Confirmed: Fox News cuts Paul from Sunday’s New Hampshire debate

posted at 1:00 pm on January 1, 2008 by Allahpundit

Via LGF, they’re making it a roundtable of the big five — or, more precisely, the big four plus Fred. I get the logic: Thompson’s outpolling Paul nationally by 10 points, but (a) this is, ostensibly, keyed to the New Hampshire primary, which Fred gave up on long ago and where Paul actually leads him in most polls, and (b) if Fred flames out in Iowa he may be out of the race by Sunday, in which case they’ll end up giving his seat to Paul anyway.

On the other hand, it’s not like another lecture on how terrorism is America’s fault is going to propel this turd into the lead. I guess it comes down to whether you want a debate that’s useful or a debate where the candidates are represented in proportion to their support. If the former, then why not cut Rudy too? Just make it a two-on-one McCain/Huck vs. Romney death match. Fun for the whole family.

I read somewhere this morning about a Maverick/Huck ticket being floated. How’s that grab you, HA readers, hm? It’s an amnesty wonder team! And in four (or eight) years, when McCain’s done, we’ve got Vice President Lonesome Rhodes as the presumptive nominee. Sign me up.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Ouch! Is it wise to cross Paul and his loonies?

tickleddragon on January 1, 2008 at 1:02 PM

I read somewhere this morning about a Maverick/Huck ticket being floated. How’s that grab you, HA readers, hm?

I honestly don’t think I could vote for them under any circumstances. If this is the best Republicans can come up with, we need a third party.

katieanne on January 1, 2008 at 1:06 PM

I wonder what the little Paulites will do now.

mram on January 1, 2008 at 1:07 PM

You better watch out for the Ron Paul Mothership.

Mojave Mark on January 1, 2008 at 1:07 PM

Then who’s bringin’ the blimp?

TheSitRep on January 1, 2008 at 1:08 PM

I say good on fox, the other day Paul called Fox News “war propagandist” and said they were scared of him. Really smart using liberal talking points on the channel that a large majority of republicans get their news from.

And I don’t care if his supporters have some sort of retard strength when it comes to fund raising. The GOP will not elect an antiwar candidate this election cycle, period.

Complete7 on January 1, 2008 at 1:10 PM

I still prefer the Rudy/Fred ticket, which would make Rudy almost palatable. And it puts Fred a ‘heartbeat away’ from the Presidency.

McCain should just do a McCain/Kennedy ticket and stop all pretensions of being a conservative.

The Huckster scares me – something with his eyes. The man gives me that ‘sane on the outside, crazed loon on the inside’ feeling.

It’s going to be fun watching the Paulnuts, as the flagellate themselves over the FoxNews decision.

Timothy S. Carlson on January 1, 2008 at 1:10 PM

I wonder if they will start flinging poo like liberals do when they are thwarted?

William Teach on January 1, 2008 at 1:11 PM

Lonesome Rhodes! Awesome!

BJ* on January 1, 2008 at 1:12 PM

I thought this was still unconfirmed.

MadisonConservative on January 1, 2008 at 1:13 PM

President Thompson
VP Hunter
Sect of State Bolton
AG Giuliani
Chief of Staff Gingrich
Sect of Genealogy Romney

Let’s get this party started.

Mojave Mark on January 1, 2008 at 1:15 PM

I’m stunned that FNC plans to include Fred. Seriously–you know O’Reilly probably fought the decision to keep Fred at the table.

aero on January 1, 2008 at 1:15 PM

The Huckster scares me – something with his eyes. The man gives me that ’sane on the outside, crazed loon on the inside’ feeling.

Timothy S. Carlson on January 1, 2008 at 1:10 PM

As opposed to Paul, who gives off ‘crazed loon, inside and out’? :p

ReubenJCogburn on January 1, 2008 at 1:15 PM

With Paul having more money in the bank than some others at the table and the ability to stay in the race longer than most at the table, it seems at little heavy handed for a network that uses “you decide” as part of its branding.

The debates have gone on all year with too many speakers with too little time or focus. I think AP is right that another week would winnow the field anyway. As a news organization why inject yourself into the story? Paul will probably get more out of the rejection than if he had been included. It will add to his “rebel” personae–maybe he’ll organize another fundraiser around it.

dedalus on January 1, 2008 at 1:16 PM

I’m a Fredhead, but I have come to the conclusion that the ticket will be……………. Maverick/Fred. McCain will be the compromise candidate that GW was in 00. He’ll tap his old buddy Fred for the Veep. They’ll defeat Hillary/Obama by a squeaker and serve one term. ’12 will elect Hillary/Richardson. On Dec. 21, 2012, the Mayan calendar comes to an end, so Hillary never gets sworn in.

Simple, really.

HerrMorgenholz on January 1, 2008 at 1:18 PM

On the other hand, it’s not like another lecture on how terrorism is America’s fault is going to propel this turd into the lead.

He’s got a lot of money.

bnelson44 on January 1, 2008 at 1:18 PM

Rush’s brother, David, nails it in this article about Fred.

Ask yourself why people in the know want Thompson to lead the ticket. What do they know that you don’t? Go Fred.

Mojave Mark on January 1, 2008 at 1:18 PM

Ten bucks says the Paul supporters will blame the Jews.

Tim Burton on January 1, 2008 at 1:19 PM

I’m a Fredhead, but I have come to the conclusion that the ticket will be……………. Maverick/Fred.
HerrMorgenholz on January 1, 2008 at 1:18 PM

It is very likely to be McCain/Lieberman if McCain is nominated.

bnelson44 on January 1, 2008 at 1:19 PM

With Paul having more money in the bank than some others at the table and the ability to stay in the race longer than most at the table, it seems at little heavy handed for a network that uses “you decide” as part of its branding.

The debates have gone on all year with too many speakers with too little time or focus. I think AP is right that another week would winnow the field anyway. As a news organization why inject yourself into the story? Paul will probably get more out of the rejection than if he had been included. It will add to his “rebel” personae–maybe he’ll organize another fundraiser around it.

dedalus on January 1, 2008 at 1:16 PM

Well said

offroadaz on January 1, 2008 at 1:20 PM

I honestly don’t think I could vote for them under any circumstances. If this is the best Republicans can come up with, we need a third party.

We need a third party? How about a second one?!

Watcher on January 1, 2008 at 1:20 PM

HAHA. So long, Pauline.

Its Tommy on January 1, 2008 at 1:23 PM

thank goodness.

trailortrash on January 1, 2008 at 1:23 PM

As opposed to Paul, who gives off ‘crazed loon, inside and out’? :p

ReubenJCogburn on January 1, 2008 at 1:15 PM

Uh — that is a given.

Paul/Kucinich ’08 – “We’ve see it all before”

Timothy S. Carlson on January 1, 2008 at 1:27 PM

But don’t pollsters only poll Republicans? And aren’t most of Paul’s supporters Democrats?

Or am I missing something.

Ortzinator on January 1, 2008 at 1:29 PM

To heck with the Paulnuts! Some people are more afraid of them then they do terrorists.

RMR on January 1, 2008 at 1:33 PM

But don’t pollsters only poll Republicans? And aren’t most of Paul’s supporters Democrats?

Or am I missing something.

Ortzinator on January 1, 2008 at 1:29 PM

But democrats can vote for Paul in New Hampshire.

bnelson44 on January 1, 2008 at 1:35 PM

Excuse the typo-”then” should be “than”.

RMR on January 1, 2008 at 1:36 PM

The Paulnuts are collectively thinking: “But… what if thousands of us Digg this story (and continue digging all others) and convince ourselves we matter? We can also step up our “Ron Paul 2008″ YouTube comment drive-bys. This will help, right?”

RightWinged on January 1, 2008 at 1:42 PM

How’s that grab you, HA readers, hm?

Like a mugger in a dark alley, thanks for asking.

Could McCain stomach that guy for the inauguration ceremony, let alone a whole term?

Anwyn on January 1, 2008 at 1:43 PM

It’s way past time somebody voted Paul off the island. Too bad it didn’t happen sooner.

trigon on January 1, 2008 at 1:43 PM

Fred is such a compelling candidate that his supporters don’t even bother donating money to his campaign. That’s principle, I’ll tell you what.

Vizzini on January 1, 2008 at 1:47 PM

Uh, no, Vizzini, obviously the problem is not *enough supporters.* Isn’t that what all the Fredfights here are about?

Anwyn on January 1, 2008 at 1:48 PM

[mram on January 1, 2008 at 1:07 PM]

Well, what can they do but infest the lesser aspects of wider society as they haven’t finished that yet. There’s still time.

Maverick-Huck? Can Maverick afford to spend that much campaign money on duct tape?

Dusty on January 1, 2008 at 1:49 PM

RP probably didn’t help himself when he decided to trash FNC, for all he knows, they might not have actually decided before he decided to run his big mouth.

Bad Candy on January 1, 2008 at 1:52 PM

Uh, no, Vizzini, obviously the problem is not *enough supporters.* Isn’t that what all the Fredfights here are about?

Anwyn on January 1, 2008 at 1:48 PM


That hasn’t always been a problem
, given that Thompson was polling over 20% nationally just three months ago. Although when it comes down to it and you’re scrounging for a couple $100K, that says a lot about your candidacy… and really, your viability. I’m not a Huckster but he’s done far more with far little support out of the gate. The idea that Thompson has some upside no one’s recognizing except for “those in the know” is pretty unpersuasive, given what we already know about Thompson’s campaign then, now, and likely into the future.

Vizzini on January 1, 2008 at 1:56 PM

Well, nobody I know is claiming Thompson has some kind of secret upside. Clearly fewer people like what they see in him than I would like.

Anwyn on January 1, 2008 at 1:59 PM

In other words, to me his upside is pretty apparent. Fewer people agree with me than I would like so far.

Anwyn on January 1, 2008 at 2:00 PM

It’s way past time somebody voted Paul off the island.

Maybe, but is better for the voters to do it than a news organization.

dedalus on January 1, 2008 at 2:05 PM

I wonder if they will start flinging poo like liberals do when they are thwarted?

Whaddaya mean, “start”?

Jim Treacher on January 1, 2008 at 2:15 PM

Paul is going to go 3rd party before it’s all over…he just has too much money at this point and this is his moment. At least he thinks it is.

The good news is that he’s likely to pull more votes away from Hillary than the eventual Repub nominee.

Asher on January 1, 2008 at 2:18 PM

I read somewhere this morning about a Maverick/Huck ticket being floated.

Probably because of the little closed-mouthed kisses they’ve been giving each other in their ads. I and another commenter mentioned it here in the past few days.

How’s that grab you, HA readers, hm?

It makes me want to build an underground desert bunker.

baldilocks on January 1, 2008 at 2:19 PM

Never happen, but it’d be nice if Mitt would go for a Thompson/Romney ticket. Fred would get a big cash influx and have someone to go out and do the day to day stuff that he doesn’t really seem to enjoy. Mitt is still young and would have 4-8 years to burnish his conservative credentials. An announcement of the possibility of such a ticket might make a brokered convention more likely.

Never happen, though.

Uncle Pinky on January 1, 2008 at 2:19 PM

I mean literally flinging poo, like monkeys at a zoo :)

William Teach on January 1, 2008 at 2:23 PM

I read somewhere this morning about a Maverick/Huck ticket being floated. How’s that grab you, HA readers, hm?

That’s not even a funny suggestion.

With Paul having more money in the bank than some others at the table and the ability to stay in the race longer than most at the table, it seems at little heavy handed for a network that uses “you decide” as part of its branding.

dedalus on January 1, 2008 at 1:16 PM

Money is important, but isn’t the factor determining who should take part in debates. Bloomberg’s money makes Paul’s money look non-existent. I wouldn’t want him at the debate either, as he wouldn’t be a serious candidate. Ross Perot is a billionaire, and Steve Forbes has so much money he’s ranked the fourth most important political donor from 1999 to 2006. Neither could win.

amerpundit on January 1, 2008 at 2:30 PM

Neither could win.

amerpundit on January 1, 2008 at 2:30 PM

But that’s irrelevant. Particularly in the early stages, this is about the face and philosophy of the party. If you have 1.) uncanny grassroots support, 2.) the finances to make a candidacy competitive, 3.) polling numbers, or 4.) any two of the above, you’re a legitimate candidate. Paul has 1.) and 2.), and he’s coming up on 3.).

Vizzini on January 1, 2008 at 2:41 PM

I don’t think it is very democratic to keep Paul and the rest out of the debate.

Ian on January 1, 2008 at 2:43 PM

Anyone who is pleased to sit back passively and happily watch Fox News unilaterally trim the Republican field of two candidates (Paul and my first choice, Duncan Hunter) is running on too much estrogen for me.

I thought that voters were supposed to make these decisions, not Uncle MSM.

Short-sighted: Any of you who applaud their cutting out Ron Paul: Wait till they do it to YOUR choice. (Of course, that will be DIFFERENT! Sure.)

sanantonian on January 1, 2008 at 2:55 PM

I read somewhere this morning about a Maverick/Huck ticket being floated. How’s that grab you, HA readers, hm?

I’d rather crap jagged glass….but again, with the ABH gun at my temple, I guess I’m crappin’ me some jagged glass.

Kid from Brooklyn on January 1, 2008 at 2:58 PM

Secretary of Genealogy, Mitt

Hahaha, yes & Paul can be UFO ambassador.

jgapinoy on January 1, 2008 at 3:05 PM

If Ron Paul himself didn’t look so looney, I think his message would have more sticking power.

SouthernGent on January 1, 2008 at 3:16 PM

If they are going to winnow the field, they should do it based on the results of Iowa. Top 5 gets spots on the stage. . . that’s what they are doing for the Democrats.

then why not cut Rudy too?

I’m glad you said it so I don’t have to.

ThackerAgency on January 1, 2008 at 3:23 PM

Huckabee can be the Capitol Chaplin.

TruthToBeTold on January 1, 2008 at 3:25 PM

Ron Paul’s only problem is his isolationist protectionism. His fiscal policy is awesome. His individual liberty policy is awesome. The problem is that while we don’t want to be the world’s bully, we don’t want to be the world’s patsy either.

We can’t just let people get away with violating human rights and personal liberty anywhere in the world these days. We are well within our rights to violate the sovereignty of another country on behalf of human rights. That’s where Paul and I diverge. Gold standard, eliminating the IRS and income tax, all that I wish the rest of the R candidates supported.

ThackerAgency on January 1, 2008 at 3:25 PM

the party should’ve kicked him out a year ago, he’d be nothing right now if they did. And I think they would be justified, because he is out there outright lying and spreading anti-American War Propaganda. Is not a republican and will not support any of the other Repubs, ever. He said the 2006 election was a good thing and that it was ‘good’ that the Dems won and were now in charge of oversight.

Basically, the GOP has sat around and let an idiot who isn’t a Republican but a Crackpot try and sabatoge the party and help the Dems and Moveon.org nut balls in the country.

jp on January 1, 2008 at 3:39 PM

Paul caught in Flip-Flop on Immigration

In his 1988 presidential bid, as a Libertarian Party candidate, Paul, in a CNN presidential questionnaire, took a position favoring the elimination of the border patrol – a stand from which he now runs away!

pandering for conservative votes by a non-conservative intent on destroying the party of Reagan.

jp on January 1, 2008 at 3:42 PM

“I read somewhere this morning about a Maverick/Huck ticket being floated”

Sure you did. And I bet you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night too, didn’t ya?

JM Hanes on January 1, 2008 at 4:07 PM

Money is important, but isn’t the factor determining who should take part in debates. Bloomberg’s money makes Paul’s money look non-existent. I wouldn’t want him at the debate either, as he wouldn’t be a serious candidate. Ross Perot is a billionaire, and Steve Forbes has so much money he’s ranked the fourth most important political donor from 1999 to 2006. Neither could win.

amerpundit on January 1, 2008 at 2:30 PM

Bloomberg & Perot weren’t Republican candidates. Forbes ran as a Republican and got generally good media access. Unlike Forbes, Bloomberg, and Perot Paul’s money comes not from his bankroll but from contributions. That’s a better barometer of a candidate’s staying power than personal wealth.

In 1992 Pat Buchanan was treated as a legitimate challenge to Bush 41. Even though he had no realistic chance, he was a vehicle for the Republican primary voters to register dissatisfaction with the incumbent candidate. Is that good for Republicans? You could argue it either way, but I think it is news and a news organization should cover and analyze it.

dedalus on January 1, 2008 at 4:19 PM

jp on January 1, 2008 at 3:42 PM

Here is the source for that:

In his 1988 presidential bid, as a Libertarian Party candidate, Paul, in a CNN presidential questionnaire, took a position favoring the elimination of the border patrol – a stand from which he now runs away!

http://www.thetimesherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071231/OPINION03/712310339/1014/OPINION

bnelson44 on January 1, 2008 at 4:26 PM

Furthermore, with the resurgence of the Russian bear under Czar Putin, withdrawal from the entire Middle East, as Paul advocates, would give the Russians a great opportunity to enhance their influence in the region. Point blank, Ron Paul is Islamo-terrorism’s dream candidate – as well as Russia’s.

RYAN KRAFFT

from the link, the above is why Communist in the CPUSA and of course the neo-nazi’s love paul and support him. He is a useful idiot.

jp on January 1, 2008 at 4:31 PM

from the link, the above is why Communist in the CPUSA and of course the neo-nazi’s love paul and support him. He is a useful idiot.

It seems possible that our presence in Iraq might make it more likely for Russia and Iran to find common cause.

I think Paul is making the case for returning military assets home, not withdrawing economically. Currently we have trade sanctions against Iran. Might that be considered a way of withdrawing?

dedalus on January 1, 2008 at 4:41 PM

Paul is not making a case for returning military assets home; he is making a case that all the ills in the world are America’s fault, therefore we should run away with our tails between our legs and hunker down like so many of his white supremacist supporters do up in the mountains.

His ideas on foreign policy are about as wise as the ones coming from his “legalize pot” supporters as they practice with their “9/11 was an inside job” stickered bongs.

William Teach on January 1, 2008 at 4:58 PM

Vice President Lonesome Rhodes

Come on, Allah. You think Schyster . . . er, Huckster has the charisma of “Ole Lonesome Rhodes”? I doubt he could seduce Patricia Davis, let alone Patricia Neal.

srhoades on January 1, 2008 at 5:03 PM

Paul is not making a case for returning military assets home; he is making a case that all the ills in the world are America’s fault, therefore we should run away with our tails between our legs and hunker down like so many of his white supremacist supporters do up in the mountains.

He may be making the case that focusing on domestic security can have a higher return than intervening in the affairs of other nations.

My guess is that he favors a pre-WWII notion of the military where it is kept small in peace time and built up when there is a consensus among the people to wage war.

I disagree with him on that, but do think that it is worth making sure that we a gain a substantially positive return on our foreign military endeavors, otherwise not do them.

dedalus on January 1, 2008 at 5:23 PM

William Teach on January 1, 2008 at 4:58 PM

Dude, you must really be one of those Paulnuts you’re always complaining about because after reading your statement, it’s clear you’ve been smoking some good stuff.

He. Voted. For. Action. In. Afghanistan.

Hunker down? Nope. Better analysis of opportunity costs with our military budget? Yes.

Dude, study some facts. Please, for your own good.

y2church on January 1, 2008 at 5:30 PM

He. Voted. For. Action. In. Afghanistan.

and according to his former aide, he only voted for it because his aides threatened to quit if he didn’t. And he claims Paul is a Rooseveltian conspiracist(re: pearl harbor) and against our involvement in WW2 in Europe against the Nazi’s.

interesting that the AUMF he voted for with Afghan was ok with him ‘constitutionally’, yet the AUMF for Iraq(in which there were 23 different reasons for war) is ‘unconstitutional’.

also, with Afghanistan he’s also spreading Anti-American War Propaganda and lies:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-paul-on-afghanistan-oil-pipelines.html

JW: What about Afghanistan? Would you continue the operations there?

RP: No, I would come home, unless there was specific knowledge of where Osama bin Laden was. Then I send out just a small team of people to take care of him. I would not maintain the occupation of Afghanistan. That was mainly motivated by oil pipelines and some other things that are never discussed.

JW: Could you elaborate a little bit how oil pipelines were the motivation for going into Afghanistan?

RP: It’s been known that certain oil companies were anxious for many, many years to be able to transverse Afghanistan to move natural gas. And that effort is still alive and well. Too often, whether it’s a pipeline in Afghanistan or control of oil wells in Iraq, oil and economics motivates our national policy much more so than national security.

yes Michael Moore, errr Ron Paul, its about ‘oil pipelines’. So when are they going to start building those in Afghanistan anyway? its only been what, 6 YEARS NOW!!!!

jp on January 1, 2008 at 5:58 PM

good example of how unbelievably ignorant and naive Paul is:

Ron Paul: Suicide Terrorism

jp on January 1, 2008 at 6:05 PM

@ William Teach on January 1, 2008 at 4:58 PM

Wow, where do I begin. First you claim all Paul supporters are either white supremecists or conspiracy theorists, which is completely false. Then you mischaracterize his foreign policy 100%. Gonna make sure to catch your “insightful” comments in the future.

muyoso on January 1, 2008 at 6:06 PM

@ jp on January 1, 2008 at 6:05 PM

How is that ignorant or naive? You dont think our presence in muslim countries allows them to drum up more support for suicide bombings and affords them greater support from the general populace when they do so?

muyoso on January 1, 2008 at 6:10 PM

I don’t know … Paul’s fundraising seems to indicate that his support is higher than polled. Doesn’t it? I would have left him in.

Besides, his policy positions on eduation and spending are like lonely voices in the wilderness for conservatives. Of course, his position on the war makes him persona non grata to the Foxes.

Jaibones on January 1, 2008 at 6:20 PM

How is that ignorant or naive? You dont think our presence in muslim countries allows them to drum up more support for suicide bombings and affords them greater support from the general populace when they do so?

muyoso on January 1, 2008 at 6:10 PM

yes, because its a false assumption and an Act of pure Faith(unless their are anti-american ulterior motives, possible). There is ample proof of ‘why they attack us’ that trumps any of Paul’s anti-american LIES of “Empire building” and “Occupation”, when the fact is we are there by invitation and agreements by Sovereign Nations.

Muhammed himself gave the following Imperative for World Domination:

“I have been commanded,” he said, “to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right affairs rest with Allah.”

a Jihadist the other day, as all of them do, backed this up clearly:

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD179107

“The goal of this campaign is not only Kabul, Kandahar, or Baghdad. The eyes of the nation of Muhammad are set on Washington, London, Moscow, Paris, Delhi, Beijing, and other countries. This is our goal and, Allah willing, we will get there.”

Jihadist were conquering nations in the name of Allah and World Sharia Domination, long before the US ever existed!

Ron Paul is quite simply buying into their propaganda and wishing for National Suicide.

I wonder how many Phillipines and Thailand and Bali and Morrocoo, etc, have troops at one time in Saudi Arabia by invitation of the saudi govt. for protection from Sadddam???

answer: None, yet they are still under daily attack by Jihadist.

jp on January 1, 2008 at 6:23 PM

the Anti-Ron Paul: Thomas Jefferson on Jihad

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman (or Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven. [2] – Thomas Jefferson

Ron Paul is a bigger fool than George McGovern

jp on January 1, 2008 at 6:26 PM

Beat me to it, jp. Thanks for the pickup.

William Teach on January 1, 2008 at 6:37 PM

Ron Paul – rEVOLution RESOLution

There, fixed.

Timothy S. Carlson on January 1, 2008 at 6:54 PM

the Anti-Ron Paul: Thomas Jefferson on Jihad

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman (or Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven. [2] – Thomas Jefferson
Ron Paul is a bigger fool than George McGovern

jp on January 1, 2008 at 6:26 PM

That is an extremist view point shared by only a very very small fraction of the worlds muslims. The vast majority of muslims do not like the US because they see our bases in the middle east as occupying holy lands.

Check out the book Dying to Win by Robert Pape

offroadaz on January 1, 2008 at 6:56 PM

They don’t like the US as they see us supporting Israel.
The bases / boots we have on their land is secondary.

The only thing keeping them from wiping out Israel is our
inevitable retaliation for their actions.

There’s a long line of dominoes that will fall if a first strike on Israel happens, so there are lots of people who’s
jobs are to make sure it doesn’t happen.

And that external restraint is making many muslims crazy – especially the fanaticals and the jhadis.

Just how much of that crazy ‘fanatical muslim / anti-zionist’ money is in Ron Paul’s coffers? It would make sense that Ron would get their support.

Timothy S. Carlson on January 1, 2008 at 7:10 PM

The only thing keeping them from wiping out Israel is our
inevitable retaliation for their actions.

You dont think they might be scared if Israels reactions too? Doesnt Israel have somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 nukes? It seems like the US is the one holding Israel back from alot of preemptive strikes

offroadaz on January 1, 2008 at 7:20 PM

I read somewhere this morning about a Maverick/Huck ticket being floated.
Probably because of the little closed-mouthed kisses they’ve been giving each other in their ads. I and another commenter mentioned it here in the past few days.

How’s that grab you, HA readers, hm?
It makes me want to build an underground desert bunker.

baldilocks on January 1, 2008 at 2:19 PM

And people called us crazy for pointing out the Huck-McCain thing. :)

PowWow on January 1, 2008 at 7:34 PM

Check out the book Dying to Win by Robert Pape

offroadaz on January 1, 2008 at 6:56 PM

Robert Pape is an extremeist and a leftist, thomas jefferson hit the nail on the head. They don’t have a clue what they are talking about, purely operating from a position of faith and hope, not reality. They want to capitulate based off Jihadist Propaganda instead of facts, its sad and pathetic.

even more so while having the label of the party of this man:

“[T]hey are the focus of evil in the modern world…. [S]ome would have us accept them at their word and accommodate ourselves to their aggressive impulses. But if history teaches anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly. It means the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom…. I believe we shall rise to the challenge. I believe that communism is another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages even now are being written.” (President Ronald Reagan, speech to National Association of Evangelicals, March 8, 1983)

jp on January 1, 2008 at 7:36 PM

You dont think they might be scared if Israels reactions too? Doesnt Israel have somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 nukes? It seems like the US is the one holding Israel back from alot of preemptive strikes

offroadaz on January 1, 2008 at 7:20 PM

True. I’m talking a massive first strike on Israel that could cripple her response. Then we would take over.

Plus – even if Israel’s response wasn’t completely crippled, we would make sure that it goes over the pain threshold.

The fanatics over there realize there will be some losses on their side, but they don’t want complete annihilation. For Israel, yes – but not for them.

A Ron Paul victory would mean that the US would just sit on it’s hands. And Paul’s non-support of Israel would take the dog off the leash – no funds or support from the US would mean Israel could care less about our opinions on a first strike.

At least they would tend to be more surgical than the fanatics.

Global diplomacy is a curious and delicate thing.

Timothy S. Carlson on January 1, 2008 at 7:48 PM

A Ron Paul victory would mean that the US would just sit on it’s hands. And Paul’s non-support of Israel would take the dog off the leash – no funds or support from the US would mean Israel could care less about our opinions on a first strike.

I dont really think so. Pauls biggest problem with the Iraq was is that it was not declared by congress. If congress declares war against nations that attack Israel thereby following our constitution I don’t think Paul would have a problem with it.

Remember Paul puts the constitution above everything else. If a bill or law violates it in anyway he will oppose it, wether or not the bill is good or bad.

offroadaz on January 1, 2008 at 7:52 PM

Robert Pape is an extremeist and a leftist, thomas jefferson hit the nail on the head. They don’t have a clue what they are talking about, purely operating from a position of faith and hope, not reality.
jp on January 1, 2008 at 7:36 PM

Bin Laden issued a fatwa against the United States in 1998 and in it he said that the stated aims of al-Qaeda are to drive Americans and American influence out of all Muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia; destroy Israel; and topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East.

I do not see how that calls for the destruction of America.

offroadaz on January 1, 2008 at 7:55 PM

I do not see how that calls for the destruction of America.

offroadaz on January 1, 2008 at 7:55 PM

The destruction of America is implied. As long as America exists, it will have an influence on the rest of the world. And that is unacceptable to the fanatics.

Even if somehow the destruction of America wasn’t implicit, when they reach their goals as stated they will then have to come up with a new set of goals. Most certainly the destruction of America will be laid out in those goals.

Mmmm – 1998 was a long time ago and many things have happened that have most likely enhanced their desired goals.
I’m sure Bin Laden has a updated fatwa in mind – if his mind isn’t buried in a cave in Tora Bora, that is.

Timothy S. Carlson on January 1, 2008 at 8:05 PM

Remember Paul puts the constitution above everything else. If a bill or law violates it in anyway he will oppose it, wether or not the bill is good or bad.

offroadaz on January 1, 2008 at 7:52 PM

That’s good. Hopefully it means that the sovereignty of the United States will become a priority and he will secure our borders. And the right to bear arms will be restored to the residents of D.C.

But – if a bill/law violates the Constitution, don’t we already have a mechanism for correction? I believe it’s called the Supreme Court.

And there’s also a small thing called a congressional override of a presidential veto. Even if Paul was to oppose a bill, it could still become law.

I believe all of these mechanisms are described in the Constitution.

Remember – just because you don’t approve of something, that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. And vice versa.

Timothy S. Carlson on January 1, 2008 at 8:15 PM

jp on January 1, 2008 at 6:23 PM

Exactly!

thejackal on January 1, 2008 at 8:21 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

I FREAKIN’ LOVE THIS SHIT!!!!

grtflmark on January 1, 2008 at 9:06 PM

dedalus:

“He may be making the case that focusing on domestic security can have a higher return than intervening in the affairs of other nations.”

That was the theory behind the Great Wall of China too. Sanctions exacerbate oppression and strengthen the hand of dictators. We could kill bin Laden tomorrow and it wouldn’t even put a dent in Islamic terrorism, which, BTW, has never been exclusively directed at U.S. interests, or solely a result of them, in the first place.

That said, the question of whether or not Ron Paul gets a seat at the Republican table (even I don’t actually consider him a Republican) is less important to me than whether the format and the questions are designed to elicit substantive comment from the candidates.

JM Hanes on January 2, 2008 at 12:28 AM

When they’re down to three and can have a real debate, call me. I broke my boycott of the debates to watch the kindergarten teacher at the Iowa “debate,” and I’m not doing it again.

rightwingprof on January 2, 2008 at 11:23 AM