Ron Paul on economics: Cut military spending, bring the troops home and have more bases here in the United States. He evidently hoped to recast himself as less dove than America-firster. But lost in his plan: Host countries like Germany and Japan actually pay much of the costs and pick up the bill for troop support infrastructure, costs which would be borne entirely by American taxpayers if those troops were based here. Bring those troops home and our costs go up. Plus, those troops are based overseas for strategic reasons, in Europe to keep the peace there, and in Japan to keep the peace in the Pacific. The troops based overseas would be less strategically useful in, say, South Dakota. This answer betrayed a disturbing lack of depth and basic knowledge of the world in Paul’s thinking.
Forty minutes in, Kelly Evans of the Wall Street Journal asked Romney directly if he will release his tax returns. He said that he anticipates, most likely, he will release his tax returns in April. He came off as unsteady, a bit waffly, as if he is unsure if he has anything to hide. Expect this delay/whiff to dog him for the next few days or even weeks.
Just before the hour mark, Gingrich won a standing ovation after an exchange of several minutes with Fox’s Juan Williams over the subject of minorities, work among the young and poor, and food stamps. Gingrich finished off the exchange stirring up the strongest applause of the night, pledging that while “wealthy elites despise earning a living,” he will do everything he can to make it easier for the poor to get jobs and earn their own living rather than becoming dependent on food stamps under President Obama, whom Gingrich has dubbed the “food stamp president.” Williams framed the initial question and follow-ups as though Gingrich has belittled people who are dependent on food stamps. Creating economic dependency, which Gingrich forcefully opposed, does more to belittle people across whole generations than rhetoric probably ever can. Williams’ cheap shots on race earned him boos from the audience. He deserved them, but the Democrats are almost certain to play this as “Republicans boo black man on Martin Luther King Jr. Day.”
The second hour opened with Ron Paul justifying his opposition to the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. Seriously, this is a leading Republican contender? Paul consistently positions himself in ways that blame America and suggest that we are wrong no matter what we do in regards to terrorism. He analogized Osama bin Laden to a Chinese dissident. He accused faceless operators of itching for war with Iran, despite the fact that practically no one wants that, and despite that fact that Iran has considered itself at war with the US since 1979. This exchange was Paul’s second run at full spectrum incoherence in tonight’s debate. The consistent thread running through all of his foreign policy answers to date is that Ron Paul simply would not forcefully represent the United States on the world stage. He lacks the moral clarity needed to defend the nation as her commander in chief.
Perry, while answering when asked about the rise of Islamists in Turkey: “This president has a foreign policy that makes our allies very nervous and emboldens our enemies.” Whether Perry wins or not, this thought should carry forward through November. Perry moved from there to perhaps his strongest statement, in reaction to video of Marines urinating on killed Taliban, by reminding the audience that the Taliban’s and al-Qaeda’s brutal beheadings and murders deserve far more condemnation. Paul finished up, noting that the people who later formed al-Qaeda were our allies against the USSR in Afghanistan. This is common knowledge, and also irrelevant to their brutality now and what we as a nation should do about it, especially when perpetrated against American citizens. Once again, the message from Ron Paul: America, it’s all your fault. You killed Daniel Pearl.
Following Paul’s indictment of American past foreign policy, Romney finished up an exchange on the president’s proposed defense cuts when he agreed with Perry for a third time of the night in noting that it’s despicable to keep cutting defense when the world needs American military superiority.
The fundamental problem with Romney is that he will run a McCain-type “we must play nice” campaign against Obama. He is the media’s pick because they believe he will be the easiest to undermine when the campaign gets underway in the fall. The biggest danger of a Romney candidacy is that the conservatives will sit on the sidelines as many did in 2008.
I doubt Romney would play nice. There’s a reason his opponents hate him. He’s much, much more competitive than people realize. I truly doubt conservatives will sit on the side-lines- they are HUGELY motivated to replace Obama. The thing with Romney is that he has to learn to knife his opponents better, with a smile on his face like Reagan did, like Clinton does. Gingrich is pretty good at it, too (too bad he’s a megalomaniac). It’s a true gift to be able to politically knife someone all the while being charming about it. McCain seemed to have some absurd notion of being “honorable” to a fault. Not fighting for something so important seems to me the epitome of dishonor. So as I see it it’s not the fighting or being too nice that’s his problem, but how to be charming while dissecting your opponent. Hopefully he’ll learn.
After seeing this group yet one more time I will take the megalomaniac thank you. Romney makes it a point to say the least he can and still finish a sentence. He talked about fixing the Olympics in Utah and Bain capital like they were qualifications for solving this mess our country is in. His “Fix” for Medicare and Social Security was pathetic and designed to NOT offend anyone. Only one person on the stage there tonight had any new ideas and that is Newt. Paul came across as an old man who was confused. Perry is getting better but will never catch up and Santorum just leaves me cold. The bottom line is if Romney gets the nod he will make it into Mr. Nice meets the smiling Chicago thug and his friends from ALL of the msm. Whom do you think will walk away with the victory? He does not have the ability to call Obama a liar or a disaster greater than a tsunami. Newt will.
Newt Gingrich is a Communist. And very likely bi-polar… when people call him mercurial or other forms of “changeable” that is a big flashing, red, warning that he is mentally ill.
Lots of mentally ill people are smart. Gingrich is one scandal after another for 4 years and by then we will all be bi-polar!
Please, stop encouraging this very dangerous candidate.
Besides Newt is only a conservative when people are watching… most of his life he is a liberal, or a hypocrite.
I totally agree that it is Romney’s stealth competitiveness that brings out such anger from his competitors. Think how effective that will be when the “Cool” one starts blowing his stack because Romney is ‘inexplicably’ more popular than he is.
But I think Romney has figured out how to damage someone by complementing them. When he first went after Perry in the first debate that Perry joined, he didn’t trash TX the way Newt tried to trash capitalism: To paraphrase:
“Texas is a great state. It’s a right to work state and has a number of business friendly policies that should be the envy of everyone. So if you believe that the other 49 states are like TX than vote for Gov. Perry. But if you think we need someone to turn this country around because it’s in serious trouble than consider voting for me.”
He then followed up in the same debate with a question as to how the GOP should appeal to Hispanics while opposing amnesty: (again, paraphrased):
“Whatever else we disagree about, we know that Hispanic immigrants didn’t come here looking for a free lunch, but to find opportunity. We are the party of family values, and we are the party of opportunity, and that’s how we appeal to the Hispanic immigrants, because they believe in the same things.”
That’s when I realized just how much better he was then last time. He’s learned how to tell you uncomfortable truths by complementing where you came from.
That
The biggest danger of a Romney candidacy is that he will win. Like ObamaCare? Can’t wait to have a VAT tax to pay even more taxes, not to pay down debt but increase still more the size of the US government?
Obamney is indeed better than Obama, but what with a pulse isn’t?
Utter nonsense. All these things require congressional action, they are not things the President can do on his own. Do you believe a Republican Congress will send up such bills?
Similarly, when a Republican Congress repeals ObamaCare, do you expect President Romney to veto repeal? Seriously?
You are assuming that you will have a GOP congress…..generic congressional vote has gone from GOP +5 to GOP -5 …..10pt swing….don’t assume you will win because Pelosi is a dolt
Not according to Rasmussen who has it Repubs 44% and Dems 38%:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot
Romney has explicitely promissed to repeal Obamacare. If he gets a repub congress and senate, he will probably be able to (although a dem senate fillibuster may still stop repeal). If he does not get a repub congress and senate, then repeal is dead anyway. That is why taking the senate is just as important, if not more imortant, than getting rid of Obama. Getting rid of Obama is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for real change. The other essential is taking the senate and holding the house.
…the conservatives will sit on the sidelines as many did in 2008.
Nice story, except that in real life the conservatives didn’t sit on the sidelines in 2008 – the squish did. Yep, the so-called moderate Republicans lost the ’08 presidential race for their party. They also lost the race for their moderate-ness, being that Obama is the most polarizing and divisive president in their moderate lifespans.
Yeah, I’d agree with you there. Just looking around my office and neighborhood I can find examples of what you describe: I have a WorldNetDaily-reading neighbor who had a bumper sticker saying that he didn’t plan to vote for any of the candidates or something to that effect, but that sticker disappeared shortly after Palin was nominated for VP, so even though I didn’t ask, I’m quite confident he voted for McCain and Palin.
On the other hand, my “moderate” Republican colleague who said she would have preferred Romney to be the nominee in 2008 was horrified by the choice of Palin and she voted for Obama, as did the self-described independent in my office who rarely likes Democrats.
And I supported Romney at my caucus in 2008, and then thought the Palin pick was the only thing McCain did to even try to win, and then I voted for McCain against Obama. I guess we are all kind of different, aren’t we.
You think Bain played nice? lol. Don’t let Romney’s nice-guy exterior fool you. He didn’t make it this far, and have the successes he has had in his life, by playing nice. Not sure if that’s a good thing or bad? Guess it depends on what the issue is. He’ll bring it against Obama. And in a way that is respectful and civil – which will appeal to independents.
Here here! Romney isn’t my top choice, but you are correct that he has the ability to make the tough decisions when they are needed. If he had played nice and kept every unprofitable business open in which Bain invested, the entire company itself may have gone under, to include every other company Bain was working with that had, was in the process of, or would in the future, succeed. I hate the attacks Gingrich started because he is too smart to realize that not downsizing companies and streamlining operations would result in 100% job loss rather than the slice they did cut. Do the Bain accusers really think that is preferable?
Romney is neither a media pick, nor the Republican Establishment pick, he is the default pick, the others are just awful.
The “conservatives” talk well, attack their own well, BUT… Gingrich, give me a break! He’s mean, selfish, and arrogant. Santorum, how conservative he really was for supporting Spectre and sold out Toomey who had helped him in his re-election bid. Perry, his brain hasn’t thawed in time and made himself a laughing stalk. Oh, that Pawlenty guy couldn’t attack Romney, but piled on Palin who was not even in the race. Bachmann, self destructed with her silly vaccine-caused-autism-or-whatever without any fact to back her up. Caine?
Face it, we are voting against Obama, not for the Republican nominee whoever that may be. So stop bellyaching, do whatever necessary to stop Obama.
Well, if having a guy in the Oval Office with a frozen brain means that unemployment will go down, the debt will go down, the GDP to debt will be reduced, the GDP will increase, public per capita debt decreases, jobs are created and taxes reach an acceptable level, like they have in Texas, I’ll take the guy with the frozen brain. But on one condidtion; when you lose your job in whatever state you call utopia, you don’t come to Texas.
On everything but foreign policy I’m decidedly in the Paul camp (some of his FP stuff is actually very well-considered, but he strays into “uninformed kookland” too often to take seriously outside of domestic affairs), but even I have to admit that with our current budget issues, it’s not *necessarily* an awful thing to have a finance guy in the WH.
Romney is a one-bullet candidate. He says that obama has failed over and over, as if obama is just another libral candidate who is sadly misguided.
If the economy is better in September, or much more likely, the government produced statisitcs are better, how will that bullet play?
Romney has more grit and ability to take out opponents than you think. Just ask newt after romneys super pac was done with him. Romney managed to successively take out each new conservative favorite, Bachman, Perry, Cain, and then Newt. After overcomming successive challenges in the repub primary, I think he can take on Obama.
And for those who Question why Romneys experience at Bain is useful for a president, considering how bloated the fed gov is now, and how badly it needs downsizing, having a corporate downsizing expert as president may be more handy than you think.
I am also not that worried about Romney not being conservative enough. Being a Rhino in a repub state, like McCain or Linsday Graham, is hard to excuse. But having to trim in the rhino direction in a dem state like MA is just a sensible survival tactic. As long as we give him a repub congress, I am not worried about him being sufficiently conservative. In fact, considering how the main faults of the present prez is he is a rigid idealog that is incapable of compromise, or of forming cooalitions with the other party, maybe it is time for a change there too. Reagan managed to bring on dems for his conservative agenda, maybe Romney can as well.
The modern demand by the press for candidates to release their private economic information is just prurient voyeurism by our modern day press. This singular demand leads to the self-elimination of more qualified potential candidates for public office than any other demand, IMHO.
Why should Romney release his records? Are they not just as private as Obama’s college grades? If Obama can pick and choose what information to release in order to limit meritless attacks, why cannot Romney do the same?
I’m no big Romney fan, but doesn’t everyone already know that he is superrich? What possible value does the voter get by looking at his personal finances? The media consistently forget that the voters do not vote for the candidate based on who he/she is. The vote is based on who the voter is. And the relevant information is how the candidate will represent the people, not how they represent themselves.
Liberals could not care less about the tax info of Liberal presidential candidates.
We are more discerning and the appropriate response to Romney’s refusal to release his records when this has been done by (what I assume) is every other candidate for us is why?
What are you hiding that needs hiding? We already know you’re rich and if this is a sticking point now why not release your clean records?
Unless maybe they don’t look so clean. Yes the simpler answer is for privacy but again we return to the grief not releasing them is generating.
Would it not be easier to release the records and remove that ammunition from the opposition?
And I disagree about the reasons we vote. Who a candidate is has a bearing on how he may represent us.
Some of us think elections would produce better results if the voters had to make their own tax records public.
So Cn, disclose! No mumbling about some right to privacy allowed. As you yourself asked, “what are you hiding that needs hiding? …if this is a sticking point now why not release your clean records?
Unless maybe they don’t look so clean.”
I am not in the running to be president of 50 states.
I am not basing anything on my records clean or dirty nor am I facing issues with not revealing them.
In short you are comparing apples to oranges.
IF I was running on my record then my refusal to show them would speak volumes.
But I’m not and they don’t and your attempts to lump me in with Romney makes as much sense as lumping Mother Teresa with Adolf Hitler.
No similarities aside from base cosmetics.
Romney has discussed paying for a reduction in the capital gains tax with a new VAT. Please note that the people most hurt by a new VAT are the poor and the people most helped by a reduction in capital gains are the super rich. If Romney’s tax forms show his announced policies would help him reduce his capital gains tax liability in a significant way, imagine how much and how often the Obama machine will remind all voters of this in the general election. This is a reason why Republican primary voters might want to see Romney’s tax records early in the primary process.
Since they said the OBAMA CAMPAIGN was calling for the release of his tax info, I think he should have said he would release his information right after Obama released ALL his records, including his BC.
“Why should Romney release his records? Are they not just as private as Obama’s college grades? If Obama can pick and choose what information to release in order to limit meritless attacks, why cannot Romney do the same?”
Isn’t that the point? Part of the reason we’re in this mess having to deal with a Marxist president who may or may not even be a natural born citizen…who may or may not be using a phony SSN…is the fact that we DIDN’T demand the release of personal information.
What do you think happens if he releases those tax returns in April or May or June and they reveal that he made millions of dollars and paid no or almost no income tax? Personally, good for him to find a way to legally pay no income taxes. But in an age of OWS and class warfare what do you think Obama will do to such a candidate? He will paint Romney as part of the 1%…he will make this an election of the haves vs. the have-nots…and Obama’s record will never be scrutinized.
Any candidate should make the release of any records dependent on obama’s release. The general public has no idea that obama has completely hidden his past.
They should also demand a full disclosure of obama’s medical records going back before 2008. Those are the most relevant records.
Of course Gingrich didn’t spend as much time attacking the moderators at this debate. This debate was moderated by Fox News. They didn’t ask questions designed to make the candidates look stupid or extreme.
Yes we envy his success and demand like Democrats that he justify it to us. Romney is the only Republican in the race.
The United States of America has military men, women, and weapons in many more nations than Germany and Japan. And to choose those two countries indicates a lack of basic knowledge of American foreign policy. Mr. Preston tries to discredit Ron Paul, as usual, but again comes off as just a cheerleader for the Neocon policies that have helped to bankrupt our nation.
Does anyone really think that $740 billion spent on defense is being wisely utilized? Just a few years ago we spent $400 billion and that was enough to provide defense. In the same way that Liberals can’t ever back cuts to the welfare system, Rpublicans cannot stand cuts to defense. If you can’t cut defense and can’t cut social spending, then we are left with exactly the same government we have now. Only one candidate is even trying to discuss doing hints differently… And it sure the hell isn’t Perry, Gingrich or Romney.
Can you Paulbots type one simple paragraph without the use of “neo-con”?
The author referred to two examples of the largest,and longest overseas deployments of US forces. If you or your leader Ron Paul don’t like it, then cite examples of foreign facilities that could be closed. Instead, he talked about “bases being built in the 90′s” ( when we were instead pulling out of the Phillipines) and his mantra of “unnecessary wars”.
Ron Paul is wrong on dealing with the Taliban as they are today, but he’s right that it’s time to extract ourselves from the role as World Policeman. We are not our brothers’ keepers, whether they contribute to the costs of foreign deployment or not. If you want to spend _your_ money paying for military deployments to keep Europe free from, uh–who, Europeans?–start writing your own personal checks. Quit demanding other taxpayers foot the bill for your jingoism.
I was always taught not to stick my nose into others’ business, yet this is what Obama (if it moves, bomb it while on the fairway) every GOPher wants, Paul excluded. It’s time to leave the Afghanis (and everyone else) to their own devices. If they want to live in the Stone Age, let them. It’s also very cheap to leave them alone, something utterly lost on Obama, Obamney, Perry, and the rest who can only spend and bomb. Surely we’ll need that VAT tax, “because out military is so underfunded!”
I’m proud to have served in the US military, but no nation–barring Iran–is a serious threat to national defense, not even the Canadians or Mexicans next door. Iran is a problem, one Ron Paul refuses to acknowledge; however, he’s right that US policy helped poison that well. The Iranians are still hot ‘n’ bothered about the cloak-and-dagger work of the British as well.
Ron Paul is flawed, but he’s the only one serious about addressing the national debt, which is the greatest threat to long-term national security. Ron Paul claims he’s going to forego his Representative’s pension; I believe him, but I cannot imagine any of the other jokers doing likewise. Of those GOPhers left on stage, Ron Paul is the only one not determined to micromanage every aspect of every citizen’s life; the rest are just Obama Lite.
You know even a broken clock is right twice a day and so is Paul. If he is so damned smart and his ideas so great why has he accomplished nothing in all of his years in Congress? It must have been uncomfortable tonight when the old guy lost his place on his babble about Bin Laden’s execution. Then he went on to say that all weapons are not for our defense. I suppose any new fighters or ships would be to make war and not defend us. Or if we had air bases in other countries that would not be for our defense but to wage war. The idea is to not make war here but to keep it over there. Can you imagine what size the Navy would have to be to deploy all of the planes that we would need to defend our country? What about the Air Force? His national defense position is about the same as Great Britain’s using the English Channel as a moat. He does not believe in Medicare or Social Security. Can you imagine him getting any senior to vote for him? Any Democrat? Any Independent? You might like his ideas but he will never defeat a socialist like Obama.
Ron Paul is now 76 years old, which makes him 77 when he could take office and 81 at the end of his first term. Yes, he could live to be 100, but he probably won’t and his vice-presidential pick would become very important in view of those facts. The GOP can’t afford another white haired old man to be their candidate. As Jon Huntsman would say, “simply put.”
Making war over there instead of here is EXACTLY why terrorism represents a victory and desirable strategy for these troglodytes. Yes, many bases over there are explicitly for making war, not for defense.
We can be safe with: a nuclear triad, good airplanes, great intel, r&d, a few boats and a marine corps. But frankly, Paul doesn’t even want to cut THAT much. As President, he would return spending to 2006 levels. His anti-war rhetoric is more of an educational campaign so we can explore more ideas in the narional dialogue. It’s also a winning general election strategy. Paul’s foreign policy in it’s purity would only be implemented if a Congress is elected that agrees with it.
Paul didn’t get much accomplished because Washington has been broken and he has been fixed. Are you satisfied with our monetary policy? DO YOU LIKE THE OUTCOME OF THE DEBT CEILING DEBATE? Both are status quo policies. Paul has been right on both while quite frankly every other candidate was wrong at the time – all for the sake of getting along.
Really? After 2008, Fannie Freddie, Obama, and the Tea Party we are looking for someone who has a historyof getting along within the establishment.
Look, Obama is a big problem, but this problem is much bigger than Obama. That turn of phrasebest captureswhy we need Ron Paul. Some people think the economy WILL face a big collapse soon. Others just want to beat Obama
Once again Romney’s words failed to match his record as Governor. It’s too bad we can’t decide his candidacy after he runs to the left in the general election. Romney did leak out his support for the NDAA act claiming that we should trust our President not to abuse his power when he detains US citizens indefinitely on US soil without bringing charges.
With Boehner in the House and McConnell in the Senate already conspiring against conservative legislators, I can only imagine what those two will do when joined by a Romney administration. Words or actions, people, words or actions; your answer will determine our future.
I too was appalled at Romney”s answer about the NDAA. That is the first step to imperialism. Look at the Attorney General we have now! Would any of you like to have him make the judgement as to whether or not you are a terrorist? I cannot believe that our Republican House voted for this demise of our Constitution either.
This is one subject that I would like to see Romney change his mind about.
Assuming Cousin Mitt (distant relative on my mother’s side) gets the nomination, I would prefer that he be able to say to Obama in a debate (or his campaign be able to say in ads): “I will release my tax returns when you release your academic records.” That obviously can’t happen if he bows to pressure from the GOP pack and releases them during the primary campaign.
Of all the candidates on that stage, I doubt ANY of them would ever bring up Obama’s unreleased records. And Mitt would be the least likely to take that chance in the campaign.
I was resigned to accept Gov. Romney as the candidate until he stated he would have signed the NDAA if he had been President. He insisted no President would use it against the American people and we needed to elect people we can trust not to abuse this new authority. Okay, I will. I will vote for Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is the only one I trust to not use the term “terrorist” as an excuse to arrest and hold without charge or right to habeus corpus. The FDA wants food activist to be deemed economic terrorist. If the FDA gets that, then what will other federal agencies want to declare and act of terror.
The NDAA is and act of terror against American citizens.
So you’re an obama supporter. How special.
That’s exactly the market value of a vote for Ron Paul. Compared to Ron Paul, California Governor Jerry Brown, once known as Governor Moonbeam seems like Gov. John Q. Public by comparison. Ron Paul is as divorced from reality as any candidate of my 75-year lifetime. Out to lunch 24/7.
Rick Perry finally got into the starting blocks just as Mitt closes in on the tape at the other end of the track? Oh, for what could have been…
As for Ron Paul’s foreign policy – it’s not a matter of the US being the world’s police force, it’s about our learning to fight an effective and cost-effective 18-month small war – and make no mistake, by any historical standard Iraq and Afghanistan are small wars. We made much the same mistake in Vietnam, troweling down huge permanent slabs of infrastructure all over SEA and moving in for a decade, huge amounts of firepower eating vast sums of the GDP and achieving nothing – well, that’s not true, we left the Russians some great bases, for as much good as it did them. The drones-and-bombers model the current administration is pursuing only works against failed states and pissant third-rate kleptocracies that can’t shoot back, but I’ll give them credit for at least trying something different.
I can’t think of anything I would care less about than a candidate’s tax return. I don’t understand why certain pundits are claiming this is a huge issue.
I agree 100%.
second look at perry
The Race Card, the Race Pot, and the Race for the Presidency
Many millions of Americans assumed the race issue in this country was finally behind us after the election of the nation’s first black president in 2008.
After all, Barack Hussein Obama suggested as much, voters had expiated their baseless white guilt over slavery by voting for a black man, and African-Americans were elated over their achievement in nominating and electing, as my Irish mother would say, “one of their own.”
It was widely hoped that America had entered a new era of racial harmony with Obama’s inauguration.
Guess what? We didn’t and, in fact, race relations are far worse now than they had been in many decades and for a very good reason: The Obamas themselves continue to stir the race pot in order to keep it boiling through November and beyond.
Stirring, stirring, stirring.
Instead of attempting to fulfill his pledge to minimize the differences between people, to emphasize that the content of one’s character and not the color of one’s skin is what matters most, the president accents our differences by playing the always-electorally-potent race card.
What matters most to Obama is getting re-elected at any cost.
As he said last week at a D.C. fundraiser, “The very core of what this country stands for is on the line–the basic promise that no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, this is a place where you could make it if you try.”
That idea of appearances over substance reiterated what Obama said to Latinos in October: “I believe America should be a place where you can always make it if you try; a place where every child, no matter what they look like, where they come from, should have a chance to succeed.”
No slouch when it comes to racial pot-stirring, the not “angry black woman” Michelle Obama asked a rhetorical question at yet another fundraiser: ”Will we give every child–every child–a chance to succeed, no matter where she’s from, or what she looks like?” (http://bit.ly/xyk6Up)
Could the theme of what we “look like” be code for race? Do bears defecate in the woods?
Regardless of where bears do their business, race agitator Rev. Al Sharpton now does his on MSNBC and never misses a chance to stir the pot, toss some incendiary racial ingredient into it, or make certain one of his talk show guests does.
South Carolina Democrat Party Chairman Dick Harpootlian served that function in a discussion on the election in which Harpootlian managed to link Monday’s Republican debate in South Carolina with racism, states’ rights, Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, and the election of 1860–all within less than two minutes.
Harpootlian demonstrated his short memory by forgetting his Democrats debated on MLK Day 20008 and the dearth of his historical expertise when he said Lincoln signed the Emancipation Declaration in 1860–when the Civil War hadn’t even begun. Sharpton and his fellow black commentator Melissa Harris-Perry took it from there and lambasted Republicans for virtually desecrating MLK Day by debating as evidence of their innate racism. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12148.)
“Stiring, stiring, stiring”
I think you meant to say;
Double, double toil and trouble
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.
But I agree that this is the biggest issue for November. Of course no one can say so.
Perry finally rises to the level I’ve heard in his campaigns for governor.
Great report! Thank you!
As for Governor Perry, did get to listen, and was very pleased and satisfied by his contributions to the discussion!
I would point out the Governor has by far the most outstanding and consistent record of successful conservative governance. This Administration has a record in stark contrast to the Governor’s accomplishments with Texas.
Former Governor Romney has a record and past positions this Administration has to love.
For myself, will not be able to support yet another establishment moderate positioned to work with the opposition, peck around the edges of our pressing problems agreeing to mutually acceptable approaches and potentially supporting initiatives to address global warming.
I have been on record repeatedly saying that these “B” teamers all pile out of a clown car at once and stumble around making fools of themselves and the all of us who wish to stop the runaway freight train of radical leftism.
Not last night. Oh, there were moments when the floppy shoes or round red nose showed up…(and there was Ron Paul, a walking embarrassment of near permanent clownery)but overall I thought the evening contained some of the best moments in the entire primary season.
I have been especially harsh on the Rick Perry campaign. I believe they have squandered what should have been a very strong opportunity to say…the very things he said last night. Before I get to the VERY positive, let me get a slight but CONTINUING negative out of the way.
Perry does NOT help himself…or the American people by doubling down on this “vulture” capitalism bullshit. If it’s a ploy to play to the most ignorant, most uninformed, most drooling imbeciles…who would otherwise vote for Obama or the even bigger imbeciles who declare they would “stay home” if someone other than their guy wins…then he doesn’t deserve to be President. Frankly, he would be finally playing to his “natural base” if that’s the case…and low rate imbecile playing to the bottom of the barrel imbeciles. He is trying to attack Romney for being rich and successful…that is a ploy for leftist assholes. It doesn’t work. The ONLY reason anyone on THAT stage would care what Romney’s taxes show…is to create an Obama-like class warfare play.
It’s yet ANOTHER thinly disguised assault on free market success. It’s a loser ploy and only the Perry campaign would be stupid enough to double down on it. Ditch it.
Obama was completely unvetted. If I was the Republican Chairman I would tell ALL the candidates to hold a file with ALL their information in a folder. Whoever wins will turn over that folder the MINUTE Obama is vetted equally…for the FIRST time in his career. Until then, no more information than is demanded from the Marxists, by the Marxists. It’s not going to be a one way street all over again.
And…having Perry or Gingrich doing the leftists dirty work for them is ugly, stupid and unseemly. (and Ron Paul…but he’s a leftist doddering, ditzy old fool masquerading as a Republican)
None…not one…of these guys is my preferred candidate. I would vote for Walt Disney’s frozen head before I would vote for Obama…or STAY HOME AND ASSURE HIS VICTORY….because he puts this country in mortal danger. So does anyone to the left of him…and that includes Ron Paul.
The asinine and imbecilic pound their chests suggesting that “if so and so wins, I’m going to hold my breath until I turn blue and kick the floor and scream” makes for a nice tantrum of a two year old. Honestly, grow up or get lost. Take a hike. Stay home, you are too stupid to be conversing with adults.
I don’t PREFER …read this slowly…ANY…of these candidates. My guys are not even in the running. I would like a brokered convention so they can get in and save this nation. However, if Perry, Gingrich, Santorum or Romney receive enough delegates…EVERYONE who cares about this country should get behind them and do everything in their power to save this nation from the runaway leftist seizure and revolution takeover. Period. There is no debate on this topic. If you sit home, you can go to hell…because that’s where we are headed.
Back to last night.
Perry was finally, finally…extremely impressive at times. His “the government is at war with South Carolina” may be the finest moment in the entire primary season. His assault on the NLRB was pitch perfect. His defense of Nikki Haley was heroic and commanding. His pronouncement that there should be no space between us and Israel was pitch perfect and well delivered.
His defense of those Marines was again pitch perfect. It was inspiring and resolute. In those two moments alone, he regained so much of his stature that has been lost in wallowing in the cesspool of attacking the core of anti-leftism. When he is defending the free market instead of trashing it, he scores …and scores big. I hold out little hope that his idiotic campaign realizes why he was so much better and what is holding him back. But last night, he sparkled at times. His best performance to date. He did not look like a “B” teamer. I even thought his shtick about the “insiders” having a debate worked. Big night for Perry. If he can springboard off what worked and ditch all the crap that doesn’t…he could be in the game again. If not, it was a flash in the pan.
Gingrich was again, in his element and at his best when he is the benevolent “educator” to the masses. When he explains why runaway leftism is a grave danger and horrific policy, he shines. When he acts like an intemperate and spoiled child, he looks anything but Presidential. Newt is full of ideas. His mind creates “out of the box” thinking solutions at a pace unmatched by anyone on either side of the aisle. Some do not stand up to closer scrutiny or prove unworkable. That’s ok. The most brilliant ideas need to be tested and examined. It’s when Newt sticks to an idea that is unworkable that causes problems at times. Or he falls in love with his own creativity.
The bigger problem, however, is when he becomes “too sexy for his shirt” in his own mind. When he goes off the rails, takes his eye off the ball and starts self-aggrandizing his brilliance. Newt “adopts” ideas and then tries to convince all the “lessers” within earshot how brilliant the idea is…and sometimes the idea is a fraudulent piece of leftist crap. Sitting on the couch with Nancy Pelosi and expounding on global warming is a case in point.
When Newt is laser-focused on unveiling all that is wrong with leftism, he is a powerful weapon in the “war” that Rick Perry said is being waged by this government. When he turns it on the wrong side of that war…Newt is at his worst. He has done the latter far too often and in far too many ways for my tastes. His scorched earth, thin-skinned, out of control assaults on the WRONG side…are simply too frequent and too erratic for my personal tastes.
I love him when he is at his best. I just don’t trust him to point the weapon in the right direction all the time. When he doesn’t…he loses me.
Rick Santorum is clearly a bright, articulate guy. He always seems like he’s ready for an argument with somebody. Anybody. He complains, whines, takes his eye off the ball too much. HIS assault on Romney’s taxes is also a mistake of epic proportions. He should NOT jump on the idiotic Perry/Gingrich bandwagon of assaulting the free market or its successes. That is a dumber than dirt ploy.
Crushing Ron Paul would be a benefit to every sane person on the planet and it appears that only Santorum has the guts to do it. That scores big points with me. He is being portrayed as Count Porkula and will be portrayed as outside the mainstream by the live and let live crowd. His base personality is a bit too strident and contentious to be Presidential for a general election, I believe. But, when he is wonkish…he is actually pretty damn good at the details.
Romney is under a four way assault. Some of it deserved, much of it ignorant and misplaced. I don’t mind one iota when he is roughed up a bit…he seems to be handling it better. When the idiotic campaigns attack the free market and throw logs on the small c communist fires…I become enraged.
As do many, many, many non-leftists. It’s a LOSING proposition and should cease and desist at once. Don’t these imbeciles understand the long term damage they are unleashing, for ZERO net votes for themselves when they do this?
Romney’s work at Bain and his taxes are NOT going to garner net votes from REPUBLICANS with an ounce of sense, dignity or credulity. Romney is NOT my candidate. I am not promoting him or supporting his winning this primary. I still wish for one of my guys to get in somehow, some way.
But, I will be damned if any thinking man’s anti-leftist should sit idly by and let campaigns surreptitiously rape, pillage and plunder the landscape of the free market while it is under assault from the Marxists. And don’t try to peddle the bullshit that “all’s fair” or that they are not doing that very thing.
It is ignorant, scorched earth, inanity. Stop. Just stop.
Romney’s stewardship of the People’s Republic of Massachusetts doesn’t move the needle, I get it. If you decide to run the place, you have to deal with the lunatic fringe and do the best you can. His work at Bain is a huge plus, frankly. Any class warfare rhetoric should be immediately dismissed as ignorant on its face. His work on the Olympics is resume’ filler.
All those “negatives” are lightweight nonsense. Where he does not inspire, where he does not galvanize…is that he lacks the natural passion and sincerity that was delivered by Rick Perry in support of Nikki Haley or when Newt turns his laser weapons on leftists.
Romney hits like a schoolgirl, in a fight that needs a tough guy at times, he comes off too prissy. Yes, it is Presidential to be elegant and above the fray.
But…this fight is going to be rough and tumble. The Marxists will not pull any punches. Romney does nothing but pull his punches against the Marxists. His Super Pac may hit below the belt at the WRONG SIDE, but, where is the passion to lead this fight against the extreme radical revolutionaries.
He waters down the fight and appears insincere. He doesn’t connect with the “troops” willing to be lead.
He absorbs the blows, he is articulate, clearly bright. He has lived the success of the free market. But everything about him just comes off too canned and hermetically sealed. He does not have instincts to deliver killer lines….and he has so many opportunities.
Being a “canned ham” may allow him to outlast a field that until last night was weak and clownish.
But if he doesn’t wake up and throw off the shackles…based on last night…it might be game on. Perry got up off the mat last night. If Newt turns his weapons solely on the proper targets…this could get interesting.
I still don’t support ANY of them. But last night, they weren’t acting like “B” teamers. I enjoyed it immensely and want to see more of it. Well done, gentlemen, well done.
Perry rocked it last night.
Perry has already made a difference in this race. Rep. Tim Johnson.IL filed the Citizen Legisilators Act 1/12/2012 which calls for many of the same reforms Perry has in his overhaul the legislative branch section of his Uproot & Overhaul Washington Policy Plans.
He is the only small govt. conservative in this race with a successful executive record of action to counter Obama and he showed last night he can take the fight to Obama & win.
Ron Paul Dominates Fox’s Twitter Survey Of The SC FOX News Debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfDJfvYH6CY&fe…
“Many unemployed have fine skillsets, but jobs are scarce. And most who unwillingly enter the unemployed life have no expectation that they will still be on unemployment two years later.” Yet many jobs go unfilled for lack of skills. A recent survey sowed men dominant in jobs that require constant updating and women dominant in jobs where one can be absent for a prolonged period (like, to have and raise a baby). The relevance here is that staying up to date, in this age, is ever more important, and those who do so will be re-employed much faster. So Newt’s point is quite valid, even if it does not address all the reasons for unemployment.
I have been unemployed almost 2 years. I have a Bachelors in Business Administration and graduated a few months after losing my job. That job is not outdated. There are just too many unemployed people and not enough jobs. Many jobs may be had with add’l training but everyone is not capable of being trained for every job. These employers are not just looking for bodies. They are being very specific in the skills they want. They are trying to get 3 employees at the price of one but requiring more and more qualifications. They also want a person to have actual hands on experience not just be trained. Everyone cannot be a machinist, steelworker, UPS driver, accountant etc. I have even applied for low skilled, minimum wage jobs and employers won’t even consider me. I have applied for almost 500 jobs and gotten about 10 interviews. Minimum wage, part time, full time, any shift, out of state etc. I’ve applied for my skill set at hospitals but they wont’ hire me because I’ve never worked in a hospital. That is how bad it is. Unless people have went through this, they don’t know.
When I was unemployed (in 1991) the rules to collect unemployment forbade any training that would allow me to change careers – this in spite of the fact that H1B folks had overrun my current career. I don’t know if this has changed or not – however, retraining to take currently open jobs should be allowed – particularly when the old career is no longer viable.