Redstate

However, I do have a problem with this one.

libertarians target government and want to weaken the federal governments by deferring a lot of wasteful nonsense to the states. Libertarians want to redo monetary policy. Libertarians want to attack root causes, not fiddle with symptoms while creating new power and hence: problems.

Rudy isn't really libertarian. He's an authoritarian conservative with some more liberal views on social matters. Rudy wants to USE government to bring about change. Libertarians want to strap government to allow change.

_Don't tread on me._

that Rudy is not really libertarian, and Paul is really just kind of a whacko imo. The large libertarian strain in the Republican party is based on Goldwater, Reagan and more recently Gingrich- Armey. It is a small government, pro defense, pro moral values (not enforced by government) libertarian conservatism.

Molon Labe!

than any other candidate.

_Don't tread on me._

beat Goldwater with an ad that said he would start a nuclear war. I doubt this would fit Paul at all, he is more likely to start a Kumbaya chorus with Bin Laden.

Molon Labe!

Paul is the closest thing to Goldwater in the modern GOP.

_Don't tread on me._

George Allen, John Ensign, JD Hayworth, Jeff Flake. I could go on but I know I Pauliac will not care. I do think he is the closest we have to Cindy Sheehan.

Molon Labe!

you're really digging. shame on you, doc.

_Don't tread on me._

but I am not. I was so unimpressed by the Paul videos put up last night, I realized how bad he is. He was kind of interesting to have in Congress because he always spoke for freedom. But he is unfit to be a war president because he is unwilling to fight. Libertarians hold freedom above all other things, they will fight for it to the death. Paul seems to simply want to blame America and surrender to our enemies. He would be a disaster for this country.

Molon Labe!

Paul seems to simply want to blame America and surrender to our enemies.

Paul wants to change our policies. If he's blaming anything it's the penchant for politicians to get overcome with hubris and ignore prudence.

The whole "blame America" shtick is hyperbole and I'd prefer you didn't degrade the conversation with such simple zingers and one-liners.

In reality it's just two different perceptions of the total sum of policies and choices and what to do about.

_Don't tread on me._

He is not unwilling to fight in fact what he has said (in a sense not exact quote) is if your gonna fight, then FIGHT!, take the gloves off so to speak. don't put restrictions on how your gonna fight and have these absolutely silly rules of war!.

of Cindy Sheehan on the war and defense in general.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

funny what passes for Left and Right for most people. It's teeth-grittingly annoying how people's attitudes hinge on who is president.

That whole dichotomy is junk. Left and Right have become meaningless to many. these people include libertarians, constitutionalists and the masses of disaffected voters and cynical independents.

_Don't tread on me._

Goldwater was a foreign policy and defense hawk.

Paul doesn't think we should have fought in WWII. The guy is an absolute flake.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

No, actually Paul doesn't think we should have fought in World War I. The aftermath of that war led to the rise of the Bolsheviks in Russia and Hitler in Germany and gave us the causes of WWII. He never said that we shouldn't have fought WWII, just that we shouldn't have allowed that situation to develop as it did.

Not that any of this is relevant to this discussion, but sometimes false statements need to be corrected or misinformation runs rampant.

His ability to foresee what this nation SHOULD have done 90 years ago. His ability to foresee that had the US not intervened in WWI, the Bolshevists would NEVER have taken over Russia, that Europe would NEVER have decided to penalize Germany for (in their estimation) starting the war, and had the war dragged on for another five or ten years, would NEVER have created the disasterous state in Germany in which the rise of Nazism could arise.

He is a remarkable man!

And, Paul was a staunch Reagan supporter (despite some misgivings about spending and CIA activity). Don't imagine him to be a pure dove. His policy is that we shouldn't go to war carelessly, and shouldn't go half-heartedly. And, in an ideal world, we shouldn't have to go at all. But he fully realizes that it might be necessary on rare occasions. Difference is that Ron Paul is not out looking for a fight. Hence, supporting Afghanistan but not Iraq.

Reagan was a hawk in some ways, but his actual use of military force was sparing. We never invaded the Soviet Union or got involved in any hot conflicts (aside from Grenada, at the begging of neighboring nations). Point is that you can be firm and exhibit resolve without jumping into every conflict with troops and bogging yourself down. He understood that endless war is a disaster for a national economy and that no-win wars are a disaster for the national psyche, and that nation-building is a pipe-dream. Sadly, Bush never got that, and our party seems stuck in his mire.

The contrast isn't between warhawk and peacenik. It is between careless engagement and "peace through strength". Ron Paul's stance on war is closer to Reagan's (and Goldwater's) than any of the other candidates.

Prove me wrong. Prove that current policy has anything in common with "peace through strength". Even Jeane Kirkpatrick thought Iraq was foolhardy.

the USSR: outspending them and using the CIA to aid anti-communists.

Or was he for Grenada, arming the Contras and bombing Libya?

Please.

Reagan was faced with removing a nuclear armed superpower regime, not the taliban harboring a terror org that attacked us on our soil and not a regime that was sponsoring terror and violating a ceasefire.

Reagan would have done what Bush has done.

And our demonstrated strength under Bush is a huge deterrant now.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Rudy is no where close to a libertarian. He is very much an authoritarian figure. People throw around these labels way to easily. Rudy is the closest thing to a police-state candidate in either party. Just because he is a Republican with a few socially liberal positions does not make him a libertarian.

Why is it that all focus on "libertarians" focuses on social issues? Larger police forces, increased criminalization, stronger borders, reductions in privacy, bigger government are all an anathema to a libertarian. Rudy is no libertarian. People in NYC call him America's Putin.

sounds like what I said above.

Libertarians simply do not trust government. The less DC does, the better. The power we cede to politicians in the name of subjective notions of security and market/economic fairness, the less free we are and the more the opposite of what they comes to fruition.

when the smoke clears, every view is simply libertarian or un-libertarian. And within those views there are subsets.

Conservatives and Liberals of all degrees are simply hybrids of various libertarian and un-libertarian views. Each has a lack of faith in government ability in some areas while countering it with great faith in other areas. Both, however, have a view that more readily accepts the patronizing and/or overprotective hand it's willing to give if you LET it.

Some things I gladly accept government control over...because it's their stated duty or I see very little in the way of slippery slopes toward an endless "need" of more "solutions".

_Don't tread on me._

I agree with. But as I said many times, we are in a war and some get it and others do not. The most legitimate function of the FEDERAL government is to provide for the national defense. I am not saying Iraq was right or wrong, I am saying we must WIN it.

Molon Labe!

I agree with. But as I said many times, we are in a war and some get it and others do not. The most legitimate function of the FEDERAL government is to provide for the national defense. I am not saying Iraq was right or wrong, I am saying we must WIN it.

Molon Labe!

you have to sit under one of the holes when it rains

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

I will not complain.

I am just glad we are not being sent to the political wilderness, because I am personally getting people to register to vote Republican, though for Ron Paul, but Republican none the less.

Paul makes sense. He says things that are true though not always pleasant.

Paul's comment about 9/11, though hitting a nerve with conservatives and being very vunerable to feel good spin, wasn't incorrect on factual grounds. Bin Laden referred to the very same events about Iraq as part of his reason for his declared "war on Amercia".

Like I've said elsewhere, to say Paul was wrong, in factual terms, on his 9/11 comment, would mean that Islamic hatred toward the U.S. (its government and policies to be accurate) is totally spontaneous.

Is this hatred totally spontaneous? No.

_Don't tread on me._

That doesn't explain why they hate everyone else. The real problem is that they hate everyone except for themselves and we are the biggest guy on the block, by far... that makes us the biggest and most desirable target, by far. Places like Spain don't rank so high, though it doesn't stop them from striking at them when they have the chance.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

People don't hate for no reason.

For you to be right, we would have to believe that present reality would be the same even in the absence of any U.S. or Western policies that have infuriated Arabs over the years.

simply preposterous.

You don't like Ron Paul's foreign policy views. Fine. But don't pretend that he said something erroneous.

_Don't tread on me._

I'd argue that most of the time people DO hate for no reason, or the wrong one.

Osama has a laundry list of reasons for attacking us that he rotates regularly and adds to, including Global Warming, Disneyland, the letter Z, and the state of Maine. (ok, Global Warming is the only "serious" (i.e. actually cited) one, though Walt Disney was a Jooo, right, so maybe Osama will want to add that one). so yes, Ron Paul is wrong, regardless of what justification Osama decides to give today.

So our policies in the middle east have nothing at all to do with 9/11 or rage of jihadists? I don't think so.

_Don't tread on me._

John Roberts and Sam Alito are part of the reason the moonbats hate George Bush, so we should acknowledge their irrational and WRONG hatred as valid, impeach all 3 of them, and give up.

I don't think you really believe something so mindbogglingly silly.

while I see what you're trying to say, it's totally inadequate.

_Don't tread on me._

I suppose Martin Luther King's activism had something to do with why he was assassinated. That doesn't mean he was wrong, nor does it mean he should have chosen a different course.

"I am afraid that even after the American people will elect those who promise to leave Iraq, the U.S. will not do so." - Hamas leader Abu Abdullah

This is what Rudy refused to get lat night. After you accept that are meddling in the middle east is one (of many) reasons we were attacked, then you can still choose the same course. Just acknowledge the reason.
Paul has suggested 2 courses, a Washingtonian non-interventionism and a declare war, fight it hard, win it, come home. Actually, a combo of the two, if you fight a war, win it, then go back to a non-interventionist stance.

I think it comes down to whether you think Reagan was right to pull out of Lebanon. Paul agrees with Reagan. The middle east is irrational, you cant win in a rational way.

Nobody said they hate for no reason. They hate for all sorts of reasons, many of them not entirely rational or easily understood by the targets of their hatred, many of them religious. If they somehow managed to wipe out every non-Muslim country on earth they would simply turn on each other. There would still be an enemy to fight.

They have a long list of grievances against anybody and everybody, starting with everyone who is not a believer in Islam, followed by everyone who is not a believer in their particular flavor of Islam, which is why they are so indiscriminate about targets. If we were really their sole focus, they wouldn't expend so much time and effort blowing up people who aren't Americans.

P.S. This isn't about "Arabs." There are plenty of jihadists who do not happen to be Arab.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

So, Zuiko, it's a simple question:

Does the collective of our policies in the middle east have anything to do with our problems with jihadists?

_Don't tread on me._

They are stuck in the 7th century.

If you think our foreign policy is the cause of all of our problems in the ME - or any of them for that matter - then the Danes and the French must have foreign policies just like ours. Or heck, maybe they like Israel even more than we do based on the level of Islamofacist violence in Denmark and France.

The "collective of our policies" is just their excuse for the moment. If we changed our policies and appointed the head of Hezbollah to be Secty of State, they would be upset because we allow women to drive. Or something equally stupid.

Bottom line, they like the 7th century and want all of us back there. As long as we're resisting, they'll be trying to kill us. Unless of course we kill enough of them first.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

The real question is "is it the root cause?" Everything has something to do with our problems with the jihadists, including Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. That doesn't make them the root cause of terrorism, either. The root cause of terrorism is a fanatical interpretation of Islam that commands that all non-believers either convert or die. That's what the terrorists have in common. They aren't even all from the middle east. There are terrorists who were born and raised in the US, in Europe, in Asia, in Russia, in Latin America... everywhere in the world.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Is your further assertion here that our (non-military) foreign policy cannot have an impact on the number of individuals who become militant radicals?

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I'll agree with you. Ron Paul goes way overboard, but you have a point on Paul. (the way, Hannity's questioning of Paul made Hannity look adolescent.)

This debate sucks because it boils down to all one thing or the other. Recoil in shame. Or wage war with about twenty countries that hate us and run oppressive regimes.

After 9/11, we all have to unite and stand behind our leadership that is trying to do it's best to prevent further strikes. We are in this thing, lets finish it. But that shouldn't stop us from visiting our roots and the roots of the conflict.

Somehow, conservatism became equated with modern Republican foreign policy. There was a time, about two years ago, when any who questioned the U.S. absolute and knee-jerk support of Israel would be labeled an anti-semite. Now people are starting to second guess our role in the world. Starting to look at the roots of the Republican Party, which was always unilateral and skeptical of getting involved in foreign affairs - from George Washington up until Barry Goldwater.

So in some ways Ron Paul, who is totally unrealistic, is right. He is too much of a purists. He is trying to make a point against the Rudy's of the world, who will turn overly militaritic. Our Republic is not an empire. Chasing empire will destroy this country just like terrorists will.

but Paul frequently looks senile, so its probably a draw at worst.

I truly don't believe that Ron Paul is unrealistic about the threat that we face. He simply advocates dealing with it differently. Just as we had a serious conflict with the Soviets last century, and Reagan's response differed from either the dovish Carter OR the hot-war hawks like Johnson and Truman.

The point is that sometimes you get into things that can't be easily finished, and it's not as simple as quoting platitudes. We're going to have to make some difficult decisions on this war, and the frontrunners aren't offering them. No country can afford to exist in a state of war forever. We have to end the war, either through victory (if we can define what that is), or through withdrawal.

By the way, I'm not sure that withdrawal is the same as defeat. We went in with the goal of removing Saddam, crushing his weapons program, and installing a democracy. Granted, it hasn't gone as planned, but which part of that hasn't been accomplished in some form?

Islamic world doesn't share that bloodthirst but has been alienated by our policies. The fact is Paul didn't or couldn't distinguish between hellbent terrorists and the disgruntled and angry Muslim masses who don't like us but aren't prone to murder. I had respected Paul's consistent position until last night, when it became painfully clear it is based on a theory that bears no resemblance to reality. In the years since bin Laden's initial declaration of jihad against the Jews and Crusaders, he has made painfully clear his mission is to re-establish a worldwide caliphate by any means necessary.

Now for the bad news: Paul's apparent inablity to distinguish between messianic religious terrorists and the larger Islamic world seems shared by most Americans. In other words, this country is in deep trouble and our war efforts may be doomed because of it.

but they are not waiting to turn on each other. Jihadis have killed more Muslims by far.

Molon Labe!

Giuliano scored self-serving crowd points, but with me not integrity points. And are we inviting applause during debates, now? Paul's observation was honest observation about reality, something we could have used more of while getting into this war.

--
"Authentic learning ends where faith begins."

Self-serving son of a gun...

And when someone lays the smack down on a guy who doesn't really much belong on the same stage as the rest, then applause is pretty warranted.

Rudy:

"GASP, I've never heard that before"

as he looks for points against Paul. Rudy has NEVER heard that before. EVER. that idea is total news to him. sure.

contrived outrage.

_Don't tread on me._

blow back must be a completely foreign policy to him (no pun intended). After all, he was only a mayor and a U.S. attorney... astonishing to think that sticking our nose where it doesn't belong isn't going to warrent a smack across the face... not to demean the events of 9-11, but if i was to go unwlecomed into my neighbor's home, take his food without permission... what do you think is going to happen?

Yet again we our attempting to denationalize the Iraqi oil feilds... Do WE EVER LEARN? (Hint IRAN 1953)

Ya know, these problems are no different than economic policies in this sense:

Past interventions and poorly thought policies altered forces that drove us to present realities.

Talking to a liberal about single payer health care, the idea that government interventions to "help" make health care accessible and affordable have contributed to the current mess, seems so irrelevant. Poorly conceived and biased manipulations of market forces and human incentive have caused the very problems they are trying to fix. They ignore all that and think we need to do MORE.

Foreign Policy works in a similar way. Past efforts to "fix" things in a an unsound way lead to new problems that are then foolishly aggravated with more of the same.

BTW, pointing out the economic climate surrounding WW2 and how bad policies during a world depression is a breath of fresh air. Few people consider this aspect of the precursor to war...any war.

_Don't tread on me._

I don't think so. And yes he's heard it before.... He heard the same crap from a Saudi prince a few days after 9/11. He returned the prince's $10 million donation saying we don't need the money bad enough to accept the blame for the attacks. He's being completely consistent in this one.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

I don't think so. And yes he's heard it before.... He heard the same crap from a Saudi prince a few days after 9/11. He returned the prince's $10 million donation saying we don't need the money bad enough to accept the blame for the attacks. He's being completely consistent in this one.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

is the position held in the CIA and is pretty well understood in intelligence communities in general and by many many laymen who understand the idea of consequences.

It was contrived outrage because Rudy pretends to have never heard that before (BS), mischaracterized Paul's own words and intent and was simply playing to get points from a partisan crowd because such an idea is very easy to misconstrue into a rallying point (which it shouldn't).

_Don't tread on me._

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm

In August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Bin Ladin, whose efforts in Afghanistan had earned him celebrity and respect, proposed to the Saudi monarchy that he summon mujahideen for a jihad to retake Kuwait. He was rebuffed, and the Saudis joined the U.S.-led coalition. After the Saudis agreed to allow U.S. armed forces to be based in the Kingdom, Bin Ladin and a number of Islamic clerics began to publicly denounce the arrangement. The Saudi government exiled the clerics and undertook to silence Bin Ladin by, among other things, taking away his passport. With help from a dissident member of the royal family, he managed to get out of the country under the pretext of attending an Islamic gathering in Pakistan in April 1991.33 By 1994, the Saudi government would freeze his financial assets and revoke his citizenship.34 He no longer had a country he could call his own.

www.fairtax.org
You don't have to like Ron paul to be a libertarian Republican... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/

You're correct on both counts (on blowback and on Giuliani's pretense). I would say, however, that Paul should have felt the responsibility to emphasize that he was NOT saying that 9/11 was JUSTIFIED by our past foreign policy. He did call it "irrational" (don't know if that was pre- or post-Rudy's interjection), but should have been more explicit, considering the worldwide audience. By not doing so he (1) gave rhetorical ammo to many around the world who do not have U.S. interests at heart and (2) opened himself up to the kind of rhetorical exploitation Giuliani capitalized upon. Lastly, his overall point seemed to be one of absolute isolationism, at least with respect to force, and I view that as misguided.

Perhaps you should have paid more attettion, He called middle Eastern politics irrational. Be careful there m8, it almost sounds as though your about to say that ME politics have a rational base?

YOU should have paid more attention to what I wrote.

You're essentialy correct. It's hardly disputed among anyone who is actually familiar with the facts (which does not include some who responded to you) that bin Laden's main gripe with us was our military presence in Saudi Arabia, which he saw as an afront to Islam (having "infidels" on the holy land of the "Arabian Peninsula"), and more broadly our support of the Saudi regime. http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_701505592/bin_Laden_Osama.html

I don't like Paul and think he's better suited to the Libertarian party, but that's another matter.

I should add that, more broadly, bin Laden's and al Qaeda's hatred and opposition toward the U.S. is based on our support of Arab/Muslim regimes that they see as standing in the way of establishing the caliphate they seek.

The policy of those who appeased the Nazis? The policy of those that did not want to confront the Soviets? I would have to learn more about your "foreign policy" to render an opinion.

I am part of the libertarian conservative wing of the Republican party. I am not a neo Con. Do you think there are only Neo Cons and Paul? Paul is an anomoly, he is not really representative of anything but himself. There are many foreign policy "realists" and even isolationists that want to fight the war on terror, Paul does not. Look, this guy makes Pat Buchanan look like Bill Kristol.

Molon Labe!

get in the way of your bloggyhorse

hit you in the face, when asked if abortion be treated as a crime. What about those numbers?

http://avoiceofreason.wordpress.com/

is that he resorts to strawmen. you can set your watch by it.

you can scream all you want bud, but the public is overwhelmingly AGAINST abortion on demand. that doesn't mean that exceptions aren't favored.

However, it is all that an ideologue can hold on when faced with a tough policy question.

When pressed most people are not in favor of abortion "personally" but would oppose the procedure being outlawed. There are several scientific studies that support this finding and were not sponsored by NARAL or RTL groups.

If you would like to discuss this further refer to sources other than talking points from RTL groups.

You can tell when an ideologue has no basis in reality.

http://avoiceofreason.wordpress.com/

you know, I almsot felt bad about being a bit harsher than I intended to in the previous post before I came back and read your latest. your insistence that polls that ask mis/leading questions to an ill/mis-informed public should be the ones we accept as non-biased, and your apparent inability to identify the ideologue in this exchange is laughable.

isn't so much your position (troublesome as it is), its your repeated insistence, like Rudy, that citizens who value the sanctity of life (gasp!) should "get over it", sit down and shut up. we don't take kindly to that, k?

was merited by the straw man comment. The GOP has been riding this horse for close to 30 years, and there isn't much change in policy. Maybe a change in tactics are needed, and certainly a change of topic. If this is the "key issue", and there is so much to agree upon within the position of agreeing with the recent SCOTUS ruling, supporting the Hyde Amendment, Parental notification etc.- and it still causes such division, it's a bad idea for the GOP to fuss about it. I actually would be personally happy if Roe were overturned. However, aren't there clearly bigger fish to fry in the current election cycle?

http://avoiceofreason.wordpress.com/

I'll throw a potential strawman out there, but I think it's invocation is apropos. That question is this:

At one point, a majority of citizens may not have personally wanted to own slaves, but wouldn't impede on another persons 'right' to own slaves. At one point, a majority of citizens may not have personally segregated against minority citizens, but didn't think there should be racial protections because it would impede on their rights. We can keep this going all day, but I think you see where I'm going.

Keeping that in mind, a majority of citizens may not personally like abortion, but don't want to impede on another persons 'right' to end a human life. Would you say that those who advocate this line are on par with those who didn't fight against those egrigious wrongs back then and are by proxy complicit in the continuation of said atrocities, or would you say that it's A-OK to lead by what's popular rather than what's right?

Fides non in bonus intentions , tamen in bonus factum

For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.

He's not a one trick pony. He broke the mob in NYC as a USA and he turned the Big Apple from an eyesore into a gleaming capitalist metropolis once more. His poise under fire on 9/11 was important but there's a lot more to Rudy than that one event.

I'm glad someone brought this up. Whether you like Rudy's policies or not, he's anything but a one trick pony. He did a lot of wonderful things for the city of NY (before 9/11). Some of this plans there were brilliant.

standing up to democrats? and oh yeah! a lot of good will and electability among swing voters? things like that?

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

If Rudy is so great on the economy, years 2003 - 2001, then so is Bill Clinton. They both exploited the dot.com boom. The Rudy and his stories of NYC are tiresome. Presidents don't clean up graffitti, prostitution or urban blight.

Rudy was one guy in place. If people from the tri-state area think Rudy did great, they will realize that Romney did the same thing in MA, but left MA in better shape. And before that, he did the same thing in the ruined Olympics, and before that for Staples, for Dominos, and for countless businesses for two decades.

He never gets to talk about it because he's from Massachusetts and he is Morman and he changed his position on abortion. If Rudy supporters want to talk fiscal issues prepare them for the slaughter. Rudy, the lawyer, did it once when the whole country was getting better. Romney did it privately, quasi-public and publicly over the course of 25 years.

There is no Department of Grafitti in D.C. Rudy is a one trick pony.

but I gave you reasons that Rudy has more than one asset in this race. Look I think Romney is probably an ok guy, but there is a certain phoneyness I see there, and that is coming from a man who agrees with most of his positions.
'
SO you can imagine what the swing voters will think of him.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Romney actually seems to grow on people when they see him. His poll number rise and he gets positive feed back after he appears on venues like Leno and Sixty Minutes.

To be honest, people here made him "my guy". I used to be a passive supporter last fall. I'm from Boston. He has his issues, but the way people try to tear him down and slander him before they ever knew what he stood for, who he was, or how he could perform as a national candidtate literally made me sick. He's a good guy. Too good. He's a nerd and a prude.

If he loses, I'm fine with that. But I want regular Joes from Michigan, Ohio and Colorado to make that decision. Not operatives from other campaigns, anti-Morman bigots or anti- Massachusetts bigots.

By the way, for those that think I'm "paranoid", Carl Cameron and Sean Hannity discussed the anti-Morman bigotry of Southern baptists right there before the debate on national TV. Not my imagination. There is some subtle hatred that is way too real. I just want the man to get a fair shake.

Look I think Romney is probably an ok guy, but there is a certain phoneyness I see there, and that is coming from a man who agrees with most of his positions.

SO you can imagine what the swing voters will think of him.

I think swing voters are the group of voters least concerned about phonyness. They want to hear the right words and hear the candidate talk about how much he "feels our pain" and "cares about grandma" and how he plans to make our lives better through government programs. They don't really care how committed the guy is to the issues or how consistent his beliefs are. Clinton was about as phony as you can get and they seemed to like the guy just fine.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

... a strong record for standing up for the constitution and the bill of rights... should we all just forget about that too?

Agreed. Even though Ron Paul's foreign policy is from the Neville Chamberlain Institute for the Advancement of Appeasement playbook, he's the only one on that stage who would make a serious dent in the size of our federal government and proteting our freedoms. I wouldn't want him as Commander in Chief but I would sure love to see him head up OMB.

"I am afraid that even after the American people will elect those who promise to leave Iraq, the U.S. will not do so." - Hamas leader Abu Abdullah

I think there is a nugget of truth in there, wrapped around layers of harsh real world realities.

While I can see some disagreeing with our foreign policy, I think the true issue is that certain people over there capitalize on that for their own sick and twisted dreams.

There are people anywhere at anytime that will take a discontent among their people to use as a justification for terrorism, but if we can address the discontent, we can disarm them.

Except for the truly crazy ones, those we must kill, salt their fields and poison their wells.

His use of this term is absurd. Blowback is when an intelligence operation goes bad such that the intelligence community is hurt. What he was describing is not blowback, it's a typical blame-America-first agument, and that is sad seems how I don't consider him to be in the same category of the anti-American Left. Our dealings in the Middle East are not the result of intelligence operations. They are the result of a Cold War, horrible energy policies and a fundimentalist environmental movement. We have to deal with other countries in this day and age; we have no other choice.

Standing athwart history yelling stop!!!! http://nationalwhig.blogspot.com

you have to admit we have a habit of creating our own frankensteins in this region.

you either acknowledge it or you don't.

_Don't tread on me._

if you think surrender to enemies is an interesting idea. Also, anyone who does some basic reading on the Islami Jihadi movement will realize their list of grievances is always changing and always very long. So, they want us out of Iraq? Hmm, they want the Spanish out of Spain too lol.

Molon Labe!

theres difference between being wrong and being unpopular.

Paul is unpopular in many conservative circles. Therefore, he can't really say anything "good" because most want to bury him for the slightest perceived slip up. But it wasn't really a slip up. Though I would have worded it differently to avoid giving Rudy a feel-good moment that actually has no substantive value, you can't say that paul was factually wrong. He was not wrong. It's true, though not something people want to hear.

_Don't tread on me._

And a dangerous nutcase at that. At a time when 35% of Dem voters are so deranged to think that GWB knew of in advance and allowed 9/11 to happen the Reps must not tolerate their own "Truther" Kooks.

Ron Paul belongs in a corner with a tinfoil hat, with the other nuts.

As the head of Hezbollah said, "we are not fighting to get something from you. We are fighting to kill you."

Bin Laden wants a universal Caliphate and for that to happen America must be destroyed and Sharia Law imposed on us. THAT is why he is fighting us, along with Iran (who have the same but rivaling ambitions).

If you think you can run from that fight, I have two words for you (and lunatic Ron Paul): Fort Dix.

Finally a sincible mind

he cited historical fact that 9/11 was not some spontaneous act of hatred. It was the result, partly, of the aggregate of years of policies that angered and frustrated many Arabs.

If you didn't already hate Ron Paul, you would see that.

Did reconstruction policies aid the rise of the KKK? yes. Do we "blame the union??" no. but it would be silly to deny that policies have consequences.

_Don't tread on me._

The frustration of Arabs? Can you give me some examples of what they were so frustrated about? Could it have been the first world trade center bombings in 1993? or maybe the embassy bombings in 1998? or what about the USS Cole bombing in 2000? I think the US deserved to be frustrated if anyone did. Our military presence in the Middle East or our support of Israel does not mean that Al-Qaeda should have blown up 3,000 innocent civilians on September 11th, 2001, which is exactly what Paul was trying to say. Wise up.

if you can't think of anything that mobilized Al Qaeda or causes anger among arabs, then I see little reason to respond.

_Don't tread on me._

That so upset Muslims. Or berating Russia over Chechnya. No, it must have been the bombing of Christian Serbia and risking confrontation with Serbia's protector, Russia, to save Bosnian and Kosovar Muslims that enraged Muslims world wide.

Which is exactly why Kosovar Muslims tried to kill US soldiers at Fort Dix.

They were so enthused by our Muslim-friendly foreign policy that they started forming Albanian terrorist cells inside the US.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Iran-Iraq war where we sold weapons to both sides. Also, didn't we have something to do with the overthrowing of the Iranian gov't in the first place back in the 50s.

Not to mention, well, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, heck the whole Middle East is just a bunch of countries drawn up by the Brits in the 1930s and 1940s. Sure, that wasn't specifically the US, but its the West, and where England used to be the front for the West, now the US is.

Demean the events of 9-11, but its almost laughable to assume we haven't caused tremendous suffering among the Iraqi people, killing 10 times the amount of civilians (conservative estimation) in our time there, not counting the Gulf 1 either.

but what he spouted was pretty much the blame america talking points.

Islamic Jihad is a periodic movement within Islam and we would fall under its wrath no matter what.

Besides which, its sort of late for all that now. Nothing is going to make them love us, so they had better be made to fear us.

Paul just does not understand that non interventionism is a luxury we cannot afford now, like fascism, and communism this is a world wide philosophical/religious movement and has to be confronted.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

It's a point of view that draws on the relationship between events. IT'S TRUE. You can say it. It's not about blaming America. It's about asking the honest questions as to why this happens and why things are the way they are.

Non-intervention is not luxury. It's a guiding principle to avoid unneeded and unanticipated problems.

EVERYTHING has consequences.

_Don't tread on me._

Now I am very close to the Libertarian party because they seem to be the best explainers of fiscal conservatism, but dude I watched a documentary a while ago on the Crusades and the Muslim "scholar" insisted on telling his story of events in front of a bunch of 5-7 year old kids. If they don't hate the west for something that happened 2 years ago, 10 years ago, or 30 years ago they will elect to tell stories from 1000 years ago to stir hatred. That is why if you ask the average Muslim what happened when the Christians took Jerasulem they all know and they all learned it when they were young and impressionable. Also watch the cartoons that are played Iran. They all feature suicide bombings and many of which with young boys. Yes it is possible to have hatred for somebody without grievances its called indoctrination. We haven't bothered N. Korea in a while, but all their pop is indoctrinated to hate us.

It is raving stupidity. It is a principle formulated by people who have absolutely no concept of what's going on in the world.

As for "honest questions", on the subject of defense and foreign policy, Ron Paul is the most dishonest man I know. He makes Michael Moore look pretty good in comparison on this subject.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Well, maybe not, seeing as how they seemed to be fighting enemies every episode anyway.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

conservative friend, Fear is a rational response... stop please... assuming we are fighting rational thinking men... The response to 9-11 should have been to secure the boarder... only now we are bulding the wall to secure the line and slowly at that... among other thing, however, before we were even secured up at home... we were in "the Sand Box" again chasing a man that appearently is smarter than we seem to think he is... perhaps we are playing into his hands and not the other way around? We need to stop thinking about the Middle East in Western terms... If we are to really win anything... Paul as Commander & Chief, well at least i think he would have gotten it right in one respect... if your gonna fight, fight. Get in it and when it. Go 500,000 strong. Now you wanna talk about instilling fear!!! 500K strong i think would have instilled more fear than a 90K man army that could barely secure themselves, muchless a entire nation with your "fear" tactic... Men that strap bombs to their chest have no fear and do not think rationally.

not blaming the country and saying he is makes you just as bad as those pundits that quickly dismiss him

I saw that too... it was great.

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

that "paul supporters" have plan to flood all polls with his name in them. I have a feeling many truthers and "progressives" are in on it. Look at the actual polls, he is in the cellar.

Molon Labe!

... Ron Paul isn't sincere?

even if there was a "conspiracy" of paul supporters and lefties, it still is a bad sign that so many "normal" Republicans did not vote. I hope people are just not tuned into the race right now. Lets not forget, Paul "won" the first debate poll on Drudge too.

Molon Labe!

Romney got 33 or 35% while Rudy got somewhere in the low 20s and Paul was in the mid to high teens.

... to me seems to be a well researched/informed individual on history... His foriegn policies are bizarre? I hope Rudy takes his invitation he gave to him in the interview with hannity or should i say childish rant by hannity, to debate foreign policy in a one on one manner! But doubt Rudy has the Gonzzoooooos

If Thompson and Gingrich don't get in he has it wrapped, assuming he doesn't have a bunch more "leaked" strategy documents. I think Giuliani's potential big problem is that he is a crappy campaign manager. Since he is only a decent orator at best a showdown between him and Hillary means that he can't blow it because every Soros organization will come down on him so fast.

But I also believe that both Thompson and Gingrich will definitely enter. Or at least Gingrich is putting everything on the line for his Solutions Day Sept. 27 and the repeat on the 29th. If it goes well he will have successfully created the second Contract with America, if it doesn't Thompson's the guy.

Gingrich gets into it... although i saw a rumor that Thompson may announce by the end of the month... he's just waiting for his contract to expire with Law & Order, suposedly there is a clause in it that is keeping him from announcing.

I'm from Wisconsin and I'll even say clear some of these guys out so that the better candidates can at least give longer responses.

a flawed statement? Why wouldn't you want to expose yourself to alternative views or are you one of those people that enjoy getting themselves spoon fed by the media as to who you are suposed to vote for... Orwell must truly be rolling over?

blaming America or saying we deserved it... all he is doing is saying that we have created this monster... so this quote comes to mind..

An appeaser is one who feeds the alligator hoping it eats him last... guess you like feeding the alligator and I'll give you browny points for telling me who said that.

The quote comes from Ronald Reagan... and if I recall correctly he was talking about the dems who just want to try to play nice and not piss off the soviets in order to make them happy in hopes that they will then decide not to attack us, sort of like what Ron Paul is suggesting we do with al Qaeda. Ron Paul is an appeasor.

It was Winston Churchill

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/winstonchu100130.html

An appeaser would be someone who wishes to continue the status quo politics that we have here in America... Ron Paul's ideas are bigger than one issue... Don't be confused by the fluff media that wishes now to spoon feed you a spin that makes his statements into something they are not!

"monster". These guys want a return to the 7th century, they want to establish a new Caliphate and force Islamic law on the entire world. If the head of Hezbollah was Secretary of State and we were boycotting Israel, they'd hate us because we let women drive.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

That just goes to show Ron is right and so was Regan... how can you fight a rationale like that?

--

And considering we have been in Brazoria County since it was called Austin Colony, rest assured he will still be going to Washington.

I am glad you are no longer his senior aide, because his views reflect the course of discussion from Danbury to Sargent to West Columbia to Angleton, and with friends like you, who needs Democrats.

It seems Brazoria has gone another direction than your own, and I look forward to seeing who you pony up to run against him. And I am sure Matagorda is with us.

He should never resign his seat, and if you feel so strongly about it, run against him. See if your views truly reflect those of where Texas began or if you are just talking out of your hat.

Thank you for inviting me into the race.

I will run against my former boss Ron Paul for the Texas CD 14 seat.

My hope is that Friendswood Councilman Peden enters the race, or Bobby Eberle. But if they or others hedge, I will run balls-to-the-wall. You're talking to the very guy who got Ron Paul elected in the first place. I know the District like the back of my hand.

I am also completely fluent in Spanish. Our District is over 40% Hispanic. Some cities like Victoria, Bay City and Freeport are nearly 50% Hispanic. Ron Paul has completely dissed the Hispanic (Tejano) community for years in our District.

Hispanics need adequate representation from someone who will listen to their concerns.

Veterans also need representation. Ron Paul used to send me out to every rinky dink VFW or American Legion meeting in the District, no matter how small. I was his only Veteran on staff.

I talk to Veterans now in Brazoria County and District-wide and they see through Ron Paul's charade. They no longer trust him.

And then there's Galveston. This is now the largest city in the District. Ron Paul is completely out of touch with Galveston voters. He doesn't "have the Gavleston groove" so to speak. I love Galveston, and am absolutely in touch with voters in that area.

It will be a fun race. Bring it on.

Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

Good for you.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

"Ron Paul used to send me out to every rinky dink VFW or American Legion meeting in the District, no matter how small."

I'll make sure the veterans know you think their meetings are rinky dink. As well as the 10 - 15 languages you speak.

Being a mix of old-school Tejano, Hill County German and French from the old Brazos camps, I never felt dissed by Ron Paul.

Bring it on? Be careful what you wish for.

Run like Reagan!

his comments were not that bad... and if your a conservative or liberterian how can you say you would support Rudy... thats almost as bad as someone saying they have liberterian views but won't vote for the liberterian cuz they don't stand a chance?

Anti Ron Paul for the last few months i have been reading this forum and have shown so in your comments here and or there. Therefore, I dismiss you as having any credibility in my opinion. Your statements seem more of a personal vendetta than those of a rational individual debating the comments... I've seen your announcement as a candidate... good luck! However, if you win the nomination i would support you as a good conservative soldier, but i hope Ron gives you a well fought fight!

I think that is kind of scary though. Its almost to out of the normal world for my liking. I mean other than the fact that he may take NY from Hill, he could totally pull a Perot and screw us. Plus he is for smoking bans, and he just passed a trans-fat ban, his style just brings to much ammo for Dems to use later for their nanny-state. I have been telling people this for a while all McCain/Feingold did besides preventing speech like the WI Pro Life Group, is to allow wealthy douches the ability to buy public office while everybody else has to collect a couple thousand at a time.

Not much charisma (though the total zeros he's run against here have made him look good by comparison), very northeastern-urban demeanor, and the charge of trying to buy the Presidency will stick.

He could be a spoiler, but I can't see him winning.

the way the primaries are set-up now with a 6 month vacume to the conventions (I think) gives any 3rd party/independent candidate a real shot to do some damage.

So he's not in the "blame America first" gang, he is in the "blame Israel first" gang. Much better.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Roughly the most intelligent post yet... and well respect and kudos from this Ron Paul supporter. At least I know one person had their thinking cap on... much respect!!!

i meant thanks to this post much repect

I think you have it exactly right. Agree or disagree, Paul gave a serious, rational, reasoned response to the question. Giuliani played to the mob by pretending he'd Paul had said something that he clearly did not (the only reference to blaming America for 9/11 was in Brit Hume's question, which itself was bone-headed and inflammatory).

I'm sick of "leaders" who think they can treat us like children by mouthing cheap pieties instead of engaging us in serious argument. Unfortunately, it seems to work, which is presumably why they keep doing it.

As long as their are candidates that want to attend these things we shouldn't ban any of them. I said before I am really close to Libertarians because of what I believe is the immediate necessity to drastically cut spending and have an effective way of communicating it. But I just seriously wonder what Ron Paul is trying to accomplish here. He isn't going to win any primary with this crap and I guess I would seriously question his intelligence if he continued to waste donated monies running a campaign past next month.

that it seems most of the question for Ron Paul are set-up questions and his ideals are hard to express, especially since they are somewhat of a new approach for most, in a 1 minute 30 second time frame. To truly understand where Ron Paul is coming from he would need better media attention, however, they would seem to have already decided the election if we listen to them.

Three cheers for the Fluff News!!!

MSNBCciaFOXmi6CNNkgb yeah yeah yeah!

Like are you not running for the wrong nomination... how ridiculous of an assertion or deeming question

learn to read. It will serve you well.

Nobody is suggesting that Dr. Paul be banned from future debates. Nobody is criticizing him for "...being forthright..." either.

What is being said, in short words just for you, is Dr. Paul has shown himself to be a candidate far on the fringe who pulls no perceptible support in the Party as a whole. In addition, we're happy (at least I am) that he is so forthright in expressing his opinions. I was able to quickly figure out that Dr. Paul is a complete and utter fruitcake who has no business even being in the same zip code as the Oval Office let alone sitting in it.

With respect to the "big tent", you'll find lots of friends here when you talk about eliminating the Dept of Ed & Energy & Homeland Security. You'll find nearly universal support with the idea that we need to privatize and eliminate "entitlements". Most of us love the idea of a smaller and less intrusive federal government. Personally, I would like to see the Federal Government reduced to such insignificance that people would run and get elected and serve no more than one or two terms because the job is so bloody boring. Or the legislative year only lasts three months because they run out of stuff to legislate.

OTOH, when Dr. Paul starts tossing around foreign policy ideas that Pat Buchannan would have second thoughts about, he's gone too far. We cannot stand down the military and ignore the rest of the world. The hole Dr. Paul lives in has just enough room for him.

If Libertarians choose to leave the Republican Party because their pet pony becomes isolationism, so be it. Enjoy your time in the wilderness, it'll be lonely and you'll be there for a long, long time.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I totally agree with your sentiments on Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Homeland Security, etc., but that's beside the point. I did carefully read the post that started this whole thread, and it was calling for booting Ron Paul from the debates. Don't believe me? Here's the quote:

"Giuliani also did everyone a favor by exposing Paul as someone who doesn't belong in this field and should be booted from future debates. It's time for Republicans to stop giving this libertarian a platform."

Sure sounds like a call to silence a candidate to me. Could it be that some people are afraid of his ideas?

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

- Barry M. Goldwater, 1964

Sure sounds like a call to silence a candidate to me. Could it be that some people are afraid of his ideas?

It's because he isn't a serious and doesn't belong on the stage, along with all the rest of the candidates who have no chance. There's a better chance that Hillary will be the next Republican nominee than Paul.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

in the original blog. By the time I had gotten to here, I forgot about that. OTOH, I don't find any comments supporting that idea. Most of us think Paul has no business on the stage because his foreign policy views are just flat dangerous. He's got all the gravitas of Dennis the Menace.

Trust me on this one, NOBODY's afraid of either Ron Paul or his ideas. He won't get 2% of the vote in the primary and if he runs again as a third party candidate I doubt he'd get 100,000 votes nationally. Unless he pulled them from the moonbat wing of the Democratic Party for his defense/foreign policy views.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

you don't listen to anything he has to say as he has said on many occausions that he will not run as a 3rd party candidate!

I don't think it's a good idea to throw out Libertarians. The last election showed a huge shift of Libertarians voting for Democrats, and the two closest Senate races where Republicans lost had the Libertarian candidates votes within the margin of victory.

Ron Paul has horrible foreign policy ideas. But he has fantastic fiscal policy ideas that the party shrugs off. When Libertarians are not left with a fiscal conservative to vote for, they'll turn to the other side and the socially liberal candidate.

It wasn't just last election, it happens in every election. That's the only thing they ever accomplish, which is why it is so foolish for anyone to vote for a Libertarian candidate. It's the mirror image of liberals voting for the Green party. I used to foolishly vote Libertarian on occasion up until 10 years ago when this happened in my House district. Never again.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I'm talking about Libertarians voting Democrat. With the GOP not being fiscally conservative anymore, it has forced many Libertarians to vote Democrat and at least get one thing that they are looking for (someone socially liberal). I don't see why you wouldn't want to maintain that Libertarian part of the party.

You specifically mentioned the margin in some races being smaller than the Libertarian take, which has nothing to do with defections to the Democrats. If they want to go Democrat, that's their own problem.

Any libertarian that votes for the Democrat because they don't think the Republicans are fiscally conservative enough is a total moron that isn't worth any recruiting effort.

As far as social liberalism goes, it isn't part of libertarianism. The Democrats are as out of touch with the libertarians on non-fiscal issues as the Republicans are, if not more so. Gun control? Regulation of speech? Hate crimes? Nanny-state laws? Federal power grabs? Doesn't sound like libertarianism to me.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Being socially liberal has nothing to do with libertarianism? They take a liberal stance on abortion, homosexual marriage, gambling, drugs, pornography, prostitution, assisted suicide, immigration, separation of church & state, flag burning, and a slew of other social issues that have been in and out of the headlines for the past couple years. They most definitely lean to the left on social issues.

I'm not condoning Libertarians voting Democrat, but they are at a higher clip than ever. I think the party needs to become more fiscally conservative (which isn't a bad thing) to maintain the support of libertarians that the Republican party has enjoyed for decades.

Abortion? Libertarians can go either way on that, depending on whether they count an unborn child as an actual person or not. Libertarians are not anarchists. They do believe every individual has rights and that it is the proper role of government to protect an individual's rights from being violated by another. In an environment where anarchy reins and you can simply victimize anyone who is weaker than you, you don't end up with any freedom at all. You end up with despotism.

Gay marriage? The libertarian position is that government shouldn't be involved in it at all, not that government should be inventing new kinds of marriages to sanction (oh, and pay benefits towards).

Drugs? You mean like their war against tobacco? Or like their war on food they don't consider healthy enough for you to eat?

Immigration? You mean libertarians are turned off by hardliners on immigration like W, Brownback and McCain? I'm not sure why the libertarian position would have to be open borders anyway. I know that is pretty much LP USA's position, but that doesn't mean squat.

Prostitution? Is this somewhere in the Democrat party platform? I guess I missed all the Democrat initiatives to legalize prostitution.

Gambling? Liberals are against expansion of gambling more often than not, because it "victimizes" the poor and competes with Indian gaming interests.

Separation of church and state? I don't think anybody is looking to establish a state religion. I don't remember anyone suggesting that people should be forced to join a religion, or forced to pray against their will. Maybe that was in W's State of the Union and I missed it.

Social liberalism is not a component of libertarianism any more than social conservatism is. Social libertarianism is its own beast and the Democrats aren't any close to that ideal than the Republicans are.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Ron Paul is probably the most pro-life guy on the stage last night. He goes so far as say he's opposed to military intervention BECAUSE he's pro-life.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

"some" of his ideas are good. But he didn't mention any of them. He is right on gun control. He is right on things such as the internet gambling ban. Too many of our top tier candidates love the power of the federal government. However, I think those that say Paul represents the libertarian wing of the party are wrong. The man is unfit to be Commander in Chief.

Molon Labe!

Yeah I don't think he is what you would call a good Libertarian. Tommy's brother here in WI ran a few years ago on a Libertarian ticket getting 11 percent also insuring a victory for our current corrupt d-bag Gov. Doyle. But I liked Ed actually more than our R candidate Scott Mclellum(not right spelling). Ed was a far cry from Paul and he would actually be possibly a hesitant Iraq warrior, maybe more like Bush Sr.

The questioning should be a little better than the so called fair and balanced questions of the debate which in my opinion seemed to be set-up questions.

Where Rudy says we need to invade Lebanon, Syria, and Iran? I'm not a Rudy guy, but I don't remember him saying anything of the sort.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Quite frankly, I don't give a rat's rear end about the survival of the party.

I do care about the survival of the Nation.

I think we face an existentialist threat; one that will lead to a much bigger war later if not fought diligently today.

I look to the problems in Europe to see what can happen here.

Isolating ourselves will not make the threats go away, nor will it stop them from coming here.

a nightmare. Kiss the conservative movement goodbye.

You really need to realize that our party is the only force that is powerful enough to save this country.

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.