always been the GOP. Well guess what dipshit, Ron Paul espouses the ideals of the Republican party all the other candidates reminisce about.
Dr. Paul doesn't have to reminisce about it, he still lives it.
WAKE UP YOU ASSHAT!
Posted by: Enlightened One on January 10, 2008 08:49 PMTo me it looks more and more like Huckabee has the 'great communicator' qualities that Reagan had - compared to the rest of the field, and I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up with the third place in delegates at the convention.
And don't leave out Rudy, for a guy who hasn't done a thing yet, he sure looked like he was on equal footing with the other guys.
As for these Paulbots - they're going to take up this thread in no time, just like they managed to vote enough to call Paul the winner of the debate - maybe that's where his money is being spent, text messaging? Eric doesn't need to disqualify Paul's Republican credential, it is obvious from the polling in NH and Iowa that it is Paul's supporters who not only are not Republicans but also would never vote Republican if it wasn't for an anti-war candidate.
Posted by: Doug on January 10, 2008 08:58 PMI think Fox made them look silly treating Paul they way they did. I did not see any 'Paul Shenanigans' I saw some fox shenanigans at Pauls expense.
Posted by: Travis on January 10, 2008 08:59 PMI must say, the Paulbots are really out in force this evening.
Posted by: Giffy on January 10, 2008 09:00 PMAs to Thompson, he cannot be counted out yet. He will have to either pull off a win or a very strong second in SC to get back in this. He may not do it, but he definitely did himself some good in SC tonight. We'll see if it is enough to change any of the dynamics.
Regardless of the idiotic text message vote and the people coming here to post about how great Ron Paul did, I beg to differ. That's just sad--he sounded good on a couple of questions where it was on domestic policy, but foreign policy? He was completely out of his depth. He will NOT do well in SC--that's for sure!
Posted by: Bill H on January 10, 2008 09:13 PMFinally, something he excelled in.
He babbled, he wandered, he answered questions that were not asked then blamed it on his "hearing" Good grief, I've heard more cogent conversation from a 90yr old in the throes of senile dementia.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 10, 2008 09:20 PMThat's the funniest thing I've ever heard.
That's like someone saying Brittany Spears is the only parent who understands parenting.
Posted by: cliff on January 10, 2008 09:22 PMAs my 19yr old would say: "What a tool".
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 10, 2008 09:24 PMAnd as to the numbers, I already said, the numbers were just examples.
And I do leave out Rudy. I've said for about a year now that he has no chance. He can't get 50 percent of the delegates, and he can't win the nomination at convention because he can't be the consensus candidate for a bunch of party activists.
And Huckabee is in the same boat.
If it goes to convention, only three of the currently running candidates are POSSIBLE winners: McCain, Romney, and Thompson. Giuliani and Huckabee cannot win 50 percent of the activists.
Even if Huckabee has 49 percent of the delegates, and Giuliani has 49 percent of the delegates, NEITHER ONE WILL WIN. OK, maybe that's stretching it a little bit, but it doesn't matter, because neither one will get that much. :-)
BTW, aren't the Republican caucus goers pledged to their candidate? If it's a split vote, the head of the ticket will be McCain or Rudy.
Posted by: Doug on January 10, 2008 11:17 PMSome of you claim the TNR article was fake and should be retracted. Others claim it is old news, that it has come up every year. Which is it?
Ron Paul has been exposed as a racist, that question about his character has been answered. What does it say about your character when you continue to worship this guy?
He was asked the question about his electability rather too politely, it seems to me.
It should have been asked something like this: "Hey moron, don't you get it? My Cocker Spaniel has a better chance of getting elected then you do, you racist bigot... why are you still out here wasting our time? I understand that Paulstown, Guyana is available... have you thought about moving? We'll take up a collection for the Kool Aid!"
Posted by: Hinton on January 10, 2008 11:19 PMRomney looks like the fraternal twin of John Kerry and he's got the carboard stiffness to match.
Romney=Unelectable. Just look it up in the American Heritage dictionary.
Does McCain have the necessary depth and charisma to move forward for this run at President? He's taking good vitamins, that's for sure.
Thompson was the grumpy old fart tonight. Why does he think he needs to attack Mike Huckabee to move his candidacy forward? It just makes him look desperate. Maybe he could pair up with Ron Paul for the newest version of the "Odd Couple".
Guiliani gave a better performance, but not nearly good enough to capture the imagination and fervor of the American public.
All in all, it looks like, despite an enormous disadvantage in funding, Mike Huckabee is making a good run for the nomination, McCain needs a string of victories to move forward, Mitt Romney is still unelectable, Fox News luuuuuvs Fred Thompson and this is just starting to get interesting.
Posted by: zapporo on January 10, 2008 11:45 PMWould that be the lesson that people are fed up with the increasing deficit (McCain the deficit hawk fixes that).
Would that be the lesson that the voters were fed up with Iraq (somehow the conservatives think Huckabee is soft on that issue).
Or would that be the lesson that we haven't done much to get our social conservative base back. (once again Huckabee addresses that).
I would like to know, what lesson it is that you say was to be learned.
Posted by: Doug on January 11, 2008 12:19 AMWhat fight are we loosing? If you mean Iraq I hate to break this to you, but I am over here in Iraq as I type and we are winning, the surge IS working and that is fact. Unlike the cut and run D's out there some of the candidates actually believe in our military.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on January 11, 2008 03:58 AMNote to Pudge: Do you think Romney should drop out if he doesn't win Mich?
Posted by: HillBill on January 11, 2008 05:25 AMThere were two exchanges that made McCain look bad. The first was the Giuliani comeback on the "lie" regarding McCain being the only presidential candidate to support the "surge", when he retorted that not only did he support the surge, but he was asked by the White House to go on TV and talk about it. Get real McCain! You got stuffed.
The second exchange was with Ron Paul and the question was Israel. McCain got not only stuffed but he was sent to the shredder for his comments. In this one question, Paul asked the question why do we give billions to countries that use the money to arm terrorists against Israel. He gave a couple of countries we were supporting. McCain was so upset he gave a stupid and incoherent response. The correct response was to keep quiet, but hey, Ron Paul has been used as a foil for all the debates to bolster one candidate or the other. "Butthead" McCain botched that answer.
Earlier, McCain made points on other national issues against Paul.
I also like these debates better if there is no one in the audience.
Posted by: swatter on January 11, 2008 06:30 AMRon Paul held up just fine last night, and he remains the conscious of the Party. The only one who seems to realize this, and stay out of an argument with him is Fred Thompson.
Posted by: LBuck on January 11, 2008 06:34 AMI honestly think your libertarian roots tilt your thinking on how close Paul is to mainstream conservative thought on economic (or more precisely, domestic) policy and foreign affairs. His thoughts on the Fed are comically unserious in the modern era. His views on the size and purpose of the federal government - including no FDA, no CIA, etc. - make the rest of the Republicans in Congress look like socialists in comparison. His foreign policy teeters on the edge of a naive isolationism that simply doesn't make sense in the 21st century. In short, as we've discussed, he'd make a great Republican in the late 19th century.
As for the debates, after Jan 19th we'll have had seven nominating contests to award delegates. There should be some reasonable way to determine who does and doesn't have a reputable, even if slim, chance at the nomination. At that point that's who should be on the stage.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 11, 2008 06:53 AMI agree that the Paultards will soon return to their basement safehouses to search cyberspace for black helicopters, still unshowered and wearing the same clothing and glasses they did in 1967. If they do venture out to vote, the ballot and the daylight will confound them into the dreaded "South Florida Plague", which struck that state in 2000, leading to attacks of mindlessness, confusion and outright cretinism. To this day, many in Broward County are still uncertain who they voted for or why. It is rumored King County Elections hired some of these simple-minded South-Floridians to count votes, but this is entirely unfounded. But in the midst of all this, we have one thing to be thankful for, that Bruce Guthrie has apparently chosen somewhere else to spin his vile brand of lunacy.
Posted by: Saltherring on January 11, 2008 06:59 AMI'm still in favor of some sort of a round-up...much the same as IKE did and also Truman. We have alot more of them to deal with but we need to get the fence built & start the process of exporting.
Both Guiliani & Huckabee are soft on this issue..and most Americans want the rule of law observed. No more sanctuary cities...even though Guiliani seemed to be proud of the fact that he made sure that children of illegals were given all kinds of attention when he was mayor. His bragging grates on most Americans. Doesn't he realize that the taxpayer foots the bill & more of them will come to drink from a spigot that isn't running dry?
Posted by: Susu on January 11, 2008 07:02 AMI couldn't watch the debate, but from the sounds of it, it must have had some life to it. I do think the debates are getting more lively as we drop out some of the players who don't stand a chance. When there where eight, nine, etc., there were too many to have a real debate.
What I do find interesting though is the trend these posts get into. It seems everyone is quick to jump all over the candidates they don't like and call them liberals, RINOs (whatever that may mean to them), wacko's, etc. It isn't really a discussion. It becomes who can shout down the other respondents the most. No one gives serious thought to the others responses. They fail to listen and understand where they are coming from. I have tried. I have tried to ask question to understand the thinking. I get ridiculed.
Well if this is how so-called Republicans want to conduct yourselves, then lots of luck. You will be in the same boat as the Democrats, a shrinking lot. You wonder why Independents are the same portion of the population as the parties. It is because of the name-calling and infighting. No one really wants to work at solving problems. They only want their solution or their opponents can go to hell. You wonder why the candidates who support bipartisanship are winning. Well look in the mirror.
Posted by: tc on January 11, 2008 07:12 AMEnjoy your frivolities now for tomorrow shall be judgement day. In his greatness and glory he shall deliver his wrath and bring glory to all the believe.
All hail Ron Paul (praise be upon him)!
Posted by: MyGodPaul on January 11, 2008 07:22 AMI don't think your characterization is quite right. You may have had trouble getting serious response from some commenters, but I've also seen you have serious discussion with others. You just don't happen to agree with or like their answers on this topic.
In answer to another of your points, there are a lot of conservatives who don't think McCain is the best candidate. They don't trust him after his years of poking his finger in their eye, and never will. There are some Republicans who disagree with their brethren at times and vote accordingly in Congress. Republicans can generally live with that (see Dave Reichert). John McCain has a history of signing on as lead sponsor of legislation opposed by Republicans, joining Democrats at the press conference unveiling the bill, then going on the Sunday shows to explain to his fellow Republicans why they're wrong. That's not a splendid strategy for developing a base of support within your own party.
You may think John McCain is a great candidate. Lots of Republicans don't. And their frustration with him is so deep (and has been written about so many times), that not many commenters here are going to want to spell out for you what they see as a long-standing issue.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 11, 2008 07:32 AMHere is the link to the editorial endorsement:
Human Events Endorsement of Fred Thompson
Posted by: Bill H on January 11, 2008 07:33 AMI would think five years as a POW trying to thwart the enemy with tricks and anything else they can try, unfortunately, has warped/twisted the way he responds to crisis or situation. Ergo, the taking of the opposite side of the party he represents on a lot of issues. Great American, though and a true ally in the fight aginst Jihadists.
Posted by: swatter on January 11, 2008 07:40 AMOne of the factors that is going to come into play in this election, whether Republicans like it or not is middle class economics. The candidate, on either side, that speaks best to the middle class needs will be the eventual winner.
David Brooks has an interesting opinion piece out about this issue. The link is http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/opinion/11brooks.html?ref=opinion. I am not sure if I buy all his reasoning, but I do like the new term he uses at the end "Sam's Club Republicans."
Cheers,
TC
LOL
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 11, 2008 08:02 AMHello? If your strategery is to hold off on the early primaries, then by golly you need to plan your expenditures accordingly.
At least Romney funded his according to plan through New Hampshire and Iowa.
I kind of wish all the candidates money ran out so none of them would run TV ads. I don't mind the money spent to print buttons, signs and brochures, but TV and radio ads? They are pricey. Shame on Giuliani for not planning ahead.
Posted by: swatter on January 11, 2008 08:17 AMI would much prefer to see them have primary voters give a first, second, and third place vote and use those second and third choices to see if a single candidate can achieve greater than 50% from a consensus standpoint. Then award all of the delegates based on the consensus choice.
Just some of my thoughts on choosing a candidate that would represent the most acceptable among the primary voters...
Posted by: Bill H on January 11, 2008 08:53 AMThat the GOP base is fed up with crony, corrupt, statist, pork barrel govt. McCain is part of the problem. I will never vote for John McCain. I will donate money to any serious GOP contender in Arizona willing to take on the Ted Kennedy of the GOP in the Senate primary. I don't want John McCain in the United States Senate and I really do not want him any where near the White House.
McCain or Huckabee = easy Democrat win. McCain and Huckabee are Democrats, which is why the media wants the GOP to nominate them.
Posted by: AP on January 11, 2008 09:10 AMLook at the numbers closely.
sandwich 3.25 minimum wage $6.00
There were incentives for everyone
Consumer good deal buys often
business owner makes profit
government spends lots of sales taxes.
Sandwich $7.50 minimum wage $8.00
where are encentives.
consumer-7.50 for a sandwich is not a good deal.
business owner -Overhead is too high,profit is lost.
Government sales taxes lost
Now instead of opening a small business to generate cash flow, you open a business to play the profit and loss game.
We have kiiled the golden goose before it could lay the golden egg.Instead of sending the state a check for $3,000 dollars in sales taxes I send them $1,500 then nothing.We had the perfect economic formula but we lost it.I watched the golden goose get killed,I saw what killed it.I blame most of that on criminal justice overfunding because that is the single biggest increase in overhead between 1984 and 1994.
No other branch of government increased by as much as criminal justice.We must reduce spending to lower the costs of goods in order to get more sales taxes.We need to show fiscal constraint.
We need to ask for less and get more.
Ron Paul's policies would have asked for less in the form of government overhead and gotten us more in the form of sales taxes.
Now it will be a choice between social overhead or moral positives overhead.Same old 10 dollar cornish game hen,and waiting for the day when soylant green will be distributed to the poor on wednesdays.
Dismiss Ron Paul,and you dismiss the chance to revive the golden goose....
The other Republican candidates will not be able to change the corporate gouge syndrome that is going on today.
"I don't believe either of them IS a "consensus" candidate."
Posted by: Bill H on January 11, 2008 09:31 AM...be sure to click on the PDF link...
Someone please make sure this poor guy can afford his much needed meds... and that he gets enough to share with his Paulbearers
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 11, 2008 09:32 AMThat's one of the most uncivil, personal attacks I've had on this site.
Such attacks are the kinds of things people do when they have no rational points to make. They are also damaging to civlity in society. This is the kind of thing I don't usually see from conservatives.
But I guess there are some in every crowd.
I try to keep it civil. Won't you do the same?
Unfortunately for you, I have not chosen some other place. I just got busy at work.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 11, 2008 09:42 AMEver since you stated in a previous post that John Wilkes Booth was justified in assassinating Abraham Lincoln you lost all credibility with rational Americans. You are indeed a twisted and pathetic individual.
Posted by: Saltherring on January 11, 2008 10:07 AMbulldog, simple economic question for you. Why is it a big deal for the poor to pay $10 for a two bite cornish game hen, when, even I, only have to pay $6 for a huge chicken or $10 for a 20-lb turkey? I don't feel a need to buy game hens, so why is it that poor have such a need?
Posted by: swatter on January 11, 2008 10:20 AMDo you consider someone who would advocate assassination of a sitting U.S. President rational? Sadly, I guess there are those on the fringes of reality who do.
Posted by: Saltherring on January 11, 2008 10:26 AMGreat article.
Posted by: The Pirate on January 11, 2008 10:33 AMYou really need to get back on those meds, as I see the bong hits aren't cutting it. And life in Chimacum is great. You ought to climb out of your mother's basement and check it out.
Posted by: Saltherring on January 11, 2008 10:42 AMYonto stay in Iraq for 100 years wonsmore war.
Smatterchew paultards for wanting more sales taxes.
See ya'll at the corporate gouge
LOL
Naw, just as it takes at least two guns to have a gunfight, it takes at least two brains to have a war of words. I guess you could say kat (and I) have just been funnin' with an "unarmed" man.
Posted by: Saltherring on January 11, 2008 11:30 AMI noted that in post number 77, you stated that there is a reason we came off the gold standard.
I would absolutely love it if you, specifically you, could elaborate as to what that reason was.
Some suggested reading for you might include this book: What has government done to our money? by Murray N. Rothbard.
I'd be happy to read any suggested reading you can offer in return.
For those bearing the racism torch, we've heard it, and it's no more true now that you've screamed it a million times than it was the first time.
Relax, it's clear that the American people don't want his brand of government, so you needn't try to smear a good man every chance you get, knowing full well inside yourself that you're just doing it to troll his supporters.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on January 11, 2008 11:42 AMWe had it Christmas Eve.
Thanks for your interest.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 11, 2008 12:04 PMSince this is all getting so strangely weird and bizarre, signing off. Have a good weekend, all! :):)
Posted by: katomar on January 11, 2008 12:06 PMYOU should be telling us why he SHOULD be elected, not the otherway around.
This is a cheap debate club trick of having to prove a negative.
So tell us this: When did RP stop beating his wife? (See how it works?)
Posted by: Sam Adams on January 11, 2008 12:14 PMDo what? Pander?
Shrillary only did that because she wants to win.
Posted by: Sam Adams on January 11, 2008 12:27 PMAs opposed to you, the Atheist/Muslim hating, socialist paranoia nut?
You bring shame to the name Ragnar Danneskjold. Ann Raynd would be spinning in her grave if she knew you were using her character is such spiteful ways.
I mean no offense against Ragnar, as I often agree with his views when he posts them without the vitriol against Paul, but the persona that is posting here is something of an enigma.
It's Ayn Rand, by the way - and the book in question is my favorite book :)
Posted by: Andrew Brown on January 11, 2008 12:53 PMHey Ragnar you hit it right on the head.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 11, 2008 12:54 PMSo much info is coming out on RP writings and his people scream it's wrong.
His excuse he didn't write them just doesn't work!
I know some of you are good people who liked his libertarian idea of small government, less taxes, etc. but his message is mixed with racist, anti-semitic ideas that are delusional and paranoid.
Could you imagine a person who wrote the letter in the above link being in charge of our military? Our secrets? Our intelligence agencies? God, can you imagine that person even being allowed to park your car? I wouldn't let him.
Please people, we want you (the reasonable and sane ones) in the Republican party, and we want your ideas and passion for smaller government and more freedom, but Ron Paul is not the guy.
His voting record speaks volumes over some old writing. Have you bothered to take a look at it, or did you read the smear piece and stop questioning it any further?
Regards!
Posted by: Andrew Brown on January 11, 2008 01:21 PMHow can anyone accuse him of anti-semitism with a straight face? lol
Posted by: Andrew Brown on January 11, 2008 01:33 PMRP is going No where! I sure hope you never right a paper that smears Jews & blacks. because getting elected can become real hard.
(no matter how you voted for years)
I'll still write the guy in though. Everyone else is just ignoring the fact that we can't continue down the economic path we're on, unfortunately.
It unfortunately leaves me feeling pretty hopeless about the situation. I'm going to eventually have to explain to my 4 month old that her grandparents generation, and her parents generation chose to ignore our economic problems instead of addressing them, and that's why we live in a declining nation now.
All that said, it was already real hard for a guy like him to get elected and I never had any illusions about that. His message offers the relatively radical change that so many people claim to want, but shrink from when faced with the realities of what they may have to give up.
The sad part is? The amount of change is not much more than what has happened throughout my 27 year lifespan.
Ah well. I don't mean to get all emo on you guys :)
Posted by: Andrew Brown on January 11, 2008 02:35 PMMy trailer park as you call it has a great view of Hat Island.
The joke is on you fool
Posted by: a on January 11, 2008 03:39 PMMy trailer park as you call it has a great view of Hat Island.
The joke is on you fool
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 11, 2008 03:40 PMLook I understand how you feel, but I've been around much longer and I've seen many elections go up & down about who we elect. Heck I remember Jimmy Carter.
To be up front I really don't like any of these people ( either party) Now I do know Mr. Hunter and would really like to see him make it, but I can see he's just not getting noticed.
I give RP good credit on how he follows the law and spending, But this wacky side of him well be his own doom.
Don't give up yet. We made it thru Carter and we shall make it thru who ever we elect this time.
If the United States were a business, we'd be bankrupt.
Cheers though, bud, appreciate a civil discussion anytime!
Posted by: Andrew Brown on January 11, 2008 03:54 PMIt's available online, and is a pretty short read if you're interested in such subjects. This was required reading when I was a child.
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/rothmoney.pdf
Posted by: Andrew Brown on January 11, 2008 04:09 PMThe fact is, it's not just a few who think RP is wasting time and distracting from legitimate candidates.
Furthermore, since he and the Paulbearers have deluded themselves into thinking he is legitimate, they should be able to take the heat for his words and actions AND for those taken on his behalf.
Are you scare too many will find out the truth?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 11, 2008 04:59 PM"A West Coast newspaper whose name is an anagram for "talentless piglet erection" waxes sarcastic about President Bush's trip to the Middle East:..."
Yep, you guessed it: "talentless piglet erection" is indeed the anagram for Seattle Post Intelligencer!
How proud Seattle must be [/sarcasm].
HillBill: Rudy's doing the same thing in Florida, has been for quite some time, front porch campaigning. Funny how the article tried to paint a picture of an amazingly brave Hillary on her own in such a tough neighborhood. Do you really think she didn't have Secret Service watching her back? Reality check time.
Spot-on. I'm in LV right now (for the CES convention), and it was all over the TV and radio that her thighness would be in town, and the secret service were shuttind down major arterials anywhere near the restaurant. Brave? If I had 30 of the highest-trained folks around me, and had them spend 2 days preparing for my 30 minute visit, I'd be "brave" too...
I find it interesting her retort about one man's claim that another man's wife was an illegal immigrant...
QUOTE: "No woman is illegal" said HRC.
That right there should make everyone run from HRC...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 11, 2008 05:21 PM1. He is the only candidate in the field that has a consistant record of voting for signifigantly smaller government.
2. only 6% of the states have chosen their delagates and they are some of the smallest in the nation.
3. He has more delegates and votes so far than Rudy who I am told is still in the race.
4. He has more money than the other candates and easily enough to keep him through the super duper tuesday.
5. He is the only one that seems to understand we can not keep printing money and spending it without negative consequences.
6. He is the only candidate that will be able to beat a anti war platform the D's will take with their nominee. I am hoping the R's will recognize this in the case of a brokered convention.
Posted by: travis on January 11, 2008 05:31 PMI am curious, what would be the goal of hoarding gold to drive up the price of gold? And why is that not possible once the US government decides to print unlimited amount of money?
Travis
Posted by: Travis on January 11, 2008 05:36 PM If Dr. Paul would be elected The drug war would be over the war in Iraq would be over.
Come clean and admit that that is what really bothers you about Dr.Paul.
You anti paul types are afraid to see him go all the way and develop a real consensus on those issues.
You don't care about any racism issues,You care more about your sacred cows that he is pledging to put the brakes on.
You have demonstarted yourself to be nothing more than a fanatic religious nut that is willing to pay 10 bucks for a cornish game hen and 3.50 for a gallon of gas just to achieve your Moral Positives.
You are a representation of what our forefathers fled from.
The King(GeorgieB,And the church).
Well I got news for you there are not enough fanatical types like you to keep the King and church in power.
Good ridance religious right!
You have feared,You have lied,You have fallen flat on your religious rumpuses.
http://gillard.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/fox-news-censors-debate-re-runs/
They cut his best portions on the reruns of the debate. You have to wonder when they will drop the facade about being fair and balanced and just admit that they are Pro War, Pro Bush, Pro Big Government.
Posted by: Travis on January 11, 2008 08:03 PMYou regular conservatives are eventually going to get busted if you go around pretending to be for smaller government and at the same time support an optional, adventurous, aggressive war that kills and maims people, tears apart families and costs the treasury billions of dollars.
Bruce Ramsey said it better than I could a couple of days ago in the Seattle Times. He doesn't agree with everything Ron Paul says or thinks, and I disagree with even more things, but Ron Paul is riding a horse that is the future of conservatism--if there is a future for it. Republicans should be proud that the most anti-war candidate is finally from their party.
Go Ron!
New Left Conservative #1
Posted by: new left consrvative #1 on January 11, 2008 09:12 PM"2. only 6% of the states have chosen their delagates and they are some of the smallest in the nation."
It doesn't matter, there is 0% chance of him getting the Rep nomination. If you think for one moment that he can win, I have some property on the Moon I would like to sell you.
"3. He has more delegates and votes so far than Rudy who I am told is still in the race."
Honestly, do you think he really has a chance? If Rudy is doing so bad, that just means Rudy and Ron will be out soon.
"4. He has more money than the other candates and easily enough to keep him through the super duper tuesday."
Money does not equal sanity.
"5. He is the only one that seems to understand we can not keep printing money and spending it without negative consequences."
If you want to know his views on monetary policy, read this:
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/solicitation.pdf
The guy that wrote that is a slimy salesman or a delusional nutcase, or both.
"6. He is the only candidate that will be able to beat a anti war platform the D's will take with their nominee. I am hoping the R's will recognize this in the case of a brokered convention."
This is your judgement, but I feel it is incorrect. We are closer and closer to success in Iraq and America is realizing this. Do you think the people in this country want to force failure when we are so close to winning? Those that want failure in Iraq are so blinded by their hatred for Bush that they would rather their country be damaged then have an ounce of success for Bush. That is pathetic and treasonous.
I am giving up on your Paultards. This is my last post regarding you people. Please go ahead and leave the party and do what you want.
First before I respond to the numbers, If you have always thought I had rational responses and respected my opinion, then shouldn't you take a second to consider my points again? Also I must point out... I am not blindly loyal. I do not even agree with him on all issues and certainly do not follow him, I support his candidacy.
1. His record on small government is not a fraud. He openly and honestly admits to the earmarks. The earmarks do not increase spending just redirects it to his district. A good way to see how good a person is is to imagine if everyone were like him. What would congress be like if all 435 congressman asked for earmarks but then voted no on the actual bill if it contained unconstittuional spending? Would we have a smaller government? of course!
2. I agree... He has a small chance of winning. Despite all the talk about the 'horserace', the primary is not a horserace, it is an election where you should chose the person you think would be best for the position. That person is Paul even if it is unlikely he will win.
3. Yes I honestly think he has a chance. I admit at this point it looks like a small chance. My point however is that based on results to date he is doing better than Guiliani and MANY people think Guiliani has a good chance of winning.
4. You may disagree with Dr Paul but he is obviously not insane. If you wnat to claim he is, please provide some rational reasons. But to get away from your irrational response and go back to my point... money does equal a continued campaign. Do you not agree that money will allow the Paul campaign to continue to operate and buy advertisements?
5. You are probably right. What you are confused about is that the author of that was not Ron Paul. Most everyone has come to that conclusion over the past 15 years. Yes Paul should have been more careful with how his name was being used and he has admited that already.
But lets focus on the reasonable rational arguement I was making rather than trying to distract the conversation with stuff from 15 years ago. Do you beleive it is a good idea for the government to keep printing money without backing it with gold and spending like a drunken sailor? Do you know of any other candidate besides Paul that thinks it is a bad idea?
6. McCain is thinking we will be there for a 100 years. That hardly sounds like a success. I understand you disagree, but the fact is the american people (or at 70% of them agree with Paul. I am making arguements for why Paul supporters will continue to support Paul, not why you should support Paul. If you are in favor of US troops in the mid east for the rest of your grandkids lives, by all means... vote for one of your many war candidate choices. McCain seems to be in favor of it, i recomend him!
Posted by: Travis on January 11, 2008 10:26 PMI honestly think your libertarian roots tilt your thinking on how close Paul is to mainstream conservative thought on economic (or more precisely, domestic) policy and foreign affairs. His thoughts on the Fed are comically unserious in the modern era.
Again, that is monetary policy, which I already said was out of the mainstream.
His views on the size and purpose of the federal government - including no FDA, no CIA, etc. - make the rest of the Republicans in Congress look like socialists in comparison.
I am not sure, but maybe. He said he wants to get rid of the FBI, but then adds that he would replace their core functionality with something else. I am not sure if he feels the same about the CIA and FDA. If not -- if he would get rid of them -- then yes, you're right. But I am not sure.
His foreign policy teeters on the edge of a naive isolationism that simply doesn't make sense in the 21st century.
In part yes, in part no. Remember, just a few years ago, Bush was touting some of the same views, and MOST Republicans applauded heavily for that.
As for the debates, after Jan 19th we'll have had seven nominating contests to award delegates. There should be some reasonable way to determine who does and doesn't have a reputable, even if slim, chance at the nomination. At that point that's who should be on the stage.
Again, no. That will only help tell us who can win it outright. Someone who has no chance of winning it outright can still win it at convention. Huckabee and Giuliani can't because they are not conservative, but Thompson can because he is. With so many Republicans hating McCain, and so many distrusting or disliking Romney, Thompson could still be a consensus candidate at convention, simply by process of elimination, because it is possible that a majority of delegates will just say NO to any of the four.
It doesn't say much for the GOP if that's what happens, but that's another discussion ...
Posted by: pudge on January 11, 2008 10:30 PMNone of this matters due to Bush pollution.
142 has it mostly right.
Posted by: Won't Matter on January 12, 2008 12:46 AMMike Huckabee is hands down the best communicator. He is the first to bring our focus back to the working class people that made up the backbone the Republican party. He is the only candidate that can draw support from both sides of the aisle and govern effectively. Even though he is a true conservative, he presents his views forcefully in a way that is non-threatening and consensus-building.
Posted by: zapporo on January 12, 2008 09:14 AMI will describe it:
In the first frame, there is a triumphant Republican standing on a sturdy, stable, three-legged stool. The three legs are labled: Limited Government, Strong Defense and Traditional Family Values. It is called "Reagan's three legged coalition."
In the second frame, there is an empty, wobbly, eroded stool with three pillars labeled Huckabee, Thompson, Romney as "Values," then McCain, Hunter and Giuliani as "Defense" and a solo, skinny, frail Ron Paul holding up the wobbly, "Limited Government" pillar.
The point is that Reagan forged a coalition, and that coalition lead to the success of the Republican Revolution. But today, the "Limited Government" part of the triad has been destroyed, or marginalized, and with it the strength and stability of the Reagan coalition.
One more thought: Reagan's "Strong Defense" was mostly the highly successful deterrent of the mutually assured destruction strategy. Our main threat came from Russia, and we defeated them without ever engaging them directly on the battle field. Reagan never advocated being the world's policeman. He advocated "a shining city on a hill, not an empire. Reagan advocated a strong defense, not a strong offense. Yet occupation and offense is what the current crop of Republicans propose on defense matters. Add to that the fact that almost 70% of the American public oppose our lengthy (100 years would be fine with McCain!) occupation of Iraq. So this pillar is also weak.
The "Values" pillar is still strong, but can not stand alone to bring the Republicans to victory. Huckabee can't win in November as he only represents one leg of the coalition.
The solution for Republican success: re-commit ourselves to limited, Constitutional government, and re-define a strong defense as defense of the 50 states, not occupation and policing the world, but maintain the Republican values of family, freedom of religion, and self-reliance.
Only one candidate for the Republican nomination does all this. Ron Paul.
By the way, there have only been two primaries and they were in small states. It is WAY too early to predict a winner. But right now, Ron Paul has more primary votes than does Giuliani. Those of you who want to exclude him at this point are doing so mostly because you disagree with his foreign policy, not because of these petty racism or ad hominem attacks. These attacks only make the attacker look worse.
And even if Ron Paul doesn't win, his candidacy will strengthen the limited government leg of the Republican coalition, will bring more people in to the Libertarian Party, and will strengthen the freedom movement in the US. All good things, even if he doesn't get the nomination!
This is why I support Ron Paul.
Republicans, your challenge is how to keep limited government fans in your coalition after Ron Paul is not the Republican nominee. You better come up with something good for people like me, because a lot of us are more than happy to vote Libertarian.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 12, 2008 10:52 AMFamous economist Fredrich Bastiat said that government is that great fiction whereby everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else. And the politicians know that there is a sucker born every minute who will believe their spiel, and they can gain power as we sacrifice our rights to them in exchange for their broken promises.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 12, 2008 07:54 PMYou think you have a great candidate -TERRIFIC, go forth and support him. BUT do not continue to shove him down the throats of those that don't support him and then insult us when we voice our EQUALLY VALID opinions. Personally, despite the fact that some of you have made good cases on a range of subjects {Bruce, Travis} (while others are just batshi*t crazy, Geoffy the dog) I am sick to death of Ron Paul... not because of him per se, but because of YOU. You remind me of the zealot missionaries that used to assault us at airports or call us at dinnertime or ring our damned doorbell on quiet afternoons.
What I dislike about RP, ESPECIALLY after the SC debate is that he is a blithering doddering old fool with supporters that LIE when they skew "polls" by repeatedly voting and then, in thinking that we are idiots, try to tell us with a straight face that he "won". I call BS on that.
What I dislike about RP is that he is a gutless old fart without the courage of his own convictions. We all know he is a libertarian, but one too cowardly to run under that banner. That makes him a cowardly liar doing what is expedient for himself to gain power.
IF he stood up to be the libertatian that he is instead of lying with his claim and timewasting as a Republican, I would pay attention to the ideas he voices. I certainly listened to Perot. I actually agreed with him on a few things, but I didn't vote for him.
Why would I want ANOTHER liar leading my country?
YOU don't like my opinion and you certainly don't like that I refuse to like your candidate but don't be so smarmy and arrogant to think you know what I think or assign the values you despise to me or anyone. In doing that you share more commonality with the hateful cretins at HA than you do with folks here.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 13, 2008 09:22 PMHOW soon?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 14, 2008 10:24 AMDid you catch the reference to India instead of another country?
Posted by: swatter on January 14, 2008 01:27 PMI posit that your purpose is nothing other than to foment chaos. Unfortunately for you we are far too wise than to fall for it, so cotinue to blather about quail eggs, but don't forget to wipe off the yolk you have smeared on your face.
Finally, you didn't answer my question. HOW SOON will you have to go to India to get a steak under 20 bucks? Can we help you pack? YOU DO realize don't you that the cow is a pampered animal in India for religious reasons, so you probably will be gnawing on a goat steak... although, considering your ideology a sheep may be more appropriate and considering your manners and attitude a pig would definitely be.
TA! Bon voyage... and don't let the door knob smack you in the ass... aw nevermind, LET IT.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 14, 2008 06:31 PMOh really? Can you quote me on that?
No, I thought not.
The bottom line is right or wrong, like it or not, we ARE there fighting. Is it your proposition that we just simply up and leave, allowing the massacre that would follow?
RE RP... you must have severereading comprehension problems. The can treat ADD now, I hear... you'd probably enjoy the drugs. Again I have stated, REPEATEDLY, is that it is you his annoying, lying, zealots who have turned me from EVER listening to his message. Congratualtions, I'm pretty sure that wasn't HIS goal.
You simply say pour on the moral positives and pay whatever the sticker price
Yawn, this is me STILL wating for you to quote me....on anthing you blather on about. Is the ability to cover your eyes and ears while blathering on a condition of being a Paulbearer? You excel.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 14, 2008 07:27 PMMY "war candidate"? Who would that be, exactly. I'll be pretty damned amazed with your divination in that I haven't even decided on a candidate to support in the primary.
You remind me of Obama, dude, loads of words and yet you manange to say absolutely NOTHING.
Kiddo, you are a fool.
Get help.
You think you have a great candidate -TERRIFIC, go forth and support him. BUT do not continue to shove him down the throats of those that don't support him and then insult us when we voice our EQUALLY VALID opinions.
I do not think any Paul supporter here has tried to shove him down anyones throats. Generally we at most point out his exclusion from the original blog posting which is then followed by 10 or so charges that he is racist, or a moonbat, or some other non substantiated claim. If you do not like hearing about Paul I would focus on trying to get people to refrain from such claims since they seem to multiply the posts about Paul.
Personally, despite the fact that some of you have made good cases on a range of subjects {Bruce, Travis} (while others are just batshi*t crazy, Geoffy the dog) I am sick to death of Ron Paul... not because of him per se, but because of YOU.
I am not sure that there is really that much more posts about ROn Paul than other candidates. What there is more of is counterposts with unsubstantiated claims designed to entice Paul supporters into meaningless debates. I tire of these threads as well.
What I dislike about RP, ESPECIALLY after the SC debate is that he is a blithering doddering old fool with supporters that LIE when they skew "polls" by repeatedly voting and then, in thinking that we are idiots, try to tell us with a straight face that he "won". I call BS on that.
This would be an example of your equally valid opinions? Calling someone a fool is not a valid opinion unless you back it up. You think he is a fool because of his foriegn policy stance? If so, then surely you would not mind me calling you a fool since our opinions are 'equally valid', right?
As for the voting, it is not lying if you beleive he won. I do not find it surprising that more people would vote for Paul than the others considering most of the country still thinks the war in Iraq should be ended and only the old fool Ron Paul supports ending it now.
What I dislike about RP is that he is a gutless old fart without the courage of his own convictions. We all know he is a libertarian, but one too cowardly to run under that banner. That makes him a cowardly liar doing what is expedient for himself to gain power.
He already has ran as a libertarian before. He realized then that the system is so rigged that it is not very productive for most people to run as a third party.
What I am curious about is when the Republican party closed the doors to its 'big tent' to libertarians and other constitutionalists.
IF he stood up to be the libertatian that he is instead of lying with his claim and timewasting as a Republican, I would pay attention to the ideas he voices.
He has stated on many occassions that he is a libertarian. But you would have to be paying attention to notice.
Why would I want ANOTHER liar leading my country?
So you could potentiall like what he has to say but because you think he has mislabeled it with the word republican, you will not vote or listen to him? Strange policy you have there.
YOU don't like my opinion and you certainly don't like that I refuse to like your candidate but don't be so smarmy and arrogant to think you know what I think or assign the values you despise to me or anyone. In doing that you share more commonality with the hateful cretins at HA than you do with folks here.
I am sorry if I ever pretended to be arrogant and know what you are thinking. I am too dumb to be arrogant and I can not even tell what I am thinking half the time so I certainly do not try and pretend to know what others are thinking.
As for me and others being hateful cretins I am not sure what to say. Nor am I sure what HA is but I bet they have a good laugh about it at their meetings!
Posted by: Travis on January 14, 2008 09:03 PMYou are entitled to support whomever you wish and you are certainly entitled to voice that support and your opinions regarding them.
HOWEVER, most that visit here have told you all that our minds won't be changed by the Paulbearers repeating the same stuff every single chance they get to lead the conversation to a RP direction.
Your tenacity and RP loyality in the face of a losing battle, while admirable, has become exceedingly wearing.
The guy took 5th in NH.
5th.
He has barely 1/8 the delegates of the GOP current delegate leader.
Yes, he has cash. You Paulbearers have done a yeomans job of raising money. Money does not equal voted or delegates.
Personally, I will not waste my time listening to RP anymore. He did not have a clue what Brit Hume was asking of him in the SC debate, which is what I was referring in calling him blabbering and dithering. NOT A CLUE. He was simply arguing for the sake of arguing because his mike was turned on; he wasn't LISTENING and he humiliated himself and his supporters.
Go ahead and continue to post; the first mention of RP in any comment will be signal to me to pass it over.
Good luck with RP's windmill tilting. I hope when he finally gives up his hopeless, expensive, impossible quest that you will think long and hard about the hopes and promises each viable political candidate puts forth, how they will affect our country and our lives and how a protest vote will ultimately work against even your own interests.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 15, 2008 12:26 AM
Ron Paul is not going to quit,so get used to seeing the sticker price...take it like a man.
Simply tune out. I am sick of Rudy and the illegal alien safe haven/911 mantra too but I just tune him out .He has less money and worse idea's than Ron Paul.Thompson farts dust and looks like he could die in office or at the very least sh!t his pants.Huckabee is a democrat in preachers clothing.Romney is a corporate hack,McCain is another safe haven /War monger that wants my son to die in Iraq protecting the de jure monopolies supply of fossil fuel.
I admit Ron Paul is not going to win,But his message doesn't bother me,and I am glad someone is delivering it.You resort to name calling because someone else has a different point of view.You spew hatred and intolerance.I will simply tune YOU out from now on.
If it slipped over you, it might have slipped over dog's head which is pretty dense to penetrate.
Posted by: swatter on January 15, 2008 06:57 AMAmericans that go there for cheap medical services will have no trouble finding beef in India if they are in the southern part of India.
This week I had a chicken salad sandwich for 7.50.It was made on the smallest slices of bread I have ever seen.I was in Monroe last thurday I want to a place called the Sockeye.I paid 22.50 for two small halibut cheeks.We have over priced our markets and the sales taxes suffer.soon the poor people will be eating soylant green while the rich people eat the beef and strawberries.