GOP Debate Reaction: Part I
by PubliusTonight was the last debate before voting starts in Iowa on January 3rd. We’ll have more from the Breitbart world, but her are initial takes from some of our editors.
John Nolte, EIC BigHollywood:
I have no idea who I’m going to support in this primary but to have Romney(!) supporters trying to make the case that Gingrich isn’t conservative is beyond insulting. Bachmann attempting to make that case about Gingrich’s stand on abortion even more so. Besides that ongoing annoyance, Romney was very good in the first hour and has obviously decided that he has so many negative ads running he doesn’t have to attack in the debates. Gingrich really came on in the second half and beautifully diffused the “zany bombthrower” stuff. My guess, though, is that in a state like Iowa where retail politicking is everything, Perry did himself the most good. A lot of people, including me, WANT him to do well and his showing tonight likely reached that threshold. It would surprise me if he doesn’t start to show some added signs of life in polls that have already started moving in the right direction for him. The man is one of the best governor’s in the country. That should count for something.
Best of all, any MSM-type who says “Obama won tonight” is lying. Other than Ron Paul being Ron Paul, our standard bearers all did great tonight. This process has been good for them.
Dana Loesch, EIC BigJournalism:
Tonight I learned that Islamic terrorism is apparently just like the Cuban Missile crisis and that terrorists can be talked back to sanity via caring diplomacy, according to Ron Paul.
I also learned that it’s important to have a moderate judiciary comprised of judges from both sides of the aisle, presupposing that the judges from the left apply, not advantageously interpret, the Constitution.
I’d like to See Michele Bachmann go after Mitt Romney with as much ferocity as she does with Gingrich.
Tonight was the best debate of Rick Perry’s life. His strong performance will keep him in the race for a bit longer, but even this may be too late to notch him up the polls in Iowa. Gingrich gave a knock-out answer on Keystone — but only after he drowned in defending GSEs and his Fannie/Freddie payout. He weathered the storm without losing his cool which is important, but his logic at times was lacking. Rick Santorum seemed genuine tonight and less amped. I’ve never felt him ready for prime time, though.
Winners (and it pains me to say this first), were Romney, Gingrich, Perry, and Bachmann.
Larry O’Connor, EIC Breitbart.tv:
Reports of Rick Perry’s demise are greatly exaggerated! The Texas Governor finally showed the country why he is the longest serving governor of the lone star state. When attacked by Chris Wallace on energy subsidies he instituted he immediately pivoted to an impassioned defense of the 10th amendment. When Gingrich was getting hammered for his cozy relationship with Freddie mac, Perry turned the subject around to his proposal to send Congress home “to get a real job” as he put it. And finally, he brilliantly likened himself to evangelical football hero Tim Tebow by predicting a miracle showing on caucus night.
Just a quick word about Ron Paul. There is a special place in hell for a man with an “R” after his name who chooses to repeat unhinged left-wing lies like “we killed a million Iraqis” in a “useless war”. Seriously Congressman Paul, on behalf of the families who lost loved ones who fought in that war that they truly believed was NOT useless, GO TO HELL.
Mike Flynn, EIC BigGovernment:
I will cover this all Monday, when I announce my endorsement. Not that anyone cares, but there comes a time when one has to take a stand. I am thankful that the last debate before voting begins was sponsored by FoxNews. They allowed an interesting debate to evolve, unlike the early season mess of the MSNBC/Politico event. That debate should be taught in journalism schools as a caution to political bias. Who knew Brian Williams was such a doctrinaire leftist?
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
130 Comments
We just need to choose the person who has the best chance of beating Obama. We can work on perfection at a later time.
It was a good debate for everyone except Paul. The moment foreign policy comes up, you can hear his knees knocking.
Larry O': Just a quick word about Ron Paul. There is a special place in hell for a man with an “R” after his name who chooses to repeat unhinged left-wing lies like “we killed a million Iraqis” in a “useless war”. Seriously Congressman Paul, on behalf of the families who lost loved ones who fought in that war that they truly believed was NOT useless, GO TO HELL.
Indeed.
Great analysis by everyone.
On an unrelated note, I just found out Christopher Hitchens died.
I think the people who did themselves the most good, tonight, were Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry. Romney didn't hurt himself, and Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Jon Huntsman held their own. The candidate that shot himself in the foot was Ron Paul, for the reasons given by the commentators, above. I believe that his chance of pulling a "Huckabee", next month, have dropped to nil …
Why didn't Chris Wallace bring up Mitt Romney's famous statement from 2002, where he described his policies as "progressive"?
Sock-puppet for Lefty account MelvinTX.
" Seriously Congressman Paul, on behalf of the families who lost loved ones who fought in that war that they truly believed was NOT useless, GO TO HELL."
Must be why Ron Paul gets more donations from active military than all the other candidates combined.
Mitt, it's time to drop out you silver spoon-fed liar!!!
"Mr Romney told supporters he had experienced austerity as a missionary in France, using a bucket for a lavatory and a hose for a shower…
But the Republican presidential hopeful spent a significant portion of his 30-month mission in a Paris mansion described by fellow American missionaries to The Daily Telegraph as “palace”. It featured stained glass windows, chandeliers, and an extensive art collection. It was staffed by two servants – a Spanish chef and a houseboy. "
Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-elec...
Which one of these people ignites a fire inside of you? Which one makes you restless with anticipation for November 6th? Which one motivates you to tell your family, friends & co-workers about their message? Aren't these the kind of qualities we should demand from our candidates? Why are we tolerating this immature petulance and effeteness?
I am not afraid to say there is nothing about these people I'm excited about. Yes, they each have some qualities that are sufficient, but I'm not looking for sufficient. I'm looking for someone who's strong, exceedingly capable, unafraid, unapologetic, mature, right-thinking & honest. Can we have this in a candidate please?
I'm horribly disappointed in what we have to choose from here. I'm demanding better. You should too. Our country is worth it, dammit.
Really Larry O'Connor? Is that was this has devolved into, telling our own candidates to go to hell? Whatever happened to all this talk about "Reagan's 11th Commandment" and "Anybody But Obama"? I guess none of that applies to He Who Must Not Be Named.
Think about it rationally for a minute. What did we get out of the Iraq War? I thought our troops were fighting abroad to protect our freedom and liberty, yet ever since 9/11 our Constitutional rights have been disappearing with increasing speed. We can't fly on a plane anymore without getting sexually harassed and treated like we're all the terrorists. Now they're working on creating a "Kill Switch" for the internet to kill your freedom of speech. On Drudge today I saw a headline that they would be sending AMERICAN CITIZENS to Gitmo. They're working on allowing the U.S. Military to arrest and indefinitely detain suspected terrorists on American soil.
In Iraq, how many people have confidence that their new government will be able to stand up against Iran? Isn't Iran already messing around in there? Were they doing that while Saddam was in power? Yes, he was a completely evil man, there is no doubt about that. But how much more instability has been caused in that region because of his absence?
So again, of what use was the Iraq War to us?
The only one up there that can beat Obama is Ron Paul. He'd get the Republican vote, the independant vote, the libertarian vote and the crossover democrat vote.
There's no way Romney or Gingrich can beat Obama. Aint gonna happen folks, and you know it!!
It's either Ron Paul or Obama. You choose.
If someone is iffy on Ron Paul's foreign policy, you owe it to yourself and to him and to the Republican Party to watch this video and then decide. "You like Ron Paul, except on foreign policy." It explains the U.S.' interventionist policy in the middle east since the 1950s, explains blowback, and has honest-to-goodness military veterans explaining why they support Ron Paul. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo&fe...
I was sorely disappointed in the Fox crew for not bringing up Fast and Furious as a topic. I want to know if any of the prospective candidates are going to be willing to hold the Obama administration and the people in it responsible for their flagrant disregard and violation of the Constitution. Are any of them willing to play the kind of hardball that the Democrats play? If not, I want to know beforehand so I can cross them off of my list.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/15/ron-paul-holder...
Ron Paul is the only one that said he should be criminally charged to my knowledge.
Ron Paul has also of course said that Obama should be impeached.
Reaction? Eh, whatever…
Long road ahead folks, we just need someone with enough tread to cross the finish line in first…
So.
Our country's head is on the chopping block and you only care whether the headsman is right handed?
Either way your heads gonna roll.
Try voting with some principles. It may help get us out of this mess that BOTH parties have brought us.
It may not totally revitalize his campaign, but Perry's "send'em home to get a real job" part-time Congress idea is gold. Solid gold.
I love how it must rile the inside-the-beltway crowd. I'm from Texas, and I know first-hand how it galls the Left that our legislature meets only every other year. The audacity!
The old adage is true…"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe when the legislature is in session." Forgot who first said that. Wish it'd been me.
I'd rather vote with my head than on principle. Get Obama out first and foremost, then work on principle.
Remember: Perfection is the enemy of good.
I was impressed with the debate. Fox did an excellent job with the choice of questions. I was particularly impressed with Mitt, Gingrich, Perry, and Santorum. I was rather disappointed with Ron and Michelle. When Ron stayed on finance, etc, he was superb. On foreign policy, I was left somewhat underwhelmed. Michelle, whom I very mich like, kept attacking Gingrich which didn't do much to improve her standing. I would rather have had her stick to showing BO failures and gaffs and how she would resolve said issues.
Overall I would have to say Newt, Mitt, and Perry improved their numbers. However, The Iowa voters will decide on 3 Jan, 2012 who the real winner is.
Yes! He's a millionaire! Off with his head!!
Wow. You really have a low opinion of the I.Q. level of the majority of us Americans. Personally, I'd like to be more positive and think at least 51% of us aren't completely brain dead. But I guess we'll see: Fool us once, shame on me, fool us twice, shame on us and we're completely screwed.
Larry O’Connor- first of all, it is a fact that the US bombing of Iraq in the early 1990s, and the sanctions we enforced upon it until 2003 resulted in the deaths of anywhere from hundreds of thousands to 1.5 million Iraqi civilians. I personally reject the UN, but between the United Nations Children’s Fund and the World Health Organization, observers of these organizations did go in to Iraq to document the conditions that our sanctions created.
Secondly, and even if no Iraqi civilians died due to US sanctions, being opposed to the needless and unjust killing of innocent civilians has nothing to do with Right or Left wing; instead, it is simply morality. We did not need to enforce sanctions upon Iraq for more than decade. Moreover, you seem to be another adamantly blind partisan who can only see the world in terms of Right or Left wing. Stop! The just war theory and simply morality transcend Right and Left wing American considerations. The death of innocent civilians is wrong no matter which government is responsible, or which party is in power.
Finally, the 2003 invasion of Iraq was totally unnecessary and unjust; Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, and it was in no way responsible for what occurred. Thus, and most importantly, it was unnecessary that any American service members die in Iraq. Ron Paul, it seems, supports our troops so much that he doesn’t want to send them to die unnecessarily. Apparently, you do. You go to hell. Those troops would still have their lives if not for that unnecessary and unjust war. Whether or not they or their families believed that war was useless, it would certainly be much better for them to have their lives (and I’m sure their families would agree).
71% of military personal support Ron Paul. These wars are not worth fighting for in the eyes of our soldiers. They truly are not.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/904...
We actually heard some new questions for the candidates tonite……Refreshing. Megyn Kelly's question on the liberal judges was really right on and she got some substantive responses…..Too bad she let Paul off the hook on the 3rd party run question.
The candidates tonight showed that we have several threats to Obama. No knockouts tonight and it looks like a long road ahead for three or four of the seven. With the proportional split of delegates in the states that vote before April, there will be plenty more looks at probably Mitt, Newt, Perry and even Paul before this is over. If we want vetting, it looks like we are really going to get to know these guys real well by then.
Also, certainly there is the potential for some MAJOR international events that could occur that will totally shift the focus of the debate amongst the candidates (Europe imploding, Iran/Israel). At that point Foreign Policy credentials become important. Any thoughts on a dark horse jumping in???
It's funny. Bachmann thinks Iran is going to nuke the holy land? The land they want Muslims to inhabit? The land with the Dome of the Rock where Mohammed supposedly ascended to heaven? The land with many other Muslim holy sites? The land with 20% Muslim population. The land the Iranians think should go to the Palestinians? THAT land they're going to wipe off the map?
Hopefully when they're all done beating their chest around here, and have a moment to think, they'll realize just how unbelievably foolish that sounds. Bachmann is trying to overcome her deplorable poll numbers, so is throwing out the red meat, but Paul is right.
Report
-ScarySoetoro
"Just a quick word about Ron Paul. There is a special place in hell for a man with an R after his name who chooses to repeat unhinged left-wing lies like we killed a million Iraqis in a useless war. Seriously Congressman Paul, on behalf of the families who lost loved ones who fought in that war that they truly believed was NOT useless, GO TO HELL."
Larry O’Connor that is a sickening thing to say about Ron Paul. McNamara eventually owned up that Vietnam was a mistake. Nation building Iraq and Afghanistan is also a mistake and a needless waste of American lives.
If Romney had acted all along like he did tonight, he probably wouldn't have been plagued with the 'anybody but Romney' tag (myself included), because tonight he did well. Santorum his getting my attention a little more as time goes on, he seems to have a decent grasp of the issues, and conservative credentials, but someone needs to tell him that trying to hold the Cheshire Cat smile in place while talking, is little creepy looking. As soon as R. Paul started talking about Iran, my friend and I looked at each other and said "he just finished himself off as a candidate". We still really like Mr Perry…not sure if he's POTUS ready (not saying he's not either, just not sure), but just cant help but LIKE the man. Newt….still scares us, all over the place, and he thinks he's the pearl in the oyster that is the universe. We love Michelle, but dont know if she helped herself with the attack dog thing tonight.
After watching the republican debate I can say its the most bigoted thing I have ever seen on TV. Its as if the only thing that all the Republican candidates save Ron Paul have in common is hating on Muslims and gossip on Iran. Absolutely disgusted! All props to Ron Paul to call out the xenophobia.
…
FOX correspondent: "YOU WILL ANSWER MY HYPOTHETICAL, RON! IRAN HAS A BOMB – GO!"
Paul pulled the why not Switzerland line about terrorists. He is right saying Iran doesn’t even have nuclear weapons.
And let me be clear, Iran is not Iraq. It's a large nation of motivated people and a well-armed military, ready to take on all challengers. Iran will be difficult to invade, and impossible to hold.
Bachmann threw a five-minute rant about war with Iran, and closes her argument with "I'm on the side of peace." What the ????
And Israel doesn't even want our help.
It's too bad some of you motivated by fear think differently.
The USA is safe.
We need to worry about our rights aka the Constitution. All of it!
He may be an old dude with bad posture, but he has the biggest balls in this country. Ron Paul is our only hope.
We dont love Michelle. lol. News flash! RP is killing it and he will probably win Iowa.
Bachmann threw a five-minute rant about war with Iran, and closes her argument with "I'm on the side of peace." What the s***.
*face palm
The holy land of Jews and Christians, not Muslims.
No Muslim rulers care about Muslims inhabiting Israel. Jordan cares about access to the Mediterranean and the aquifers in central Israel, Syria cares about the aquifers, and Egypt cares about cutting off the Jordanians from the Mediterranean. If the places is otherwise a wasteland it is that much easier to control and restrict another army from conquering.
Mohammad allegedly visited heaven from "the farthest mosque". That is Jerusalem only when convenient for Muslims.
Israel contains no other actual Muslim holy sites, only Jewish and Christian holy sites they rename and claim are actually Muslim holy sites, just like the Temple Mount.
The land could have a 100% Muslim population and if those Muslims get in the way they will be killed by other Muslims, just like the Muslims of Darfur are being exterminated by other Muslims of Sudan.
The Iranians only say the land should go to the Fauxlestinians because they don't want the Jews to have it.
Yes, THAT land they will nuke into uninhabitable oblivion, or at least incinerate the main Jewish population centers, after which they will demand money from Europe to clean up the environmental damage.
What did going to war with Iraq do for the American People? I am so tired of Big Government Republicans defending our role as policeman of the world. Our government sacrificed our young boys for what? Was "freeing" the people of Iraq our job? Is protecting Israel our job? Do we need 900 bases protecting countries all over the world? Do we need to bankrupt our country doing all these things? Ron Paul is the only candidate who understands his place under the constitution.
So there is at least a factor of 10 in the number of casualties alleged to have resulted from the bombings and sanctions.
Of course those are only alleged, and actual demonstrated casualties are off by yet another factor of 10.
Then, having admitted the entire claimed fact simply isn't true but you declare it is fact anyway, you declare opposition to any policy that kills . . . no one . . . simply because it is a policy that you can . . . claim killed a lot of people.
Well, it is nice to know that you oppose anything that lets you lie so blatantly, though you might want to consider just not lying in the first place.
Having told your lies and declared your opposition to what makes you lie, you then provide for us, from your finely established moral high ground, a moral pronouncement attacking your own fine strawman.
As Mr. Spock would say, your Ronulan logic is truly "Fascinating."
Of course you won't discuss his getting more donations from active Stormfront than all other candidates combined.
Well, it gives Ron Paul such an excellent opportunity to reveal what an anti-American con-man he is over and over again, so at least it accomplishes that.
So we either get Ron Paul and his 9/11 Trutherism or we get Barack Obama and his 9/11 Trutherism.
I'm not seeing a difference.
There are honest-to-goodness military veterans who are complete and utter Marxists who absolutely support Barack Obama.
Ron Paul's eagerness to wrap himself in the bodies of veterans in an attempt to "prove" his patriotism just demonstrates how little he respects veterans and the country as a whole.
Yes, McNamara eventually owned up that Vietnam was a mistake.
Too bad Ron Paul refuses to own up that his racist newsletter was a mistake.
Of course that would be extra difficult if he stills holds those views and doesn't actually believe it was a mistake.
Your I.Q. must be low if you believe anything these Big Government Republicans have to say. Ron Paul is the only candidate who consistently follows the constitution. He understands that it is not our job to police the world. He has been saying for years that we should not be sacrificing our young boys fighting other country's civil wars for them. But if you guys want to follow those who will sacrifice more young men and women, then God help you.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who believes we should not be sacrificing our young people to police the world. All the rest think it is ok for our American troops to die in another country's civil war. Are the Iraq people willing to die for us?
No, Ron Paul believes it is our job to roll over anytime someone says they don't like us, and despite this expect that we will be treated with respect by other nations.
After that he believes it is our job abandon all friends and allies, expect that despite this everyone will still rush to associate with us.
Ron Paul believes some really weird things.
I found this on the subject http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/a-quick-i...
Sounds like a combination of taken out of context combined with facts and statistics.
The Houston Chronicle:
Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."…Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers." A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.
Remember when ol' Jesse Jackson said he was afraid of black men?
Of course you won't discuss his getting more donations from active military than all the other candidates combined.
Ron Paul hasn't said he wouldn't go to war. He's said Congress should properly declare it like they're supposed to do.
If other countries did what the U.S. does, we'd stop them.
I bet those Iraqis would love to immigrate here and enjoy our rich social services and benefits system.
Apparently you did not read that article completely.
In 1996 he claimed he was being taken out of context and the facts and statistics were legitimate.
Since 2008 he has claimed he never wrote the articles at all and was just lying in 1996 because his staff told him it would confuse people to explain that ghostwriters and editors usurped his name.
So which time was he lying?
Or was he lying both times?
Ron Paul:
He was for inciting race war before he was against it.
If you and the other Ronulans are so comfortable with where he gets his money I would expect you to jump at the chance to defend his Stormfront connections.
Since you aren't, I have to wonder why.
Paul has also said the ATF shouldn't exist. He's the most pro-gun candidate running. Hell, Mitt likes gun bans, and Newt thinks a thumbprint database for gun owners is a good idea.
You'd think "small government conservatives" wouldn't be such hawks begging to send other people's kids off to die in undeclared and thus unconstitutional wars. They get more fired up about protecting other countries' borders than they do protecting the U.S.' borders.
You sure he wasn't just reporting factual criminal statistics information? It's no secret which ethnic group commits violent crimes at the greatest frequency.
Though I suppose BronxZionist, no issue is dearer to you than Israel and Ron Paul would pull the troops out of the middle east. But Paul was one of the few members that did not condemn Israel when it bombed that Baghdad nuclear reactor.
Back when Congress only worked Monday to Thursday, Ron Paul used to fly back to Texas early Friday morning and then Back Monday morning so he could practice medicine. He did that for 9 years too.
Ron Paul is a silly old whistle ass. In an election between Paul and Obama I would stay home because it would be a no win situation. Foreign policy is the major issue in the upcoming election as the economy would solve itself when Obama is gone. When it comes to foreign policy, Ron Paul is 20 times goofier than Obama.
I bet they would too. I wish I knew how some people who don't need or deserve anything seem to be able to milk the system, while others that actually need help have such trouble getting any help at all. I guess it was a flawed system to begin with. The government breaks everything it touches.
Oh, and Paul might do good in Iowa – Iowa after all is the state that gave us Obama. The rest of the country, however, sees Paul as the senile old moron he truly is.
Which friends and allies would that be? The same ones who talk us down all the time in the United Nations? The countries that leach off of us every day? The ones we are currently bailing out? Or are you talking about the multi-national corporations who benefit most from our over involvement in the world?
Larry O’Connor, EIC Breitbart.tv: IF you were the judge, you would send a man of peace to hell? Seriously? Thank the Good Lord, Mr. Larrry O'Connor IS NOT the judge; however, if you ACTUALLY DO believe in hell, perhaps you should consider hitting your knees, lest you be judged as you have judged: Harshly and without mercy.
Well, I actually sat there and watched it. Even though Newt, Mittens gave straight answers, I'm still pulling for Perry.
Any one of them can defeat obama. Which one do you trust?
Maybe you should enter the race.
Who is the most open, deeply thoughtful, intelligent, mature, experienced among them? Who would I enjoy the most having to my house for dinner party? NEWT. The rest are shallow, plastic talking points spewing only and bore me to tears. Not to mention, who can rip Obama a new one in a debate?
You're funny in that you suggest ishlamic radicals are rational by Western standards. Iran and the rest of the Arab world don't give a rat's behind where the 'palistinians' live. Their only interest is in driving the Jews out of the region and establishing a caliphate. Muslims killing muslims would be nothing new, and the Ayatollahs speak directly to alla and have permission cleanse the land, dome or no dome.
Who is the most open, deeply thoughtful, intelligent, articulate, mature, experienced among them? Who would I enjoy the most having to my house for dinner party? NEWT. The rest are shallow, plastic talking points spewing only and bore me to tears. Not to mention, who can rip Obama a new one in a debate? And as an Army Mom, who would I want as my son's commander in chief, that actually taught Generals in the art of war? NEWT! He's my kind of guy.
Before this debate, I really wasn't buying all the "Newt is a Progressive" stuff. But after hearing him defend the role of government in so many ways, and then try and give examples that "no warm hearted human could disagree with!" to back them up. Wow.
Newt really thinks that government is a force for good. He really really does.
The rest of us know that's it's just force.
Ron Paul is also the only candidate whose name appears on the most rascist and bigotted pages of toilet paper to have words typed on them. Only a simpleton or a Paulbot would believe that he hadn't written them or read them, because they appear on a newsletter called Ron Paul:Political Report. The only reason why the MSM hasn't reported on this is because they want Paul to be nominated, so they can drop him like a poopy diaper when it comes time to debate Obama. Forget about Paul, because not doing so will only earn you the label of KKK supporter.
http://www.marklevinshow.com/goout.asp?u=http://h...
This page has a link that gives you a screenshot of Ron Paul's Political Report Newsletter. If you can't handle the truth, then join the democrat party.
I absolutely shutter at the thought of having to pull the lever for Romney. I really hope it does not get to that. It would be a difficult decision. I am sure I would vote, but I would more than likely get completely drunk first and have my husband drive me to the polls.
One would let America be destroyed because of naievity and one has been doing his best to destroy America because he hates it.
Ron Paul is also the only candidate whose name appears on the most rascist and bigotted pages of toilet paper to have words typed on them. Only a simpleton or a Paulbot would believe that he hadn't written them or read them, because they appear on a newsletter called Ron Paul:Political Report. The only reason why the MSM hasn't reported on this is because they want Paul to be nominated, so they can drop him like a poopy diaper when it comes time to debate Obama. Forget about Paul, because not doing so will only earn you the label of KKK supporter.
http://www.marklevinshow.com/goout.asp?u=http://h...
This page has a link that gives you a screenshot of Ron Paul's Political Report Newsletter. If you can't handle the truth, then join the democrat party.
I understand your sentiment. I am like that with RP, then Romney.
Only a simpleton or a Paulbot would believe that he hadn't written them or read them
Right, because he's shown himself to be such a freakin racist that there's no possible way that he wasn't intimately involved in the editing and vetting process for every article that appeared in that newsletter.
MSM hasn't reported on this is because they want Paul to be nominated
The US would be better for his nomination, but don't tell that to Hannity. He spent a good part of his radio show on Wednesday bashing Paul (not to his face of course) about these newsletters produced over 20 years ago. Get over it. It's old news and is not reflective of Paul's ideology. Only a simpleton or MSM-bot would believe Paul's a racist.
Here's all I need to know about Ron Paul: When that National Defense Authorization Act is passed with the provision for indefinite detention of American citizens still intact, and that bill ends up on the desk of Obama or any of the current candidates for President, Ron Paul would veto it and everyone else would sign it. RP would not willfully violate the Constitution and sacrifice our liberties under the guise of "keeping us safe", and everyone else would.
I don't…
Zealots are zealots the world over…Paulbots just haven't had the grape Kool-Aid served yet…but they ARE shopping for Nikes and buying bolts of purple cloth for face shrouds…
On the other hand, there are some that i trust who cannot win. Let's face it, we all seek a candidate who we can trust AND who can win.
I served in the Marine Corps for 5 years and last I checked, it's a volunteer force, which makes each and every Marine, soldier, sailor, and airmen a special breed of American. We weren't stupid when we signed up. We knew exactly where we could end up and we proudly served our country where we were needed. We went to kick some a** after 9/11 and we were told, here are the terrorists, here is Al Queda, here is the Taliban. Let's not make no mistake about it, the recruiter might have told some whoppers, but he did not guarantee that we would not be going to either of these hellholes.
Cpl Nakanant, VMA-311, USMC
Have you ever considered that your standards are unrealistic?
We are not having a dinner party. We are electing the next leader of the free world.
And now I'm VERY curious about those Stormfront Neo-Nazi connections in the newsletters…because the Paulbots won't either admit or defend them…
At least with Newt, you get the story, ugly though it may be…
I'll bet that's why Texas did so much better during the current unpleasantness than most states did…no interference from the elected officials to "help" the good citizens of Texas…
OK, James…your point is…Rich people are evil?
The fact that you received 6 thumbs-up on a supposedly conservative blog…unfortunately says a lot.
LOL
"It's no secret which ethnic group commits violent crimes at the greatest frequency."
And what EXACTLY does that mean…?
Is it just me or does Chris Wallace sound and act like the attack liberals from the other MSM networks? He always seems to be trying to get the candidates to attack each other.
Don't be cute. I'm talking about the most real, the most genuine among them. Not plastic egos with superfical egotistical personal agendas.—
Watched most of the debate and found the Orange Man trying to convince us over and over and over that he really, really, really is a conservative, really! Honest! A lot of tap dancing from Mitt so I'd take off a few points for him. Perry and Santorum were excellent! I like Newt's debating skills but I just can't get over his "Now we're going to do BIG Government MY WAY" responses. I like the "Cut" ideas but not sure about his replacements. His big ideas/ego creeps me out. However, if he's the nominee … Ron Paul, well I really don't want to go there but I suppose it's time for his anal exam. It's only fair now.
This is what it boils down to. None of these candidates are perfect. Some, very far from but we will all have to crawl across broken glass to vote them in because it's going to take baby steps to turn this Titanic around. CAN'T DO THE 3RD PARTY THING THIS TIME! Maybe next time around. Let's choose most conservative but if a RINO gets it, we'll have no choice but to ride that sucker and steer them as best we can. They are WAY more controllable and preferable to four more years of radical, narcissistic, ideologue zealotry that knows no shame.
I wonder, is that your opinion of Thomas Jefferson? He also advised us of not involving ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Trade and be friendly with other nations, but do not involve yourselves in entangling alliances — that's what he advocated.
Ron Paul and his 9/11 Trutherism
citation please
20x goofier? Why, because Paul would actually follow the Constitution? If you support all our military interventions, can you please advise me as to what part of the US Constitution allows that?
Those who bear the brunt of war are those who pay attention to who is at the helm of the ship of state………..why do you think Democrats go out of their way to thwart absentee ballots of the military? The military follow orders, but they vote their own best interests…………staying alive by having a commander in chief who isn't going to use them as another political pawn or photo-op. Proressive left hated George W. Bush, he is still loved by the military. Many of we who have served reserved comment because of our status while in service, once retired or out of active duty we speak our mind as well as vote. It is no small wonder that the majority of rank and file do not vote for democrats.
We imposed UN sanctions you idiot. Learn to understand what is happening around you. Don't quote false numbers that you just made up or read out of the left wing Lancet. Fewer than 100,000 Iraqis were killed by Clinton bombing Iraq.
In 2003 we had been occupying Iraq for 14 years. We hardly 'invaded'. Again I recommend trying to understand what is going around you instead of taking your cues from the KosKids.
Anyone of them CANNOT beat Obama. Being partisan is one thing, being naive is another.
60 years later the traces of radioactivity have vanished from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They have waited since the fifties to get the bomb. Iran will happily bomb Israel to ashes. Muslims reward is in heaven not here on earth.
I sincerely hope Paul's follies propel Huntsman to No 3, or better, in NH. They just swapped places in a Suffolk U. poll showing Huntsman at 13%, to Paul's 8%.
Read on Bloomberg this morning how market participants aren't buying swaps anymore becuase, well, Goldman is making the rules. They collect premium, and now everyone knows that just like the insurers after Katrina, those insuring their sovereign bonds with Goldman are going to get a "Sorry Ms. Smith, your house was insured against flood, and it was the wind that destroyed it". Its this stuff that makes me question the Hayek types.
Huntsman isn't tethered to Wall Street like the others are, or certainly Gingrich is. He finally got into the Iowa debate becasue his poll numbers are rising.
Ron Paul or Obama is correct.
The way the party has treated him is shameful. However, the eventual nominee cannot win without his supporters votes.
You would think conservatives would spend less time insulting and belittling us.
Ronulans? Great label!
Of course, we know it! We are some kind of plants by the New World Order doing our best to make it possible for Gingrich to turn our sovereignty over to the UN. /sarc off
As for me, I think you have it completely wrong. Any of the non-Paul candidates can and will beat Obama. Dr. Paul has hurt himself with his foreign policy ideas.
As Rome burns this is what you are worried about, newsletters that Ron Paul did not write.
I will admit, the newsletters concerned me at first.
Listen to some of his speeches or read one of his books.
Not a racist bone in that mans body.
His principles of Liberty and Freedom apply to all.
You bet I'm concerned about that…!
Especially when no one is confronting the issue directly…even you pass it off as a way to get people to join the group…"Listen to some of his speeches or read one of his books…."
I'd be madder than hell if someone was using me to further racial politics…yet hardly a whimper is heard…much less "…I'm not gonna take this anymore…!!"
Silence appears to be acqiuiescence here…which means I have to review other things…such as why Paul seems to not be able to get any of the other 534 people of the Congress to support his ideas…
Perhaps they have heard something from Paul that is just now starting to get out…his racial politics, perhaps…?
You must CONVINCE me, Sir…not pass the buck and refer me to speeches and books…because you can be assured, I am going to go over this information with a very fine-toothed comb…
Not being cute. The current GOP field are incredibly accomplished people and I believe, on the whole, very sincere (by politician standards).
Most hold very similar policy positions (Ron Paul Foreign policy is the exception). I can understand that you like Newt (I too am very impressed with the way he handles the media), but to insist he is somehow less egotistical or more genuine than the rest of the pack is really silly in my opinion.
I did not, in any way, admit that the claim that at least hundreds of thousands of Iraq civilians died as a result of US sanctions was not true; it IS true. I was simply making the point that the US bombing and sanctioning of Iraq was NOT justified according to the Western (Christian) just war theory as formalized and systematized by St. Thomas Aquinas even if no Iraqi civilians had died.
The primary just war theory criteria are (1) right authority, (2) just cause, and (3) rightful intention. Additional criteria that have been developed since Aquinas' formulation include proportionality and discrimination. What the US did to Iraq, based on a strict rendering of these criteria, was both unjust and immoral.
Further, as to the reality of civilian deaths… here are some sources you could check out, including the actual UNICEF reports that discuss infant and child mortality (especially check out the UNICEF reports, which I was able to find at the Federation of American Scientists website):
Alnasrawi, A. (2001). Iraq: Economic sanctions and consequences, 1990-2000. Third World
Quarterly, 22(2), 205-218. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3993407
Cortright, D., & Lopez, G. A. (1999). Are sanctions just? The problematic case of iraq. Journal
of International Affairs, 52(2), 735-755. Retrieved from http:// http://www.ebscohost.com/public/political-science-comple...
Gordon, J. (2009). Economic sanctions and global governance: The case of iraq. Global Crime,
10(4), 356-367. doi:10.1080/17440570903248338
United Nations Children‟s Fund. (1999). Child and maternal mortality survey in dohouk, erbil
and al-suleimaniyah governorates, 1999: Preliminary report. Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/08/irqncont.pdf
United Nations Children‟s Fund. (1999). Child and maternal mortality survey 1999: Preliminary
report. Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/08/irqscvak.pdf
United Nations Children‟s Fund. (1999). Iraq – under-five mortality. Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/08/irqu5est.pdf
As for Ron Paul being a strawman, or me attacking him, you have no logical basis to say these things. My assertions are valid, and so are his. Killing innocent civilians is never justified. Also, references to Star Trek are weird and unnecessary, and lend no intellectual force to one's argument in any way.
I thought Newt got destroyed in this debate when he rightly got hammered on Freddie/Fannie and his defense of Government entities.
The majority of that 534 people spend trillions of dollars we don't have, like crony capitalism, like the Patriot Act, and just passed a bill allowing the military to hold U.S. citizens indefinitely without charge. Maybe being on the opposite side of them is the right side to be on.
It doesn't mean anything more than publicly available crime statistics show. You can't argue with facts, but you can debate why it is true. Though when popular black culture through music celebrates criminality it shouldn't come as a shock. Hell, Bill Cosby can see it and has spoken out against it.
Ron Paul as a doctor in Texas would treat people for free than accept medicaid. You can bet he treated plenty of non-whites for free out of his non-racist compassion.
The sanctions imposed upon Iraq were initiated under United Nations Security Council Resolution 661 in 1990. The force of these initial sanctions was then held in place, and magnified (even after the war was over), by UNSC Resolution 687. Technically, though, it is true to say that the US enforced the sanctions. However, these sanctions were enforced under the guise of UN Security Council Resolutions, which the US and Britain, due to their prominence in the Security Council (and as permanent SC members), were able to hold in place, despite the increasingly controversial and unpopular nature of the sanctions grew. Thus, the US and Britain were the primary advocates of the sanctions in the UNSC, and are thus primarily responsible for the impact upon Iraqi civilians. Even more damning is that it was the US military that was used as the primary vehicle to enforce the sanctions against Iraq. Apparently we're the world's police.
Regarding the impact of the sanctions upon Iraqi civilians; even if what you say is true ("Fewer than 100,000 Iraqis were killed by Clinton bombing Iraq"), can't you see the extreme injustice and immorality of that act? Iraqi civilians never did anything to the US, and even so, we punished them in an effort to punish Saddam Hussein. In doing so, the US totally violated the just war considerations of proportionality and discrimination. However, throughout the 1990s, at least hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed by US actions. Here are some sources (including the 1999 UNICEF reports):
Alnasrawi, A. (2001). Iraq: Economic sanctions and consequences, 1990-2000. Third World
Quarterly, 22(2), 205-218. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3993407
Cortright, D., & Lopez, G. A. (1999). Are sanctions just? The problematic case of iraq. Journal
of International Affairs, 52(2), 735-755. Retrieved from http:// http://www.ebscohost.com/public/political-science-comple....
Gordon, J. (2009). Economic sanctions and global governance: The case of iraq. Global Crime,
10(4), 356-367. doi:10.1080/17440570903248338
United Nations Children‟s Fund. (1999). Child and maternal mortality survey in dohouk, erbil
and al-suleimaniyah governorates, 1999: Preliminary report. Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/08/irqncont.pdf
United Nations Children‟s Fund. (1999). Child and maternal mortality survey 1999: Preliminary
report. Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/08/irqscvak.pdf
United Nations Children‟s Fund. (1999). Iraq – under-five mortality. Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/08/irqu5est.pdf
As for occupying Iraq for 14 years, though we did enforce no-fly-zones (and other measures), we were not technically occupying Iraq, at least not in the manner we are now. Thus our action in 2003 can be legitimately and rightfully categorized as an aggressive invasion.
Great points, my friend.
I disagree. Though foreign policy is of obvious importance, Ron Paul is the only candidate who really understands the nature of our monetary system, and the fact that great empires collapse due to global over-extension and debt. Our economy would not just solve itself when Obama is gone. We have a fractional reserve monetary system controlled by a central bank (the Federal Reserve), and our debt increases under both Republicans and Democrats. Moreover, the dollar is weakened and devalued year after year, and establishment politicians of the Right and Left do nothing to stop it.
For many decades now, no matter which party is in power, the US is always at war, the welfare-entitlement state continues to expand, the executive branch grows in size/ scope/ power and regulates ever more areas of our lives (totally outside of the legislative process), the national debt increases, the dollar is devalued, and the Federal Reserve just monetizes the debt.
In any case, the real problem we face (that no one truly understands or wants to talk about) is central banking and our fractional reserve monetary system. Our society is slowly being destroyed from a reliance on excessive credit that has lasted for decades, and our monetary system is at the root of our problem.
No, because he's shown himself to be a blatant liar, first claiming he was merely taken out of context, then claiming he had nothing at all to do with the newsletters.
And the articles in question were presented as his direct views. Even if he didn't check the rest of the content you would kinda sorta expect him to check the opinion pieces being presented as his own.
Further, there is no statute of limitations on being a lying bigot out to forment a race war. Robert Byrd remained a Klansman until the day he died, and Paul can own those newsletters until the day he finally crawls back under his rock.
As for all you need to know, the NDAA does not provide for the indefinite detention of AMerican citizens. It is a nice bit of scaremongering, but it is not what is in the bill.
You must be logged in to post a comment.