Following the Fox/Google Republican candidate debate, whom do you consider the best candidate?

administrator's picture
Submitted by administrator on Fri, 2011-09-23 04:13
Mitt Romney
4% (1 vote)
Rick Perry
0% (0 votes)
Michele Bachmann
4% (1 vote)
Herman Cain
22% (6 votes)
Newt Gingrich
0% (0 votes)
Ron Paul
41% (11 votes)
Jon Huntsman
0% (0 votes)
Gary Johnson
11% (3 votes)
Rick Santorum
0% (0 votes)
They're all lousy
19% (5 votes)
Total votes: 27

Problem is...

Marcus's picture

...the best thing Romney has ever said (he likes to be able to fire people) is being attacked now by the other candidates, being called by Huntsman the first big mistake he has made and will lose him the election.

Shows how much of a bad philosophical state the Republican party is in now.

Obviously no one here...

Marcus's picture

The Paul campaign must be over the moon because he has the same number of delegates as Romney, even though he got the highest number of votes.

If you ask me Romney and Santorum are an absolute snooze, and Paul is just toxic.

What a waste of an election!

Does anyone really care about who is ahead

seymourblogger's picture

or who will win?

Well, Michael...

Ross Elliot's picture

...I'd hate to buy a vote. Or even reward one.

Just do the right thing.

But perhaps you could vote in my stead?

Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry fail to get on Virginia ballot

Marcus's picture

Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry fail to get on Virginia ballot

"It could prove an especially serious political setback for Mr Gingrich, a front-runner in the Republican race to challenge President Barack Obama in next year's presidential election, because it exposes an organisational weakness of his campaign 10 days before the first-in-the-nation nominating contest in Iowa.

"After verification, (the party) has determined that Newt Gingrich did not submit the required 10,000 signatures and has not qualified for the VA primary," the Republican Party of Virginia said in a Twitter message.

It had previously tweeted that Mr Perry, the governor of Texas, would also not qualify.

The Republican primary is scheduled for March 6 in Virginia, a key swing state in the November election pitting the Republican nominee against Obama.

According to The Washington Post, the Perry campaign told state election officials it had submitted 11,911 signatures, while the Gingrich campaign said it had provided 11,050 signatures.

But state party officials contested the claim, and the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported Saturday that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney – widely seen as Gingrich's chief rival – and Texas congressman Ron Paul will be the only candidates appearing on the ballot."

Ron Paul under fire for racist newsletters

Marcus's picture

Ron Paul under fire for racist newsletters

Ron Paul, the fringe Republican hopeful who is threatening an upset victory in Iowa, was today engulfed in a political storm following the emergence of a series of racist newsletters that he published.

"In the reports he describes Martin Luther King as a paedophile, says most black men are criminals and speculates that Israel was behind a terrorist attack on the United States.

The wild claims were made in a series of newsletters that the Texan Congressman began producing in the late 1980s, where he offered paid subscribers advice on how to survive "the coming race war" and how to protect themselves from tax collectors armed with machine guns.

Mr Paul said that he did not write the letters himself, did not read them and "disavowed" their message but is under growing pressure to explain how he could be unaware of dozens of inflammatory messages which were produced over more than a decade.

In one undated letter that carries Mr Paul's signature, he writes: "I've been told not to talk, but these stooges don't scare me. Threats or no threats, I've laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on Aids (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.) The Bohemian Grove - perverted, pagan playground of the powerful."

Another from December 1990 describes how King "was not only a world-class adulterer, he also seduced underage girls and boys", while one written in the aftermath of the 1992 Los Angeles riots said order was only restored in the city "when it came time for blacks to pick up their welfare cheques".

Ross

Michael Moeller's picture

In the unlikely event should that occur, I hope you will take pity on me and send a bottle of Grey Goose to my house. Smiling

Not to put a damper...

Robert's picture

on your otherwise valid point, but one of the lessons that 1917 and 1941 show is that the military must be given sufficient funding to remain efficient both in terms of its weaponry and its organization and doctrine. There needs to be some R&D and some colleges dedicated to training leaders and imparting specialist skills (military engineering for instance).

Whether or not that cost could be defrayed by partnering with allies and using shared facilities is something that could be explored. Likewise, contracting these facilities out to the private sector.

The point is this: if you are going to have a military cadre, it has to be active and alert to be any good. This is a critical idea that must be factored in to any discussion about how the government should operate a military in peace time. It may seem like a nit-pick, but anyone who has read the military story of 1941 and seen the US army casualty rates (compared to the British & French - often engaged in the same battle) will see that this ISN'T an insignificant stipulation.

Kyrel

gregster's picture

So maybe [Johnson's] secretly weak.

He is being censored from appearances by not being included in surveys of GOP supporters for who should appear in debates. A sign that he is head and shoulders better that every other candidate - each of them imbecilic by varying degrees.

Yes Robert...

Marcus's picture

I said they were cack handed, but nontheless better than doing nothing.

I note you don't say that Osama or al-Awlaki deaths were bad moves, just that Obama doesn't deserve the credit.

Well at least he didn't stop them from happening.

A President Paul would have cried his nuts off if the US military went anywhere near them.

As to Gaddafi, good riddance!

Whatever comes after him, if as evil, should be taken out too.

However I would surprised if the new Libyan regime were not pro-western. After all, Gaddafi is universally hated and they did ask us for help in the first place.

By the way, did you know that David Cameron was cheered in Libya last september?

Surely better than the spectacle of Tony Blair licking Gaddafi's balls a few years ago.

Gary Johnson

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

I vote Gary Johnson -- who was a shockingly-open libertarian governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003. But he has about zero support in the current campaign, and I've yet to see him on t'v' or in person. So maybe he's secretly weak.

Easy - taking out Osama, Gaddafi and al-Awlaki.

Robert's picture

--> Osama was only able to be 'taken' out based - reputedly - on information gleaned by water-boarding. A Bush era-policy.

The Raid was launched from Afghanistan, which prior to Bush's leaving office had deteriorated hugely. The bleeding in that theatre was staunched using a Bush-era tactic ('the surge') implemented by a General Officer whom Bush promoted and Obama's Secretary of State denigrated ('willing suspension of disbelief). Obama, I believe was 'present' during those hearings...

Depending on who you read and believe the 'politically courageous' decision to kill the enemy leader behind America's longest military campaign ~ever~ took Obama anywhere from days to weeks to make.

--> Gaddafi was taken out by Anglo-french backed force of anti-Gaddaffi Libyan citizenry. The Americans only provided the sandwiches and laser-guided bombs. Hardly a 'policy.'

If Obama et al. had acted in the beginning before the pro-Gaddaffi forces counter-attacked -- then the campaign would have ended several months, several billion dollars and several thousands of lives sooner than it did.

All this is rendered moot if the Muslim Brotherhood are able to fill the void left by Gaddaffi. Rather a single cross-dressing and insane psychopath with local aspirations than a thousand cross-dressing, ~cunning~ psychopaths with global aspirations.

Libya isn't worth the sweat off a NATO serviceman's balls. And it has been that way since 1943 when the German threat to the only useful thing in that region - the Suez Canal - was eliminated.

Now that the Suez is (1) too narrow for major shipping and (2) under the protection of the Egyptians there isn't a single sodding reason to give a fuck about Libya. I'd say there was more oil in Charley Sheen's hair than in Libya and there are marginally fewer creepy crawlies to deal with if you drill into Sheen's wooden neck ornament.

--> al-Awlaki was killed as part of a CIA/Special Forces campaign to eliminate Al Quaeda in Yemen. That effort predates Bush. How else would a Predator drone have killed Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi (mastermind behind the 2001 attack on the USS Cole) in 2002?

Indeed, had the Obama administration not bent over backwards to paint the al-Awlaki inspired attacks by Nidal Hussein (Ft Hood murderer), Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (Underpants bomber) and Faisal Shahzad (Times Square Bomber) as unrelated felonious acts by agnostic lunatics (as opposed to acts of sabotage during time of war perpetrated by de facto al Queada operatives) then the whole moral dilemma of eliminating part of the command structure that funded them or sent them or inspired them or did all three, would NOT have arisen.

Michael

Ross Elliot's picture

"I would have to vote for Ron Paul. And then go home and drink myself into a stupor."

Now you're getting it.

Very good point

Ross Elliot's picture

"Candidate Jefferson denounced President Adams for investing in USN Frigates. President Jefferson used those frigates to deal with the Barbary Pirates."

The Jeffersonian response in the early 19th century should be studied by those who think that keeping massive forces in foreign lands is the antidote to dealing with foreign threats.

Indeed, Jefferson changed his mind, but it was consistent with the idea that America should not pursue adventurism but also that it should defend itself.

The same threats were faced by Madison when he had to deal with the British leading up to the War of 1812. In both cases it seems that the US was behind the ball, but we know how it all washed out. Witness 1917 and 1941 also.

OK

Marcus's picture

"Though I'd challenge you and Marcus to point out a single foreign policy success that Obama has had..."

Easy - taking out Osama, Gaddafi and al-Awlaki.

The world is a better place without these scum.

You might say he did these things, or helped to do these things, in a cack handed way - but I still applaud him for doing it.

True...

Robert's picture

Candidate Paul denounced those executions. I would suspect that candidate Obama would too just like candidate Obama denounced Gitmo. The latter is still open and accepting visitors.

Candidate Jefferson denounced President Adams for investing in USN Frigates. President Jefferson used those frigates to deal with the Barbary Pirates.

Which is to suggest that the the realities of the office might alter the perspective of the man once he has gained power. It happened to Obama to a certain extent.

One thing that scares me about Obama's policy of killing folks with drones... The same man also threatens to use executive authority to usurp Congress on matters of the domestic economy. He's already shown a liking for recess appointments and appointing Czars that are beyond the inspection of the House. To say nothing of the dabbling in Union thuggery w.r.t the Boeing/Sth Carolina issue -- in some quarters it has been reported that Obama's administration has it's fingerprints all over that one.

He's also embroiled the US in an undeclared war in Libya and sent SF troops to some tin-pot African country (Rwanda? the news article escapes me) without consulting the Congress properly. Asking a half dozen friendly Congressmen and Senators (out of 500-odd doesn't count) whether he might order a 'kinetic military Devonshire tea-party' or whatever, doesn't count.

That is in addition to activities in Yemen that are probably covered by the ethereal "War on Terror" declaration.

One also wonders whether he's going to run this reputed Taliban peace Treaty (see Biden's comments earlier this week) past the House as I believe he is supposed to. I assume that the House must ratify all peace treaties too?

Obama is a president in need of a tighter leash. So while I agree that Paul is being a whiny bitch about the 'assassination' of Bin Laden and the other cleric. I think he isn't totally off base here. If the US has any type of representative federal government all of its branches must be permitted to function as they were designed to in the Constitution.

A president (or series of presidents) who consistently act contrary to that must be reigned in, regardless of whether they are 'on the side of the angels' one time in three.

Does being slightly right on this point make Paul a presidential contender? No, but he is still right - if only slightly.

As I said elsewhere, Paul's isolationist foreign policy is a good and worthy goal IMHO. But his plans for the transition period suck on a galactic scale.

Robert

Michael Moeller's picture

I agree that Obama has been a foreign policy disaster. His one positive in that area is his willingness to execute terrorists, especially through the increased use of predator drones. He was forced to go that route considering his detention and (lack of) interrogation policies that force captured enemy combatants into civilian courts with all the due process trimmings of American criminal defendants, which not only contravenes America's traditional law of war, but is also a significant political liability for Obama. His administration was attacked mercilessly for the proposed KSM in NYC trial, the Ghailani results, etc. Thus, he has circumvented that Gordian Knot by simply executing terrorists with predator drones -- at an increased rate.

But he at least has shown the willingness to follow through on that front. In contrast, Ron Paul denounced even the executions of al-Awlaki and bin Laden, so Obama is better in that regard.

Michael

You and me both.

Robert's picture

Though I'd challenge you and Marcus to point out a single foreign policy success that Obama has had using a policy that his administration invented on their own from whole cloth and then implemented successfully.

The surges in both wars were strategies conceived and proven under Bush's presidency.

Obama's 'World Peace through denigrating America' tour hasn't done shit, and despite his best efforts, Iran marches on towards the Atom bomb. Russia has increased it's sphere of influence in Western Europe and his stimulus/bailout strategy has bled the US economy white.

His 'wrapping up' in Iraq comes at a time when the current Iraqi President is sidling up to Muqtada el Sadr whilst excluding the ethnic minorities who laid down their arms during the much heralded 'awakening' that coincided with the US surge policy.

Oh, and the Afghani president recently promised to declare war on the US should the US ever go to war with Pakistan.

They couldn't even evacuate US citizens from Tripoli during the recent unpleasantness in a timely fashion. Despite the fact that he is CinC of the worlds most powerful & deployed (e.g. US vessels patrol every ocean) navy.

I believe that the State department had to RENT a ferry and said ferry had to wait for a storm to pass buy before going in. Meanwhile the Chinese flew their nationals out from Tripoli International.

Frankly, its a moot point as to whether Paul could do any worse. I'm inclined to think yes, but it's a pretty tight race.

And if you follow Micheal Ledeen on PJ-media, you will note that in his learned opinion, Iranian opposition is behind the explosions at Iranian military bases and the assassination of top Iranian leaders. So the Iranians may sort themselves out in spite of the doctrine (or lack thereof) of Obama & Paul.

Robert

Michael Moeller's picture

When I asked how could anybody vote for Ron Paul, I was talking the Republican primaries, not vs. Obama. I agree with Marcus' assessment. If given the choice between those two in a general election, I would have to vote for Ron Paul. And then go home and drink myself into a stupor.

I'll say it...

Marcus's picture

I think Obama's doing a better job on foreign policy at the moment than Paul would.

On the domestic front though, Obama is a disaster.

If Obama wins another term he may well cripple the US economy for decades to come.

Michael,

Robert's picture

How could anybody vote for this cretin? Simple. If it were Ron Paul vs Barrack Obama, I'd vote for Ron Paul twice.

Now, I hope that it doesn't come to that. Personally I think Ron would do a much better job as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Smiling

So my question to you is: if Ron Paul wins the Republican ticket, would you vote for Obama or abstain from voting? The point being, is Ron Paul worse than Obama in your opinion?

Ross

Michael Moeller's picture

Whatever Ron Paul said about economic liberty, he policies certainly don't reflect it. Besides Romney, he might just be the worst fiscal candidate in the race. Yes, you heard me right.

Here is Ron Paul's budget again. Check out his tax policy, which consists of leaving the Bush tax cuts intact, cutting the corporate rate to 15%, and eliminating the death and capital gains taxes. This is not much better than Romney's policy of leaving the Bush cuts in place, cutting the corporate rate to 25%, and eliminating the death tax with the future goal of lower/flatter personal rates.

Now, Cain (before he left the race), Perry, Gingrich, and Bachman have all advocated some form of a flat tax. Not only does that simplify the tax code, but it also eliminates all other taxes besides the personal and corporate rates -- with much lower marginal rates. The flat tax proposals significantly outstrip Ron Paul's policy in terms of pro-growth economic policy, and downright justice. Even Huntsman, while maintaining a progressive income tax, has significantly lower personal rates (top rate of 23%) with a corporate rate of 25%, and an elimination of capital gains.

Ross, how would you rate Ron Paul vs. these other candidates in terms of tax policy?

Like everything else about Ron Paul, his spending proposals are also smoke and mirrors. His $1trillion in spending cuts come almost entirely out of defense and federal departments, i.e. discretionary spending. These are a one-shot deal that make his budget look good in the very near term, but do nothing about the looming crisis of entitlements. Other candidates have also advocated the elimination of federal departments and cuts in discretionary spending. Ron Paul has advocated the most cuts in discretionary spending, and he should be given credit for that, but that isn't the end of the story.

Ron Paul completely falls apart on the biggest budget-busting, rights-violating federal programs -- entitlements. As I noted previously (See my comment on page 2 at 2011-10-20 23:31), Ron Paul continues the expansion of SS and Medicare, while capping Medicaid (by far the least costly of the entitlement programs). This is arguably even weaker than Romney, who advocates lowering costs by means-testing, raising the age requirements, etc.

Ron Paul voted against Paul Ryan's plan saying that it didn't go far enough, but then puts forth something considerably weaker than the Ryan Plan. Bachman actually voted for the Ryan Plan. Huntsman and Perry said they support the Ryan Plan, and, along with Gingrich, have put forth proposals to privatize social security and/or offer vouchers for Medicare.

Structural changes to entitlements need to be made. These are by no means ideal proposals, but privatizing SS and vouchers for Medicare are a step in the right direction, and significantly better than Ron Paul's proposal of leaving the entitlement status quo virtually intact.

And this is the entitlement status quo. And I haven't even touched on some of Ron Paul's other forays against economic liberty, such as a state individual healthcare mandate (a la Romney) or voting against free trade agreements.

So, Ross, what makes Ron Paul such a great candidate based on fiscal policy? By my lights, he might just be the worst except for Romney. Factor in his foreign policy, which is certainly NOT Jeffersonian, and I don't know how anybody could vote for the cretin.

Michael

Ron Paul...

Ross Elliot's picture

"Ron Paul incoherent and pitiful on Iran."

Extremely coherent on the demise of US economic power and individual freedom.

Paul is Jeffersonian on foreign policy. But Jefferson ain't running, and a good thing, too. He'd be marginalised and treated like an isolationist crackpot.

Of course Paul was a simp re Iran. But it's suicidal to throw the American baby out with the Iranian bathwater.

Oh God...

Marcus's picture

...if Newt just blew it, then I predict a win for Obama.

THE US will get what it deserves!

Newt just blew 't ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... with terrible statements on Fannie and Freddie (Iowa debate: watching now).

Ron Paul incoherent and pitiful on Iran.

Newt Gingrich Proposes Death Penalty Marijuana Possession

Sandi's picture

As Ron Paul seeks to de-criminalize. Newt Gingrich seeks to exterminate.

Gary Johnson "In 1997 Newt Gingrich Proposed The Death Penalty For Marijuana Possession"

 

Newt Gingrich Proposes The Death Penalty For Marijuana Poss

Sandi's picture

 

Mitt Romney - "My views are progressive"

Sandi's picture

Romney, Gingrich and Obama are all working on the same page.

 

Greg and Linz...

Marcus's picture

...the following scenario is looking ever more likely.

Romney will win the nomination because the others have either shot themselves in the foot or can't get consistent support.

The republican party will realise they have in Romney another socialist on their hands which they will not be able to get excited about.

Obama will energise his Democrat voters together with the media. Historic second term and all that. Obama will them romp home and win.

I hope this won't happen, but it looks more likely every passing day leading up to the next election.

Simple filtration..

gregster's picture

.. to sort between Huntsman and Johnson. Huntsman is a Mormon, Johnson is described as Lutheran.

The more I find out about Johnson the better he gets.

Gary Earl Johnson (born January 1, 1953) is an American businessman, former Governor of New Mexico, and candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in the 2012 election. He served as the 29th Governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003, and is known for his low-tax libertarian views and his regular participation in triathlons.

Founder of one of New Mexico's largest construction companies, Johnson entered politics for the first time by running for Governor of New Mexico in 1994 on a conservative, low-tax, anti-crime platform. He beat incumbent Democratic governor Bruce King by 50% to 40%. He cut the 10% annual growth in the budget by using his gubernatorial veto on half of bills in the first six months. His use of the veto over his two terms gained him the nickname "Governor Veto".

He sought re-election in 1998, winning by 55% to 45%. In his second term, he concentrated on the issue of school voucher reforms, as well as campaigning for marijuana decriminalization. During his tenure as governor, he adhered strictly to an anti-tax, anti-bureaucracy program, and set state and national records for his use of veto powers: more than the other 49 contemporary governors put together. Term-limited, Johnson could not run for reelection at the end of his second term.

A fitness enthusiast, Johnson has taken part in several Ironman Triathlons, and he climbed Mount Everest in May 2003. He announced his candidacy for President on April 21, 2011.

Update: Cain pulled out. [Shouldn't have put it in Smiling ]

Linz

gregster's picture

Initially after this thread debate I liked Johnson and voted accordingly, I haven't followed up on him, and this Mr Huntsman seems palatable.

I can't confirm whether Huntsman is better that Johnson, because I haven't heard enough.

It's a process of elimination. For me, gone are Santorum, Romney, Bachmann, Perry, Paul, Cain, Gingrich. I'm left to discover which of the remainder is the better.

Either one would be better than the rest, and 100 times better than Obamugabe.

Gregster ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... so whom do *you* support?!

Folk here are getting very adept at telling us other people's opinions via links etc.. That's not what SOLO's about. Want to know what *you* guys think!

Huntsman

gregster's picture

Jon Huntsman moved from 2% to 8%. Says that unlike Herman's tax plan, "a [misrepresented by Cain] '9-9-9' soundbite," his flat tax is do-able through Congress.

Meanwhile Herman has imploded, Romney is exposed as a flip flopper and similarly Gingrich via kook Ron Paul [Tip off Whale].

Newt overtakes Mitt. What could possibly go wrong?

Marcus's picture

Newt overtakes Mitt. What could possibly go wrong?

Republican challengers to Romney have crumbled under media scrutiny. Now it's Gingrich's turn...

"He is the new flavour of the moment in the race for the Republicans' presidential nomination, but former Speaker Newt Gingrich is discovering what many of his rivals know well already. No sooner do you bob to the top of the popularity polls than a tempest of media scrutiny and investigation threatens to push you back under again.

But then Mr Gingrich, who was Speaker of the House for much of Bill Clinton's span in the White House, is – as he likes to remind all of us often – wiser than any of the other runners for the nomination, and is a historian. He therefore cannot be too surprised. "Everything is legitimate," he told reporters this week. "This is the presidency."

As Herman Cain, the former pizza tycoon, has faded after allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards women, so Mr Gingrich has risen, and he is now in high orbit alongside Mitt Romney, the former Governor of Massachusetts. A new Fox television poll released yesterday put him at 23 per cent, against 22 per cent for Mr Romney and 15 per cent for Mr Cain.

His is a space ship heavily stacked with baggage, however, some of which Republican voters, who begin choosing their nominee in Iowa in just 45 days, may have trouble overlooking. The latest has to do with the very lucrative relationship he struck after retiring from Congress in 1999 with Freddie Mac, the government-backed mortgage lending agency that conservatives have long excoriated for helping create the housing bubble and its collapse."

Cain on Libya

gregster's picture

 

 

 

 

@Sandi again...

Olivia's picture

He has always been consistent. Can you give an example where he hasn't been?

I never said that the man has not been consistent. My comment to his "game being lifted" was aimed purely at his ability to answer a question straight without stammering all over the place around it and jumping into sideline issues.

Sandi...

Olivia's picture

Olivia where is the intelligence that Iran is a threat?

Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stated, regarding Israel, that they will be wiped from the map. He has also repeatedly stated that America is a satanic power, that with god's will, will be annihilated. Intelligence? Take him at his word. A politician like Ron Paul who does not take a psychopath like this seriously is just foolishly toying with America's security.

Ahmadinejad is the Adolph Hitler of the modern world. Yet if he does have nuclear weaponry at his disposal (and even the hard-left-leaning IAEA concludes that Iran is pursuing that goal), his capability for immense destruction is much, much worse than Adolph's was. Ron Paul is acting like Neville Chamberlain in this regard. He wants to "be a friend" to Iran. As if that would beneficially influence a psychopath!

Ron Paul's Game Has Never Lifted

Sandi's picture

He has always been consistent. Can you give an example where he hasn't been?

Olivia where is the intelligence that Iran is a threat?

Sandi's picture

Mossad?

Rick Perry forgets agency

Marcus's picture

For some reason this is headline news in the UK Guardian.

Rick Perry forgets agency he wants to scrap in Republican debate disaster

"Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry's campaign is facing meltdown after one of the most humiliating debate performances in recent US political history.

His chances of securing the Republican nomination slipped after one painful minute in which he could not recall the name of a government department he is planning to kill off.

Perry reeled off two of the three departments he wants to axe, but could not remember the third. Some Perry supporters declared his campaign over and suggested he head back to Texas to focus on his job as governor.

Perry, conscious of the damage he has done to his chances, came out to face the media in the spin-room immediately afterwards rather than leaving it, as is normal, to his press staff. "I'm sure glad I had my boots on because I sure stepped in it out there," he said.

The Republican presidential debate in Rochester, Michigan, had been predicted to be dominated by the sexual allegations against one of his rivals, Herman Cain. Instead Cain escaped unscathed and all the focus was on Perry's gaffe.

Perry's moment of embarrassment came when he was asked about one of the main planks of his policy for cutting federal spending, the elimination of three departments.

"It's three agencies of government when I get there that are gone: commerce, education, and the uh ... what's the third one, there? Let's see." He went on to say: "The third one. I can't." He made it worse by adding: "Oops."

Fifteen minutes later he attempted to undo the damage, saying: "By the way that was the department of energy I was reaching for a while ago." But it was too late."

Ron Paul on Fox's Sunday

Olivia's picture

Just saw Ron Paul interviewed again tonight and I must admit that his whole game has lifted - especially when it comes to answering a question in full. I was very impressed when he was asked that if his campaign for the Republican ticket was a failure, would he wholeheartedly give his support to the nominee who wins, and he replied without batting an eyelid "not necessarily" - it would depend on the ideals the candidate holds across many issues. (!)
[paraphrasing]

He's still consistently loose on the Iranian situation though. He always maintains that the Iranian's can't even give themselves proper gas technology, let alone nuclear weapons. Trouble is, giving themselves proper gas technology etc is a life giving gift and fundamentalist muslim dictatorships can easily succeed at nihilistic pursuits more easily than life enhancing ones, their impetus for death is stronger, especially for an evil little fucker like Ahmadinijad. Paul underestimates this about them and it's too damn important to be cavalier about.

The day Herman Cain’s campaign died (?)

gregster's picture

"In what should have been a debate between equals, Cain constantly deferred to Gingrich. The game ending moment came for Cain on a simple point. Steve King asked a question about defined benefits. Cain stammered, started to say, “A defined…” then he said the words that would kill his campaign. “You go first Newt.”"

The Awful Sin of Herman Cain

Olivia's picture

Love this piece in the Washington Times by Wesley Pruden....

Things have gone from bad to badder for the self-righteous artsy-fartsy elites, who for all their book-learning and self-regard just can’t figure out America.

The Herman Cain phenomenon is the latest puzzlement of those who think only they’re wise enough and entitled enough to tell the rest of us which fork to use. Mr. Cain’s sin is not that he doesn’t have the usual qualifications for president. Barack Obama established the precedent that presidents can attempt to do the job with on-the-job training. Mr. Cain’s sin is that he demonstrates, with considerable eloquence, that the notion that Republicans and other conservatives are mean-spirited bigots is the enormous lie of conventional media wisdom....

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

I like Bachmann for

reed's picture

I like Bachmann for president.

I think she'd make right decisions and she's not a leader.

RON PAUL all the way!

Sandi's picture

He is the only voice for a truly constitutional government and he is the only voice with uncompromising principles.

Palin out

gregster's picture

Nonsense from her: "When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order." Good riddance.
...........................
Herman Cain also easily topped a straw poll of the Tea Party Nation network.

Herman Cain took in 44% of the vote, reflecting his surging popularity among conservatives and Tea Party supporters. Coming in second, with 22% was Newt Gingrich, also reflecting his surge.

The rest of the field broke down as follows:

Sarah Palin 9%

Michele Bachmann 8%

Ron Paul 5%

Rick Perry 4%

Chris Christie 2.5%

Mitt Romney 2%

Rick Santorum less than 2%

Gary Johnson less than .5%

Jon Huntsman less than .5%

Re Ataturk

Doug Bandler's picture

Impressive post, amigo. Many good points.

Much appreciated my friend.

but I was thinking of something like Turkey under the leadership of Kemal Ataturk. He successfully created and maintained a sacred/secular divide in his country that hadn't existed before and convinced his compatriots that it was both a real divide and a necessary one. He did this without becoming a fascist thug like Hussein in Iraq. Though Turkey has reverted in some ways to a religious state under Erdogan, it does show that secularization is possible for an Islamic nation.

Yes, in his own way, Ataturk was a visionary. But as you suggest in your last sentence, his accomplishments are being undermined and its an open question as to whether they will last. But I think you are right in theory. It is possible to secularize an Islamic country. The point I would add though is that it can only be done by a strong, self-confident person or invading state. This rules out modern America. In our context, given our multitude of weaknesses, it would have been better I think to formulate war strategies that didn't involve attempts at transforming Muslim nations. Turkey's example shows just how hard, lengthy and involved it is.

Herman on Leno

gregster's picture

 

 

 

 

Re: Bandler, Islam, etc.

darren's picture

[I could have sworn I posted this reply yesterday . . . ]

Impressive post, amigo. Many good points.

Regarding "nation-building" in Japan vs. Islamic countries, you're right, of course, but I was thinking of something like Turkey under the leadership of Kemal Ataturk. He successfully created and maintained a sacred/secular divide in his country that hadn't existed before and convinced his compatriots that it was both a real divide and a necessary one. He did this without becoming a fascist thug like Hussein in Iraq. Though Turkey has reverted in some ways to a religious state under Erdogan, it does show that secularization is possible for an Islamic nation.

Darren - Good Stuff

Doug Bandler's picture

Here are my add-ons to some of the points you made. I only have one somewhat minor disagreement.

Ergo, according to them, by definition, any foreign aggression against the U.S., or U.S. interests, was "blowback" for some prior unjustified aggression by the U.S. -- such "blowback" therefore being understandable and justifiable.

This is standard libertarian (especially anarcho-libertarian) operating procedure. Don't forget to throw in mentions of the evils of "interventionism".

Only after the ridiculousness of this rationalization began to be more widely known in the U.S. did bin Laden and other al Qaeda members begin to change their story...

Good point. Read 'The Al Qaeda Reader' to get a good idea of how Jihadists play the propaganda game. They make one set of arguments for the Western press and those arguments are all grievance based political arguments designed to play the Western (read Leftist) media. But when they communicate among themselves they speak in the language of theology; ie Koranic terminology; ie hatred of infidels, their primary and eternal motivation.

"Rogue nation" may not be the best term to describe them, but it's the one in current, popular usage. Ergo, they are not sovereign nations, but rogue nations.

Yes, this is the point I was trying to make. You made it better than me. "Sovereign" is irrelevant if the nation is a threat. Germany in the 1940s was "sovereign" too. Hell, people voted for it to boot.

If the U.S. were really "nation-building", it would use the approach it used after it defeated Japan in WWII: (i) completely break the will of the aggressor to wage war by a show of overwhelming force (nukes took care of that); (ii) break the aggressors' mindset from their past philosophy -- religious or secular -- by telling them: "you will NOT continue to live the way you did before"... ...Conversely, we are being politically-correct in the Middle East, making sure Arab Muslims adopt whatever sort of government they deem fit, including one based on Sharia law if that is “the will of the people.” That is not nation-building. That is politically-correct futzing around -- wasting lives, time, and money.

I agree with the spirit of this but here is my partial disagreement. I see a huge difference b/w Japanese Shintoism and Islam. Japan was an independent nation state so it was possible to remove the warlike element from its government and create a peaceful state. From my knowledge of Islamic theology and history, I don't know if that is possible in an Islamic country. Under Islam, there is no separation of politics and state. Unlike Christianity that says "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasars and render unto God that which is Gods", Islam does not recognize the existence of a secular realm.

Since Augustine, Christianity has believed in a "City of God" and a "City of Man". Islam has never believed this. In fact Jihad philosopher Sayyid Qutb argued that it was precisely Christianity's allowance of a secular temporal realm which made it unstable, weak and dangerous. (Qutb wrote his own version of Mein Kamp while in a prison in Egypt in the 40s. It was also titled "My Struggle" in Arabic.) So I don't know if nation building strategies would have worked in an Islamic country. Another point related here which I wont go into because its complex but it is the cultural element. The Islamic world is riddled with inter-cousin marriage especially father-brother-daughter marriage. This is a huge obstacle in the development of Western style representative government. That fact alone should have given Bush and his nation-builders pause.

That being said, I certainly agree with the idea of breaking their will to fight by using overwhelming force and not this COIN (counter-operational-insurgency warfare) crap with its suicidal rules of engagement. Read 'Warlord' or "Lone Survivor' to see how our soldiers actually have to fight this war. So my main objection is with the nation-building strategy not with the necessity for self-defensive warfare. Conservative columnist Diana West interviewed a retired 2-star general who gave a pretty good argument that nation building was completely unnecessary and that there were better war strategies available that involved more active use of our special forces (Seals and Delta Squadron units - Google up "Lilipad Strategy") that would have been more effective in stemming the Jihad impulse coming from the Islamic world (our ultimate war aim). I'll look for that interview.

Only the current war in Libya – the one Obama started -- is undeclared. Afghanistan and Iraq both had congressional permission -- which constitutes the declaration -- and are therefore constitutional.

Agreed. I fault the Republicans for not grilling Obama on this. The President has something like 60 days to get Congress' approval for a war effort that has been started under the War Powers Act. Congress (with the Republicans leading the way) could have challenged the Libya campaign but they didn't because most of them believe in this "Arab Spring" nonsense. Most NeoCons still believe in the "Forward Strategy of Freedom" crap. I hope that changes.

The reason Iran is not simply buying one from N. Korea -- assuming N. Korea has spare ones that it could sell to Iran -- is that Iran sees itself not only as Muslim but -- perhaps more importantly -- as PERSIAN . . . a higher, nobler, form of mankind than mere Arabs, whom Persions historically have looked on with disdain.

Yes. Iran is doing this explicitly. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly evoked the Persian Empire to lend historical power to his Islamic agenda (Just the way Mussolini evoked Scipio Africanus (he even commissioned a movie on the subject in 1939) to paint himself as savior of the Italian people. This is a common tactic with dictators). Iran is the leader of the Islamic revolution but they are putting a Persian spin on it which makes them even more dangerous IMO.

Iran doesn’t need to get a missile to the U.S. (though it can certainly get one to Israel). All it has to do is be enough of a regional hegemon to run proxy wars, with terrorists and conventional weapons, against the U.S. and its interests.

This is the conclusion that the best anti-Islam commentators are making; namely that Iran is incrementally creating a neo-Persian-empire. I believe one of the documents released in the WikiLeaks scandal made this point explicitly.

All good points. The bottom line is that 'blowback' is nonsense. Our war effort has been terrible but not because it angered the Islamic world. But because it has been one giant demonstration of supplication and weakness. We have spent something like a trillion dollars in an attempt to bribe the Muslim world into liking us. What reality oriented person could have thought something like that could ever have worked?

Re: Ron Paul, etc.

darren's picture

Did you know that the US sends billions in aid to Israel? Every dollar of it has been taken out of my countrymens' pockets, so that Israelis can continue to do what they do.

Did you know that the U.S. sends billions to Egypt and the Palestinians, too, so that they can continue whatever it is they do? Did you know that the US spends billions on Medicare and Medicaid? Did you know that it spends billions on public education? Not sure what your point is here.

And it continues, in a country where everyone is broke, no one has a job, and local governments want to RAISE property taxes and introduce additional local income taxes.

You’re speaking of the U.S.? Unemployment is 9.1%. How do you get from that to “no one has a job”?

The US sends lots of American wealth all over the place, for free. Part of the American largesse are the military bases we pay for in American blood and American dollars.

The U.S. could probably afford to close its bases in Rammstein and Okinawa – and keep them open in S. Korea, Afghanistan, and Iraq. You’re dreaming if you believe that public spending for military bases – even unnecessary ones – contributes significantly to U.S. government spending. The bulk of it is for entitlements.

It keeps other countries from having to devote as much of their effort at defense.

That, of course, is true, but is a somewhat different argument. Let’s face it: much of the welfare statism in Europe was made possible because the U.S. defense shield made it unnecessary for Europe to spend what it should have on defending itself. Europeans might have opted for more welfare and less defense anyway, but at least they would have realized that there was an economic trade-off between the two.

_____________________________________________________________________

Look, they study it full time.

They have "bad study habits." Until 9-11, the CIA didn’t even believe it was necessary to recruit people who were fluent in Arabic. Just plain stupid.

It is not disloyal to study a thing and come up with an unpopular answer that is very likely a good conclusion.

It's also not disloyal to study a thing and come up with an upopular answer that happens to be wrong. No one on this blog mentioned anything about the CIA being disloyal. I merely claimed they were putzes. They are loyal, patriotic putzes.

Are they necessarily 100% correct? No.

No one on this blog mentioned omniscience, either. But on 9-11, they were 100% incorrect. There’s a difference between demanding omniscience and demanding competence.

But their position on it does make a lot of sense. Blowback is not the sole, exclusive reason, but it is "a" reason,

The reason makes sense only to rationalists like Ron Paul and other Rothbardian libertarians who define any foreign aggression against the U.S. as "blowback." Proof? (1) When asked for empirical evidence of their assertion, they quote the aggressor's propaganda statements (most of which are tailored for foreign consumption); and (2) When asked for any historical examples of foreign aggression against the U.S. that were not "blowback," they blank-out. Ergo, according to them, by definition, any foreign aggression against the U.S., or U.S. interests, was "blowback" for some prior unjustified aggression by the U.S. -- such "blowback" therefore being understandable and justifiable.

and a logical one supported by historical evidence, at that.

Repeating propaganda-releases by foreign aggressors as to their reasons for committing atrocities against the U.S. or its interests is not my idea of supporting a position with "historical evidence." And the term "Logical", in the sense of "internally self-consistent", has nothing to do with anything. "Blowback" is a propaganda rationalization, not an actual historically and empirically verifiable reason. "Blowback" is also not falsifiable, because any attack on the U.S. will always be explained away as a justifiable reaction to some earlier "aggression" by the U.S.

Regarding 9-11, by the way, the propaganda rationalization originally provided by bin Laden was that it was retribution for the U.S. having stationed troops in Saudi Arabia during Desert Storm: we dared to defile part of "dar al Islam" with our infidel troops. Fact: U.S. troops had been invited by the Saudi government to station themselves there during Desert Storm. If one government invites another government to station troops within its borders, there's obviously no aggression involved. Only after the ridiculousness of this rationalization began to be more widely known in the U.S. did bin Laden and other al Qaeda members begin to change their story to something else: "did we say retribution for infidel troops in the dar al Islam of Saudi Arabia? Whoops. We meant: retribution for U.S. support of Israel in the 'dar al Islam' of Palestine." So there!! (As I said, there's just no arguing with the blowback rationalization because, in principle, it can never be falsified.)

As compared to your position on it which is....what? That they hate us because we are free?

Yes, among other non-blowback reasons.

Lol. No, it's blowback, and global jihad. Very simple. That'd probably explain a good 90% of it.

Only for those who might have a hard time accepting the existence of other people's irrationality. The National Socialists of Hitler's Germany claimed they hated the Jews as understandable blowback for alleged Jewish crimes against Germany, i.e., Jews (i) caused them to lose WWI by "stabbing Germany in the back", (ii) gained control of media like print-journalism and radio, and (iii) gained control of banks -- all for the sake of taking over the world (read "Mein Kampf" and "Protocols of Zion", not to mention newspapers and magazines of the time). The facts were: they hated Jews because they were Jews -- a convenient scapegoat.

Any freedom lover (like you and I, for example) can almost immediately identify the salient parts of our Middle Eastern military adventure. it is (a) invasion of sovereign nations...

Sovereign? When a house on your block is found to be sponsoring local thugs who commit armed robberies against local businesses, it is no longer a "sovereign household" and can be invaded by local police, if necessary. If a nation is found to sponsor terror, either by directly harboring terrorists, training terrorists, funding terrorists, or a combination of any of these, it is no longer a "sovereign nation." "Rogue nation" may not be the best term to describe them, but it's the one in current, popular usage. Ergo, they are not sovereign nations, but rogue nations.

without an immediate threat to an American interest;

"Immediate threat" is a concept that works when you're dealing with an aggressor's uniformed troops massing on a peaceful nation's borders. It doesn't work when you're dealing with terrorists who don't belong to any national army, who don't mass on anyone's borders, and who make it a point to inflict maximum carnage against civilian "soft" targets. Besides -- you're contradicting yourself. 9-11 already happened. The "immediate threat" already proved itself. The U.S., and much of the west in general, is responding. The problem is this: even IF and WHEN an aggressor proves that it is an "immediate threat", you STILL excuse it all on the grounds of it being "blowback"; ergo, ANY response by the U.S. -- except, apparently, an apology to the aggressor for having wronged it in some way in the past -- is illegitimate by your lights.

(b) nation-building;

If the U.S. were really "nation-building", it would use the approach it used after it defeated Japan in WWII: (i) completely break the will of the aggressor to wage war by a show of overwhelming force (nukes took care of that); (ii) break the aggressors' mindset from their past philosophy -- religious or secular -- by telling them: "you will NOT continue to live the way you did before". The reason Japan is now a peaceful, productive nation -- and close ally of the U.S. -- is that MacArthur wrote Japan's constitution and told them "THIS is how you will now live." That's nation-building. Conversely, we are being politically-correct in the Middle East, making sure Arab Muslims adopt whatever sort of government they deem fit, including one based on Sharia law if that is “the will of the people.” That is not nation-building. That is politically-correct futzing around -- wasting lives, time, and money.

(c) an undeclared war, declared merely by edict rather than Constitutionally

Only the current war in Libya – the one Obama started -- is undeclared. Afghanistan and Iraq both had congressional permission -- which constitutes the declaration -- and are therefore constitutional. Even the most leftwing politician in congress, Dennis Kucinich, admits this, and he was no fan of Bush.

3. "Iran is not "getting a nuke" with cash."

Sure they are. They aren't buying one from N. Korea, but they are using their productive capacity to build infrastructure to create one.

If a person is "using his productive capacity" to build infrastructure in his home to manufacture his own shoes, then he is NOT "using cash to buy shoes." Same for nukes. The reason Iran is not simply buying one from N. Korea -- assuming N. Korea has spare ones that it could sell to Iran -- is that Iran sees itself not only as Muslim but -- perhaps more importantly -- as PERSIAN . . . a higher, nobler, form of mankind than mere Arabs, whom Persions historically have looked on with disdain. Iran wants to be a regional hegemon -- meaning, that it has to have the capability to manufacture as many nukes as it wants or thinks it needs “on demand” for strategic political purposes -- and not merely a bully with a big bomb.

"...I would have preferred pre-emptive action -- had it actually been an option -- to prevent 9-11, the USS Cole atrocity, or any other terrorist action against the U.S..."

Pre-emptive action based on intel from the CIA, who you find to be utterly incompetent? So then, a rumor is enough for you to spend billions of dollars and waste American lives and insult a sovereign nation? I am in favor of dousing the campfire before it becomes a forest fire, too. But whose word are you going to trust if not the CIA?

That’s the choice, according to you: incompetent CIA intel or unsubstantiated rumor? Hello???? What about (i) Mossad intel? (ii) British intel? (iii) French intel? (iv) friendly Arab intel (Jordan, for example? Read General Tommy Franks' autobiography). Lots of other sources aside from an incompetent CIA. We knew more about al Qaeda – and Hussein’s WMDs – from these sources than we knew from our own CIA.

Israel has much more modern equipment and vastly superior air power. In a conventional war, there'd be a lot of dead Muslims.

One can only hope. However, there are also lots more Muslims than Israelis, and the Israeli military is stretched pretty thin.

When POTUS speaks, you bet your bottom that Israel listens. Believe it.

Considering the clown in the White House never shuts up, it’s hard NOT to listen. But listening to POTUS is one thing; following his advice (or acquiescing to his warnings) is another.

"Sounds like the CIA again. I'm sure Iran is counting on your thinking that way."

Do you like kittens? Because Adolf Hitler liked kittens....do you see the logical problem with your thinking here?

I see a connection between “Hitler liked kittens” and “THEREFORE, I will like kittens, too.” Similarly, the CIA believes the blowback rationale because propaganda organs for nations hostile to the U.S. – and to the west, in general – declared it to be the reason for Muslim antipathy; in turn, you believe the CIA. The CIA says “Muslims say so, THEREFORE, I will say so, too.” You say, “the CIA said so, THEREFORE, I say so, too.”

Iran might not even be able to get a missile to Israel, and certainly cannot get one to the U.S.

You miss the point. Iran doesn’t need to get a missile to the U.S. (though it can certainly get one to Israel). All it has to do is be enough of a regional hegemon to run proxy wars, with terrorists and conventional weapons, against the U.S. and its interests. That’s why the obsession with whether or not it can actually deliver a nuke to U.S. shores is a strawman. And besides . . .

. . . by your lights, it would make no difference, right? Even if Iran could, and did, launch a nuke against the U.S. homeland, you and Ron Paul would simply write it off as another instance of inevitable “blowback” for some earlier wrong the U.S. must have committed against Iran. So there’s really no arguing with the blowback position because it’s not a rationally constructed argument, and not amenable to empirical/historical falsification. It’s more of a “worldview” position; an axiomatic starting point for justifying certain kinds of political stances, rather than a conclusion drawn from empirical evidence and history.

Scott

Doug Bandler's picture

Any freedom lover (like you and I, for example) can almost immediately identify the salient parts of our Middle Eastern military adventure. it is (a) invasion of sovereign nations without an immediate threat to an American interest; (b) nation-building; (c) an undeclared war, declared merely by edict rather than Constitutionally. I'll stop there, but either you or I could go on, easily. None of this is advisable, all of it is without support in the Constitution, and all of it is a terrible waste of life and American money.

I'm in general agreement with this and with the sentiments of Scott's post. But I want to make some points:

it is (a) invasion of sovereign nations without an immediate threat to an American interest

I think that Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and possibly a few others were all "immediate threats" to the U.S. They are part of the Ummah and that is our fundamental enemy, NOT any one country. Also, the part about a "sovereign nation" sounds too much like libertarian bullshit. Their "sovereign" status is irrelevant. If they are an enemy then they deserve to be subjected to whatever devastating force is necessary for their defeat.

Now I am not saying that we needed to wage war on all those countries. I'm just saying that they were all legitimate targets. What the best war strategy should have been post 9/11 is a very interesting question. It would require more military knowledge than I possess although I have read suggestions from what I consider experts. Suffice it to say nation building was completely unneeded.

Your points b and c are correct.

I checked

atlascott's picture

The US gave Israel about 50 or 60 million in economic aid and about 2.4 billion in military aid in 2009.

The numbers remain about the same, but have been going down from 2001 to 2009, so thats movement in a good direction.

Overall, in 2001, the US gave out almost 17 billion in aid and in 2008, we gave 48 billion in foreign aid.

Man, that's a lot of money.

I disagree with you, darren, and here's why...

atlascott's picture

1. "Wow! Even our own CIA says that?..."

Look, they study it full time. It is not disloyal to study a thing and come up with an unpopular answer that is very likely a good conclusion. Are they necessarily 100% correct? No. But their position on it does make a lot of sense. Blowback is not the sole, exclusive reason, but it is "a" reason, and a logical one supported by historical evidence, at that. As compared to your position on it which is....what? That they hate us because we are free? Lol. No, it's blowback, and global jihad. Very simple. That'd probably explain a good 90% of it.

2. "That assumes you understand what it is we're actually doing in the Middle East. I don't understand it, myself..."

Any freedom lover (like you and I, for example) can almost immediately identify the salient parts of our Middle Eastern military adventure. it is (a) invasion of sovereign nations without an immediate threat to an American interest; (b) nation-building; (c) an undeclared war, declared merely by edict rather than Constitutionally. I'll stop there, but either you or I could go on, easily. None of this is advisable, all of it is without support in the Constitution, and all of it is a terrible waste of life and American money.

That neither you, nor I, nor the American government seems to really have clue one as to what the goal is and how to achieve is true but impertinent, here.

"What we ought to be doing is de-clawing nations that harbor, sponsor, and train terrorists, which requires an old-fashioned strategy called "winning wars" and "breaking the will of the enemy to wage war." I don't see that anyone is doing that in the Middle East."

Agreed.

3. "Iran is not "getting a nuke" with cash."

Sure they are. They aren't buying one from N. Korea, but they are using their productive capacity to build infrastructure to create one. If you got enough money, you can buy one or invest your productivity in building one. Oil money is like any other. The folk in charge get to decide how to use it.

"...I would have preferred pre-emptive action -- had it actually been an option -- to prevent 9-11, the USS Cole atrocity, or any other terrorist action against the U.S..."

Pre-emptive action based on intel from the CIA, who you find to be utterly incompetent? So then, a rumor is enough for you to spend billions of dollars and waste American lives and insult a sovereign nation? I am in favor of dousing the campfire before it becomes a forest fire, too. But whose word are you going to trust if not the CIA?

4. "Is that something the CIA said, too? In fact, Israel has already stated that it is not "more than capable" of handling Iran. No doubt, it could make a devasting nuclear response to a nuclear first-strike by Iran; but that scenario is unlikely to happen. Israel would never use nukes against a conventional-weapons action by Iran; Iran knows this, which is why it will increase its aggression with conventional weapons -- as well as, of course, continuing to be a major sponsor of terrorism, mainly via Hezbollah."

Israel has much more modern equipment and vastly superior air power. In a conventional war, there'd be a lot of dead Muslims. When Iraq invaded Iran, Iran literally had to resort to HUMAN WAVE attacks. That is how low tech they are. Israel has 3 Dolphin subs. A bunch of kick-ass F-15's and F-16's with some great pilots. Soldiers as good as any in the world. Experiene fighting superior numbers. Why do you think they do all of their sneaky stuff?

We do not belong in the region.

Where was it that Israel said that they couldn't handle Iran? I'm not accusing you of making things up, but...

"Nonsense. Obama's nothing but an irritation."

When POTUS speaks, you bet your bottom that Israel listens. Believe it.

"Sounds like the CIA again. I'm sure Iran is counting on your thinking that way."

Do you like kittens? Because Adolf Hitler liked kittens....do you see the logical problem with your thinking here?

And you are wrong, again. It is well known and accepted by military historians, folks in the intel community...Iran might not even be able to get a missile to Israel, and certainly cannot get one to the US.

No one in Iran should feel good about my thoughts about Iran. Or my preferred mode of handling them. But we aren't talking about that right now.

Israel

atlascott's picture

I am a fan of Israel, especially as compared to the other options which surround them.

Did you know that the US sends billions in aid to Israel? Every dollar of it has been taken out of my countrymens' pockets, so that Israelis can continue to do what they do.

And it continues, in a country where everyone is broke, no one has a job, and local governments want to RAISE property taxes and introduce additional local income taxes.

The US sends lots of American wealth all over the place, for free. Part of the American largesse are the military bases we pay for in American blood and American dollars.

It keeps other countries from having to devote as much of their effort at defense. Or, it stops them from doing the sensible thing: emigrating en masse to America.

Why? Everyone on this site believes in personal responsibility, right? Everyone here sees the immorality of an American "duty" to prop up a state so it can exist, right?

The only argument I can see for subsidizing Israel is religious -- if you really believe that they are their own Holy Land. Otherwise, what difference should a particular patch of sand in a desert matter to us?

Anyway, Israel has, and continues to get paid by my countrymen, even under Obama. It should eventually stop. We can be their friends. But we should wean them off of our support unless we are getting something in return. And, I support being an Israel ally -- meaning -- if they are attacked, we will wipe out whoever does it.

Most of America's problems stem internationally stem from blowback and lack of a consistent, strong message on foreign policy. As as lesson re: this last bit, witness the clarity of Reagan versus the appeasement of Carter.

On female intelligence

Doug Bandler's picture

To suggest otherwise is to say that she doesn't have the same intellectual capacity.

Just to be clear with this. Any individual woman may be as smart or smarter than a man. However, taken as a whole, females have less variability in their intellectual capabilities; ie they hover around the mean more than men. The reason that is offered for this fact is that nature takes more risks with men because men are expendable in the "eyes" of the species ("infinite sperm, limited eggs phenomenon"). Women are the bottleneck of the human species b/c they bear the children. Nature is more careful with them. Men can be reckless with their lives (it just might get them laid). Women can't be. At least if the species is going to survive.

What this means is that there will be fewer female geniuses than male geniuses (this plays out most clearly in math and the hard sciences - fields dominated by men much to the chagrin of feminists everywhere). Which makes Ayn Rand a real frakin' anomaly. She was rare in so many ways which is why, no matter what her flaws real or imagined, the women deserves much love and reverence. Yes, I said it. She deserves rational reverence. Any one who hates on her has a sick soul. No exceptions.

But a woman doesn't need to be a genius to be president. She just needs above average intelligence and a healthy philosophy along with knowledge of sound economic theory. Sadly, there aren't even any men that fit that bill let alone women. Sad times.

Agreed, Robert

Ross Elliot's picture

I have no doubt that an American woman is the equal of any American man.

And I certainly don't subscribe to Rand's view that a woman could not be president due to her natural role as a sexual foil to a man.

To be clear, I do believe, through experience, that a woman is indeed a sexual foil to a man. But that doesn't preclude her from being president.

To suggest otherwise is to say that she doesn't have the same intellectual capacity.

Darren

Doug Bandler's picture

Nice takedown of Ron Paul and the anarcho-libertarians. They are a thorn in our Classical Liberal sides. Damn them.

Good point Olivia

Doug Bandler's picture

Her sense of femininity was unashamedly dominant, virtuous in the English sense - sensible, practical, and superior. She was bold, intensely uncompromising and fierce - these are masculine traits and America wouldn't let such a woman through its political ranks because she wouldn't be appealing to Americans. Thatcher could naturally embody powerful, English, female leadership partly because of the ruling Queens of England, like Elizabeth Ist and Victoria. America's history has never had that kind of political example in a woman, and it shouldn't need it.

Excellent commentary. Very insightful. I completely agree. But I also think that this is due to the nature of feminism as well as "AirHead America". Feminism has destroyed the very existence of masculine appreciation in women as all men are rapists according to gender feminism's latest wave. Women as a result either turn into man haters or ditzes.

Also, good point about the legacy of the Queens of England priming British society to feel comfortable with female leaders. America does not have that tradition. I disagree with Rand on this. I see no reason why a women couldn't be a competent President although it would be a reflection of a culture where men were being castrated by bad philosophy.

Last point, American Liberal women detest Conservative female political candidates. When a female becomes a Conservative she has rejected the Leftist victim ideology that all good thinking Leftist pomowankers are supposed to accept. A female Republican presidential nominee would stand no chance.

Re: Ron Paul & Foreign Policy

darren's picture

Our own CIA identifies "blowback" as the primary cause of Muslim antipathy towards us. So does Ron Paul.

Wow! Even our own CIA says that? That does it! I'm changing my entire fucking worldview because the putzes at the CIA -- who themselves were greatly to blame for 9-11, and whose lack of credible intel, especially with regard to Islam, has been, let us say, "legendary" -- has an opinion about why Muslims hate the west. Excellent!

There's no Constitutional mandate for what we are doing in the Middle East and all over the world.

That assumes you understand what it is we're actually doing in the Middle East. I don't understand it, myself, but I do understand that I'm good company: most people don't understand it. What we ought to be doing is de-clawing nations that harbor, sponsor, and train terrorists, which requires an old-fashioned strategy called "winning wars" and "breaking the will of the enemy to wage war." I don't see that anyone is doing that in the Middle East.

Also -- Iran is making its nuke even with the chickenhawks waging their wars. Any country with cash can get a nuke.

Iran is not "getting a nuke" with cash. They are nuclearizing, meaning: they are installing the infrastructure necessary for bomb production. Not quite the same thing as going to the corner terror market and purchasing a nuke.

So if they do, and if they use it or realistically threaten to use it, THEN we go in and wipe them out. Simple.

Cool! But I'd rather wipe them out before they drop a nuke, just as I would have preferred pre-emptive action -- had it actually been an option -- to prevent 9-11, the USS Cole atrocity, or any other terrorist action against the U.S. Anyway, countries with nukes don't acquire them in order to use them; that would be foolish. They acquire them in order to make it easier for them to use conventional weapons with impunity. It works.

A nuke is much more likely to be used against or threatened Israel, and Israel, being in the region, DOES have a compelling national security interest in eliminating a possible nuclear Iran. They are more than capable of handling Iran.

Is that something the CIA said, too? In fact, Israel has already stated that it is not "more than capable" of handling Iran. No doubt, it could make a devasting nuclear response to a nuclear first-strike by Iran; but that scenario is unlikely to happen. Israel would never use nukes against a conventional-weapons action by Iran; Iran knows this, which is why it will increase its aggression with conventional weapons -- as well as, of course, continuing to be a major sponsor of terrorism, mainly via Hezbollah.

They already would have if Obama had not stood in their way.

Nonsense. Obama's nothing but an irritation.

Iran cannot deliver a nuke to America or anywhere close.

Sounds like the CIA again. I'm sure Iran is counting on your thinking that way.

Balls.

Robert's picture

"cutie-pie-ness which is profoundly present in American female values, and consciously cultivated."

There I fear you are committing the fallacy of composition: measuring the entirety of American womanhood from the Revolution to now based on the covers of fashion magazines and prime-time news anchors.

Yes, American women do spend a stupendous amount of their disposable income on cosmetics, hair products, hair styling, clothes, shoes, bathroom crap and all manner of other extraneous shit.

Part of the reason for this is simply: because they can. That cosmetics & cosmetic procedures (e.g. hour long hair appointments to straighten hair) are of such abundance and variety is a windfall profit of capitalism in the world's most successful economy.

BUT this effort is also not done ~just~ to impress men.

IMHO women in particular suffer from the crab-bucket mentality.

And the effort put in to look youthful is done to to combat the comments from the cackling chorus of crones that infests every human society.

In my (limited) experience, no one can exceed the misogyny displayed by a gaggle of women with nothing constructive to do and an outsider (or even an insider who is temporarily absent) to pick on. The most lurid and sexist comments that I've ever heard from drunken teenagers pale by comparison to the vicious and soberly uttered criticisms I've over-heard whilst working in female dominated work-places.

In a broader sense, I submit that this cutsie-pie attitude you describe is a symptom of the inability of modern American society to foster rugged individualism in its young and especially in its girls.

In modern capitalist western societies, a woman doesn't need to strike out on their own and establish themselves unless they have a burning desire to. Previous generations of women sort only to marry well and have a family. Leaving the bulk of the bread winning to their mate.

That is changing. But even now, women struggle with the work/family 'dichotomy.' I use scare quotes because the apparent 'dichotomy' is an artificial one. Any economy that can support an industry as 'useless' as the female cosmetics industry, can support the aspirations of men or women who decided to bring up kids & have a career. Hell, I'd even bet that any company that excluded people based would place itself at a huge disadvantage from the point of view of excluding talented people.

And besides, if immigration, education and economic polices were straightened up to the point where we had something approaching a laissez faire economy then Nannies would be cheaper. Education wouldn't cost $20,000 per child. I could buy real food at reasonable prices that aren't manipulated by to idiotic or ancient tariffs, subsidies, government farm-loans and green land- or water-use policies. To say nothing of the Fed's incessant meddling with the money supply.

Back to my point about societies view women. Where would the desire to establish your career first & start a family second come from in the current philosophical environment? An environment dominated by two camps neither one of which holding -- as an ideal: independent women living for her own sake?

You have the Post modernist camp full of feminist protagonists who who think that women are a victim. They think that they need liberation from every part of a man except his wallet. That must be drained in compensation for the years spent under the yoke.

The alternative to this bullshit comes from the pre-modernists (e.g. the Conservatives) who think of women as an altruistic breeder-unit first and an individual second. They prattle on about the integrity of the family unit as if a family is equivalent to a squad of soldiers in an army. An integral sub-unit in the economic machine at whose controls they wish to be.

The idea that the make up of a family or even a marriage is none of the government's business and is an arrangement between equal partners in an adventure is as foreign to both camps as the concept of a strong strident female individual.

Nevertheless, that attitude is changing slowly.

Today in the US, Women are marrying and having children later.

The implication is that they are embracing economic freedom before seeking to partner up and have kids. That is a very good thing.

Strong female individuals are emerging and will continue to emerge from American society albeit painfully slowly. But you won't see them emerging in force in this generation of politicians. For a start, the minimum age for a US Senator is 35 and in most cases it's ~essentially~ a life-long position. There is a hell of a lot of dead wood to burn though first.

But also remember that there are 51 sets of premiers, senates and congress' in the USA. And the rest of the world only ever gets to hear regularly from one of them: the federal trio. Had it not been for a failed VP attempt, Sarah Palin would be unknown outside of the USA.

But I'll guarantee you this. That when a Thatcher does rise to the Federal level in the USA, the most vicious critics of those women and their partners will be other females who remain unwitting thralls to either the pre- and post-modernists. Either that or they will be like you & Ann Coulter: eternally cynical of their sex; a thrall to a collective impression of the 'historic' view of the weaker sex.

I'm different. I can see the potential in women. But then again, I'm a heterosexual male -- by definition I LIKE women.

And as to your comment that America can and should operate with one half of it's intellectual talent tied to the kitchen whiteware (I'm paraphrasing but that's the effect of your 150 million men comment) - That's utter bollocks.

Jason

Olivia's picture

If there were an American or Kiwi version of Margaret Thatcher would you have the same stance?

I would support the likes of a Margaret Thatcher wherever she raised her head. She was formidable.
The thing with me is, America forged the free world and its governance is the task of giants. Out of 150 million men, don't tell me that the ambition to be *the* leader of men in the greatest nation on earth should fall to being a woman's and be acceptable.

An American version of Thatcher is an impossibility anyway. America breeds this cutesy version of intelligent female, the essence of which you see clearly in Bachmann and Palin. They're strong, beautiful, convicted and brainy, but with a highly ingrained "men are watching me" cutie-pie-ness which is profoundly present in American female values, and consciously cultivated. Thatcher was way beyond that fluff, that's why she became known as the Iron Lady. Her sense of femininity was unashamedly dominant, virtuous in the English sense - sensible, practical, and superior. She was bold, intensely uncompromising and fierce - these are masculine traits and America wouldn't let such a woman through its political ranks because she wouldn't be appealing to Americans. Thatcher could naturally embody powerful, English, female leadership partly because of the ruling Queens of England, like Elizabeth Ist and Victoria. America's history has never had that kind of political example in a woman, and it shouldn't need it.

Yeah Scott...

Olivia's picture

A nuke is much more likely to be used against or threatened Israel, and Israel, being in the region, DOES have a compelling national security interest in eliminating a possible nuclear Iran. They are more than capable of handling Iran. They already would have if Obama had not stood in their way.

.... and if you have a President who thinks Muslim attacks are "blowback", what will he do *when*, not if, the time comes for Israel to need real back up?

Ronny

atlascott's picture

"A nuclear-capable Iran is a pressing issue having to do with the destruction of America, yet Ron Paul is a complete flake when it comes to that."

No, actually, Ron Paul is the most reasonable and also the only candidate with a Constitutional foreign policy.

Our own CIA identifies "blowback" as the primary cause of Muslim antipathy towards us. So does Ron Paul.

There's no Constitutional mandate for what we are doing in the Middle East and all over the world.

Also -- Iran is making its nuke even with the chickenhawks waging their wars. Any country with cash can get a nuke.

So if they do, and if they use it or realistically threaten to use it, THEN we go in and wipe them out. Simple.

A nuke is much more likely to be used against or threatened Israel, and Israel, being in the region, DOES have a compelling national security interest in eliminating a possible nuclear Iran. They are more than capable of handling Iran. They already would have if Obama had not stood in their way.

Anyway, I agree that I would like to hear what Ron Paul has to say about the cultural creeping Islam is doing in the West. I agree that he is not ideal on foreign policy.

But he is far and away the best candidate for the most pressing issues which face OUR NATION.

Iran cannot deliver a nuke to America or anywhere close.

Re: Herman Cain statement on CNN.

darren's picture

"I would make sure that FEMA got the money it needed, and if I had to go find the offsets later, go find it later. Stop playing with people's tragedies — these are real people we’re talking about," Cain said on CNN.

Unless Cain is just playing politics here, that statement sounds very "Nanny State" to me. FEMA is the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which is supposed to function as a kind of catch-all governmental, single-payer insurance provider for major disasters: earthquakes, floods, etc. The very fact that it exists provides a powerful disincentive for private insurers to cover these calamities (which they used to do), as well as for state governments to prepare and follow their own disaster-relief plans. That FEMA almost always responds too slowly and inadequately is irrelevant. There's no problem that people have which cannot be described as a tragedy requiring government action, and therefore a dispersal of costs onto everyone else: food, clothing, shelter, health care, employment, etc.

Hahahahahaha!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

In the news tonight:

President Barack Obama says the Republican vision of government would "fundamentally cripple America", as he tried out his newly combative message on the liberal West Coast.

Look who's talking!!

Olivia and Marcus

Jason Quintana's picture

"I thought Bachmann came off pretty well in that debate, her comment about Cuba being one of the four listed countries which sponsors terrorism, therefore unworthy of direct flights in and out of the States, was right on the money, but I could never vote for a woman."

Olivia, I am not in favor of Bachmann for president, but you are the third female I have heard this from recently about the possibility of a female president. If there were an American or Kiwi version of Margaret Thatcher would you have the same stance?

"Herman Cain would come under fire from the liberal media for being an "uncle Tom" candidate. I don't know how he would react to that."

Marcus, Cain has other problems that probably won't allow him to be a contender in this race, but there is nothing about him that would lead me to think that the "Uncle Tom" label would stick, or that he would shrink from this kind of attack.

I support Cain at this early point in the race.

Re: Herman Cain

darren's picture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

"Cain was born in Memphis, Tennessee, on December 13, 1945, the son of Lenora (née Davis) and Luther Cain, Jr.[6][7] His mother was a cleaner and his father was a janitor, a barber, and a chauffeur.[3] He was raised in Georgia.[8] He graduated from Morehouse College in 1967 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in mathematics and received a Master of Science degree in computer science from Purdue University in 1971,[9] while he was also working full-time in ballistics for the U.S. Department of the Navy. Cain has authored four books: Leadership is Common Sense (1997), Speak as a Leader (1999), CEO of SELF (October 2001), and They Think You're Stupid (May 2005). He also authored an article titled "The Intangibles of Implementation" in the technical journal Interfaces (Vol. 9, No. 5, 1979, pp. 144-147), published by the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)."

http://www.unitedliberty.org/a...

This site provides a "white paper" on Cain's policy positions from the pro-free-market organization, "The Club for Growth."

The major stumbling block to Cain's progress will probably be the fact that he supported TARP, which was the Bush/Obama bailout of "troubled" banks and insurance companies. He claims that he didn't support the later "shovel-ready" stimulus spending of the Obama administration but that TARP was somehow different. We're waiting for a clear explanation.

Lastly -- it's best not to read too much into a Straw Poll, which is simply a local popularity contest. Ron Paul and Mitt Romney have both won Straw Polls in the past yet it created no real political traction for them.

News from Tea Party Nation

gregster's picture

Judson Philips today writes:

"The political landscape is still rocking from Herman Cain’s amazing win at the Florida straw poll last night. Cain not only won but crushed Rick Perry.

For Herman Cain, this is the moment he has dreamed of. Cain worked Florida hard, defeating a better organized and better funded Perry organization. Cain did it the old fashioned way. He worked the convention.

Perry took a pass at addressing the entire convention to fly to Michigan and confront Romney on what is considered almost his home turf.

Cain is, among other things, an incredibly gifted orator. If the GOP nomination were to be decided on oratorical skills, Cain would be winning in a landslide. The other candidates can only wish to have half the speaking skills Cain has got.

Not only did Cain win Florida, Perry lost Florida. People need to seriously question the political acumen of the Perry campaign staff when they decided to pass on speaking to the convention in Florida, where Perry had basically gone all in, in favor of flying to Michigan to challenge Romney in Romney territory.

Michigan may be an important state in both the primary and the general election. Florida is a crucial one. Perry will never get the nomination or the Presidency if he cannot carry Florida. What possessed his team to send him out of Florida before a clear victory to go to a state that it is really questionable if he can carry under the best of circumstances?

For Herman Cain, this is the moment he has dreamed of. This morning Herman Cain is the number one topic on Google Trends. Everyone is looking him up. The timing of this for Cain could not be better. His campaign will receive a significant shot in the arm. This will probably gain him some traction in the polls and more importantly, he will have more campaign money coming in before the end of the third quarter reporting deadline of September 30.

Herman Cain’s win may signify the end of Michele Bachmann’s run for the White House. The people who are excited about Cain and the people who Cain will be picking up are Tea Party supporters. This is Bachmann’s base and if she loses any more of that base, she will be done. In July, she peaked at second place with roughly 14% of the vote. She has been going downhill since then. Today she polls just above Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain. Given Cain’s victory in Florida, in the next few days, she will probably be trailing him. Rumors say that her fundraising has dried up too. Bachmann has a pretty good organization in Iowa, but her organization in other crucial states, including South Carolina is fairly minimal. Her strategy is to win Iowa and use that momentum to catipult her to the friendly state of South Carolina. A win in Iowa would open up the checkbooks of the big contributors, but she has to make it to Iowa first.

Newt Gingrich has been quietly but steadily rising in the polls. He has been turning in solid debate performances but did not do that well in the Florida straw poll. Next week, he is scheduled to unveil his new “21st Century Contract with America.”

For Rick Perry, this may be his high water mark. He was greeted warmly when he entered the race, but the more people have come to know what he stands for and his record, conservatives have started backing away.

The one thing we can say with certainty is that conservatives are still looking for the candidate we want.

It is not Romney and now looks like it is not Perry."

I agree with Ron Paul on

Stephen Berry's picture

I agree with Ron Paul on foreign affairs. Iran is an oil produdcng country yet has to import gasoline.

Isreal has several hundred nuclear weapons vs. a potential one or two for Iran. If they tried anything approaching nuclear war they would be wiped off the face of the earth.
The US faced off against the Soviets who had tens of thousands of nuclear weapons and had also declared several times their intention to wipe out the west.

America's national defence is weakened by their current foreign policy. By interfering in other the affairs of other nations they do not make themselves stronger. They create new enemies and waste money and lives overseas. The US cannot afford their foreign policy any longer. $14 trillion in debt - a $1.6 trillion deficit. Over 900 bases in countless countries. It is completely unsustainable.

The USA's track record on foreign aid is abysmal. Giving billions to foreign dictators who are hated by their people while they go and invade other nations in order to spread freedom and democracy.

US foreign policy should be based on diplomacy and free trade.

Incidentally...what is with all the support for Hermann Cain? The guy is a personal freedom dinosaur.

Re: Sarah Palin

darren's picture

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50...

September 21, 2011

Sarah Palin has not officially declared whether she will jump in the race for president. A new poll may give her one more reason to take the plunge. She is just five points behind President Obama in the survey released Tuesday by Marist College and McClatchy Newspapers.

The Fox News analyst garnered 44 percent in the poll, compared to Mr. Obama's 49 percent.

That's a sharp increase for Palin, who had been consistently running about 20 points behind Mr. Obama. A key reason for her gain is stronger support among independents, who favor the one-time vice presidential nominee to the sitting president, the newspaper said.

Mr. Obama's approval rating fell to 39 percent, the lowest level of his presidency, and his disapproval rating rose to 52 percent. That is the first time a majority of registered voters said they disapprove of Mr. Obama.

[Obama's approval rating has actually now fallen to 36%. There are at least two scandals brewing that can sink him and his administration: (1) the taxpayer-funded Solyndra scandal (half a billion dollars in tax money given out by the Department of Energy to a bullshit solar-cell manufacturer, which handed the money to a unionized construction company to build an unnecessary second manufacturing plant. Solyndra recently declared bankruptcy after "burning through" their cash. Solyndra corporate offices were recently raided by the FBI. (2) Operation Fast & Furious. A botched "sting" operation by the ATF (bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, which is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice headed by Obama appointee, Eric Holder). The idea was to float hundreds of high-end automatic weapons into Mexico in order to "follow the trail" and see where it led in the Mexican illegal drug trade. Wanna guess what happened? The ATF lost track of the firearms, which started showing up at drug-related murder scenes (including the murder of a US border patrol).]

[As for Palin, it is extremely telling that she now polls more favorably with independents, a very important voting bloc. She hasn't even declared -- yet -- that she's running! Many are saying that it's too late for her to join the fray; but many others -- including me -- believe that New Media, like the Internet, have forever changed the way things are done. This could be an extremely unorthodox election, as well as a model of how things will occur going forward.]

Re: Ron Paul

darren's picture

He is the only one who even identifies the most pressing issues of the destruction of America.

A nuclear-capable Iran is a pressing issue having to do with the destruction of America, yet Ron Paul is a complete flake when it comes to that.

Ron Paul is generally excellent when it comes to economic issues, since he's pretty well-read in Mises, Hayek, Hazlitt, and Bastiat. (Bachmann, by the way, also reads Mises.) Unfortunately, he's also an admirer of Rothbard and other anarcho-capitalist writers (such as Hoppe), who dismiss any sort of action by states, even valid military ones. He believes that any and every attack on the US is simply explained as a matter of political and diplomatic "blowback" from a previous "illegitimate" interventionist action by the US. For example, he believes (as do other anarcho-capitalists) that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was the fault of the US: it was "blowback" -- payback -- for the US blockade of Japan's oil supply. They forget to mention -- or find it irrelevant to do so -- that the US blocked Japan's oil supply because Japan at the time was invading China, which was an ally of ours. In Paul's moral universe, the US is not supposed to aid its allies (which is why he also favors ending US aid to Israel). Paul has defended Hamas as "legitimate" (after all, "they were democratically elected in Gaza, ergo, they are legitimate"), and condemned Israel as being "occupiers". Like many libertarians with whom I've debated, he's completely ignorant of the actual history of the Middle East.

Personally, I think it's idiotic that he's running. Now that the House of Representatives has a Republican majority, with a strong Tea Party presence, he has an opportunity to do some real good chairing his committee to investigate (and expose) the operation of the Federal Reserve. In fact, he campaigned on that issue -- "audit the Fed" -- for a long time. Now that he's got his chance to "audit the Fed", he decides NOT to audit the Fed, and instead wants to run for POTUS. I think he's actually a kook. His son, Rand Paul, now the junior senator for Kentucky and an explicit Tea Party member, seems to be much better on defense issues.

Re: a woman POTUS

darren's picture

. . . but I could never vote for a woman.

Talk about having nutty views on social issues!

I voted...

Marcus's picture

...for Herman Cain.

I don't know if he would be the best candidate, I just based my vote on what I saw at this debate.

With his 999 plan he has a clear and easily understood message.

The problem with this debate is that with so many candidates it is still hard to tell what they are really like.

Herman Cain would come under fire from the liberal media for being an "uncle Tom" candidate. I don't know how he would react to that.

Ron Paul had good chemistry with the audience, but he didn't seem to say much or make a necessary impact to have won the debate.

Ron Paul. He's great on

Stephen Berry's picture

Ron Paul.

He's great on issues of economic and personal liberty at a federal level and I'm right behind his foreign policy too. He has clear principles and has always voted on them.

Probably his weakness would be that he accepts the right of the individual states to laws that the federal government is prohibited from making.

Herman Cain...

Olivia's picture

the man is a born leader, he's clear, he has a strong voice, I like his 999 tax reform and he understands the Muslim threat to America and Israel.

I thought Bachmann came off pretty well in that debate, her comment about Cuba being one of the four listed countries which sponsors terrorism, therefore unworthy of direct flights in and out of the States, was right on the money, but I could never vote for a woman.

Rick Santorum's stance on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was EXCELLENT, but he has truly NUTTY views on social issues, such as homosexuality and abortion, however, defending America against Islamofacism should be absolutely paramount with the next President or he wouldn''t deserve the job. These idiots like Jon Huntsman and Gary Johnson who keep reiterating that America's best defense against outside threats is an internally strong America are off beam with that line of argument. The fact that America is so weakened at the moment is precisely the reason why foreign policy needs to give no quarter - and keep giving no quarter.

I thought Rick Perry was disappointing - I expected a lot more from him and Mitt Romney had him for breakfast.

Gary

gregster's picture

"My next door neighbor's two dogs have created more shovel-ready jobs than this administration." Johnson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Ron Paul

atlascott's picture

He is the only one who even identifies the most pressing issues of the destruction of America.

And has solutions.

OK

gregster's picture

Here goes..

I'd say ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... watch it, Gregster. You might be agreeably surprised.

Without

gregster's picture

having watched it I say they're all lousy.

Haven't watched it yet...

Marcus's picture

...so I will reserve judgement.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.