Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Republican Debate VI: The Fooferah in Florida
(I misread my debate schedule before: This one's in Orlando, not Sioux City, Iowa.)
I'm watching the third Fox News-hosted GOP debate tonight and will be watching for Fred Thompson to dazzle everyone with his timing and energy, John McCain to call for an Iraq pullout, Duncan Hunter to admit his affair with an illegal immigrant, and Ron Paul to be treated with dignity and sober respect.
The action starts at 8 p.m. ET. Also, I'm trying to add some verve to this liveblogging, so I'm interested in watching the next debate (11/6) or some future debate with a group of Ron Paul voters in the DC area. Here's how to contact me.
7:50: Speaking of, Frank Luntz is on Fox talking to a Republican focus group. It's terrific: Cosmically unenlightening. Everyone wants a Republican who'll "stand up." What's that mean? "Take on the Democrats." One woman moans that "the Democrats are able to do anything they want, anything they want to say." Really? Here in DC the Democrats are injecting jellyfish DNA to reinforce their spines.
Also, one Iowan calls Ron Paul "certifiably insane." Alan Colmes defends him.
7:55: Sean Hannity bashes Hillary Clinton ("she'll promise all of them a new car!") and then asserts that Republicans "want a positive agenda." His irony-fu is strong.
8:04: Rudy Giuliani: The real conservative, because George Will said so. As he did at the FRC conference, he mentions his war on porn in his list of conservative achievements. (An auspicious start: My server timed out and gobbled my first two debate comments.)
8:05: I suppose some people will care that Mitt Romney's cowlick underwent structural damage right before the debate began. He's conservative because he can bring the Republican *gutteral noise* HILLARY CLINTON HILLARY CLINTON grhgh.
8:07: Fred Thompson: Real leadership means making Ted Kennedy fat jokes. coughing and "I only got a minute here."
8:08: Finally, some dignity as Rudy says "Fred has his problems too." He brings up the Roy Pearson pants case to thwack Thompson over tort reform.
8:09: It's amusing to hear Thompson bitch about people filing lawsuits in New York. I'm still not convinced that this is a good attack against Rudy, from a GOP voter's perspective, but it's the stuff libertarians (and liberal civil libertarians) have been grousing about for years.
8:10: Rudy back to Fred: "He's never had executive experience." That's how he's going to beat those attacks, the ad hominem way: The issues are just too wonky to absorb otherwise.
8:11: Grumpy uncle John McCain is back to talk about Vietnam.
8:12: The nanites have fixed Romney's hair.
8:13: Lawyers are "the last people on earth" McCain will call in on a national security crisis. It's awfully telling of the modern GOP that this--Romney saying he'd want to follow the law if we go to war--has been the biggest gaffe of the autumn.
8:15: Romney's apologizing for wanting to follow the law: "Every president has gone to his White House Council." But it's dangerous ground so he sees an oasis and HILLARY CLINTON HILLARY CLINTON.
8:16: McCain's got his soundbite: "You've been running around trying to fool people about your record. Don't lie to people about mine." (I'm paraphrasing, but that's why we have soundbites.)
8:17: The Fox moderators have found a new tack for minimizing Paul: strict constructionism! He's invited to give the federalist position on gay marriage (after some audio trouble) and does so dryly.
8:19: But Romney finds a port in the storm: This is the only social issue that he sounds halfway credible on. "Our Constitution was written by John Adams. I've looked. It isn't there." [Ed 8:37: To clarify, he was talking about Massachusetts' constitution.]
8:20: Oppo teams spring into action to determine whether Rudy ever married a couple of transexuals. ("You got to cut me some slack, it was New York City.")
8:21: Huckabee comes out against arguing with the other candidates: Why let it remain as subtext when you can make it the text? Instead, he'll give us a perfectly packaged piece of cant about human life.
8:23: "They're coming out against me because I'm their worst nightmare." I know that my nightmares involve plodding retirees who say "uhhh" a lot.
8:25: John McCain served in Vietnam.
8:26: Tom Tancredo whines about his ratings from conservative pressure groups.
8:27: Duncan Hunter traces the decline of the Democratic party to "a Democrat president" letting down the Cuban freedom fighters. It's important to remember that Ron Paul is the crazy one.
8:29: John McCain throws out the first actual bit of policy I've heard, a $2500 refundable tax credit for poor people's health coverage.
8:30: Hm, a neutral question to Ron Paul: He refused to treat people under Medicare, so what's he want to do about health care? Answer: "Don't run a world empire."
8:32: Romney isn't going to give the Democrats credit for "my"
health plan. Ah, such consistency.
8:33: Duncan Hunter makes a pretty good joke about Romney's health
care, specifically fertility care for 90-year olds: "I admire his
optimism." He keeps his candy-store smile for Romney's entire
rebuttal.
8:35: Wow, Mike Huckabee gets a Republican crowd to hoot for "preventive care." Call it Hillarycare and they'll egg your house; make a joke about hippies and they'll melt.
8:39: Not even the Democrats have found time for a Garrison Keillor reference. It gets no applause, but point to Fred.
8:40: Giuliani gets an ostensibly tough one about education and how the teachers' unions drubbed him in New York: "I like teachers, but I care about the kids more!" Probably emboldened by his response at the FRC event, he plugs "home school" and gets a war whoop from the middle of the crowd.
Commercial break one: I'm fixing some stuff above. Jim Geraghty is liveblogging and wonders if the candidates are on steroids. I think it has more to do with Fox panelists who actually care what these candidates think.
8:46: Everyone's getting a question about Hillary Clinton and an unemcumbered crowd is hooting for her blood. Is she fit to be commander-in-chief? NOOOOOO! Romney: "The audience is telling you the answer!" (A side note: I don't like to suck up to Clinton, but you'll notice that all the frontrunners like to dash off tough questions by laughing. It is sexist to focus on her "cackling"?)
8:48: "Anybody here going to vote for Hillary?" How unlike Romney to suck up to a crowd and say whatever's popular with them.
8:49: Is Rudy just like Hillary? Giuliani bugs his eyes out: "You gotta be kidding me!"
8:51: To illustrate how Rudy handled that last round, a video
aid:
8:53: John McCain served in Vietnam... well, ok, he gets one of his
better lines from this, bashing Hillary's earmark for a Woodstock
museum. "I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical
event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time."
8:54: Huckabee tries to be serious so he calls "Islamic fascism" "the most dangerous enemy we've ever faced." Very serious.
8:57: Paul gets booed for pointing out that "seventy percent of Americans want out of Iraq." (Five minutes ago, the crowd cheered when Rudy said he was polling "in the margin of error" behind Hillary. A smart audience!)
8:58: He wasn't too rattled by the booing... Paul transitions into a plea for Republicans getting back in touch with their inner Brickers and Tafts. Extremely light applause. Also, I just re-read the question and realized that Hume 1)claimed Clinton was anti-war and 2)equated being Republican with being pro-war.
9:00: Fred makes the case for his Social Security proposals and argues (in case you missed it) for his bravery: "Can you imagine, something that's going to go bankrupt and we're not talking about it?"
9:01: Rudy calls for private accounts.
9:03: And so does Romney. The party's picked itself up off the mat and dusted off, two years after getting shellacked on Social Security...
9:04: ...as Hume points out. Ronney will do "what I did in Massachusetts"--work with Democrats and then pretend he didn't and make fun of them.
9:06: Huckabee claims that Bush "used the wrong word" and referred to Social Security accounts as "private" instead of "personal." This is untrue.
9:07: Spontaneous applause for Paul when he wants young people to be able to "get out of the system." He loses the audience a little bit with a lecture on the falling dollar (".04 cents of what it was in 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created") but hey, he's not getting booed anymore.
9:09: Duncan Hunter talks about "dealing with massive loads." I empathize. (I'm curious as to how we can stop free trade and solve our Social Security problems and invite Hunter to explain this while I go away and do something else.)
9:12: The real problem with Social Security is, of course, Mexicans.
Second commercial break. More liveblogs here.
9:16: This is a forgiving crowd... it takes a while for McCain's gears to crank out a re-heated line about looking into Vladimir Putin's eyes "and seeing the letters K, G, and B." They applaud anyway.
9:18: McCain wants missile defense, Hunter wants AEGIS missiles in the Black Sea and missile defense.
9:21: Fred Thompson can't remember the word "resolution"? It's a reverse of the last debate: He started strong and has faded rapidly.
9:23: Huckabee puts on his statesman cap: Secretary of State to Turkey.
9:24: Paul says Turkey's business is Turkey's business and "we don't need to go looking for trouble." BOOO! (Actually, looking at it again, they boo him saying "we need to trade" with enemies. Jesus Christ.)
9:27: This is a hell of a lightning round: Paul gets a question about the future of the GOP and he's allowed to restate his campaign manifesto. "We've adapted the Democrats' foreign policy!" BOO, etc.
9:29: How to tell a serious candidate from a crazy one. Crazy ones talk about Eisenhower's foreign policy; serious ones talk about staring their way into peoples' eyes. And get massive ovations.
9:31: Fred Thompson ends the debate bragging that still bangs his wife.
The wrap-up...
Fox News gets Republicans, and Republicans get Fox News: The tougher questions have escape clauses, the easy questions pit them against their rivals in the simplest American Gladiator terms. No one sounded as lost as Fred Thompson did in the economics debate, and no one had previously duelled the way the top four candidates did in the opening of the debate. Almost everyone was able to meet his goal: Rudy pandered to Florida (the primary state he has to win, where he leads by double digits), Fred Thompson showed some vigor, Huckabee made conservatives think about ditching a frontrunner for him, McCain got the big one-liner.
People had speculated what would happen when Sam Brownback left the debate: Who'd get his time. Surprisingly, a lot of it went to Ron Paul. I have two theories why. One is that, unlike the two remaining second-tier candidates (Huckabee is one-and-a-half tier), moderators actually want to hear Paul respond to questions. (No one wants to hear Hunter rant about the Reds or Tancredo stutter about the swarthy men from the south and their wombful women.) Who knows, he might start a fight. The other might be that Paul fans relentlessly attack these guys when they ignore Paul. They're probably tired of it. Candidate-by-candidate:
- Paul: A terrible opening question and answer
but solid after that, impressive when you stop and think about the
mass of angry, yelling faces Paul could see from the stage. He's
gotten stronger picking his themes and hammering them all at the
end of his answers--stronger, but not amazing, and it often results
in messy Jackson Pollack sentences.
- Romney: Pretty much awful, and even his strong
areas--the economic stuff--were muddied up by his obsession with
rewriting history.
- Giuliani: He never "loses," and he always does
well enough to assuage the Republicans who were supporting him by
default. It became very easy to imagine him debating Hillary
Clinton or Barack Obama and winning. Less so the other guys.
- Thompson: He has responses for the easy
questions now but meanders on the tough ones. Everyone seems to
think his brag about his young children was a winning line, so I'll
let him have it, even though it sent me sprinting to find a sick
bag.
- McCain: This is the guy--tired,
Vietnam-obsessed, joke-rebooting--who campaign reporters are
praying will make a comeback.
- Huckabee: Full of crap but he sounds great
anyway. If he really starts threatening to win in Iowa, the
frontrunners will hit him for his shallow foreign policy, his
jokes-instead-of-knowledge, and his nannyism, but not until
then.
- Tancredo and Hunter: They were also
there.
|10.21.07 @ 7:03PM|#
A great place for a GOP debate, I imagine in Sioux City they are still mainstream. Well, that and the 1400's.
SIV|10.21.07 @ 7:03PM|#
Republican Debate on Fox News tonight.
Can we look forward to some "fair and balanced" livebloging from
the Democrat journalist "faux-hipster" perspective from
Weigel?
Yes We Can!
iih|10.21.07 @ 7:38PM|#
David: Blog the ALCS final instead. Reason's H&R will get more audience that way. Does anyone really expect anything new?
Nash|10.21.07 @ 7:39PM|#
Item: Mitt Romney is the candidate of less government, less taxes, and more freedom! Spread the news everybody!!
|10.21.07 @ 7:40PM|#
Is there any way to watch this online? I only have cable internet access, minus the tv service.
Balloon Maker|10.21.07 @ 7:44PM|#
Go Indians. I don't think I can stand another Yankees, Jr. World
Series.
So what's the over/under on Fred Thompson dropping out of the race
and/or dying?
|10.21.07 @ 7:45PM|#
GOP Debate, Fox News, tonight, 8:00pm.
American League Championship Series, Fox Sports, Game 7, tonight,
8:00pm.
Boy, Rupert Murdoch's got it going!
Sorry GOP, I'm busy.
Go Tribe!
|10.21.07 @ 7:49PM|#
Item: Mitt Romney is the candidate of less intelligence, less
conviction, and more hair gel! Spread the news everybody!!
Fixed that for ya Nash.
rho|10.21.07 @ 7:49PM|#
Did we ever decide on an official GOP Debate drinking
game?
Don't stop until you shoot blood from your ass.
Seer|10.21.07 @ 7:50PM|#
I'm watching the third Fox News-hosted GOP debate tonight
and will be watching for Fred Thompson to dazzle everyone with his
timing and energy, John McCain to call for an Iraq pullout, Duncan
Hunter to admit his affair with an illegal immigrant, and Ron Paul
to be treated with dignity and sober respect.
It's sad that the last item listed is the least likely to
happen.
Nash|10.21.07 @ 7:52PM|#
"Item: Mitt Romney is the candidate of less intelligence, less
conviction, and more hair gel! Spread the news everybody!!
Fixed that for ya Nash."
I love dreamy mimbo's running for the White House. Ron Paul is
"certifiably insane" according to Joe voter in Florida. His first
mention everyone! Someone has to "step up" and prove to these
people that Republicans aren't Nazi's. And then invade Iran.
iih|10.21.07 @ 7:56PM|#
OK, I have had enough Fox News and debate talk in 10 minutes. Off to the game.
rho|10.21.07 @ 7:57PM|#
Also, one Iowan calls Ron Paul "certifiably insane." Alan
Colmes defends him.
Your mainstream Republicans, folks! Let's give 'em a hand!
BakedPenguin|10.21.07 @ 8:05PM|#
Did we ever decide on an official GOP Debate drinking
game?
For every 60 seconds Paul is given to talk, take a drink. If you
actually want to get drunk, change this to every 30 seconds. Or
have bigger drinks.
Your mainstream Republicans, folks! Let's give 'em a
hand!
How about just a hand gesture?
not one|10.21.07 @ 8:06PM|#
Remember folks, freedom of religion isn't freedom from
religion.
I don't see how they could pander more effectively to this group
short of speaking in tongues.
Hayekian Dreamer|10.21.07 @ 8:06PM|#
Who the hell mugged Mitt Romney and gave him that hair style? The Dennis the Menace look is a bit old
|10.21.07 @ 8:13PM|#
Romney;
Look at my hair, it's a mess, pay no attention to my record as a
governor of the most liberal state in the nation. Oops, he did the
quick sweep to get it out of his face.
|10.21.07 @ 8:14PM|#
...and will be watching for Fred Thompson to dazzle everyone with his timing and energy, John McCain to call for an Iraq pullout, Duncan Hunter to admit his affair with an illegal immigrant, and Ron Paul to be treated with dignity and sober respect.
What color is the sky on your planet, Cliff?
|10.21.07 @ 8:14PM|#
If that's what constitutes a 'focus group' for the Republican Party then it's time to start the "Write in Ron Paul" campaign...
|10.21.07 @ 8:14PM|#
And on the topic of sports go Lions!
Since 1957, that's 50 years, the Detroit Lions have won one, count
'em one, playoff game. If your talkin' Nittany Lions, well they do
win from time to time.
Full disclosure, I'm a Detroiter who has given up on the pussycats
and am now a Seahawks fan.
Hayekian Dreamer|10.21.07 @ 8:15PM|#
Wow, they really don't want to give anyone but Romney, Giuliani, Thompson or McCain much time, do they? for giving "1 minute" questions they managed to have those 4 take up the first 15 minutes
|10.21.07 @ 8:19PM|#
You're right, Hayekian Dreamer. This is pathetic. I thought, with one less candidate, there might be a little more time to go around. Looks like they already used up all that time and more.
rho|10.21.07 @ 8:24PM|#
I'm not even watching this and I know what's happening.
(To be fair, I never would have guessed that Romney's Tomorrowman
android 'do would suffer catastrophic failure. I should have
guessed. I mean, I've watched Red Dwarf. The Future is
Fail.)
alan|10.21.07 @ 8:30PM|#
guess that makes it official
8:12: The nanites have fixed Romney's hair.
Mitt Romney is Bob Page.
|10.21.07 @ 8:30PM|#
Wait, which one is the other candidates' worst nightmare?
And is it a collective nightmare? A waking dream? Maybe some kind
of lysergic vision quest? I must know...
Jerry|10.21.07 @ 8:31PM|#
Seriously. El Salvador? Do you know how many people get killed there every year...Their government cannot every guarantee life, nor liberty nor property.
Franklin Harris|10.21.07 @ 8:32PM|#
"Our Constitution was written by John Adams."
So, Romney doesn't even know who wrote the Constitution. Great.
iih|10.21.07 @ 8:32PM|#
I know that no one in the audience understood any of what Paul just said. Too long for their attention span.
|10.21.07 @ 8:33PM|#
Okay, Ron Paul actually got another question already. That's encouraging. Also encouraging is that he put a ton of good content into his minute, giving a solid, well-rounded answer, far superior to his first one.
Seer|10.21.07 @ 8:34PM|#
I love Ron Paul, but he's never going to gain any ground if he mentions the war when he talks about domestic issues.
SIV|10.21.07 @ 8:37PM|#
The Conservative audience is cheering Huckabee's call for a
Therapeutic State?
Hippie bashing-good move there Huck, I support hippie bashing
%100.
|10.21.07 @ 8:38PM|#
Mitt just quoted P. J. O'Rourke. I'm gonna puke.
You think that's bad... On the way home earlier I listened to
Giuliani's speech to the Values Voter Conference. He spent several
minutes gushing over the Founding Fathers. He also spoke of his
reverence for the Constitution, and explaining that he would
appoint justices who interpreted it as the founders intended it. I
think he set a new record for hs/m. (horse shit per minute.)
John|10.21.07 @ 8:43PM|#
The amount we spend on health care is far more than what we spend on defense and foreign aid, so how will stopping the empire do anything?
iih|10.21.07 @ 8:44PM|#
OK, now that people are starting to puke and to feel bad. For
your health's sake, watch the ALCS instead.
OK, I'll blog the ALCS, while Dave does the debate (no... just
kidding).
B|10.21.07 @ 8:46PM|#
Doesn't Fred know the overlap between Fox News viewers and NPR listeners is like 12 people?
Jerry|10.21.07 @ 8:47PM|#
This is probably one of the poorer of Paul's performances so far. I think he didn't expect the gay marriage question, which kinda put him off balance so far.
|10.21.07 @ 8:48PM|#
Why should Rudy stop talking just because the bell rang? If he can just plow ahead without objection, he may as well.
John|10.21.07 @ 8:50PM|#
Fox letting the audience go nuts has made this debate far more entertaining.
|10.21.07 @ 8:51PM|#
WTF? They're going to give each of the frontrunners two minutes each to take shots at Hillary. They have no shame.
Jerry|10.21.07 @ 8:52PM|#
The sad thing is, that these Fox viewers will actually think Guiliani or Romney are different from Clinton. That is scary.
iih|10.21.07 @ 8:52PM|#
I think he didn't expect the gay marriage question, which
kinda put him off balance so far.
No, Fox picked the one issue that would not make Paul look
favorable to the viewers. Lets count how many questions Paul gets
on Iraq. I'd say at most one.
|10.21.07 @ 8:53PM|#
McCain: "I'd much rather lose a campaign than lose a war."
I'm not sure it's either/or at this point, John.
|10.21.07 @ 9:01PM|#
Brit Hume: "Congressman Paul: you are against the Iraq war, so
is Hillary Clinton. So how are you any different from her?"
That question tells you a lot about the mindset of FoxNews and the
GOP base. Conservatism = hawkishness.
|10.21.07 @ 9:02PM|#
No, I'm not happy with Ron Paul's answer that time. He should've mentioned the boatload of economic differences he has with HRC, not just the war.
violent_k|10.21.07 @ 9:06PM|#
OK, now that people are starting to puke and to feel bad.
For your health's sake, watch the ALCS instead.
Dude, I'm flipping back and forth and I can't decide which is more
painful to watch.
And how come everytime I flip back to the debate fuckin' Romney is
talking?
SIV|10.21.07 @ 9:06PM|#
Guiliani is to 9/11 as Romney is to?
A:Olympics
B:Olympics
C:Olympics
D:Olympics
E: All of the above
|10.21.07 @ 9:06PM|#
I think he got flustered by the booing. I wish he hadn't, but I can understand it. IMHO, he's got balls as big as church bells just for standing on a stage in front of that crowd.
Nash|10.21.07 @ 9:06PM|#
"And now Paul misses the obvious "She voted for the war, I
didn't" line."
I considered this too but then wondered if it would be wise to
point that out in front of this crowd.
iih|10.21.07 @ 9:10PM|#
Dude, I'm flipping back and forth and I can't decide which
is more painful to watch.
Then you're certainly not a Sox fan. God forbid, a Yankee?!
And how come everytime I flip back to the debate fuckin' Romney
is talking?
Now, that is not a coincidence.
For who ever cares CLE 0-2 BOS (top 3rd).
Edward|10.21.07 @ 9:14PM|#
Don't be discouraged, you Ron paul people. Keep exaggerating the little scraps of evidence that Ron Paul is a major force, and put his pathetic debate performances out of you minds. Close your eyes and try really hard. See? Yes! Ron paul is going to win!
|10.21.07 @ 9:16PM|#
Well, I'd say four out of the five "Top Videos" listed on the Fox News Video Player look more interesting than this debate. Especially the one about the parrot saving his family from a fire.
Jerry|10.21.07 @ 9:22PM|#
Errh, Hunter, that Alaska missile was not an ICBM. No missile defense is currently possible against ICBMSs, they are simply going too fast when they hit you.
iih|10.21.07 @ 9:23PM|#
Tancredo the idiot. 12 Turkish troops were killed the other day in a cross border raid. They want to respond to that and not because of the Armenian Genocide resolution.
|10.21.07 @ 9:25PM|#
Crowd sentiment: "Fuck everyone else! Let's bomb them." Poor Paul, getting booed like that.
|10.21.07 @ 9:27PM|#
Uh, Mitt, it wasn't Clinton who put together the military
cutbacks after the fall of the USSR, it was Bush I.
And you have to admit, it was a pretty good idea since the Cold War
was over.
Seer|10.21.07 @ 9:29PM|#
Paul really needs to hammer home that the Clintons used the military like crazy and bring up Cheney's and Gore's old positions on foreign policy to illustrate his point.
|10.21.07 @ 9:30PM|#
Okay, overall I'm pleased with this debate. Ron Paul got a lot more time than he did in the last debate, and for the most part he did well. Looks like the least time went to Hunter. He won't last much longer, I think.
iih|10.21.07 @ 9:31PM|#
Have these people heard of the Roman Empire and what actually happened to it because of its "foreign policy"? Plus, the USSR was on its way down anyhow, the US policy only slightly accelerated its downfall by a few years.
rho|10.21.07 @ 9:31PM|#
9:24: Paul says Turkey's business is Turkey's business and
"we don't need to go looking for trouble." BOOO! (Actually, looking
at it again, they boo him saying "we need to trade" with enemies.
Jesus Christ.)
We are doomed.
Drink.
|10.21.07 @ 9:31PM|#
The Founders advised against interventionism" Unless, you know,
it involved Indian tribes, British forts in the old Northwest,
North African pirates, Royal Navy incursions, etc.
This debate has convinced me Paul really is clinically insane. He
almost makes sense. You want to beleive the guy and then he starts
blaming the Fed for the Social Security mess and trying to claim
the founders were against interventionism and you realize he is no
better than the drunk at your local bar screaming at a jukebox.
Only the insane can sound that close to being sane. No one could
fake insanity like Paul.
|10.21.07 @ 9:33PM|#
Plus, the USSR was on its way down anyhow, the US policy
only slightly accelerated its downfall by a few years.
Uh, ihh, that's by no means a settled debate. When Ronald Reagan
took office, most contemporary politicians and pundits were of the
opinion that the USSR was going to be a permanent power on the
world stage, and thought "Ronnie Ray-gun" was insane to intensify
the arms race against them.
Seer|10.21.07 @ 9:34PM|#
Paul does fine explaining himself... to people that are all ready on his side. I think if I was a pro-war Republican, I wouldn't be convinced about him yet. He needs to be more elaborate.
Fluffy|10.21.07 @ 9:35PM|#
Fuck you, John.
The Indian tribes were on land that the US, rightly or wrongly,
claimed as its own.
The British were on land that they had ceded to the US by
treaty.
The Barbary pirates were not really a state and attacked us
first.
The British seized American citizens on the high seas.
And he didn't blame the Fed for the social security mess. He said
if the currency depreciates it doesn't matter what we try to do to
save our entitlement programs. And I don't necessarily agree with
that, but your characterization of what was said makes it clear
that you are a fucking moron.
|10.21.07 @ 9:36PM|#
Did Paul really say he would take away all sanctioning power from the federal government? That is saying more than "we should just trade with our enemies". If the Iranians contracted with Boeing to build a nuclear missile, I am not sure Ron Paul would try to stop them. He is not even faking being insane anymore.
the innominate one|10.21.07 @ 9:37PM|#
John, weren't the pirates of the Barbary coast countries
actually attacking US registry ships. It's not interventionism to
protect your own citizens in international waters. Likewise,
directly interacting with another country (UK, native American
tribes) to resolve conflicts isn't interventionism.
Are you military lawyer John, or a different John? I expected
better from military lawyer John, although his spelling was
poor.
|10.21.07 @ 9:37PM|#
The Founders advised against interventionism" Unless, you
know, it involved Indian tribes, British forts in the old
Northwest, North African pirates, Royal Navy incursions,
etc.
John, three of those four things took place in US territory, while
the Barbary pirates were avidly attacking US shipping. Obviously,
the founders supported "intervening" against attacks on our own
soil and our own citizens. That doesn't justify the hornet's nest
poking foreign policy we've had for the past 50 years.
Bingo|10.21.07 @ 9:40PM|#
John:
Just playing devil's advocate, do you think the USA would be on
Iran's nuclear hitlist if we traded freely with them?
SIV|10.21.07 @ 9:40PM|#
Plus, the USSR was on its way down anyhow
I'm dead serious in the belief that the Democrats would have
subsidized the USSR in the name of "peace" rather than let it
collapse.
The defeat of Communism in Europe was Reagan's greatest
achievement.He was brilliantly correct(despite the doubt and
opposition of his own people) and instrumental in bringing down the
USSR and it's Empire.
|10.21.07 @ 9:41PM|#
They also bought half the continent from the French. Further,
the Indians were considered soveriegn nations under American law
and still are. That didn't stop the founders from intervening when
it suited their needs. Ron Paul is an ignoramous who puts out the
"founders" bullshit and gets away with it because no one knows
anything about history.
"He said if the currency depreciates it doesn't matter what we try
to do to save our entitlement programs."
Yeah if we turn into Wiemar Germany that is true. But no one other
than Ron Paul and everyone else in his compound thinks the lack of
a gold standard is going to call that. He is an army of one when it
comes to economic policy. Further, they ask him about entitlements
and he rants about the Fed. They guy is a stuffed suit putting out
40 year old John Birth Society propeganda.
rho|10.21.07 @ 9:42PM|#
Ignore John. He's actually Edward, but nobody falls for Edward's
schtick anymore.
How come no reason editorial about Dondero not running for Paul's
seat?
iih|10.21.07 @ 9:42PM|#
crimethink,
I do not know what these pundits were justifying their position
here (mere propaganda?). Communism was/is a system bent on
self-defeat and if it weren't for the arms race, it would have been
it or something else at a later time.
BTW, Morocco
was one of the earliest "states" to acknowledge the independence of
the new American Republic.
|10.21.07 @ 9:43PM|#
SIV,
Didn't RR subsidize the USSR by giving them huge quantities of
US-grown wheat when they had shortages in the late 80s?
|10.21.07 @ 9:44PM|#
As far as the Barbary Pirates. They were attacking US shipping
but they attacked a lot of people's shipping. Why not just buy them
off? That is what Europe did. They didn't because the US acted
overseas to ensure its trading interests. They were certainly not a
threat to US soveriegnty. If that is not interventionism, I don't
know what is.
Further, what about the War of 1812? Was impressment really that
important? Again, it was a violation of trading interests and a war
of US interests abroad. The Germans did a hell of a lot worse in
the Atlantic leading up to WWII and if I am not mistaked Paul would
call our involvement with England "interventionism".
Fluffy|10.21.07 @ 9:47PM|#
OK John, so apparently you did understand what Paul said.
It's OK that you didn't agree with it, because as I said, I don't
think the currency is in as much jeopardy as Paul does.
But if you understood what he said, why did you come here and lie
about it? Did you think we weren't watching the debate?
And if you're trying to come here to claim that the Founders were
Trotskyites like that cocksucker Bush, you don't know as much
history as you think you do. In the pre-Jackson period there
actually wasn't that much pushback against the Indian tribes. The
Tecumseh war was as much an accident as a deliberate policy. If you
think the foreign policy lessons of the Founders aren't relevant or
if you think they didn't mean what they said about "entangling
alliances", that's fine - but to claim that Paul is crazy or wrong
when he claims that they advised nonintervention is
another lie on your part.
|10.21.07 @ 9:49PM|#
They also bought half the continent from the
French.
That's not really intervention, John. And, as someone who knows as
much about history as you do must be aware, there was quite the
uproar when Jefferson did that, as most of his party thought it was
unconstitutional.
Further, the Indians were considered soveriegn nations under
American law and still are.
On paper, yes, but whenever they happened to be in the way of white
people that was a dead letter. That's just another example of the
Founders not living up to their own ideals, not the lack of
ideals...so, I guess anyone who says that "all men are created
equal", when the man who wrote those words owned hundreds of
slaves, is an ignoramus too.
|10.21.07 @ 9:52PM|#
If that is not interventionism, I don't know what
is.
I agree that you don't know what is.
Seer|10.21.07 @ 9:53PM|#
Further, the Indians were considered soveriegn nations under
American law and still are.
Mostly because of John Marshall trying to bolster Federal
power.
Bingo|10.21.07 @ 9:55PM|#
John:
So are you advocating just doing whatever-the-fuck in regards to
foreign policy without having a set of rules? Because those
incidents you mentioned were 3 military actions that took place
over 150 fucking years. I can't even begin to
count how many military excursions we've been involved in over the
last 20 years.
You're basically saying that 3 military excursions over 150 years
time legitimizes an actively imperialist foreign policy. It sure
sounds to me that those interventions you mentioned are the
exception to the rule rather than the rule itself.
iih|10.21.07 @ 9:57PM|#
SIV, I thought there were many hawkish, arms-race potent GOP and
Dem presidents before RR. It was a matter of just waiting for
USSR's fall to happen. RR was just more emphatic in his
hawkishness. If he hadn't done it, it would have happened shortly
afterwards.
For all we know, it might have been a communist ploy just to make
the American public believe that it was the hawkish interventionist
policy that broke USSR's back. The communist leaders knew that
their system was inherently flawed, and that American
interventionism was hurting America, too.
But that is my own personal opinion. I think Ron Paul says
something to that effect (minus the communist conspiracy theory --
that is mine) in one of his books.
iih|10.21.07 @ 10:00PM|#
If nothing else, Ron's message has to be spread (regardless of the end effect of his campaign). Please contribute here.
the innominate one|10.21.07 @ 10:05PM|#
John wrote:
"If that is not interventionism, I don't know what is."
I agree with you, you don't know what interventionism is.
Bingo|10.21.07 @ 10:10PM|#
iih:
I just watched RP's Google
interview the other day. He was asked something to the effect
of "Is the goal of your campaign to just spread your message or is
it to be actually elected?"
His reply is pretty illuminating, he says that he is going for
votes, but that the impact of his message among young people is
especially important him. I think that, even if he loses, he's
given credibility to the libertarian and freedom movement that
hasn't been seen since... well I don't even know.
teh|10.21.07 @ 10:17PM|#
On SF radio, the only candidate who was even mentioned by name during their debate blurb was Huck for his "lets not attack each other" thing. Note to other politicians: the media will still uncritically parrot your pledges of "bipartisanship" and "raising the level of discourse in Washington."
iih|10.21.07 @ 10:18PM|#
I've watched it too. And I fully agree with your assessment. I am an immigrant, and the image of America that I had built in my mind is best embodied in Paul's message of freedom, independence, working for your buck, and getting to keep it.
|10.21.07 @ 10:27PM|#
I also agree with the comments of engaging the youth such as myself. I think what the futile Goldwater campaign did to the future limited government successes such as Reagan will occur down the line with Ron Paul campaign. Hopefully, in the 2012 or 2016 elections when this country has truly hit rock bottom, real credence and not snickering will be given to such positions.
|10.21.07 @ 10:28PM|#
Wow, Sean Hannity was extremely cordial with Ron Paul this time. Cool. Also, Ron Paul was quite well spoken in the little after-debate spin interview, better even than in the debate.
Guy Montag|10.21.07 @ 10:32PM|#
WOW! The Honorable Mr. Ron Paul is kicking text-poll butt!
My guy is getting creamed, I think :(
Congratulations Paulaholics!
|10.21.07 @ 10:34PM|#
People, please don't tease SIV with facts. He's happy in his
world, don't take that from him...
(Carter brought on an embargo against the USSR on grain, Reagan
campaigned to end it and did and then actually subsidized the grain
sells to an unprecedented level)
Bingo|10.21.07 @ 10:38PM|#
iih:
Hahaha, my great-great-grandparents were immigrants and they came
to America for exactly those reasons! It's a shame our politicians
are working against the main reason people come to the States and
do such great things.
smartass sob|10.21.07 @ 10:39PM|#
working for your buck, and getting to keep it.
Unfortunately - due to the economic policies of the financial
establishment, the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Government -
the longer you keep it the less it becomes worth. Deliberate
expansion of the currency and credit supply is the true definition
of inflation. If Paul's campaign serves only to spread an
understanding of that fact among the public, he will have done this
country a great service.
iih|10.21.07 @ 10:42PM|#
Bingo:
How would politicians (GOPor Dem) earn a living without a big
government? They are working hard to making America just another
one of those countries out there were people are just sheep. That
is why we need RP's message out in the public sphere.
iih|10.21.07 @ 10:44PM|#
If Paul's campaign serves only to spread an understanding of
that fact among the public, he will have done this country a great
service.
Yes. He is truly a great man.
SIV|10.21.07 @ 10:46PM|#
The idea that Reagan's grain policy propped up the Soviet Union
is absurd.It highlighted the failure of their system.
Further, the Indians were considered soveriegn nations under
American law and still are.
We didn't start all the Indian Wars. They were allies of Britain in
the early 19th century . Read your history (no Howard Zinn allowed
:)
|10.21.07 @ 10:46PM|#
Wow! Ron Paul is winning the Fox text poll. The Broncos are beating the Steelers. And I just won the bidding on Ebay for a New Wave DVD. What fun!
iih|10.21.07 @ 10:46PM|#
That is why those whoever can still contribute should contribute to his Broadcast Freedom campaign in NH, SC, IO and NV.
|10.21.07 @ 10:49PM|#
My guy is getting creamed, I think :(
Congratulations Paulaholics!
Thanks. Guy! And just who is your guy?
SIV|10.21.07 @ 11:03PM|#
From Weigels wrapup:
Huckabee: Full of crap but he sounds great anyway. If he really
starts threatening to win in Iowa, the frontrunners will hit him
for his shallow foreign policy, his jokes-instead-of-knowledge, and
his nannyism, but not until then.
I'd like to see them hit Huckabee for the nannyism now. He is
getting applause with it at a Republican debate.
My own observation: Paul keeps telling GOP voters how he won't use
the military.If he wants their votes he needs to clearly and
aggressively state when, how, and why he would use it.
violent_k|10.21.07 @ 11:07PM|#
When the debate was over I told my son to tell everyone in his
IM session to text R5 to Fox. Three people did in addition to my
son.
One of his friends in the IM session asked what he had just voted
for. When told that he had voted for Ron Paul in an online poll he
replied, "I'm a Democrat but I'll vote for anyone but
Hillary."
I wonder if the Democrats are aware of this demographic.
win|10.21.07 @ 11:25PM|#
The dollar is crashing. Ron Paul is the only one to mention that the dollar is a big issue. The dollar crisis is more important than gay rights or the other BS questions asked tonight.
Nash|10.21.07 @ 11:28PM|#
I'm pretty much a Paul zealot and agree with his foreign policy 100% but I wish during the debates he would rail on domestic spending and highlight his tax record in congress more. He tailors his speeches to conservative voters I don't really know why he doesn't tailor his debate rhetoric when he's talking to a bunch of so called conservatives. Fred Thompson talks about less spending, Paul should pile on that sentiment and one up him by comparing their records.
|10.22.07 @ 12:01AM|#
I'm still waiting for Paul to state, at one of these debates,
"While everyone else on this stage will debate on whether to let
Bush's measly tax cuts expire, know that a vote for Ron Paul is a
vote to end the IRS and the Income Tax, and replace it with
NOTHING."
Why aren't Paul's handlers advising him to make such a
statement?
|10.22.07 @ 12:23AM|#
Looks like BOS is ALCS Champion! Where is J sub D when you
need one?
Dude, I'm crying in my beer right now. Indians just didn't show up,
and when they had a chance to tie Joel Skinner makes the most
fucked-up decision any third base coach ever has in holding Lofton
at third. Might not have mattered, seeing what happened afterward,
but trust me that Tribe Nation is feeling it hard right now. Listen
to the aftergame broadcast at wtam.com to get a general impression.
Or, go to the site I sometimes write for, theclevelandfan.com to
see our reaction.
iih|10.22.07 @ 12:26AM|#
trust me that Tribe Nation is feeling it hard right
now.
Red Sox Nation is feeling something else right now outside. I tell
you, it is a circus outside. But, hey, sorry man!
iih|10.22.07 @ 12:29AM|#
John-David:
By the way, as a Pistons fan (well sort-of since I left MI last
year), I know exactly how you feel especially after the Eastern
Conference loss to, who else, Cleveland!
TJ Wass|10.22.07 @ 12:33AM|#
Funny that the audience that had their tickets BOUGHT by the candidates (Romney, etc. had twice as many in the audience than Paul) Talk about stacking the deck. I think it is ironic that Hannity say FOX's own texting poll was "stacked" because the viewers apparently don't agree with his views. Hmm..do i hear the SILENT MAJORITY speaking? They will in the primaries the true defender of freedom at the ballot box! Talk about not listening to how your viewers feel. I see Ron Paul as winning the nomination or else we're gonna lose to Clinton. No doubt about it I love the Constitution and now I believe Paul is our best chance to preserve it. Look at his voting record and you'll see he's the ONLY true conservative, supporting liberty and smaller government.
|10.22.07 @ 12:42AM|#
The rate of donations on Ron Paul's website has been steadily increasing. He started this quarter getting about $50k per day. The last two days have been over $100k each.
|10.22.07 @ 12:58AM|#
If the Ron Paul campaign's daily donations increase by $50,000 every 20 days, they will raise over 12.5 million in the 4th quarter. Aren't they shooting for 12 million?
|10.22.07 @ 1:45AM|#
I just went to the Ron Paul campaign site and donated $50. I saw my name come up as a recent contributor. Way cool.
Mike|10.22.07 @ 2:39AM|#
The bias in the FOX News "debate" is quite pronounced. I think
it's fair to say Ron Paul is in third place among
Republicans...
http://www.truthalert.net/Republican%20Presidential%20Candidate%20Rankings.htm
NP|10.22.07 @ 3:54AM|#
Whatever differences I have with the GOP, this was the best debate so far in terms of entertainment value.
|10.22.07 @ 8:10AM|#
The dollar is crashing.
This has to be my biggest gripe with Paul (and a big red herring in
general).
The dollar is worth less relative to other nations'
currency. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
A drop of the valuation of the dollar leads to increased foreign
investment, which is not a bad thing...
BakedPenguin|10.22.07 @ 8:24AM|#
Taktix® - I agree. Maybe the Paul campaign should talk with a
few exporters and see how they feel about the falling dollar.
The other thing is that while destructive inflation remains a
possiblity, the Volker / Greenspan Fed showed that it could be kept
low enough not to destabilize the economy. I agree more with Milton
Friedman here - so long as the money supply roughly corresponds
with the growth in the economy, there shouldn't be any
problems.
Oh, and what was up with the Steelers last night?
|10.22.07 @ 9:16AM|#
Oh, and what was up with the Steelers last night?
Sorry, Steelers fans. Last night was my fault. I usually go to a
local Steelers club to watch the game, but last night I stayed
home.
Had to work early, you see.
So my apologies, once again, for jinxing it. No matter, though, at
least Ben got his shit together by then end...
The Democratic Republican|10.22.07 @ 10:02AM|#
Tacktix -- you're right, the dollar is worth less relative to other currencies. That is the decline in the exchange rate. But the real danger is inflation, i.e., a decline in the purchasing power of the dollar. That is what RP meant by saying a dollar today is only $.04 back in 1913. The gold standard (or a gold peg) keeps inflation stable. The decline in the FOREX for the dollar is a function of inflation and fundamentally unsound economic indicators.
The Democratic Republican|10.22.07 @ 10:05AM|#
Baked Penguin -- again, Friedman is basically right, but again,
the main points of RP's campaign are relevant: times of war and
unbalanced budgets lead to greater inflation, causing inflation to
exceed the level of economic growth.
As for exporters, yes, they love the falling dollar. But this is
where RP is a populist -- he stands against corporatism and favors
a monetary policy that won't diminish the purchasing power of the
poor man's dollar.
|10.22.07 @ 12:28PM|#
a decline in the purchasing power of the dollar. That is
what RP meant by saying a dollar today is only $.04 back in
1913.
To purchase what? An awful lot of what I buy didn't even exist back
in 1913. The economy itself is much larger than it was in 1913.
Somehow, the statement that the dollar has lost 96% of its value
seems inconsistent with the fact that our material well-being has
vastly improved since 1913.
Seriously, how do you factor technological advance and economic
growth into calculations of inflation? As long as our material
well-being improves long-term, why should we care about
inflation?
|10.22.07 @ 12:31PM|#
Because he's not. I believe Eric has endorsed Peden, the guy who
has raised $200 to RP's $80K for the Congressional race.
> How come no reason editorial about Dondero not running for
Paul's seat?
libertreee|10.22.07 @ 12:32PM|#
href=http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016336.html#more
An Austrian answers the Chicago School.
RC Dean-- You seem to miss what Rothbard demonstrated about the
1920's. Irving Fisher and the MS Economists assumed that because
the price level was constant, that the boom was sustainable. The
price level was constant because technological advances that
greatly increased productivity hid the effects of inflation until
the crash of the stock market.
libertreee|10.22.07 @ 12:37PM|#
I do agree that we have a growing economy because of the amazing
bread machine that is capitalism.
However, the different bubbles we have experienced in the last
twenty years in the stock market, gold market, real estate, dot
com, etc illustrate how inflationary central banking does create
these problems. People lose a lot of money when that happens. San
Diego and other cities are losing population due to the housing
bubble, etc. People have their savings in their homes, and have a
hard time paying the rent...
RP is speaking a lot to the lower middle class...the hard working
Main Street Republicans. He is touching a nerve against the
corporatist, Wall Street types who are insulated from the effects
of the inflation.
stephen the goldberger|10.22.07 @ 1:01PM|#
it's over huckabee's winning the nomination:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/22/martial-arts-tv-star-picks-presidential-candidate/
x,y|10.22.07 @ 1:01PM|#
Is there a precedent for getting booed (multiple times) in a primary debate?
|10.22.07 @ 1:20PM|#
Nobody seems to have noticed Huckabee's comments on social
security fixes and the retiring. He said, regarding Clinton's
health care plan and its expense, 'Just wait until the Baby Boomers
retire in a couple of years and find out Medicare drugs are free!'
and then, about social security, that the actuarial tables were
originally set up for people to retire at 65 and die at 67, and
that it would be hard to meet those goals for the retired unless
'we take them out.'
What the hey? At the very least, a nasty imagination, mean-spirited
(I mean, haven't Baby Boomers always bought their own drugs?)
Although it does say that Huckabee has been paying attention to the
world's ever-shrinking supply of young workers relative to the
world's retired population. Even some world market type blogs and
articles are pushing much harder for euthanasia, especially in
Japan. But to just say, 'Take 'em out!' that's skipping all the
euphanisms. Raw stuff. I was shocked at his apparent dislike of the
elderly.
The Democratic Republican|10.22.07 @ 1:42PM|#
R C Dean -- You make a lot of good points, especially about how
purchasing power is relevant to the given economic situation. The
historical "long view" on inflation doesn't really prove anything
in itself; what it proves is the inevitable devaluation of an
uninvested dollar.
In other words, the 1913 comparison proves that if you put a dollar
under your mattress for about 50 years, you'll be saying, "back in
my day, you could buy a candy bar for a dollar..."
For the poor, who are far more unlikely to invest, this is a
problem. It's also a problem that we assume that 3% annual
inflation is OK. It doesn't have to be that way, and it didn't used
to be. Of course, we should be thankful that that is all that it
is.
|10.22.07 @ 2:35PM|#
For the poor, who are far more unlikely to invest, this is a
problem.
But the poor are better off, too, than they were two or three or
ten generations ago.
Seriously, my instinct is that inflation is corrosive over the long
run, but I'm having a hard time lining that up with the fact that
we have had generations of inflation co-existing with generations
of broad improvement in material well-being.
BakedPenguin|10.22.07 @ 4:30PM|#
Democratic Republican: yes, but a true gold standard is also
vulnerable to price fluctuations, although nowhere to the extent
that a fiat system is.
Rick Barton - I'm a Broncos fan, too. Having said that, I was
surprised to turn to the game and see 21 - 7 Broncos.
REAL AMERICAN|10.22.07 @ 5:57PM|#
8:13: Lawyers are "the last people on earth" McCain will
call in on a national security crisis. It's awfully telling of the
modern GOP that this--Romney saying he'd want to follow the law if
we go to war--has been the biggest gaffe of the autumn.
FUCK YEAH! YOU BRING ME A WAR, I, THE COMMANDER IN FUCKING CHIEF,
MAKE THE LAW! YOU SAY YOU WANT TO 'THINK' BEFORE YOU ACT? TAKE YOUR
PANTIES OFF, BUDDY, THIS IS A MANS GAME. NO AMERICAN WANTS A LEADER
WHO PAUSES AND 'CONSIDERS THE ISSUES'. YOU KNOW WHAT TO DO = KICK
SOMEONES ASS ASAP, THEN FIND SOME MORE ASS TO KICK JUST TO BE SURE
YOU GOT THE MESSAGE ACROSS. SHIT I SAY WE BOMB COUNTRIES AT RANDOM
JUST TO KEEP EM ON THEIR TOES. FUCKING LAWYERS.
|10.22.07 @ 7:22PM|#
When a "Bushbot" inevitably gets nominated and the Democrats win the election, the Republicans will have no one to blame but themselves.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245