[Toshi]

anyone else watch the republican debate?

my thoughts:

thompson was clearly aiming for the bottom of the barrel. cheap one-liners and many an attack on huckabee, while he said nothing of substance himself. bzzt.

mccain is a goon. he harps on the same points. his attempt at playing to the younger vote by invoking global warming was a non sequitur.

romney was ok. he's a decent public speaker. he didn't seem that involved, and was kind of on the periphery.

huckabee is good. i didn't expect this from him. he took a lot of direct shots, including from the moderators, but he answered them directly (take heed, other candidates: ANSWER THE QUESTIONS) and was reasonably funny in a non-pointed way.

giuliani is out of his league. he was even more on the periphery than romney, and his invocations of reagan were weak sauce: "but reagan hired me as an assistant DA!"

ron paul was actually pretty good. when confronted with a loaded question about his sometimes loony supporters' views on 9/11 he defused it, answered it directly, and then proceeded to answer the same question the other candidates had been addressing in that round. i think his message of the country being broke was stated too many times, and that this message (even if true) is too negative for the sheeple to accept. they want to hear that their country is great, that america will have the bestest military in the world, etc. etc.

overall: weak field. ron paul and huckabee were the only people who answered questions directly. renegaderick's hopes aside, i don't think paul has a snowball's chance of winning the nomination. this is sad in that it shows that the republican party has indeed transformed itself into a "strong defense", weak civil liberties, tax cutting party. it has no direction.

on the results: i thought that huckabee and ron paul came out looking rosy. the official fox take was that thompson "won" it. i think that's a total load of BS. the fox text-your-vote-in poll was amusing, since ron paul won it with 31% to thompson's 21% and huckabee's 18% iirc.

disclaimer: i'm not going to vote republican in the actual election, don't worry. given that i'm antiwar and support civil liberties (imagine that) i'll probably vote for ron paul in my state's primary, however.

 

[narlus]

i'm a bit embarrassed to say that i've not watched one debate yet. last night we didn't even have the tv on, and i swear that SS wasn't over visiting.

 

[X3pilot]

I caught the last 45 minutes or so and Toshi, I think you're on the mark with your analysis.

Thompson comes off as glib and desperately trying to fend off lack of his own vision with humor..

Huckabee is good and getting better about just speaking the answer, not making a 30 second or 60 second sate of the union.

Romney, I swear is a robot that is loaded with MP3 files before he goes in front of a camera. That man is timed to answer a question in *ding* 60 seconds and they all sound alike.

McCain is just a grumpy old man and despite what he says, is part of the Washington elite and has more people in his pockets than we could imagine.

Rudy is still sticking with 911911911911911911/Reduced crime in Times Square/911911911911/reduced crime in NYC/911911911911
Rudy:
NEW YORK IS NOT THE REST OF THIS COUNTRY!!

Paul was indeed very good, probably made his case about being a Constitutionalist better than I've ever heard it.


Indeed, weak field, but the Dems aren't much better.

 

[BurlyShirley]

I didnt watch it, but I agree that the Republicans are very weak. I caught Romney on the Today show this morning...the guy just seems like a real slimeball. Greazy black hair, canned answers...I wouldnt buy a used car from him. Huckabee is too christian for me, as well. Ron Paul, no chance in hell he wins.
I still say McCain is the best of the bunch, but he could just as easily go down in flames again.

 

[J-Dubs]

I'll agree that Mitt is a robot, Thompson has no vision, Rudy is out of his league and Paul has no shot in that party.
I'll concede that McCain is a grumpy old man, but I don't think he's in the pocket of the party any longer. He made that mistake in 2000, and now it seems he's buckling down.
Huckabee is probably the most honest and straightforward candidate up there and is certainly getting better at his public speaking. He's getting his point accross, but the fundamentalist christian aspect of his character is what will bury him in the eyes of the nation and anyone who respects the Constitution or the separation between church and state.

I think I'd have to go with McCain for the nominee I'd like to see. Even if he could bring down my homebwoy Barack.

 

[jasride]

McCain is just a grumpy old man and despite what he says, is part of the Washington elite and has more people in his pockets than we could imagine.

I consider myself a novice in our nations politics but I can see what your saying here. McCain looks like he wants to just explode but if he did he might have a heart attack. And he does seem to say and do what his in-office friends like.

I also thought overall it looked like a pretty weak field.
Poor Ron Paul man. This was really the first time I heard him speak. I thought he did pretty well but I can tell he's going into this alone. Even the moderators snicker and laugh when they ask him questions.
WTF. I am a registered Dem. but Hell Yeah Ron Paul.

Huckabee sounded the most honest to me but I think they're all pretty Loony.

 

[RenegadeRick]

I didn't see the debate, so I will offer some opinion.

• I hope America™ knows what a liar Giuliani is. The recent primaries make me think so.
• Romney has the integrity of a used car salesman.
• Huckabee has interesting ideas, but more interesting beliefs.
• Thompson ZZZZZZZ.
• I can't understand why people would support McCain, who says that we should continue an illegal war for 100 years and that he would have gone into Iraq even if the US didn't pretend that Iraq had WMD.

...it shows that the republican party has indeed transformed itself into a "strong defense", weak civil liberties ... party.

So could this be the truth? Paul has the right message for the wrong audience?
Today's Republicans are perfectly willing to sacrifice essential liberties for temporary safety?



May god have mercy on our souls.

 

[$tinkle]

if ron paul ever sees more than 10% approval on any recognized poll, his past will come back to haunt him.

Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul's newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. ("What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!" one newsletter complained in 1990. "We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.") In the early 1990s, newsletters attacked the "X-Rated Martin Luther King" as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours," "seduced underage girls and boys," and "made a pass at" fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" were better alternatives.

his views on quarantining gays (presumably) with aids makes huckabe's similar comments seem muted.

 

[Jim Mac]

Romney, I swear is a robot that is loaded with MP3 files before he goes in front of a camera. That man is timed to answer a question in *ding* 60 seconds and they all sound alike.

While I missed the debate, I have been saying that Romney is a robot all along! Whenever someone had asked him questions that were out of his league/not what he was expecting, I expected him to wave his arms around like Robbie the Robot and yell, "Danger, Danger, does not compute!"

I had to also laugh aloud when I read a statement in the NY Times from Romney which said to the effect that he wants to run for the Whitehouse because an "outsider" and that he's not (gasp, say it isn't so) a politician! Things could not be turned on their heads any more! Sheesh.

 

[Silver]

if ron paul ever sees more than 10% approval on any recognized poll, his past will come back to haunt him.his views on quarantining gays (presumably) with aids makes huckabe's similar comments seem muted.

C'mon. Those only appeared in a newsletter that happened to be called "The Ron Paul Political Report". It's not like he wrote them...

 

[$tinkle]

C'mon. Those only appeared in a newsletter that happened to be called "The Ron Paul Political Report". It's not like he wrote them...

nor did he renounce them, retract them, or immediately fire as a result the author of them (best i can tell, RP had to be told these remarks were offensive before action was reluctantly taken). not exactly what i would categorize as stellar leadership, to be charitable.

there's more accountability demonstrated on the monkey than in his camp (politically expedient actions aside).

 

[RenegadeRick]

if ron paul ever sees more than 10% his ...past will come back to haunt him...

Here is the message from the campaign on this issue:

Ron Paul Statement on The New Republic Article Regarding Old Newsletters
January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

So I read the article with a critical eye, and it states:

...it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all.

I waded through the available PDF's and remain unswayed. Some are quotes of what others have said. Some are unverifiable as to who the author is. Even more shocking, some of the statements I AGREE WITH.

As the campaign continues, I expect this will be trotted out again and again. Maybe some will take time to investigate, but most will not. What could one expect from a public that believes Obama's middle name is Hussein and that he was sworn in on the Koran?

nor did he renounce them, retract them, or immediately fire as a result the author of them

Please Google eric dondero fired and then tell me if you still believe your statement.

 

[BurlyShirley]

So Paul is a Nazi? Awesome.

 

[RenegadeRick]

So Paul is a Nazi? Awesome.

My point exactly.

 

[Plummit]

From the last debate. I quite liked his stance on these issues, particular his answer to the moderator's question. The schoolgirl -like cackle in the background is Mr. "Freedom through Authority," Guiliani...

 

[RenegadeRick]

From the last debate. I quite liked his stance on these issues, particular his answer to the moderator's question. The schoolgirl -like cackle in the background is Mr. "Freedom through Authority," Guiliani...

That is awesome. Thanks.

 

[$tinkle]

I waded through the available PDF's and remain unswayed. Some are quotes of what others have said. Some are unverifiable as to who the author is. Even more shocking, some of the statements I AGREE WITH.

at best, his statements are ghost written, and at their worst, dictated. either way, it's hard to find favor in someone with whom this can be attributed:

“Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

and then, to have it all explained away

The publication, or publications, comprised a business venture to which Ron Paul lent his name. Headquarters were “60 miles away” from Ron Paul’s personal Texas offices. At the time that the publications were being disseminated, primarily in the 1980s, Ron Paul was involved in numerous activities including Libertarian politics. He eventually ran for U.S. president as a Libertarian.

“This was a big operation,” says one source. “And Ron Paul was a busy man. He was doctor, a politician and free-market commentator. A publication had to go out at a certain time and Ron Paul often was not around to oversee the lay out, printing or mailing. Many times he did not participate in the composition, either.”

if he can't even manage a newsletter from "60 miles away", what can we expect of him in managing the most powerful country in history? i won't suggest he can't be taken seriously. just not seriously as a contender for high office.

Please Google eric dondero fired and then tell me if you still believe your statement.

taking your advice, i found this article from nytimes dated july 2007, which in part states:

Dondero, who is 44, was Paul’s aide and sometime spokesman for more than a decade. According to Dondero, “When 9/11 happened, he just completely changed. One of the first things he said was not how awful the tragedy was . . . it was, ‘Now we’re gonna get big government.’ ”

Dondero claims that Paul’s vote to authorize force in Afghanistan was made only after warnings from a longtime staffer that voting otherwise would cost him Victoria, a pivotal city in his district. (“Completely false,” Paul says.) One day just after the Iraq invasion, when Dondero was driving Paul around the district, the two had words. “He said he did not want to have someone on staff who did not support him 100 percent on foreign policy,” Dondero recalls. Paul says Dondero’s outspoken enthusiasm for the military’s “shock and awe” strategy made him an awkward spokesman for an antiwar congressman. The two parted on bad terms.

this would put dondero on staff 4 years ago, long after the racially charged comments were made. (we'll assume dondero did indeed author these statements). also, focus on the fact i posted ron paul did not fire those responsible immediately after the infraction.
so, why did it take RP so long to fire him? aside from the inability to manage or intentional obfuscation, i don't see any plausible deniability.

do you?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Pfffft.

Seriously? You're still going to support this guy RR? LMAO! Good thing he has no chance in hell of winning a thing.

 

[Silver]

Whatever the case is, he still has better judgement than Rudy "I think my mobbed up friend Mr. Kerik would be great as the head of the DHS!" Giuliani...

That's setting the bar very low, I understand.

 

[J-Dubs]

I would vote for Ron Paul over Hilary any day.

 

[Plummit]

Sounds like a swiftboat vets distraction to me. Pay attention to some dirty laundry probably written by someone w/o RP's knowledge and, almost certainly, contrary to his wishes. Should he have paid more attention to his newsletter.. absolutely. Has he taken "moral responsibility" for his failure to better vet what people wrote on his behalf.. absolutely. Look it up you'll find quotes about his accepting responsibility to that all over the web.

Now on to the distraction part. While the other candidates and the media get to drag his name through the mud over these newsletters, we all get distracted from the very real fiscal issues RP is so passionate about. Not a fan of Glenn Beck, but here's a long-ish clip re: those issues w/ David Walker, the comptroller of the GAO. Basically, each household in this country has an implicit $400,000 mortgage to pay for social security and medicare. I challenge to you to find another candidate taking on these markedly unsexy, yet brutally and critically important issues that affect all of us, regardless of race or sex...

 

[$tinkle]

ok, RR, last chance: explain this: houston chronicle, via wayback machine:

9:16 PM 5/22/1996

Newsletter excerpts offer ammunition to Paul's opponent
GOP hopeful quoted on race, crime

By ALAN BERNSTEIN
Copyright 1996 Houston Chronicle Political Writer

Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues.

Under the headline of "Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

and on & on...

seems that it wasn't dondero who ghost wrote those comments, now does it? it was either ron paul himself, or yet another person you'll now throw under the bus.

what will it take for you to let go of your geriatric man-crush?

 

[RenegadeRick]

“Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

Do you have a link showing this written by Paul? This newsletter isn't included in my collection from The New Republic. My sources say it was not written by him.

http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/5-ron-paul-quotes-that-scare-me

 

[BurlyShirley]

Renegade Rick's world has come crumbling down...

 

[$tinkle]

it was just a matter of time:
"

"

 

[RenegadeRick]

ok, RR, last chance: explain this: houston chronicle, via wayback machine

Thanks for the article. I enjoyed it. I agree with many of the statements in it. Yes, black teenagers can indeed be fleet-footed. Politcal correctness has gone way too far when stating the truth is wrong.

seems that it wasn't dondero who ghost wrote those comments, now does it?

Hmmm... maybe not. I wonder who it was.

Anyhow, in sorting through those PDFs I found only one statement that was offensive to me personally, and it seemed like rhetoric that any of us may spout in an offhand manner. Especially folks like BurleyShirley. He's so ghey.

what will it take for you to let go of your geriatric man-crush?

How about the Republican party renounces this illegal war and promises to bring the troops home. Then they balance the budget and start paying off the debt. I'll be waiting.

 

[Westy]

Renegade Rick's world has come crumbling down...

Fortunately fantasy worlds don't need help from FEMA.

 

[RenegadeRick]

it was just a matter of time:
"

"

Thanks for linking to my video. I appreciate the increased traffic.

 

[$tinkle]

Thanks for linking to my video. I appreciate the increased traffic.

ok, final turing machine test to see if you've already been assimilated:

if you can't laugh at that, you need a re-charge from the evolution dirigible.

 

[RenegadeRick]

ok, final turing machine test to see if you've already been assimilated:

if you can't laugh at that, you need a re-charge from the evolution dirigible.

DAMN! I can't believe I missed it! Maybe I can borrow that time machine they are going on about and go back and catch it. Whew!

 

[Plummit]

What RP himself says about the quotes: link

 

[Changleen]

Stinkle, why are you bothering to swift-boat Ron?

 

[ohio]

I tried to watch the NH debates. I couldn't make it through one full round of answers from either side. It made me sick to listen to those idiots...

I watched the Simpsons movie instead.

 

[Silver]

Stinkle, why are you bothering to swift-boat Ron?

Not taking into account that "swiftboat" shouldn't be a verb (verbing weirds language) the fact is that the guy had ties to a newsletter that happened to have HIS GODDAMN NAME at the top of it that had a bunch of racist stuff in it.

And his excuse was that it was 60 miles away? Nice try Ronnie...

 

[$tinkle]

What RP himself says about the quotes: link

from your link:

“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

from roll call 92:, " BILL TITLE: To Authorize the President to Award a Gold Medal on Behalf of the Congress to Rosa Parks in Recognition of Her Contribution to the Nation", RP was the only MoC to vote "nay", which does indeed give us insight into the content of RP's character. i wonder why he chose to quote himself on the same day he voted against honoring her?

and need i bring up his willful acceptance of a $500 contribution from don black (of stormfront)? certainly now would be the time to distance his campaign from such surly people, but chooses not to. he will soon see how many of us will further distance ourselves from him. i quick perusal of stormfront's image directory reveals their obsession with RP, as well as frequent & unusually unguarded access to RP at multiple events.

i cannot endorse (and certainly not vote for) someone who so consistently & unrepentantly lacks sound judgment

 

[$tinkle]

Not taking into account that "swiftboat" shouldn't be a verb (verbing weirds language) the fact is that the guy had ties to a newsletter that happened to have HIS GODDAMN NAME at the top of it that had a bunch of racist stuff in it.

And his excuse was that it was 60 miles away? Nice try Ronnie...

i think he was driving at "why am i wasting time" swiftboating him.

my answer would be: "for sport"

 

[$tinkle]

looks like RR (a.k.a. guy fawkes) has already stalked dr. paul:

 

[RenegadeRick]

from your link:from roll call 92:, " BILL TITLE: To Authorize the President to Award a Gold Medal on Behalf of the Congress to Rosa Parks in Recognition of Her Contribution to the Nation", RP was the only MoC to vote "nay", which does indeed give us insight into the content of RP's character. i wonder why he chose to quote himself on the same day he voted against honoring her?

Respecting someone is different from awarding them a gold medal (which costs money). I respect that he voted no on this issue.

and need i bring up his willful acceptance of a $500 contribution from don black (of stormfront)? certainly now would be the time to distance his campaign from such surly people, but chooses not to. he will soon see how many of us will further distance ourselves from him.

Well since you bring that up, please allow me to quote Jesse Benton on the matter.

http://www.populationstatistic.com/archives/2007/12/21/extending-ron-pauls-stormfront-strategy/
“Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he’s wasted his money,” Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. “Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom.

“And that’s $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does,” Benton added.

That's right, Paul's campaign took resources away from a white supremacist and you think that is a bad thing?

i cannot endorse (and certainly not vote for) someone who so consistently & unrepentantly lacks sound judgment

Obviously, that is your choice. Which war monger do you support anyhow?

Here is a link with Video of Ron Paul's statements on the matter. Enjoy.

 

[RenegadeRick]

looks like RR (a.k.a. guy fawkes) has already stalked dr. paul:

...and Hillary has posed with drug kingpins.

Where were you when we covered this carp previously? It looks like you disappeared.

 

[Silver]

That's right, Paul's campaign took resources away from a white supremacist and you think that is a bad thing?

That's spin of a terribly cynical sort. If you have to resort to that, you've not only lost the moral high ground, but you've bulldozed it flat and put up a "I hate spooks, heebs, and beans!" theme park where it used to be.