Newt’s Pre-Campaign

-

newt header.jpg
When in Europe, I was frequently queried about the current state of play in the Republican and Democratic presidential primary process.
My quick response on the Dems was that Hillary’s juggernaut was extremely impressive — but that Barack Obama had passed the skeptic’s test and was filling the “bubble” of expectations he created with an impressive architecture of widely diverse donors and well thought out policy proposals. I believe that Edwards is being crushed in between Hillary and Obama — despite his connection with worried middle class Americans and organized labor. I thought that the rest of the pack — Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, and well — that’s about it — were running for VP or other positions.
In the Republican race, I told the story of the McCain campaign’s fall from what once looked like inevitable success. I suggested that Brownback, Tancredo, and Huckabee — despite their bond with Southern Christian fundamentalists — gave up any real chance of living at 1600 Pennsylvania when they denied believing in evolutionary science. I told folks that while Giuliani and Romney were both performing impressively — both in fundraising and in sustaining themselves in the polls — I just couldn’t see either firmly securing the Republican nomination.
I could be very wrong here — but the Republican Party is not so pliable as to celebrate its redness in the last couple of elections and then turn around and nominate either of two northeastern liberal Republicans.
My guess is that Fred Thompson comes in and steals a lot of the party — both moderates as well as Christian conservatives.
And then in August/September of this year, I think that there is a strong chance that Newt Gingrich will come into the race with a force and excitement that most underestimate. He is someone who straddles the South and science. Gingrich can weave faith-based commentary and new economy globalization and jihad-focused national security concerns into the same sentence, or at least the same paragraph. He has had an affair and confessed — and that won’t be a problem running against Hillary; only against Obama.
The only unbeatable pairing, I suggested, was Gore-Obama.
But Gingrich is putting a lot of effort into keeping himself in the public eye. Here is an email that I received from his staff today:

An Invitation to the World That Works
Today I have an invitation for any of you who have:

Tracked a package online with UPS or FedEx;
Used a mobile phone with a camera;
Gotten money from an ATM outside the U.S.; or
Used Travelocity, Orbitz or Expedia to buy an airplane ticket or book a hotel room.

For any of you who have done any of these things, I am inviting you to join me for a briefing on how we can make our government bureaucracies work more like UPS and FedEx and less like, well, bureaucracies.
Please join me on Monday, July 23, from Noon to 6:00pm (EDT) for a briefing on “From the World That Fails to the World That Works: The Coming Transformation of Government.” The briefing will be at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington. It will also be webcast at americansolutions.com.
To join us at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, please e-mail Nancy Bocskor at nancyb@americansolutions.com.
The World That Works Is Not a Theory
For a good introduction to the ground we will cover next Monday, watch this video.

I think Newt is going to run.
This is classic pre-campaigning, and Dems need to begin thinking about — and stop scoffing about — a possible Newt run. He’s the kind of clever and formidable competitor who should not be underestimated.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

109 comments on “Newt’s Pre-Campaign

  1. Kathleen says:

    I called Feingold’s office and asked him to change his mind about running.
    Did anyone hear Bob Novak say Dopey is not a conservative, he’s a CT. Liberal???? Puhleeeeze.
    I’m from CT. If Dopey’s a CT. liberal, I’m sweet sixteen and a beauty queeeeeeen.
    No Bob, the late Governor Ella T. Grasso was a CT. liberal. Dopey couldn’t hold a candle to her.

    Reply

  2. Ellen S. says:

    We cannot have a 5″3″ wimpy looking President with a 6′ redheaded gorgeous wife. For cryin’ out loud!, can’t you see how that would look!
    We just can’t have it!
    Thank you.

    Reply

  3. Sandy says:

    “…The fact is that Ron Paul has built a political career pandering to the far fringes of the proto-fascist right. There’s twenty-plus years of documentary evidence that he does not believe in democracy as we progressives understand it. No amount of disarming straight talk should blind us to that core fact….”
    Hmmm….
    “…In the meantime, I’d love to see a real life Revenge of the Nerds and see Kucinich soar to the top. He’s been right all along. It’s time he receives his due. Let’s bet on the dark horse, if only to drive the MSM crazy….”
    Ha! Me, too! (Penpals, definitely! 🙂 Kucinich believes in promoting Peace. Now then, is that “radical”…or what?! They who call him “fruity” ought to see his (what?) 6-ft tall, gorgeous young red-headed wife….who finds him VERY attractive. Ha! Oh yeah, and then the next worst thing they pin on him is he’s too “New Age”.
    Uh, as opposed to what? The Rapture? Four Horses? Ted Haggard? (…sing a few bars of Ashcroft’s “Let the Eagles Soar….”)
    Kucinich for Prez: Sign me up! grin
    He’s right — the Dems could stop the killing tomorrow. Just don’t fund ONE DAMN DOLLAR more. At least not one of mine! Bring the kids HOME! (Use the VP and Pres Office funding to pay for it.)

    Reply

  4. MP says:

    More fun with Paul…
    “”In the second post, phenry outlines Paul’s connections to various white supremacists groups. In 1996, Paul was one of only two candidates endorsed by Christian Identity leader Larry Pratt (who had previously worked with David Duke, and resigned from Pat Buchanan’s team when his Identity role became public). Paul refused to repudiate the endorsement; and Pratt has stepped forward again with a quasi-endorsement of Paul’s current campaign.
    Through the 90s, Paul was also a regular on the far-right talk circuit. He spoke to Texas secessionists in 1995 on the “once and future Republic of Texas”; has appeared on a radio program affiliated with the Council of Conservative Citizens; and is a frequent speaker at John Birch Society functions — the group has given him a perfect 100 in its legislative rankings. These days, those who monitor CCC, David Duke, and Stormfront say they can’t get enough of him. They know he’s one of their own.”
    Link is here, but feel free to browse if you want to take the full measure of the man:
    http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/man-of-hour.html

    Reply

  5. MP says:

    Sandy,
    I also like Edwards.
    Except in certain cases, I tend not to judge candidates on specific proposals, which are likely to change or be abandoned once they get into office, often through no fault of their own.
    Character, guiding philosophy, overriding values and focus mean more to me, especially at this stage. That’s largely why I object to Paul–and his guiding philosophy does play out in some pretty bad positions, e.g. abortion, role of government.
    I don’t see much value–some value, but not much–in people having been right all along.
    I prefer someone who can admit his mistakes, correct them, and move on. Edwards seems to have that quality. Because inevitably anyone will make mistakes; how he or she deals with them is where the rubber meets the road (for me).

    Reply

  6. Kathleen says:

    You know there is something radically wrong with our electoral process when the only candidates who were right all along are considered second tier and regularly ignored by the MSM. Is that because they are living proof that MSM did not do their job?
    I wanted Russ Feingold to be the Dem nominee but he chose not to run because he said he couldn’t generate enough excitement. I noticed in all the early polling that even though Feingold had a national network and had an exploratory committee, he was consistently left out of all the polls. Why? Again because the MSM did not do their job, and discussing Feingold’s campaign would have forced them to admit it.
    My ideal ticket is Feingold/anybody else. or, since he won’t run, anybody else/Feingold.
    In the meantime, I’d love to see a real life Revenge of the Nerds and see Kucinich soar to the top. He’s been right all along. It’s time he receives his due. Let’s bet on the dark horse, if only to drive the MSM crazy.
    Call your Congresscritter to sign on to HR 333. We cannot let Dopey and Darth get away with murder, etc. Feingold is right with his Motion for Censure. We must record our objections. We cannot remain silent on their mugging of our Constitution. Have you seen Dopey’s new Executive Order allowing him to seize assets of anyone who fits his cockamamey definition of enemy combatant?These guys are INSANE. Call the guys in the white coats, yesterday.
    Sandy, let’s be pen pals. Team work.

    Reply

  7. Marky says:

    POA, you are not part of the “pro-choice” movement. In fact, you have no objection to a large portion of the pro-life platform, as enunciated for example by RP. If you had simply said “I have no objection to the anti-abortion proposals of Ron Paul” instead of calling yourself “pro-choice”, this silly debate could have been avoided. As it is, I’m still waiting for you to admit your dishonesty.. well, I’m not holding my breath.
    BTW, you’re going to LOVE it when I start posting tidbits from Neiwert about Ron Paul. If you want to end the war, stick with Kucinich. I do think he’s a bit fruity on a personal level–to the extent that he is unelectable, but his politics are not a problem for me, particularly.
    On the other hand, RP is a stand-in for the most far right wing groups in the US. I don’t really expect that anyone is deceived about this point—I know Robert Morrow isn’t—but for completeness’ sake I’ll offer evidence in the next few days.

    Reply

  8. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “I kept on with the argument when I understood that POA was being dishonest about his abortion politics.”
    Go screw yourself, Marky.

    Reply

  9. Marky says:

    Sandy,
    I kept on with the argument when I understood that POA was being dishonest about his abortion politics. Since that matter has been cleared up, we can move one; however, I will have a LOT more to say about Ron Paul, whose stealth campaign has succeeded in fooling a lot of voters as to what kind of President he would be. Ron Paul has stood with the racist CCC; he has large support among the racist “patriot” movements—that’s just for starters.

    Reply

  10. MP says:

    You mean…
    “If you can’t say something nice about someone…”
    I prefer Alice Roosevelt Longworth’s version: “If you can’t say something nice about someone…come sit by me.”
    I’m probably going to vote for the Democratic candidate, unless there’s a BIG surprise. Right now, doing anything else means a vote for the Republican. I’m not a single issue voter (surprise!).
    I like Clark…Bloomberg…from what I’ve seen…but they haven’t shown any inclination to enter the race.
    At this point, I’m not stumping for any one candidate…and I think that’s a rational position at this point.
    Thanks for “asking.”

    Reply

  11. Sandy says:

    So, Marky and MP, we know by now you reject Ron Paul as a viable candidate. We get it.
    So, then, who is it you DO want to see elected?
    This column is about Newt Gingrich….are you for him?

    Reply

  12. MP says:

    Marky writes: “Since POA is also a fervent Kucinich supporter, it would be interesting to make a point by point comparision of their platforms. For the life of me I can’t imagine how someone could support both of them, except as derived from their Iraq politics.”
    That’s what it is. Iraq, primarily, and government abuse. Other issues, such as abortion, are deemed less important, so he doesn’t pay as much attention to them. Or he prioritizes. Or he lives with the inconsistency. To be fair, we’re all inconsistent to some degree, especially when it’s hard to find a candidate who fits the bill 100%, and so much is crying out for correction. Or, maybe POA is pro-life–he certainly isn’t making a cogent argu- ment for anything on this thread, that’s for sure.
    Knowing that he’s a Libertarian is enough to disqualify Paul in my book, for all sorts of reasons. A while back, Den posted an excellent evisceration of this non-philosophy philosophy. It really is a disguised form of social Darwinism, a way for the rich not to feel guilty as they get richer and turn their backs on the rest of society–all the while preaching that if only the rest of society did like them, THEY’D all be happier too. They claim to know how a healthy economy works, but they can’t point to a time when their views were ever truly tested “in the field.” Most of them are Republicans seeking something purer.
    A pinch of Libertarianism is a good thing, in my view, but not a whole person’s worth. I’ve known MANY Libertarians, and most of them are recovering, while at least one is still delusional. He actually thinks that something like 98.7% of all Americans don’t owe any income tax by virtue of the Constitution, and never mind the 16th amendment, which was never properly ratified. Don’t call them “tax protesters” either. Why? Because there is NO tax to protest–it doesn’t really exist. Etc. I’m not sure Paul is this far gone. Perhaps if he showed his true colors, he’d be laughed off stage.
    I will say this, though: It’s a sign of how BAD things really are that anyone is taking this guy seriously, even at a rhetorical level.

    Reply

  13. Marky says:

    I have to disagree with my numerous alter-egos POA’s abortion politics. POA says he has no problem with Ron Paul’s proposed legislation concerning abortion.
    Given that RP’s positions are extremely radical “pro-life”, then one can only conclude that POA is a pro-lifer himself, or completely indifferent to the subject. The latter is a possibility, but by no stretch of the imagination can the politics of someone who approves of Ron Paul’s abortion platform be called middle of the road. Don’t forget POA’s dishonest description of himself as “pro-choice”.
    Since POA is also a fervent Kucinich supporter, it would be interesting to make a point by point comparision of their platforms. For the life of me I can’t imagine how someone could support both of them, except as derived from their Iraq politics.

    Reply

  14. Sandy says:

    I agree with you, Kathleen. (As I usually do. )
    Ron Paul, is, I believe 78 years old, and the article said this was when he was young….so that event likely occurred in the 1950’s. Roe v Wade wasn’t passed until 1973, I believe it was.
    Not that it matters, but I never thought you said anything to indicate you were “pro-life” POA.
    What silly terms these are! Ha! “PRO-LIFE” Tell THAT to the hundreds of thousands of DEAD….killed by the Bush-Cheney war of (“pro-“) CHOICE.
    “Oh, don’t kill me! Please don’t kill me!” Bush mocked Karla Fay Tucker to TUCKER Carlson who, oddly, actually reported it.
    Pro-life. “Born-again Christian”. Yeah, right.
    Uh oh, there I go again….judging.
    IMPEACH the murdering pro-lifers!

    Reply

  15. MP says:

    POA writes: “The plethora of screen names on this thread are a figment of my imagination? I think not, MP. And everytime it occurs, you’re in the center of it.”
    Last I heard, Steve has something like 30K readers. Marky and I have posted on many different topics, often at different times. And, as he notes, our writing style is completely different.
    As to Kathleen’s compromise: Abortion foes, includinig RP, won’t allow abortion in the first trimester or for the health of the mother. Or any time. If you define life as beginning at conception–as his federal law sought to do–then you’ve taken the first step toward banning all abortion.
    It should be obvious that pro-choice-ers are trying to impose anything on anyone. Anyone and everyonen is free NOT to have an abortion if they so choose. It is the anti-choice/pro-life who seek to impose their views about life on others and PREVENT others from making this choice. Moreover, I’ve never met a woman who LIKED the idea of having an abortion or LOOKED FORWARD to it the way she would other desirable events. In my experience, women are pretty good protectors of their own fetuses, except when they feel impelled to end a pregnancy.
    My understanding is that abortions dropped significantly during the 1990s, when buoyant economic conditions made having a baby–or engaging in family planning–economically feasible for more people.

    Reply

  16. Darky says:

    I do not see what the problem is with Ron Paul coming out against the killing of babies. That seems like a common sense position to me. It shouldn’t even have to be stated.
    But my question for Ron Paul would be, “Are you for ‘drowning the baby in the bathtub’ as your fellow traveler Grover Norquist would put it when he talks about tax reform in the form of monumental tax breaks resulting in massive federal budget cuts that guts the federal government? And how do you stand on any government involvement in publicly financed healthcare, particularly Medicaid and Medicare?
    The peeps will love him after he answers that honestly.

    Reply

  17. PissedOffAmerican says:

    The plethora of screen names on this thread are a figment of my imagination? I think not, MP. And everytime it occurs, you’re in the center of it.

    Reply

  18. MP says:

    POA writes: “And stretching my comments to imply that I am “pro-life” borders on ridiculous…”
    My sense is that you’re not pro-life, nor did I make any assertion about your personal views. My assertions were about Paul’s views, his actions, and the logic of his actions.
    I never said you were “vehemently opposed to abortion.” I actually don’t know.
    You continually tie yourself in knots with this stupid sleuthing for double or triple identities.

    Reply

  19. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “It seems to me that there is a middle way on the abortion issue. It used to be that abortions could only be performed during the first trimester. That seems like a good rule to follow, except where the mother’s life is in danger and then, if the fetus is viable and can live on its own, it should be saved, and put up for adoption, not thrown in a pail.”
    I agree, Kathleen, although I do not know enough about fetus development to comment on the first trimester criteria. But even being pro-choice, no one of reasonable morality can condone the event that Paul describes.
    But please, I am curious. Can my comments on this thread be reasonably interpreted as meaning I am “vehemently opposed to abortion”, as MP alleged?

    Reply

  20. Kathleen says:

    It seems to me that there is a middle way on the abortion issue. It used to be that abortions could only be performed during the first trimester. That seems like a good rule to follow, except where the mother’s life is in danger and then, if the fetus is viable and can live on its own, it should be saved, and put up for adoption, not thrown in a pail.
    Childbirth is a potentially fatal process for the mother and can ‘t always be predicted. Therefore, no woman should be forced to bear a child against her will.
    Still, some measure has to be taken to protect a fetus and the doctors and nurses who have to perform the procedure. Sticking to the first trimester solves many of the moral issues and developing a rule on what to do in cases of late term abortions when the fetus is viable.

    Reply

  21. PissedOffAmerican says:

    The truly interesting aspects of this thread is how strongly MP and his multi screen named compatriots attacked me and Ron Paul. Isn’t it interesting that whenever these posters show up using multiple screen names, they always seems to surround MP’s position?
    And the talking points used to attack me and Paul are right out of the RNC handbook. Is that a coincidence?
    And stretching my comments to imply that I am “pro-life” borders on ridiculous, from my perspective, at least. I am curious to hear from other posters whether or not my comments seemed to portray me as “pro-life”. But please, if you choose to comment, I would like to hear from regulars, no unrecognizable or first time screen names. Theres been enough of that bullshit on this thread.

    Reply

  22. Bakersfield Babe says:

    Sandy,
    Did Ron Paul say in the NYT article how they got that little baby to stop crying after being thrown in the pail? Seems it would be pretty unnerving to have this little baby wailing away in a pail while you are attending to its mother a few feet away. How did they finally murder it? Does Ron Paul say?

    Reply

  23. Sandy says:

    This week’s NYTimes Sunday magazine has an article about Ron Paul. Very interesting. Funny how these connections…to people we’ve never seen before…make us think of them — I thought to myself, POA would like to read this. Probably can’t get it online….unless you pay that TimesSelect thing ….which I refuse to do given the Judy Miller et al frauds.
    Anyhow, Ron Paul is an obstetrician, and in the article it says he feels the way he does about abortion because when he was a very young intern, he found himself taking part, with others, in a late-term abortion. He said when he saw that two-and-a-half pound baby come out….crying…. breathing …. and being thrown into a pail…..he knew he could never go along with abortion ever again. So, it sounds to me like it’s more a personal than a fanatical religious conviction, fwiw.
    Actually, while I don’t agree with his stances on several fronts, the more I hear from him….and the more I read….I find him to be one of those rare people still roaming the planet — a man of integrity…..an honest man who speaks from his heart…who is willing to stand up and speak out about what he truly believes in no matter how unpopular that makes him. Imagine finding someone in P O L I T I C S in the year 2007 who isn’t just going along….to get along….and to be elected/re-elected. Refreshing, really. Rare, I would say.
    I can certainly see why he has built the following he has now.
    He doesn’t appear to be bought and paid for like the others.

    Reply

  24. Sparky says:

    Oh my gawd! POA!
    If Ron Paul makes life start at conception then … then we are ALL complicit in the murder of 45 MILLION littlest of babies! It’s worse than the Holocaust! Can’t have THAT!
    Vee vill be wurst dan der Germans!
    Liberals —– The worst murderers in History!
    STOP RON PAUL NOW!!

    Reply

  25. Snarky says:

    you should be jealous, POA—transoceanic bilocation is a very valuable skill.
    I take it from your silence otherwise that you admit MP has conclusively demonstrated that RP is the most radical of abortion foes, and so is anywhere who defends those views of RP (his charming sentiments about blacks and Jews are another matter, as is his history of appearing for/writing for white supremacist groups such as the CCC, etc. )

    Reply

  26. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Thou dost protest too much, Marky.
    Its just a coincidence you show up within minutes of each other. The cats outa the bag, Marky.

    Reply

  27. Marky says:

    Did I just post that? Sometimes I type so fast I don’t remember exactly what I’ve just written, but this is really extraordinary! And not a single dash either—that’s really amazing too, because I use the dash as the universal connector in my of my writing.

    Reply

  28. MP says:

    PO writes: “Fact is, HR1094 seeks to define at which point its proponents believe “human life” begins. But it in no way mandates federal, OR state, legislation to ban abortion.
    But it creates a federal mandate as to when life begins. Regardless of which state one lives in.
    “It specifically states that each individual state should decide the issue of choice or no choice.”
    How could a state allow abortion if it is murder?
    “I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with someone that is intelligently pro-life, and offers an argument to that effect. Ron Paul believes life begins at conception, and he has every right to believe that.”
    Yes, he does. But he’s authoring FEDERAL legislation that will apply to all Americans, many of whom have different beliefs to his.
    “And, as a “representative”, he has every right to advocate for his constituents. Obviously, he believes the constituency of the various state’s representatives may have varying consensus on the issue.”
    But not on the issue of when life begins. CLEARLY, that is an essential building block of the anti-choice movement. It’s not about scientific speculation, or theological musing. It’s about forcing EVERYONE to adhere to that definition.
    We also have this para from the same section on Paul’s Web site: “I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.”
    Clearly, he is not interested in States simply having the “right to choose” whether to ban abortion or not. He’s interested in paving the way for states to “protect life”–and the next sentence makes clear what this means: banning abortion.
    Equally clearly, this has nothing to do with representing his views or those of his constituency. He’s making FEDERAL law.
    You used to complain that I only posted on the Israeli-Palestinian issue (which actually wasn’t and isn’t true). Now you’re complaining that I’m posting on this issue but that, somehow, it can’t be about this issue, because I only post about I-P, so this MUST be a stealth post about Paul’s position on the ME. Oh, and I must be Marky and whomever else disagrees with you.
    The truth is much simpler than you make it out to be.

    Reply

  29. Sparky says:

    POA, ya fergot ta address that Ron Paul and Grover Norquist are two peas in a pod thar, ole buddy, ole pal.

    Reply

  30. MpOopsMarky says:

    The inimitable David Neiwert has studied Ron Paul’s career at lenghth.
    It’s hard to find much solid reporting about Paul through searches—lofty rhetoric aside, the above post is very light on substance, as is typical for Paul. Read Neiwert:
    “The Republican Party has a history of hosting right-wing fringe figures like Paul, people who portray themselves as patriotic conservatives and exploit the latent conspiracism and paranoia of their audiences well enough to win election to Congress, but who actually build remarkable records of non-achievement once in D.C., mainly because their beliefs are so far removed from the mainstream that no one pays them any mind, except the folks back home, who are persuaded by all the bellicose flag-wrapping that these characters are doing the job they want done back in Washington.”
    From http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/ron-paul-vs-new-world-order.html
    LOTS of links and sourcing there. I’m just starting to read this material myself, but I’m familiar with Neiwert: he is the number one expert on US hate groups, right wing “patriot movements” and the like.

    Reply

  31. PissedOffAmerican says:

    How Will They Destroy Ron Paul?
    by Mike Whitney | May 25 2007 – 3:08pm | permalink
    article tools: email | print | read more Mike Whitney
    How will the media destroy Ron Paul?
    We all know the drill by now. Whenever a politician with character and principles throws his hat in the ring the media descends on him like feral hounds on a pork chop. It’ll be no different with Paul. The only difference this time is that we should all be aware of what’s really going on.
    Did you see the Republican debates?
    Paul won hands-down. He stood out in a crowd of colorless toadies and became an overnight internet-sensation. In fact, an ABC survey showed that Paul won the first debate with an 85% majority; while C-SPAN showed him at 70%. Maybe the stats are just a fluke of internet voting, but it’s sure made the boys in the boardrooms nervous.
    You see, it doesn’t matter if Paul wins or not. What matters is that his anti-government message is a hammer-blow to America’s biggest powerbrokers—and they don’t like it. They’d rather he just shut up and go away. They’ve heard enough about the Military Commissions Act, martial law, and the fraudulent war on terror. They’ve put a lot of money and energy into the new American police state and they aren’t about to let some libertarian party-pooper destroy all their hard work.
    That’s why the right wing think tanks are buzzing like a hornets nest right now. The sleeves are rolled up, the ash trays are full, and America’s best propagandists are putting the finishing touches on a plan to topedo the Paul campaign. They want to take him down now, before he causes any more trouble.
    My guess is that they will use a strategy similar to the one they used on John Kerry, that is—keep it simple—attack on 3 fronts and repeat the charges from every soapbox in America. In Kerry’s case, the mantra went like this:
    1. Kerry “flip-flops”
    2 He’s a Massachusetts liberal.
    3 He faked his war injuries to look like a hero.
    The effectiveness of this strategy depends on how often the charges are repeated and from how many outlets. If it is well executed, the voter will naturally feel confused and less enthusiastic about his candidate. The propaganda-barrage had a withering effect on Kerry’s support-base.
    It may be that the media will take a different tack with Paul. Perhaps, they’ll use a saturation-campaign similar to their attack on Howard Dean in the 2004 Democratic primary. The infamous “Dean Scream” appeared over 900 times in the major media in the first 72 hours. Now that’s the way propaganda is supposed to work!
    Technicians were able to isolate Dean’s yelp from the background noise of a crowded convention hall and succeeded in making him look like a complete kook.
    It worked like a charm. Dean’s star sunk overnight and the country was “spared” the prospect of an antiwar candidate.
    Isn’t that what media is for—to eliminate the enemies of the warmongering corporate chieftains?
    My guess is that, sometime in the next 2 weeks, we’ll see a big push by to derail the Paul campaign. Already Sean Hannity, Glen Beck and FOX News have taken a few cheap-shots, but so far no one has laid a glove on him. Its time to wheel out the heavy artillery and pound him into the sand.
    But what is Paul saying that rattles his rivals so much? Is it because he stands out in a crowd of plaster-hair phonies and talks about liberty and non-intervention instead of fear and torture?
    This is how Paul summarized 9-11 and our misguided war in Iraq:
    “They attack us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East [for years]. I think Reagan was right. We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we’re building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? Would we be objecting?
    Or this:
    “I believe the CIA is correct when it warns us about blowback. We overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and their taking the hostages was the reaction. This dynamic persists and we ignore it at our risk. They’re not attacking us because we’re rich and free, they’re attacking us because we’re over there.”
    The rest of the Republican candidates use every opportunity to invoke the hobgoblin of Islamic fanaticism—the prevailing myth which is fuels the new American fascism. Paul is the one exception. He sees the war on terror as inherently threatening to personal freedom—and he’s not afraid to say so.
    He’s also outspoken on other issues which are typically verbotem in the MSM. Here’s what he has to say about the maneuverings of the Federal Reserve, the secretive cabal that controls our money:
    “Congress created the Federal Reserve System in 1913. Between then and 1971 the principle of sound money was systematically undermined. Between 1913 and 1971, the Federal Reserve found it much easier to expand the money supply at will for financing war or manipulating the economy with little resistance from Congress– while benefiting the special interests that influence government.
    Since printing paper money is nothing short of counterfeiting, the issuer of the international currency must always be the country with the military might to guarantee control over the system. This magnificent scheme seems the perfect system for obtaining perpetual wealth for the country that issues the de facto world currency. The one problem, however, is that such a system destroys the character of the counterfeiting nation’s people– just as was the case when gold was the currency and it was obtained by conquering other nations. And this destroys the incentive to save and produce, while encouraging debt and runaway welfare.”
    Do you really think that the board-members of the “privately-owned” Central Bank want the American people to know about the extortionist racket they’ve been running for the last 90 years in contravention of the US Constitution?
    Paul’s demand that we abolish the Federal Reserve is strikingly similar to that of his ideological ancestor Thomas Jefferson, who said:
    “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of our currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations that will grow up will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing of power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”
    Isn’t that what is happening right now? Doesn’t the Fed inflate one massive equity bubble after another so that working class people are lured in by low-interest rates and then lose their shirts when the bubble pops? This is how the banking elites shift wealth from one class to another. It may be an old scam, but it never fails.
    Jefferson and Paul are both right. Free people cannot control their own destiny unless they control their own currency. The Federal Reserve must be abolished and, as Paul says, “The sooner the better”.
    He’s right about deficits and monetary policy, too. Here’s what he says:
    “The greatest threat facing America today is not terrorism, or foreign economic competition, or illegal immigration. The greatest threat facing America today is the disastrous fiscal policies of our own government, marked by shameless deficit spending and Federal Reserve currency devaluation. It is this one-two punch – Congress spending more than it can tax or borrow, and the Fed printing money to make up the difference – that threatens to impoverish us by further destroying the value of our dollars”.
    The men who own the media don’t want this type of populism on the air-waves. After all, they love deficits. The trade deficits provide cheap capital for the stock market while the budget deficit borrows money from future generations for lavish tax cuts for Bush’s wealthy buddies.
    No wonder they hate Paul!
    Most of all, Paul is feared for his defense of liberty and his rejection of Bush’s sweeping changes to the Constitution. He’s been a strong critic of the Military Commissions Act, which permits torture and arbitrary detention of American citizens or foreign nationals on the orders of the executive. He has also condemned warrantless wiretaps, presidential signings, extraordinary rendition, the Real ID Act, and the Orwellian-sounding “Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act” which allows Bush to declare martial law at his own discretion.
    Paul’s tireless defense of personal freedom makes him the de facto enemy of the Bush Brown-shirts. He’s watched the country slide further and further towards military dictatorship and now he’s put himself on the firing-line to defend our way of life.
    That’s real patriotism. And, that is why they want to destroy him.
    In a recent speech on the floor of the House Paul said:
    “Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security. Understanding the magnificent rewards of a free society makes us unbashful in its promotion, fully realizing that maximum wealth is created and the greatest chance for peace comes from a society respectful of individual liberty”.
    Thanks for that, Mr. Paul. And, good luck.

    Reply

  32. Marky says:

    Well, this is a good place to finish.
    I certainly agree that the readership will see the truth about your politics. I find it bizarre that you have turned the question of impeachment into a referendum on Ron Paul’s extremist anti-abortion politics, in so doing, forcing yourself into pretzel-like contortions to justify your alighment with his said positions, which occupy a tangential concern at best.
    You know, a person could like some of what RP says about impeachment, foreign policy Iraq, but find his politics as a whole detestable. In fact, such a person is me. I’m sure there are others, not even counting MP.

    Reply

  33. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Having reread this exchange, I think the readership here will be able to clearly see the truth, Marky. I will leave it to them to reach their conclusions as they may.
    BTW, I seldom email Steve. Your statement that I “frequently importune Steve with emails” is a fantasy on your part. The question is, why you would advance an allegation claiming knowledge that you would have no access to, even if it was correct. Unless of course Steve is claiming, privately, to you, that I “frequently importune” him with emails. Is that your assertion, or are you just blowin’ it out your ass again?

    Reply

  34. Marky says:

    POA,
    You must have an exceptionally low opinion of TWN readership’s intelligence if you think that advocating the stealth “pro-life” positions makes you “pro-choice.
    In American politics, “pro-choice” means in favor of abortion rights—nothing else. Your politics are not “pro-choice” in the standard usage. Apparently, you think it’s perfectly ok to redefine terms at your leisure, without informing your readers. That is plain dishonest, period.
    As far as you being in lockstep with the pro-life movement, what can I say? You indict yourself by agreeing with the major parts of the so-called “pro-life” movement, as I detailed above.
    We see you lying down with the dogs—is it any wonder we think you have fleas?
    Your argument about HR1094 doesn’t even pass the starting gate as a response to my point.
    You are being dishonest by glossing over the well-known intention behind this and similar laws: the intention of banning all abortions, regardless of the health of the mother.
    Its not a matter of inferring intent—we know what it is.
    Next, you resort to the typical right wing “pantys in a wad” metaphor. Wow—you’re really coming completely out of the closet here, POA. Its odd that you use a phrase which is almost completely the provenance of right wingers; furthermore, the sexual politics implicit in that remark are consistent with your lack of concern for women’s rights. I can’t wait to see your position on gay rights: “Let the states decide. If they want to criminalize homosexuality, its their choice to legislate morality”
    I have had a lot of disagreements with you in the past, POA, and there are times when I have agreed with you; a notable exchange occurred when you demonstrated your profound lack of critical thinking skills re 9/11; but I have never thought of you as someone callous to rights which have been gained at such a high price in this country—freedom of races to intermarry, freedom of women to control their bodies, freedom of gays to live without molestation. You have truly disgusted me today.
    P.S., you are an absolute moron for thinking MP and I are the same. Our writing styles are completely different, and he’s a lot less sloppy about punctuation and grammar than I am.
    I know for a fact that MP and I are more than 5000 miles apart, currently. I know that you frequently importune Steve with emails; I’m sure he would be delighted to spend his time informing you that yes, MP and I are two (or more?) different people.

    Reply

  35. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “What’s wrong is calling yourself “pro-choice” when you advocate positions of the so-called “pro-life” movement. You need to admit to being dishonest on that point.”
    Someone can’t disagree with a belief, yet respect a person’s right to maintain that belief? Actually Marky, you’re just being an asshole here, purposely argumentative.
    “I don’t see how you can argue otherwise; indeed, the clear, stated purpose of those who seek to define life as beginning at conception is to leverage such a law into an abortion ban.”
    What part of leaving it up to the constituency of each state don’t you understand, Marky?
    “Your stated positions can only be interpreted to mean that you personally are vehemently opposed to abortion—otherwise, why would you be in lockstep with the so-call “pro-life” movement?”
    In lockstep? Thats bullshit, and you know it. That must mean you are “in lockstep” with Israel’s use of cluster munitions to irradicate Muslims, seeing as how you have advocated for Israel here, right? Wise up, Do you think we’re idiots here?
    “Stop calling yourself pro-choice, and admit that protecting a woman’s individual right to control her own body isn’t of the slightest consequence to you.”
    Go screw yourself. Your panties are in a wad because I pointed out the Marky/MP deception. Get over it. I am pro-choice, and I respect a person’s right to be pro-life. And, further, I respect the right of our representatives to advance the wishes of their constituency. In fact, I demand it. And that is EXACTLY what keeping moral issues in the purview of State Government would do,.
    Interesting that you have not addressed Bush’s stance on abortion. Or Rudy’s. Or any of the other pro-life candidates that would seek federal legislation against abortion. Gee, why could that be?
    BTW, I doubt that anyone reading this exchange is ignorant enough to accept your BS about my argument equating to being “pro-life”. But you know that. Like I said, you’re just being an argumentative asshole.

    Reply

  36. Marky says:

    POA,
    What’s wrong is calling yourself “pro-choice” when you advocate positions of the so-called “pro-life” movement. You need to admit to being dishonest on that point.
    I think you are still dissembling, because clearly a law which defines human life as beginning at conception would necessarily turn abortion into murder. I don’t see how you can argue otherwise; indeed, the clear, stated purpose of those who seek to define life as beginning at conception is to leverage such a law into an abortion ban.
    The rest of your post, about letting the majority legislate morality, its hard to tell whether you are being obtuse, or insulting, but I’m glad that TWN understand that you have no problem with anti-miscegenation laws. But of course, the posts of your alter-ego “Robert Morrow” have shown us that side already.
    Your stated positions can only be interpreted to mean that you personally are vehemently opposed to abortion—otherwise, why would you be in lockstep with the so-call “pro-life” movement?
    Stop calling yourself pro-choice, and admit that protecting a woman’s individual right to control her own body isn’t of the slightest consequence to you. You are completely typical of Libertarians I have met: you claim to be interested in personal freedom, but you’re unwilling to let a single promise of liberty be guaranteed by authorized police action. Instead, like a classic Libertarian, you expect the mob to come to an equitable solution.

    Reply

  37. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Marky….
    Fact is, HR1094 seeks to define at which point its proponents believe “human life” begins. But it in no way mandates federal, OR state, legislation to ban abortion. It specifically states that each individual state should decide the issue of choice or no choice. I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with someone that is intelligently pro-life, and offers an argument to that effect. Ron Paul believes life begins at conception, and he has every right to believe that. And, as a “representative”, he has every right to advocate for his constituents. Obviously, he believes the constituency of the various state’s representatives may have varying consensus on the issue. Do you deny that? So, if you live in a state where the majority of the constituency shares Ron Paul’s beliefs, is it your argument he should represent the minority?
    Whats wrong with having the states decide these social issues, Marky? I have lived in California, Oregon, Idaho, and Hawaii. And having had done so, I can assure you that there are very different majority opinions when comparing Idaho and California, particularly in regards to social issues. Me being pro-choice, is it your opinion I should be able to move to a state where the majority is pro-life, and inflict my beliefs on them by not allowing them to legislate consistent with the majority opinion??
    And as far as the rest of your bullshit post goes, its not worth responding to.

    Reply

  38. Marky says:

    Just out of curiosity, what “pro-choice” groups favor letting states decide abortion law? NARAL? NOW? Have any cites for that, POA? I know how important proper references are to you.
    Also, do you think that support of HR1094 is consistent with the pro-choice views you claim to hold?
    Is the “choice” you support the choice of legislatures to ban abortion? That seems to be the only logical conclusion to draw from your stated position on abortion. If so, why the Orwellian dissembling, using the term “pro-choice” to mean the exact opposite of the common use? Could it be that you know that the legions of TWN readers who applaud your courageous invective against Steve and the Israelis might think less of you if they knew that your position on abortion could have been read from the transcript of the 700 club?
    For shame.

    Reply

  39. Sandy says:

    I, for one, very much value POA’s posts, so thank you Bakersfield Babe.
    Btw, another LIBERTARIAN — Bill Maher — will be on HBO tonight with his show, “I’m the Decider” — I think at 10:00 P.M.
    I need a few Bill Maher smiles about now.

    Reply

  40. Bakersfield Babe says:

    All POA is saying is that he is a Libertarian that holds the same views as Ron Paul.
    What’s the big deal! POA’s a true Libertarian just like 100,000 others in this country. Get over it! You all act like you just realized he was a Nazi; no!, just a Libertarian, and that ain’t all that crazy, just another view of what Real Americans should be.
    Thank you POA for coming out.

    Reply

  41. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “But in any event, Paul’s stance on abortion, and even the Federal Government’s role in banning it is pretty darn clear. HIs first sentence even suggests that the rights of the unborn may be protected by “American ideals of liberty”, i.e., the Constitution:”
    Paul makes it damned clear that he sees abortion as an issue to be decided on a state to state basis, with the Federal Government staying out of it. In no way does he advocate having the “federal government ban it”. You’re spewing bullshit, MP, and you know it. What else is new?
    Its interesting that you have singled Ron Paul out for your horseshit and straw seeding. You have mainstream candidates out there that directly oppose abortion, (like Ron Paul), and would to seek to FEDERALLY ban it, (unlike Ron Paul). Yet here you are, attacking Ron Paul for an issue we’ve never seen a peep out of you about until Ron Paul came up. The ONLY issue you ever post about is issues about AIPAC and Israel. Yet with Ron Paul, you have completely avoided his comments about “the lobby” and Israel. Gee, what conclusions should we draw from that? You’re as phony as a three dollar bill, MP.
    And as far as me looking the “buffoon” for pointing out that you forgot which screen name you were using while responding to a post; The true “buffoon” here is some ass that can’t keep track of his own bullshit.

    Reply

  42. New York says:

    I would not mind the overturning of Roe v. Wade and sending the issue back to the states because that would be big step towards my dream-goal, dissolution of the Union.
    Let each state decide how they wish to deal with abortion and a new emphasis is put on the the current Red-Blue political map. Lines could be drawn and an amiable separation could be made. My Northeast could finally free itself from ignorant South and whoever is dumb enough to join up with them.
    We could call ourselves The United States of Peace, become a Holland, turn on, tune in and drop out of the world’s petty woes. Get our oil from Venezuela!
    That’s my long term hope for this country, a territorial separation of national sovereignty between Good and Evil. It may be the only way to get the South to wise up as they stew in a theocratic militaristic fundamentalist nation that would become increasingly isolated and boycotted as a result of their inveterate backwardness and aggression.
    Overturn Roe v. Wade!

    Reply

  43. MP says:

    POA asks for the cite; POA gets the cite. And the ENTIRE quote from Paul’s section called “Life and Liberty”, which is as much as HE’s willing to say about his position. Please note the sentence where he “authored” (not co-sponsored or voted for, but authored) HR 1094, a FEDERAL LAW that would, clearly, lead to, or support the, banning of abortion by defining it as murder.
    As one of my other namesakes here has pointed out (do you have any idea what a buffoon you look with your amateur-hour troll sleuthing)…he doesn’t say lot in detail about his issues, or what he’d actually DO if elected. But here’s the quote; all that he wrote on his site. Perhaps you overlooked HR 1094. Perhaps it created cognitive dissonance, such that you ignored it or explained it away.
    But in any event, Paul’s stance on abortion, and even the Federal Government’s role in banning it is pretty darn clear. HIs first sentence even suggests that the rights of the unborn may be protected by “American ideals of liberty”, i.e., the Constitution:
    Paul begins…
    The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.
    In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.
    In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.
    I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.
    I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”
    Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.
    As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life.
    Back to issues main page ›
    http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/

    Reply

  44. DogBowl says:

    I neglected to mention that it is not the “pro-choice” position that states should decide abortion laws. You are LIAR, POA. I know of know pro-choice group which advocates overturning Roe vs. Wade—only Ron Paul, Randall Terry, Rev. Dobson and the rest of the Reich wing.
    Why don’t you support Bush? He needs people with your integrity backing him—you, a puling, incoherent collection of knee-jerk reactions, unable to perform any deep analysis, dishonest, intolerant.
    Go lick some Cheney stamps and leave us alone.

    Reply

  45. DogBowl says:

    Here’s an RP quote:
    “In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.”
    What does that mean? Did he let the woman die?
    It is completely dishonest for an ObGyn to claim that abortion is never necessary to save a woman’s life.
    Ron Paul is in Terry Randall’s company when it comes to abortion.
    RP’s position that state’s should decide abortion is the favored “right to life” position.
    You know, you claim (wrongly and moronically—try using an internet textual analysis tool, you dope) that you have “found out” something about some users here on TWN.
    Well, I have found out something about you as well: based on your support for Kucinich and Ron Paul, you are hiding a deep antipathy for women. You want to see a return to back-alley abortions, and you have no problem sending doctors to prison for performing abortions.
    What a prize you are.

    Reply

  46. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “You’re right, POA—there is only one person in the country who disagrees with you. I/we post here under a variety of pseudonyms. I/we thought we had you fooled, but you are too clever by 1/100,000th. Bravo.”
    Oh, go screw yourself. Posting under numerous screen names is despicable, because it is an active effort to deceive people, and to imply a consensus where one doesn’t exist. MP just got busted. But of course, its just a coincidence you show up with your horseshit in the same time frames he does. It seems “every” troll that has shown up here always ends up posting in the exact same time frames and threads that MP posts on. Gee, what a coincidence.

    Reply

  47. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Hey, MP/Marky. Here is a direct quote from Ron Paul on abortion…..
    “Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue…The federalization of social issues, originally championed by the left but now embraced by conservatives, simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens.”
    So, although he is pro-life, he is essentially saying that that, as it applies to the individual, is none of the Federal Government’s business, and legislation in regards to abortion should be decided by the citizens of each state. And myself, being pro-choice, agree 100%. So keep throwing straw, MP. Or Marky. Or whoever the hell you are.

    Reply

  48. TheRealMP says:

    try RonPaul2008.com
    If that’s not Ron Paul’s campaign website, then My/Our/His comments are not valid.
    If it is RP’s website, I/We/Him are surprised you don’t know what’s on your hero’s website.
    Be a Boy Scout and be prepared next time.

    Reply

  49. MarkyMPBertignacOakley says:

    You’re right, POA—there is only one person in the country who disagrees with you. I/we post here under a variety of pseudonyms. I/we thought we had you fooled, but you are too clever by 1/100,000th. Bravo.
    Woof!

    Reply

  50. PissedOffAmerican says:

    MP…………
    Interesting, MP, that you don’t link to where you drew Paul’s comments from. But then, people might read Paul’s comments in context, eh?
    Can’t have that, can you?
    And what, you think GATT and NAFTA are positive?

    Reply

  51. PissedOffAmerican says:

    ROFLMAO!!!!! For those of you that didn’t catch it, read “Marky”‘s 12:41 PM post, then read my 8:41 AM reponse, then, lo and behold, read MP’s 10:46 comment.
    The chickens are coming home to roost, MP.
    Are you “cantmakethisstuffup” too?

    Reply

  52. Sandy says:

    Old-line Republican warns ‘something’s in the works’ to trigger a police state
    Muriel Kane
    Thursday July 19, 2007
    “Thom Hartmann began his program on Thursday by reading from a new Executive Order which allows the government to seize the assets of anyone who interferes with its Iraq policies.
    He then introduced old-line conservative Paul Craig Roberts — a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan who has recently become known for his strong opposition to the Bush administration and the Iraq War — by quoting the “strong words” which open Roberts’ latest column: “Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney,
    a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran.”
    “I don’t actually think they’re very strong,” said Roberts of his words. “I get a lot of flak that they’re understated and the situation is worse than I say. … When Bush exercises this authority [under the new Executive Order] … there’s no check to it. It doesn’t have to be ratified by Congress. The people who bear the brunt of these dictatorial police state actions have no recourse to the judiciary. So it really is a form of total, absolute, one-man rule. … The American people don’t really understand the danger that they face.”
    Roberts said that because of Bush’s unpopularity, the Republicans face a total wipeout in 2008, and this may be why “the Democrats have not brought a halt to Bush’s follies or the war, because they expect his unpopular policies to provide them with a landslide victory in next year’s election.”
    However, Roberts emphasized, “the problem with this reasoning is that it assumes that Cheney and Rove and the Republicans are ignorant of these facts, or it assumes that they are content for the Republican Party to be destroyed after Bush has his fling.” Roberts believes instead that Cheney and Rove intend to use a renewal of the War on Terror to rally the American people around the Republican Party.
    “Something’s in the works,” he said, adding that the Executive Orders need to create a police state are already in place.
    “The administration figures themselves and prominent Republican propagandists … are preparing us for another 9/11 event or series of events,” Roberts continued.
    “Chertoff has predicted them. … The National Intelligence Estimate is saying that al Qaeda has regrouped. … You have to count on the fact that if al Qaeda’s not going to do it, it’s going to be orchestrated. … The Republicans are praying for another 9/11.”
    Hartmann asked what we as the people can do if impeachment isn’t about to happen.
    “If enough people were suspicious and alert, it would be harder for the administration to get away with it,” Roberts replied.
    However, he added, “I don’t think these wake-up calls are likely to be effective,” pointing out the dominance of the mainstream media.
    “Americans think their danger is terrorists,” said Roberts. “They don’t understand the terrorists cannot take away habeas corpus, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution. … The terrorists are not anything like the threat that we face to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution from our own government in the name of fighting terrorism. Americans just aren’t able to perceive that.”
    Roberts pointed out that it’s old-line Republicans like himself, former Reagan associate deputy attorney general Bruce Fein, and Pat Buchanan who are the diehards in warning of the danger.
    “It’s so obvious to people like us who have long been associated in the corridors of power,” he said. “There’s no belief in the people or anything like that.
    They have agendas. The people are in the way. The Constitution is in the way. … Americans need to comprehend and look at how ruthless Cheney is. … A person like that would do anything.”
    Roberts final suggestion was that, in the absence of a massive popular outcry, “the only constraints on what’s going to happen will come from the federal bureaucracy and perhaps the military. They may have had enough. They may not go along with it.”
    http://tinyurl.com/3x9ztv

    Reply

  53. MP says:

    How does RP feel about the government controlling abortion rights? Here’s Ron Paul on Ron Paul taken from Ron Paul’s Web site:
    “The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.”
    Protecting “unborn children” is “at the heart of…American…liberty.” Point one.
    “In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.”
    RP sought to have GOVERNMENT IMPOSE his view of when life begins on all Americans. Abortion is murder. Point two and three. Case closed.
    Still like Paul? Be my guest.

    Reply

  54. MP says:

    Ron Paul on Ron Paul from Ron Paul’s Web site:
    “So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites.”
    So here RP is coming out AGAINST ICC, GATT, and WTO because they transfer power to “foreign elites.”
    The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a doctor’s prescription to take herbs and vitamins. Alternative treatments could be banned.”
    So here RP again comes out against the ICC.
    “The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws, yet we still face trade wars. Today, France is threatening to have U.S. goods taxed throughout Europe. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs.”
    Should we pull out of the WTO? RP says yes.
    “NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme.”
    And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever.”
    Trade agreements with other governments are the first step toward oppressive “world government,” says RP.
    “Let’s not forget the UN. It wants to impose a direct tax on us. I successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to tax us, we will need leadership from the White House.”
    Anyone for pulling out of the UN? RP. You doubt me? Read on…
    “We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America.”
    We must “withdraw,” says RP. ICC, UN, WTO…it’s just all “world government,” says Paul

    Reply

  55. Marky says:

    POA,
    I appreciated Dennis’s honest discussion of Ron Paul’s views on taxes. He understands that RP wants to abolish the IRS. I just spent a few minutes browsing his campaign site and found it extremely thin on policy prescriptions. However, there is enough there to really frighten me. RP is a nativist, atavist loon.
    He is the quintessential Libertarian, full of lofty quotes, but devoid of understanding. Am I being vague? So is RP on his website. I can tell that he is completely pro women’s death (my name for the anti-abortion movement); he wants to withdraw the US from all foreign entanglements; he wants to end the estate tax; he wants absolute immunity of property owners from eminent domain.
    My challenge to you, POA, is to find 5 SPECIFIC, major policy proposals of RP that you like, outside of Iraq. I can’t believe you are falling for this complete mental case.

    Reply

  56. Erica says:

    Eventhough Edwards is not the frontrunner of the campaign as of now, I hope that the current frontrunners address poverty as a big issue in their platform. According to the Borgen Project, the Bush Administration publicly acknowledged the Millenium Goals to eradicate global poverty, but at the current pace, they will not be met. Strong political action must be taken with the next presidency.

    Reply

  57. Erica says:

    Eventhough Edwards is not the frontrunner of the campaign as of now, I hope that the current frontrunners address poverty as a big issue in their platform. According to the Borgen Project, the Bush Administration publicly acknowledged the Millenium Goals to eradicate global poverty, but at the current pace, they will not be met. Strong political action must be taken with the next presidency.

    Reply

  58. MP says:

    POA writes: “Well, considering your “of course”, then you will certainly be able to provide us with quotes and speeches to that effect, woncha?”
    I did. Direct from his Web site. But instead of commenting, you decided that my real objection was to Paul’s anti-AIPAC stance– based, “of course,” on nothing.
    The Libertarian position on taxes, government programs, etc., is well-known. If Paul is DEPARTING from those well-known positions, certainly a possibility, then YOU should post those departures. Otherwise, it’s reasonable to assume that Paul falls into line on those matters.

    Reply

  59. Kathleen says:

    I think all the speculation about who is going to be nominated on either side is an exercise in futility.
    With all the fine print clauses sneaked into the Patriot Act, The Military Commission Act, the Federal Emergency Management Act, Das Bush has all the power he needs to declare Martial Law and cancel elections for the duration of the “emergency”. I consider Cherttoff’s gut feeling the opening salvo.
    In the meantime, playing the “Let’s Pretend We Have a Democracy Game”, I’m wondering where Teddy is. Wasn’t he urging Kerry to decide a while ago because he wanted to support someone else, if Kerry chose not to run again? Teddy’s been mum but in the fine print a long time ago I read that Ted Sorrenson was backing Obama. I’d say this means Teddy is working behind the scenes and this explains Obama’s meteoric rise.
    Don’t forget, Kerry was tanking badly before the Iowa caucus, but when Teddy took over the Kerry campaign operation, they packed the caucuses and stole the show from Howard Dean. Joe Trippi left the Dean campaign for reasons not made really clear. Trippi, before working for Howard Dean, was always a Kennedy man, and is now on John Edwards’ staff????, as a what, mole?
    I don’t trust Teddy. Since his big accident resulting in a girl’s death, he can’t run for President without that ghost being raised. I think he works behind the scenes to undermine any new leader that might be arising. He challenged Jimmy Carter to a primary, his staff was involved in outing Gary Hart on Donna Rice, Joe Biden on plagiarism, snd I’d venture to say he made a deal with Newt the Brewt to oust Jim Wright, former Speaker of the House. Teddy wasn’t able to stop Bill Clinton because the Willie Smith rape trial caught Teddy with his pants down on Good Friday, yet. But that’s blown over now and I’d say Teddy’s back at his usual back room stuff. Why? With a Repug in the WH., Teddy is the darling of the liberals. With a Dem in the WH, Teddy is just another drunken Senator.
    So, if you want to know who will get the Dem nod, ask Teddy. Since it seems he prefers loosers from Massachusettes, I’m curious to see how he will block HRC’s rise, given there is no Dem from Massachusettes who is running.

    Reply

  60. cantmakethisstuffup says:

    Robert Morrow would be best to educate us all on the specifics of Ron Paul’s 30 years of Libertarian thought and how it would effect the workings of the federal government if elected president, since Robert has been a follower of Paul for many years and is particularly familiar with his economic stances.
    C’mon Robert tell us with all the stridency you have shown for Paul’s economic views in previous posts before foreign policy became his siren song.
    Let’s start with: How is Ron Paul different from Grover Norquist when it comes to taxation, “starve the beast,” and “drown the baby in the bathtub,” and what do those last two phrases actually mean.

    Reply

  61. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “POA, I don’t understand your quarrel with MP this time.”
    Gee, what a suprise. You’re tilling the same fields MP isw.
    “Ron Paul claims to be a Libertarian. If that’s true, then of course he wants to dismantle the programs you mention–and more. What’s the surprise?”
    Well, considering your “of course”, then you will certainly be able to provide us with quotes and speeches to that effect, woncha?

    Reply

  62. Marky says:

    Dennis,
    yours is the first comment that puts Paul’s position on the income tax in a positive light, to some extent.
    I don’t understand your argument though. Is the argument that the insitution of the income tax is what led to the US being a superpower? I find that hard to swallow. Other countries have had far higher tax rates than we do. I would say that the factors in US dominance are natural resources, our political system, our rivers, among other things.

    Reply

  63. Dennis says:

    I understand a liberal’s alarm at Ron Paul’s ideas, but this idea that he’s been operating under the radar is absurd. At least give him credit for nearly twenty years in Congress remaining admirably true to his libertarianism.
    That the public seems incapable of reading “libertarian Ron Paul” and understanding what that means, well, that’s on us as a society.
    Paul understands something very important: the immense wealth gathered up by the federal government through the income tax is the source of both well-intended social programs, many producing foul unintended consequences, and the empire abroad we’ve acquired in the post-WWII era.
    Of course, recognizing the material gains that ultimately accrue to us from our hugely expensive military presence abroad, it’s hard not to acknowledge that, in a sense, we pillage abroad to finance our government at home, including social programs.
    Call them unrelated if you will, and they certainly need not be, but it’s undeniable that each is made possible only by the vast sums taken out of the economy through the income tax. This is what we get when we enrich our government to this extent.
    Aside from Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, and Ron Paul, no candidate shows the slightest willingness to question the foreign policy status quo, even as it destroys our position abroad and liberty at home. If sanity reigned in our time the three above would be your serious candidates.
    Instead we have Obama writing position papers that are barely distinguishable from Bush’s second inaugural delirium. We are left hoping for the implied dishonesty of the Clinton campaign, that they don’t really mean what they are saying. Democracy in America, circa 2007.
    We need to have this debate, now.

    Reply

  64. Marky says:

    POA, I don’t understand your quarrel with MP this time.
    Ron Paul claims to be a Libertarian. If that’s true, then of course he wants to dismantle the programs you mention–and more. What’s the surprise?
    I found a quote a few days ago (posted here, I think) in which he said he wants to dismantle the IRS. The only surprise would be if he doesn’t want to do these things. The platform of the Libertarian party is always to cut government services so drastically that society collapses ( to paraphrase ONLY slightly)—just as the GOP’s raison d’etre is to feed the rich with the mother’s milk of the poor.

    Reply

  65. Robert Morrow says:

    Ron Paul
    Ron Paul, unlike almost every other candidate in both parties who are running and who are flip flopping every which way, has complete credibility on the issues because he has advocated, promoted and voted for those policies for 30 years.
    One thing I like about this campaign is the incredible amount of DIVERSE people who support Ron Paul. The Demos talk about diversity, but Ron Paul’s message and campaign really do appeal to diverse and intense type of people.
    My top 2 issues are economic conservatism and US national sovereignty and Ron Paul is rock solid on those 2 issues.
    The bottom line: Ron Paul has credibility.

    Reply

  66. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “U do the research, pal. It is YOU who are being bamboozled by the one shining issue he has going for him, Iraq.”
    Hey, I’ve posted speeches and quotes as to why I’m looking at the guy. You can’t do the same to demonstrate why you don’t like him?
    Sure man, I’ll just take ya at your word.
    Not.
    And actually, its not just his “one shining issue”. For instance, the speech I just posted of his had to do with Iran, not Iraq. But you knew that. Recognizing it, however, doesn’t exactly fullfill your need for vaquely discrediting insinuations, that really don’t say jack shit.
    You buying your straw at the same feed bin MP is?
    By the way, even more important than his stance on Iraq and Iran is his reality based opinions on “blowback”, and how the foreign policies these assholes in Washington have pursued for the last half century have made our country less secure, and more hated.
    So once again, I’ll ask you to provide us with specific quotes or speeches that demonstrate Paul’s desire to “gut the federal government of all social programs, and abolish all Departments except Defense and State.”
    Otherwise, you’re just blowin’ it out your ass.
    Which takes us right back to where you purchase your straw, and whether or not it comes from the same field MP harvests his from. Something tells me you guys are workin’ the same wind row.

    Reply

  67. Sandy says:

    Speaking of ole Norquist, wonder who it is who is keeping him out of his troubles with his Abramoff connections:
    http://tpmmuckraker.com/norquist.php
    Slimy. Slimy. Slimy.

    Reply

  68. cantmakethisstuffup says:

    POA, all in love with Paul not knowing his extreme libertarian tear down the federal government stance.
    YOU do the research, pal. It is YOU who are being bamboozled by the one shining issue he has going for him, Iraq.
    Ask your new buddy Robert Morrow, who has been spouting his love for Paul way before he ever mentioned Iraq. Morrow has loved Paul for his close alignment to Norquist and their “starve the beast” “drown in baby in the bathtub” mentality for a good long time on this site.
    Morrow is laughing at you POA, so get off your dumbass and find out that Paul ain’t no one issue guy, and that there was a Ron Paul with Norquist views way before Iraq.
    And as far as Israel goes, I don’t give a damn about them except for their getting their bribes and extortions out of our government, meaning AIPAC. Just because MP agrees with me on Paul being Norquist’s Trojan Horse doesn’t mean we necessarily agree on anything else.
    Maybe your so blinded with adoration by what Paul says about Israel that you refuse to see the rest of what he stands for. Do your research POA and stop acting like the blind-follower German people in the 1930s.

    Reply

  69. MP says:

    RM writes: “Has Pissed Off American jumped on the Ron Paul bandwagon? ”
    Yes, I think he has..or is about to. For some reason he seems to have dropped Kucinich. You know, when POA and Robert Morrow start agreeing…the wheel has turned.
    As to words from Ron Paul, I provided you with words from his Web site, which you chose to ignore.

    Reply

  70. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “….firmly on gutting the federal government of all social programs, abolishing all Departments except Defense and State.”
    Oh, well, then of course you will be able to provide us with his statements to that effect.
    Something tells me its his stance on Israel that has your, (and many others, including MP here), panties in a wad.
    If his policies were as wacko as you would have us believe, both parties wouldn’t be trying so hard to bury the guy, would they?
    Interesting that in his defense, and as an advocation, those of us that are seriously looking at the guy are willing to post his speeches, while his detractors, like yourself, only offer sensational accusations, unsupported and lacking in direct quotes. Gee, whata suprise from someone whose screename only shows up to discredit Ron Paul and his possible supporters.
    (MP, its your turn. Bring on the straw.)

    Reply

  71. cantmakethisstuffup says:

    Dumbasses for Ron Paul (except you Morrow who know of what I say below as you giggle),
    Ron Paul is a Trojan Horse for Grover Norquist. Oh yeah, he says all the right things about Iraq and foreign policy, but Paul & Norquist both stand firmly on gutting the federal government of all social programs, abolishing all Departments except Defense and State.
    How would y’all like that?! The big government built up since the depression wiped out.
    Now a fair trade might be, if Paul promised Americans that as President his first order of business would be to put Bush & Co. on trial for lying our country into an unnecessary premeditated war that has killed 123,000+ and seek Texass style capital punishment for them all after slam dunk conviction, then maybe we all could live with an attempt by him to do Norquist’s bidding.

    Reply

  72. Dennis says:

    Gore successfully entering the race late would be a Godsend for two reasons:
    first, saving us from the hawkish liberal interventionist foreign policy of Clinton or, far worse, similar ideas from the callow intellectual non-entity Obama;
    and secondly, trumping this obscene odds-playing cash chasing influence that, combined with 2008’s rigging toward early resolution, threatens to make the next presidential primaries a two-act farce.

    Reply

  73. Robert Morrow says:

    Has Pissed Off American jumped on the Ron Paul bandwagon? Well, welcome aboard, buddy, I am already there. The Texas Straw Poll is coming up August 31 – Sept. 1st in Fort Worth and I urge ALL you Ron Paul fans to attend. Ron Paul, along with Fred Thompson, has a very real chance of WINNING the Texas Republican Straw Poll.
    As for the Demos, go check out http://www.intrade.com where it shows Hillary with less than a 50% chance of being the Demo nominee. Hillary is at 45% Obama is at 39%. These are from people who put their money where their mouths are – unlike pollsters like Zogby, etc.
    I think Hillary’s campaign is VASTLY overrated and I think Obama will beat her. If she does make it to the general election, look for the Republicans to EVISCERATE her with swing women voters over the women issue and Hillary’s long history of goon tactics to cover up her Jerry Springer lifestyle. http://www.1984ArkansasMotherOfTheYear.com

    Reply

  74. PissedOffAmerican says:

    More pimping for the mainstream, eh, Steve? Business as usual, lets have another sold-out whore run the country.
    You think Newt’s gonna demand accountability? Or perhaps Obama, who has already stated that Bush’s actions do not rise to the standard of Executive abuse. Or perhaps Hillary? Maybe you think she won’t continue the same kind of gross abuses of power? These people are so full of shit it defies the imagination. Daily they allow us to be lied to by this criminal Bush and the traitorous bunch of bastards surrounding him, placing party above country. Watching this mewling ineffective bunch of worms in the so called “opposition party”.
    Whats going on with Rice’s God damned subpoena? Don’t these posturing frauds in Congress give a shit about the law anymore?
    Yep, lets ignore the candidates that are speaking truth to power. Minimalize, marginalize, belittle and ignore. Look over here America, follow the bouncing ball.
    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/GOPblocksPaul.php
    ACTION ITEM,
    The NRSC (National Republican Senatorial Committee) has mailed (snail mail) a Presidential Preference Poll out. Ron Paul is not included.
    This poll includes Gilmore (dropped out), Fred Thompson (hasn’t announced), Newt Gingrich (hasn’t announced), Chuck Hagel (hasn’t announced), John McCain (less money on hand than Ron Paul), Brownback, Tommy Thompson, and Duncan Hunter (these last 3 combined have raised less than Dr. Paul).
    Disagreeing with Ron Paul is one thing — banning him is quite another.
    PLEASE TAKE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS IMMEDIATELY.
    Continues at…..
    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/GOPblocksPaul.php

    Reply

  75. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “i take it billofrights and pissedoffamerican are the same person”
    Well, you’d be wrong. Why in God’s name would I need to post with two screen names? If you haven’t noticed, I’m not shy about expressing my opinion.

    Reply

  76. ... says:

    i take it billofrights and pissedoffamerican are the same person..

    Reply

  77. crux of the biscuit says:

    The reason a Democrat will have a hard time being elected President is that the American people are a stoopid people and the Republicans play that fact to the hilt while Democrats are baffled why they can’t get their their message across to stoopid people. Duh?

    Reply

  78. Marky says:

    Scott, you are certainly correct that Obama will have an ugly time combating the virulent racism of a small segment of the population—I can only thank you for reminding us through your loathesome comment that this country still needs to work on better race relations.

    Reply

  79. Scott says:

    Gore-Obama somewhat feasible, as is Hillary/ Webb. To me, Obama seems so unelectable that I wonder if half of his grass roots financial support doesn’t come from Republicans, gaming on the only way they can keep the White House. The guy’s middle name is “Hussein”; he has a very unusual background, including, I think, schooling in what will be described as a “madrassah” ; and a wife who comes across like a central casting racial grievance person –can you imagine what the latter day Lee Atwaters are going to be able to do with that the day after he is nominated? It will make swift-boating (which hardly loomed large until August 2004) seem like a tea party.

    Reply

  80. gq says:

    I don’t find Obama to be experienced enough to be President so I don’t find him a good enough candidate for VP. That’s just me. A Gore Richardson ticket will be stronger than a Gore-Obama ticket. Both are less exciting (for the longer term viability of the Dem Party) than a Clark-Richardson ticket.
    If Clark or Gore don’t jump in, I think Richardson has a stronger showing than any of the pundits give him credit for, Steve Clemons included. (Probably a function of his previously stated bias against Richardson.) He may even be the only one who can beat Clinton.

    Reply

  81. RonK, Seattle says:

    Could be. I could also be classic books-and-lectures promo. Lot o’ baggage for one man to carry.
    I am very willing to believe the Republican nominee for 2008 has not yet entered the lists.

    Reply

  82. David N says:

    What I like seeing is all the dozen Rep candidates squandering millions of dollars attacking each other and creating a brilliant, shining record for the Dems to present to the now-somnolant American public next year.
    What I don’t like is the Dems accepting the corporate/media nexus in American politics, which is what will allow them to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory.
    Democratic politicians have to start being alert to the possibilities the media will present them, to attack the lies and vacuity with which the press will present the election.
    Don’t attack the Republicans, they can do that themselves. Attack the messenger; every American will applaud that!!!

    Reply

  83. WhatBillOfRights says:

    Israel’s Likud eats its own, just like it’s eating the U.S.:
    Knesset Rejects Sderot Reinforcement Law
    (IsraelNN.com) The Knesset Plenum voted 51 to 34 against a proposed law that would require the government to build reinforcements and shelters throughout the Sderot and Gaza Perimeter area, which has been under rocket fire from Gaza for years. The government, which opposed the law, contended that reinforcement work was already under way in Sderot region and there was no need for a private law in this matter.
    34 MKs voted in favor of the law and 51 opposed it.
    MK Silvan Shalom (Likud), who proposed the law, said the Knesset’s decision reflected “extreme and unparalleled cold-heartedness.”
    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/130183

    Reply

  84. Hargraves Hirsch says:

    Run Newt, run. Run towards that bridge. No Newt, not that bridge. The really high one over there. Now Newt, jump! Take that existential leap of illogic and jump! Do it now Newt! Don’t wait for Fred, don’t wait for September, don’t pass Go, and don’t take “no” for an answer. Jump Newt, jump!
    All that being said, how about Ron Paul and Al Gore on a split ‘no-party’ ticket? Seems plausible and palatable, no?

    Reply

  85. Tom S says:

    I think–for what it’s worth–that Gingrich is the Phil Gramm of the current crop of Republicans. For all his alleged intelligence, he cannot escape from the fact that he is a creepy little shit.

    Reply

  86. WhatBillOfRights says:

    Two freebies courtesy of the yahoos over at “Free Republic”
    Olbermann to host (AFL-CIO) candidate forum in Chicago
    MSNBC host Keith Olbermann will moderate the AFL-CIO’s Democratic Presidential Forum Aug. 7 in Chicago.
    Entire article at this link:
    http://tinyurl.com/2yrt6p
    And from the New Republic:
    The Masculine Mystique of Fred Thompson.
    Who’s Your Daddy?
    by Michelle Cottle
    Post date 07.18.07 | Issue date 07.23.07
    Thwack! An elaborately beaded elephant handbag lands solidly on Fred Thompson’s upper arm. “Law and Order on the Border!” the bag’s owner, a short, sassy, middle-aged brunette, crows at the presumed presidential candidate. “There’s your campaign slogan right there!” Vibrating with pride at her cleverness in linking Thompson’s get-tough immigration stance with the title of the NBC series on which he until recently starred, the Republican dame grins broadly and repeats the line with even greater gusto: “Law and Order on the Border!” The former Tennessee senator, characteristically imposing in dark blue pinstripes, responds with a smile of indulgence and weary amusement as he ambles through the herd of fans trailing him across the lower level of the Greater Richmond Convention Center, where he has just headlined the Virginia Republican Party’s 2007 Commonwealth Gala..
    http://tinyurl.com/2bqqfa
    And in response to MP, I am reading a novel right now about the sack of Rome — sometimes the *strong* don’t survive, sometimes the clever do, sometimes no one does.
    All to say that whatever Paul or a libertarian like him could do would be dependent on the Congress — that’s the beauty of the system of checks and balances set-up by the Constitution. A system that has been eroded if not destroyed by both the Democrats and the GOP in the name of this so-called “War on Terriers”

    Reply

  87. MP says:

    “…And the IRS ”
    The real Ron Paul message: No taxes. No government. A social Darwinianism where only the strong survive. Isn’t that right, Chuck?

    Reply

  88. dmh says:

    I say this as the eternal Democratic pessimist (having lived through any number of races we could not loose but indeed did) please god make it Newt. Not only will we win a presidential landslide but pick up 50 House and 10 Senate seats.

    Reply

  89. WhatBillOfRights says:

    Article : “Ron Paul Emerges as GOP Rock Star”
    Ron Paul emerges as GOP’s unlikely rock-star candidate
    Long-shot libertarian iconoclast pulls in surprising cash totals, eclectic young crowds.
    Michael J. Mishak / Las Vegas Sun Wednesday, 7/18/07
    LAS VEGAS — The punk-band members, with spiked hair, tattooed arms and piercings, stood with a crowd of more than 300 and cheered at the rock star on stage, especially when he called for abolishing the Federal Reserve — you know, the banking system that for nearly a century has helped stabilize the U.S. economy, give or take a Great Depression.
    Presidential candidate Ron Paul didn’t stop with the Fed. The devout and suddenly popular libertarian-running-as-a-Republican also wants to repeal the Patriot Act. (More cheering.) And the IRS and NAFTA-like trade deals. (Loud applause.) And bring home American troops, all of them, from Iraq and from every last spot on the globe. (Standing ovation.) And that national ID card, forget about it.
    Entire article at this link:
    http://tinyurl.com/2oqfh6
    Maybe the youth of America will save us all…

    Reply

  90. rich says:

    Meanwhile, Bill Richardson pulls ahead of Edwards in New Hampshire polling–while Chris Dodd barely registers in his own backyard.
    I don’t know which is more appealing:
    A Kucinich/Gravel vs. Ron Paul contest
    OR
    Gore/Richardson vs. Gingrich/Giuliani face-off.
    With all these maritally-challenged Repubs dropping like flies, I’m not sure Gingrich is a viable alternative. Not that he’d be able to see that. Gore is less tainted.
    Richardson, though, has a lot to offer–substantively–and that’s what the electorate will be looking at. So
    Richardson/Edwards
    Richardson/Obama
    Richardson/Clinton
    in order of likelihood, and perhaps vice versa, will be seen as fresh, practical, and long overdue.

    Reply

  91. Dennis says:

    Newt. It’s sad to see someone who offers so little to America to have the influence that he has.
    You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

    Reply

  92. Carroll says:

    Newt and Bubba Fred?
    The 2008 election is giving us two choices..vote for a unadorned gop wolf or vote for a dem wolf in sheep’s clothing.
    Gore will not run, he’s too happy in his new found niche. Leave him there. That’s where he can do some good.
    Based on the current USA condition I would vote for Clark or Hagel, the rest not.

    Reply

  93. WhatBillOfRights says:

    Given:
    *Obama and the Democrats’ fealty to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)
    * the Democrats refusal to stop the Iraq war
    *Pelosi’s stripping of legislation that would require the President (or at least the creature who calls himself the “President” after the rest of the world has realized that it’s Tricky Dick who runs the show) to go back to Congress before attacking Iran.
    Why the sam heck does anyone here think that a Gore-Obama ticket would save our constitutional republic?
    Because war is the issue, and a war against Iran will destroy our country, but very few in either party are willing to stop it — Ron Paul being one of the exceptions.
    Please remember that most of the wars of the last century were entered into, if not started, by Democrats. It was a Democrat who became the only person on Earth to make the decision to drop not one but TWO nuclear weapons on civilians.
    How can any rational person with even a modicum of understanding of history expect the Democrats to behave in a peaceful manner?
    I have given up on Americans. This morning I read (outside of the Washington Note) that die-hard Republicans are expected to flock to Fred Thompson when he announces. I also read that the reason he’s not announcing until September is that then NBC would have to give equal time to other candidates or stop reruns of “Law & Order” episodes that he’s on.
    This fleeing to Thompson on the part of Republican stalwarts is startling given that Thompson has lobbied for abortion rights, and was very much the Washington insider when he was a lobbyist as well as a Senator and yet these idiots are buying his maverick image.
    Another actor for President — I really am starting to feel that celebrity obsessed Americans really do deserve what they are going to get — endless war and the destruction of the Bill of Rights as a result of endless war.

    Reply

  94. carsick says:

    Oh, and another unbeatable combination is probably Gore/Richardson. Don’t underestimate the Hispanic enthusiasm mixed with those wanting a workable immigration plan which I think Richardson, being a border state Governor, has real interest in solving. Also, the world might breath a sigh of relief with that pairing and they would get a longer honeymoon period of cooperation.

    Reply

  95. margaret says:

    I am dismayed, that you add to the perception that John Edwards will be “crushed between Hillary and Barack. This is MSM dreaming and the hope of Global Corporate thinkers who have heavily invested in Hillary’s and Barack’s campaigns. The big power folk do not want Edwards to succeed. He is their biggest nightmare. And, he is that, because he directly speaks to what most American really want: a change in attitude to include all Americans in the wealth of this country, including better health “insurance.” He also represents a softer voice, less bellicose, in dealing with war, foreign policy making, and governance, in general. We do not need to see an echo of MSM thinking in your posts, of all places.

    Reply

  96. carsick says:

    The same dearth of exciting candidates that provoked the initial excitement for Fred Thompson (since waning) will be there for Gingrich as well. He’ll run.

    Reply

  97. David N says:

    Gingrich? Science?
    I attended the debate between Gingrich and Kerry on global warming. Yes, it was an event to promote Kerry’s book on the subject. So what.
    What struck me was that Gingrich’s only answer to solving the problem was to throw money at big corporations in the form of tax “incentives.” More tax cuts for the rich and corporations. That’s what we need right now.
    What Gingrich says makes sense for only two reasons. It contrasts with the absolute nonsense that the rest of the Republican party is addicted to. No one in the MSM subjects it to any examination at all.
    New subject. I switched to MSNBC for Olbermann last night, but did so early, and was unfortunate enough to catch Tweety. His subject was a statement Kerry made saying that Romney is a real flip-flopper. The entire performance was disgusting. Not a word about the substance of Kerry’s statement, or about Romney’s catering to the radical right of the Republican base. Instead, multiple repeats of the Karl Rove talking point of three years ago, “Kerry is a flip-flopper,” over and over again. That the statement is both untrue and irrelevant was only mentioned by the token “liberal,” famous for Washintoneanne blogging, who got ten seconds of air time. Far more time was given to a man who was paid, cash, by the Bush administration for writing what were billed as independent op-eds praising Bush policies. That the man is even given air time is criminal.
    Tweety showed that he is a creature of the hard right when he gave an hour’s free air time to the disgusting Ann Coulter. How can anyone take his seriously?
    Where is anyone, outside of Olbermann and Stewart, who reports real news on any television channel?

    Reply

  98. Doug says:

    God will not be so good to the Democrats as to give us Newt Gingrich to run against.

    Reply

  99. liz says:

    Steve, are you really saying Eye O Newt is going to reup his contract with America? If it were not so frightening, I would laugh.

    Reply

  100. peg says:

    i would love to see Gore enter the race — i also think Gen Wes Clark should, too.
    listen to Clark’s recent testimony July 12, 2007, before the House Armed Services’ Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee
    http://www.texasforclark.com/WPvideo/hasc2.mp3

    Reply

  101. jeremy says:

    Being from Atlanta, I would put forward that Newt could not win a state-wide election for any office here in Georgia. Therefore, I’m not too sure about him winning a Republican primary.

    Reply

  102. Bill Camarda says:

    I don’t underestimate any of ’em, nor the colossal damage they would cause if ever elected.
    But Newt is the one GOP guy that would be SO easy for low-information voters to hate. He just oozes arrogance. Has to be the smartest guy in the room, can’t resist. Not a nanogram of folksiness in the guy. Everything that turned people off to Kerry, only raised to the nth power.

    Reply

  103. Rush says:

    Have you seen the little piggies
    crawling in the dirt?
    And for all the little piggies
    life is getting worse,
    always having dirt to play around in.
    Have you seen the bigger piggies
    in their starched white shirts?
    You will find the bigger piggies
    stirring up the dirt,
    always have clean shirts to play around in.
    In their styes with all their backing
    they don’t care what goes on around.
    In their eyes there’s something lacking
    what they need’s a damn good WHACKING.
    Everywhere there’s lots of piggies
    living piggy lives.
    You can see them out for dinner
    without their piggy wives
    clutching forks and knives to eat their bacon.

    Reply

  104. Marky says:

    I agree that Newt is clever—clever like the AIDS virus. The pathogens he released into the polity 2 decades ago are still killing discourse in this country.
    I strongly object to the characterization of Newt as either intellectual or science oriented. He’s facile, somewhat like Blair, but not even 1/10 as smart as Blair, who was no genius.
    That said, I would be delighted to see him win the Republican nomination. While he may be a formidable candidate to win the booby prize of being the 2008 GOP nominee, I can’t imagine any Republican who would get fewer votes than Newt.
    He’s mean enough to given Giuliani a run for his money, and his charisma is about at Bill Frist level.
    If there is any talk among REpublicans that Newt might come riding a white horse to save the day, such talk shows an early desperation that is extremely heartening.

    Reply

  105. daCascadian says:

    If Newt actually runs and gets any traction it will say a lot of sad things about America not being able to learn a lesson from past mistakes
    Scary indeed
    “…With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power…” – Henry Wallace

    Reply

  106. Dan Kervick says:

    I’m not counting McCain out of the Republican race. My guess is that his campaign will eventually engineer a high-profile “conversion experience”, where he suddenly reveals the scales have fallen from his eyes, comes out against the war, ostentatiously eats crow and issues the requisite mea culpas, and makes a bold play to leap to to the head of the Republican pack of war skeptics, and lead the charge out out Mesopotamia.
    If HRC can successfully repackage herself as an antiwar candidate, so can McCain.

    Reply

  107. LJ says:

    Steve,
    I noticed that Gore’s appearance on the Live Earth extravaganza was a much lighter Gore. He has trimmed down a lot. I still hope he will go in.

    Reply

  108. ... says:

    who is obama anyway? some guy that all of a sudden appears for an election. is that it?

    Reply

  109. Kathy K says:

    I totally agree — Gore Obama would be unbeatable.
    (Do I hear a little Rod-Serling/Twilight Zone theme playing somewhere?)
    I’ve been mumbling this to myself for several months…Thanks, Steve, for saying it out loud.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *