I agree actually, I think most of America is pretty moderate, I just find it absurdly funny how every candidate feels like they have to go to the exact opposite extreme every election year
huckabee vs. giuliani would be interesting to say the least. I really would have loved to see huckabee vs. bush
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/12/ron-paul-for-th.html Ron Paul For The Republican Nomination By now, readers will know who I favor in the Democratic race. Here's my most considered case. But what of the GOP? For me, it comes down to two men, Ron Paul and John McCain. That may sound strange, because in many ways they are polar opposites: the champion of the surge and the non-interventionist against the Iraq war; the occasional meddling boss of Washington and the live-and-let-live libertarian from Texas. But picking a candidate is always a mix of policy and character, of pragmatism and principle. And what these two mavericks share, to my mind, is a modicum of integrity. At one end of the character scale, you have the sickening sight of Mitt Romney, a hollow shell of cynicism and salesmanship, recrafted to appeal to a base he studied the way Bain consultants assess a company. Paul and McCain are at the other end. They have both said things to GOP audiences that they knew would offend. They have stuck with their positions despite unpopularity. They're not saints, but they believe what they say. Both have also taken a stand against the cancerous and deeply un-American torture and detention regime constructed by Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld. In my book, that counts. I admire McCain in so many ways. He is the adult in the field, he is attuned to the issue of climate change in a way no other Republican is, he is a genuine war hero and a patriot, and he bravely and rightly opposed the disastrous occupation policies of the Bush administration in Iraq. The surge is no panacea for Iraq; but it has enabled the United States to lose the war without losing face. And that, in the end, is why I admire McCain but nonetheless have to favor Paul over McCain. Because on the critical issue of our time - the great question of the last six years - Paul has been proven right and McCain wrong. And I say that as someone who once passionately supported McCain's position on the war but who cannot pretend any longer that it makes sense. Let's be clear: we have lost this war. We have lost because the initial, central goals of the invasion have all failed: we have not secured WMDS from terrorists because those WMDs did not exist. We have not stymied Islamist terror - at best we have finally stymied some of the terror we helped create. We have not constructed a democratic model for the Middle East - we have instead destroyed a totalitarian government and a phony country, only to create a permanently unstable, fractious, chaotic failed state, where the mere avoidance of genocide is a cause for celebration. We have, moreover, helped solder a new truth in the Arab mind: that democracy means chaos, anarchy, mass-murder, national disintegration and sectarian warfare. And we have also empowered the Iranian regime and made a wider Sunni-Shiite regional war more likely than it was in 2003. Apart from that, Mr Bush, how did you enjoy your presidency? McCain, for all his many virtues, still doesn't get this. Paul does. Paul, moreover, supports the only rational response: a withdrawal, as speedily and prudently as possible. McCain, along with Lieberman, still seems to believe that expending even more billions of dollars to prop up and enable a fast-devolving, ethnically toxic, religiously nutty region is somehow in American interests. Given the enormous challenges of the terror war, the huge debt we are piling up, the exhaustion of the military, the moral and financial corruption that has its white-hot center in Mesopotamia, I do not believe that an endless military, economic and political commitment to Iraq makes sense. It only makes sense if we are determined to occupy the Middle East indefinitely to secure oil supplies. But the rational response to oil dependence is not to entrench it, but to try and move away from it. Institutionalizing a bank-breaking, morale-busting Middle East empire isn't the way to go. But the deeper reason to support Ron Paul is a simple one. The great forgotten principles of the current Republican party are freedom and toleration. Paul's federalism, his deep suspicion of Washington power, his resistance to government spending, debt and inflation, his ability to grasp that not all human problems are soluble, least of all by government: these are principles that made me a conservative in the first place. No one in the current field articulates them as clearly and understands them as deeply as Paul. He is a man of faith who nonetheless sees a clear line between religion and politics. More than all this, he has somehow ignited a new movement of those who love freedom and want to rescue it from the do-gooding bromides of the left and the Christianist meddling of the right. The Paulites' enthusiasm for liberty, their unapologetic defense of core conservative principles, their awareness that in the new millennium, these principles of small government, self-reliance, cultural pluralism, and a humble foreign policy are more necessary than ever - no lover of liberty can stand by and not join them. He's the real thing in a world of fakes and frauds. And in a primary campaign where the very future of conservatism is at stake, that cannot be ignored. In fact, it demands support. Go Ron Paul!
How does McCain have more integrity than anyone else? When he brought us the "Straight Talk Express" a few years ago, I admired and respected him even though I didn't think he would be a good president. Then this go round, he smooches the same people he disdained last time and morphs into the establishment candidate. What kind of integrity is that? Lastly, he is remaking himself yet again because he's been rejected in 2007. The only reason McCain is getting another look is because the GOP doesn't like the other candidates. At this stage, he is a dud who reminds me of Bob Dole and John Kerry. Democrats should hope he's selected because he is destined to lose the general election. People aren't going to elect a 1st term president who is a lame duck before being sworn in.
did they say they wanted $10 million or did they say they expected $10 million? and who was it who said they wanted $10 million - the teaparty07 website or the paul campaign? either way, they got over $6 million in one day (setting a new record) and smashed their quarterly goal, which was $12 million. they are approaching $20 million w/ two weeks left in the quarter. paul is the only candidate to raise more in the 4th than the 3rd quarter. too call it a disappointment just seems like spin or foolishness.
Sorry about that. I must have gotten distracted by real life. I said I thought you were a liberal because I thought you'd espoused liberal positions on various issues. Maybe I was remembering that wrong or got you mixed up with someone else. I said you'd probably support LaRouche over Wellstone because you seem a little like an angry conspiracy theorist to me and because you seem to have an outsized disdain for anyone who's willing to engage in party politics. Wellstone's famous line about representing the Democratic wing of the Democratic party puts him squarely in that camp. This line about voting for someone just because they have a letter next to their name is a paper tiger and it's insulting. I'm a Democrat but I've only voted for the Dem nominee for president twice in my life - Dukakis and Kerry. In the other races I voted Nader or for a write-in. I'm a Democrat because I agree with the vast majority of the platform, because I disagree with the vast majority of the Republican platform and because - while I'm all for more viable parties - we don't have other viable parties now. It's not because I like the letter D better than the letter R.
oh snap! ironic comment coming from someone who spends as much time on here as you do. and no, i dont have a real life. i am liberal on some issues and conservative on others. good one! i thought you were going to go the "ron paul is an anti-semite" route. i may be angry (im definitely not alone on that!), but how exactly am i a conspiracy theorist? i have a disdain for people who put party politics ahead of the best interests of the american people. ive actually seen vehement democrats on here saying that even though bush should be impeached, it shouldnt be persued b/c it will hurt the democrats in 08. that is putting party politics ahead of whats best for this country. not saying you are guilty of it, but ive seen plenty of people on here saying they will support whomever the democrats put up. even if its someone whose basic policies are a continuation of bushs like hillary, who is pro-iraq war, pro-attacking iran, anti-free speech, pro-amnesty and too tied to corporate interests.
I didn't mean it in a snarky way. I was honestly apologizing for not getting back to you sooner. I admit it's rare that real life would keep me from replying promptly. Okay. I'm unaware of accusations that Paul is an anti-Semite. I've heard he's backed by white power groups, but I don't fault him for having undesirable supporters. Conspiracy theorist was maybe the wrong word. I guess I meant to say you seem weird and, as such, seem prone to overtures from political weirdos. Your obsession with Jeff Gannon is downright bizarre. And the silly mantra about Hillary being exactly the same as Bush is silly. It reminds me of LaRouchites, many of whom seem to back Paul. I don't remember seeing that here. Maybe some have said that here, maybe even vehemently (though that would surprise me) but I certainly never have. And I sincerely doubt that opinion is reflective of the majority of registered Democrats on this site. I get damn bored with being accused of partisanship when one party represents my beliefs about what is best for this country so much more closely than the other. I'm not a Democrat because I love a political party more than America. In fact, the exact opposite is true. And accusations to the contrary are trite, boring and lazy. I agree that one could credibly argue the above is true of Hillary, but (with the possible exception of "amnesty") it would be stupid to argue each of the above positions is not held even more strongly and stridently by each of the five Republican frontrunners. In the real world, one of those five will run against a Democrat and possibly a third party candidate. If there is no third party candidate, I will certainly vote for any Democrat over the Republican for each of the reasons you cited above -- even if it is my least favorite of the D's, Hillary, as she will be less bad than any of the R's on each of those counts. (Again, that's with the exception of immigration policy where you and I do not agree.) If it is Hillary vs. one of those Republicans vs. Bloomberg, my vote's up for grabs. But it still won't go to Giuliani, McCain, Huckabee, Thompson or Romney. No way.
i do not deny that i am weird (and not just on the internet) and i admit that i am totally fascinated by jeff gannon and all the other gay republican scandals. i am fascinated by the fact that our president, a man who got elected by playing up his supposed christian conservatism and who promotes an anti-gay policy would go planting gay male hookers in the white house press corp to field him soft-ball questions, go around publicly hugging, groping, kissing on the head and giving goo-goo eyes to said gay male hooker and have said gay male hooker visit the white house over 200 times, according to secret service records. if the media was really as liberal-biased and bush hating as some say, wouldnt this be the kind of story they would be all over - we americans love a good sex scandal! i am utterly befuddled as to why this isnt a bigger issue. if i was a demcratic strategist, this is the type stuff i would be hammering home at every opportunity. most americans, and especially most evangelical republicans dont know that the president hangs out w/ gay male hookers or the fact that guilianni is a tranny. i find it a never-ending source of irony when people like basso or trader-texx try to tell us how manly bush is or how effeminate say edwards is, yet they continue to support this male cheerleader/wanna-be cowboy/friend of gay male hookers. i cant help but remind them of this fact every chance i get. exactly. on the important issues hillarys policies are strikingly similar to the republican front-runners. that is why i will never support her. she will not commit to getting the troops out of iraq, she is making a bunch of war mongering statements towards iran and even saying that bush isnt being hawkish enough, she is pro-north american union, pro-amnesty, pro-free speech zones, pro-lobbyist, pro-gun control, too tied to corporate interests, ect. again, how is any of this different than bush? furthermore, isnt anyone else disturbed by the fact that we have had a bush or clinton in the white house since 1980? are we a democracy or a two-family monarchy? dont get me wrong - if i was forced to chose sides im with the democrats. as a life-long independent i feel personally insulted by the way the republican party has behaved the last 7 years. aside from ron paul (and others like him in the future), i will never support or vote for another republican again.
just to add... the democrats were elected in 2006 for 2 reasons... 1) end the iraq war asap 2) put a check on the bush administration and their crimes the bassos and trader-texxs on here like to point out that congress has a lower approval rating than bush and they are right on that, but they are either ignorant or being dishonest as they try to claim that the reason for this is that american people dont like what they are doing. the fact is that the american people feel betrayed by the demcrats b/c they are simply bending over and giving bush everything he wants. they give us a little dog and pony show, but in the end cave in every time. that is why their approval rating is low - they are not doing what the american people elected them to do. there is a reason so many people are now registering as independents - they see that the democrats are not being true to their word and what got them elected last year. many americans feel betrayed by the democrats and you are seeing it played out in the poll #'s. congress has power of the purse and the constitutional power to end this war, but they wont do it. none of the democratic front-runners will commit to having us out of iraq by the end of their first term...thats 2013 for gods sake! iraq was the key issue in 2006 and it will be the key issue again in 2008. if you want to end this war there is no way you can support any of democratic front-runners. accountability is what the american voter wanted and we didnt get it.
it was on the teaparty site, not ron paul. that site isn't directly run by the rp campaign. it's run by a guy who supports him. so i'd say my state was foolishness as no spin was intended. perhaps my eyes were bigger than my appetite. it is certainly a great accomplishment, and as i said, i hope this helps propel him in to a top tier candidate.
RP was on glenn beck today.... 1) http://youtube.com/watch?v=fZXWW4C2kpE 2) http://youtube.com/watch?v=Jujk3YOUSpE 3) http://youtube.com/watch?v=f7fRWsqLoGA 4) http://youtube.com/watch?v=pz6AKU5lSqc 5) http://youtube.com/watch?v=pJIQCG1g564 6) http://youtube.com/watch?v=6YUukbFgQcY 7) http://youtube.com/watch?v=SGQJZhiEAXE
The bigot is out. -- Tom Tancredo to Drop Out of Presidential Race http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2007/12/19/tom-tancredo-to-drop-out-of-presidential-race/
RP on neil cavuto today <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CrRtZaG63o8&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CrRtZaG63o8&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
perry b-slaps bush. nice to see, too bad perry sucks too. it was on youtube.... but it's been deleted http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/12/14/1214perry.html
