Unfortunately for Paul supporters, this is not the first time Paul has been booed in a Republican candidates debate. Fox held one in 2008. As I recall, Paul won the online poll even though he had been booed for his comments at the podium.
This Last Week's Poll: Who "Won" tonight's Republican Debate?
Mitt Romney (10%)
Michele Bachmann (0%)
Herman Cain (16%)
Newt Gingrich (6%)
Rick Perry (33%)
Jon Huntsman (0%)
Ron Paul (30%)
Rick Santorum (3%)
I suspect that some of the votes were for candidates you liked and not necessarily whom you thought actually won the debate. (And you know who you are!) That's okay. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion!
Multiple choices and Obama's crack budget office accountants may account for totals greater than 100%
Thank you for your participation! Not a scientific poll. Respondents are self selecting. Questions are drawn from fortune cookies, hieroglyphics and tomorrow’s New York Times.
Please make your opinion known in this week's poll.
Still one day left on the "who will Obama blame" poll. And, if you had a chance to watch tonight's Republican debate, who do you think "won"? Either by an outright win, or just "damaged him or herself the least", who fared best tonight in the debate at the Reagan Library?
5:35 Ron Paul is coming across as a little petulant.
5:38 Buy a gallon of gas for a silver dime. (Go for it, Ron!)
6:05 Rick Perry touts his success in drawing business to TX and improving education.
5:39 Ron Paul trashes the Reagan 80's "T^hey weren't all that great" Really? Compared to what? Today???
5:45 A video tribute to Ronald Reagan and Nancy
6:02 Ron Paul: Take the air conditioning out of the tent in Afghanistan, use the money to reduce the debt. Make conditions unlivable and this will bring the troops home.
Close your eyes and Jon Huntsman sounds like Mitt Romney. I'm listening to the audio, and whenever I flip back to the video, Huntsman surprises me.
6:06 Rick Perry on his success on drawing business to TX and improving education there.
6:07 Newt Gingrich in favor of charter schools.
6:08 Perry advocates securing the border. Takes shot at Obama for saying "border is safer than ever before". Either Obama has terrible intel, or is an abject liar. (I paraphrase)
Mitt on immigration reform "Turn off the magnet"
6:11 Newt everyone here legally. Control the border. Do reform in a humane way.
Rick Santorum: Son of immigrants, people who came here for freedom, not government bennies.
Michele Bachmann: What do you do with the 11 1/2 million after the border is secured?
Case by case mitigation.
Herman Cain: It's not one problem. Three other problems: Secure the border. Clean up the process to legalization. Empower the states to do what the feds won't do.
Huntsman: Adopted daughters from India and China. Legal immigrants.
Ron Paul: It's the drug laws... "This fence business may be turned against us to fence us in."
6:23 Rick Perry asked if he would take $10 spending cuts for $1 in tax increases. Perry turns down the deal as well.
6:24 Michelle Bachmann invokes the spirit of Reagan to oppose tax increase for spending cut deal.
6:25 Jon Huntsman "A pledge to sign no new pledges"
Perry gives hat tip to Obama on taking out bin Laden, bigger hat tip to the Navy Seals.
6:37 Perry : The science is not settled on "climate change"
6:38 Bachmann: Obama had to back off environmental regulations. "Temporary gimmicks and more of the same from Obama Thursday night.
6:39 Gingrich: I'd fire Bernanke Set aside an area as big as Texas in Alaska for mining and oil exploration.
6:41 Question to Romney: A de facto tax increase?
$200,000 a year or less tax free interest on savings
He'd look for a replacement to Bernanke, too. His plan would be for 4% growth and 11.5 million jobs
Gov. Perry on capital punishment : You will face the ultimate justice in the state of Texas
"Americans understand justice"
6:45 Cain on GE paying no US taxes. 999 plan - get the government out of the business of picking winners and losers.
Worst recession since the Great Depression "Obama doesn't understand that the business sector is the engine for economic growth"
It looks like President Petulant has tried his hand at petty school yard politics. Did you hear about Obama's planned "jobs address"? This wasn't urgent enough to tell the nation before he went on vacation for ten days, but all of the sudden, he wants to make an address to Congress the same day, the same time the Republicans had scheduled a candidate's debate at the Reagan Library.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has asked President Obama to address a joint-session of Congress on Thursday, Sept. 8, when it wouldn't conflict with the Republican presidential debate.
Citing logistical difficulties, Boehner requested that Obama hold his jobs address, which Obama wants to deliver next Wednesday, one day later.
The Speaker's letter made no mention of the more obvious conflict: between the president's speech, and a Republican presidential debate scheduled on Wednesday night at 8 p.m. EST. That debate is the first of the post-Labor Day political season, and the first one in which Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) is set to participate.
It was a juvenile move. Strictly "bush league" (Small "B"). He wanted to upstage the Republicans on the one hand, and use Congress as a bunch of props and a backdrop to stage the glory that is Obama.
One small problem: The President has to be invited to address Congress. Apparently, the President didn't even ask Congress about the speech, but arrogantly expected that if he said "jump" the peasants would ask "How high?".
Enter the adults with a cold splash of harsh reality for President Petulant. Boehner said that there might be "parliamentary or logistical impediments" that might interfere with his speech. That's right. "Parliamentary" (wink, wink) or "logistical" (nudge, nudge) impediments". If fact, I think that Boehner could probably give Obama an iron clad guarantee that there'd be at the very least a parliamentary impediment to the President's proposed schedule.
Note to the Obama White House: This ain't bean bag.
Ron Paul was on Fox News Sunday this AM. On the whole, he said a lot of good things about Obama's Libyan Misadventure and how we cannot know at this time whether or not Quaddafi's successor will be better or worse than he was. Paul goes on and equates all of our foreign policy as if it were the same as in Libya, and this is sadly not the case. And even parts of that he gets wrong.
"The current situation in Libya may be a short term victory for Empire, but it is a loss for our American Republic."
Note the unfortunate and incorrect usage of the word "Empire" (I'm assuming he's talking about the U.S.)
empire: a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire.
Could I get a list of nations from you, Mr. Paul, of those nations absorbed by the U.S. Empire? Japan, Germany and Italy were conquered by the allies in WWII. We have troops stationed in each of those countries to this day (The wisdom of that can be debated another time.) Are those countries part of our "Empire"? Do they pay tribute to us? Do we rule over them?
Historically, empires seize the resources of conquered nations. That is why to this day, we are pumping American oil out of Kuwait and Iraq. No, wait! We aren't??
Because we are not an "Empire". We have influence around the world and with other countries and I see no problem with that. We support the cause of freedom around the world. We support our democratic allies. But, we have no "colonies", nor are we seeking any. Our military actions, at least in the past, have all come with an "exit strategy". You should look that up, Mr. Paul. Empires don't have "exit strategies" when they invade other countries. They plan for continual occupation. Our strategies of "occupation" have to do with the stability and integrity of the countries before we exit. So when he says things like "We can't afford the Empire", is he serious and mistaken, or merely careless with his words?
Speaking of that, did you note the use of his word "silly"? Speaking of the US dealing with Qaddafi (after he "admitted that his country had been trying to develop a broad arsenal of unconventional weapons, and he promised to dismantle them up and submit to international inspections"-NYT):
"But, why is it that we started doing business with him five years ago? Was that a good thing? I think that was silly, too."
"Silly", Mr. Paul? The lesson Qaddafi learned after the Iraq war, was that dictators with WMDs did not "live long and prosper". After renouncing his WMDs and allowing international inspections, why shouldn't we at least move tentatively to encourage those types of reforms? The fact that he had renounced weapons of mass destruction spoke well for leaving him in place, rather than roll the dice that the next government might be worse and we may have helped to put them there. On this, we agree. But, I shudder to think of our next president standing toe to toe with some foreign leader and telling him "That's just silly". Presidents (and candidates for president) ought not to be careless in their language.
And while we're on the subject, I have mentioned before Paul's use of the word "squabble" to describe Israel's fight for its very survival. I think if I were the Israeli Prime Minister, faced with a Paulian presidency, I would begin to explore options to wage the war more aggressively with my neighbors, knowing I could not count on the U.S. to "watch my back". (Kind of like it is now with Obama, only worse.)
Paul claims that a "telltale" of his support is measured by the volume of contributions from active military duty personnel.
"Because of my foreign policy, I get more donations from active military duty people."
Maybe. Or maybe they, like many others, value your position on the Constitution. Active military personnel have volunteered to put their lives on hold and their lives on the line to uphold the Constitution. They, like you, hold it in high regard. But, unless he has received correspondence from a majority of those contributors saying that it is his foreign policy views that prompted them to give, then perhaps his assumption is unfounded.
I noted another, minor, unfounded assumption in his anecdote about Mises. When asked about a country in economic crisis, Ludwig von Mises was asked if he were the leader of that country, what would he do. He said, "I'd quit". Paul took this to mean "in other words, take your hands off it". Only that wasn't what he said. He didn't say he'd reduce government activity, he said he'd "quit". The most likely reasons are, if he was the leader who was responsible for the disaster that befell his nation, he broke it and should not have the authority to break any more, or that he assumed the office with the country in disastrous financial shape and he wouldn't want to be blamed for it. The most likely explanation was, it was a joke, as in, "Why would I want to take on those kinds of headaches?"
If Mises saw that the solution was less government intervention, and he was in a position to make it happen, why would he "quit"? To borrow a phrase from a prominent candidate for president, that's just silly!
Finally, the scariest part of his remarks go to the heart of the Global War on Terror.
"They (American service personnel) don't want perpetual war, when they are undeclared and you don't see the end and you don't know who the enemy is..."
Mr. Paul: No one wants a perpetual war, declared or not, where you don't see the end and you don't know who the enemy is. But, that is the war that has been forced upon us, it was not of our choosing. Al-Qaeda is not a country with a defined border. We cannot defeat them and give their government our terms of peace. And if al-qaeda were wiped off the map tomorrow, that doesn't mean we would be forever free from fanatical terrorists. It has been said that "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom". There's something mighty perpetual in the word "eternal". Just as it applies to our Constitution, it applies to our national security. If we can utilize the military to root out camps and enclaves of extra-national terrorists, then we should do so, and let the host nations know that if they willingly shelter terrorists within their borders, that those actions have dire consequences.
To the extent that Obama's KMA in Libya was an undeclared war, I agree with Paul 100%. But the alternative isn't a wholesale withdrawal to our nation's borders, but rather a judicious examination of our military's mission around the world and eliminate that which does not serve the purpose. But, as long as terrorists fight without uniform or flag, we will not always know our enemy, and we will not see the end in the foreseeable future. That doesn't mean we give up the fight or make a temporary, and ultimately futile, retreat to our borders. Whenever possible, we must carry the fight to the terrorists, and support our allies in their struggles for freedom and self determination.
Paul has said we will treat all countries alike. I cannot see treating Britain and Israel like Libya or Iran. The battle to defeat Western civilization is a global conflict. No nation on the planet is better equipped than this one to provide leadership in that conflict. It is not the path of Empire, but of preservation. The survival of our democratic allies can aid us in our battle top preserve our values and our way of life. Like the word "empire", I don't think Mr. Paul understands that.
Mr. Paul: I salute your attempts to uphold the Constitution, but your foreign policy? If it weren't so deadly serious, I'd call it "silly", too. But, it remains the main reason you will never be president.
The following bilingual post is brought to you by the letters "W, T & F" and by the numbers "2012".
In 2008, Obama won 57 percent of the state’s Hispanic vote, which has historically leaned Republican. Now, 72 percent of Florida Hispanic voters say Obama doesn’t deserve re-election, according to the Magellan poll. And the numbers don’t change when Obama is matched up with Republican candidates:
What is striking is how poorly Barack Obama is doing among Hispanic and Latino voters in Florida. The ballot test between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney finds the president trailing Mitt Romney by 39 points, with 62 percent of Hispanic voters supporting Mitt Romney and only 23 percent supporting Barack Obama. The Perry‐Obama ballot test among Hispanic voters finds 56 percent supporting Rick Perry and 25 percent supporting the president. The Bachmann‐Obama ballot test among Hispanic voters finds Michele Bachmann with 51 percent support and 30 percent for Barack Obama.
Okay, okay...¿como se dice...schadenfreude? Yes, we can...throw the bums out!
LA JOLLA — GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney, scheduled to attend a series of fundraisers this weekend in San Diego, is also working on plans to nearly quadruple the size of his $12 million oceanfront manse in La Jolla.
Romney has filed an application with the city to bulldoze his 3,009-square-foot, single-story home at 311 Dunemere Dr. and replace it with a two-story, 11,062-square-foot structure.
Joining John Edwards and Al Gore in the "I don't think my current house is big enough" category, Mitt Romney plans a little ill timed remodeling. No, that's not exactly right. Remodeling is when you change or add to a place. Bulldozing it and replacing it with a structure four times larger is more than "remodeling".
Mr. Romney is free to do whatever he wants to with his money. I don't have a problem with that. At a time when people are losing the modest homes they have, building a mega mansion on the beach doesn't exactly scream, "I feel your pain".
It's just one more way in which Romney looks like Obama Lite. It cannot be good for his campaign.
Update : For those who do not remember the 2008 campaign, here's an ad Obama ran against John McCain.
Remember Jimmy Carter? 39th President. Billy Beer. Lust in his heart. Killer rabbits. That Jimmy Carter? Obama could learn a thing or two from Jimmy.
Remember the energy crisis of 1977? I know! There have been so many oil embargoes and crises, and still the government continues to hamstring energy producers. But, in 1977, President Carter took to the airwaves to rally the American people to conserve energy, "the moral equivalent of war".
Anyone here old enough to remember that speech? He sat there, looking into the camera sincerely, wearing a cardigan sweater, presumably, because he had turned down the thermostat in the White House to conserve energy. (As opposed to the current resident of the White House, who is known to keep his office quite toasty!) President Carter, long before Bill Clinton ever patented the line, was trying to communicate that he felt our pain, that he willingly shared in the sacrifice he was calling upon everyone to make. Now, it is possible that, after the cameras were turned off, he fired up the thermostat and ran around the Oval Office in his skivvies. (Sorry for the image!) But, at least Carter put up the appearance of empathizing with the people he was elected to lead.
Compare and contrast with a president who surrounds himself with all the trappings of power. Someone who doesn't deny himself a thing, but lives like a king or the dictator of some banana republic, throwing lavish parties for himself, hobnobbing with the rich and famous while the peasants beg for crusts of bread.
Think about it...other than his annoyance over not everyone doing what he wants them to do, have you seen any evidence at all in the last two and a half years, that Barack Obama is not really enjoying himself heartily? Parties, golf, lavish vacations, world travel, deluxe transportation, gourmet meals, (with chefs flown in from Chicago and Hawaii), people to wait upon his every whim, at his beck and call. Meanwhile, the country goes to Hades in a handbasket.
Obama talks the talk about 'shared sacrifice", but by that he means that others should share the sacrifice, not him personally. He doesn't walk the walk. He says his favorite Bible verse is Matthew 25:40 -
"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
(Think millions of dollars in book royalties and a half brother who lives in a hut for $12 a year.)
No one begrudges protecting the president. Some think a fleet of million dollar "rock star" buses was over the top. No one begrudges the President in taking time off to be with his family. Spending millions of tax dollars to do so is over the top.
Say what you will about Jimmy Carter, he was either smart enough and humble enough not to rub people's noses in his good fortune while the rest of the country suffered, or at least he gave that appearance. Little Lord Barackleroy and his wife, spend the nation's money like drunken Congressmen and don't seem to be the tiniest bit embarrassed in flaunting and wasting the wealth and power entrusted to them by their fellow citizens.
Some presidents lead by example. Others show great moral courage and integrity.
Would you like to??? Do the Republicans need their own "Move On"?
Showing all the class that they are known for, a Ron Paul supporter is adopting the Barack Obama tactic of digging up dirt on one's opponents in lieu of actually having confidence in the superiority of your candidate's ideas.
An Austin Ron Paul supporter has taken out a full-page ad in the local alt weekly newspaper seeking any "stripper ... escort ... or 'young hottie'" who has slept with Rick Perry, part of his single-minded jihad against the presidential candidate.
Robert Morrow describes himself as a "self-employed investor and political activist" as well as a three-time delegate to the Texas state GOP convention.
"Have you ever had sex with Rick Perry?" blares the ad, placed by Morrow in this week's Austin Chronicle. "Are you a stripper, an escort, or just a 'young hottie' impressed by an arrogant, entitled governor of Texas? Contact CASH, and we will help you publicize your direct dealings with a Christian-buzzwords-spouting, 'family values' hypocrite and fraud."
CASH is the Committee Against Sexual Hypocrisy, of which Morrow is president. "Is it a real group? No. It's just me," he told Salon earlier this week.
"Is it a real group? No. It's just me," Too funny! A guy willing to lie about some mythical morality group wants to criticize someone else for their morals...if only he can dig up the dirt. Mr. Morrow: We know you're a liar. Is lying one of your "family values"?
I want all of Ron Paul's supporters to hold their breath until their candidate condemns this ad. They're going to look a lot like that movie Avatar, or maybe the Smurfs.
A number of people have tried to come up with a name for Obama's three day, campaign bus tour. Having heard a couple of clips of the president stammering and stuttering with his off 'prompter comments, I suggest the following:
Sure Hope Obama Remembers Teleprompter Bus Tour
Remember back in April when the administration ordered these buses? It looks like the primary (pun intended) purpose of this multimillion dollar fleet of buses is campaigning. Now, I have no problem in wanting the President or any major candidate to be safe from the crazies, but in times of soaring deficits, is there no other means of transportation the president could use that didn't constitute a multimillion dollar photo op?
If they are going to be used primarily for campaigning, they should be paid for by the campaigns, not the taxpayer.
President Barack Obama leaves the White House on Monday for a three-day bus trip, talking job creation at small towns across the Midwest in hopes of distancing himself from the "partisan brinksmanship" he says has poisoned the economy.
My only question is, Will he take Air Force One to meet the bus everyday, or only when it stops?
It's funny, but, after awakening to analysis that third place "kept him in the running", Tim Pawlenty announces he is dropping out of the presidential race.
Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty announced on Sunday he is dropping out of the Republican presidential contest, after a distant third place finish in a key test vote.
Pawlenty made the announcement after finishing with 2,293 votes Saturday in Iowa's Ames Straw Poll -- seen as a key indicator of who will fare well in early nominating contests next year -- over 2,500 votes behind winner Representative Michele Bachmann and second place finisher Ron Paul.
The Pawlenty campaign, officially launched in May, "didn't get the kind of traction and lift we had hoped coming out of the straw poll," he told ABC's "This Week."
Maybe it's for the best. I have a hard time imagining "President T-Paw".
At a New York political event last week, Republican and Democratic office-holders were all bemoaning President Obama’s handling of the debt-ceiling crisis when someone said, “Hillary would have been a better president.”
“Every single person nodded, including the Republicans,” reported one observer.
Ah, Hillary is starting to look good once again to, well, everyone!
During the last few days, the whispers have swelled to an angry chorus of frustration about Obama’s perceived weaknesses. Many Democrats are furious and heartbroken at how ineffectual he seemed in dealing with Republican opponents over the debt ceiling, and liberals are particularly incensed by what they see as his capitulation to conservatives on fundamental liberal principles.
In Connecticut, a businessman who raised money for Obama in 2008 said, “I’m beyond disgusted.” In New Jersey, a teacher reported that even her friends in the Obama administration are grievously disillusioned with his lack of leadership—and many have begun to whisper about a Democratic challenge for the 2012 presidential nomination. “I think people are furtively hoping that Hillary runs,” she said.
And not only them, but can Obama win if he's lost Bill Maher?
On Real Time With Bill Maher, the host said that as far as he was concerned, Obama might as well be a Republican, and added that he thought last week represented the tipping point in Obama’s presidency. Wondering if liberals have “buyer’s remorse” about Obama, Maher asked his panel whether Clinton would have been a better president.
“Yes,” replied astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium, adding that Clinton would have been “a more effective negotiator in the halls of Congress.” “She knows how to deal with difficult men,” Maher agreed.
Barack Obama is to politicians what closing time and coyote ugly is to women in bars. Democrats in every part of the political spectrum are waking up next to Barack Obama after a long night of "What was I thinking??" and wondering if they have to chew their arms off to extricate themselves gracefully.
In his New York Times Sunday Review essay “What Happened to Obama?” Emory University psychology professor Drew Westen summed up the president’s lack of experience with devastating succinctness. “Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography; and that, before joining the United States Senate, he occasionally, as a state senator in Illinois, voted ‘present’ on difficult issues,”
How about those folk who supported Hillary in '08?
Among Clinton fans, particularly older women, the language was frequently far more caustic. “Obama has no spine and no balls,” said a 67-year-old New Yorker. Other observers contrasted the president’s declining popularity with Clinton’s widely acclaimed performance as secretary of State. “To be blunt, her resume outshines the incumbent’s,” wrote Dickinson, noting that Clinton’s approval rating is close to 70 percent while Obama’s is around 40 percent.
And there are those political pundits who have written off a Hillary run in '12 merely because Mrs. Clinton said she wouldn't run. This was in the aftermath of the Wikileaks revelations. This may have damaged her creds as a foreign policy expert or at least provided a source of embarrassment. However, if the Clinton's internal polling indicates more than the ghost of a chance, expect a "Draft Hillary" movement, where a reluctant Hillary has to be coaxed to take the nomination, for the "good of the country".
