Monday, September 03, 2007
|
|
Talking With Ron Paul And Duncan Hunter: What The Texas Straw Poll Shows Us
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
9:27 AM
|
My interview with Ron Paul from Saturday is here. He had asked that we defer a conversation until after his speech to the Texas Straw Poll.
My conversations with his supporters are to me more interesting, and hopefully they will be up later today.
Here's the pre-straw poll conversation with Duncan Hunter. Congressman Hunter won over the 1,400 voting delegates because he was there, working the crowd, and hitting the right notes that conservative activists love to hear.
His large win and Ron Paul's disappointing (for him) third place showing tell us that the presidential race in Texas is wide open, meaning that the race in the country is wide open as well. Each of the big three had respectable showings of volunteers and votes at the convention, but when that many long-time activists pick a place-holder (albeit an experienced, informed and conservative placeholder) they are showing that no one has swept the heart of the party. To be eligible to vote in the straw poll required past participation as a delegate at a state or national convention --a marker of serious activism. This is why Ron Paul did so poorly. His enthusiasts were out in large numbers and visible and vocal everywhere, but they aren't long time Republican activists, but rather mostly libertarian activists and newcomers to politics.
The center of the party is unaffiliated, but not unenthusiastic about the race ahead, just undecided. To the MSM struggling to figure this all out: It's the campaign, stupid. They want to see who has the energy, message and the skills set to beat Hillary.
|
|
hungry for a Conservative candidate. Hunter also won in SC...
If HH and the rest of our new media "overlords" (heh-heh) would carefully examine Hunter instead of just saying he cannot win because MSM still likes Giuliani, Thompson, Romney, and McCain, Hunter might make a nice President...
Otherwise, get ready Hillary... |
|
|
|
|
means Republicans need Herman Cain, Micheal Steele, or Thomas Sowell to run with whomever we nominate! The MSM want to make the case that Dems are so wonderfully diverse but cannot if we run with a great Conservative minority, who's actually done something in business or leadership. I also love Walter Williams, but he is probably, too, combative. |
|
Hugh-
Despite the case you make in "If its not close they can't cheat," I would love to see a 3rd party candidate arise and crush the Democrats and Republicans. I would vote for him if I knew he could win.
Wake up, Republican politicians. You will lose, because the Democrats will have a government fix for all our problems that will appeal to their insipid, fat, lazy base, (not to mention the fever-swamp crowd) and will drive us into depression.
We need someone who can win the war and address our social problems, which effect every aspect of our society - we're fat, lazy, immoral, and unhealthy, which are invitations for over-regulation and even tyranny. We favor short-term financial gain over long term cost (gambling, porn, abortion, immigration) and the family unit is a passing institution.
If the Democrats win, they will drive the final nail in America's coffin. |
|
By the way,
These Republican candidates pretty much all suck; some may be good presidents, but will lack the necessary tools to beat Hillary. They will need to appeal to women, and Hillary has that in the bag (even Christian women will vote for her).
Romney: Christians won't be able to get over that he's Mormon (no matter how hard or smart the argument is. The fact is, most people pay causal attention to politics, and won't care about the argument for him)
Guliani: There goes the Catholic vote (impossible to overcome)
McCain: Whatever
Thompson: Who knows? He's not sending a message: If he isn't communicating now, he never will
The rest of the field: Irrelevant
|
|
Hugh writes:
"His enthusiasts were out in large numbers and visible and vocal everywhere, but they aren't long time Republican activists, but rather mostly libertarian activists and newcomers to politics."
Hugh, I've been a Republican in Texas since 1972. Long before it was cool to be a Republican in this state. I wanted to go to Fort Worth and vote for Ron, but much to my surprise the people who setup this straw poll had limited the vote to Party Hacks. You had to be a past delegate at a state GOP convention. I inquired, well what about my up to date GOP National and State committee cards. Didn't matter. Only party hacks could vote. Simply pathetic. |
|
posted that the paulists were claiming "rigged" and "foul" and whining???
Well, here we have JimmyBobbie doing exactly that... Whaa Whaa Whaa...
|
|
I am tired of the party king makers telling us who our nominee should be. Duncan has a 25 year perfect conservative record in the House and knows exactly how the party base thinks. He surrounds himself at his events with his constituents, not high paid lobbiests. He is real and not the product of a high paid PR team to make him look conservative. He has the record and the best credentials of anyone in the field to lead the free world. No one has ever been able to attack him, his record or his credentials in a debate. It's time we backed a real conservative and not jump on the band wagon of who we think the "winner" will be the way the big money did early in this race.
Dr. Gary |
|
|
Anne, you're about to have a breakdown. Step away from your computer. |
|
|
|
From "moderate," modern Turkey (let's let them into the EU!):
"Speaking at Kanal D TV’s Arena program, PM Erdogan commented on the term “moderate Islam”, often used in the West to describe AKP and said, ‘These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”
Source: Milliyet, Turkey, August 21, 2007"
Two years after inviting unindicted co-conspirator CAIR onto his program as an authority on Islam, Hugh is still willfully ignorant of what fuels the global jihad: the command of Allah and the example of his false prophet.
Qur'an and Sunnah require the faithful to war against all non-Muslims who refuse to either convert to Islam or to submit to an oppressive and humiliating second-class status as dhimmis.
This is neither "funamentalist," "radical," nor "extremist" Islam -- this is Islam.
(Does Hugh know how long the Sunni/Shia conflict has raged and why?) |
|
. . . .
In light of the "divine" mandate for Infidel bloodshed in establishing the tyranny of Allah over all mankind, how wise is it to spend one more drop of American blood or one more dime of American treasure in service to Islam?
If our forces stay in Iraq to kill faithful Muslims obeying the call to advance jihad or to prepare for other fronts in our War of Self-Defense Against Islam, then that is a proper use of our military.
If our bravest and best continue to sacrifice life and limb for a Commander-in-Chief who persists in the delusion that Islam is a "great" world "Religion of Peace," whose adherents will love us if only we give enough, then that is a crime and a tragedy.
President Bush has used our military to enshrine Shari'a -- Islamic law -- in Iraq's constitution. He advocates an independent Kosovo. (Apparently, Islamic terrorism does pay.)
Hugh facilitates this ill-informed, suicidal policy by promoting the same false Islam.
http://amillennialist.blogspot.com |
|
Texans understand that our Republic is on the line, the actions of the next president will decide if we remain a sovereign nation. They have been on the front line of the illegal alien inundation and know we must build a fence and enforce our laws. Duncan Hunter is the man to do just that.
Conservatives can nominate a conservative. All it takes is not acting like sheep and getting herded into nominating a northeast liberal. 49% will never vote for Hillary, only 60% voted last time. Turnout was the difference. Give Americans a chance to vote for someone who WILL secure the border and watch turnout soar. Americans want their government to fulfill its most basic responsibility.
The primary responsibility of the U.S. government is to protect the territorial integrity and people of this country. They have completely abdicated this responsibility. Both parties have been complicit in this. We are being told it is not possible to control our borders, enforce our laws, and thereby control our destiny as a nation. Hogwash. We are being sold out by corporations intent on importing workers for jobs that can't be exported with the taxpayers paying the true costs, financial and human. If we act like sheep and don't stop the inundation across our borders, we will lose our country without a bleat.
http://www.gohunter08.com
|
|
if Mitt Romney had a win, place or show Hugh and Dean would be declaring how Mitt was on a juggernaut to victory. I agree Ames was important for Iowa (and as the first state it is important), but I think most candidates would rather win Texas.
What the Texas straw poll shows is 1) Duncan Hunter's message resonates with conservatives (even though he has little chance of winnin the nomination), and 2) Fred Thompson really does have the ability to win this thing (assuming he campaigns competently) and 3) Ron Paul may be a fringe candidate, but there are enough of his fringey supporters out there to help win a straw poll in his home state. |
|
|
that after the "TOP TIER CANDIDATES" have spent millions and millions of dollars, as well as the free exposure offered weekly by the MSM, and even the Pundit world telling all that only TOP TIER can win........................THEY FELL FLAT ON THEIR FACES!.............I now believe that grassroots may NEVER control the medias, but they WILL control this comming election!......And media will have to live with the results. |
|
“...the two American political figures Ron Paul strikes me as being the most similar to are Thomas Jefferson and Barry Goldwater.” – Chuck Muth
“I strongly support Ron Paul. We very badly need to have more Representatives in the House who understand in a principled way the importance of property rights and religious freedom” – Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize Economist
"If the framers of the Constitution were somehow to come back, Ron Paul is one of possibly only three people in Congress that they'd even talk to," said Mr. Williams, adding that most politicians have a "generalized contempt" for the values of the Constitution. – Walter Williams
“...in his heart and in his head, in his character and in his intellect, in what he has done and in what he will become, the Thomas Jefferson of our day, Ron Paul is one of us!" --Judge Andrew Napolitano
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8QwTKKSvR8
"Texas Congressman Ron Paul's pro-gun credentials are impeccable and he has been a leading proponent of rolling back the past 40 years of gun control." -- Gun Owners of America
Ron Paul for President '08 -- "HOPE FOR AMERICA"
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/index.php
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/
http://www.ronpaulnation.com/tv.html
http://gunowners.org/pres08/paul.htm
If Republicans want to win in November of 2008, they must nominate Ron Paul. If they nominate anyone else, they will assuredly lose. The Reagan coalition has turned into the Ron Paul Revolution.
|
|
Amazing to see some, even if it is a tiny amount, embrace the isolationist nonsense of the fool named Ron Paul.
More than a few Liberals in the East Coast who have admitted to this poster, they have been pretending to be something they are not, pushing Ron Paul in hopes of undermining the GOP and the Conservative Agenda.
Beware of the manipulation...
The delusions of Paul would be as disastrous for this Country, as Hillary Clinton wanting to 'take things away' from the American Public.
Paul wants to put the most powerful Nation's head in the sand, to run away from everything, and close the doors to free trade.
His ignorance would turn this Country into something that it has never been, a nightmarish failure.
His embarrassing small minded confusion has no conception of the power of free markets, free trade, and the global market, which has helped make the quality of life in the USA the envy of the World.
Paul's insane foreign policy is akin to the negligent 90's with the inept Clinton failure to act, which encouraged the terrorists throughout the world and enabled the horror of 9-11.
The Paul attraction is embarrassing, as it reveals a number of Americans who seem to be responding out of fear or fantasy.
Ronald Reagan challenged Americans to raise the USA to meet it's great potential, while Ron Paul wants us to run away like cowards.
He is an idiot, and should be treated as such.
It is no wonder some of the most liberal amongst us, are pushing his folly. |
|
HNAV writes:
"tiny amount, embrace the isolationist nonsense of the fool named Ron Paul."
HNAV, you don't even know what an isolationist is, and Ron Paul isn't one. He wants to engage the rest of the economically. What he doesn't believe in is attacking 3rd rate nations that are ZERO threat to the United States. Ron Paul believes in a non interventionist foreign policy which is old school Republicanism.
1980 Republican Party: Government isn't the solution, government is the problem
2007 Republican Party: When people hurt governmetn must act
To all the GOP party hacks, Robert Novak's column in today's Washington Post paints a very bleak picture for the GOP. Bush Rove and the NeoCons are destroying the GOP
|
|
...I thought Ron Paul was a free trader/non-interventionist in the Jeffersonian tradition, not an isolationist? Ehh whatever, the Republican Party pisses on the Founder's principles everyday and don't even realize it. That won't ever change until they're honest with themselves. Frankly I don't think any of them give a hoot about the Founders anymore.
The only thing I wonder is, if all the registered republicans who went to the Straw Poll were allowed to vote, who would have won? Paul? Hunter probably still would have one as I doubt too many Paul folks showed up.
If the Texas GOP could only get 1,300 activists out, I think that's a pretty clear indicator of how the actual primary is going to end up. |
|
Brian, that was very funny! Bravo.
Yes the love that dare not say its name, those of us that love criticizing Hugh and Dean for their continual mancrush on Mitt! I am not the only one, but thanks for the observation.
And HNAV, I think you have little to fear of a Ron Paul victory (or even a spoiler effect if he ran in the general). Ron Paul raises some important points in being for small government, fiscal sanity, and the like. He is personally principaled. I like those qualities about Ron Paul.
But like many Libertarians he is a uber dork. I do not think the country is in the mood to elect or take Ron Paul seriously. |
|
3, Fort Worth, Texas, 0/1/2007, 16.7%
1, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania 8/26/2007, 45.2 %
1, DeKalb County, Georgia Straw Poll 8/25/2007, 24 %
3, HRCC (Minnesota), 8/22/2007, 16.0%
1, Ronald Reagan Club (Washington), 8/21/2007, 28.0%
1, West Alabama, 8/18/2007, 81.2%
1, Strafford County, NH, 8/18/2007, 72.2%
4, West Lafayette, Indiana, 8/18/2007, 11.7%
3, Illinois State Fair, 8/17/2007, 18.9%
4, Students for Life of America, 8/16/2007, 9.0%
6, Western Montana Fair, 8/15/2007, 4.0%
1, Gaston County, NC, 8/14/2007, 36.6%
5, Ames, Iowa, 8/11/2007, 9.1%
3, National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA), St. Louis, MO, 8/6/2007, 14.0%
1, FreedomWorks Straw Poll 8/3/2007, 56 %
2, Georgetown County, SC, 7/28/2007, 17.9%
1, New Hampshire Taxpayers, 7/7/2007, 65.3%
2, Cobb County, GA, 7/4/2007, 17.0%
4, California Republican Assembly, 7/1/2007, 12.0%
2, National Taxpayers Union, 6/16/2007, 16.7%
2, Utah GOP convention, 6/8/2007, 5.4%
Note: We have a way to go, that's for sure, but I'm seeing a lot of hope in these numbers. Who would have thought he would have won so many straw polls.
|
|
3, Fort Worth, Texas, 0/1/2007, 16.7%
1, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania 8/26/2007, 45.2 %
1, DeKalb County, Georgia Straw Poll 8/25/2007, 24 %
3, HRCC (Minnesota), 8/22/2007, 16.0%
1, Ronald Reagan Club (Washington), 8/21/2007, 28.0%
1, West Alabama, 8/18/2007, 81.2%
1, Strafford County, NH, 8/18/2007, 72.2%
4, West Lafayette, Indiana, 8/18/2007, 11.7%
3, Illinois State Fair, 8/17/2007, 18.9%
4, Students for Life of America, 8/16/2007, 9.0%
6, Western Montana Fair, 8/15/2007, 4.0%
1, Gaston County, NC, 8/14/2007, 36.6%
5, Ames, Iowa, 8/11/2007, 9.1%
3, National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA), St. Louis, MO, 8/6/2007, 14.0%
1, FreedomWorks Straw Poll 8/3/2007, 56 %
2, Georgetown County, SC, 7/28/2007, 17.9%
1, New Hampshire Taxpayers, 7/7/2007, 65.3%
2, Cobb County, GA, 7/4/2007, 17.0%
4, California Republican Assembly, 7/1/2007, 12.0%
2, National Taxpayers Union, 6/16/2007, 16.7%
2, Utah GOP convention, 6/8/2007, 5.4%
Note: We have a way to go, that's for sure, but I'm seeing a lot of hope in these numbers. Who would have thought he would have won so many straw polls. |
|
|
|
|
Actually Dr. Paul's performance in the restricted straw poll was delightful considering the TX GOP is a Bush/neo-con stronghold. If the attendees were allowed to vote, we all know that Ron Paul would've won by a landslide. And apparently the state GOP took in ~$97,000, but The Paul campaign took in over $102,000. So, who's in good shape now? It's the neo-cons that are keeping their heads in the sand. Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate that can beat Hillary. Any other GOP candidate can't muster the grassroots support necessary to put the dwindling GOP back on top. So, to all you neo-cons out there--just support Hillary cause that's what you'll get. Actually, her positions on key issues are quite in line with those of the neo-cons. Oh, and Hunter's voting record pales in comparison to the impeccable traditional conservative platform of Dr. Paul. Our nation is ailing and we need a good Doctor to save us, not another neo-con. This is the GOP's last chance to regrow the party. |
|
"Paul's insane foreign policy is akin to the negligent 90's with the inept Clinton failure to act, which encouraged the terrorists throughout the world and enabled the horror of 9-11."
He recommends the same foreign policy as our Founders recommended to us. Have a problem with that? Perhaps you should go read Washington's Farewell Address.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm
No, what "encouraged the terrorists" was our insane foreign policy. Are you seriously going to sit there and tell me that we can invade, overthrow and occupy sovereign nations without any consequences? It's called BLOWBACK.
"The Paul attraction is embarrassing, as it reveals a number of Americans who seem to be responding out of fear or fantasy."
Hhmmm.... Excuse me. But, I think it is chaps like you who are operating out of fear. Allowing habeas corpus and posse comitatus to be scrapped. Applauding illegal wiretapping and warrantless searches and seizures. Allowing our Constitution to be wholesale disregarded. All because you got a little scared.
It seems to me, it might make more sense to secure our ports/borders, keep our Border Patrol on the border, rather than sending them to Iraq, go after the people who attacked us. They are in PAKISTAN, by the way, NOT Iraq. But, that's just me.
|
|
"Ronald Reagan challenged Americans to raise the USA to meet it's great potential, while Ron Paul wants us to run away like cowards."
I doubt you'd know a quote from Ronald Reagan, if it jumped up and bit you in the backside. Tell me, do you think Barry Goldwater was conservative? If so, perhaps you yourself of the speech called, "A Time for Choosing". Then, maybe you will learn what conservative really means. Congressman Paul is the REAL conservative in the race.
http://www.reaganlibrary.com/reagan/speeches/rendezvous.asp
"He is an idiot, and should be treated as such.
It is no wonder some of the most liberal amongst us, are pushing his folly."
I'm a Goldwater-Conservative, buddy. You clearly are a BIG government STATIST. Not a conservative, at all. Perhaps you should consider running to your statist brethren on the other side of the aisle. The REAL conservatives are taking our party back.
Cheers. |
|
|
The primaries are not even here yet and some of the posters are using straw polls as arbiters of voting patterns. Why is it that these lower tier candidates do not, do not show up in the likely voter polls? Why is it that in the real polls, not straw figments of immagination, do the Paulbots and others simply do not matter>? And please no conspiracies. We will have to wait to see how real voters not straw men show up and vote. Hunter is a real Pub conser,Paul is a libertarian period. He will not get then nomination or beat Hil. Please enough of fantasy. Hunter will make a fine SecDEF or State if a Pub wins but no one knows him nationally for a VP role. And when Hugh says, well no one in the straw polls really have decided yet and the nation is open all the way, what is he talking about? Has he given up on Mitt? Are the polls now so weak for all the candidates that he is just blathering? At least let us wait and see if any one guy in the primary states gets any boost or momentum before ranting that Paul or Hunter can beat Hillary. That is patent nonsense and anybody who has really worked in politics knows that. Hugh knows that and is just justifying his role going to the TX straw poll shananigans. When the primary states actually hold elections and the Pubs go before real voters then the field will winnow down and we will actually see if we have any chance to defeat our real enemies, the liberal pacifist socialist Democrats. |
|
Hugh Hewitt sure tossed him an inital softball on that interview; he will play hard with PROC, get our jobs back. Nobody mentions that China would still be a third world country without CFR direct technology transfers from the United States, starting back in the 70's.
I am voting for Dr. Paul, a non-CFR member, because of his goal to restore constitutional government, which transends all other issues for me. I believe that Gurudas said it best:
“All these people say there are powerful groups threatening our way of life. Some sources identify the bankers and corporate elite as the source of our problems, while others feel the national security state is the threat. The power of Wall Street is now obvious to many. So much is happening today that it is increasingly clear a police state is no longer some distant event to fear. The American people must awaken and join together to restore constitutional government and diminish the power of the large corporations and their agent, the federal government, so that we can again be a free people.”
|
|
crucible wrote:
'If the Democrats win, they will drive the final nail in America's coffin.'
Hmm, Democrats won in 1992 and 1996, not to mention every election between 1932 and 1944 and America did not die. Demonizing the opposition figures high in the reasons so many are turned off to politics completely.
|
|
It's pretty sad that the only possible way the Republican Party is going to have a chance in hell of beating the Democrats in 2008 is to try and strike the fear of God into Party members about Hillary.
What happened to being the party of ideas? What happened to inspiring the base to organize and promote our values?
All we have left now is to scare people into voting. Bush today again invoked, "We fight them here, so that we don't fight them back in the homeland". General Mcinerny on Fox News says that an "Airstrike on Iran would hopefully inspire a Velvet Revolution to overthrow Ahmadenijad."
ARE THEY LOSING IT???? I swear if some country came and bombed the United States if we were in Iran's position...do these people honestly think the country's citizens would fight their government??? More likely instead of just the fanatics strapping bombs on their chests, regular folks who were quite content before their country started getting bombed would be doing so too. |
|
Hugh wrote:
'The center of the party is unaffiliated, but not unenthusiastic about the race ahead, just undecided.'
How can they be so blind, as not to see?
How can they be so deaf, as not to hear?
He walks on water, rescues drowning Olympics, commands mighty armies and beats Hillary in a single bound. |
|
I just checked the national polls.. updated Sept. 1, 2007.
Dennis Kucinich has better poll numbers than ronnie paul!
As things stand now, ronniepaul couldn't beat Dennis Kucinich!!!!
And the paulists think ronniepaul could beat HELLary? LOL!!!
|
|
"Paul is a libertarian period."
LOL! He's a TWENTY YEAR Republican, bud.
Nice try, though. |
|
FACT: The Republican Party has shrunk greatly. A large number of traditional conservatives have left the party and have largely become Independents or members of the Constitution Party.
FACT: No one is going to cross the aisle to vote for a Republican who is a warmonger, who is willing to break the Christian Doctrine of Just War and pre-emptively nuke a country that has not attacked us, nor poses an imminent threat. Nor, will they vote for any guantanamo-doubling, habeas corpus stealing, illegal wiretapping, Constitution-burning, BIG government totalitarian.
And neither will I.
THOSE ARE THE FACTS. Ignore them, and you will end up with Hillary or Obama.
|
|
Amazing to see some, even if it is not a substantial amount, embrace the globalist nonsense of the foolish nonsense posted by HNAV.
More than a few Liberals have been pretending since the late 60's to be something they are not, pushing Neoconservatism to undermine American values and the REAL Conservative Agenda.
Beware of the manipulation...
HNAV wants to put the most powerful nation's head in the sand, to ignore the findings of the CIA, and keep on doing the very things that give Islamic terrorists their number one recruiting tool.
His ignorance will turn this Country into something that it has never been, a bankrupt empire.
His embarrassing small minded confusion has no conception of the difference between the FREE trade Ron Paul supports and the MANAGED trade the neoconservative agenda supports, under the guise of the WTO, the SPP/NAU, and other such organizations which deprive us of our national sovereignty.
HNAV's insane view of foreign policy is so divorced from reality that he thinks Clinton had a non-interventionist foreign policy, when in fact he had us doing weekly bombing runs over Iraq, going into Somalia, the Balkans, and Haiti.
The views HNAV holds are embarrassing, as it reveals a number of Americans who live with boogeyman fears of third world terrorists, when what they ought to truly be concerned about is the disappearance of our Freedom, the impending economic disaster predicated by our overspending, and the imminent failure of the federal reserve.
Ronald Reagan pulled our troops out of Lebanon, stating that we can never understand "the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics".
Anyone who believes what HNAV says here is lacking common sense, and should be treated as such.
It is no wonder some of the most liberal amongst you, are pushing his folly. |
|
And this is a compilation of ALL the polls...
Even Biden has better numbers than ronniepaul!
Now these poll numbers were compiled 9/01/07, so there is a while to go. A lot could happen between now and the Republican Convention, but ronniepaul has two chances to make it to the Convention... 1) Slim, and 2) None.
|
|
|
I was on the ground and in the hall on Friday and Saturday and I can tell you all that Ron Paul was the clear winner at this event, regardless of what the results are. Hundreds of Ron Paul supporters paraded 10 blocks to the hall Saturday morning and surrounded the building both days. Inside the hall, at least 60% of attendees were Ron Paul supporters, wearing shirts, stickers, pins, and carrying signs and I overheard many comments from amazed old-time GOPers about the overwhelming support for Ron Paul. Furthermore,the Ron Paul campaign took in over $125,000 for the weekend at 2 fundraisers. The GOP Straw Poll, on the other hand, only took in $97,000. Clearly, Ron Paul was the BIG winner this weekend. |
|
HNAV writes:
Amazing to see some, even if it is a tiny amount, embrace the isolationist nonsense of the fool named Ron Paul.
NOTE that it is YOU who introduces the word "Isolationist", not Dr. Paul. The false label won't wash...without the corrupt (oil for food billions $$ stolen while women/children starve); godless; pro-war (perpetual war for perpetual peace throughout my 58-years); dictator dominated; anti-freedom; UN in the way, we could talk to countries face to face, one at a time or in small groups as it suites OUR best interest - just as we did for 171 years before communist spy Alger Hiss ran the convention that founded that Tower of Babel on the Hudson in 1947.
Take the money we save and apply it to those trillions $$ of obligations we must morally fulfill to our fellow citizens.
Lastly - check out Matt 5:22 about calling people "fools"; a reasoned argument of disagreement is much better received.
OLDAGG
|
|
NARAL scores: 65%/07; 75%/06. His scores do fluctuate (and Paulbots say this is because of his voting record). That is true as far as it goes, but he scores higher from NARAL than ANY other Republican candidate.
Earmarks are excused by his supporters. "Washington is going to spend the money anyway, so Mr. Paul is just trying to bring money back to his district."
He also scored 29% (out of 100%) in a recent RePORK card from the Club for Growth. Paul voted against several anti-pork amendments.
He has many other issues: the war, basing oversees, his still apparent inability to seperate his campaign and message from either kookiness or straight out kooks. (A candidate who still cavorts with Alex Jones, a 9/11 Twoofer) and since I said it, yes, I know he has come out and said he doesn't believe the gov was responsible for 9/11, but cavorting with that element stil lends credence to the kookiness.
His stance on the income tax yet still filing and paying income taxes himself. Is it an illegal tax or not? If it is, why pay it? If it isn't, a pillar of his support base collapses.
He is not polling well nationally. And regardless of his internet grassroots, his many radio appearances (many as guests of Townhall radio hosts) and other national apearences on television, etc. he is not generating a "revolution" with anyone other than his own supporters.
Paulbots can't reconcile with the fact that Paul must court and win over the general Republican base for any real support; something which he hasn't done.
If you analyze Paul objectively, he is nothing more than another career politician running for President. |
|
DOWN with the ship! And that's your choice.
ronniepaul, in your opinion, MAY have a chance, but if you're incapable of reading the writing on the wall, then I'd have to question exactly who is retarted (your insult, not mine.)
While you're going down with the ship, I'll be the one on dry land fighting for the Republicans to keep the WH. :-)
At this point, I have no idea who the Republican candidate will be running against the dumbo ticket, but I can promise you it WON'T be.
ronniepaul!
|
|
Typical of the paulists mentality...low life. Hit in the face with FACTS, and you go right to insults and personal attacks.
|
|
Catmman can you name one person in Congress that votes for less spending than Ron Paul? Anne sure can't.
Ron Paul's third place showing in the Texas straw poll was a great showing. People who follow politics know it is about momentum. Ron Paul is showing that he can compete in elections. Your telling me that he finishes third above Rudy and John and almost beats Thompson and it is disappointing? Those guys have double or triple his current name recognition and they can't beat him.
|
|
Catmman can you name one person in Congress that votes for less spending than Ron Paul? Anne sure can't.
Ron Paul's third place showing in the Texas straw poll was a great showing. People who follow politics know it is about momentum. Ron Paul is showing that he can compete in elections. Your telling me that he finishes third above Rudy and John and almost beats Thompson and it is disappointing? Those guys have double or triple his current name recognition and they can't beat him.
|
|
"anne
poll numbers don't mean anything, just name recognition...only 12% of the voters vote in primaries"
I guess I need to work on my name recognition if I'm ever going to pull away from Ron "Pa" Kettle. Maybe I've been wrong playing the Thompson "tease" strategy. On the other hand, Paul's Lyndon LaRouche strategy isn't working either. I think I'll just start declaring myself the overwhelming winner at every event too regardless of the facts.
There just is no way to make sentences parse and conform to any logic with these Paulettes. It's like talking about global warming with the Gorists. |
|
Funny how RP detractors love using the " national scientific polls " when infact those polls are complete BS. The latest Gallop polled what? Some 300 previous republican voters? RP almost got 5x that vote in the Iowa straw poll, on top of winning 1st in straw polls or placing in the top 3 all over the country. Please explain to me how phone polling is more accurate than actual physical votes? The phone polling is hardly accurate, I suggest looking for something else to use. The numbers don't lie, Paul is dominating the physical votes.
Paul will win the republican nomination, independents like myself will be out in droves to vote for him in the california primaries.
|
|
"the overwhelming winner at every event too regardless of the facts."
But you have to do it without laughing, and I know you... you'll be biting your cheeks and lips to keep from laughing.
But wait.... you don't have to. Your poll numbers are already highter than ronniepauls. (But then, who's isn't.) :-)
But you know I'd vote for you.
Hope you're having a wonderful and safe Labor Day! And pass my thoughts and prayers to your sons. Thanks.
|
|
Based on WHAT? Pipe dreams and drugs?
|
|
|
Sorry Anne, but I'm not the one calling people names. You are. You've become unhinged! This morning you were exploding right here on Town Hall |
|
So here's the thing the paulists don't seem to get. Is it "good name recognition" or "not so good name recognition?"
I'm guessin' that ronniepaul's numbers are so LOW because the vast majority of people recognise his name with "Blame America" and "Cut and Run."
|
|
And I hope the Paul fans will throw their support behind Hunter when the times comes. Our joint enemy is the Rockefeller wing of the GOP.
|
|
|
I don't know what they are complaining about either. Paul is getting plenty of free publicity. The problem is that his name is associated with the small but nutty crowds that follow him everywhere. No one cares what he says. He's boring and doesn't even understand the nineteenth century he lives in. It's kind of like watching the movie "Weekend at Bernie's". Whose Bernie? The dead guy? Really? The star of the movie is a corpse? |
|
When the time comes I hope the Hunter fans will throw their support behind Ron Paul. I agree the North Eastern Rockefeller wing must be defeated, I believe RP is right the man for the job.
|
|
"...small but nutty crowds that follow him everywhere" and always have an excuse as to why ronniepaul didn't do better and why anyone who doesn't agree is anti-Constitution, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah!
I figure that crowd is about 917 paulists. LOL
I hadn't thought about that... "Weeknd at Bernie's" You're right!
|
|
around any paulist when SOMEONE ELSE gets the Republican nomination.
If they don't get a gip before then, it's probably going to be nasty!
|
|
" I hope the Hunter fans will throw their support behind Ron Paul."
These paulists truly do fit the definition of Delusional: "a fixed false belief system that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact."
CharlieS seems to think that these paulists are actually clinton supporters.....
|
|
|
Like you have Anne. Perhaps I should start calling you Annie Bimbo?? Sounds pretty good |
|
I fail to see how Ron Paul placing 3rd is disappointing, given the circumstances. It wasn't even a distant 3rd, he was right up there with F. Thompson.
|
|
|
It just isn't logical that because the GOP elites are determined to nominate a Democrat for president that the only alternative is to nominate a deluded Libertarian. I would prefer a conservative Republican like Duncan Hunter. The GOP seems to have become a vehicle for nominating anyone but a Republican. Simple logic. Of course, the Paulettes prefer convaluted logic. Just because they forgot to register to vote or don't believe in registering or are too young to vote or that ex-convicts aren't allowed to vote, that doesn't mean the their candidate shouldn't be elected by popular acclaim on their say-so after he gets his usual 0.44% of the popular vote. The people want him! They just won't vote for him! |
|
|
|
"DOWN with the ship! And that's your choice.
ronniepaul, in your opinion, MAY have a chance, but if you're incapable of reading the writing on the wall, then I'd have to question exactly who is retarted (your insult, not mine.)
While you're going down with the ship, I'll be the one on dry land fighting for the Republicans to keep the WH. :-)
At this point, I have no idea who the Republican candidate will be running against the dumbo ticket, but I can promise you it WON'T be.
ronniepaul!"
DISCLAIMER: I am a Ron paul supporter and I understand his chances are slim.
If you are correct, and another Republican wins the White House, I have no doubt that 4 years from now, Republicans will be just as disenfranchised with the policies of whomever is elected as much as they are with Bush's policies now.
...and 4 years from now, they will discount and name call a small government candidate and vote for someone that has historically betrayed them with their policies because "we can't let the other team win." |
|
I predict that by September 30, Ron Paul's name recognition will increase many percentage points. Just a premonition...LOL.
Go Ron Paul! |
|
A group of people who actually believe that ronnirpaul has a snowballs chance in gloBULL warming of getting the Republican nomination are calling ME names and accusing ME of being retarded and/or having Turrete's Syndrome or some HFA disorder, and referring to ME as Annie Bimbo?
The same group of people who actually believe that ronniepaul has a CHANCE of getting the Republican nomination, when ronniepaul's aggregate poll numbers aren't as high as Kucinich or Biden...
I'm wondering if ronniepaul is aware of the caliber of people who are representing his name, 'cause they're certainly NOT doing him any favors.
|
|
|
Okay. You really fooled us. You were all put up to this by The Onion weren't you? This was all a brilliant put on to get us riled up. And I fell for it. I'm so embarrassed. |
|
AT least that his name recognition will be higher...
The problem is, his name recognition will be associated with nut cases, which won't exactly do him any good.
Just a premonition! LOL
|
|
Hugh wrote: "This is why Ron Paul did so poorly. His enthusiasts were out in large numbers and visible and vocal everywhere, but they aren't long time Republican activists, but rather mostly libertarian activists and newcomers to politics."
Is it not clear that Hugh is a bit oversold on his infallibility when it comes to political pronouncements? Hugh, I'll ask you directly. Are you sure out of which orifice you emitted such presumptuous drivel? No? Then, from whence cometh the data on which you base your ex cathedra pronouncement that Ron Paul's supporters "aren't long time Republican activists?"
Ah...I see. It was divine inspiration not empirical study of the political demographics that led to your assertion. Of course, that explains it! Your view can be accepted uncritically because it is obviously infallible by virtue of its source.
By the way...could you give me a tip on how you got such a good connection. I'm always getting a recording that says, "The number that you have dialed is not in service. Check your data, if you think it may be in error and dial again."
|
|
any sense what so ever!
"...and I understand his chances are slim."
I do disagree with your premis in four years, but you're the first rational and reasonable paulist I've seen on any thread.
The thing is, for the most part I happen to agree with paul on domestic issues. But I totally disagree with paul on his foreign policy. While it looks good on paper, that's not the real world today... in my opinion.
Of course, I couldn't vote for any liberal, for the same reason I agree with paul's domestic policy. But I could not vote for paul because his foreign policy is that of a liberal.
But, thank you. I would hope to have more discussions with you in the future.
I hope you've had a good Labor Day...
|
|
This is a continuation of:
"Hugh Hewitt's Pronouncements Ex Cathedra."
One need only view the comments of individuals like Liberty, Gabby, JimBob, oldagg, and NoLongerNeo-Con'd on this thread (apologies for overlooking anyone) to realize that Hugh's inductive reasoning is limited by the paucity of his empirical fact finding.
Ron Paul does, indeed, appeal to those who have never been involved in politics, to those who have not been old enough to vote before, to conservative independents of the old school, to disaffected liberals who have more in common with the "Classical Liberalism" of the Founders than they do with the big government focus of the Democratic Party Machine, but he also appeals to the true conservatives, the so-called paleoconservatives, who advocate for limited government and noninvolvement in unnecessary imperial wars and military-industrial-based big government spending founded on the utopian, Machiavellian principles that goad the neoconservatives into globalist action.
|
|
Just an old school hard right 55yr old life long Republican who has seen his party hijacked and turned into vehicle for big government war mongering. Attacking nations that haven't attacked us and were never a threat to the United States.
In fact, Saddam Hussein was the most progressive Arab dictator in the region. Western dress for women was very very common. Liquor stores were all over Baghdad. It had a thriving nightlife. The Christian community thrived and was protected. Now after the NeoCons war, they're fleeing or being killed.
The Iraq war has been an unequivocal disaster. Instead of Iraq acting as a check against Iranians, Iran is now on the rise and destablizing the entire region.
Bush will go down in history as one of the worst Presidents ever. His own father knows he's an idiot. When Jeb retired from running Florida, old man Bush broke down in tears because he knows his oldest son has destroyed the family franchise.
First it was Brent Scowcroft, old man Bush's closest advisor outside Jimmy Baker throwing down the hammer in 2005
"What turned Brent Scowcroft against the Bush Administration?"
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/10/31/051031fa_fact2
Then Vic Gold, Barry Goldwaters Press Secretary from 1964, and very old family friend of George and Barbara Bush, (Gold was the Biographer for George H. W. Bush) released "Invasion of the Party Snatchers, How the NeoCons Destroyed the GOP"
Ron Paul is the only true heir to the Goldwater Reagan legacy in the race today. |
|
TH has been having problems with the site since they've done an upgrade. Most posts don't "appear" until you've done one or to "refresh" cycles, and it will probably be like that until they get whatever 'bug' fixed.
Geeze, you've gone over the edge.
|
|
"Of course, I couldn't vote for any liberal, for the same reason I agree with paul's domestic policy. But I could not vote for paul because his foreign policy is that of a liberal. "
No, Anne. His foreign policy is the same as our Founding Fathers. They warned us not to entangle our affairs with other nations, nor take one nation's side over another's through foreign aid or anything else, because it would embroil us in THEIR wars. If you doubt me, start with reading George Washington's Farewell Address. http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm
The libersls, don't want to stop entangling alliances, they want war just the same as their statist brethren in the Republican ranks. Haven't you heard them talk of going to war in Darfur?
All STATISTS want war. They use it to further their agendas and line their own pockets and those of their cronies. If you bother to check history, you will notice that it was always the Democrats who got us into war; Republicans were elected to get us OUT. |
|
|
Why would Americans WANT war for war's sake? Isn't our goal to provide for our national security? If our national security is not threatened, do we not desire peace and to be left alone? When did we turn from a party who desired peace and the security of our OWN country, to one who believed in nation-building? That IS what we are doing right now. It has nothing whatsoever to do with our national security. If it did, I would be behind it 100%. Our attackers were never in Iraq; they are in Pakistan. We went into Iraq to carry out a plan of regime change that was put in place during Bill Clinton's administration. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–338). Go look it up. Now, these very same people who brought us the Iraq invasion, are trying their best to do the same thing in Iran. I repeat... while our attackers sit in PAKISTAN. This has absolutely nothing to do with our national security. If we were interested in that, we would go after our attackers in Pakistan and secure our OWN ports and borders. WAKE UP! You are being deceived. |
|
Are you writing a fiction novel here today? It's funny how right wing nut jobs on TH make up their own facts with a straight face.
|
|
"Okay. You really fooled us. You were all put up to this by The Onion weren't you? This was all a brilliant put on to get us riled up. And I fell for it. I'm so embarrassed."
What ARE you talking about, Phil? |
|
know what they're talking about referencing Barry Goldwater.
I was a Goldwater fan... supported him 100%. Goldwater did NOT want to pull out of Viet Nam as paul wants to pull out of Iraq.
Goldwater called on President Lyndon Johnson to do what was necessary to WIN. He made his views on the war clear.
"If I had inherited the mess that Johnson got into, I would have said to North Vietnam, by dropping leaflets out of B-52s, 'You quit the war in three days or the next time these babies come over there going to drop some big bombs on you.' And I'd make a swamp out of North Vietnam ... I'd rather kill a hell of a lot of North Vietnamese than one American and we've lost enough of them," Goldwater said.
What are you guys talking about?????
|
|
This is the third segment of:
"Hugh Hewitt's Pronouncements Ex Cathedra."
I have to say that Hugh's self-affirmed omniscience makes mere mortals either submissively succumb to his prepossessed "pundititis" or to be inspired, themselves to want to pry his nose from the wall to which it is affixed, thus preventing him from recognizing that his viewpoint is one of a near infinite number of possible points of fixation.
Like Hugh, each and every one of us has our point of fixation to the wall, i.e., it becomes difficult to see beyond the ends of our noses. We are each prevented by such myopia from recognizing that we all occupy the same room. We need only to take a step back from our prepossessed viewpoints to be able to see our view in the context of those around us. It is a laughable image to consider that we all, each in our own way, have our noses to the wall a great majority of the time and thus cannot see the room for the walls.
I suggest that we all back off a bit, as Anne did in responding to Moonkeeper (that includes you, too, Hugh Hewitt) and try to see what we all have in common by virtue of our humanness, which gives us the capacity for being sensitive to the feelings of others.
I am guilty of the ad hominem attack at times, as evidenced by my "orifice" remark in the first installment of this tripartite post. But, we all would be well served by becoming more aware of how we are alike rather than how we are different. The undeniable fact is that the Ron Paul campaign encourages such "unity in diversity," as evidenced by the composition of his supporters and their ability to overcome differences in priorities, often quite pronounced, in the service of regaining control of the government from the Machiavellians in conservative clothing.
|
|
Really apples and oranges. Goldwater was much closer to Ronald Reagan. Sure Paul shares their love of smaller leaner government, but Paul is essentially a Libertarian--especially on the use of American military power. Goldwater and Reagan were never of that fringe--they knew it was a dangerous world. Goldwater and Reagan envisoned world peace through overwhelming American military firepower.
Still I admire some of Paul's points. He would be an absolute disaster as a president, but the chances of that ever happening are nil. |
|
"I'm guessin' that ronniepaul's numbers are so LOW because the vast majority of people recognise his name with "Blame America" and "Cut and Run.""
Yes, and you're sure doing everything YOU can do to further this lie. Aren't you, Lynne?
He never blamed America. Not once. The only ones who kept repeating that lie was the media pundits. Watch for yourself. You'll see exactly what has happened.
Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VY-KlYg9UME&mode=related&search=
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ht1bo5UhOs&mode=related&search=
Anne, just like them, are banking that what Goebbels said back in the days of Hitler, still holds true:
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." - Joseph Goebbels |
|
1. Get a map of the ME. We have national interests and we are going to protect them. (get a clue)
2. http://www.theonion.com/content/ (get a sense of humor)
3. You are defending Saddam Hussein as "the most progressive....what exactly? You lost me. (get a sense of right and wrong)
You Paulettes are just a new hybrid of utopian hippies. You throw labels and words around gratuitously but it doesn't gel into a coherent plan for living in the 21st century as the greatest civilization in history. It just doesn't matter what Ron Paul says. If he has any substance at the core, it is cancelled by his inability or refusal to bring discipline the nutty and incoherent message being bludgeoned into people at every opportunity. YOU GUYS ARE THE PROBLEM! Can't you sober up and get serious?
|
|
Actually, Joe, Goldwater believed in peace through strength. Dr. Paul also believes in a very strong national defense. Both of them wanted to stop entangling alliances and get us the heck of the UN and it's associated agencies.
Perhaps you have forgotten.
http://www.reaganlibrary.com/reagan/speeches/rendezvous.asp
It is also the same reason that the Goldwater family is backing Dr. Paul.
|
|
"Get a map of the ME. We have national interests and we are going to protect them. (get a clue)"
A real big believer in the free market, aren't ya, Phil. Let me get this straight. You believe that the free market will not work unless it is done through the barrel of a gun? Do I have that right? hhmmm...
Does that strike anyone else as odd? |
|
"Get a map of the ME. We have national interests and we are going to protect them. (get a clue)"
Are you saying that the free market will not work, unless through the barrel of a gun? Is that what you're saying? Kind of shoots the whole idea of a "free market" all to heck, doesn't it? LOL!
The Middle East has oil. It is just about all they have to sell to survive. We want to buy it. See...it's a match made in heaven. Why on earth do you think they would stop selling us the very thing they need to sell to survive?
I will point out to you that the price of oil has gone through the roof since we began this last little globalist nation-building escapade.
Trust the free market, Phil. It works. |
|
|
Clueless NeoCon hack. They won't sell us their oil unless invade them. |
|
The timeless rule of existence since time immemorial is "Dem wit da guns make da rules". If you can't enforce the rules, they don't count. The trick making democracy work is to know when to use force and when not to. Freedom is not the natural state of existence. It is an aberration which is why it is so hard to hold onto it. A just society is a society that is dominated by just people who CHOOSE to be virtuous.
As to "free markets", capitalism is an economic tool, not an all encompassing ideology. Well-regulated capitalism works weel withina moral, American-style democracy. It is efficient. On the other hand, expedient Chinese-style mercantilism can undermine us if we are not willing to defend ourselve. We cannot survive their expedient short-term advantages if our efficient long-term advantages don't have time to prove out. Like Keynes famously stated, "It's what happens in the short term that gives rise to Stalins and Hitlers." There is difference between "free markets" and the anarchy you Libertarians advocate.
So once again, in every argument and on every issue, all I hear from you Paulettes are childish, over-simplified arguments rooted in ignorance and wishful thinking. It's a dangerous and violent world out there. It has always been so. We don't need to elect a fool like Ron Paul to learn that lesson again. |
|
"You Paulettes are just a new hybrid of utopian hippies."
Utopian hippy? I'm a 50 year old Goldwater-Republican, actually. I believe in the Constitution, limited government and individual liberty. You know, Phil. The very things our country was founded upon.
"You throw labels and words around gratuitously but it doesn't gel into a coherent plan for living in the 21st century as the greatest civilization in history."
Coherent plan? You mean a top down, BIG government, totalitarian plan, don't you, Phil? Our country was not designed that way. It was to function from the bottom up. Remember? WE THE PEOPLE.... The majority of the powers were reserved to the states and the people, NOT the federal government. Our Founders did their best to tie down the hands of the federal government, so it could not become tyrannical, but people like you are willingly let their bindings be cut.
It is not US that is anti-American, Phil. It is people like YOU, who seem to want to take America down the same path that so very many other countries have gone. Tyranny is nothing new, Phil. It is an age old story. FREEDOM is the new kid on the block. Our Founders started this great experiment, a little over 230 years ago. Just a mere flash in time. It is our Constitution and an ever-vigilant people that made us the beacon of hope and liberty to so very many around the world. However, that beacon is very threatened right now. In fact, our Republic is on its last leg. Americans seem to think that they are somehow ordained to be free. There is a REASON we have been free. And that "reason", we are letting be ripped to shreds, right in front of our very eyes. That reason, is the Constitution. |
|
"If he has any substance at the core, it is cancelled by his inability or refusal to bring discipline the nutty and incoherent message being bludgeoned into people at every opportunity."
Phil, wants DISCIPLINE, by God!!! Dr. Paul is a Constitutionalist, Phil. I sense that this great document is not one you of which you are too proud. Paul's message comes straight out of this document. Please read it and maybe you will understand a bit more about the principles upon which this country was founded and then you will understand exactly what Dr. Paul is saying.
The American people were not supposed to be "controlled", Phil. That stands against everything our country has always been about. We need to respect our neighbors' life, liberty and property, but other than that, what I do is my business. It is none of yours.
We've seen plenty of control freaks, haven't we? We need to look no further than in the history books of Nazi Germany, the USSR, or even Communist China, today. I don't particularly want to follow in their footsteps. Do you? |
|
|
You don't have the foggiest idea and I'll leave it at that |
|
Oh my GOD!!!! You are quoting Keynes!!! And you seem to think it's a good thing!!! LOL!!! The man was a socialist pig!!
Go read some Hayek. Or Friedman.
Oh geez!! I'm not even believing you are quoting KEYNES!!!! |
|
|
You are talking past me to another audience. Why don't you just visit my blog and see if you still thing I'm a "big-government" neocon hack. I describe myself as a "1776 Liberal". You guys are completely clueless. You just throw words around as if you know what they mean. I don't like the status quo any more than you do which is why I am no longer a Republican. But I'll be damned if I'm going to dance around the maypole with you empty-headed people like the Paulettes. Knowing what you don't want is an important first step. But I am not about to vote for the right-wing version of Jimmy Carter's utopian wishful thinking. We can't afford going back to the 19th century as a foolish experiment. |
|
|
1st clue, just in case you didn't know. The Vietnam war is a different war than the Iraq war. |
|
Phil, do you think our elected representatives should be adhering to their oaths of office to abide by the Constitution?
Yes or No? |
|
We have been deceived Folks, somehow a lot of us have been convinced that Republican and Conservative mean the same thing. They never have and they do not now either. Remember when people used to refer to "Rockefeller Republicans" as those Repubs that advocated BIG federal government as the source of all ills? Then, along came Barry Goldwater, who is credited with reviving conservatism and the constitutional principles of limited government. "Rockefeller Republicans" are nothing more than statists. Just like the vast majority of liberals. They just differ on what they want their BIG government to do.
Now, in addition to the Rockefeller Republicans, we now have the neoconservatives added to the mix. They are also statists (ie. advocate a large controlling federal government). They have a background in Trotskyism and historically, populated think-tanks. Gradually, they moved into government and have successfully infiltrated the conservative movement. Now, they would like nothing more than for the term, neoconservatism (which they gave to themselves), to disappear. But, that would be a lie.
Don't forget the conservative principles and judge each PERSON's DEEDS for yourself. We no longer can go by just the letter appended to someone's name.
- limited constitutional government
- personal privacy
- personal responsibility
- strong national defense
- fiscally responsible government
- individual liberty
REAL conservatives, please stand up! |
|
|
Of course I do and I realize that is far from what is the status quo. We are in the grip of monied global corporate interests who see nations as markets. Our government is bought and paid for. The problem is that that statement should automatically lead to the conclusion that we have no choice but to elect Ron Paul. To you guys, all roads lead to Ron Paul. I know enough about Ron Paul that I reject him as a candidate. We need a CONSERVATIVE candidate who can actually change things without bringing this country to ruin. We need a 21st century leader who can tackle the problem effectively. Otherwise, why don't just depopulate the world with a nuclear holocaust and try to start over again. We won't. It's just another loony alternative to the status quo in the same category as voting for Ron Paul. |
|
And then you have the unmitigated nerve and hubris to again say that I am lying. Are you crazy???
“Yes, and you're sure doing everything YOU can do to further this lie. Aren't you, Lynne?”
You were already called out for doing just that! Didn’t you learn anything?
Now, once and for all, with regard to "Blame America", these are paul’s EXACT WORDS!
"...they attacked us because we were over there, we've been bombing Iraq for ten years...."
I’ll even repeat them for you, just in case you STILL DON’T get it!!!
"...they attacked us because we were over there, we've been bombing Iraq for ten years...."
What part of "...they attacked us because we were over there, we've been bombing Iraq for ten years...." don’t you get? And believe me, that is a rhetorical question… it does NOT require an answer form you!
And then on Aug 5. when Julie Banderas interviewed Ron Paul her said, they should “Just come home.” You may not think that is a “cut and run” statement, but the vast majority of Americans do.
So, Mr. Liberty, if I were you, I’d think twice before you called me a liar again. And, you might want to think twice before you hammer away at me… with my name in the “Subject” field again…. Ever again.
Post all the nonsense you want, but don’t address it to me!
And, just for your information, we happen to know that your lawyer friend Bartley is no longer a lawyer, so that jig is up.
|
|
|
..Douglass Bartley and Liberty. |
|
|
..Douglass Bartley and Liberty. |
|
So is my husband, so DON'T threaten me!
Get a life!
|
|
Douglass Bartley writes: Monday, September, 03, 2007 9:21 PM
Lynnanne
You didn't address me properly. Strike One. You defamed Liberty. Strike Two. You misrepresented Yr. Em's. status. I am not active in Wis. but still licensed in other jurisdictions.
PLEASE tell me it does so I can call you a liar. After that Law Shcool Skaterdude mentioned your suspended license in Wisconsin I checked with the Minnesota Lawyers Registry and YOU'RE NOT LICENSED to practice in that state, either. |
|
Douglass Bartley writes: Monday, September, 03, 2007 9:10 PM
Liberty
I'm standing up right now after that last statement.
BlueAngel writes: Monday, September, 03, 2007 9:33 PM
Liberty
Standing here!
=========
Yes!! The REMNANT still exists! Who else amongst you, wants our country back? Wants our Constitutional principles restored?
Who else remembers this speech, "A Time for Choosing" and still holds these conservative principles deep in their hearts?
http://www.reaganlibrary.com/reagan/speeches/rendezvous.asp
Now, more than ever, it truly is a time for choosing. |
|
|
Why don't you visit my blog (or even read my prior comments) before you call me a GOP hack. I'm not participating here because I believe I can change any Paulette minds but to demonstrate to those who read these comments how ignorant you guys truly are. What has been going on here and many other TH sites is a swarm that demonstrates a group-think mentality where there is no logic or facts behind the Bartley and Liberty-led arguments. You guys are too easy. There is no sport in it. I'm surprised you guys don't accuse the current government of being space aliens planted by a hostile race from another galaxy. How about dealing with facts and being practical. You guys have been pulling this stunt for months now and it is not getting your candidate anything but a reputation of being the leader of space cadets. |
|
I just stood up.
The raving lunatics here are not the Ron Paul supporters. I dare any say that any uninformed person wandering in here would come to the conclusion that the RP supporters are better informed and rational than the haters. |
|
Monday, September, 03, 2007 9:07 PM
Those comments to Anne were totally out of line. I am not even believing you said what you said.
Your comments were disgusting and you owe Anne an apology. |
|
from wikipedia...
"John Maynard Keynes, 1st Baron Keynes, CB (pronounced "cains", IPA /ke?nz/) (5 June 1883 – 21 April 1946) was a British economist whose ideas, called Keynesian economics, had a major impact on modern economic and political theory as well as on many governments' fiscal policies. He advocated interventionist government policy, by which the government would use fiscal and monetary measures to mitigate the adverse effects of economic recessions, depressions and booms. These monetary measures have led to inflation of the money supply. Economists consider him one of the main founders of modern theoretical macroeconomics."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes
Phil, no wonder you believe in our current foreign policy. Please read some Hayek and Friedman. Seriously, Keynes was a big time socialist. |
|
Charlie was apparently commenting on "George Bush was my hero"'s comments of,
Monday, September, 03, 2007 9:07 PM
And rightfully so. |
|
Douglass Bartley writes: Monday, September, 03, 2007 9:55 PM
"CharlesS
After your bizzare comments just above, I'm not about to reveal anything to you."
There's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about you that I want to know.
I ALREADY KNOW that you're not licensed to practice law in Wisconsin or Minnesota. If I want I can also check Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Ohio.
Care to call my bluff?? |
|
|
I understand, but you can't sink down to their level. |
|
|
Never trust anyone with two first names. |
|
Liberty writes: Monday, September, 03, 2007 10:03 PM
George Bush was my hero
Monday, September, 03, 2007 9:07 PM
Those comments to Anne were totally out of line. I am not even believing you said what you said.
Your comments were disgusting and you owe Anne an apology.
Liberty,
You have just restored my faith that you can be a gentlman. Thank you for defending Anne. |
|
Liberty writes: Monday, September, 03, 2007 10:17 PM
"Douglass Bartley
Charlie was apparently commenting on "George Bush was my hero"'s comments of,
Monday, September, 03, 2007 9:07 PM
And rightfully so."
That's exactly what I was doing. It was the second half of a 2 part post. But Douglass knows that, in spite of his pretense at ignorance.
Don't you Douglass?
|
|
Douglass Bartley writes: Monday, September, 03, 2007 10:20 PM
"An Army Vet . . ."
Are you there?
He's out of town with his family for the holiday weekeknd. And he's not involved in this to begin with. |
|
|
I don't think Douglass saw it, Charlie. I am quite sure he wouldn't agree with it either. |
|
Liberty writes: Monday, September, 03, 2007 10:18 PM
George Bush was my hero
I understand, but you can't sink down to their level.
Well, Liberty,
It looks like I complimented you too soon. Maybe I should have known better than to be nice to you. With your last comment it's certainly looking that way.
|
|
Douglass Bartley writes: Monday, September, 03, 2007 10:22 PM
"CharlesS
I should warn you that Jesse "the Body" Ventura was my governor."
And your point is??
|
|
|
On Keynes, what's your point? Have you ever had a discussion with someone who doesn't agree with you before without a crowd of cronies around to cheer you on? You guys have the mental acuity of ten-year old truants |
|
Charlie, I could care less what you think of me. I didn't make either post to "George" to enhance, nor detract, from your opinion of me. I made them, because I believed them to be true and that they needed to be said.
"Well, Liberty,
It looks like I complimented you too soon. Maybe I should have known better than to be nice to you. With your last comment it's certainly looking that way."
Now, if you would scroll back up, you just might see what comment of "George"'s I was responding to. Then, you can start trying to take your foot out of your mouth. |
|
re: John Maynard Keynes
"He advocated interventionist government policy, by which the government would use fiscal and monetary measures to mitigate the adverse effects of economic recessions, depressions and booms. These monetary measures have led to inflation of the money supply."
What part of this do you not understand? |
|
|
Say what you will about Ron Paul. He may or may not win the nomination and he may or may not win the general election. But I am having the most fun I have had in a long time working to get him elected. I have never seen such support and enthusiaism for a political candidate in my life. I did not know people would get up and actually get out and work to get someone elected like this. (Of course, I am from Alabama where Ron Paul won a local straw poll with 81%.) |
|
|
Say what you will about Ron Paul. He may or may not win the nomination and he may or may not win the general election. But I am having the most fun I have had in a long time working to get him elected. I have never seen such support and enthusiaism for a political candidate in my life. I did not know people would get up and actually get out and work to get someone elected like this. (Of course, I am from Alabama where Ron Paul won a local straw poll with 81%.) |
|
I know which comments you were referring to in your message to "George Bush." And I agree that the first part needed to be said.
It's the "but you can't sink down to their level." part that got my goat.
Whether or not you care what anyone thinks of you, if you're going to stand up for someone in one message you can't turn around and stab them in the back in the next message. You stand up for them completely or not at all. THAT is the genetlemanly thing to do.
BTW, I agree with you about Keynes. He was a big time socialist, as were his economic theorys. Maybe that's why my economics professors at college loved him, they were full fledged socialists also. |
|
or as some would say need to be committed!
I respect some of the small "l" libertarian principals of Dr. Paul and his strong federalist streak. But he fails miserably in not recognizing that we live in a dangerous world and isolationist policies have not worked in the past. A pax Americana does not need to be an empire to work.
Still, good luck to you in a way. George Bush was (when it came to domestic policy) a socially conservative big government Democrat. If it wasn't for the dangers we face overseas, I would have preferred a Democrat over that. Perhaps you will wake up elements of fiscal conservatism in the GOP. |
|
And that is happening all over the US. I spent the day yesterday doing this with 10 other people. Walking the boardwalk, handing out literature, discussing issues with random people.
So many Americans THANK-YOU for telling them about Ron Paul. So many people agree and get excited when you tell them that there is a Presidential candidate that is saying exactly what they feel is the truth. It is addictive. |
|
Step back and you can almost feel the fire!!!
the fire that is the republican party going up in smoke !!!
Now everybody is trying to outdo themselves with not being a republican hack or Rockefeller Repub, but it adds up to the same thing, burn that party down!!!
and pray to God, spirit, the force or Joseph Smith that a TRUE conservative party rises from the ashes
burn baby burn
neocon inferno
burn baby burn
burn that mother down
the dirL |
|
|
I stand up for the facts, Charlie, and let the chips fall where they may. |
|
|
|
Hewitt has never liked Dr Ron Paul and was himself in cahoots with the Chairman of the Republican Party of Michigan along with Dean Barnett as they toyed with the idea of having Dr Ron Paul Banned for the Republican Presidential Debates.
The fact that Hewitt is writing about Dr Ron Paul and not Duncan Hunter or Fred Thompson should give clarity to the concept that Hewitt sees Dr Ron Paul as a threat to the takeover by the Rockefeller Republicans and Neocons of the Republican Party.
As Gabby said in an earlier Post: "The Reason that the Neocons and Rockefeller Republicans despise Dr Ron Paul so much is because Dr Paul is sick of the "Rip-Off" that they along with the Liberal Democrats have be perpetrating upon the American people and they know it!"
Perhaps if Mitt Romney who Hewitt and Barnett are backing, had not thrown all of those millions of dollars at the 14,000 voters for the Iowa Straw Poll he might have not gotten beat by Dr Ron Paul!?
|
|
Douglass Bartley writes: Monday, September, 03, 2007 11:36 PM
Unless . . .
. . .you use my Christian name, Yr. Em
Of course your emptyheadedness, right away your emptyheadedness |
|
"Of course your emptyheadedness, right away your emptyheadedness"
Is this your idea of being a gentleman, Charlie? |
|
|
In refusing to respond to the Ron Paul haters, are you saying that by doing that you will show them that they no longer can say they know "JackShiite?" |
|
Paulistas? Paulites? Paulbots? or just simply Paulies?
Boy, Hugh is getting hit numbers liked popular blogs now. He might be hostile to your message, but you sure bring on the blog add revenue for him. |
|
Please do not say "Anti-Disestablishmentarianist" it makes my head hurt. Let's stick with just "establishment".
thanks,
I just saved a bunch of money on my government by switching to Ron Paul! |
|
|
You Paulettes are just a new hybrid of utopian hippies. |
|
Jack, You are right about the RP haters. Paul is the candidate that best represents the Founders vision. The Rockefellers know this which is why any who'd quote the Founders are brushed off as lunatics. I was actually pleasantly surprised that Hugh wrote a post about "second-tier" candidates without using the phrase "tin foil".
You are right to ignore their rantings, but this doozie from Pasadena Phil is too good to pass up,
"You Paulettes are just a new hybrid of utopian hippies."
Yeah, let's see, infidels invade a Muslim country in the hopes that one day Muslims will ignore the specific directions of Muhammad and 'get along' with the infidel. Maybe if we invade the rest of the countries over there, Ahmadinijad and OBL will invite us all over to sing Kumbaya.
utopia indeed.
PS: I haven't decided which of the "second tier" candidates I'll vote for in the primaries, but one thing is for sure, Gulianni, Thompson, or Romney will have to win the general without my help, or vote. |
|
No refutation of what I wrote.
Just a snide comment from Mr. Bartley.
And Alaric,
Name for me one piece of legislation RP has proposed which would either end or defund the "unconstitutional/illegal" Iraq war |
|
Maybe you believe that if we don't fight them over there, we have to fight them here.
If that's the case, then the "WoT" is nothing more than an immigration issue.
Rockefellers lose again. Too bad they're taking the GOP down with them. |
|
Ok here's me
I voted for Bill twice (I liked that he played the sax!)
Then, at some point I started actually paying attention(could it be that I got on Al's invention, 'the internet'?) and voted for Bush. It must have been something he said about a "humble" foreign policy, and reducing the size of gov't and no nation building that all made sense to me.
Fast forward 8 years, and here we are, MASSIVELY in debt to China for the Iraq war, the Federal gv't is BIGGER THAN EVER, we have ORANGE Terror alerts while illegal immigants are swarming like mad into our country, and old ladies are forced to take their shoes off to get on an airplane.
And what about this AMERO ??
Is it me, or is there something wrong with this picture?
In my humble opinion, I don't see anyone addressing these issues head on except for ONE MAN.
ok Hunter and Huckabee are better than the so-called "1st tier" but why go with "Fix-it Light"?
My vote is going to RON PAUL.
Oh, and Hugh, thank you for interviewing RP, and this opportunity to post.
|
|
|
|
I really wish that Charlie didn't have to attack Anne in the way that he did, because his orginal point made some sense. Why are these people so obsessed with Ron Paul if he is just some loon with only a few internet nuts joining his cause. Look, I'm a registared Republican and don't think that Ron Paul's message is crazy. In fact, I was surprised to see how many people actually HAVE heard of him and are supporting him. Not your normal internet nuts, people that I went to/and graduated college with. I think the point can't be stressed enough, they are starting to see him as competition.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win."
|
|
I really wish that Charlie didn't have to attack Anne in the way that he did, because his orginal point made some sense. Why are these people so obsessed with Ron Paul if he is just some loon with only a few internet nuts joining his cause. Look, I'm a registared Republican and don't think that Ron Paul's message is crazy. In fact, I was surprised to see how many people actually HAVE heard of him and are supporting him. Not your normal internet nuts, people that I went to/and graduated college with. I think the point can't be stressed enough, they are starting to see him as competition.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win."
|
|
"MTrains writes: Tuesday, September, 04, 2007 4:27 PM
I'm not crazy."
|
|
brian: "Great, another wannabe Islamic scholar...but funny how there's not so many Muslims listening, eh?"
An ad hominem attack. That's intellectually honest!
Since you, brian, are so familiar with Islamic "sacred" texts that you feel qualified to dismiss discourteously my comments, point out specifically from those writings where I've erred.
You can't, can you?
What does Allah command? What did Mohammed say and do? This is only a taste:
"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya . . . If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).
"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).
"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).
“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).
Whom should those Western Infidels who value Life and Liberty believe regarding Islam? You, brian, or Allah and his apostle? |
|
brian: "Great, another wannabe Islamic scholar...but funny how there's not so many Muslims listening, eh?"
An ad hominem attack. That's intellectually honest!
Since you, brian, are so familiar with Islamic "sacred" texts that you feel qualified to dismiss discourteously my comments, point out specifically from those writings where I've erred.
You can't, can you?
What does Allah command? What did Mohammed say and do? This is only a taste:
"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya . . . If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).
So, much for your "scholarship," brian. |
|
Here's more:
"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).
"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).
“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).
Whom should those Western Infidels who value Life and Liberty believe regarding Islam? You, brian, or Allah and his apostle? |
|
|
|
I have just read all of the posts on this thread. I don't know Anne and I don't know CharlieS but I am surprised that their vile crass nonsense is allowed to be posted with such regularity. Neither one can make a post without a personal attack. They add nothing to a discussion of any substance at all. It is repulsive.
If you want to argue, then argue facts. But don't attack people. I believe that Anne works for the Clinton campaign and is terrified of Ron Paul winning because she knows he is the only Republican who can beat any Democrat.
I would also think that before posting an article, the author would have to engage in some fact checking? How many votes did the first place person get? If you are going to post fiction, then just say so. It is shameful that an editor would allow that to go by.
This site doesn't seem to have much to offer. I have looked here a couple of times, and I find it amazing that ad hominem attacks are allowed by the fistful. Isn't there a moderator here? Anne, CharlieS and one other guy I can't remember single handedly destroy the integrity of this site.
When I joined, I agreed to certain rules. Why are they allowed to be so personally vitriolic?
Why is it that everyone who is against Ron Paul either has no facts at all for that position or they make up facts that are not true? I can't find one intelligent argument against the man and yet I see hundreds of well thought out, cited, supported arguments for his policies.
One can only assume they work for some campaign. One can also assume that TH doesn't seem to care when Ron Paul supporters are viciously attacked. That is a shame. It lowers their level of respectability. |
|
Great comments! Everybody should read the Koran and then decide: Is Islam a religion of peace, as the Rockefellers/Dhimmicrats claim, or a religion of pieces, as is actually practiced and preached?
PS: If any of you all decide to buy a copy of the Koran, be careful of which one you buy. When I was shopping for my copy, several were published and distributed by Islamic organizations. Buy a generic copy (mine was published by Ballantine and cost $7.99 at B&N), or buy a used copy.
|
|
I also have been reading through these Ron Paul interview posts and have been amazed at the level of venom, both against Ron Paul and his supporters. Unfortunately for people like Anne, some of us do analyze the facts and aren't influenced by infantile posts. I don't know if I'll vote for "ronniepaul," Anne, but if I were Dr. Paul I'd be thankful you weren't on my side.
And, please, no more Keynes. This is supposed to be a conservative site.
|
|
|
|