Brutal new Ron Paul ad: You people can’t seriously be thinking of nominating Gingrich

posted at 6:37 pm on November 30, 2011 by Allahpundit

Ron Paul: Wrong about many things, but not everything.

You’ll be pleased to know that even Mitt Romney is now questioning Newt’s “conservative credentials,” and not implausibly. I don’t mind telling you: My despair over the state of the race is driving me to consider … dark possibilities. Don’t make me do something I don’t want to do.

Update: A thought experiment from Dan Foster: What if Gingrich had spent the past six years running for president and entered the primaries as the “inevitable” nominee, and then Bachmann, Perry, and Cain had all imploded? Would Romney now be surging on the strength of anti-Newt sentiment? If not, why not?

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

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Newt Never supported Cap and Trade its a lie, look at his 09 Testimony on the subject

http://www.newt.org/answers#GlobalWarming

jp on November 30, 2011 at 9:07 PM

Ron Paul’s foreign policy insanity has nothing to do with the very valid points he makes against Gingrich and the people here who resort to attacking Ron Paul’s insane foreign policy positions to defend Gingrich are engaging in a typical liberal strategy: change the subject.

Basilsbest on November 30, 2011 at 9:02 PM

Well said.

Lourdes on November 30, 2011 at 9:07 PM

How come noone ever mentions Newt’s lack of executive experience? Is it just not that big of a deal to people anymore? His entire political experience is legislative. How is a person whose political experience consists of writing laws and making government bigger going to help the people of this country shrink the size of the federal government and run the day to day affairs of the government we have left. I don’t get it.

txmomof6 on November 30, 2011 at 9:08 PM

jp on November 30, 2011 at 9:03 PM

j

Edit above: only on Micro-Econ policy does Paul overlap with Conservatives.

jp on November 30, 2011 at 9:08 PM

Other candidaqgtes have baggage; Newt has steamer trunks.bw222 on November 30, 2011 at 9:02 PM

With respect, Gingrich has the steamer. Or several.

Basilsbest on November 30, 2011 at 9:08 PM

I despise his foreign policy attitude, but the dude has the strongest ideas about limited government that you’ll find.

MadisonConservative on November 30, 2011 at 8:49 PM

The strangest thing about it is that you can actually say that his foreign policy attitude comes from his goals of a limited government.

The man is crazy, but definitely a conservative.

Chudi on November 30, 2011 at 9:09 PM

jp on November 30, 2011 at 9:07 PM

LOL. . . so was he lying to me or Nancy Pelosi.

Notorious GOP on November 30, 2011 at 9:09 PM

Inkblots on November 30, 2011 at 8:37 PM

Completely incorrect. Ron Paul voted for the AUMF to kill bin Laden, and also favors the use of letters of marque and reprisal as a Constitutional tool to put out hits on foreign terrorists. He only objects to assassinating American citizens who are not engaged in armed assault upon the nation, or who have not been stripped of citizenship or convicted of treason. In other words, he believes in obeying the 4th Amendment, as anyone who respects the rule of law must.

On the contrary it seems you are incorrect.

First, how is it “completely incorrect” when in the very next sentence you state he calls killing an American citizen at war with us an assassination? You see it matters not a hill of beans if it is an American citizen if they have sided with the enemy and is fighting with them. He is an enemy that we are at war with and should be killed, but Paul thinks we should read them rights I guess. Even liberal Obama knows better than that as I said.

2. Paul is so naive on foreign policy that he thinks if we listen to Al Qaeda and leave whatever country they tell us to leave( regardless of the real government) then they will leave us alone.
Again, you’re mistaken. He thinks that our presence in the Middle East, and especially the civilian deaths that have resulted from our interventions there throughout the ’90s and ’00s, provide arecruiting tool for radical jihadis, so that they can convince young fools to blow themselves up. The 9/11 Commission Report came to the same conclusion, as did the longitudinal research on suicide terrorism by Prof. Robert Pape. Having a realistic view of the costs and benefits of decision making, and thinking about unintended consequences of government action is supposed to be what a conservative does.

No, I’m not mistaken. That came directly from the good Dr’s mouth. Here is the quote:

“Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have been explicit, and they wrote and said that we attacked because you had bases on our holy lands in Saudi Arabia…”

So you see he really believes they are only attacking us because of our bases in Saudi Arabia so we should flee the bases because a band of fundamentalist Muslim say we should and then they wouldn’t attack us.

3. Even on abortion, at least Obama claims he is not sure it is a human life, however Paul says it is a human life, but yet it should be left up to the state if they want to kill the innocent! What kind of goobley gook position is that? Is all other types of murder to be left up to individual states?
This one is a doozy. First of all, murder is left up to the states: murder is a state crime, and the only Federal statues on murder respect the murder of Federal officials.

The state has jurisdiction deal with the murder not to decide that is ok to murder. That goes against our founding documents and I don’t think even the good Dr would remain consistent and claim it is up to the state to decide if murder of a certain class of people is ok.

But more importantly, you seem to be unaware that Ron Paul would support a Human Life Amendment.
By working to overturn Roe v. Wade and return the power to legislate about abortion to the states, Ron Paul’s proposed approach will allow many states with pro-life majorities to restrict or ban abortion altogether right away. His legislation to remove the power to regulate abortion from the Federal government and return it to the states could pass right away with simple majorities in Congress, not the more burdensome 2/3 majority requirement for a Constitutional amendment. While not a final solution to the tragedy of mass abortion, such an approach will allow us to start saving hundreds of thousands of lives right away, and will provide concrete examples that, in the modern age, women’s safety and reproductive health can be protected and unwanted children can be adopted and cared for without the need to resort to abortion. This will do massive amounts of good and will save potentially millions of lives that might be lost waiting for the ‘all or nothing’ approach misguidedly pursued by many pro-life organizations to succeed; it is a sad truth that the Human Life Amendment has been perpetually 10 years off for 30 years now. A Constitutional amendment defining human life should still be pursued, and would be supported by Ron Paul, but in the meantime by turning to federalism, pro-lifers under a Paul administration could do more good in 3 months than in all the past 30 years.

Well that is good, but my problem is more with his beliefs that it is a state issue. No state has the right to commit murder and he should make that clear instead of stating it is a state issue. And what of the weak excuse about the years of the racist newsletter with his name and his not knowing anything about it?

RonDelDon on November 30, 2011 at 9:09 PM

Newt Never supported Cap and Trade its a lie, look at his 09 Testimony on the subject

jp on November 30, 2011 at 9:07 PM

It’s actually rather charming how you can stare reality dead in the face and deny it jp.

Inkblots on November 30, 2011 at 9:11 PM

I fear Obama, the DNC and the media have dossiers on every GOP hopeful and that Newt’s is by far the thickest.

Other candidaqgtes have baggage; Newt has steamer trunks.

bw222 on November 30, 2011 at 9:02 PM

Trust me they have trailer trucks. Just watch, they will not make one ad against him in this primary. Barney frank said the other day here that this is a God-send.

Chudi on November 30, 2011 at 9:12 PM

How come noone ever mentions Newt’s lack of executive experience? Is it just not that big of a deal to people anymore? His entire political experience is legislative. How is a person whose political experience consists of writing laws and making government bigger going to help the people of this country shrink the size of the federal government and run the day to day affairs of the government we have left. I don’t get it.txmomof6 on November 30, 2011 at 9:08 PM

Doesn’t he have more experience as an unregistered lobbyist?

Basilsbest on November 30, 2011 at 9:12 PM

Ron Paul’s foreign policy insanity has nothing to do with the very valid points he makes against Gingrich and the people here who resort to attacking Ron Paul’s insane foreign policy positions to defend Gingrich are engaging in a typical liberal strategy: change the subject.
Basilsbest on November 30, 2011 at 9:02 PM

Of course it does when they are trying to make the point that the good Dr is a better choice. No one is claim any of the candidates are perfect so you have to compare and contrast. Ron Paul is worse of all the GOP candidates because of his naïve views on foreign policy and some other things. Anytime you sound like Dennis Kucinich on foreign policy you have no right to talk about any GOP candidate.

RonDelDon on November 30, 2011 at 9:14 PM

You’re much mistaken. Ron Paul believes in a strong national defense. Indeed, he has written that providing for the national defense is the first duty of the Federal government. He merely points out, correctly, that our troops should be protecting THIS country, not Germany, Japan, Afghanistan, and other sundry locales around the globe.

Oh sure, he believes in a strong defense — if we’re actually attacked. That kind of isolationism died out in World War 2 because we finally realized we can’t retreat from the world.

Ron Paul makes cheap rhetorical points by talking about pulling all troops close to homee. The fact of the matter is that our foreign policy is built on keeping the world somewhat stable precisely to keep as many people home as possible, rather than facing an existential threat like we did in World War 2 when the whole world goes to war.

Sometimes we err in trying too hard to keep the world stable, but an unstable world is a dangerous one for this country. We may not like the treasure we have to spend and the people we have to send across the world, but it keeps the world safer for all of us.

Are there exceptions? Certainly. And those kind of calculations need to be done carefully and responsibly. But to pretend that we can just “bring our boys home” and everything will be fine is not just naive, but suicidal.

He recognizes that the number one threat to our national security is not a foreign army, but our national debt. We are becoming beholden to the whims of China and our creditor states, and should they plunge us into a bond crisis, we will be unable to support anything but the most token military – not an outcome I want to see happen. And since Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate with a plan to balance the budget, the suicidal option is supporting anyone else.

Inkblots on November 30, 2011 at 8:02 PM

There’s a lot of stupid in that argument. It starts with a big truth, that our national debt really is a threat to our national security. But to jump from there to the claim that our national debt is a bigger threat than any foreign army is simplistic nonsense. We need to control the national debt, but we also need to keep our position as a world power. Weakness invites all kinds of pressure from nations which are not exactly our friends. If you’re not strong enough to protect your assets, you won’t have them long.

didymus on November 30, 2011 at 9:17 PM

Newt did not support CAP and TRADE… Listen to his speaches…. He sat on the couch with Pelosi becuase he feels there is a need for a CONSERVATIVE voice over energy, etc… Remember Newt was the leader (one of) of Drill Here Drill Now, etc….

jp on November 30, 2011 at 9:18 PM

RuPaul is NOT a Conservative. ON most Social and Foreign Policy he is to the Far Left. ON Macro-Econ policy he is an Anarchist in the mold of his Anarcho-Capitalist philosophy. ONly on Macro-Economics is he conservative.

jp on November 30, 2011 at 9:03 PM

On social policy he’s a true die-hard small government conservative. He’s not a leftist on foreign policy, he’s an isolationist. That school of thought is really rather nonpartisan, given that both major ideological schools pretty much embrace neoconservative foreign policy approaches. I’m glad we always agree on Ron Paul’s troubling attitude towards Israel, but you’re grossly misrepresenting him on domestic policy.

MadisonConservative on November 30, 2011 at 9:21 PM

Defend the TARP bailouts if you like, but you’re no conservative if you do.

Inkblots on November 30, 2011 at 8:24 PM

Then neither is Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin and a host of other conservatives aren’t conservative either. You realize that the last time we had the banks collapse and a new liberal becoming president we saw the largest expansion of government in our history right?

TARP shouldn’t have bailed out all the banks, nor should it have been used to buy GM. There’s no conservative that would have written it the way it was written. However, a drying up of liquidity would have sucked up the credit market, which would have stalled capitalism, which would have empowered Obama to take “emergency measures.”

It wasn’t TARP in general that was the problem, it was its implementation forcing every bank to take it and fall under regulations, and then the massive power grab by liberals under its guise was the biggest issue. TARP should have been followed by massive cut in government spending.

cpaulus on November 30, 2011 at 9:23 PM

How come noone ever mentions Newt’s lack of executive experience? Is it just not that big of a deal to people anymore? His entire political experience is legislative. How is a person whose political experience consists of writing laws and making government bigger going to help the people of this country shrink the size of the federal government and run the day to day affairs of the government we have left. I don’t get it.

txmomof6 on November 30, 2011 at 9:08 PM

This is actually one of my biggest concerns with Gingrich.

didymus on November 30, 2011 at 9:28 PM

Of course it does when they are trying to make the point that the good Dr is a better choice. No one is claim any of the candidates are perfect so you have to compare and contrast. Ron Paul is worse of all the GOP candidates because of his naïve views on foreign policy and some other things. Anytime you sound like Dennis Kucinich on foreign policy you have no right to talk about any GOP candidate.RonDelDon on November 30, 2011 at 9:14 PM

You obviously don’t have the intelligence to distinguish between the message and the messenger. Ron Paul’s insane foreign policy positions have nothing to do with his spot on criticism of the hypocrite Gingrich.

Basilsbest on November 30, 2011 at 9:28 PM

Well that is good, but my problem is more with his beliefs that it is a state issue. No state has the right to commit murder and he should make that clear instead of stating it is a state issue.

RonDelDon on November 30, 2011 at 9:09 PM

Then we should look to our history to find the solution. People for decades argued that states didn’t have the right to allow their citizens to engage in slavery. Ultimately, the solution was a constitutional amendment.

You want the national government to have the authority to define murder statutes for the states, amend the constitution to give them that authority. Because it doesn’t exist right now. And it doesn’t help the cause to pretend that it does.

JohnGalt23 on November 30, 2011 at 9:33 PM

My name is Indigo Montoya Huntsman…
… you killed my father, prepare to die

Seven Percent Solution on November 30, 2011 at 7:13 PM

The best one yet, SPS. Keep ‘em coming!

jondun5 on November 30, 2011 at 9:36 PM

Of course it does when they are trying to make the point that the good Dr is a better choice. No one is claim any of the candidates are perfect so you have to compare and contrast. Ron Paul is worse of all the GOP candidates because of his naïve views on foreign policy and some other things. Anytime you sound like Dennis Kucinich on foreign policy you have no right to talk about any GOP candidate.RonDelDon on November 30, 2011 at 9:14 PM
You obviously don’t have the intelligence to distinguish between the message and the messenger. Ron Paul’s insane foreign policy positions have nothing to do with his spot on criticism of the hypocrite Gingrich.
Basilsbest on November 30, 2011 at 9:28 PM

You obviously didn’t read. As I stated, they are not only critiquing Gingrich, but they are arguing that Paul is a better choice, therefore Paul’s position are valid to be critique. That is not too hard understand, especially since you are trying to comment on someone’s intelligence, is it?

RonDelDon on November 30, 2011 at 9:37 PM

Gingrich – 84 ethics violations in 6 years.

angelat0763 on November 30, 2011 at 9:41 PM

Anytime you sound like Dennis Kucinich on foreign policy you have no right to talk about any GOP candidate.

RonDelDon on November 30, 2011 at 9:14 PM

I’ll take sounding like Dennis Kucinich over filming commercials with Nancy Pelosi any day of the week.

JohnGalt23 on November 30, 2011 at 9:44 PM

Newt is one of them. Anyone sharing a couch with Nancy P. and lecturing us on our need to open our wallets to fund bogus climate change scams is not getting my vote for anything.

ray on November 30, 2011 at 9:46 PM

JohnGalt23 on November 30, 2011 at 9:33 PM

You want the national government to have the authority to define murder statutes for the states, amend the constitution to give them that authority. Because it doesn’t exist right now. And it doesn’t help the cause to pretend that it does.

The Constitution already states:

“nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Murder is the depriving of life without due process.

RonDelDon on November 30, 2011 at 9:48 PM

Gingrich – 84 ethics violations in 6 years.

angelat0763 on November 30, 2011 at 9:41 PM

Ethics Committee Drops Last of 84 Charges Against Gingrich

“It appears to us that to the extent that GOPAC was exonerated by the court, you are by implication exonerated as well,” they wrote to Gingrich.

A third allegation that Gingrich benefited personally from $250,000 in GOPAC “Newt Support” and should have reported it as income for federal tax purposes was also dropped by the ethics committee for lack of evidence.

sharrukin on November 30, 2011 at 9:49 PM

Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!! Or, LOL.

It’s going to be Newt or Mitt and I’m voting for Newt. eat your hearts out Paul supporters. Paul is retiring and will soon be puttering around in his garden, muttering about what could have been.

Vince on November 30, 2011 at 9:50 PM

I can imagine the kinds of “devastating commercials” that can be aired against Ron Paul.

JellyToast on November 30, 2011 at 9:50 PM

Well that is good, but my problem is more with his beliefs that it is a state issue. No state has the right to commit murder and he should make that clear instead of stating it is a state issue.

RonDelDon on November 30, 2011 at 9:09 PM

Fair enough, but our GOP has jerked us along on abortion for …what 35 – 40 years now? At some point, I started suspecting they weren’t really serious about overturning RvW, and were just using it as a carrot to dangle at election.

Every single year, Paul introduces a bill that would define life as beginning at conception. I believe that since the constitution says one of the rights we actually have is life, the right to abort could be defeated that way.

In the meantime, letting it go back to the states would save lives. Maybe not all of them sadly, but far more than are being saved now.

angelat0763 on November 30, 2011 at 9:51 PM

A third allegation that Gingrich benefited personally from $250,000 in GOPAC “Newt Support” and should have reported it as income for federal tax purposes was also dropped by the ethics committee for lack of evidence.

sharrukin on November 30, 2011 at 9:49 PM

Not only that but the IRS wouldn’t even go after Newt.

Vince on November 30, 2011 at 9:51 PM

Anytime you sound like Dennis Kucinich on foreign policy you have no right to talk about any GOP candidate.
RonDelDon on November 30, 2011 at 9:14 PM
I’ll take sounding like Dennis Kucinich over filming commercials with Nancy Pelosi any day of the week.
JohnGalt23 on November 30, 2011 at 9:44 PM

Actually it depends on the issue, the level of involvement, and how central it is to one’s beliefs and policies. Ron Paul’s foreign policy is much more devastating and pervading then the commercial.

RonDelDon on November 30, 2011 at 9:52 PM

But then, why waste the money because hardly anybody is really going to vote for Ron Paul anyway.

JellyToast on November 30, 2011 at 9:53 PM

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Murder is the depriving of life without due process.

RonDelDon on November 30, 2011 at 9:48 PM

It has said that since the First Congress, and yet it has never been read to give the national government the authority to define for States laws against murder, theft, or illegal detention.

JohnGalt23 on November 30, 2011 at 9:53 PM

Not only that but the IRS wouldn’t even go after Newt.

Vince on November 30, 2011 at 9:51 PM

It was just a barrage of complaints just like we saw with Palin in Alaska. Lawfare is a leftist tactic that the right has no answer for at the moment.

sharrukin on November 30, 2011 at 9:54 PM

Mitt whores for votes meaning he is a politician, Newt whores for money meaning he is a whore.

aloysiusmiller on November 30, 2011 at 9:55 PM

I’m sure you’ll understand if I’m less than impressed by RP’s commercial stringing together a bunch of MS-DNC clips attacking Gingrich. The “Ed Schultz Show?” Really? Give me a break. And shame on Ron Paul for going there. Gingrich would be miles better than the current occupant of the White House.

Rational Thought on November 30, 2011 at 9:56 PM

The House ethics committee dropped the three remaining ethics charges against Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) yesterday, despite finding that Gingrich repeatedly violated one rule by using a political consultant to develop the Republican legislative agenda.

Well, as long as he promised not to get caught doing it again….

Ron Paul: 0 ethics violations in 30 years.

angelat0763 on November 30, 2011 at 9:57 PM

Mitt whores for votes meaning he is a politician, Newt whores for money meaning he is a whore.

aloysiusmiller on November 30, 2011 at 9:55 PM

A member of OWS speaks up.

Vince on November 30, 2011 at 9:57 PM

AP, what’s so dark about the possibility of supporting Huntsman. All of our top tier candidates have their fair share of apostasies, and Huntsman is no different. On substance, Huntsman will make mincemeat of Obama, just as any of our top tier candidates will. Huntsman has one of the best, if not THE best, economic policies on the table, and this election will be about the economy. Of the candidates with substance and a command of policy (which I believe are Romney, Newt, Santorum, Huntsman and Paul), Huntsman, Santorum and Paul are the only candidates that can legitimately challenge Obama on ObamaCare without being reminded of their support for mandates in the past. Huntsman has a solid job growth record as governor and an A from the Cato Institute on tax policy. That’s not to say there is no cause for concern with Huntsman (F on spending from the Cato Institute comes to mind, as does his previous support for Cap and Trade, to name a couple), but Newt, Romney and Paul also create cause for concern in their own ways.

ncconservative on November 30, 2011 at 9:59 PM

RonDelDon on November 30, 2011 at 9:09 PM

First, how is it “completely incorrect” when in the very next sentence you state he calls killing an American citizen at war with us an assassination? You see it matters not a hill of beans if it is an American citizen if they have sided with the enemy and is fighting with them. He is an enemy that we are at war with and should be killed, but Paul thinks we should read them rights I guess. Even liberal Obama knows better than that as I said.

You were incorrect because you stated that Ron Paul opposed “kill[ing] the enemy in a war”, which is patently untrue, insofar as he’s voted for attacking the terrorists, he voted for the AUMF in Afghanistan, and he proposed targeted killing of terrorists using letters of marque and reprisal. Neither does he oppose killing American citizens who are waging war upon the US – any American bearing arms on the battlefield is fair game, and in fact there are 7 conditions under which a person can be stripped of US citizenship, one of which is taking up arms against America. Those people forfeit their Constitutional protections.

But you’re sloppily conflating categories here. The instance of targeted killing Paul objected to was the killing of al-Awlaki, who was not a combatant, and legally met none of the 7 conditions for loss of citizenship. In that case, he should have been tried for treason. We have the rule of law for a reason in this country. If there was proof he had taken up arms, it should have been presented in a national security court. But if we’re going to have a presumption of guilt for any citizen the government claims is a terrorist – with no review or due process to prevent mistakes – then we are a long way down the road to tyranny. It’s a betrayal of the Constitution. al-Awlaki wrote and preached terrible, despicable things, but even child rapists and school shooters have a right to due process, and so did he. And frankly, given that Obama seeks to shred the Constitution at every chance he gets, saying “Obama knows better” isn’t much a rebuttal to that point.

One final note: you say we are “at war” with al-Awlaki. That’s sloppy, because he was a non-combatant, but we are not, in fact, in a declared state of war with him in the first place. The AUMF – which, again, Ron Paul voted for – states “the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons”. So, again, if our laws have meaning, that didn’t apply to al-Awlaki, who no one claims had anything to do with 9/11.

“Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have been explicit, and they wrote and said that we attacked because you had bases on our holy lands in Saudi Arabia…”

So you see he really believes they are only attacking us because of our bases in Saudi Arabia so we should flee the bases because a band of fundamentalist Muslim say we should and then they wouldn’t attack us.

Again, you’re incorrect – Ron Paul has never claimed all terrorism would cease and all radical jihadis stop their activities if we stopped intervening in the Middle East. He is saying that we would deprive them of their primary justification and recruiting tool. The idea of occupation is the main way people like bin Laden could recruit suicide attackers. Again, I urge you to consult the 9/11 Commission Report and the research of Robert Pape for more on this important topic.

Ron Paul thinks, correctly in my view, that we would be safer if we kept our troops here to protect the homeland rather than intervening in the Middle East. But he has never said all terrorism would stop, because he doesn’t think that. His views are based on a cost/benefit policy analysis, not some cartoon view of a world without conflict.

Well that is good, but my problem is more with his beliefs that it is a state issue. No state has the right to commit murder and he should make that clear instead of stating it is a state issue.

Ron Paul has said that government cannot protect liberty without protecting life, so he agrees with you – I’m not sure why you think he hasn’t been clear about that. He’s merely promoting a strategy to save the most lives as quickly as possible, until such time as the Constitution can be amended. If you think he hasn’t been explicit about this, check out his Sanctity of Life Act.

And what of the weak excuse about the years of the racist newsletter with his name and his not knowing anything about it?

This old story is so played out. During the period when the bad ones went out, 1989 to 1993, Ron Paul had left the GOP in protest over the uncontrolled rise in deficit spending, and then left politics altogether in disgust following his crushing defeat as the Libertarian nominee in 1988. He had returned to private practice as a doctor and was paying little attention to national politics and, unfortunately, no attention to the various newsletters he had started while in politics in the early ‘80s.

Ron Paul in fact doesn’t even know who wrote the offensive pieces, because as a libertarian minded thinker, he published his newsletter without copyright; as a consequence, throughout the years, many individuals and groups with zero affiliation with the congressman used his name, without first seeking or obtaining permission, and, wishing to promote their own ideas and writings, have republished Paul’s congressional newsletter, and added their own editorials and articles, in an effort to add credibility to their fringe views.

It’s patently obvious Paul didn’t write the articles, because the prose style is so different from that of his own books and articles. It’s also clear he didn’t see the content, as it openly contradicted things he has said and written before and since, and even attacked some friends of his.

But if you have any doubt, here’s what Ron has actually written on the topic: “Racism is simply the ugliest form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups.” And since Ron Paul is the ultimate individualist, opposed to all forms of collectivism, the conclusion is clear.

Inkblots on November 30, 2011 at 9:59 PM

Ron Paul: 0 ethics violations in 30 years.

angelat0763 on November 30, 2011 at 9:57 PM

Ron Paul: irrelevent for 30 years.

Vince on November 30, 2011 at 9:59 PM

Fair enough, but our GOP has jerked us along on abortion for …what 35 – 40 years now? At some point, I started suspecting they weren’t really serious about overturning RvW, and were just using it as a carrot to dangle at election.
Every single year, Paul introduces a bill that would define life as beginning at conception. I believe that since the constitution says one of the rights we actually have is life, the right to abort could be defeated that way.
In the meantime, letting it go back to the states would save lives. Maybe not all of them sadly, but far more than are being saved now.
angelat0763 on November 30, 2011 at 9:51 PM

Yes, I agree. I just think Paul beliefs takes away from a lot of good that he does on this issue. Nevertheless he is way off in practice and belief on other central things. So way off that I don’t know how I could ever pull the lever for him.

RonDelDon on November 30, 2011 at 10:00 PM

Mitt whores for votes meaning he is a politician, Newt whores for money meaning he is a whore.

aloysiusmiller on November 30, 2011 at 9:55 PM

At least whores work for a living. What do you do?

JellyToast on November 30, 2011 at 10:00 PM

The House ethics committee dropped the three remaining ethics charges against Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) yesterday, despite finding that Gingrich repeatedly violated one rule by using a political consultant to develop the Republican legislative agenda.
Well, as long as he promised not to get caught doing it again….
Ron Paul: 0 ethics violations in 30 years.
angelat0763 on November 30, 2011 at 9:57 PM

Yeah, but lets not forget the racist newsletter in his name for around 20 years that he somehow knew nothing about … yeah right.

RonDelDon on November 30, 2011 at 10:02 PM

Sometimes we err in trying too hard to keep the world stable, but an unstable world is a dangerous one for this country. We may not like the treasure we have to spend and the people we have to send across the world, but it keeps the world safer for all of us.

Ron’s point is that by continuously intervening in places like the Middle East, despite the best of intentions, we actually make the situation more unstable. I don’t think, in light of the events of the past 20 years, that that point is really up for debate. So then, the question becomes should we really continuing spending treasure and losing lives to actually undermine our national security? Paul says it’s time to reassess our approach. I think the facts support him.

There’s a lot of stupid in that argument. It starts with a big truth, that our national debt really is a threat to our national security. But to jump from there to the claim that our national debt is a bigger threat than any foreign army is simplistic nonsense. We need to control the national debt, but we also need to keep our position as a world power. Weakness invites all kinds of pressure from nations which are not exactly our friends. If you’re not strong enough to protect your assets, you won’t have them long.

didymus on November 30, 2011 at 9:17 PM

I’m afraid it’s you who needs to consider your argument. The US spends as much on our military than all the other top ten military spenders combined. No army on earth can defeat the US military. But our national debt CAN, and that makes it, yes, a bigger threat than any foreign army.

Perhaps a concrete example from history would be helpful. Are you familiar with the Suez Crisis? The Suez Crisis provides a graphic example that if you go deeply into debt trying to manage the affairs of other nations, you end up having your own affairs directed in turn your creditors. Britain and France decisively defeated the Egyptians at every turn militarily, but the Eisenhower Administration was able to force Britain to sign a cease-fire and withdraw by threatening to sell the United States’ holdings of UK Sterling Bonds. We had it within our power to destroy the pound, and so the UK had to obey our wishes – France and Britain were forced to withdraw from the Suez in shame. The total strategic defeat they suffered strongly contributed to the final unraveling of both their Empires over the next 10 years.

I’ve heard Ron Paul point out that we have put ourselves in the same position vis a vis China that the UK and France were in relative to us in the 1950s. It’s pretty clear that as a result our debt is the foremost threat to our security, because it could leave us unable to pursue an independent foreign policy to protect this nation and our friends. His plan to balance the budget in 3 years is the only solution I’ve seen offered by any candidate to this grave threat.

Inkblots on November 30, 2011 at 10:12 PM

My fear is that the Paulistas will get on their self-righteous high horse and refuse to vote Republican if their man isn’t the nominee. At least foreign policy under Obama would conform more closely with Paul’s vision of a dastardly America causing its own problems. Maybe Paul will join Obama on his next “apologize for America” world tour.

NNtrancer on November 30, 2011 at 10:13 PM

My fear is that the Paulistas will get on their self-righteous high horse and refuse to vote Republican if their man isn’t the nominee.

NNtrancer on November 30, 2011 at 10:13 PM

Perhaps you haven’t glanced at the comments above yours, but the only people refusing to vote Republican if they don’t like the nominee have been those opposed to Paul. It makes your point rather humorous, actually.

Inkblots on November 30, 2011 at 10:16 PM

Why can’t Ron Paul admit wearing an eyebrow toupee? What a character!

mike_NC9 on November 30, 2011 at 10:18 PM

I see that Allah is considering… dark choices. But really, we have reached that point haven’t we? Frankly, Huntsman may be smug at times, but he strikes me as the most honest and trustworthy person on stage. He has a record of conservative reform in Utah and he is promising the most conservative economic agenda of any of the candidates; there is good reason to believe he will follow through. Furthermore, his formal endorsement of Paul Ryan’s budget pretty much obligates him to advance a staunchly conservative economic agenda in the general election campaign.

Lawdawg86 on November 30, 2011 at 10:27 PM

I don’t much care what Newt says he supports now. He’s a good orator and thinker, but he’s not a leader. He doesn’t handle power well. There are two kinds of consultants, those who know what they’re talking about and those who are just calling it it consulting as a euphemism for lobbying, which in turn is a euphemism for influence peddling. He certainly wasn’t being paid $1.6 million for his knowledge of history. If he was counseling them not to do what they did, how valuable was his advice. I could have told them that for free.

At least Romney’s consulting produced profits for shareholders. Gingrich’s contributed to the bankruptcy of the government sponsored mortgage backers, as far as I can see.

For once, I find myself agreeing with Ron Paul.

flataffect on November 30, 2011 at 10:29 PM

Furthermore, his formal endorsement of Paul Ryan’s budget pretty much obligates him to advance a staunchly conservative economic agenda in the general election campaign.

Lawdawg86 on November 30, 2011 at 10:27 PM

Good point, forgot about that one.

ncconservative on November 30, 2011 at 10:34 PM

Would Romney now be surging on the strength of anti-Newt sentiment? If not, why not?

Isn’t it obvious? Romney is a Mormon. Jon Huntsman has the same liability and he’s not nearly as smart nor as conservative.

If Romney were a Presbyterian, he’d already be over 50% and there’d be nothing to debate anymore, except with Democrats.

flataffect on November 30, 2011 at 10:35 PM

Isn’t it obvious? Romney is a Mormon. Jon Huntsman has the same liability and he’s not nearly as smart nor as conservative.

If Romney were a Presbyterian, he’d already be over 50% and there’d be nothing to debate anymore, except with Democrats.

flataffect on November 30, 2011 at 10:35 PM

BS

I am an agnostic and Romney’s Mormonism and his home life are the only thing good about the man. Otherwise he is a snake who will take any position that benefits him politically.

sharrukin on November 30, 2011 at 10:39 PM

My fear is that the Paulistas will get on their self-righteous high horse and refuse to vote Republican if their man isn’t the nominee. At least foreign policy under Obama would conform more closely with Paul’s vision of a dastardly America causing its own problems. Maybe Paul will join Obama on his next “apologize for America” world tour.
NNtrancer on November 30, 2011 at 10:13 PM

Heh … not only the Paulistas, but the Grand Poobah himself, Ron Paul, may even decide to run third party, but I wouldn’t be surprised because he only has the uses the title Republican to get in office. If there was any other way to get elected he would ditch it in a second.

RonDelDon on November 30, 2011 at 10:44 PM

My fear is that the Paulistas will get on their self-righteous high horse and refuse to vote Republican if their man isn’t the nominee. At least foreign policy under Obama would conform more closely with Paul’s vision of a dastardly America causing its own problems. Maybe Paul will join Obama on his next “apologize for America” world tour.

The only proud ones here are so called conservatives who are too proud to admit they were duped and their beloved neo-con foreign policy has proven to be a complete and utter failure.

To the neocon mind, America either has to be a turtle hiding in a cave or a raving lunatic indiscriminately killing people around the world. (which is exactly what our foreign policy has become.)

There is a middle ground.

bingsha on November 30, 2011 at 10:47 PM

Ron Paul’s foreign policy insanity has nothing to do with the very valid points he makes against Gingrich and the people here who resort to attacking Ron Paul’s insane foreign policy positions to defend Gingrich are engaging in a typical liberal strategy: change the subject.

Basilsbest on November 30, 2011 at 9:02 PM

Ron Paul’s foreign policy ideas are not as bad as the ones we have now, or under Bush for that matter. It’s all relative.

After all -

1. The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.
2. If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.
3. Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress.
4. Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available. – Ronald Reagan

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on November 30, 2011 at 10:51 PM

flataffect on November 30, 2011 at 10:29 PM

I look at your comment and I see someone who doesn’t know a thing about Gingrich. Read up on the man. You’re lazy and just parrotung the bs you see from Igor and Inky Stinky.

The second post I saw from you whined that Romney and Huntsmen were Mormon so they were being treated unfairly. That just cemented the fact that you’re lazy.

Vince on November 30, 2011 at 10:51 PM

To the neocon mind, America either has to be a turtle hiding in a cave or a raving lunatic indiscriminately killing people around the world. (which is exactly what our foreign policy has become.)

There is a middle ground.

bingsha on November 30, 2011 at 10:47 PM

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0811/glick081211.php3

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on November 30, 2011 at 10:56 PM

There are two kinds of consultants, those who know what they’re talking about and those who are just calling it it consulting as a euphemism for lobbying, which in turn is a euphemism for influence peddling.

flataffect on November 30, 2011 at 10:29 PM

What exactly was he lobbying for? Who exactly did he influence? Your accusations are vague… be specific.

equanimous on November 30, 2011 at 10:57 PM

Not a fan of Newt, but I’ll never vote for Ron Paul. He would be WORSE than Obama and Carter.

kvader on November 30, 2011 at 11:12 PM

Newt Never supported Cap and Trade its a lie, look at his 09 Testimony on the subject

http://www.newt.org/answers#GlobalWarming

jp on November 30, 2011 at 9:07 PM

———

OMG, are you kidding me? Where have you been? You just Goggle it to find many instances where he touts it. Have you researched him on anything or are you going to just believe his equivalent of Obama’s fight the smears website? I don’t ever believe what a candidate says WHEN or in the couple years prior to them running for office, I always look at their record and research.

In a 2007 interview with PBS, Gingrich endorsed the idea of a “cap and trade” scheme to limit carbon emissions….

“I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.”

And believe me, there’s much more out there on Newt Gingrich on Cap and Trade too as well as many other things that conservatives need to know and get out to others. What about the infamous commercial with Newt sitting on the couch w/Nancy Pelosi touting we need to do something about Climate Change? Newt stopped talking about Cap and Trade and Climate Change to #1. run for President and #2 because he and his organizations were getting huge donations from the energy industry

Here’s a good place to start finding information on Newt w/sources: 27 Reasons Why Newt Gingrich Would Be A Really, Really Bad President
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/27-reasons-why-newt-gingrich-would-be-a-really-really-bad-president

TriciaNC on November 30, 2011 at 11:13 PM

Not a fan of Newt, but I’ll never vote for Ron Paul. He would be WORSE than Obama and Carter.

kvader on November 30, 2011 at 11:12 PM

Really? I don’t see it. On foreign policy maybe. On economic, fiscal and domestic policy in general he’d be 1000 times better than those two clowns. So if it was Obama vs. Paul, would you vote for Obama in protest?

ncconservative on November 30, 2011 at 11:25 PM

Then neither is Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin and a host of other conservatives Republicans aren’t conservative either.

cpaulus

FTFY

Benaiah on November 30, 2011 at 11:34 PM

I like Gingrich. I liked him back in the ’90s.

But, I also remember the constant drubbing he received from the MSM even in non-political radio call-in shows.

I still have to explain to Libs/Dems that Gingrich and the House Republicans were the ones that saved Slick Willy’s a^^ so he could get re-elected. And remember, that in spite of all the garbage that he and Shrillary were into, he still got elected.

The majority of American voters are conditioned Liberal-thinkers.

All Obama has to do is continue lying, do the class warfare thing and the MSM and the aforementioned conditioning will be his best chance at re-election.

Dr. ZhivBlago on November 30, 2011 at 11:46 PM

Gingrich’s negatives WILL rise eventually. If they don’t do so on their own, Newt will take matters into his own hands and make sure they do. It’s his nature.

I find it HILARIOUS that some people support Gingrich who hated and rejected John McCain. They are almost the same guy. They both are dependably conservative over time, very high lifetime ACU scores, but both will stab conservatives in the back at regular intervals. Both will not only take that occasional non-conservative position, but they will rub it in with arrogant condescension with the attitude that conservatives who disagree must be stupid, mean-spirited, or both.

The only real difference between Newt and McCain is in predicting the issue upon which they will choose to shaft us. Both will screw us in a heartbeat for anything “green,” but beyond that McCain is fairly predictable. He will always go for the “bipartisan bargain” crap, but generally won’t put national security on the table. Gingrich tends to hurt us more with his massive ego, allowing his antics and personal piques to screw up potential successes.

But if you are someone who rags constantly on McCain yet now supports Gingrich, thou art a compleat fool.

Adjoran on December 1, 2011 at 12:05 AM

Then neither is Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin and a host of other conservatives Republicans aren’t conservative either.

cpaulus

FTFY

Benaiah on November 30, 2011 at 11:34 PM

Really? Now SARAH PALIN and Paul Ryan aren’t conservative?

cpaulus on December 1, 2011 at 12:25 AM

I am a conservative first and foremost but I would vote for Obama over Paul. Just as Ace mentioned. Sometimes losing is winning.

The Notorious G.O.P on December 1, 2011 at 12:48 AM

I am a conservative first and foremost but I would vote for Obama over Paul.

The Notorious G.O.P on December 1, 2011 at 12:48 AM

Remind me again just why Ron Paul shouldn’t run third party?

JohnGalt23 on December 1, 2011 at 12:52 AM

Rush was talking about Hot Air today. He didn’t mention it by name but I know that is what he was talking about. He mentioned how it is a fake conservative site. I completely agree with him.

Like I have said many times before. Just reading the comments on here I will bet my life savings Obama wins because all these idiots keep thinking some perfect candidate is gonna emerge. Not gonna happen. The fact that people on here call themselves conservative and would rather see Romney win the nomination than Newt is laughable.

The Notorious G.O.P on December 1, 2011 at 12:54 AM

I am a conservative first and foremost but I would vote for Obama over Paul. Just as Ace mentioned. Sometimes losing is winning.

The Notorious G.O.P on December 1, 2011 at 12:48 AM

That problem with Paul is that the 80 percent where he’s right is so outweighed by the 20% where he’s totally wrong. He would have had a better chance if he’d have talked about transitioning step by step back to a smaller government. It would also help if he understood that the United States has always been engaged with the rest of the world. There’s a reason why the Declaration of Independence is addressed to “a candid world.”

cpaulus on December 1, 2011 at 1:01 AM

A lot of people take issue with Ron Paul’s stance on foreign policy, and I admit to feeling that myself. My husband and I were talking about that today, and when I brought up to my husband Paul’s comments about letting Iran get a nuclear bomb, he pointed out that, honestly, how can we stop it? And what is worse, saying you won’t do anything to prevent it, or saying you will keep Iran from going nuclear and then doing nothing? Which makes you look more impotent? I don’t know. Honestly, looking at the GOP field makes me feel like my choices are: Lucifer, Baal, Beelzebub, Mephistopheles, and Legion. Choosing the lesser of evils is still choosing evil.

Special K on December 1, 2011 at 1:08 AM

All Obama has to do is continue lying, do the class warfare thing and the MSM and the aforementioned conditioning will be his best chance at re-election.

Dr. ZhivBlago on November 30, 2011 at 11:46 PM

He’s going to do that regardless of who the Republican nominee is.

Cindy Munford on December 1, 2011 at 1:54 AM

Mitt whores for votes meaning he is a politician, Newt whores for money meaning he is a whore.

aloysiusmiller on November 30, 2011 at 9:55 PM

Well, when you act like a whore in your personal life….

haner on December 1, 2011 at 1:58 AM

The fact that people on here call themselves conservative and would rather see Romney win the nomination than Newt is laughable.

The Notorious G.O.P on December 1, 2011 at 12:54 AM

Well, crap, maybe just maybe, we would also like to see our nominee win the general?

haner on December 1, 2011 at 2:01 AM

Rush was talking about Hot Air today. He didn’t mention it by name but I know that is what he was talking about. He mentioned how it is a fake conservative site. I completely agree with him.

The Notorious G.O.P on December 1, 2011 at 12:54 AM

Yeah.

The exits are very clearly marked. I’m sure you’ll forgive us if we don’t walk you out.

JohnGalt23 on December 1, 2011 at 2:13 AM

Didnt read all the comments, but one in particular stood out to me:

There’s a lot of stupid in that argument. It starts with a big truth, that our national debt really is a threat to our national security. But to jump from there to the claim that our national debt is a bigger threat than any foreign army is simplistic nonsense. We need to control the national debt, but we also need to keep our position as a world power. Weakness invites all kinds of pressure from nations which are not exactly our friends. If you’re not strong enough to protect your assets, you won’t have them long.

How, exactly, does the US maintain it’s status as a world power when our debt is eating us alive? At this rate, we’re going to end up like The EuroZone. The one thing I like about Paul is the fact that he emphasizes small government and champions the individual. Moreover, he understands that the US cannot afford to stick its nose in everybody else’s business and come out on top. US foreign policy is full of idiocy and hypocrisy. The sooner people realize that the sooner we can save money and lives.

By the way, Paul is not an isolationist, he’s a non-interventionist. Yes, he’s a little out there on some issues, but when it comes to foreign policy he is spot on.

Sleeper on December 1, 2011 at 3:07 AM

How, exactly, does the US maintain it’s status as a world power when our debt is eating us alive? At this rate, we’re going to end up like The EuroZone. The one thing I like about Paul is the fact that he emphasizes small government and champions the individual. Moreover, he understands that the US cannot afford to stick its nose in everybody else’s business and come out on top. US foreign policy is full of idiocy and hypocrisy. The sooner people realize that the sooner we can save money and lives.

By the way, Paul is not an isolationist, he’s a non-interventionist. Yes, he’s a little out there on some issues, but when it comes to foreign policy he is spot on.

I think some conservatives on here, and many liberals think somehow American exceptionalism will somehow mask the reality of our fiscal crisis.

There is no chance that electorate will allow conservatives to take a chainsaw to domestic federal spending while carefully nibbling away at a bloated 40%+ defense budget with a scalpel.

V-rod on December 1, 2011 at 3:41 AM

There is no chance that electorate will allow conservatives to take a chainsaw to domestic federal spending while carefully nibbling away at a bloated 40%+ defense budget with a scalpel.

V-rod on December 1, 2011 at 3:41 AM

It reeks of hypocrisy. Conservatives need to grow some balls and walk the talk.

In the end, I don’t think there is any solution short of massive inflation.

haner on December 1, 2011 at 3:50 AM

Rush made a good point yesterday about supposed conservative websites taking up the MSM’s attacks on conservatives so that they get lefty credibility with the Main Streamers…

HA?

Yeah, lets all listen to Ron Paul who thinks it is Good and Right to sit by while the Jews go through another Holocaust. Paul does not have the moral right to a single vote

georgealbert on December 1, 2011 at 5:36 AM

driving me to consider … dark possibilities. Don’t make me do something I don’t want to do.

Do Not Go there buddy…

*shudder*

cmsinaz on December 1, 2011 at 6:04 AM

I am a conservative first and foremost but I would vote for Obama over Paul.

The Notorious G.O.P on December 1, 2011 at 12:48 AM

No conservative would vote for Obama over anything.
Ron Paul is a fruitcake. I will happily vote for a fruitcake over a communist and I will do so with a smile.

JellyToast on December 1, 2011 at 6:41 AM

Again, I do not know what the heck some of us are expecting.
Nobody here is perfect. The perfect candidate chose not to run this time. Oh well. So what are we going to do, scream, kick our feet and pull our hair out all the freaking way to November?

Some of this super analyzing and nitpicking is freaking insane!
I honestly think that if Reagan was in the primaries right now half of us would hate him. He was an actor in B movies, divorced and used to be a Democrat.

I don’t care if some of these candidates were not perfect on all the issues. Or they had personal problems. Had affairs, picked their nose in public or got caught with an illegal mowing their grass. No matter which one of them gets the nomination… I am voting for them!
There is no freaking alternative!

Gingrich is as good and better then most of them! We are not electing a GOP dictator for 4 years here! We are electing a President who most likely on most issues will want to govern with the will of the people! Not against the will of the people!

Yeah.. that means we’ll still have to be involved for the next 4 years!
I swear some people just want to elect a President that is perfect in every way so they can go back to their couch and fall asleep for another 4 years!

JellyToast on December 1, 2011 at 6:51 AM

Actually, I find this to be a real sweet ad.
It’s unfortunate Ron Paul is 1/2 crazy. The man, and his son, clearly have stood by their principles.
If foreign policy wasn’t important to me, I’d vote for him.
But unfortunately, it is.

Badger40 on December 1, 2011 at 7:08 AM

Paul nust be a Romney supporter because he’s not stupid enough to think that bringing down Newt is likely to make him getting the nomination any more probable.

katiejane on December 1, 2011 at 7:32 AM

Well…I’d never in a hundred years consider voting for Paul, so his message is falling on deaf ears for me.

zoyclem on December 1, 2011 at 7:35 AM

Again, I do not know what the heck some of us are expecting.
Nobody here is perfect. The perfect candidate chose not to run this time. Oh well. So what are we going to do, scream, kick our feet and pull our hair out all the freaking way to November?

Some of this super analyzing and nitpicking is freaking insane!
I honestly think that if Reagan was in the primaries right now half of us would hate him. He was an actor in B movies, divorced and used to be a Democrat.

I don’t care if some of these candidates were not perfect on all the issues. Or they had personal problems. Had affairs, picked their nose in public or got caught with an illegal mowing their grass. No matter which one of them gets the nomination… I am voting for them!
There is no freaking alternative!

Gingrich is as good and better then most of them! We are not electing a GOP dictator for 4 years here! We are electing a President who most likely on most issues will want to govern with the will of the people! Not against the will of the people!

Yeah.. that means we’ll still have to be involved for the next 4 years!
I swear some people just want to elect a President that is perfect in every way so they can go back to their couch and fall asleep for another 4 years!

JellyToast on December 1, 2011 at 6:51 AM

But Romney is just so damn unacceptable, right?

haner on December 1, 2011 at 7:45 AM

Fair enough, but our GOP has jerked us along on abortion for …what 35 – 40 years now? At some point, I started suspecting they weren’t really serious about overturning RvW, and were just using it as a carrot to dangle at election.

The GOP isn’t serious about a lot of things-among them abortion, but as large is the fact that they have be pretending to be the opposition to the Godless socialism unraveling our freedom and in reality, they spend more effort defending their establishment turf. The GOP and their lockstep punditry with their systematic takedown of Sarah(regardless if you like her or not) before she declared herself, was allthe evidence I needed. The idea that the people get to decide was ruptured and exposed.

The left lies about helping the black community -they need them poor to get their victimnization votes.

The right lies about stopping abortion -they need babies killed to get the right to life social cons votes.

Don L on December 1, 2011 at 8:02 AM

Paul nust be a Romney supporter

katiejane on December 1, 2011 at 7:32 AM

Put the glass pipe down, and back away slowly.

JohnGalt23 on December 1, 2011 at 8:20 AM

Let’s put to bed the argument that we must vote for anyone (Candidate….xyz) because, “no one is perfect”

No one I have ever conversed with expects perfection -it is the degree of imperfection that is the problem and to protect serious flaws with the “no one is perfect” deception is but some people’s favorite weapon to try to elect folks that are unacceptably imperfect.

Don L on December 1, 2011 at 8:22 AM

Give credit to Ron Paul’s team: that’s a fantastic ad.

If you don’t like Romney (and I don’t), Gingrich is not the guy you want. He’s an older, uglier, fatter version of Romney with an even more ridiculous sounding name. Other than that, they’re not all that different, with perhaps the exception that Romney’s bending himself in half trying to make voters believe he’s a conservative while Newt just asserts that his conservative cred is impeccable and expects the voters to be too stupid to remember stuff he said within the last two years.

On his own, neither Romney nor Gingrich will shrink the size of the federal bureaucracy the way it needs to be. The main difference I see, however, is that (between the two) Romney appears more desperate to please conservatives and might be persuadable. Gingrich, as the smartest and most conservative-ist guy in the room, appears more inclined to overrule the will of his base on the basis that he knows better so shut up.

To be clear: I think both suck as nominees, but Newt sucks more.

For pete’s sake, give Perry or Bachmann a second look (or Santorum a first look).

Harpazo on December 1, 2011 at 8:44 AM

Seriously, can some tell Yoda and his legions of Paultards that Donalad Trump has a better chance of being the nominee than he does?

I just can’t get behind someone who’s openly embraced by the Alex Jones crowd.

Pcoop on December 1, 2011 at 10:14 AM

Deny this traitor the possibility to lie his way into Presidency! Stop Newt!

Igor R. on December 1, 2011 at 12:07 PM

I know this is on the top of the home page now but it IS rather revealing of overall voters sentiment…especially the “INDIES”!!!

RedLizard64 on December 1, 2011 at 12:26 PM

My name is Indigo Montoya Huntsman…
… you killed my father, prepare to die

Seven Percent Solution on November 30, 2011 at 7:13 PM
The best one yet, SPS. Keep ‘em coming!

jondun5 on November 30, 2011 at 9:36 PM

Great but it’s “INIGO”

RedLizard64 on December 1, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Go Ron ‘Everyone should have a nuke’ Paul!

Rea1ityCheck on December 1, 2011 at 12:35 PM

Sigh. This nomination campaign is just so sickeningly dispiriting.

Apologetic California on November 30, 2011 at 6:56 PM

Yeah, it’s frustrating. Bloggers continually destroying our own to get the maximum amount of people angry and/or disheartened. Brilliant.

nickj116 on December 1, 2011 at 12:42 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4