Scathing ad released by Ron Paul about Gingrich:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKTOCP45zY[/youtube]
But am I alone here in asking why no one is going after Romney? Bachmann gets hot, the media and her competitors hack away. Perry gets hot, and they hack away. Cain gets hot….bam! Now we’re on to Gingrich but who the hell is hacking away at Romney? Mighty curious.
As for the ad itself, it’s definitely information people should mull over before pulling the lever for Newt but I’m with Ace’s rant here (always long winded but well worth the read)
….our choices suck:
…We don’t have a Pure Conservative in the race. (Possibly the unelectable Bachmann, but only because she’s only been in office since shortly before the outbreak of the Tea Party, and really has never been asked to do anything except play to the Tea Party. And, meanwhile, she and her husband’s clinics scooped up all the federal and state money they could.)
I guess I don’t have a point except to say I really don’t think it is useful or true to debate these guys in terms of “The True Conservative I Can Get Behind.”
None of them are that. None. So the Quest for the Pure True Conservative can and should end, and we should stop talking about such nonsense and start talking, seriously, about the imperfect candidates we have.
Gingrich would be an okay imperfect candidate. So, I guess, would Romney.
But this idea that someone here must be a True Conservative, because, gosh, someonemust be, is just plain wrong.
Ok, I’m not completely with Ace here since I don’t think Romney is an okay imperfect candidate. If it’s Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, I’m probably sitting home since it isn’t a choice. Romney is OLite, plain and simple. And don’t even bring up Ron Paul because I would rather get punched in the testicles than vote for that nutcase.
So where does that leave us?
Screwed.
See author page
I wouldn’t say that we are screwed. What I think is going on here is that those of us on the right, specifically the Conservatives are beginning to buy into the MSM’s narrative that this year’s GOP field is weak.
With the exception of Huntsman and Ron Paul, ANY of them would be a damn site better than what we have in the Oval Office now. Yes, Romney is a RINO and he is desperately trying on his conservative costume, but with a majority in the House and in the Senate he could be contained. Romney with a Democrat majority is a scary prospect, but with a Republican majority in both houses, then Romney begins to look less dangerous.
As for the ad, it is like 99% of all political ads – misleading. Newt has explained his positions on AGW, the individual mandate and his so-called lobbying for Fannie/Freddie. Just consider the source of the ad and it can be viewed in a different light. This is from the same Congressman who rails about pork spending, proudly claiming that he has never voted for it. Then he stuffs pork into bills he knows will pass, but he can safely vote against.
I got into a back and forth with a Paul Bearer about this and they were angry that I thought it was disingenuous for him to do that. They kept saying that it was what a Representative is supposed to do, bring money home to his constituents. Then when I said WHAT he was doing wasn’t the problem it was HOW he brags about NOT doing it. I simply asked them, “So it doesn’t bother you that the candidate you support doesn’t have enough integrity to just be honest about what he does regarding pork?”
The bottom line is that we need to stop buying into what the left is doing and saying. They are doing what they always do, try to control the narrative and it is up to us to stop them. They (the left) tried to do the same thing with Reagan. Hell just weeks before the election, Time had all but written Reagan off as unelectable and not able to appeal to the independents. We all know how that went and we have to beat them at their own game again.
Ron Paul took so many little snippits out of context, where does one start?
Never mind.
Paul wants to rail about hypocrisy, then he needs to address his own.
As @anticsrocks: noted:
Paul famously rails against pork, lines up tons of it for his district, then votes against it ONLY when he is sure it will pass without his vote.
You can run a tiny district, one/435th of the USA, that way; but NOT the whole country!
But Curt is correct.
Where are the Romney hit ads?
The DNC has created them.
“punched in the testicles” made me smile 🙂
A) Too boring
B) The media don’t need to as the republican supporters are doing enough to run him down (Romneycare etc)
C) It’s one big pinko conspiracy?
Is there such a thing as a pure conservative – especially if none of the current candidates are considered pure?
Amazing how in US politics candidates in the same party spend so many months negatively campaigning, highlighting weaknesses in their ‘rivals’ etc – kinda of doing the job for the opposition party.
We are letting the drive by media narrow down our choices just like they did in 2008!
Cain 2012.
The fact that Obama and Repub. establishment are using character assassination against Cain makes me like Cain more!
Cain 2012.
@Bruce:
We must not let them take away a good option because it is not a perfect option.
“The enemy of the good is the perfect,” was once said by a military expert.
True in war and also true in politics.
Not one of our candidates is perfect.
Months ago a poll of Republican likely voters and of TEA party attendees showed an interesting trend:
90% of all TEA party attendees said they would vote for whichever person got the Republican nomination (in order to get Obama out).
But only 80% of registered and past-voting Republicans made that promise!
When did we stop considering qualifications for the president of the United States, the greatest nation, the most charitable nation. This stopped with the election of Obama, idiot in chief. The one individual who knows the inter-workings of government to achieve change is Newt. Who has a vision for the future of our great nation and can articulate a direction for our county. Romney is fluff. From my perspective Newt has the most experience and is most qualified for the position of president of the United States.
I’ve found the Ronulans to be just as cult-like as the obama drones. In a lot of ways they are like liberals. The only real difference I’ve found between them is that they want almost no government at all.
It is pretty strange that no one (besides the DNC) has taken a similar shot at Romney. But I think it’s kind of early for negative ads to make sense. Even the DNC, IMO, is pissing away money by doing so, since the nomination is still a long way off. For the Republican candidates, it’s still a crowded enough race that it makes a lot more sense to toot your own horn than to tear down someone else – even if you succeed, you don’t know that you’ll be the one picking up those votes. For that reason I hope that Paul doesn’t actually spend money running this ad, at least not at this point in time (possibly after Iowa it would make sense). Thing is, it may be somewhat personal between him and Gingrich. Gingrich came down to Texas to campaign against Paul’s re-election in 1996. I expect Paul hasn’t forgotten.
Ace makes a good point. It ultimately comes down to what compromise(s) we’re willing to accept in a candidate, and especially just how much we’re willing to sacrifice for electability.
@NanG: ‘Paul wants to rail about hypocrisy, then he needs to address his own.’
That’s not exactly how it works. If Newt’s best defense is that Paul is also imperfect, that’s not much of a defense (tu quoque is generally pretty weak, even considered a fallacy). Further, while bringing up Paul’s earmark habit is an effective way of trolling his supporters – they react badly to any suggestion that Paul is less than perfect – it’s just not a very damaging accusation to the general public. You could also accuse Paul of flip-flopping on immigration and the death penalty over the course of his career. A long time ago, 1970s I think, he supported the death penalty; now he doesn’t. In the 1980s he was pro-illegal-immigration (with caveats); now he isn’t. Thing is though, he can give pretty good explanations of why he changed his mind.
Newt, of course, can also offer some explanations of his change of positions. It comes down to credibility: do I think that he actually re-thought things, or do I think that he’s taking whatever stands he thinks will help him win? And what does that tell me about what he’ll do if elected?
My dislike of Gingrich is probably almost as intense as Curt’s loathing for Paul, so of course I don’t believe him. But obviously a lot of people do.
@bbartlog:
Fair comment, bbartlog.
I didn’t mean exactly what I said….that Paul should address his own hypocrisy.
What I meant was that Paul’s hypocrisy would immediately come up in the minds of anyone viewing Paul’s ad against Gingrich.
It is simply the way our minds work.
I’m no fan of using fallacious rhetoric any more than you are.
But, if you are aware of Paul’s record, just seeing his ad makes you – MAKES you – think of Paul’s own hypocritical record.
That was why I concluded about Paul’s hypocrisy:
@Hard Right:
That’s funny, I’ve noticed just the opposite, the anti-Paul posters are the first to resort to grade school name calling, pretty much like the liberals do, then there’s the old “they’re all anarchists” line if they don’t want social con imposed statism. The only difference between the social cons and the neo socs is the “vision” of utopia they want to use the federal government to enforce.
Frankly, “hypocrisy” doesn’t concern me, what concerns me is that people are willing to give Newt a pass on supporting TARP, supporting the forced mandate on insurance, supporting gorebull warming, and supporting amnesty (I guess his plan to execute those with 2 oz of pot made up for all of that). Yet everybody calls Paul “crazy” and pretty much the only thing I’ve seen sited as proof is his opinion about why the islamofacists attacked us.
I completely agree, the fact that we had troops in the middle east was not the reason for the attacks, but it certainly helped the enemy’s recruiting of people and resources. To say that swimming in a crocodile infested river did contribute to getting your but bit by a crock. . . is a crock.
While his reasoning is flawed, naive, and overly simple, so is the reasoning of those who say they attacked because their “jealous” of our way of life etc., etc. No war was ever fought by a force in which each individual was fighting for the same reason (IMHO). Some of the muzzis fight us because we’re there, some because they are jealous, some because of their mythology, some to make a buck, some to avenge a real or perceived slight.
But, overall, the visceral, negative responses I see to Paul, the one guy who (hypocritically or not) has at least been consistent in calling for smaller, Constitutional government is disheartening. He could not in the span of a century bring enough pork to his district to equal the damage done by the policies Newt has at least tacitly supported.
Interesting.
IIRC, Newt didn’t support TARP. As far a Ron Paul supporters, they are every bit as delusional as obama supporters. I’ve dealt with too many of them to buy your claims about what they supposedly stand for.
RP is a fiscal phony.
He does not understand how the world works or how to protect America.
Those two items alone disqualify him. Don’t get me started on his anti-semitism…
I am not wild about Newt nor do I give him a pass as you assert, but if the choice is him or obama, Newt wins my vote.
@Hard Right:
That’s not what he told Stephy:
” STEPHANOPOULOS: “Speaker Gingrich, there’s also, I think, a recognition, at least in some of the polls I’ve seen, that something has to be done.”
SPEAKER NEWT GINGRICH: “Sure, look, something has to be done. … I suspect were I still in Congress, in the end George [Will] is right, and I probably would end up voting reluctantly yes, because I think when you’re given no choice …”
So how is Paul a fiscal “phoney”? Just curious.
Frankly none of the prospects thrill me. Knowing what I know now I’d be really happy to draft Allen West, but I’ve seriously never understood why people hate Ron Paul so much.
As a Ron Paul supporter I have received what I believe to be more than my fair share derisive comments. I support Dr. Paul because he seems to espouse the same goals as I do, smaller government and a return to the Constitutional principals that made us the ideal other nations aspired to emulate. I left the Republican Party after Reagan’s first term because I was very unhappy with several of his decisions while in office. Since then I have come to realize that the Framers of our Constitution got it right and anything that differed from their original intentions only served to benefit a select minority of our population as opposed to the citizenry as a whole. I am a strict Constitutionalist and if the Constitution authorizes “it” then I will support “it”. If not then “it” falls under the authority of the States or the Individual. I am no “Paul Bearer” and I am more than willing to debate any so called “conservative” on this issue and I won’t need to call anyone a “drone” a “puppet” or whatever the equivalent of a “Ronulan” is . And if you can clearly and concisely make a persuasive argument you won’t even have to punch me in the testicles to bring me around. I am open to reason, how about y’all?
Now I looked at all the “legitimate” candidates, Romney, Perry, Gingrich, Cain and in my opinion they all are flawed. Yes Ron Paul has succeeded in bringing some “pork” to his district AND maintained a perfect voting record on Constitutional issues. But you know what nobody is perfect and for him to have remained as clean as he has in that cesspool on the Potomac for over 20 years is a remarkable achievement in its own right. So ask yourselves this question “Do I oppose Ron Paul for President because I disagree with his position or because what he proposes is unconstitutional?” I can support and work with someone I disagree with but I don’t believe I can do either with someone who doesn’t care to follow the Rule of Law. In my opinion, if who ever was in charge would at least abide by the Constitution we might be able to start digging our way out of this mess.
Republicans are good people (mostly), Republican leadership is not made up of the same “good people”.
To hades with the Republican Party. Newt = Clinton = Bush = Obama.
@Poppa_T:
Not a chance in hell we get out of this one alive.
Dang, Curt… I’ve never seen a more effective potential for a three sentence post than you’ve demonstrated…
ala:
LOL
’tis a pity that, with this election, we didn’t have better choices bubbling to the surface. But I’ve long held that this election, and “inherited” situation (picking Obama’s fave phrase), scares the tar out of most. They know that reversing the detrimental trends put into place by the terrible trio… Obama-Pelosi-Reid… takes more time for yielding results than a single term will offer. Not to mention any POTUS will still be saddled with a big spending Congress, passing off “cuts” to future spending as genuine cuts. pffft
In that case, it’s NOT likely that any GOP member, let alone conservative, are going to find themselves popular with the nation for re’election in 2016. I’m guessing most pols, hoping for a good legacy and cushy future, don’t want the risk.
@Poppa_T, I doubt you’d get much argument from me on Paul’s fiscal and domestic policies. But, as usual, he’s too libertarian and isolationist in both trade/borders and foreign policy for me to swallow. But I’d pay the price of admission to see him as Treasury Sec’y. And God help the Fed Reserve Chair if he were.
@Hard Right:
That’s not what he told Stephanopoulos
STEPHANOPOULOS: “Speaker Gingrich, there’s also, I think, a recognition, at least in some of the polls I’ve seen, that something has to be done.”
SPEAKER NEWT GINGRICH: “Sure, look, something has to be done. … I suspect were I still in Congress, in the end George [Will] is right, and I probably would end up voting reluctantly yes, because I think when you’re given no choice …”
Newt also voted for the 1987 Pro-Fairness Doctrine Bill, which passed both Houses, and Reagan promptly vetoed.
Newt co-sponsored HR 1078 Global warming Prevention Act
(there’s really too many bad votes to list)
When Ron Paul submitted HR1146 The American Sovereignty Restoration Act, an act to withdraw the US from the UN and kick the UN out of America back in 1997 (which he has resubmitted with every new Congress since), where was Newt? Busy looking into the ‘future’ at how great NAFTA is and the North American Union that would ensue? Now, all of a sudden, Newt is worried about the UN and Agenda 21? I don’t believe him.
Granted, Ron Paul is no ‘visionary’ and looks back to the founding principles rather than to a future where we all live under some kind of umbrella government system and national sovereignty is ceded, but given that choice, I’d rather look backwards than forward.
I truly appreciate everything Just Al said. I never liked or supported the unPatriot Act, either, and it has led to nothing but an erosion of our sovereign, individual rights.
I also know many people do not care that Newt is a CFR member, but I can’t shake that fact. I don’t trust anyone who’s CFR. Give me Bachmann, or even Paul, over Newt any day.
But more worrying for me is Donald Trump who said on Greta’s show: “If we choose the right person, I am all for it and I will be the happiest guy in the world and I intend to endorse somebody I believe. But if we don’t, if we choose somebody that’s not right, and if the economy continues to be bad, which I think it will because we have leadership that doesn’t know what’s it’s doing, I would certainly consider running as an Independent. Yes.”
Trump supposedly set aside $230million for his campaign. So if we don’t choose his candidate, he’ll run 3rd party running and Barry will be re-elected.
In some ways Trump is more dangerous than Ron Paul who said on Chris Wallace’s show that he ‘doesn’t feel like’ he wants to run on a 3rd party ticket. Any serious candidate would never admit to running 3rd party, so his supposed waffling is not only reasonable but correct. If you say you’ll run 3rd party, no one can take your bid as the Rep candidate seriously, yet the Hannity’ and Wallaces want some kind of assurance and that is extremely unfair. No one has asked Newt, Romney or Bachmann if they’d run 3rd party.
As for Curt’s post, maybe it’s time we actually defined what Conservative means this time around. Seems to me the meaning gets altered so much I’m having trouble understanding what people are actually looking for.
The reason no one is hacking at Romney is the same reason no one hacked at McCain. The media want a liberal for president. With Romney or McCain, they get that. They are trying to manipulate the Republican nomination to the least conservative candidate. They are trying to pull the same crap they did four years ago. Tear down the real conservatives to give the RINO smooth sailing.
The reason that noone has blasted Mitt, is, where does one begin? First, he’s not a conservative, he’s not a liberal- he is whatever you want him to be, and that makes him someone with no core convictions- a blank piece of paper, and that is someone who I do not want in the WH.
We already have a liar, one who tells us one thing, but does another- why would we want a white version of this?
At least with Newt, he could mop the room with Barry in a debate, and that I would like to see. Also, he does have some core convictions. As has been said, however, there is no perfect conservative, so we need to figure who is the best one for the job and get behind him.
@MataHarley:
Hi Mata, okay so your main concerns with Dr. Paul concern his foreign policy his trade policy and the border/immigration issue, correct?
Let’s just start with his foreign policy since I think that is where most folks tend to lose favor with RP as a candidate. Do you agree that George Washington was perhaps our greatest and wisest President? When was the last time you read his farewell address? There are several portions of it that pertain to this issue…these are but two of the portions that I feel are relevant to this issue…”
“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense, but in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.”
and
“Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest, but even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard. ”
Do you think that America needs to be the Police Force for the world? If like me, you don’t, do you then agree that we do not need to have 700+ military bases in 100+ Nations around the world? Europe has been able to build its social infrastructure because it was able to rely on us to provide for its defensive needs. If we had not maintained such a powerful military presence there, they would have had to provide for themselves and would not have gotten into the fiscal mess they are currently in. This applies to Japan as well. RP is often referred to as an “isolationist” , that word is used incorrectly. Isolationism is the withdrawal of political AND economic ties to other Nations and RP has never advocated for that, what he proposes is “Neutrality” NOT “Isolationism” How can an advocate of “free trade” be an Isolationist?
@Hard Right:
Hard Right, how can you call RP supporters such as myself “delusional” when you fail to acknowledge Speaker Gingrich’s own positions? He DID support TARP, he DID support global warming legislation, TARP, etc…if anyone is “delusional” here it is not me.
@Poppa_T: I have a problem with RP’s attitude about the military. It is not his “no foreign misadventures” part I have trouble wit, but his lack of understanding about the rest of the world today, and the problems facing the US just because of who we are.
Face it, there are a lot of people who do not like us at all, and some of them have nukes- that is a scary proposition for anyone, and I do not have the confidence that RP understands that.
And just to clarify, I am a Texan, living in RP’S district, and he hasn’t been all that great- good, but not great.
@Poppa_T, being a former registered libertarian a couple of decades ago, let me assure you I do not have the time nor inclination for the lengthy debates favored by those of that political think. And I don’t say that to be unkind, mind you. It’s just that when it comes to never ending “debate”, libertarians can simply bore one to tears with their tenacity. So let me make this succinct, and it will be my only response to you INRE where I disagree with Paul.
I disagree with your premise that our foreign bases are merely to act as a “police force to the world”, and yes… I do support having foreign bases. In colonial days, our nation was protected by oceans, limiting the ability to attack the shores to the north and south. Today’s transport and weaponry render that illusion outdated.
Threats to this country originate in distant lands, and we’ve fought many wars off native soil. Ready bases to facilitate rapid deployment to guard the homeland is prudent. Paul is foolhardy to suggest otherwise.
Nor do you have the credentials as a seer to accurately predict what other nations may, or may not have done, with their own military build up in absence of US bases on foreign soil. You say this as if they were manned with huge battalions, adequate to serve the host nation at will. And, in fact, the US tends not to interfere with the host nation’s business, as most SOFAs dictate.
My fault for not being more clear with my statement: “he’s too libertarian and isolationist in both trade/borders and foreign policy for me to swallow.”
It would have been constructed more clearly had I said he’s too libertarian (in both trade/borders) and isolationst (in foreign policy) for me to swallow. Tho I had the pecking order correct in the descriptive adjectives (libertarian and isolationist) to the ensuing nouns (trade/borders and foreign policy), it was cumbersome to decipher. I apologize for that.
Again, succinctly, I am opposed to open borders for both economic and cultural/nationality reasons. Paul believes if we had a healthy economy, we’d need no immigration policy. We may agree on some points… i.e. I don’t believe that enforcement of immigration laws should be placed on the backs of employers, who are fined if they don’t elicit immigration status prior to employment. But I am still far apart from Paul’s border notions in general. I address the open borders issue because it is intrinsically linked to trade because of labor force.
I think free trade is a utopian dream because that would entail a like recipient commitment with the other trade nation. As is usual, it would be the US being the free trader, and the other nation placing their own protectionist limitations. The Paul free trade idea requires a “handshake” mentality to facilitate it. Sorry…. won’t work as long as man inhabits the planet. In writing, in writing, in writing. I also believe in sanctions as a type of economic warfare.
But I will agree that trade agreements could be better constructed than they are. Problem is, I’m likely to swing more protectionist than Paul is willing to go, just as this nation did (to our economic benefit) with our tariff systems in the early days.
There is simply nothing you can say that will win me over to Paul enough to support him for POTUS. But as I said, would love to see him as Treasury Secretary. We could all use some entertainment as he makes the Fed Chair dance.
Lastly, I surely hope you aren’t suggesting that Ron Paul is the new George Washington….. that may be appropriate in your mind. But for me, that’s a mighty stretch at best.
@Blake:
Alright Blake, I can understand that but let’s also remember that of the current candidates RP is the ONLY one with any military experience, also, those in the military have sent him more in campaign donations than all other republican candidates combined and more than Pres. Obama as well. Does that tell us anything about how the military perceives RP? For me at least it says that those currently serving do not share your lack of confidence in RP. In fact it tells me just the opposite, that those in the military feel that he understands exactly what needs to be done.
You also say that people around the world don’t like us “just because of who we are”. So let me ask you, why don’t they like us? Do you think it’s because they are jealous, envious? Why? Up until about 50 years ago everybody wanted to come to the good ol’ US of A because of our freedoms and or lifestyle, by that I mean that all were given the chance live their lives and a chance to build a better life for their posterity. That has changed over time, why? Has our lifestyle changed or has the way we deal with other nations changed?
I agree with RP in that it is the way our foreign policy has been implemented that has changed the way the world perceives us. We are no longer seen as a benevolent land of freedom that helps out other nations in need, but the new world hegemony that bends other nations to its will. I could be very wrong but I don’t think so. Frankly over those past 50 or so years we have enabled regime change in Nicaragua, Honduras, South Vietnam, Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya and we are currently looking to do the same in Pakistan, Iran, and some other African Nations.
So I tend to agree with RP in that our policies have in fact brought about the changes in the way the world sees us. If other nations having nuclear capabilities scares you just remember that we can still turn the earth into a giant glass Christmas tree ornament many times over and all the other nations know that we have used it before and we can use them again. They don’t want to die either.
@Poppa_T:
Poppa, if you go back in other threads you can see my problems with Newt. He’s hardly my first or second choice. Let’s face it, our crop of candidates isn’t too good. However, supporting RP over Newt is insanity.
If you think RP can beat obama
If you think RP is anything like he claims to be
If you think he isn’t a hypocrite
If you think he’s right on foreign policy
If you think he wouldn’t be a disaster as president
Then yes, YOU ARE delusional.
@MataHarley:
I enjoy your posts and usually agree, but not when it comes to foreign bases. As you say, we’ve sent our military to fight many wars in far away lands. But, with the exception of Japan and Al Quida/Taliban, not one of those was fought because of a threat to the US.
And it’s hard to couch the current situation in Afghanistan as anything but a loose/loose. At this point our measure of “success” is to cement the power of a central government there that would openly side with the country that harbors our enemies against us if asked, a government that magnanimously “pardons” a rape victim if she agrees to marry her attacker.
Military isolationism was the best policy in 1912 and is a better policy today. Yes, modern weapons make those oceans less protection for us, but more so for our enemies. As it is we have kept troops in places like Germany and Korea to act as sacrificial “trip wires”, and in Japan, I assume to protect Taiwan from China (does anyone seriously think we’d get into a conventional shooting war to protect them?).
Given the state of our logistical system today making the argument that overseas bases makes us safer is like saying Dunkirk was a brilliant plan by the British. Right now one of the two supply lines to our troops (my son among them) in Afghanistan is cut.
The best and surest way to insure the protection of the US is to re-establish the credibility of nuclear deterrence and to stop the foolishness that we punish those who attack us by building new schools for them.
Poppa is 100% correct, we’ve made our military not only into the worlds free “rentacop” organization but also “meals on wheels” and I’m personally tired of it. The military exists to do two things, kill people, and break things and we’d better grow up and admit it before it’s too late.
@ Poppa_T:
Ron Paul has a messaging problem. You can’t say that America is responsible for the 911 attacks. Even though he clarified this statement in one interview and said, not Americans, you and I are Americans, America is responsible. Sorry, we are America. We elect the idiots that create policy.
Our military is tired. We have been at war for over 10 years. I think Paul would bring everyone home quicker than anyone else, and I think the military is ready to come home.
I could vote for Paul though, because in the end he would just be president, no king. But I believe he could chip away at a lot of liberal establishments. But since he would be commander in chief, I would want to hear him say he would consult with the joint chiefs and his national security team before he started dismantling bases and forces.
I would like to bring up one thing about Washington’s farewell address. Washington was worried that the country was too new and too fragile to enter into any permanent alliances with anyone. He chose to stay neutral during the French Revolutionary Wars for the same reason. But America would not be the nation it is now without the French. Their Navy is what helped us win our independence. Do we not have some responsibility to help other nations do the same? Should we just say, we got ours, get your own?
@JustAl, no problem about disagreeing. Would be a very boring world indeed, were everyone in lockstep, don’t you think?
Just as I disagree with Poppa-T about his perspective of foreign bases, I disagree with yours. Most especially I disagree with your description of our military as being “to kill people and break things up”. That is an odd, and most certainly derisive, way to view the nation’s protectors and shield.
The presence of the bases is not about the foreign wars we have fought in the past, or whether they have been justified. (tho the existence of those wars likely enabled their presence to begin with…) They are there, with the expressed permission of the host nation, in order to facilitate a needed rapid deployment in the case of current or future threats. To remove them from all foreign soil creates a delay problem for rapid response that is crucial to success.
I can’t tell you how irritating it is to hear the typical “apologist” mentality that Paul constantly states. He tries to tone it down, saying it isn’t a “blame America” point of view, but in actuality… it is.
It comes down to this simplicity. If the host nation welcomes a US base presence, and we aren’t interfering or “policing” their nation with that base, why the heck should we care if the global Islamic jihad movement finds our foreign bases offensive? Apparently Ron Paul and those who assume this attitude seem to place great import on what the jihad movements think. I find that extremely bizarre.
I assure you, there is little we can do they would approve of except acquiescing to total conversion to Islam as a nation. I simply don’t care what they think or what they like. Screw them and their ‘tudes.
What I care is having the US in the advantageous poised position to act quickly, efficiently, and with the greatest cost effectiveness if military and intel action is needed to protect this nation. Our foreign presence provides just that. And if it’s welcomed by the host nation, why complain? I will also add that our foreign installations are instrumental in training the other nation states’ armies so that they are capable of defending themselves, if necessary, or functioning closer to the quality and standards of our US military in a united effort.
As for cost? There is little spending for the central government that I sanction as Constitutional. But when it comes to our military… and that includes the advantage of foreign bases… it’s spending I do support. Naturally, budgets can always be tweaked for obvious waste, but you get my point. I find our investment in military… both foreign and on domestic soil… Constitutional and necessary.
And if you wish to speak of cost, the expense in closing up shop and relocating facilities to our shores also requires great expense. Then, in the event they need to deploy to foreign lands, we’re racking up the bucks, trying to find a place to park them closer to the action. The entire suggestion is not only ludicrous for security and efficiency, it’s fiscally prohibitive.
I believe the spending for sundry entitlement programs, and far too many worthless agencies is expendable and out of their founding jurisdiction. So I’d trade dumping the majority of staff from the EPA, Dept of Ag, Education etal for savings to continue foreign bases in a heartbeat.
This may be a fine talking point for the Ron Paul campaign, but I really detest the deceit it advances when placing great import on this. First, it attempts to portray this as the active soldier when, in fact, it’s anyone who has one of the branches of military as their employer… i.e. can be administrators.
Shall we put this claim of supposed outpouring of love from the military for Paul into real perspective?
PolitiFace dealt with this back in July, and rated it as true. But just what are we talking here?
Because the “employer” is a requirement only for donations $200 or larger, let’s assume that every one of these donors gave only $200.
Ron Paul: $34,480 = 172.4 military employed donors
Obama: $19,849 = 99.245 military employed donors
Using minimal donations, we’re talking about a total of 271.6 individuals out of a military labor force (as of 2009) of 2.4 million.
Considering that this number is smaller since some donated more than $200, prancing around like a peacock, preening because Paul got possibly 73 (or less) more military employees to donate money than Obama did is a pathetic drop in the bucket.. This represents about 7/1000ths of the military personnel. Get serious.
Most certainly, such a small representation of the military is far from indicative of warrior support for either Ron Paul or Barack Obama.
I find it offensive that Paul continues to use this as a political football.
@Aqua:
My bad, you are absolutely correct about Gov. Perry’s service and I was wrong. Yes we did receive much needed assistance from King Louie XVI and from Spain as well. But their assistance wasn’t to help us so much as it was to hurt King George. Don’t forget that during the Civil war both England and France were sympathetic to the Confederacy and Tsar Alexander saved Abe Lincoln’s arse by dissuading both England and France from protecting their main source of cotton. The point being that all Nations act in their own self interest, not out of some altruistic reason. So no, I can not agree that we have a “responsibility to help other nations do the same”.
@MataHarley:
Hi again Mata, I appreciate your link to Politifact that confirms my statement, how about a more current number? Say 3rd quarter 2011 active military contributions. Maybe this new information will make the facts slightly less offensive to you. I will keep my posts brief as you have no time for lengthy discourse. Besides I gotta go pop a top and get my line wet, the flounders have been biting like crazy and the big specks are starting to move in. See y’all tomorrow.
@MataHarley:
I take severe exception to your use of the word derisive in what I said about the military.
I assume you missed the point that my son is currently in Afghanistan. One of my nephews is in in Kuwait and together with my other nephew’s service they are completing this family’s 6th and 7th combat tours during the current conflict. I stand by my statement as one of fact and pride. The military is not a police force, it is not a charity, it’s sole purpose is to annihilate our enemies so that other do not choose to become our enemy’s. To continue to abuse our military, to continue to waste their blood so the self righteous can strut around the globe acting like big shots, now THAT is derisive.
@Poppa_T, sure would love to know from what your links derive their numbers. Open Secrets has Paul at about $12 mil all totaled as of the end of Sept (3Q) Adding up the US Army, AF, Navy, Defense Dept, and US Govt industry categories only comes up to $79,400. So I’m confused where this $113K is documented.
And that Open Secrets figure actually more closely matches the graph provided by Ron Paul supporters.
If you go to the Ron Paul campaign contributions breakdown by employer, and go to the categories of Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard and National Guard, I’m still not seeing what is being presented. You’d have to start including DOD and other military employed to even come close to that number.
Also, the graphic some Paul supporter provided on a forum just adds to my irritation of playing this political football game. Certainly anyone currently on the branches’ payroll is “active duty”, so to speak. But the graphic deliberately depicts soldiers in the field. This stuff I really find offensive and sleazy campaign work.
But then, “sleaze” is the middle name to “political campaign” anyway.
So even with the unsourced amount of $113,000, we’re up to Paul talking about maybe 568 people (assuming minimum donations), and Obama at 343 donors. All out of an industry that employees 2.4 mil as of 2009.
Nope… still not impressed. And it doesn’t surprise me that out of the military employed (which includes family as well…) – and including all the GOP donations – the military support definitely doesn’t go to Obama.
The point remains… these numbers are not reflective of those serving on the battlefield, nor the vast majority of military. And it’s disingenuous of Paul to play that card as such.
@JustAl, arguing over whether you like the word “derisive”, or whether I like your description of our military, is counterproductive. But my suggestion is if you are so confident that your job description of our military doesn’t rub a few people wrong, try telling your son and nephews what you think their service is tantamount to. See how they take it. Truthfully, it’s only their reaction that counts. So give it a whirl and see how it flies…. If you said that to me as active duty service, I’d wonder just what you were saying about my personality… that I love to “kill” and “break things up”?
Me? I already know that the young military, and my nephews in the service, didn’t go in there to “kill” and “break things apart”. They went in to protect the nation and preserve our freedom. They also appreciated the education and travel opportunities, and the comraderie. Your job descriptions are but a small part of the many tasks they may be forced to do in order to accomplish the reason they are there.
@MataHarley:
They are the ones who told me what their job is, and your own graph of military campaign contributions reinforces it.
Good night.
Mata: the absolute number of donors from the military is small. Not surprising, since the number of people who donate to political campaigns generally is a tiny fraction of the population. But what reason do you have to assert that the donations are not representative of the military’s sentiment in general, besides your own opinion and your own image of what their beliefs should be?
The ‘killing people and breaking things’ is not original to JustAl (I think it comes from here: http://www.spectacle.org/298/wilmine.html, though it has gained currency since then). In the original you can see that the author was pointing out that committing to not use certain weapons, for humanitarian reasons, was simply at odds with military effectiveness. Since then other people have used the phrase to argue that humanitarian missions like nationbuilding and promoting democracy are not really something the military is suited to. As to whether it’s offensive, I expect context would matter.
‘They went in to protect the nation and preserve our freedom.’
But you would say that no matter where they were sent. You’re in a position where it would be impossible for you to say ‘this is a stupid mission and should be abandoned’, because the people sending them will always give that reason, and you have faith in them.
Good morning Mata, first off I must apologize to you. I purposely linked to that source showing military contributions because it wasn’t sourced. I knew that in order to shoot it down you would link to RP’s own site, which still shows that military contributions to RP have doubled between the second and third quarters. So, so far both of your examples concerning military contributions have confirmed exactly what I initially said concerning Ron Paul v. all other candidates. Yet you continue to deny the facts.
And no I was not in any way equating Dr. Paul to George Washington, I was equating their ideas. GW was the original action hero, at 6’4″ and 200+ pounds he was larger than life and his exploits and character made him THE epitome of what an American President should aspire to be. As Henry Lee said he was “first in War, first in Peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen” and in my opinion no other President has or will ever come close to filling Washington’s shoes.
Poppa-T, puleeze…. Such BS is tough to wade thru. I never “denied” that Ron Paul was getting more contributions from the military employed than the others. What I’ve tried to point out is real perspective… that you and your hero are highlighting anywhere from 200 to 500 contributors, and attempting to portray that as overwhelming “military support” out of the 2.4 million or so military employed. Or that this is or support from warriors in the field.
… so the talking points go. Heard too many callers on the talking head radio shows try to slide that one by a gullible listener. That is sleazy and dishonest campaigning, using our military as a political football.
Nor do I have any aversion to linking to Paul’s site. Or any other site. Have all the candidates’ sites in my bookmarks for references anyway. As I said, I have many things I like about Ron Paul. Foreign policy and trade/immigration/borders is not some of them. These are big ticket items to me, therefore he will never get my vote. Period.
Attack of the Paulbots!! Let’s see, Ron says he’ll keep them out of wars and a few hundred people/possible soldiers send him money. Then the paulbots say it’s proof the majority of the military supports ron and his childish foreign policy fantasy.
Yet these same people will laugh off polls with the same numer of respondants. This is especially so when the libs claim that the poll proves Conservatives are stupid, ignorant, hateful, and/or all of the above. Hypocritical much.
Like I said, paulbots are much like liberals. They have projected their fantasies onto a loony charlatan the same way the left did with obama.
@Hard Right: I call them Paul Bearers, HR. And you are right about the way they act. Now I know I am speaking in generalities, and not all Paul Bearers are so hyper-critical or hyper-sensitive, and a few are just plain jerks.
I belong to a conservative FB group and a couple of them on there get downright nasty and the things they say about any candidate who isn’t RP is akin to what the far left drones say about anyone who isn’t Obama. But if you try and point that out……………whew!
However, as I have shown on here (I hope, lol), I can give as good as I get and nearly always I can give better.
Curt – you stated at the end of your short article:
“…..Ok, I’m not completely with Ace here since I don’t think Romney is an okay imperfect candidate. If it’s Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, I’m probably sitting home since it isn’t a choice. Romney is OLite, plain and simple. And don’t even bring up Ron Paul because I would rather get punched in the testicles than vote for that nutcase.
So where does that leave us?
Screwed.”
I think that you sum up the sentiment of many traditional Republican voters. I’m one of them. I always voted for the GOP candidate, because they were less liberal and the “lesser of the two evils.”
However, this 2012 time around, my motivation is different. Since both political parties have joined, to become CTDAS – “Conspiracy Theorists of Denial, Arrogance and Silence” over Obama’s non natural born citizen [bogus] “presidential” status, I will sit out the vote. I believe that other patriotic “birther” and constitutionally minded Americans will do the same. If America does not insist that its future [genuine] president be guided by our Constitution’s rule of law, it won’t matter anymore who occupies the White House. Our representative democracy will soon crumble.
And, to those who say that people like me had better vote for the GOP nominee, else Obama will have another 4 years, – I say to them, that if the GOP nominee cannot seriously (in the campaign) address Obama’s ineligibility to be legitimate US president, then I don’t care if Obama squeaks out a narrow victory, without my vote for the GOP nominee. Better to have our beloved America to die a quick death, at the hands of Obama, than a slow and painful one with disingenuous Republican presidents who turn a blind eye to the molestation of our US Constitution……
@anticsrocks:
You got that right and yes, I’ve noticed you can handle what comes your way. As for the Ronulans, I agree not all are bad. I do get very uncomfortable with those that act as if anyone is some savior or an all in one solution package. While I am reluctantly supporting Newt, it’s for lack of a better candidate.
I didn’t come up with the word delusional to describe the Ronulans by accident. During the last presidential primaries I saw several RP sites where they were posting to let everyone know a poll had come up for who people wanted to be the GOP presidential candidate. They were basically swarming the polls and where able, voting over and over for RP. Then I watched many of the same people who had notified the forum of the poll and/or admitted to placing multiple votes, excitedly say how much momentum RP was gaining. Why? Because of how many votes he got in the polls they bombed!
That is just scary. They essentially rig the poll, and then actually believe the results of the poll prove their candidate is doing well.
Then there is the anti-semitism/anti-Israel issue… And don’t get me started on how many RP supporters are 9/11 truthers…
@Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel: Tell me Pastor, if you think Obama (as do I and a great many Americans), is trying to steer the USA towards European socialism, then have you lived under socialist rule? Have you lived in a totalitarian society?
I mean when you said that you would rather America die a quick death rather than a slow one, what were you thinking?
How many people have died under even just socialistic rule, much less totalitarian rule? What are the living conditions? How are the people treated? You think that you have lost freedoms now – and we all have, don’t get me wrong – just give Obama another four years without the threat of re-election hanging over his head.
No offense, but have you even given actual thought to what you propose??
As for me, I love my country enough to fight for her – even if my candidate isn’t running in the general election. I cannot take arms up against the government, nor would I wish to at this point in time. No, the way that I fight for my country is to cast my vote for an orange juice can rather than Obama.
Why in God’s name would I want to give the SOB an easy victory?? Because my guy didn’t win in the primary? Pretty sad reason to stay home if you ask me.
Paulbots, Ronulans, Paulbearers? What are you people 7? Grade school name calling does not win debates or convince anyone to switch their position. Since Mr. Cain dropped out RP has now moved into the #2 spot in Iowa polls . So far Bachman, Perry, Cain and Romney have peaked and slid back in the Polls. Now it’s Gingrich’s turn to lead but his mouth will once again get him in trouble (remember his spat with Paul Ryan) the man has been on both sides of to many issues for anyone to honestly believe he has any integrity left. Meanwhile RP preaches the same message he has always preached, liberty, freedom, smaller government and follow the Constitution and he is steadily gaining support. If the Republican Jewish Coalition sticks by their guns and bans RP from Wednesdays debate it will only serve to bring even more people into our camp.
Y’all might as well cut your losses and come on over, welcome to the r3VOLution.
As I said, delusional.
I also notice you didn’t further address what Mata pointed out above. It’s pretty clear you are deeply invested in your RP fantasy and attempting to change your mind is a waste of time. Like liberals, you are impervious to facts.
all of you are telling me that RICK PERRY is being left behind , purposly to get all the other take the insults from all sides, and that he will be coming on top at the end to take the position of the PRESIDENT,
AS A DESERVING QUALIFIED BEST PERSON TO LEAD.
IT TOOK ME A WHILE ,TO COME TO THAT CONCLUSION, BECAUSE YOU ALL ARE SO MUCH SMARTER THAN I AM.
but I must admit, this was a great idea.
@Hard Right: What did Mata address HardRight? All she did was deny that Ron Paul appears to be the candidate most favored by the military. The sample number is to low? There is not enough contributions to any candidate to favor one over the other? Every link or graph she posted confirms that RP leads in military donations. The FACT is that those in the military have contributed more to RP than any other candidate. And all you can do is say “if, if, if, if, if” and “you’re delusional”. You have no facts to support your rhetoric and keep using cutesie names like “Ronulans” as if belittling makes any kind of a point. Come on at least post something with meat in it rather than this tofu you’re currently posting. Go check out the Military.com forum and scan the discussion boards, RP has his detractors there as well but there are still more posts supporting him than not. Check out the Military Times forum here. Do something other than simply post your assumptions.
You see… more distortions by the blind loyals. I did *not* deny that Ron Paul has more donations on record from those who list the military as their employer. What I emphatically deny is that donations from 200-500 individuals, which can be anyone who is employed by all branches, DOD or other military agencies – or their family members – constitutes “most favored by the military”. Nor is that any evidence that those donations came from active duty warriors in the battlefield, as the sly talking points (and the supporters) attempt to portray.
What that means is simply this… 200-500 people that are employed by military agencies donated to Ron Paul. Nothing more. Nothing less. That is only an indicator of who those individuals support.
200-500 people is not an indication of support by 2.4 million military employed personnel for any individual candidate.. And only the most desperate would attempt to claim otherwise. Personally, I find it a despicable campaign talking point. But then, not surprising from Ron Paul supporters.
Poppa_T
HI,
those WARS of many years without resolution to attain VICTORY, BUT STILL COVERED WITH BLOOD AND EXTREME VIOLENT MANY DEATHS AND LIFE CHANGING INJURIES FOR OTHERS
HAS CERTAINLY TOOK IT’S TOLL IN THE THOUGHTS OF THE MANY BRAVES MILITARIES,
I could understand their views for some of them, to lend a positive ear to a CANDIDATES, WHICH WANT TO BRING THEM BACK FROM HELL THAT PERSIST TO LINGER ON WITHOUT HOPE OF ENDING,
ESPECIALLY IF THEY WHERE CALL BACK MANY TIMES RAISING THE ODDS AGAINST THEM MORE AND MORE, SO, RON PAUL RESONATED WITH WORDS WHAT MANY OF THEM ARE THINKING,
THERE IS WHERE THE SUPPORT IS LOGICLY COMING FROM WITH REASON TOO,
THEY ALONE KNOW AND THINK OF THOUGHTS WE WOULD NOT HAVE AS CIVILIANS, AND THEIR FAMILY WOULD THINK
SAME AS THEM.
BYE
@Poppa_T:
You are the one that made assumptions and tried to claim that the majority of the military support RP. Mata exposed the BS you tried to push. It’s typical of RP cultists like yourself. You can’t face reality and try to bend reality to your beliefs when it should be the other way around. But yes, try to lecture others about integrity when you yourself are shown to be lacking. RP will be going nowhere except away with the money of the gullible.