I watched some of this but ditched it when USA's great new show "Breaking Bad" came on at 10. I love that show. The candidates seemed at pains to be civil to each other, although McCain has this half sneer on his face when he talks about anyone else, particularly Romney. Tim Russert tried his best to ruin the debate. He is such a partisan hack. They might as well have had that idiot Olbermann. Russert asked this question that compared a list of economic statistics from the beginning of Bush's term to now, and made this loaded argument that it showed Bush had fouled up the economy from the great economy Clinton left him. The problem with the question is that a snapshot taken at a carefully chosen moment is more misleading than revealing. Is it fair to compare an economy that was on the last legs of the internet/Y2K bubble with one that had endured the bubble breaking, 9/11, two wars, a real estate bubble breaking, the rise of the BRIC countries with their huge demand for resources, etc? Of course, none of the candidates got into that, nor did they have the time to. Russert is just such a fat pompous jerk, he made Brain Williams look competent. My take on the candidates: Romney. Came across as weak. Beginning to look more like a staff advisor than a leader. McCain. Bungled a couple of questions but doing a decent job of lying about his record and pulling the wool over voters' eyes with media's considerable help. Main problem is Limbaugh hates him. Guiliani. The cockiness is gone, has look of a beaten man who knows it. Huckabee. One of his better debates. Made a good point that stimulus package will be funded with money borrowed from China and used to buy crap imported from China, but never proposed an alternative or actually opposed the current package. All his talk of Arkansas is getting very tiring. We're not electing the next governor. Paul. Scored direct hits on budget and over ambitious military plans. Handed Brain Williams his head on a "have you stopped beating your wife" question on social security. Tripped up McCain on PPT question. Too bad he was barely allowed to talk. Only candidate to get repeated cheers from studio audience. Bottom line. This will soon be a Romney, McCain, Paul contest. McCain seems to have the support of the media and party hacks. Romney is getting conservative support by default. Unless he steps his game up, he could see these supporters become disaffected and break to Paul. Paul has money and total disdain for the party establishment and media, both of whom desperately want him out of the race.
somewhat agree with the final three. huckabee is hurting financially and giuliani is gone after florida.. (i hope). that leaves mccain, romney and paul. trust me they have no idea how bad we will tear up mccain. he's got more negatives than jeffrey dahmer. i think they are stuck with Mitt "ear piece" McRomney. things are getting very interesting. ron paul is in this thru the convention.
And this isn't confined to this site. A discussion a few days ago with a friend of mine basically ran along the lines of this: me: Well, what do you think about the election so far? friend: Well, obviously Ron Paul will win. me: ..okay. Anything else? friend: no, there isn't. Let me tell you about Ron Paul, see, Ron Paul is something this country hasn't experienced before, and it's going to alter everything. me: That's great, really. I was watching the Democratic debates... friend: Waste of time. You should be donating to Dr. Paul's campaign! me: ...and why would I do that when I don't agree with most of what he says? friend: If you don't agree with what he says, how can you call yourself an American? I will wager that a large chunk of Libertarians who responded rather rudely to my postings -- and to those Libertarians who made crank calls to people, or who get into shouting matches, or act like my friend, see nothing at all wrong with their behavior. So be it. But you are not convincing anyone of anything except that a) you're more concerned with being heard than convincing someone b) you're so assured of your rightness that no one else is allowed to have a different opinion. If this is the free-market, invidivualistic society espoused by Dr. Paul, I'll pass. I don't have time for histronics, copy-paste speeches, and boiler plate repeatitive sound bytes that don't really offer answers to some of my questions. http://www.nolanchart.com/article1429.html
Why is it that you can't even see the point of view of the author of the article I posted above? Don't you realize how fanatical you and the Ron Paul supporters come across?
Well, the problem is it is a strawman. A couple of anecdotes prove nothing. No doubt Paul has some supporters who cross the line. Name a candidate who doesn't. Hillary? Please, the Clinton's hit jobs are legendary. Me, I'll take a few obnoxious kids over sending out goons to threaten women Bill abused. Say, when is the mainstream media every going to ask her about that? Anyway, no one here is saying Paul will win, only that he will probably be one of the final three. Do you disagree?
The article is not a strawman actually, because the article went to the issue of the followers of Paul, and not Paul himself. My guess is the author has read plenty of the bogs and has run into more than a random sampling of the Paul supporters upon which to base his opinions. I don't find you to be a fanatical supporter of Paul, yet. Many of his supporters are reasonable, but there is no denying that many of the fringe elements and conspiracy illusionists are the loudest supporters of Paul. The constant blaming the media, when Paul is not spending his own campaign money buying media time is just a hoot. I think you are disgusted with the repubs, which is understandable, so Paul seems to be some options for conservatives...the dems are not a viable option for them, obviously. Blame it on Bush, Noonan is doing just that... "On the pundit civil wars, Rush Limbaugh declared on the radio this week, "I'm here to tell you, if either of these two guys [Mr. McCain or Mike Huckabee] get the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party. It's going to change it forever, be the end of it!" This is absurd. George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues. Were there other causes? Yes, of course. But there was an immediate and essential cause. And this needs saying, because if you don't know what broke the elephant you can't put it together again. The party cannot re-find itself if it can't trace back the moment at which it became lost. It cannot heal an illness whose origin is kept obscure. I believe that some of the ferocity of the pundit wars is due to a certain amount of self-censorship. It's not in human nature to enjoy self-censorship. The truth will out, like steam from a kettle. It hurts to say something you supported didn't work. I would know. But I would say of these men (why, in the continuing age of Bill Clinton, does the emoting come from the men?) who are fighting one another as they resist naming the cause for the fight: Sack up, get serious, define. That's the way to help." http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html Paul may be one of the final three, but all that means is that he will run as an independent and likely take votes away from the republican ticket in November, perhaps helping to elect a democratic president. You really want that to happen?
Why do you continue to repeat false delusional claims? Is that really benefiting Ron Paul for you to come across as such a fanatic?