Ron Paul will lose because of his Iraq policy which would be a disaster.
But his is a true conservative on other issues a sort of neo-Alan Keyes.
Rudy is right on Iraq but wrong on everything else. If he is elected it will be the death of Republican SocConism.
The guy over at Worldnetdaily makes a convincing argument that having Hillary as President would be better for conservatives then Rudy. Since Her overeaching could start another Republican revolution like in 94.
I don't want to vote for Rudy.
"I don't want to vote for Rudy."
I *won't* vote for Rudy McRomney in any shape or form. I'm still unsure about Huckabee, but Paul, I'd vote for, as well as Colbert.
Paul is making things interesting. He had a good appearance on Leno and his message is going to be heard more and more due to his fund-raising and likely top three finish in New Hampster.
Paul is right about Iraq and more n' more Americans are waking to the reality it is a quagmire and the best thing America can do is leave. Now. As Paul curtly observes, those predicting disaster if we leave are the same ones who predicted this would be a cakewalk.
Rudy Ghouliani's ideas are an abomination. He thinks he has the authority to bomb any damn nation he can falsely portray as a threat to America.
The idea Iran is a threat to these United States is preposterous. But, other than Paul, The Stupid Party can't wait to start the bombing.
Other than more war and Hillary Hate, what does the Republican party stand for?
Um, it stands for hypocritical and false "I'm not as bad as she is"-ism. That's why Ron Paul isn't allowed to associate with 'em; he goes and talks about what's good instead of lying to make himself look better.
"The idea Iran is a threat to these United States is preposterous."
In what way is it preposterous?
Joe
victor.
Here's AmSpectator on Huckabee
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_art...sp?
art_id=12205
and his camapaign's response- which is answered
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_art...sp?
art_id=12217
Paul's seems far more reliable and authentic
Mark,
"Paul is almost the only candidate for whom I have any respect".
I admit I too was tempted. But lately I've been reading about his disturbing proximity to "9/11 Truthers" and creatures like Willis Carto. Does that give you any pause?
Paul's nutty allies seem to me less damaging than the mainstream pundits and think-tankers who got us into this mess.
So there are some nuts supporting Paul. I'd hardly start questioning his candidacy because of that. There are nuts supporting every candidate. I'm not going to judge candidates on the basis that they attract some out-there fans. If I did, I couldn't vote for anybody. Unless you think Paul is a nut (by which you should judge him by what he believes, not those who say they will vote for him), I don't see the relevance.
I'm sure there are some polygamists who might vote for Romney because he's Mormon. But who cares. It doesn't tell me anything really about Romney.
As for pulling out of Iraq, I think Ben that that's an unfair critique. It may or may not be the right thing, but it will hardly be a disaster. Seriously, I see no evidence that it would be.
Finally, the notion that Hillary would be better for conservatives is actually what I hate about our politics today. That is rarely suggested out of a real concern for the good of the country but instead usually an expression of what would give one an advantage in election strategy.
To me, I refuse to wear blinders any more and keep reading into the landscape the theoretical possibility that this or that good thing might come out of my casting a vote for the lesser of two evils. Hasn't happened. Not even in 94. That revelotion lasted barely a session or so of Congress and didn't accomplish squat.
No, the only way that the two main parties will ever listen is if a third gets significant votes. Of course, for that to happen we have to start treating the act of voting as something meaningful in itself (versus only if we choose the winner) and stop behaving as if armageddon will come if I don't cast my vote for the lesser of two evils. I'm sorry, but I am not responsible for Hillary winning if I vote for a third party candidate instead of voting for Rudy or any other scheme. The people who voted for Hillary are, etc. I refuse to continue to cast a vote out of peer pressure and anxiety versus what I think is right.
Mike:
I'd want to know the details. 9/11 Truther who show up at a Ron Paul event are one thing. 9/11 Truther who are courted by Ron Paul are another. Dittos for the Willis Carto connection. What are the details?
I'm quite prepared to think Paul is a kook. Zealous libertarians usually are a bit kooky. But I'd like details beyond, "Here's a picture of Ron Paul standing near some kooks."
Cow Shea:
As best as I can tell, Paul's problem is one of people using guilt by association. He finds himself with some strange bedfellows because of some of his positions. He's arrived at them from fairly philosophical/constitutional grounds, whereas others have arrived at them from conspiratorial grounds.
Best example I saw once was Ron Paul being interviewed about the IRS. The news station had an IRS conspiracy theorist on talking about his interpretation of the IRS code and the const. amendment history and why he thought that allowed him not to pay taxes. They had Ron Paul on because he favors ending the income tax. It was obvious that Ron Paul didn't agree with the tax protestor's methods and interpretation of the statutes. And certainly also with the conclusions reached from the constitutional history, because acknowledging the history is messay is hardly the same thing as saying then that the income tax shouldn't be obeyed). He described instead the basis for why he wanted to eliminate the income tax. It was an odd pairing in the interview, but you get the sense that Ron Paul has become a bit used to just this reality.
I chalk it up a bit like people who get scandalized that the Church has wheat and chaff and so they dismiss the Church altogether. Like you, I'll judge Paul on his views, not the kooks who might be attracted to him.
In what way is it preposterous?
Every way. Compare/contrast Iran and America's size, economy, army, navy etc, using the CIA site
https://www.cia.gov/library/publi...world-
factbook/
Where we have Aircraft Carriers and Batttleships stationed in relationship to Iran would be like if Iran had their Aircraft Carriers and Battleships cruising the Florida Straits, the Gulf of Mexico, and The Atlantic Seaboard off Chesapeake Bay.
But they threaten us?
It is American politicians who are trying to outdo one another in boasting of their resolute determination to prevent Iran from acquiring what it legally has a right to acquire.
The IAEA via El Barradei professes there is no evidence Iran is making nukes
http://www.theage.com.au/news/
wo...3618794445.html
But, just like before the invasion/occupation of Iraq when those with knowledge and expertise were telling us there was no evidence Iraq had WMDs were being dismissed out of hand by the Neo-Cons, we, again, have Adm. Officials, like Cheney, dismissing his ElBarradei's knowledge and expertise out of hand.
Just for a minute, try to imagine being a citizen in Iran, pinned down by America's Steel Armada and reading and hearing such monstrous threats knowing full well that Israel has hundreds of nuke warheads in contravention of every UN treaty and yet being told your country was the threat.
American Presidential candidates are boasting they will NOT "take off the table" the use of nukes against Iran.
This is absolutely evil insanity and if I lived in Iran, I'd be convinced America was run by blood-thirsty barbarians.
As an Iranian, I'd likely remember or know that not too long ago America staged a coup to unseat a democratically elected government in my country.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSA...SAEBB/NSAEBB28/
But they are a threat to America?
The Neo-Cons lied us into a quagmire in Iraq and now they are lying us into another one.
Cui bono?
Israel, baby. But one is not supposed to write that publicly.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?
a...articleid=11837
Mark,
If it's any help, here is a column by Michael Medved that asks some simple questions: http://
michaelmedved.townhall.co...e#commentAnchor
Apparently, Mr. Paul has not responded.
To be sure, one is not responsible for the people who happen to be standing near when one is photographed. But when they are always there, and you never distance yourself from them?
Oh, I just found this on Newsweek re. the idea iran threatens us.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/57346
Mr. Walsh. Medved's smear was zapped here
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/...ves/
016462.html
Last year, the Princeton scholar, Bernard Lewis, a close adviser to Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal predicting that on Aug. 22, 2006, President Ahmadinejad was going to end the world. The date, he explained, "is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the Prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to 'the farthest mosque,' usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back. This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world" (my emphasis).
This is EXACTLY what Glen Beck was pushing for weeks on his radio and TV show.
The top three "conservative" radio shows - Rush, Hannity, and Beck, all describe Iran as Germany and Ahmanutjob as Hitler. It is totally hooey, and by hooey I mean B.S.
Compared to us, Iran is a bunch of guys on goats. Even IF Iran was able to make a nuke - say, a decade from today - how would they attack us?
Would they cram a jet engine up some goat's butt, put a helmet on Ahmanutjob, strap the nuke to his back, and fire-up the goat?
This is so insane and yet polls show the Neo-Cons are AGAIN convincing a majority of poll respondents that a country that had nothing to do with 911 is a threat to us and so we must bomb it.
It is mind-blowing how easy it is for the Neo-Cons to manipulate us.
Spartacus,
I'm with you 100%. Todays neo-cons would make Joseph Goebbels proud! And they aren't even an arm of the government like he was! They are bloodthirsty paranoid war mongers dressed up in patriotic sanctimony. They advocate their evil (war) as the abortion lobby advocates its evil with the same disregard for facts and truth. That some of these people are so-called Catholics in good standing such as Bill Bennett and Sean Hannity is nauseating. I'd like to see our Bishops order Communion refused to these belligerent demagogues as they should to all pro-abort politicians. If Ron Paul doesn't get the GOP nod I'll be voting third party. Again!
Dave. It is always surprising to find another in agreement with me. I'm gonna print out your remarks and show them to The Bride and prove her "not in a million years" remark is wrong.
When Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and Henry Kissinger were slithering around the White House during the Gerald Ford administration, all were in agreement with Jerry when he inked a deal with the Shah of Iran to help them go nuke.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp...-
2005Mar26.html
And after that deal fell through, Iranians watched as Reagan, and Daddy Bush sold Saddam the WMDs he used against the Kurds and the Iranians.
http://www.counterpunch.org/
gree...en02242003.html
And here is a cute photo of Rummy glad-handing a pistol-packing Saddam
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSA...SAEBB/NSAEBB82/
at a photo op before America Murder Inc. sells Saddam the WMDs.
And yet Iran is the New Germany and Ahmanutjob the new Hitler and they threaten us. And the lies ALWAYS work.
This is all so sick and evil and twisted but it seems the American voter will never tire of it.
We keep voting back into power the same lying duplicitous bastards and Pres. Hillary will just be Bush in a pant suit.
We're headed towards the Christmas Season and the platform of the Democratic Party, endorsing the killing of inconvenient infants and the rubric of the Republican Party, that torture is quite respectable, makes me think of Herrod. The infant Jesus is coming, but 'Herrod' is already here and will be in power no matter who wins the election.
This is so seriously depressing!
Once Neo-Con Corp. took over the failing Business, Iran, and either killed or run-oft its putative CEO, Ahmanutjob, Neo-Con Corp. was gonna have a Dummy Press Corp all set-up so as to tell us Americans how wonderful things were in the new liberated Iran.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSA...BB219/
index.htm
Now, the fact of the matter is if Rush, Hannity, Beck, Coulter etc did speak about this on their shows they'd be singing its praises even though if it were, say, The Soviet Union which had invaded and occupied a country which was no threat to it and its military put in place a Dummy Press Corp to sing its own praises they'd be denouncing that as Orwellian Totalitarian B.S. but when it comes to America, if we can do it and get away with it, it's all good.
INS:
Make that two people who agree with you.
Mr. Matt. Thanks. You do know The Bride will just use that as an opportunity to drop a Three Stooges reference 
FWIW, when the Stupid Party tries to tell us they really do care about us and our prolife concerns, check out this website about CENTCOM, Central Command.
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel...q_pubs/
0924.pdf
The job of CENTCOM is to make damn sure the leaders of those various countries under its "command" toe the line - or else.
And the "else" could be regime change. I mean, this Tampa Florida based Command was given the right title.
If the political pissants in those pathetic polities don't knuckle-under, they will be replaced. And that is our right under The Constitution which provides that any foreign govt has the right to elect leaders subservient to Washington.
One reason Operation Iraqi Liberation was not chosen is the acronym is too revealing as to intent.
It has always been about the oil.
As for Christians and our prolife concerns? Please. We are to the Stupid party what Blacks are to the Evil Party.
As to why the capitalists and free traders in Washington just can't legally allow foreign countries to control their own natural resources and to sell what is rightfully theirs at market prices and to allow for more drilling of oil here and license nuclear power plants here is never addressed.
I guess it just makes more sense for them to lie that in invading/occupying countries which do not threaten us we are made safer and their people are liberated.
I know I'd sure like to live in the M.E. knowing America had designated me and my country as being under its command. Ain't nothing more liberating than that.
I wonder what the Saints in Heaven would think of American Catholics continually voting to support such an Empire which kills innocents in the wombs, tortures enemies it has captured,invades countries which do not threaten it, and sends Mom Soldiers to occupy those countries, all the while killing millions of innocent members of God's family in the process.
As to why the capitalists and free traders in Washington just can't legally allow foreign countries to control their own natural resources and to sell what is rightfully theirs at market prices and to allow for more drilling of oil here and license nuclear power plants here is never addressed.
I think it's possibly more of a monetary issue than an oil issue. It's the issue of buying and selling oil in US $$. There has been speculation that the reason we are considering invading Iran is because of the threat they will change over to Euro $$'s.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/art...es/
CLA410A.html
HLL I was aware of that. But even conceding that point - which doesn't justify starting a war - -it is still about the oil.
Nine Americans know we get most of our oil imported from...
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_g...ent/
import.html
Most Americans think we get almost all of our oil from the Middle East so by keeping us igerint, the Neo-Cons can manipulate us that much easier with scary stories about Iran and Iraq.
Bush has already looked into Pootie-Poot's soul. He should look into Pooty-Poot's petroleum reserves and cut a deal with that HUGE Christian Nation and stop killing the weak and helpless in the ME.
Or, is there a reason the govt wants us focused on the ME and fear?
There are reasons and it doesn't take much digging around to discover what the reasons are and the reasons aint got nothing to do with the terrorists who attacked us on 911.
Iraq and Iran had Jack to do with 911.
The vast majority of the hijackers were Saudi nationals. Why not do regime change there in the country run by FOB - Friends of Bush?
We are killing the Middle East because of Oil and Israel and I wish the Neo-Cons would just, once, say it publicly and, if they treasure democracy as they claim they do, put it to a vote.
I'd LOVE to hear that debate and see the result of that vote. But, it'll never happen. Neo-Cons hate democracy.
Just remember..."About 50 percent of our petroleum imports are from countries in the Western Hemisphere, with 19 percent from the Persian Gulf, and 18 percent from Africa and 13 percent from other regions".
I suspect our military actions in the Middle East have more to do with economics than either spreading freedom or protecting our safety (terrorism, WMD's). I agree that it has much less to do with obtaining the commodity of oil than it has to do with foreign exchange reserves in US $$ used to purchase that oil.
The Saudi's may have more terrorists than either Iran or Iraq, but the Saudi's agree to sell their oil in US $$, therefore, not an economic threat. That's only one reason among many that leads me to suspect our military is shedding their blood for petro $$ rather than to fight for freedom.
God help us!
HLLamb. While we are generally in agreement it ought be noted there were plans for regime change in Iraq and Iran and Syria and Jordan and Egypt - everywhere, except of course, Israel - long existing before the question of in what currency we would purchase oil.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/weiner6.html
Bush and Cheney are either flat-out insane or amongst the worst liars ever
http://www.antiwar.com/bandow/?
a...articleid=11845
I used to wonder how heresy and schism happened until I watched members of my family get caught up in the SSPX. Then I had a front row seat! I also used to wonder how Germans were lead to follow the disastrous policies of the Third Reich being an educated an Christian population. I'm getting a front row seat on a similar event today with the US governments response to 9/11. At least the German people had the excuse of WW1 and its aftermath and no prior Hitler to learn from to somewhat mitigate their culpability. What excuse do Americans have?
Yeah, Iran had jack to do with 911. But then there's the Lebanese bombings, Khobar Towers, global assassination, hostage taking, etc.
Remember, the hostages were taken pretty shortly after James Earl Carter had said Khomeini was someone wer could work with and hung the Shah out to dry.
Ed. Our govt is lying to us. Daily. More than 50% of poll respondents think Iraq was involved in 911. The percentage is even higher amongst troops serving in Iraq where Bush speaks about Iraq as Korea.
Well, that makes sense, doesn't it?
The Cold War ends, the Berlin Wall comes down and, shazzam, what do we discover? An unknown threat.
ANOTHER new hot/cold war that will become the new perpetual war for perpetual peace.
Haven't we always been at war with ....?
And we Americans buy that bright shining lie because we Americans love war and kicking the crap out of some crummy little country - after we first arm it and then frighten ourselves it is a new Germany run by a new Hitler and, oh my gosh, Islamofascism, Islamofascism, Armageddon, Armageddon.
There are not nine Americans alive who, in 1990 said to themselves, Oh my God, if we ever defeat The Soviet Union, we are going to have to face Islamofascism which is going to take over our country and make my daughter wear a burka.
But, It didn't take time for the govt to lie us into that absurd panic, did it?
Here we are, America, with a damn deadly steel Armada lugging around Nuclear WMD all over the Seven Seas and we are lied into worrying about little ME sand traps like Iraq and Iran which are run by men riding around on goats.
And that is not to even mention our Army, Marines, and Air Force which are nuke-packing outfits ready to rain down destruction on any pissant population crazy enough to even try and run their own damn countries the way they want.
If you think what our govt has done in the ME since 1920 makes sense or is in any way morally, politically, or militarily defensible and if you think those little countries actually threaten us, then then you see things I don't.
Here is my remedy for the Empiric Psychosis we are afflicted with.
America has military facilities in over 150 countries. I wish that those countries would tell our govt they demand reciprocity. NOW.
If America gets to station troops on military facilities in foreign countries then those foreign countries ought have a right to establish their military facilities in America to be staffed by their troops.
I wish every single leader of every single foreign country in the world would tell Our Decider - Look, you have a military facility and troops in our country. We desire to establish a military facility in America and post our troops there to staff it. If you do not agree to this reciprocity then you have one year to get the hell out of our country.
What would our govt do?
It would act just like a Muslim country which thinks it is fine for their citizens to emigrate to , say, America, and build Mosques but it refuses to let Americans to emigrate into their countries and build Churches.
I am Spartacus
I think your spouse is correct. "Not in a million years." You have some serious issues. It seems like the entire world is conspiring in your view.
Mark, just one question? Does Spartacus reflect your views and haven't you run the evil empire to the point where your blog is attracting some people who are a little deranged?
David,
It is the rest of the world that thinks Americans are crazy for permitting Bush to do so much harm. Do you live in a neo-con echo chamber?
Dave K
I would be interested to see how you have determined the rest of the world agrees with Spartacus type views. I remember when the rest of the world thought Ronald Reagon was nuts and the MSM agreed with them. Lets face it, when you are the super power of the world, you will have those who want to see you brought down. The question then becomes do we have an obligation to assist the rest of the world in bringing down our own country. Democrats and liberals seem to think so and the pile on crowd loves to bash America. I have yet to see a reasonable presentation of ideas by this group on how to win the war that Islamist have declared on our country. I have yet to see how we extract information from terrorist when the left seems to be in love with them insuring that they are pampered and have full legal rights rather than treated as terrorist bent on killing everyone that does not bow down to them.
Commenting by HaloScan
