Ron Paul in the debate TONIGHT!

[pcosmar]

Fox News Poll Results— 29% Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney

— 25% Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas

— 19% Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani

— 8% Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee

— 5% Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif. Hunter

— 4% Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

— 3% Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.

— 1% Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.

— 0% Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore

— 0% Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson

The poll was conducted between 9 p.m. EDT, Tuesday, May 15, 2007, and 12:30 a.m. EDT, Wednesday, May 16, 2007. The poll reflects the opinions of those who choose to participate and may not reflect a scientific sampling of the population.

 

[Titan6]

If nothing else, Ron Paul's performance last night, and the reaction it received, made it clear that he isn't the man to represent the GOP in 2008. Right or wrong, the party won't have him, and neither will the non-partisan voters. He's too extreme. This isn't 1776.

That probably is the truth. But since we will never get an honest poll we will never know for sure.

Paul supporters may not like it, and they're entitle to their 3rd-party-libertarian-spittle-flying dramatics, but it won't change reality.

He already announced No to a third party run.

 

[Geister]

Transcript from another Paul review from last night:

“Who did that?” Paul snapped. “Who blamed America?”

“Well, your critics felt that you did.”

“No, I blamed bad policy over 50 years that leads to anti-Americanism,” Paul said. “That’s little bit different from saying ‘blame America.’ Don’t put those words in my mouth.”

“But the policies were bad American policies?”

“We’ve had an interventionist foreign policy for 50 years that has come back to haunt us,” Paul continued. “So that’s not ‘Blame America’ — that’s demagoguing, distorting issues…That’s deceitful to say those kinds of things.”

To me, the only people that are really attacking Paul are either against him or not really on his bandwagon.

Washington lawyer Ted Olson, at the debate to support his friend Rudy Giuliani, was taken aback at what he heard from Paul. “I find it personally offensive and very disturbing,” said Olson, whose wife Barbara died on September 11, “that an American, especially an American member of Congress, can say those things about what happened to cause 9/11.”

Oh please, that's a huge conflict of interest. You were there to support Rudy, not Paul, so obviously you are going to take every cheap shot you can at Paul. Typical lawyer.

The reality is that the debates aren't really going to change people's opinions. Rudy supporters will still support Rudy and his detractors will still not vote for him, same with everybody else. Rudy is not winning people over.

If it becomes a Hillary vs. Rudy presidential race, I won't vote for either.

 

[R127]

"Root causes" is an empty path to nowhere, it read history in stentorian tones, but tells us little about where we are, what the dynamics and consequences of actions and failures to act are, and illuminates little of import.

As the parent of preschoolers, I can tell you that it's about waaaay more than "who hit who" first.

Currently, our 6 year old is very carefully not laying hands on her sister, under threat of dire and unspecified consequences.

The unintended consequence is that the 4 year old senses her vulnerability, and keeps after her like a Jack Russel terrier on speed.

Ok, you want to talk about practical actions. That's fair. Nobody in this thread has brought up Paul's own ideas about how to handle terrorism. Here is what Paul came up with within 1 month of the 9/11 attack. Read and decide if it sounds reasonable or not.

October 15, 2001

Effective and Practical Counter-Terrorism Measures


Over the past month I have introduced several bills designed to address terrorism and make Americans feel more secure. While many counter-terrorism proposals were considered in Congress last week, my belief is that the most effective steps we can take do not infringe upon the civil liberties of American citizens. In fact, I believe only a free society can ever be truly secure. The goal should be to make terrorists feel threatened, not the American people.

Here are some concrete steps Congress can take immediately to make our borders, our cities, and our skies more secure:

Arm Pilots: It is unthinkable to leave pilots defenseless in the cockpit after the events of September 11th. We trust pilots to operate multimillion dollar machines filled with human cargo, yet incredibly we do not trust them with firearms. While airport security certainly can be strengthened, pilots must have the choice to carry weapons as a last line of defense against future hijacking attempts.

Immigration Restrictions: Common sense tells us that we should not currently be admitting aliens from nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists. Remember, only U.S. citizens have constitutional rights; non-citizens are in the country at the discretion of the State department. While we should generally welcome people from around the world whenever possible, we cannot allow potential enemies or terrorists to enter the country now under any circumstances. My legislation would restrict immigration, including the granting of student visas, by individuals from nations listed as terrorist threats by the State department.

Better intelligence gathering: Burdensome regulations and bureaucratic turf wars hamper the ability of federal law enforcement personnel to share information about terrorists. My proposal would slash regulations and make sure the CIA, FBI, State department, Justice department, and military work together to coordinate anti-terrorism efforts.

Harsher criminal penalties for terrorists: The federal statute of limitations for terrorist offenses should be eliminated, so that suspects can never breathe easy even 10 or 20 years from now. Jail sentences and penalties should be increased, and the death penalty should be possible for many offenses. Terrorist attempts and conspiracies should be treated as harshly as completed acts.

Letters of marque and reprisal: This constitutional tool can be used to give President Bush another weapon in the war on terrorism. Congress can issue letters of marque against terrorists and their property that authorize the President to name private sources who can capture or kill our enemies. This method works in conjunction with our military efforts, creating an incentive for people on the ground close to Bin Laden to kill or capture him and his associates. Letters of marque are especially suited to the current war on terrorism, which will be fought against individuals who can melt into the civilian population or hide in remote areas. The goal is to avail ourselves of the intelligence of private parties, who may stand a better chance of finding Bin Laden than we do through a conventional military invasion. Letters of marque also may help us avoid a wider war with Afghanistan or other Middle Eastern nations.

End legal preferences for terrorist suspects: Congress should clarify all federal criminal statutes to insure that so-called "extralegal" preferences for criminal terrorist suspects are eliminated. In some past terrorist investigations, federal rules have been interpreted to require law enforcement to show something more than standard probable cause to obtain warrants. Law enforcement officials should never have to demonstrate anything more than standard probable cause when seeking a warrant in the war on terrorism.

Here's the link,

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst101501.htm

 

[Mannix]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjQYg5RoH2s

Well here's the clip for those of you who haven't seen it.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Besides, the Muslims aren't a real threat. The Muslim terrorist is an imaginary boogeyman that has been used to scare America into accepting all sorts of horrible transgressions against freedom...

Sorry.

That statement simply doesn't match reality, nor does the subsequent elaboration of it correct its defects.

Elsewhere on this board are several threads listing about a dozen domestic "events" carefully _not_ labelled as terrorism by the press, and for which the jihaddi connections were downplayed or swept under the rug.

Heck, they just broke up a ring of folks in Jersey last week, planning to shoot up fort dix.

And this is the stuff you _hear_ about.

And yes, there is stuff you _don't_ hear about.

Outside our borders, it's like the freaking wild west. (And that's coming from a gunny)

There are a lot of smart, capable and really, really busy people who have our backs.

 

[Geister]

Everything. Paul wants to move from 2007 back to 1776 all at once. It took the country over 200 years to move to where it is. You can't move it back overnight.

No, you can't but what you can do is stop the government from getting bigger, otherwise in 2257 we'll be asking for candidates that will take us back to 2007.

Libertarianism is a solution that we must take in steps, I agree. If we were to aim for a libertarian society, I think in order to do it correctly it will take us about 300 years. It's a direction that comes in small steps. That said, the first step would be to keep the government from getting any bigger and to quit voting for "Republicans" like Rudy.

 

[R127]

Sorry.

That statement simply doesn't match reality, nor does the subsequent elaboration of it correct its defects.

Elsewhere on this board are several threads listing about a dozen domestic "events" carefully _not_ labelled as terrorism by the press, and for which the jihaddi connections were downplayed or swept under the rug.

So you have a dinky-do conspiracy theory and no events that even begin to approach 9/11?

 

[Geister]

— 25% Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas

— 19% Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani

Regardless of what Paul said and the fact that he could have worded it better, he's still more popular tha Rudy I think. Right now Paul is appealing to the right-wing Repubs who are tired of the neo-cons and moderates; Rudy ain't going to make many friends with his abortion stance, for instance. Then there's the Repubs kind of like me who aren't totally against the war in Iraq but are scratching our heads over it.

Like I said above, I don't think Rudy has anyone to win over.

 

[budney]

He isn't going to win because America is too stupid. America wants to be slaves.

Although that's inflammatory language, it's accurate enough: the American people overwhelmingly want prescription drugs, welfare, medicate, social security, and government regulation of every industry from teaching to toilet paper. They want it so badly that they're willing to accept confiscatory taxes, laws limiting the water flow in their showers, laws banning toilets that actually dispose of sewage on the first flush, all manner of price fixing, etc.

They may not view it as slavery, but they're giving up their freedom, sweat and treasure, in exchange for nice-sounding platitudes. Sam Adams would certainly describe that as slavery: he's on the record wishing that "your chains may rest lightly upon you, and history may forget that you were our countrymen."

The media was biased against him.
The Republicans were biased against him.
The Fox mediator was biased against him.

All three clearly true. Even if you think Paul was an idiot, you must admit that the mediator, the other candidates, and basically everyone involved, ALSO considers him an idiot. That's "bias," and it's not bias "for" him.

Americans don't know history.

Of the points you make, this one is the most objectively checkable: there are lots of studies and test results confirming that Americans don't know history--or geography, either. Surprisingly many can't find Canada on a map, let alone Iraq or Afghanistan.

Paul was totally right, but the audience was too stupid to get it.

The audience applauded wildly at the candidates' endorsement of torture. Need we say more?

Americans only want to be blindly led.

For the majority, this is true. High-roaders more or less universally share that opinion, and express it by calling them "sheep," or even "sheeple." Most people aren't interested in taking personal responsibility for their lives; they want to know that someone out there is "protecting" them from unemployment, ill health, dusky foreigners, DDT, and anything else that gives them an unquiet feeling.

Worse, most people never have been interested in being responsible for themselves. Mrs. Powel famously asked Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got?" The very question is a craven example of servility: it assumes implicitly that her fate legitimately rested in Dr. Franklin's hands. Her fate belonged in her own hands.

--Len.

 

[Correia]

I don't think very many people on THR would disagree that Rudy sucks the most. The man is evil.

The main reason I was angry with Paul when I watched last night was because the vibe I got was that it was going to boost Rudy in the eyes of the undecideds. Agree or disagree with his statement, he could have did it in a matter that didn't play right into the devil's hands.

As for the poll, unless it is a scientific poll of actual registered Republican primary voters, then it means nothing. If it boosts your morale, hey great, but how many polls have we absolutely hammered from this board. Online polls are a joke.

 

[geekWithA.45]

R127:

You're pulling a switch & bait on the context, which is the overall question of America's actions in the world at large and the mid east in specific, especially in light of current realities concerning modern society's voracious appetite for energy, and the resultant geopolitical struggle to control the sources of that energy.

Somehow, Ron Paul's sensible proposals (which I endorse, btw) for genuine as opposed to "for show" domestic security just doesn't seem to address the larger issues.


Let's face it, I'd personally *love* to have a letter of marque and reprisal in my folder, it would form the centerpiece of my next vacation, but that's not really going to get the job done, now, is it?

Let's face it: the man's answer to the situation is bunkering down at home, and letters of marque and reprisal for the adventurous.

Most definately _not_ presidential quality, most definately _not_ effective executive action or policy on planet earth, 2007.

 

[Prince Yamato]

To me, the only people that are really attacking Paul are either against him or not really on his bandwagon.

correct, because if you're doing otherwise, you are called a "supporter". I make no bones about the fact that I have never been a Ron Paul supporter. Originally it was on the grounds that the guy was a nobody with bad social skills and a poor campaign (at least for a guy who wants to change things so badly). I had hoped maybe, just maybe the guy would shine in the debate and prove me wrong... nope... he in fact made me go from having a lukewarm opinion of the guy to coming to the realization that he doesn't have an inkling about what it will take to be president. "He needed more time"... BS, if you can't explain your position in a soundbite, which is how it's worked for the past 30 some years, you probably have no business running for office.

if he should be tossed out of the debates and polls, and practically invited to run a third party campaign, the GOP is going to regret this day if he goes that route.

Why? Because half the people on this board claim they're going to stay home instead of vote for Rudy and Romney anyway. Oh no! Let's not lose the Libertarian wing of the Republican party... news flash, if Rudy runs, he gets the moderates from the Democrats and will probably sway a good portion of the Catholic vote. He'll probably also carry New York State. That's political gold. Oh no, I hope we don't lose the Libertarians... dear God how will we ever functoin... Don't get me wrong, I'm libertarian in spirit, but from a practical perspective, some of my views will never pass into the political mainstream, so I go with option 2: vote Republican. I get most of what I want. yes, I compromise. Welcome to Life.

 

[precisionshootist]

Ron Paul's 2nd amendment views may be spot on but putting forth the idea that "we" are to blame for 911! I'm sorry but that's just kooky. His presentation was that of someone that's off their meds. Time to move on, nothing to see here. This man will never be president.

 

[budney]

Maybe, just maybe, we think he's doing a really crappy job representing his views. Even the ones that we agree with.

I agree that he isn't charismatic enough to convert the unconverted. He's decently articulate, but still stumbles noticeably, and each sentence he utters is backed by a book his hearers really ought to read to understand him properly.

you've got fully half of the membership saying that they think Paul did a crappy job, perhaps, maybe, just maybe, it ain't because we're stupid, uneducated, ignorant, wannnabe slaves, who want to suck from the teat of big nanny government.

Sucking the teat of government is for liberals. The majority on this board are almost certainly conservatives, and they either want no part of the welfare state or would at least like to scale it back.

But the majority of conservatives seem to support foreign adventurism. The biggest complaint on THR against Paul is that he doesn't support bombing the world's Muslim population into oblivion. To many conservatives, the idea of (1) leaving the rest of the world the hell alone, and (2) defending America by defensive rather than offensive means, just doesn't resonate.

Here "defensive" doesn't include invading anyone. It does include guarding our borders, arming our populace, stationing our soldiers at home where they can repel an invasion, etc.

--Len.

 

[DigitalWarrior]

I thought Ron Paul did well from the internet clip I have seen.

However Ron Paul will not win. I will vote for Ron Paul unless Fred Runs. If Fred does not run, I will write in Ron.

Why did what he said about 9/11 seem untrue to people? I love this guy. Essentially we have a choice be so ruthless as to cut the throat of anyone who talks about attacking us for our interventionist policies, or stop getting in everyone else's business.

DW

 

[Lichter]

I worked in DC as a intern two summers ago for my Republican congressman and it was a joke to see all the lobbyists he was all buddy-buddy with and then see how much he's lost touch with his constituents. I got the feeling while I was working there it was all just a big game of power and politics regardless of the party affiliation.

I think that Ron Paul is a breathe of fresh air and I find myself agreeing with him almost completely. I first came across him in the last debate and I've since done more research on him. I'm still pondering his foreign policy views but overall I like him the most out of all the candidates.

 

[precisionshootist]

However Ron Paul will not win. I will vote for Ron Paul unless Fred Runs. If Fred does not run, I will write in Ron.

And if Fred does not run this is exactly what Hillary wants you to do. Hell I'm sure she will even provide transportation to the polls for anyone still voting for Ron Paul.

 

[Titan6]

if you can't explain your position in a soundbite, which is how it's worked for the past 30 some years, you probably have no business running for office.

Now that is truly funny...

Why? Because half the people on this board claim they're going to stay home instead of vote for Rudy and Romney anyway. Oh no! Let's not lose the Libertarian wing of the Republican party... news flash, if Rudy runs, he gets the moderates from the Democrats and will probably sway a good portion of the Catholic vote. He'll probably also carry New York State. That's political gold. Oh no, I hope we don't lose the Libertarians... dear God how will we ever functoin... Don't get me wrong, I'm libertarian in spirit,

Do you also hunt rabbits, and have recently become a lifetime member of the NRA? Because I have never seen you post a single libertarian thing.

I don't think very many people on THR would disagree that Rudy sucks the most. The man is evil.

I don't know. Romney had the quote of the night when he said that he supported the second ammendment AND the AWB? That sure puts him in the running...

 

[Mannix]

You know maybe this freedom and responsibility spiel is over rated. I mean why not just throw your guns away and trust your well being to the government, the whole world is doing it. C'mon everybody let's just give up all this "liberty" business and accept that we are meant to be lorded over and we have no rights. It'll be so much easier not having to figure it all out on our own. As long as the government is willing to give me security and all my basic needs, why not? I mean no one's tried that before have they? I'll all turn out ok giving people who are seeking power absolute power over our lives, Right?

Screw that

There is a line that exists and when someone crosses it they are done

I don't care if it's a politician or somebody breaking into my home.

 

[Titan6]

I worked in DC as a intern two summers ago for my Republican congressman and it was a joke to see all the lobbyists he was all buddy-buddy with and then see how much he's lost touch with his constituents. I got the feeling while I was working there it was all just a big game of power and politics regardless of the party affiliation.

Say it ain't so....

 

[Prince Yamato]

Do you also hunt rabbits, and have recently become a lifetime member of the NRA? Because I have never seen you post a single libertarian thing.

Actually, I only own assault weapons and pistols... Not one damn sporting weapon. I also don't hunt and probably never well. And I said I have a libertarian spirit, not that I VOTE that way. In fact I generally vote straight republican, because *shock* libertarians don't win elections! I'm for unrestricted small arms ownership- as in I want to walk down to my local gunstore and get a select-fire AK just like I get my regular AKs. You know what though? You'll never get a politician campaigning saying, "I'm going to legalize machineguns." Otherwise they'd be done in the primaries- though not quite as fast as a candidate who blames Americans for 9/11. Right now, we're getting gun rights back in small increments. I'm sure most politicians see that trend and aren't going to rock the boat. The difference is that the Republicans are going to push the boat in the pro-gun direction a little faster.

 

[Mannix]

And for everyone else, welcome to the group of people who don't see a point in picking who they want to surrender their rights to, because voting IS supporting. If it's Rudy v Hilary, it'll just be the same crap, different pile, and I don't care to choose between them.

 

[R127]

You're pulling a switch & bait on the context, which is the overall question of America's actions in the world at large and the mid east in specific, especially in light of current realities concerning modern society's voracious appetite for energy, and the resultant geopolitical struggle to control the sources of that energy.

No bait and switch. There is no credible Muslim threat to justify playing GI Joe and Team America: World Police.

We get the vast majority of our oil from South America, not from the Middle East. If you're saying we should raid other countries for their resources rather than engage in trade or develop alternatives then we just don't have much to talk about.

Somehow, Ron Paul's sensible proposals (which I endorse, btw) for genuine as opposed to "for show" domestic security just doesn't seem to address the larger issues.

This part I just don't understand, you endorse something that isn't addressing the issue? I'm not trying to mock you, I'm just not understanding what you're trying to say here.

Let's face it, I'd personally *love* to have a letter of marque and reprisal in my folder, it would form the centerpiece of my next vacation, but that's not really going to get the job done, now, is it?

The current president seems to think so, he's offered bounties and currently employs mercanaries. As far as you personally, do you think you have the qualifications to sell Congress on the idea of granting you a letter of marque and reprisal, or do you think they'd reserve that for others more capable of carrying out the mission?

Let's face it: the man's answer to the situation is bunkering down at home, and letters of marque and reprisal for the adventurous.

Yup, securing our own borders is the first step and you can't take any other proposals seriously until you've done that pre-requisite. As I said, we're effectually already using marque and reprisal except it's limited to Haliburton, Blackwater, and a handful of other special interests. Private security is nothing new, you may be interested in following the history and current events of the Pinkertons.

Most definately _not_ presidential quality, most definately _not_ effective executive action or policy on planet earth, 2007.

Believe whatever you want to and vote your conscience, that's your right as an American. In terms of debate I still haven't seen it demonstrated here why any of those opinions on Paul are true.

Bottom line for me is I'm an American and I want a lawful, American form of government. Paul offers that, nobody else does.

 

[Geister]

The main reason I was angry with Paul when I watched last night was because the vibe I got was that it was going to boost Rudy in the eyes of the undecideds.

I think we give way too much emphasis on the undecideds. Ron Paul and Rudy are pretty far away from each other politically, so I just don't see anyone being 50%/50% for either one.

Remember that Ron Paul more or less has the religious right in his back pocket; Rudy can't even touch them due to his stance on abortion.

he in fact made me go from having a lukewarm opinion of the guy to coming to the realization that he doesn't have an inkling about what it will take to be president. "He needed more time"... BS, if you can't explain your position in a soundbite, which is how it's worked for the past 30 some years, you probably have no business running for office.

So tell me, Yamamoto, WHO do you support then on the GOP ticket?

What it will take to become president? He knows the Constitution a lot better than most of the Presidents we've ever had. There's more to being a president that just looking good and having charisma and social skills like JFK.

Understanding the Founding Fathers' intent with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights should be the #1 role of the president, not the abortion issue, not our foreign policy, not our social security issues, not our relationships with other countries, etc.

There's too much emphasis on the prestige of the presidency. Let's get it back to basics first. Ron Paul might not be ideal, but his politics are in line with the Founders of our country and he can help us get it back on track. Later down the road there might be somebody like Paul running for president who appeals to you. But right now, Paul is what we got so let's work with it.