That's your one word summary of the GOP debate in Florida. With John McCain and Mitt Romney edging out front in a tight Sunshine State race and with time running out on Rudy Giuliani's candidacy, the forum was remarkably tame. The candidates looked visibly tired after grueling weeks on the trail, plus no one probably wanted to stain themselves with the kind of spat Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had at the last Democratic gathering.
If there was any confusion about the subdued tone, the candidates opportunity to question each other revealed all: no one asked questions of the candidate with whom they are competing most closely. Romney asked Giuliani about competing economically with China. McCain asked Mike Huckabee about the Fair Tax. Giuliani asked Romney - not McCain - about the national catastrophic fund. Only Huckabee deviated from script, continuing his quest to be McCain's VP by asking Romney about the 2nd Amendment.
In the end, I'm not sure if anyone moved the needle a lot tonight, though perhaps I'm jaded by debate-fatigue at this juncture in the primary season. McCain will be hounded a bit about his "I don't understand economics very well" quote that he feigned ignorance on to Tim Russert, since both the Giuliani and Romney campaigns promptly emailed out two citations where McCain said essentially that. He may also have not been well served in a closed Republican primary by dwelling on global warming and his related work with Joe Lieberman, though that's hardly new information to GOP voters. Either way, McCain will be asked more tomorrow about his mother's admission that he has problems with the Republican base. Brian Williams queried him on it, but the quotes are just too juicy for reporters to lay off of in the next 24-48 hours.
All that said, I think Romney and McCain did the best. Both men made their points, though Romney at least twice took what was supposed to be a tough question and turned it into a mini-stump speech. Giuliani did ok, but that's not enough right now. Huckabee too was just ok. Not quite his usual jovial self and not engaged by the moderators as much as Romney, McCain, and Giuliani. Speaking of the moderators, I thought the last half-hour was too Romney centric. He did well, but it seemed unfair to the other candidates.
Funny note of the debate (at least for Republicans): Brian Williams seemed to think the New York Times endorsing McCain is bad for Giuliani. Not only did Giuliani answer that well, taking it as a badge of honor for disagreeing with that editorial board so often as Mayor, but someone needs to tell Williams this is an endorsement no Republican wants to trumpet.
The only other point I'd make is that while Romney and McCain both did well, Romney gets a slight advantage because the economy was such a focus at the start. McCain did better tonight on the topic than he's done on the trail the last few weeks, but it's still not a strong point for him by comparison.
What do you think?
Posted by Eric Earling at January 24, 2008 08:00 PM | Email ThisUs conservatives who are trying to decide between McCain and Romney, now that Thompson is gone, will not be swayed to Romney by such things.
Yesterday I was slightly more on Romney's side. Now I am back to being slightly more on McCain's side.
Posted by: pudge on January 24, 2008 08:32 PMSomeone had to say it.
Posted by: Michele on January 24, 2008 09:01 PMAlthough, in fairness, most of them they do pay money in taxes, for the payroll tax. But yes, it is not income tax, even though it is a tax, and it is on your income. I don't find much fault with people who don't easily see the difference.
Posted by: pudge on January 24, 2008 09:20 PMThe rest of the world loves listening to candidates who can say "nu-cle-ar."
Posted by: Willard's the one on January 24, 2008 09:20 PMRon Paul tackled the third rail of politics: social security. He wants to let the young out of it, because it won't be around when they retire anyway. It will be bankrupt within 20 years. He wants to maintain the benefits of the elderly by cutting spending on US military bases in S. Korea, Japan, Germany and elsewhere. He wants to make social security income tax-free. This is great! It is workable, it doesn't leave any of the elderly out in the cold, and it moves us to a privatized system that will work better for everyone!
Ron Paul is the best! Even if he doesn't get the nomination, I see more and more candidates adopting his positions.
I'll bet after the nomination, the eventual Republican nominee will adopt even more of Ron Paul's positions. Maybe even his Iraq position! That would be the only way to beat the Democrat in November, given the unpopularity of the war, and Hillary's vulnerability on the issue.
I think Ron Paul won the debate tonight!
By the way, Giuliani will be out of the race soon, and so will Huckabee.
It's between McCain and Romney, now, but Ron Paul will still be in the race at the convention, and his delegates will be in play, and may just tip the balance to decide the winner... Should be exciting!
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 24, 2008 09:47 PMWhy do all the candidates but one promote additional government printing, borrowing, spending and artificially low interest rates as a solution to a problem caused by excessive government printing, borrowing and spending and artificially low interest rates?
Why is the one candidate that would fix the economy given roughly 1/2 the time of huckabee and nearly 1/4 of the time of McCain in the debate? Why is this candidate that understand the problems our economy has considered unworthy of proper respect by the media (and local bloggers?)
Posted by: Lysander on January 24, 2008 09:53 PMMcCain probably won because he likely didn't turn off too many Republicans. As for his question to Huckabee, it looked to be set up to make Huckabee look good - maybe to get some fiscal votes away from Romney and towards Huckabee.
Rudy did real good, gave himself a chance anyhow, we'll see if it works.
Romney did good, but his 'successful' dancing around the money issue in the long term could be a problem. I was surprised it was brought up, but if buying the election ends up being equated with Romney, it won't help him.
Huckabee did nothing to make anyone dislike him, if he ends up in a VP slot, sure would be different than Cheney.
A side note, if Hillary and Obama keep after it and Hillary wins the nomination, wouldn't it be wild to get Condi on the VP slot - maybe the first black and woman President would end up being a Republican!
Posted by: Doug on January 24, 2008 10:10 PMWhy they Hate Mitt Romney
By Amy D. Goldstein
Have you noticed how all of the Republican candidates can barely conceal their contempt for Governor Mitt Romney? It goes way beyond the typical good-natured competition that usually is the hallmark of Republican contests. Senator McCain has snarled at Governor Romney in debates and Gov. Huckabee has tried to paint Romney as cold and uncaring, while Sen. Fred Thompson attacked Governor Romney right out of the box. This display of hatred usually is the hallmark of the Democrats.
So, why do the other candidates hate Mitt Romney? Several reasons:
1. He can win. Governor Romney appeals to economic conservatives and could appeal to foreign policy conservatives based upon his understanding of the issues. Most non-partisan foreign policy wonks who have briefed the major candidates tell me that Romney "gets it" better than any other candidate -- even better than those who have held high profile office for decades. Moreover, he is the candidate that the Democrats most fear.
2. Jealousy -- from his hair to his appearance to his family to his money - these are all reasons for deep seeded, if unseemly, jealousy. This green-eyed monster makes its appearance in almost every speech or presentation, in the form of a joke, a jab or a veiled reference.
3. He isn't beholden to interest groups. Governor Romney's wealth frees him from any influence that interest groups could apply to others - especially those who lack funds or who are Washington insiders. He doesn't need them, and that scares the interest groups and their allies. He is not of the game and wants to change it - and his personal wealth allows him to do so. He really can change Washington.
4. His brains - not only is he one of the smartest people ever to seek the presidency (having earned a Harvard MBA and JD simultaneously), but he understands the complexities of the issues that America faces and is able to devise workable solutions. Just look at his proposal for an economic stimulus and compare it to what the other candidates are proposing. Romney clearly can lead this country through economic challenges.
5. His wealth -- again. While he has raised more than any other candidate, Governor Romney doesn't need to raise the money in order to continue. Nevertheless, he understands that successful candidates must have people invested in their candidacy in order to succeed. He has learned the lessons of past wealthy businessmen who make vanity runs for the White House. The other candidates have to constantly raise money in order to continue their campaigns.
6. His experience. The rest of the Republican field has been in politics in one form or another for most of their adult lives. Governor Romney came to public service after having a successful career in which he directly created jobs, saved jobs, invested in new companies and turned around failed businesses. He even fixed both the Olympics and the failing state of Massachusetts. More than any other candidate, Governor Romney's experience is most directly applicable to the average American's situation.
7. He believes that America's best days are ahead of it, and not a memory. Governor Romney is a man of the future, not of the past. He sees America as a beacon of freedom for the entire world, and not a country limping toward its last days. His infectious optimism is informed by his business experience, his love of country and his family values. His can-do spirit is the antidote to defeatism masked as "straight talk" or "reality."
8. His beliefs. When all else fails, Governor Romney's opponents attack his religion in the hopes of sowing fear and loathing. Not only is this unseemly, but it is dangerous. We have seen this type of rhetoric before - in the 1920's and 1930's - from the likes of Henry Ford and Father Caughlin and others who sought to disenfranchise whole segments of the American population. Governor Romney believes in the common American faith of democracy and religious freedom, as he so eloquently stated in his speech "Faith in America." These are the values our Founding Fathers codified in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Why do the Republican candidates hate him? Because they don't have any answers to his challenges. They seek to undermine him by using personal attacks more worthy of a middle school playground than a presidential contest. This is politics and Washington as usual, and choosing any candidate that employs these tactics will only get us more of the same. One would hope that Americans could see beyond these base attacks and choose the candidate who is best for the country - Governor Mitt Romney.
Amy D. Goldstein is an occasional contributor to American Thinker.
And nobody hates him. They just don't trust him. For good reason, I might add.
Posted by: Interested on January 24, 2008 10:46 PMYou said:
"Why is this candidate that understand the problems our economy has considered unworthy of proper respect by the media (and local bloggers?)"
1. Aside from his very obvious issue with supremecists, he
2. Has about as much chance of winning as me and Dog.
3. I admire his fundraising prowess and wish suckers would send me money on the Internet, since people sending him money aren't going to get a presidential candidate who can win the office.
I would use the money of you suckers to get Dog into rehab and fund a really lavish lifestyle for myself. So, suckers send your money to me.
Are you saying like Sherman:
"If nominated, I will not accept; if drafted, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve."
William Tecumseh Sherman quotes (American Civil War General and a major architect of modern war)
Dude, it is not about running to actually win office. Every president I can remember looks like hell after only a few years in office.
We simply want to fleece these suckers who donate to lame political candidates on the Internet. Heck if we take in only 1% of what Paul does over the course of the campaign season, you have luxury rehab and I have Ferragamo and Jimmy Choo.
Think about it, fleecing these Internet idiots is nothing to be LOL about.
Yes, indeed, Doug, the 'good' McCain showed up last night as compared to "Butthead" McCain and his Snidely Whiplash chuckle.
I agree with the Libertarian poster here that Ron Paul was outstanding. His slam dunk of the Social Security issue was great. IMO, one of the big failures of SS reform is that the Rs have done a rotten job convincing the older folks that any reform is not on their well-earned retirement.
The wife, who is not so engaged, was absolutely impressed with Romney last night. If the guy had only showed up earlier in the campaign to sell himself like he did last night, the race wouldn't be so muddled.
Huckabee looked like a weak sister to me. His charm, smarminess and wit were as riveting as past debates.
I thought Romney's question to Giuliani was outstanding. And the answer was likewise. It showed to me the adults were back in town as compared to the D field.
Posted by: swatter on January 25, 2008 06:45 AMhttp://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/DENVER-CO/KOA-AM/CBA%201-22%20Angry%20Caller.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=DENVER-CO&NG_FORMAT=newstalk&SITE_ID=668&STATION_ID=KOA-AM&PCAST_AUTHOR=Gunny_Bob_Newman&PCAST_CAT=Spoken_Word&PCAST_TITLE=The_Gunny_Bob_Show
Posted by: JDH on January 25, 2008 06:59 AMI was working as a medic in San Diego back in the 70's when insurance health plans were talking off ( thank you gov)
So for myself I want the whole dang GOV out of health care and yes even some of the insurance comp. If anything is free, watch the waste come pouring thru.
Yeah "They". As in every single one of us who are concerned about Romney's lack of consistency on anything.
By the way, you and Amy Goldstein are so cute the way you defend a candidate that spends millions of dollars and several months attacking others and then call him a victim of negativity. Sounds like another pair of "Slick" politicians we all know...straight out of their playbook.
Posted by: Interested on January 25, 2008 08:28 AM1. I personally liked the portion of the debate where candidates got to ask the other candidates questions. Although I agree each went easy, at least we got into some areas that he media don't seem to ask. The media gets to focused on a couple of areas and questions the candidates to death in these areas trying to create controversy, instead of probing the candidates on a wide range of topics.
2. Some personality traits were demonstrated that candidates need to work on. For Guiliani, he needs to not bare his front teeth in a grimace after the panel moves onto another candidate. Guiliani did it repeatedly and it isn't a pleasant image. I am sure his campaign winced each time he did it. McCain needs to open his mouth more when talking. At times, its like he is trying to throw an ventroliquism act on. Ron Paul needs to not glance right or left at the other candidates when answering the questions. He looked like the nervous interviewing wondering if the others on stage approved of him or not.
3. My favorite question and answer was in the end portion (fluff portion) when Russert (I believe) asked Huckabee about Chuck Norris' quote that McCain was too old and why at the time Huckabee didn't disagree. Huck threw it back with humor and stated it was because Chuck was standing right next to him and when you have someone who could put his opposite foot on your opposite cheek without you being able to do anything about it, you don't disagree. Of course it was a complete blow-off, but Huck does have a way of coming up with these on the spot and it did lighten the mode. Of course, it was a total nonsense question by Russert. Where was Fred to put Russert in line?
4. I do think Romney helped himself in Florida with the debate. When he stays on the change platform and the private experience platform, he does sound a lot more confident. He needs to forgoe is attack ads and focus more on what he can do based on his experience instead of pointing out the nits and nats of the other candidates.
Posted by: tc on January 25, 2008 08:38 AMI think Romney is going to win in FL. He seems to have a slight surge in the polls and last night may help him with some of the undecideds. I don't think McCain helped himself by talking about Global Warming, as someone else said.
It will be an interesting finish in Florida...
Posted by: Bill H on January 25, 2008 08:42 AMLike Eric, Michelle Malkin thought it was boring, too.
Posted by: swatter on January 25, 2008 09:01 AMInterested, sorry to inform you but they is not us! Unless you are related to "The Clintons".
Interested said,
"By the way, you and Amy Goldstein are so cute the way you defend a candidate that spends millions of dollars and several months attacking others and then call him a victim of negativity. Sounds like another pair of "Slick" politicians we all know...straight out of their playbook.
Interested, sounds like you are trying another "Clinton" attach and divide "commie" tactic.
"they" don't have any answers to his challenges. "They" seek to undermine him by using personal attacks more worthy of a middle school playground than a presidential contest. This is politics and Washington as usual, and choosing any candidate that employs these tactics will only get us more of the same. One would hope that Americans could see beyond these base attacks and choose the candidate who is best for the country - Governor Mitt Romney.
It is obvious you did not hear well so here is a link so you can become more informed.
http://www.mittromney.com/homepage
Check out the "issues" This is what he will do when elected the President of the United States of America.
Regarding his wealth, we are all born equal, Mitt Romney is an obvious achiever.
A lot of financial products represented change for change's sake, like derivatives and the current mess with Societe General which may have started this economic uncertainity. That was change for change's sake.
Regarding Billary, a lot of lame women and appartently Duffman think she represents change, really. What is change about sticking with a horndog sex addict who sticks it to you and everyone else around? She stuck with a male who greased the skids for her ascent so she could realize her political ambitions. Even now, Bill is taking care of poor little Hillary's problem by being the attack dog because the guys are being mean to her. Could she have done it on her own, I don't know, apparently she thought she couldn't. How Jane Austen, and that is change, Duffman? A lot of people are voting for her simply because she is a woman, not that she has any particular qualifications other than she was close to power.
On the issue of healthcare, she screwed it up first time around and Congress saved her and us from disaster.
Paul is the only candidate that would have even made me consider voting for her. Now, that he is out, I will vote against her. This is a crucial election and we can't afford eight more years of Billary. Romney is right, we don't even want to consider Bill walking around the house with nothing to do. Truly, lock-up the interns.
Duffman, I know you were gone, but this is the other reason not to vote for Paul, other than he can't win:
Angry White ManThe New Republic Angry White Man by James Kirchick The bigoted past of Ron Paul. Post Date Tuesday, January 08, 2008 ...
www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca - 59k - Cached - Similar pages
Selections From Ron Paul's NewslettersJan 8, 2008 ... The Newsletters: Since at least 1978, Ron Paul has attached his name to a series of newsletters--Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul ...
www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129 - 40k - Cached - Similar pages
A pretty broad and unfair statement there WVH; obviously I disagree with you, and you know what - I think most voters will, also. :)
Posted by: Duffman on January 25, 2008 09:56 AMYou and I probably talk to lots of people of both sexes. Honestly, how many women have you talked to who say first, I will vote for Hillary because it is either time for a woman president or we want a woman president? Now fess up. I want a woman president as well, but I want one that is fully prepared for the job, not one that will give Dr. Phil and other shrinks fodder for their columns and papers because people are delving into redemption theories and how people who have suffered great embarassment can go on. I want a woman and person of color to be president, I just want someone that is qualified and that we can trust with the job. Billary would create more problems than THEY ever could solve.
Posted by: WVH on January 25, 2008 10:16 AMI am not a Bush fan, but I think I like your wife.
Posted by: WVH on January 25, 2008 10:30 AMYou seem to really have something against Paul but what I have not seen is one single vote in his 20 years of voting in congress that you disagree with. Care to let us in on what policies paul has supported that you disagree with? Maybe a link to a bill he sponsered or voted in a way you disagree with. Or maybe a policy he has given in any of the debates that you think is a bad policy?
Posted by: Lysander on January 25, 2008 04:07 PMRon Paul would beat Hillary in the Bible Belt.
If Hillary were at the top of the Republican ticket running with our Lord and Savior in the VP slot, and the Democrats nominated the corpses of Lenin and Stalin, the dead Russians would beat Hillary in the Bible Belt by a landslide.
She. Has. No. Chance.
Which is nice. :)
Posted by: ShillBull on January 25, 2008 04:24 PMhttp://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.dhttp://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/DENVER-CO/KOA-AM/CBA%201-22%20Angry%20Caller.mp3201-22%20Angry%20Caller.mp3
Posted by: JDH on January 25, 2008 04:25 PMA better link
Posted by: JDH on January 25, 2008 04:27 PMWhile we are posting links to funny (but also sad) websites, check out this Mccain video showing his 'Straight (read 'double') talk'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI
Posted by: Lysander on January 25, 2008 04:48 PMYou said:
'You seem to really have something against Paul but what I have not seen is one single vote in his 20 years of voting in congress that you disagree with. Care to let us in on what policies paul has supported that you disagree with?"
What part of David Duke, racist loving bigot do you fail to get?
If you are that clueless, there is really nothing I can say.
Do you personally disavow David Duke and others like him?
Do you personally disavow the KKK and groups like them?
Just curious.
Posted by: WVH on January 25, 2008 05:16 PMLysander @ 50: WVH's baseless, ad hominem attacks are best left ignored. She only makes herself look worse by making them, and responding in any way only encourages her to continue her slander. I've told her I will not respond until she apoogizes for calling me names in the past, and that when she does that and can demonstrate that she can engage in civil discourse, I will respond to her again. She is trying to "bait" us, and rising to the bait would be as much a mistake for us as it usually is for fish.
Let's keep it positive, and respond to the rational, civil debaters like pudge, swatter, cato, Michelle and others.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 25, 2008 05:20 PM2. Yes I will take the oh so bold and appearantly necessary step of personally disavowing David Duke, others like him, the KKK, and groups like it. Not sure what this has to do with my question I posed however. Maybe I should repeat it one more time to see if maybe this time it will get a response...
Do you care to let us in on what policies paul has supported that you disagree with? Maybe a link to a bill he sponsered or voted in a way you disagree with. Or maybe a policy he has given in any of the debates that you think is a bad policy?
Miss Teen SC Meets John McCain
Posted by: Bill H on January 25, 2008 08:51 PM1.Apparently, you and the rest of Bruce G.'s homies don't want to answer the following two questions:
Do you personally disavow David Duke and others like him?
Do you personally disavow the KKK and groups like them?
Just curious.
2. Now, I have called individuals idiots based upon:
a. their lack of capacity for reasoning
b. their ignorance of facts and issues
You and the rest of your homies are idiots, that is not a statement against Caucasians, atheists, or any other groups. Just you as individuals.
Now, this is your bro in action:
Angry White ManThe New Republic Angry White Man by James Kirchick The bigoted past of Ron Paul. Post Date Tuesday, January 08, 2008 ...
www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca - 59k - Cached - Similar pages
Selections From Ron Paul's NewslettersJan 8, 2008 ... The Newsletters: Since at least 1978, Ron Paul has attached his name to a series of newsletters--Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul ...
www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129 - 40k - Cached - Similar pages
So, you idiots support a racist bigot and you are wasting your time attacking me as I wasn't voting for him anyway. You are the last people on earth whose opinion I would value. Besides, you and the other homies don't need to buy a vowel, you need to buy a clue. Why don't you homies convince TNR to run a spread on how he doesn't kick puppies, particularly the black ones?
You, the rest of the homies, and Tom Cruise are drinking the same type of Kool-aid. When is your space ship supposed to pick you up?
Posted by: WVH on January 25, 2008 09:20 PMI forgot to acknowledge Lysander/Travis that you have done something that Paul and the others don't seem to want to do which is personally disavow the supremicists. Lest you think I am only on your Dude, I am waiting to hear about how Huckabee plans to respond to Huffington's post about links to the White Citizen's Council.
Paging Cydney for a response.
If you or your candidate don't get it, then you will never be mainstream in any political party, except that of David Duke. Birds of a feather flock together and most candidates don't want ties to racists of any color be it Farrakan or Duke.
If Ron Paul's aim in asking the question was to show the viewers that McCain was not going to be a good leader with regard to the US economy, he asked a great question!
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 25, 2008 10:33 PMStop swallowing the Rush, Hugh Hewitt and Mark Levin -Romney kool-aid ! Romney is too polarizing and will lose to either Hillary or Obama. Look at the polls on this scenario if you don't believe it.
As for the Democrats; they might as well be called the minions of George Soros - he has poured millions into the DNC and their Presidential campaigns, so that they will advance his agenda of weakening the US economy and helping Mr. Soros and his hedge funds fatten his portfolio and move toward a borderless US and a global economy that plays into the hands of Soros, by merely moving forward the Democrat platform, that includes Universal Health Care. Whoever the Republicans select would be wise to inform the American people what is actually happening, with Soros - the puppetmaster in control of the Democratic Party. The RNC would be well advised to put out campaign ads with this information that will warn the naive average Joe or Joanne that the economy will be in peril if a Democrat is elected President - for the reasons stated above.
Posted by: KS on January 25, 2008 10:54 PMYes, a little ad hominem...but funny!
Posted by: Bill H on January 26, 2008 07:54 AM(See 62 above for link)
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 26, 2008 09:28 AM"On the pundit civil wars, Rush Limbaugh declared on the radio this week, "I'm here to tell you, if either of these two guys [Mr. McCain or Mike Huckabee] get the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party. It's going to change it forever, be the end of it!"
This is absurd. George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues.
Were there other causes? Yes, of course. But there was an immediate and essential cause.
And this needs saying, because if you don't know what broke the elephant you can't put it together again. The party cannot re-find itself if it can't trace back the moment at which it became lost. It cannot heal an illness whose origin is kept obscure."
Pay attention here. Actually, I am pulling more for Guilliani to get a second place in FLA. Seems like Rudy may be the best person to unite the Republican party (a number of talk show hosts disparage McCain but hail Rudy as an effective leader during the War on Islamofascism and can live with his centrist/liberal stands on other issues - there is not that much difference between he and McCain). I just don't believe Romney can win in the General election - and that is what it needs to be all about. And if the Dems win the White House - it will be detrimental to our economy and we can thank Bush for his weak leadership and his big government Republican actions - stupid is as stupid does !
Posted by: KS on January 26, 2008 11:05 AMI don't have the audio link, but Bob Brinker made the statement on "Money Talk" last Saturday that Ron Paul is evidently ignorant about how to effectively deal with our economy as exemplified by his radical proposals without taking into account how it will affect our economy. So Mr. Paul may have been nodding his head, but I would shudder to hear his response to the question that he asked Sen. McCain.
Posted by: KS on January 26, 2008 11:16 AM"1. Tax Reform: Reduce the tax burden and eliminate taxes that punish investment and savings, including job-killing corporate taxes.
2. Spending Reform: Eliminate wasteful spending. Reduce overseas commitments. Freeze all non-defense, non-entitlement spending at current levels.
3. Monetary Policy Reform: Expand openness with the Federal Reserve and require the Fed to televise its meetings. Return value to our money.
4. Regulatory Reform: Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley regulations that push companies to seek capital outside of US markets. Stop restricting community banks from fostering local economic growth.
Congressman Paul has written or co-sponsored numerous bills to enact the policies in his plan. In Congress, he has been a champion of lower taxes and limited government.
Congressman Paul is the ranking member on the House Financial Services Committee's Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology. In Congress, Dr. Paul has never voted for a tax increase or for an unbalanced budget."
Sounds pretty good to me! :)
By the way, I predict that Giuliani will be the next to leave the Republican race. This is a shame, since he was a distant second choice for me. Huckabee will hang on, but will really be hoping for a VP slot. Ron Paul is raising more money than Huckabee, and will be in the race all the way to the convention where he will be in third place. The race started out with 11 candidates. It is down to 5 and Ron Paul is one of them.
I think that Ron Paul is the answer to Peggy Noonan's request above @ 70 for a return to the basic principles that made the Republican Party successful under Reagan. I agree with her that it is GW Bush and the Neocons who have wrecked the Republican Party coalition by driving out the limited government types and the fiscal conservatives and those who do not want America to be the world's policeman.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 26, 2008 03:34 PMYou forgot to answer my question. I will ask it for a fourth time. What specific policies has Dr Paul voted on in his 20 years of serving as an honorable congressman do you disagree with?
Posted by: Lysander on January 26, 2008 06:49 PMHow about he is engaged in a liplock with David Duke, you remember David Duke, don't you? Birds of a feather, flock together. Guess Paul made it to fifth in Florida. How is the fundraising going? I sure would love a cut of that swindle from Internet idiots, I could plan my next trip to Europe.
Posted by: WVH on January 29, 2008 11:12 PM