Wednesday, August 15, 2007
|
|
Say "Good Night," Sam and Duncan
|
|
Posted by:
Michael Medved at
10:56 PM
|
|
Everybody knows that one of the familiar definitions of insanity involves doing the same thing over and over again but somehow expecting a different result each time.
By that standard, Senator Sam Brownback and Congressman Duncan Hunter ought to reaffirm their sanity by withdrawing from the Presidential race.
Both these veteran Republicans count as distinguished, thoughtful public servants and admirable patriots. They’ve both compiled formidable records on Capitol Hill. And they’ve both been running for President for several months, participating in all televised debates and, particularly in the case of Duncan Hunter, impressing many observers with their articulate and accomplished performances. Both candidates have also joined me on my radio show and answered questions in a forthright and effective manner.
But both Brownback and Hunter have failed utterly in generating momentum, enthusiasm or grassroots support for their Presidential campaigns and after last Saturday’s Iowa straw poll it’s time for them to help clear the field to provide more breathing room for viable candidates.
Hunter, the veteran House member from San Diego County, campaigned actively at the Iowa State Fair, proudly telling my radio audience that supporters had congregated from across the country to help him campaign.
The result? He drew only 174 votes – barely clearing 1% of the total – and finishing behind even Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson, who had announced that they wouldn’t even compete in the straw poll. If anyone counts as a Turkey in the Straw, it’s Hunter: sadly, he got less than one-fifth the support of former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson, who felt so embarrassed by his Iowa showing that he’s already withdrawn from the race.
Congressman Hunter, a smart and decent politician, should follow his example. Despite his energetic efforts, he’s generated scant support in Iowa or anywhere else. No new strategy, no fresh, commanding debate performance, will alter the brutal reality: as a serious candidate, he’s through. On what basis would he expect to build more support in the future?
Sam Brownback should ask himself the same question. He spent more money and energy on the Iowa Straw Poll than any other candidate besides the winner, Mitt Romney. He paid for mean-spirited attacks on his two chief competitors, Romney and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. One robo-call telephone solicitation urged voters to “Stand up for Life! Say No to Mitt Romney!!” – as if the former Massachusetts governor, who now embraces an anti-abortion platform, represents the nation’s chief threat to the unborn. A press release from Brownback’s office also tried to tar Governor Huckabee, a Southern Baptist Pastor, as anti- Catholic because one of his volunteer supporters (without any authorization from the campaign) sent out an e-mail questioning Brownback’s conversion to Catholicism.
Despite these desperation tactics, and costly efforts to lure supporters with free ice cream and an air-conditioned tent, Brownback took only 2,192 votes (15.3%), some 400 less than Huckabee and less than half the total for Governor Romney.
If, in a farm state neighboring his native Kansas, after frantic efforts, substantial monetary investment, and bitterly negative tactics against his rivals, Brownback could manage only a feeble third place showing, why should he expect to perform better in some other corner of the country? For the sake of Uncle Sam, it’s time for this Sam to say “Uncle,” before he does lasting damage to his honorable reputation by further pointless and slashing attacks on his fellow Republicans.
Two other also-rans in the Iowa Straw Poll, Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul, will no doubt continue their campaigns regardless of their non-existent chances of future success. Both men seek to publicize issues about which they’re passionate: a hard line on immigration for Mr. Tancredo, and an isolationist foreign policy for Mr. Paul. Their continued campaigning can actually provide a public service: demonstrating that their angry, alienated (and alienating) fringe perspectives draw scant support within the Republican Party.
Meanwhile, two of the other long-shot candidates (Tommy Thompson and former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore) have already dropped out of the race for the White House. If Hunter and Brownback do the right thing and follow their example, that leaves a much more focused campaign where the GOP candidates no longer resemble the seven dwarves (you can draw your own conclusions as to the identities of Grumpy, Sleepy and Dopey). With Brownback and Hunter gone (soon, please!) that leaves the two single-issue candidates (Paul and Tancredo) and five serious contenders: Giuliani, Fred Thompson, McCain, Romney – and Huckabee.
With his strong second place showing in Iowa, Huckabee should be able to raise enough money to re-energize his campaign and to begin to consolidate the currently splintered support of social conservatives. At that point, with the distractions and diversions largely cleared away, the citizens of key primary states can help to determine whether people of faith and values voters still dominate the Republican Party, while the race for the nomination gets vastly more interesting – and important.
|
|
Thanks for your words of encouragement. The hardest part of abadoning my '08 Pres. bid was knowing that I would be disapointing so many of my supporters. OK, there was only one, but still, it's tough.
But, life goes on. While the my political future is now uncertain, there is one thing I can take away w/ me from this whole experience...I knew Jackshiite.
|
|
After much soul searching and reflection I've decided to abandon my quest for the White House.
Pols don't lie. I have only one backer, Jack, and he's a shiite. Not the demographics I was shooting for. I'd like to take this opportunity
to thank all of the people that have stood beside me these last fifty-plus hours (namely my wife, who helped me spell all the really big words).
Please don't look at this as an ending, but rather a new beginning of some other half-lame blog joke that pops into my mind.
P.S. I'm, keeping all the twenty-eight dollors and seventy cents raised for my campaign war chest. |
|
While I'm still waiting for Ron Pauls soon to come endorsment, it's good to see that I have Jack's full support. I'm still trying to adjust to the surge of interest that I've been recieving.
However, I would like to broaden my base. Therefore, in a blatant attempt at pandering, I've decided to alter my offer of free cheese slightly. In an effert to attract more "left leaning" voters I will now be offering only 2% cheese w/ zero trans fat.
It's Big Tent time baby!
If you wish to jump on the Reck4Prez bandwagon, please send your money to me, RecknHavic. No checks, no money orders and no C.O.D.'s please.
RecknHavic for President..."Change for a change". |
|
Jack Shiite,
I realize you have an intense animus toward Jews, as well as toward Israelis, as you have revealed in this thread as well as other threads.
But contrary to what you claim, I haven't attributed military strategies to Ron Paul---in fact, my concern is that Ron Paul doesn't have any military strategies.
That's what worries me.
The neurotic Western psychological paradigm of, "Well, if we just leave them alone, maybe they'll leave us alone" hasn't worked very well during the past 1400 years of Islamic aggression.
And it's certainly not presently working in Thailand, Sudan, or the Phillipines.
Additionally, we no longer inhabit the 18th century when "war" was a fleet of visible sailing ships crossing thousands of miles of ocean in order to strike an adversary.
Indeed, we now inhabit the 21st century where planes, trains, automobiles, nuclear bombs, and long-range missiles can enable a small cabal of crazies who are un-affiliated with the military of a nation-state to affect devastating carnage.
Therefore, hiding underneath the bed until someone reports that the fleet of Al-Qaeda ships is rapidly approaching our Atlantic Coast is hardly a recipe for defense.
Again, it's no longer the 18th century.
This whole notion of hoping maybe they'll finally "just leave us alone" reflects a denial about their intentions.
They keep telling us they NEVER intend to leave us alone---aren't you paying attention to what they tell you ?
Jack Shiite, you don't know your enemy very well.
|
|
During the course of my thirty-plus hour campaign its been brought to my attention that there are some who fear I will be changed by Washington or abandon my core conservative principles. Let me take this opportunity to ease any fears you might have.
Firstly, My loyalties are firmly to my Zionist masters in Israel. They provide me w/ my marching orders, daily talking points and plenty of cheese. I, in turn, pass this cheese along to you. Did I mention that it's FREE cheese.
Secondly, I'm down-to-earth. "That dog don't hunt", "It'll be a cold day in hell" and "Get-er done" are just a few of the many folksy saying I have at my disposal.
And lastly, I am a product of the Reagan Revolution, minus all the "star chart" crap.
Thanks again for your continued support. Keep the faith.
Political comments paid for by FriendsofReck. |
|
The response I've received since announcing my intent to run for the presidentcy has been quite overwhelming. Unfortunatly my domain server at Reck4Prez had to temporarily shut down. Just too many hits. I can only say that I'm humbled and encouraged by all the interest.
I'd like to take this opertunity to lay out my Ten Point Platform.
1) A Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution signed into law in year one.
2) Line item veto powers for the Executive Branch of the Federal Govt.
3) Tehran... gone!
4) A flat tax, no exemptions.
5) Free cheese.
6) Intensive developement of eco-friendly hydro-carbons.
7) I will match the unemployed w/ those "jobs that Americans just won't do".
8) Did I mention the free cheese?
9) Term Limits.
10) No more "press two for Spanish".
Thanks for your continued support and I might add, if we wish for God to bless America, we might spend a little more time on our knees asking Him.
I'm RecknHavic and I support this political message. |
|
Jack Shiite wrote,
-------------------
"He listens to nobody, and meanwhile we are more vulnerable than ever while stirring up a hornet's nest. The NUMBER ONE goal to win the GWOT is to drive the numbers DOWN, rather than act as a recruiting brochure for it."
-------------------
Jack Shiite,
On the contrary, Jihad is not driven by perceived geo-political slights.
Islamic Jihad is at war with us because they seek to establish a worldwide caliphate.
They want you and your family to submit to Allah and abide by Sharia Law.
Part of their propaganda is to demand traditional Western political concessions of us because they know it appeals to modern Western neurotic psychology.
For example, they inform us that we made them angry, or it's all Israel's fault, or that they'll stop their aggression 'if only' we were to do x, y, and z.
But those are all just trick plays.
Look at the past 1400 years of Islamic aggression, Jack.
You have to know your enemy.
And Paul's major miscalculation is that he expects "Western behavior" from the Jihadists, and thus he believes applying Western solutions such as "just leaving them alone !" will solve the paradigm.
In the 17th century, the Jihadists were at the Gates of Vienna.
So tell me, what exactly had the Austrians done prior to that to "make the Jihadists angry at them ?"
The answer is, the Austrians hadn't yet submitted to Allah.
The Jihadists believe there is no negotiating that point---convert,...or die.
And as far as some of us are concerned, we concur---there is no negotiating those points. |
|
I won't accept anything less than Vice-President.
All the perks, none of the pressure.
Look, were probably gonna crumble from w/in anyhow, due to our fading morals. All we can do as Americans is teach our children right from wrong, pray alot and hope for the best.
Remember the good-ol-days when Sean Penn was just that actor who played Spicoli in Fast Times At Ridgemont High, when men and women got married (to the opposite sex) and spam came out of a can.
|
|
"you are convinced that intervention and aggression somehow make us safer"
Yup. How many major terrorist attacks on the mainland US have there been since 911?
"911 was a barbaric criminal act. If it was a declaration of war then who declared it?"
Let's see, does the Taliban ring any bells?
And before you straw man ME w/ "where's OBL", let me say that I do think we should be going after him more aggressively in Afgan/Pakstan border area. Course that could be the Wilson in me.
Red, I think that there are things that you and I can find agreement on. But partner, if your answer to our problems is voting for Peduka or some other cat that noones even heard of then your "protest" vote is really meaningless. The team that loses can claim a moral victory if they want to; but on the stat sheet a loss is still a loss. |
|
"The only other option at the time was Igor, who is a bonafided socialist."
That is simply not true. There was Peroutka of the Constitution Party (who I supported) and Badnarik the Libertarian. You may not be a libertarian (I consider myself a paleoconservative.) but it makes more sense to cast a protest vote for change than to continue to vote for RINOs.
How much budget would Hunter cut? Hunter is relatively conservative by modern standards, and he is good on the border, but he is not a Constitutionalist. Only Ron Paul is.
I suspect the reason you can't support Ron Paul is because you are convinced that intervention and aggression somehow makes us safer. It doesn't. It makes us less safe, poorer, and not least of all guilty of killing people who had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. That is the case that us non-interventionist paleos have been making since the First Gulf War. And we are making headway as this thread proves. Three years ago there would have been very little opposition to the War here. I think Ron Paul is a large part of the reason this message is getting out.
"Did you consider 911 to be a declaration of war? I did."
9/11 was a barbaric criminal act. If it was a declaration of war (act of war is more precise) then who declared it? At most a band of terrorists. Not Iraq. |
|
|
|
The Republicans lost my loyalties years ago when they abandoned the Reagan principles of cutting govt. spending. I'm basically a conservative w/ nowhere to go. I'm not a libertarian, like Ron Paul. I will say it again, Paul is a decent congressman, but he's not pres. material. I support Duncan Hunter, who will probably be long gone by the time the primaries roll around to my state.
Like you, I voted for W. knowing what I'd get; weak on borders, too loyal to his inner circle, poor communicator, ect. The only other option at the time was Igor, who is a bonafided socialist. Unfortunately, the choices in '08 will probably be similar. |
|
You sound exactly like the nutjobs over at Daily Kos...you're so partisan that you can't see how Beltway Republicans have become drunk with tax-fueled power. (And I knocked on doors in Ohio for Bush in '04, so I ain't no liberal).
Dona261 is entirely correct. The distinction is as obvious as night and day. Try conservatism rather than Party loyalty. As it stands now, you are fighting for the Republican Party. Ron Paul supporters want them to fight for us. |
|
Noting that we did the right thing in fighting the Japanese in WW2 is not creating a straw man, it's called making a point.
RE: the French & Cherokees, that's called a joke. Or is havn a sense of humor to "Wilsonian" for you.
Dona90250, The Japanese SNEAK ATTACK on Pearl Harbor came before they officially declared war on us. I suppose you would have had us wait until their formal declaraion before we responded. The Germans/Italians were allied w/ the Japs during WW2 which made them are enemies as well. Hence the current phrase "axis" of evil. Did you consider 911 to be a declaration of war? I did.
I suppose Chamberlain thought there was NEVER a chance that the Germans would attack Great Britain. And yes Red, as much of a straw man as it is, I did go there. |
|
Jack, thanks for the links and your post at 1:25.
Red Phillips, I like your ll:28 post.
It encourages me to know that some people realize what we are up against and what we need to do--I hope the rest of the country wakes up in time.
RecknHavic, I am surprised you didn't know that Japan, sovreign country, attacked us and Germany, a sovreign country, declared war on us. Once you realize that difference, you may change your whole outlook. |
|
Well I knew that was coming. You can’t advocate for non-intervention without some Wilsonian … err … “conservative” invoking the glories of WWII. So can I anticipate the “Neville Chamberlain” and “appeasement” argument next? Clearly we should have responded to Pearl Harbor. That is a Straw Man. Non-interventionism is not pacifism. I highly suspect you know that, but conflating the two helps your argument. But FDR clearly attempted to provoke Japan so he could back door us into the War in Europe. The Anglophile Establishment wanted us to intervene in Europe's War so we could save England's bacon.
But WWII makes the non-interventionist case. WWII would not have happened without WWI. WWI would have likely ended in a stalemate, it certainly would have had a more just peace, had America not intervened and threw the balance. Without our intervention in WWI there would have been no Hitler and no WWII.
The sentiment of the people was strongly against our intervention in WWII. Thanks in part to the efforts of the Old Right America First Committee.
Re. the French speaking German, the defense of France is ENTIRELY the responsibility of the French. A novel idea I know. Where in the Constitution does it say that the American military is supposed to defend France? (Or England, or South Korea, or Kuwait, or Israel, or any other nation?) I await the precise Article and Section.
I hear the “speaking German” argument all the time. At least you limited it to the French. Normally it is in the form of “we would all be speaking German” which is, of course, nonsense. There was NEVER the slightest possibility that Germany was going to invade the American mainland. But I have to admit that the “speaking Cherokee” is a new one to me.
You big government Wilsonians have so much to learn. (Actually so much Cold War indoctrination to unlearn.)
BTW, playing games with my name is as childish as nomi's "Ron Paul is weird" slur. Let's keep this highbrow. |
|
Dude, should we not have responded to Japan after Pearl Harbor? Perhaps Germany's domination of Europe wouldn't have effected us, seeing how Hitler was such a reasonable fella.
The United States is not an imperialist nation. We are exactly the opposite. When we interveen in foriegn conflicts we seek no territory, except enough ground to bury our dead. God bless them.
As far as intervention in general. If not for us the French would be speakn German right now. BUT, if not for the French we'd all probably be speachn Cherokee. |
|
RecknHavic,
Our secession from the British Empire was an act of foreign interventionism? Surely you don't believe that. It was exactly the opposite. Terrorism is largely a criminal, intel, and immigration issue. It is not first and foremost a military issue. And all the fear and hate mongering of the pseudo-conservative nationalist/militarist/jingoist crowd will not make it so.
Study the Old Right. They desperately tried to keep us out of WWI and WWII. A remnant of rightists (mostly libertarian) tried to keep us out of Korea and Vietnam. Minding our own business in foreign affairs is the default, natural position of small-government conservatism. How is big government interventionism conservative? Please explain.
nomi,
"Ron Paul is weird." is not an argument. It is a slur. More appropriate for the playground than a thoughtful forum.
Our meddling in the Middle East - the First Gulf War, the embargo, the no fly zones, our troops in Saudi Arabia (largely gone now), our favoritism and massive aid to Israel, etc. CLEARLY contributes to Islamic anger against us. It is simply not credible to claim that it doesn't. That is what Ron Paul was saying, and he was 100% right. Are you claiming that plays NO part in why they don't like/resent us?
All,
We should give no foreign aid to anyone. Not one dime. (Where is the authorization for foreign aid in the Constitution?) And we should remove all our troops stationed abroad. Our government should be officially neutral in the conflicts of other countries
(Israel and Palestine for example). We should withdraw from all entangling alliances such as NATO. The purpose of the American military is solely the defense of America and our proximate, vital national interests. Nothing else.
That is the small government, authentic conservative position. Sorry to burst your Cold War indoctrination bubble.
Please discard your love affair with big government foreign meddling and come back to real conservatism.
|
|
|
Jack reminds me of a child that doesn't get his way. He resorts to name calling and then says he just won't play. Typical of those w/ extreme views. |
|
...love the guy like a Brother but a Brother that I frequently disagree with. This time for sure. Thankfully Duncan Hunter has no intentions of stepping aside. Iowans have slopped at the trough of federal farm subsidies for so long they've lost their objectivity. I think Duncan was there for far less than a week. He simply couldn't break away from his real job to go pandering to a bunch of Iowans who are totally consumed with their own self importance. Waste of time! For a lousy 7 electoral votes???
My personal feeling is that during this election of '08 a lot of traditional molds are going to be broken. It'd be a mistake for candidates to give too much credence to historical trends this go-around. We desperately need candidates like Duncan Hunter to stay in this race.
If you agree with me and you don't reach into your wallet/purse and pull out a $20. and send it to Duncan, you're wrong! Even if you don't openly support him. He needs our monetary support right now. Help him stay in the race. Its good for the process and will pull the other candidates to the right. http://www.gohunter08.com
DD |
|
|
Anyways, I like how Japan is our friend. Less costly than Jimmy Carters solutions in many ways. The only job of the government is law and order(not corporate contacts and reallocation of monies). Looks like Medved never made the right turn. Kiss u-know-what of those who don't follow the law does not seem like law and order. Anyways, that does not mean that in a debate Ron Paul can claim killing insurgents makes us in greater danger. I say the opposite. He is dead in the water. Ron Paul supporters, we have more in common than those who support Bush. Ron Paul is the Deaniac of the Republican party. |
|
|
So, after 911, should we had said to the Taliban, were gonna get some serious payback on you guys by... doing absolutly nothing. And, if I'm not mistaken, the founding fathers "interveened" in a big way in regards to the British. |
|
This is very elementary. I do not understand why this is so hard for some so-called "conservatives" to understand. Foreign interventionism is inherently big-government. It is Wilsonian liberalism. It is Utopian, and the neocon version is downright Jacobin. This is not debatable.
Non-intervention is inherently small-government. It is the foreign policy of the Constitution. It is the foreign policy of the Founders. It is the foreign policy of Washington and Jefferson. It is the foreign policy of the Old Right.
If you support an interventionist foreign policy then your conservatism is flawed. You can't be a conservative in the authentic American tradition of conservatism and support the big government that is necessary for interventionism any more than you can be a conservative and support the welfare state.
Sorry to burst your bubble. Nationalism, militarism, and jingoism ARE NOT conservative. Period.
Ron Paul 2008.
|
|
|
Anyways, too early to tell. I will predict neither Ghooliani or Miss Pants will win. I do love Duncan Hunter. No way should he quit. Ron Paul is not my favorite. He is too goofy for words. What is this about the terrorists are being inflamed by us, paraphrasing the man. More like they are laughing at us because of statements like this. McCain though should quit. I think we can all agree on that. Shame on you, shamnesty. |
|
|
Gabby, You probably thought Ross Perot would win too. By the way, very original blog name, toooo clever. |
|
|
I plan to vote for Ron Paul. |
|
|
Very well said, its not 1824 any more. We have to stop these radicals both abroad and at home. |
|
Jack Shiite,
Whether or not you and the rest of Ron Paul's 18th Century Romantics want to fight Islamic Jihad, the Jihadists are at war with YOU.
Thus, there is no option but to fight them.
With all of your paranoid Israel conspiracies, it sounds like you aren't particularly well informed about the history of the tribal Middle East.
I'll remind you that we aren't dealing with enemies within the traditional nation-state construct.
There's no conventional property dispute or disagreement over tariffs, as is this case in many fights among nation-states.
There's nothing to negotiate with the Islamic Jihadists, other than our submission to Allah and Sharia Law, as THAT is what they seek from us. And if we don't submit to Allah, they want us dead.
And that's non-negotiable.
My friend, hiding underneath the bed and wishing the boogeyman would just go away isn't going to solve the problem.
|
|
|
I checked out the YouTube propaganda thing. Nowhere in it did Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney or anyone say there was a direct connection between Iraq and 911. And, I have to say, I hadn't until now equated you w/ Sean Penn and other boneheads. But if that's who you want representing your side of the arguement, then so be it. You probably think Hugo's a good role model for Americans to follow as well. You, Cidy Shehann and other leftist are delusional. |
|
--
...but he's the only dog in the Republicrat hunt who hasn't made a habit of lifting his leg on the U.S. Constitution.
From what I understand, neither the neoconservatives nor the RINO specimens in the Republicrat faction want to discuss the notion that under the U.S. Constitution, only Congress can authorize the raising and fielding of an army, and Congress can do it only (strictly speaking) by uttering a declaration of war.
Isn't that what Roosevelt II had to ask for when they propped him up at the podium in the House of Representatives on December 8, 1941?
Even the "Crooner," who had been using the U.S. Constitution as toilet paper since the moment he plopped his butt on the Presidential dunny in 1933, had to put the matter before the Congress in order to put American boots on the ground overseas.
As a member of that same House, Dr. Paul understands that going to war is something only the Congress can lawfully authorize, and he is the only candidate in either "mainstream" party who's nasty enough to bring up that fiddlin' little detail in the scheme of checks-and-balances the Founders established in the Constitution.
--
|
|
While I believe every man and woman in the
White House and all of their staff members are
ignorant of my teacher’s words it seems that
they have been able to implement them quite well.
All men can see these tactics whereby
I conquer, but what none can see is
the strategy out of which victory is evolved.
My fellow citizens, do not be hurried to anger
by either side, seek the truth and remember
that supreme excellence consists in breaking
the enemy's resistance without fighting. While
the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy
without fighting.
And the long tale of history has never shown any
instance of a country having benefited from
prolonged warfare.
So it is that the virtuous, noble and victorious warrior wins first and then goes to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
Thus you can understand why there never has been an “exit strategy” because they mean not to leave.
|
|
Mi llamo es Recko.
As far as what Cheney said in 1994, I guess I'll have to take your word for it. Concerning remarks from this administration that Saddam was linked to 911, you'll have to pull up a documented quote for me, because they simply never made that assertion. As bumbling as Bush has handled the war in Iraq, excluding the initial month, the unspoken strategery of attempting to establish US "friendly" nations on either side of Iran is worthwhile. My hope is that we will soon have a Commander In Chief who will have the cajones to really fight, and not worry about what others think of us. Who that person is, your guess is as good as mine.
Viva Americana! |
|
Read their articles now and from throughout the Vietnam war. Shockingly similar rhetoric. "Isolationism" is their dirtiest word, slung around to diparage any liberal peace niks or communist sympathizers. The only reasoning they use to argue against the current war strategy is that it is so widely hated by most americans they are scared it could make the populace go "isolationist"=peaceful advocates of free-trade =lower taxes and lower military spending. This is seen as unnacceptable by the CFR crowd so they are willinging to accept CFR team b candidates like Obama or Hillary...who will maintain military spending, foreign bases yet appease a large portion of the anti-war crowd.
In one of the issues that I agree with the published articles CFR ,opening up free trade with Cuba, it is interesting to see that NONE of the CFR presidential candidates are in favor of free-trade with Ron Paul....ONLY Ron Paul! why is this...the more you do honest research on CFR the more you can see that they are 100% pro-interventuion and military spending on every issue.
They mislabel our current overextension of the military and deficit spending on teh military as "strogn defense", when in fact we are more vulnerable to a combo military financial attack than at any time in our history. Borrowing trillions fo dollars from china and the oil producing countries makes us INCREDIBLY vulnerable to a 1 2 attack ont eh dollar and then our military. The current interventionsit foreign policy is endangering our country!
RON PAUL is the only true american running for president! |
|
|
|
... instead of the people. The neocons at NR insist that Brownback quit as well - even though he has made the required genuflection towards their international agenda. Sic semper neoconus, Sam. They always throw you away when they've used you up.
In the meantime, Brownback, like Ron Paul, is adamantly and irreversibly pro-life, so he has to be scuttled. All the other neocon faves mouth the platitudes but stick it to the unborn in the end.
So Brownback and Paul have to go, while Medved dodges real debate and runs the world.
Sick. |
|
|
|
In 1994, Dick Cheney asked the question, "How many additional dead Americans is Saddam Hussein' life worth?" His answer at the time was "Not very many."
I wonder what caused such a drastic change of heart, when his specific predictions about the quagmire (his own word) resulting from toppling Saddam's regime has come true.
Why did we invade Iraq? It wasn't WMD (they weren't there), and it wasn't 9/11 (Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11, according to Bush: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LwMTjeu5f4).
So if it wasn't wise to invade in the first place, why are we still there? If you still aren't willing to listen to Ron Paul, perhaps you'd like to hear Richard Holbrooke's perspective:
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2007/07/31/2/a-conversation-with-richard-holbrooke
If 70% of America want us out of Iraq, voting for a pro-war Republican is truly throwing away your vote in 2008.
Would the last Republican to leave the room please turn off the lights?
BD |
|
"Republicans were against Bill Clinton's regime change in Iraq, or his effert to go after Bin Laden, in fact we elected GWB because of this."
I don't recall Bin Laden or Iraq being much of an issue in 2000 election. Clinton's own NSA guy, Sandy Burglar, even said he was "out of the loop on that one" when we bombed the hell outta that asprin factory in the Sudan.
The 2000 election was "lock box" vs "strategery" and our revulsion to the lack of morals coming from the White House. |
|
|
Foreign intervention has been discredited in World War I, Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, and Iraq. It would seem the neocon ideology is pretty discredited. |
|
|
Hey Michael Medvid, in case you have not noticed, the smart neocons are taking the A train over to the Hillary camp. Perhaps you should join the rest of your Warfare lovin brothers and sisters over at the Hillary Campaign? Most Neocons see the handwritting on the walls, the public wants a demopublican in 2008, out with the republicrat Bush. As for me, forgive me, I see a real Goldwater/Ronald Reagan/Statesman in Dr. Ron Paul. Its revealing that you can't see that. And by the way, I think everyone is tired of mean spirited radio/tv ONE ISSUE pundintry, Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater never went there, nor does Dr. Ron Paul. As a Conservative from Arizona who is disgusted with the last 8 years of BushII single handly ending the Reagan Revolution/Opportunity, I can't wait until all you single issue Warhawk Neocons Leave the Tent. |
|
Do you all forget he ran for the presidency in 1988. He got only 0.47% of the vote! And he is today what he was then a libertarian. I'm sorry but his foringe policies are suicide for America of the 21st century. He can stay in the House but other than that, no way.
|
|
I guess we'll have to see what happens later on in the future in regards to losing our civil liberties and bankrupting our country on a "war on terror". It's terrorifying me on how unbiased our media coverage is. ;)
Good thing for the internet or I wouldn't have come upon such jackasses. |
|
We're still parsing the Iowa Straw Poll...and the results from Illinois are in:
1. Mitt Romney – 40.35%
2. Fred Thompson – 19.96%
3. Ron Paul – 18.87%
4. Rudy Giuliani – 11.61%
5. John McCain – 4.12%
6. Mike Huckabee – 3.04%
7. Sam Brownback – 1.08%
8. Duncan Hunter - .65%
9. Tom Tancrado - .33%
I don't pretend to know if any of these early straw polls mean anything real.
But, as a Ron Paul supporter that has been reading all of the "spinning," it seems as if Ron Paul is starting to demonstrate that his internet enthusiasm IS translating to the real world.
Yes, I know. This was a very small straw poll.
But, you have to start to wonder...
Someone has asked, "If Ron Paul's Internet dominance (online polls, etc.)means nothing because it is so easy to vote in an online poll (or to spam one), why do McCain's supporters (or Brownback's or Tancredo's or Hunter's) not demonstrate enough enthusiasm to take the five seconds to click their vote?"
And, if there is no "real" support for Paul, why is his straw poll support increasing (along with cash on hand; last Friday was his biggest money raising day yet)?
I honestly don't know the answer.
But, I am tired of hearing the "conspiracy theories of all of the "Ron bashers."
Ron Paul fans are generally treated as "wingnuts," but his detractors sure have a lot of "tin foil hat" theories to explain his increasing success in "the offline" world.
Could it be possible that Ron Paul is right...the vast majority of voters (Rep and Dem) are tired of Iraq and the never-ending chorus of the need for the never-ending "war on terror?"
I guess we'll see; only time will tell.
But, if we're going to parse the unparseable, let's at least include the latest poll.
You posted your article at 10:56 PM and you already knew the results of Illinois. |
|
|
The one issue is the constitution. It is the one issue that others seem to ignore. By staking his campaign and his 20 years of voting record on this one issue, he will by far surpass anyone else in either party running against him. Imagine that...a politician who has taken his oath of office seriously. |
|
Like the caveman says in the commercial:
"Do a little research", dum bass.
MEDVED: "...an isolationist foreign policy for Mr. Paul..."
Ron Paul does not advocate isolationism. He stands for non-intervention. You see, he respects the sovereignty of other nations, just as we in the U.S. expect other nations to respect ours.
But then again, actually LEARNING a candidates positions might require a little more mental effort than that of which Medved is capable. |
|
|
We went to Iraq to find out if WMDs existed, thankfully they did not. I would say that we should have followed Paul Bremers advice and sent way more troops and had much more active rules of engagment (like we're finally seeing now). So, lets take it point by point. 1)After giving every indication that WMDs not only existed, but he sought to arm terrorist w/ them, Sadaam had to go. 2) If I'm not mistaken the Iraqis have in fact held free elections (remember the blue fingers). 3) There have been how many major terrorist attacks on the continental US since 911? 4) On this one you got me. The very least we've done is disrupt his network, but still, we should be going hard at it in Afgan/Pakstan border area. And yes, hopefully Iran is next. God Bless America! |
|
Like the candidates who didn't officially participate in the Iowa poll, Hunter didn't "buy" any votes, and yet he received 174 votes, just nine fewer than Giuliani and 73 more than McCain.
3,266 people voted for either Tancredo or Paul--over 22% of the total vote--after both spent minimal time and money on this poll. So these "angry, alienated (and alienating) fringe perspectives" easily drew more than "scant support within the Republican Party."
Once again, Medved demonstrates that he is a neocon shill. He should've stayed with the big- government Dems rather than attempt to be a credible source of advice for conservatives.
|
|
generally, in a debate, one can follow which person is correct by waiting for the wrong side to resort to name calling. It seems whenever I visit the comments section on Town Hall, and Ron paul is being discussed, its always those that support Ron Paul that point out the idea of smaller government. Its always those against Ron paul that resort to calling him, or his followers, nuts, kooks, on the fringe, extreme, etc...
For once I'd love to see them counter the concept of smaller government, and explain how they honestly believe any of the other candidates (possible exception for Tancredo) would actually DECREASE the size of government.
But why do that when you can just call him a kook. |
|
Medved and other neocon Israel firsters gladly send other people's kids to die, or to come home with their faces burned off, or limbless, all in the name of ?????
Finding the famous weapons of Mass Disillusion!
ahhh.....
Giving the gift of Democracy to the wonderful Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds who long to live together in peace!
ahhh.....
Stopping the 9-11 terrorists....who came from Egypt!!
ahhh.....
Catching Osama bin Ladin!
ahhh....
Oh Yea! Protecting the Iraqis from an invasion by Iran!!!
PS: the neocons like Medved love the Jewish State of Israel more than America, are scum, and thats why they hate a constitutionalist like Ron Paul who loves AMERICA FIRST.
|
|
|
I,ve seen the YouTube revelation about Paul already. The only thing it proves is that Ronald Reagan had long coat-tails and was able to help Paul politically, not the other way around. You're the one grasping at straws my friend. Understand, I don't dislike Ron Paul, he's a decent congressman; but presidential material, I think not. |
|
I'm actually a disaffected Democrat. Here's why:
Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary-Obama-Edwards-et. al...
NOW can you see why I would lump Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo in with this bunch? It's not about policy, it's about SANITY (or the lack thereof...). |
|
Why doesn't everyone get out now and clear the way for Giuliani. No need for primary elections or any such nonsense.
What a joke. Medved, this is your worst column since the time you spelled Northern Ireland as "Northen Island". Twice in the same article, but I digress.
I don't support Brownback or Hunter and I suspect that they will be gone after the first couple primaries, but if I were a candidate, I would at least like to see how I perform in at least ONE election prior to bowing out. Iowa and NH are still months away, people. The presidential primary debates and corresponding media hype keep starting earlier and earlier, as both parties would rather have a candidate selected for a coronation party rather than an actual election at their conventions. But who suffers, I ask you? The American people, that's who. As we end up with pre-selected candidates to "vote" for in the primaries. Now its getting to the point where people in IA and NH, who used to have a choice, won't even get one. |
|
--
Apart from the fact that Ron Paul wouldn't "fit in better with [the] Democrat field" unless we're talking about the presidential eletion of 1892 (in 1896, the DemaGOP faction went so thoroughly into the sewer that they've henceforth not been possible to locate among the feculence without sonar), doesn't the fact that a strict construction of the U.S. Constitution finds "...scant support within the Republican Party" say a helluva lot more about Republicrat moral and intellectual degeneracy than any supposed "fringe perspectives" of Ron Paul?
--
"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican."
..--H. L. Mencken
|
|
|
I want a top four on four debate between the Reps and Dems. I want there to be some contrast before the primaries. |
|
|
|
"Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul's... continued campaigning... demonstrating that their angry, alienated (and alienating) fringe perspectives draw scant support within the Republican Party."
Well said... these two would fit in better with Democrat field of Looney-Presidential-candidate-nutburgers.
|
|
But I'm clearly starting to see where the chips ($$$) really are falling. The media (and this includes you) are so obviously ignoring Dr. Paul. This will work like this:
Tell your kid "NO CANDY" and what's the first thing they want? They then go crazy and will DO ANYTHING to get their candy.
Talk about blowback!
|
|
|
that's enough to know that he's a bad choice. |
|
Then we could see a race among conservatives.
Get rid of the Globalists like Medved who obviously want a new world order run by Satan himself, or maybe even Bill Clinton himself. |
|
--
...voter myself, just as Mr. Medved evinces himself to be.
Though I'm not a member of the "gun culture" (I'm a spectacularly lousy shot, I don't hunt, and the scent of Hoppe's No. 9 just makes me a bit sick to my stomach), I've found that the issue of "gun control" is the perfect measure of a politician's moral character and suitability for public office.
If he (or she) is supportive of statutes and other measures designed to disarm the law-abiding private citizen, then he (or she) doesn't trust you.
You personally.
You, the inoffensive, work-for-a-living, "good neighbor" human being.
Therefore why in hell should you trust *HIM* (or - especially - *HER*)?
Giuliani's position on "gun control" is:
"I do not think the government should cut off the right to bear arms. My position for many years has been that just as a motorist must have a license, a gun owner should be required to have one as well. Anyone wanting to own a gun should have to pass a written exam that shows that they know how to use a gun, that they’re intelligent enough and responsible enough to handle a gun. Should both handgun and rifle owners be licensed...we’re talking about all dangerous weapons."
(from *The Boston Globe*, 21 March 2000)
Just the fact that Giuliani thinks government licensure - government *PERMISSION* - is necessary for a citizen to exercise the right to keep and bear arms indicates that he plainly doesn't support the clear and explicit "shall not be infringed" language of the 2nd Amendment.
Meaning, of course, that any vow he might ever have taken (or might ever take in future) "...to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America" is null and void.
And you think this guy should be president?
Of what? The Brady Campaign?
--
See http://billstclair.com/whyguns.html |
|
How anyone who doesn't bow to the "only man who can save America" is derided as a political hack campaigning for someone else?
Yet no turning of such a discerning eye towards themselves and how they promote Paul?
Paul's best showing in any poll, anywhere, was Iowa. Granted he spent less $ than some (but more than others who did better than he). But even with his "massive" grassroots support - all the internet buzz; all the out-of-state supporters who showed to lobby for their guy, and with spending less money and less time; and even after given a decent speach at the event in person, he still only pulled 5th place. That's a juggernaut all right.
And what did that great 5th place finish get him? He's still not polling nationally better than 2% - the same he was before Iowa.
I admire the Paulbot passion, but it just isn't getting aything done for Ron Paul.
|
|
Come on Michael. You are a smart man. As some of the previous comments make clear, Ron Paul is no isolationist and he's running on a lot more than one issue. I don't know why you choose to fail to see that the stands that Ron Paul takes on so many issues are such winners for the conservatives. Immigration, taxes, social security, abortion, getting out of the UN, cutting spending, getting rid of the Dept. of education, no nation building. What more could a conservative want?
I think that the truth is more like it that you are a single issue voter. You don't agree with his stance on the war and that seems to knock him out from further consideration. I don't necessarily agree with his war stance either but he's pulling a lot of support from the Democrats on this issue.
Since you seem to believe in polls, most polls show that a majority of Americans want to get out of Iraq as soon as possible. I just don't see how a pro-war candidate has a chance. Voting for a pro-war candidate is wasting your vote. You'll get a Democrat elected and then miss a great opportunity to get the conservative agenda started again. |
|
"Can someone explain to me how it is that a 9.1% 5th place finish is that much better than 6th place with 7.8%?"
Ron Paul got his votes with far less campaigning and far less money spent. Strictly going by the %s, and not looking at what kind of resources were used to get to those %s, Giuliani, McCain and Fred should also drop out.
|
|
|
Michael, as a conservative you have to agree Ron Paul best represents conservative Republican ideals. He is on the record with his extensive writings and Congressional voting record. Your objection to him seems to be mainly about only one issue, his non-interventionist foreign policy. So one can infer, from your statement in the article that Ron Paul is a one issue candidate, that perhaps you think that there is only one important issue, the continuation of America's involvement in foreign wars. Michael, that is not a conservative Republican position. That is the position held by those who have historically sought to subordinate US policy and interests to United Nations policy. It is also the position of those that seek to keep the trough full to feed the military/industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about. With the end of the Cold War, a new enemy had to be created so war can continue. Americans are waking up to this are are not in agreement with it. |
|
Medved is absolutely right. Its time for Brownback, Hunter, Tancrato, and especially Paul to go. That leaves us with the five canidates, four good Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson, and one bad McCain.
Now its not like Hunter couldn't be considered for the VP spot. Same with Huckabee if this is as good as it gets for him. In the end I am not sure that Romney will be able to boost the support he needs. McCain is already DOA. Which leaves primary voters with two choices Thompson and Giuliani, both of whom are fine canidates. |
|
Huckabee helps Rudy and Romney and does major damage to Thompson. He will not be able to raise the money that he needs to compete nationally but as a Southerner who supports the fair tax he can erode Fred's support in the South. Huck will not win IA or NH but he can run 3rd in IA and maybe 4th in NH. That creates major problems for Thompson and McCain.
They will be in bad shape by the time they reach SC and FL.
I do not expect McCain or Huckabee to drop out before the early primaries, nor Thompson if he ever gets in. |
|
|
You sure have been promoting Huckabee lately here and on your radio show since the Iowa straw poll. While Huckabee is a decent guy that has some pretty good one-liners and is an advocate of the FairTax, he seems to be intent on maintaining the status quo of big government Republicans. Replacing the income tax with the FairTax will still fund the growth of the welfare/warfare state and big government control of our lives. Why bother with a candidate like Huckabee when there is a principled conservative candidate like Ron Paul with ever-growing grassroots support who will work to eliminate the income tax and replace it with nothing. This can easily be done by insisting that the Federal government operate within the rule of law, the US Constitution. Ron Paul is not limited to one issue, rather he represents conservative Republican ideals across the board as pointed out in a previous poster's comment. It is also rather obvious that Ron Paul is the best suited Republican candidate to defeat Hillary Clinton in the General Election. Ron Paul as the Republican nominee will make the "third party" factor irrelevent. This is a concern you recently mentioned on your radio show. Ron Paul is the conservative's dream come true candidate. Michael, you are a gifted commentator, please change your mind about Ron Paul and support him with positive commentary. At the very least, please do not distort what Ron Paul stands for. Thanks! |
|
Tommy Thompson got 7.8% and is going back to Wisconsin as a defeated, and even somewhat embarrassed candidate.
Ron Paul got a mere 1.8% more than 6th place finisher Thompson.
Yet, we see Ron Paul fanatics rampaging across the internet "Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul!!"
Can someone explain to me how it is that a 9.1% 5th place finish is that much better than 6th place with 7.8%?
Yeah, it's slightly better. But good enough where one candidate is virtually disgraced and the other one is an "Iowa Hero?"
I've voting for Giuliani. He's the only one who can knock off Hillary. And he understand the threat we face from Islamo-Fascism, unlike Paul who almost didn't even vote for the War in Afghanistan cause of his fringe isolationist views.
Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
1997-2003
|
|
Reckin havoc, please do not attempt to create a straw man, such tactics should be reserved for high school debate teams.
I said he helped Reagan into office which he did as Ron Paul led the Texas delegation to nominate Ronald Reagan for the Republican nominee.
However if you would like to know what Ronald Reagan said about Ron Paul, feel free to watch for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyXW1hb-JQg |
|
the straw poll in Ames was a great beginning to our campaign in Iowa! We are the only campaign that did not buy a single vote! Voting took place largely before the speeches began. But, what a great response we generated after Iowans heard Duncan Hunter's message. Crowds came into our area after the voting and started signing up to be county chairs and precinct chairs! Our campaign heads into the Iowa Caucuses full steam ahead!
http://www.gohunter08.com/shownews.asp?artid=53
|
|
|
So if not for Ron Paul, Reagan would never have been president? |
|
Why don't you actually research a candidate's position before you write about it? Or at least use a dictionary before using words that are too big for you like "isolationist"...
First, there is a BIG difference between being an isolationist and a non-interventionist. Ron Paul is a non-interventionist, NOT an isolationist. In Webster's dictionary, isolationism is "a national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries". Ron Paul is NOT against trade between countries and he is NOT against peaceful negotiations with other countries. He's also not afraid to go to war ... as long as the Congress declares it AS OUTLINED IN THE CONSTITUTION! He just doesn't believe that we should police the world, overthrow governments in third world countries, and give OUR TAXPAYER money to every country looking for a handout. Simply put, he believes in putting the interests of THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FIRST and the interests of other nations second. It's about time someone in our government started representing the people!
Second, how exactly did you decide that Ron Paul was a one-issue candidate. Let's see, aside from bringing our troops home he stands for...
1. Reducing the scope of the federal government
2. Drastically cutting government spending
3. Eliminating the income tax
4. Reduce the national deficit and debt
5. Eliminating wasteful government agencies like the IRS, Dept of Energy, Dept of Education, FEMA
6. Using our troops to actually defend and secure our borders
7. Stamping out illegal immigration and amnesty
8. Allow young people to opt out of Social Security
9. Repeal the Patriot Act and give Americans back their rights to privacy
10. Keeping the internet unregulated
11. Stamp out NAU, NAFTA, WTO
12. Fight to reverse Rowe v. Wade
Shall I go on??? |
|
I absolutely agree we should keep our tax dollars in house more than we do today. The top five users of US foreign aid are Iraq, Israel, Egypt, Columbia, and Peru, Ukraine, and Russia rounding out the bottom. Aside from humanitarian aid, we should not be giving any money to these or any other nations and in fact barred from giving foreign aid to nations who have not signed the Non Proliferation Treaty. I have no problems with your suggestions.
This piece was begging for a response to the "also ran" comments when Huckabee is nearly broke and has only gotten traction from a single straw poll way in advance of the meat. I hope he does gain more favor and popularity, he is a better choice than Giuli, then again, Pol Pot and Hillary Clinton are only marginally less suitable to the interest of the American people.
I certainly don't agree with all of Paul's positions, then again, I have never seen a candidate that I agree with all their positions. Hey may or may not have any chance in heck of even making it into the top tier, but I can say this much with some certainty. If people Like Medved, Bennet, and others would remember that Paul was the man who helped get Reagan in office and a person that people like Robert Novak endorse because he is a principled conservative, he would be the next President. However, those that can make the most impact refuse or choose not to for whatever reasons, but I can bet it isn't because of principles. |
|
--
Jeez, that's news to me.
So what's the "single-issue," Mr. Medved?
Government run in compliance with the U.S. Constitution?
Oh, yeah. Speaking to that concept automatically makes any American a "kook" these days, doesn't it?
-- |
|
Sam Brownback is a distinguished public servant and a true patriot. However, he needs to realize that his campaign isn't going anywhere. He has gained the reputation of a negative politician and no one has been fooled by his "ticket to the caucus" line. No one was celebrating in the Brownback tent when it was announced that he placed third in the straw poll — he lost to Huckabee and that was the test.
If he truly cares about sending someone to the White House who has been solidly pro-life just as long as he has, he should bow out yesterday and encourage his supporters to back Huckabee.
Brownback can't beat Huckabee, but he could potential steal enough votes to ensure that pro-choice Giuliani — or what he considers "flip-flop" Romney — gains the nomination.
|
|
|
How about keeping our US tax dollars at home as well, instead of giving them to so many of those 200 some odd sovereign nations. Phinny, it's too bad your loyalties aren't closer to home as you are a decent whiner. |
|
Should it be considered isolationist to promote free trade yet remove ourselves from the foreign entanglements of the internal affairs of other sovereign nations?
Do people consider the Norwegians, Swedes, or the Dutch to be isolationist because they don't have a military presence in 192 of 212 other nations and merely rely upon free trade?
Michael, there is no speculating who's desktop you take your marching orders from, too bad your loyalties weren't closer to home as you are a decent writer.
|
|
|
I don't think Tancredo is alienating anyone. He is only candidtae who has been strong on his immigration stance way before it became an issue. He is also best candidate on most issues. I don't see whay Republicans are trying to shut him out. Maybe party has gotten too liberal. |
|
|
As a supporter of Duncan Hunter I'm afraid that I have to agree w/ you. Few know who he is or what his stances are; if they did, he'd have pulled more votes. Seems like every primary the Republican candidate I'd like to vote for is history by the time we get to vote. |
|
|
|