Video: Paul vs Newt on Osama bin Laden

posted at 9:15 am on January 17, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Ron Paul isn’t ever a model of eloquence, but the exchange between Paul, Bret Baier, and Newt Gingrich may have set a new record for incoherence in a presidential debate.  Paul starts off badly in this colloquy by attempting to reverse a statement he made in Iowa about the illegality of the mission that killed Osama bin Laden as a violation of the sovereignty of Pakistan, and by the time Gingrich gets involved, Paul has already wondered why we didn’t handle Osama the same way we did Saddam Hussein — who was captured after a full-scale military invasion that hardly worried about Iraq’s national sovereignty, in a war that Paul opposed then and opposes now.

Lucky for Newt that he got the follow-up, and he made the most of it (via Greg Hengler):

Gingrich won the debate last night thanks to this moment and the exchange with Juan Williams.  No one should be surprised to see Gingrich’s mastery at the podium at this late stage; he’s put on a tour de force all through the primaries.  He should get a small bump in polling, but Rick Santorum also had a fairly strong showing, taking on Mitt Romney more directly and more effectively than Gingrich did last night.  Rick Perry also had another good-but-not-great performance, and he scored a couple of points, especially when he interjected on behalf of states’ rights in the question of former felon voting.

Unfortunately for all three, that plays into Mitt Romney’s hands at this stage of the debate.  Romney also did well, at least well enough to deflect the attacks without making any mistakes.  If only Gingrich had performed effectively, voters might have had a reason to consolidate behind Newt, and the same could be said for Santorum.  By having everyone do well, their voters have no reason to migrate to a single alternative to Romney, which means that Romney will still face a fractured conservative field on Saturday — unless he stumbles badly this week, which would be the first time all campaign long he would have done so.

Here’s a question to ponder when considering who actually ended up benefiting most from this debate.  Who talked the most about health care and entitlements?  Surprisingly, it was Mitt Romney, whose competitors never bothered to attack him on the one program that most animates his opposition.


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

Comment pages: 1 2 3

So the way to attract the coveted independents and dissatisfied Democrats to the GOP is by more war mongering. I see.

angryed on January 17, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Somebody needed to smack down Paul’s illogical and dangerous stand. I agree we should roll back our wars, but Paul takes it to an extreme that makes no sense.

neoavatara on January 17, 2012 at 9:20 AM

Luap Nor is zee only man who can zave zee country vrum zee wily Joooooos!!1! Vee haff vays uff makink you vote in accordance vith your best eenterests, mein freund.

HeckOnWheels on January 17, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Yeah, let’s put Paul in charge; the man barely knew where he was.

Bishop on January 17, 2012 at 9:22 AM

One thing I don’t worry about is Paul as POTUS. Not going to happen.

katy the mean old lady on January 17, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Paul’s incoherence last night through that whole bit was impressive.

Darksean on January 17, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Gingrich and Santorum were the BIG winners last night. Ron Paul was even more out-of-it than usual, and was really wearing his ‘doddering old fool’ hat. Romney was Romney (yawn). Perry had some good moments, but nothing that will help his current death-spiral.

Pork-Chop on January 17, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Ed, when you get a bit older and wiser, you will come to see the folly of your ways. Until you have served and fought I suggest you refrain from commenting on topics you clearly have no expertise on.//

standupandbecounted on January 17, 2012 at 9:25 AM

So the way to attract the coveted independents and dissatisfied Democrats to the GOP is by more war mongering. I see.

angryed on January 17, 2012 at 9:18 AM

And yet you support the noted warmonger Paul who voted for the invasion of Afgahnistan.

Masih ad-Dajjal on January 17, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Paul has already wondered why we didn’t handle Osama the same way we did Saddam Hussein

By handing him over to another country to do what they see fit?

rbj on January 17, 2012 at 9:26 AM

You raise a good point about not attacking Romney on Romney’s signature issue. Pawlenty was the only one who really came close with that: Obamneycare. And he backed off and then endorsed the guy.

I don’t think too many of them want to work real hard to repeal it. Not one. Which says to me that we at the grassroots level have a lot more work to do in the coming years.

beatcanvas on January 17, 2012 at 9:27 AM

To stand on that stage and actually try to draw some moral, “golden rule” equivalence argument based on how we would feel if the Chinese launched a military strike in our country to kill a dissident trying to escape to freedom, and use that as an argument as to why we were in the wrong to initiate a military strike against the man who carried out a direct attack on our country is despicable.

Further, the fact that Congressman Paul does not understand that we could not work with the government of Pakistan in an effort to arrest bin Laden and bring him to trial because the government of Pakistan was AIDING bin Laden and providing him a hiding place shows either a disturbing ignorance of our foreign policy situations or a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the facts to fit Dr. Paul’s argument.

Lastly, I wish someone on the stage, when presented with this constant barrage of “well, how would we feel if Iran/Iraq/Pakistan/China/whoever did it to us” arguments from Dr. Paul, would have the clarity to remind him, and the audience, that the difference is simple: we are the good guys and they are the bad guys.

Shump on January 17, 2012 at 9:27 AM

One thing I don’t worry about is Paul as POTUS. Not going to happen.
katy the mean old lady on January 17, 2012 at 9:24 AM

How about Secretary of the Treasury?

listens2glenn on January 17, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Can we have an article pointing out how Juan Williams was the token race baiter? Why do they have to bring on a minority for the singular purpose of asking racial questions? Why did Juan agree to do that? He could have gone with a whole other set of questions about conservative vs. liberal policies. He would have been wrong, but at least it would have had more substance.

LoganSix on January 17, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Paul has already wondered why we didn’t handle Osama the same way we did Saddam Hussein

This merely points out that this racist homophobe has dangerous ideas concerning foreign affairs and national security. As bad as Obama is, Paul would be an even worse disaster as POTUS.

Happy Nomad on January 17, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Just going to plug my ears, whistle, and pretend everyone forgets how awful this debate answer was.

napoleon on January 17, 2012 at 9:31 AM

I like that old man for some reason…but he scares the sh!t out of me too! He’d be near that button!

KOOLAID2 on January 17, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Glenn Beck is hammering Ron Paul this moring on his radio show. Ron Paul is done.

America is safe.

NickDeringer on January 17, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Ron Paul for VP!!!

(that oughtta piss EVERYONE off, Paul supporters and opponents alike!)

but really – why not? Biden has nailed the “crazy uncle” role, somebody has gotta step into those shoes.

Tom Servo on January 17, 2012 at 9:32 AM

That crazy old man, RP, needs to go home. Perry should quit and return to TX before he loses that state.

Kissmygrits on January 17, 2012 at 9:33 AM

LoganSix on January 17, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Hang in there, I’m guessing there are a slew of threads coming up tearing into all of the candidates.

Bishop on January 17, 2012 at 9:33 AM

While I disaqree with most of Paul’s foreign policy views and believe him to be naive in the extreme, I think he’s getting somewhat of a bad rap here. All he seemed to be saying was that Bin Laden should’ve been captured alive, to grab intel, just like Saddam Hussein was. The fact he opposed the Iraq War is irrelevant.

Meanwhile, I’ve about had my fill of Newt’s pompous grandstanding.

changer1701 on January 17, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Who went after dear leader the most?

cmsinaz on January 17, 2012 at 9:34 AM

What sickens me most, is knowing that Ron Paul is the reason that Romney’s on top.

Norky on January 17, 2012 at 9:34 AM

And yet you support the noted warmonger Paul who voted for the invasion of Afgahnistan.

Masih ad-Dajjal on January 17, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Yeah, 10+ years ago. I was all for that war too. 10+ years ago.

WW2 lasted less than 6 years. Yet we’re still in Afghanistan 10 years later. Think about that for a second.

angryed on January 17, 2012 at 9:37 AM

I like Ron Paul, because next to him, I’m comparably sane.

Isn’t time to get him off the stage?

dirtseller on January 17, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Let’s make this short and to the point…Ron Paul is insane.

BeachBum on January 17, 2012 at 9:39 AM

So the way to attract the coveted independents and dissatisfied Democrats to the GOP is by more war mongering. I see.
angryed on January 17, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Yes Ed. We simply can’t “monger” too many wars . . . . . .

(face-palm, heavy sigh) . . . . . .

listens2glenn on January 17, 2012 at 9:40 AM

What sickens me most, is knowing that Ron Paul is the reason that Romney’s on top.

Norky on January 17, 2012 at 9:34 AM

In ’08 the Paul supporters I knew voted 3rd party once he was out.

shinty on January 17, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Blessed are the peacemakers…Matthew 5:9

Evangelicals Looking For A Conservative President Choose Ron Paul Not Fox News Or Rush Limbaugh Candidate

http://bit.ly/RonPaulConservatives

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 9:42 AM

The Logical Husband thought that Romney looked and acted quite flustered during the exchange with Santorum. I thought he was positively weasely during his answer on releasing his tax returns. All in all it was a good night for Newt and Santorum.

LL

Lady Logician on January 17, 2012 at 9:42 AM

If the Zombies apocalypse happened tomorrow, HA would point out how it helped Romney.

Gingrich won big.
Santorum did ok.
Perry did ok.
Romney had a poor night.
Paul had a terrible night.

This does not help Romney. He is not inevitable.

Irritable Pundit on January 17, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Maybe it’s time to stop these ridculous open primaries!!

At least RuPaul got booed!!

LevinFan on January 17, 2012 at 9:44 AM

In ’08 the Paul supporters I knew voted 3rd party once he was out.

shinty on January 17, 2012 at 9:40 AM

I believe most Paul supporters are former BHO voters. Their irrational behavior tells me so.

Norky on January 17, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Fed Up on January 17, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Then, those Evangelicals have never read Genesis 12: 1-3.

kingsjester on January 17, 2012 at 9:45 AM

So the way to attract the coveted independents and dissatisfied Democrats to the GOP is by more war mongering. I see.

angryed on January 17, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Oh so politicians should offer what it takes to win over independents and democrats…I see. You mean like Romney in Massachusetts?

CW on January 17, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Ed, when you get a bit older and wiser, you will come to see the folly of your ways. Until you have served and fought I suggest you refrain from commenting on topics you clearly have no expertise on.//

standupandbecounted on January 17, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Really? We shouldn’t comment unless we have served and fought? What about making the decision to send tropps in harms way? If one can’t comment, surely one can’t make that decision. Which, by logical extension, disqualifies any non veteran from the Presidency. So, Civilian control of the Military is wrong?

Look, I think you’re trying to say that having served and fought may give you some knowledge and perspective others may not have. But it doesn’t mean you are the only one with knowledge or perspective. Thank you for your service, but you are wrong.

trubble on January 17, 2012 at 9:46 AM

In ’08 the Paul supporters I knew voted 3rd party once he was out.
shinty on January 17, 2012 at 9:40 AM

That seems to be the message from the Paul supporters on Michelle’s site too. To me, Paul is the Only candidate I don’t think I could vote for. He’s nuts.

BeachBum on January 17, 2012 at 9:46 AM

One thing I don’t worry about is Paul as POTUS. Not going to happen.
katy the mean old lady on January 17, 2012 at 9:24 AM

How about Secretary of the Treasury?

listens2glenn on January 17, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Based on Paul’s voting Records, not a single check will be signed.

Egfrow on January 17, 2012 at 9:50 AM

trubble on January 17, 2012 at 9:46 AM

There was a double sarc tag.

topics you clearly have no expertise on.//

standupandbecounted on January 17, 2012 at 9:25 AM

CW on January 17, 2012 at 9:50 AM

I like some of Paul’s stances and I do like some of his foreign policy (e.g. don’t get into other countries’ business), but he looked like a mumbling idiot in this exchange.

Sleeper on January 17, 2012 at 9:50 AM

I agree that at this point Ron Paul is only helping Romney.

Anybody thinks this guy should be POTUS needs a rubber room. He’s been hogging a 15% of the base vote that would better be spent on Santorum or Newt….for sure Paul voters not likely to go for Romney.

I’m bitter about this nut media hog…and that includes his drug-addled enablers.

patfish on January 17, 2012 at 9:51 AM

CW on January 17, 2012 at 9:50 AM

If it was meant as sarcasm then I withdraw my statement. And start my coffee…

trubble on January 17, 2012 at 9:53 AM

but really – why not? Biden has nailed the “crazy uncle” role, somebody has gotta step into those shoes.

Tom Servo on January 17, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Are you really happy with the direction of the nation under the jug-eared socialist and crazy uncle Joe?

Paul brings nothing to the ticket worth having or promoting. He is a racist homophobe isolationist who loathes the military. Sorry, I don’t think he should even be in Congress with the ideas he espouses.

Happy Nomad on January 17, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Unfortunately, Ron Paul is the Republican Ralph Nader. He will never go away until he’s in the grave.

BeachBum on January 17, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Yes Ed. We simply can’t “monger” too many wars . . . . . .

(face-palm, heavy sigh) . . . . . .

listens2glenn on January 17, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Dude you listen to Glenn. ‘Nuff said.

angryed on January 17, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Paul has already wondered why we didn’t handle Osama the same way we did Saddam Hussein

Of course, if the Taliban, who ruled Afghanistan at the time, had turned over OBL when the US Demanded it after 9/11 we could have avoided the whole invasion thing…

Not that Herr Doktor remembers that thru this Alzheimers ridden memory.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on January 17, 2012 at 9:55 AM

In ’08 the Paul supporters I knew voted 3rd party once he was out.
shinty on January 17, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Ron Paul IS NOT and NEVER has been a Republican. He’s switch parties twice and has been running for Prez since 1988.

Libertarians are fake Capitalists. Don’t ever be misled to believe they are Republicans.

If Ron Paul does not get the nomination, he WILL RUN THIRD PARTY ensuring an Obama win unless a real conservative is in the Running.

Egfrow on January 17, 2012 at 9:55 AM

How about Secretary of the Treasury?

listens2glenn on January 17, 2012 at 9:30 AM

That’s not a crazy idea. He’d give the Federal Reserve a colonoscopy and the results would probably be shocking to the vast majority of Americans who can spell ‘Federal Reserve’.

More sunshine please.

CorporatePiggy on January 17, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Paul’s illogical arguments and whiny, condescending demeanor must give his supporters pause. I imagine. I hope.

shinty on January 17, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Ed, why? Why must you write commentary like you were in the spin room foe Mitt? Newt was awesome, Mitt did lousy but since the other two did well … Mitt wins? Mitt finishes 4th out of 5 and that is spun to a win?

There are two ways in politics to close a vote gap. Get more votes is one … Newt will have done that. The other is to have the leader lose votes. If you don’t think that works … Ask the Tampa Rays if they could have caught the Red Sox without a bunch of help.

Now, if you were thinking clearly, you would know that the Ricks doing better than Mitt has AT LEAST as good a chance of peeling away voters who are with Mitt because they can’t stand Newt. This would shrink his lead just as well as Newt rising.

I also think that SC, FL and national polls show quite clearly this race is now Newt or Mitt. I do not think all the folks who thought Newt was awesome will be dissuaded by the Ricks being better than Mitt.

MarkCasper on January 17, 2012 at 9:57 AM

So the way to attract the coveted independents and dissatisfied Democrats to the GOP is by more war mongering. I see.

angryed on January 17, 2012 at 9:18 AM

At the rate things are headed, there won’t be many Independents or Democrats left. Hunger and unemployment does funny things to the minds of elitists.

Egfrow on January 17, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Drop Hemp Bombs on the Taliban!

And THC drones for Al Qaeda!

profitsbeard on January 17, 2012 at 9:58 AM

RE Paul…

I did like Perry’s Gong crack….

Very fitting

and Juan could do a Mean Gene the Dancin’ Machine segment

golfmann on January 17, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Ron Paul IS NOT and NEVER has been a Republican.

Egfrow on January 17, 2012 at 9:55 AM

You might want to tell that to the GOP House Caucus, of which Ron Paul is a member.

But I guess we can’t really trust Eric Cantor on who is and is not a Republican. At least not when we have you, huh Egfrow?

JohnGalt23 on January 17, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Drop Hemp Bombs on the Taliban!

profitsbeard on January 17, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Remind me again why I should give a damn about the Taliban?

JohnGalt23 on January 17, 2012 at 10:00 AM

I thought Paul’s incoherence was actually much worse than his position on the issue.

Aizen on January 17, 2012 at 10:00 AM

WW2 lasted less than 6 years. Yet we’re still in Afghanistan 10 years later. Think about that for a second.
angryed on January 17, 2012 at 9:37 AM

The Italians, and Germans were willing to surrender before we dropped the nuke.
Japan was grudgingly willing to surrender after the second nuke.

In Afghanistan we are up against an enemy who is at least as fanatical as the Japanese, with their “Code of Bushido,” and worship of the Emperor.
We are unwilling to use the same ‘final solution’ to attack this enemy in Afghanistan because there are too many friends among the enemy.
And this enemy WILL fight to the DEATH.
It’s very much like Vietnam, EXCEPT a majority of Americans will remain faithful to our military men and women, this time around.
And we will let the military do ‘whatever it takes,’ the protesters be damned.

listens2glenn on January 17, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Aside from Ron Paul’s political views I see little attention paid to his age. (not politically correct?) Who thinks that someone his age is going to maintain good health/survive a full term as president? That
means that whoever he chooses as VP is of the utmost importance. People supporting him willy-nilly are not taking that into account.

VBMax on January 17, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Yeah, 10+ years ago. I was all for that war too. 10+ years ago.

WW2 lasted less than 6 years. Yet we’re still in Afghanistan 10 years later. Think about that for a second.

angryed on January 17, 2012 at 9:37 AM

The American Revolution lasted 8 years, however it took about 10 years for things to get started after the Stamp Act of 1765. The Constitution wasn’t done until 1787. And, of course, things weren’t really settled with Britain until after the war of 1812.

And that was a simple change from a Monarchy to a Republic. Afghanistan is trying to go from a nomadic/tribal government to a Democracy. Also, it made it a lot more simple when the enemy stood in front of you and wore a uniform, instead of hiding behind women and children.

A better comparison would be Vietnam, which lasted 19 years before we left after loosing the battle of the press corp.

LoganSix on January 17, 2012 at 10:02 AM

One thing I don’t worry about is Paul as POTUS. Not going to happen.

katy the mean old lady on January 17, 2012 at 9:24 AM

I don’t worry about him becoming president Katy, I worry what he might do if he doesn’t get the nomination.

FOX & Friends sent this tweet this morning. I didn’t watch the segment so I don’t know what they referring to.

@foxandfriends fox & friends
ron paul has a back up strategy he’ll unveil at the republican convention if he’s not the nominee. we’ll divulge … 7:am EST

After reading that, canopfor, as he is famous for doing, found this interesting blast from the past.

Ron Paul’s forces quietly plot GOP convention revolt against McCain
May 12, 2008 | 2:00 am
**********************
**********************

Virtually all the nation’s political attention in recent weeks has focused on the compelling state-by-state presidential nomination struggle between two Democrats and the potential for party-splitting strife over there.

But in the meantime, quietly, largely under the radar of most people, the forces of Rep. Ron Paul have been organizing across the country to stage an embarrassing public revolt against Sen. John McCain when Republicans gather for their national convention in Minnesota at the beginning of September.
(More….)
===========

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/ronpaulgop.html

canopfor on January 17, 2012 at 7:04 AM

Flora Duh on January 17, 2012 at 10:02 AM

You might want to tell that to the GOP House Caucus, of which Ron Paul is a member.

But I guess we can’t really trust Eric Cantor on who is and is not a Republican. At least not when we have you, huh Egfrow?

JohnGalt23 on January 17, 2012 at 9:59 AM

He’s a RINO but with Libertarian Stripes. Eric Cantor is also a RINO. I don’t see your point.

How many times has Ron Paul changed parties? What political Party did he choose? He want back to GOP because he can’t run for office on his personal views. He has stated that his only purpose is to FOWARD THE LIBERTARIAN CAUSE. If he can do that in the GOP then he’s fine with that.

Watch the interview. Of course, as a Fellow Libertarian, you may already know what’s in it.

Egfrow on January 17, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Ed, when you get a bit older and wiser, you will come to see the folly of your ways. Until you have served and fought I suggest you refrain from commenting on topics you clearly have no expertise on.//

standupandbecounted on January 17, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Sheer patronizing idiocy. As a reminder, the primary reason why we serve and fight is to defend–at the cost of our own lives if necessary–the right of our fellow citizens to think, write, and say what they like.

Did you actually bother to listen to the oath you took? And since when does wearing the uniform make one an expert in geopolitical affairs?

Don’t tell me, let me guess: a Ron Paul supporter, right? That happy combination of ignorance and vapidity gave you away.

troyriser_gopftw on January 17, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Dude you listen to Glenn. ‘Nuff said.
angryed on January 17, 2012 at 9:54 AM

And you listen to Ron Paul, ’nuff said.

C’mon Ed, you have to come up with a better argument than that.

listens2glenn on January 17, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Ron Paul to you people was a loon in 07 because of him rambling about the federal reserve, the bubble in the housing market, and the military industrial complex. Now to you people he is righteous on everything else but foreign policy he is a loon. You guys are ridicules! We will never have a candidate that actually want cut the power and size of gov! We’re going to be stuck with either the Black Obama or The White Obama and it is sad;(

Capitalist75 on January 17, 2012 at 10:12 AM

This merely points out that this racist homophobe has dangerous ideas concerning foreign affairs and national security. As bad as Obama is, Paul Santorum would be an even worse disaster as POTUS.

Happy Nomad on January 17, 2012 at 9:30 AM

FIFY

EddieC on January 17, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Remind me again why I should give a damn about the Taliban?

JohnGalt23 on January 17, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Does September 11th, 2001 ring a bell, jackass?

HeckOnWheels on January 17, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Lastly, I wish someone on the stage, when presented with this constant barrage of “well, how would we feel if Iran/Iraq/Pakistan/China/whoever did it to us” arguments from Dr. Paul, would have the clarity to remind him, and the audience, that the difference is simple: we are the good guys and they are the bad guys.

Shump on January 17, 2012

Agreed, however a caveat:
The American Indian should be exempt. Yes, a whole ‘nother kettle o’fish and a different time and place, but … Paul still wants to castrate the military faster ‘n Barry.
I’m a long-time Pat Buchanan fan (with a lapse for a while) who believes that America should stay out of foreign adventures. One of the many disadvantages to an interventionist foreign policy is when Leftists use that power to gin up modern problems for 8th century peoples and then walking away as the “freedom fighters” install an even worse regíme.
Sound familiar?
One advantage of toppling murderous thugs is that our military always needs a combat-tested cadre. It helps to be led by men who know what they’re doing.
IMHO of course.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 17, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Can we have an article pointing out how Juan Williams was the token race baiter? Why do they have to bring on a minority for the singular purpose of asking racial questions? Why did Juan agree to do that? He could have gone with a whole other set of questions about conservative vs. liberal policies. He would have been wrong, but at least it would have had more substance.

LoganSix on January 17, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Williams asked that question just for the reason that it made Newt look good. That was the whole purpose of the question. Williams was well aware of how Newt would respond, and how that response would play to the audience. It made for good TV and a plus-point for the conservatives.

You should be giving Williams a big “thank you”.

Walter L. Newton on January 17, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Ron Paul usually stumbles badly and falls flat on his face when he gets into specifics on his foreign policy positions.

farsighted on January 17, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Inconsistent Globalist Appeaser, Ron Paul

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc3fuFApYXQ&fb_source=message

jp on January 17, 2012 at 10:19 AM

If only Gingrich had performed effectively, voters might have had a reason to consolidate behind Newt

Thank the good Lord that never happened. Can you imagine that hot head with his finger on the button?

rogaineguy on January 17, 2012 at 10:24 AM

It is quite obvious from his initial response that he was completely unprepared for this question. Not only was his statement incoherent, it was naive. He sounded like a Junior High debater. And did you notice that his voice was really whiny when he asked his questions?

And let’s not forget, this man as recently as 2007 said that Lincoln was wrong to go to war (forget the fact that the South fired the first shot) and should have worked with the Confederate States to save the Republic.

jcelephant on January 17, 2012 at 10:26 AM

The center in this country is uninterested in Newt’s pathetic pandering. I assure you of that.

rubberneck on January 17, 2012 at 10:26 AM

angryed on January 17, 2012 at 9:18 AM

I see you don’t understand that the government’s primary role is to protect and preserve the lives and property of it’s citizens. You call it War mongering. I notice you guys never apply that term to the people who actual start wars, i.e. Saddam, OBL and Al-Queda.

celtnik on January 17, 2012 at 10:27 AM

It helps to be led by men who know what they’re doing.
IMHO of course.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 17, 2012 at 10:17 AM

That’s true in politics, too. Isn’t that why there’s such an unease about all the candidates? (Including the Democrat one, who’s proved by now even to Democrats that he and his band of Keystone Kommies are monumental screwups.)

Scriptor on January 17, 2012 at 10:28 AM

[troyriser_gopftw on January 17, 2012 at 10:07 AM]

Please. He had a double sarc tag. I know the comment has a hard bite, but you need to understand what a sarc tag means.

Dusty on January 17, 2012 at 10:28 AM

PRIORITIES

Q: “Do you support the candidate who will reign in federal spending, reduce regulation, and reform monetary policy or do you prefer a candidate who will spend more, regulate more, and print more?”

NEOCON: “I can’t answer that until I know how many Muslims each is willing to kill.”

EddieC on January 17, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Ron Paul will neither be asked nor accept serving in any administration. He has not a single clue as how to work with ANYONE, other than maybe Lew Rockwell. The sole reason he has been able to be re-elected as a congressman has been his ability to BRING HOME THE BACON.

Kermit on January 17, 2012 at 10:30 AM

TNR has update on the RP Newsletters

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/99666/ron-paul-newsletters-part-two?page=0,0

jp on January 17, 2012 at 10:32 AM

I thought Mitt was going to break his neck looking around for his campaign manager to see how he should answer the tax issue. He really was being a weasel with the answer that he gave. I am sure that he got all #dodge tweets for that one. He still gives me the impression of a used car salesman that is just glad handing you for your business and really could give a crap less about you as a person.

jistincase on January 17, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Best line from the Foreign Policy portion – Rick Perry: “I think the sound you were looking for was a gong”.

Al-Ozarka on January 17, 2012 at 10:33 AM

It made for good TV and a plus-point for the conservatives.

You should be giving Williams a big “thank you”.

Walter L. Newton on January 17, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Sure. I’ll be thanking Williams right after we get another barrage of

See!! The Republicans are racists because Newt said he doesn’t see his racist comment as racist and they applauded him.

LoganSix on January 17, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Unfortunately for those of us who think Ron Paul is a National Nuisance, his showing in Iowa and even in New Hampshire has encouraged him and his apostles to hang in there. Hopefully, he will get a major trouncing sooner, rather than later, in the campaign season.

However! — at least we’re rid of Jon Huntsman — whatever his candidacy was supposed to be about.

Scriptor on January 17, 2012 at 10:34 AM

However! — at least we’re rid of Jon Huntsman — whatever his candidacy was supposed to be about.

Scriptor on January 17, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Agreed! Now if we could only get rid of Newt, Santorum, and Romney we’d be in good shape.

EddieC on January 17, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Remind me again why I should give a damn about the Taliban?

JohnGalt23 on January 17, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Does September 11th, 2001 ring a bell, jackass?

HeckOnWheels on January 17, 2012 at 10:17 AM

What is it with the Neanderthal Right? It’s like “September 11″ is a magical phrase for you.

Taliban are Afghani/Pakistani. How many such people carried out 9/11? Thought most of them were Saudis.

The Taliban doesn’t give a damn about anything but keeping foreign forces outside Afghanistan. I say we oblige them.

JohnGalt23 on January 17, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Watch the interview. Of course, as a Fellow Libertarian, you may already know what’s in it.

Egfrow on January 17, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Apparently, someone doesn’t understand the significance of capitalization. As in, the difference between “Libertarian” and “libertarian”.

Let me guess… product of public schooling?

JohnGalt23 on January 17, 2012 at 10:38 AM

The Taliban doesn’t give a damn about anything but keeping foreign forces outside Afghanistan. I say we oblige them.

JohnGalt23 on January 17, 2012 at 10:37 AM

They also hope the War on Drugs continues, lest their main source of revenue might dry up. Thanks, socons!

EddieC on January 17, 2012 at 10:40 AM

I was all for that war too. 10+ years ago.

angryed on January 17, 2012 at 9:37 AM

So you supported the illegal war on Afghanistan? That’s telling. Why invade an entire country, just because some guy there has been implicated in a crime, and isn’t even a citizen of the said country?

Borrowing Luap Nor’s analogy, would you invade Argentina because they allowed Eichmann to stay there?

NEOCON WARMONGER YOU ARE!

Masih ad-Dajjal on January 17, 2012 at 10:40 AM

I generally like Ron Paul because I believe that foreign policy, important as it may seem, should take a far back seat to saving what’s left of our economy. However, he presented an incoherent, stuttering performance that plays right into the hands of his critics. Violate Pakistan’s sovereignty, by golly… I’d violate it, alright – from the orbit, just to make sure!

I’d still take Ron Paul – gladly! – as a Treasury Sec or Fed chair, but he’s not POTUS material.

Archivarix on January 17, 2012 at 10:41 AM

And that was a simple change from a Monarchy to a Republic. Afghanistan is trying to go from a nomadic/tribal government to a Democracy.

LoganSix on January 17, 2012 at 10:02 AM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!! Afghanistan a Democracy?!?!?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!

If we’re committing to staying there until that happens, then we might as well fold up the Republic now.

JohnGalt23 on January 17, 2012 at 10:42 AM

What’s with the goofy laugh that Ron Paul has? It may be his natural laugh, but he sounds like a loon.

onlineanalyst on January 17, 2012 at 10:42 AM

listens2glenn on January 17, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Last night he was very unhinged. I would keep him miles away from anything. That’s a dangerous man.

antisocial on January 17, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Remind me again why I should give a damn about the Taliban?
JohnGalt23 on January 17, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Does September 11th, 2001 ring a bell, jackass?
HeckOnWheels on January 17, 2012 at 10:17 AM

I thought Al-Qaeda was responsible for sept 11. I thought the Taliban was an allied? Didn’t they help us to defeat Russia? Why all the Paul haters so angry now-a-days?

Capitalist75 on January 17, 2012 at 10:42 AM

“And let’s not forget, this man as recently as 2007 said that Lincoln was wrong to go to war”
jcelephant on January 17, 2012 at 10:26 AM

In recent years I’ve found that this is a debateable position. Not a Ron Paul supporter, but given that casualties totaled 600,000+, I question the insuffiency of statesmanship applied to the problem in order to avoid such a disastrous war.

VBMax on January 17, 2012 at 10:43 AM

The Taliban doesn’t give a damn about anything but keeping foreign forces outside Afghanistan. I say we oblige them.

JohnGalt23 on January 17, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Last I heard the Taliban were Muslims too. Caliphate anyone?

VBMax on January 17, 2012 at 10:47 AM

WW2 lasted less than 6 years. Yet we’re still in Afghanistan 10 years later. Think about that for a second.

angryed

Dude, we still have troops in Germany and Japan. (ducks)

Knott Buyinit on January 17, 2012 at 10:49 AM

“The Taliban doesn’t give a damn about anything but keeping foreign forces outside Afghanistan. I say we oblige them.”

JohnGalt23 on January 17, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Umm…why did we go into Afghanistan in the fist place? Because the TALIBAN had invited foreign forces into their provinces to train to kill Americans, dumbass.

Ron Paul has spiked your weed, dude.

Al-Ozarka on January 17, 2012 at 10:54 AM

I thought Mitt was going to break his neck looking around for his campaign manager to see how he should answer the tax issue.

jistincase on January 17, 2012 at 10:32 AM

A little off topic, perhaps, but here’s what I wish Mitt had said…

“I just don’t see how my tax return is anyone’s business”

…or…

“I’ll release my tax return when Obama releases his grades and term papers from university.”

Though really, I’m more concerned about Ron Paul and the way his supporters dismiss his fractured logic, and whiny, condescending demeanor.

shinty on January 17, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3