Quotes of the day

posted at 10:35 pm on February 23, 2012 by Allahpundit

“‘You have to ask Congressman Paul and Governor Romney what they’ve got going together,’ Santorum told reporters in the spin room in Mesa, Arizona. ‘Their commercials look a lot alike and so do their attacks.’

“Santorum’s top strategist John Brabender went even further, charging that the two men had ‘joined forces’ and were coordinating attacks against his man

“‘Clearly there’s a tag team strategy between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. For all I know, Mitt Romney might be considering Ron Paul as his running mate. Clearly there is now an alliance between those two and you saw that certainly in the debate.’…

“The Romney campaign ridiculed the notion there was any coordination. ‘If ever there was an iconoclast who got up there and said what he believed, it’s Ron Paul,’ said Stuart Stevens, Romney’s chief strategist.”

***

“Paul’s spokesman denies this, noting that they have spent millions on four television ads attacking Romney, but there does seem to be something, prima facie, to their conduct during debates, if one assumes that the alliance would preclude Paul from criticizing Romney in debates. In the previous seven debates, going back to the January 7 New Hampshire debate, Ron Paul has only attacked Mitt Romney once

“Paul’s kid-gloved treatment of Romney in the debates so far doesn’t necessarily say anything about their relationship, but it seems like, of late, Paul has been notably kind to the race’s front-runner.”

***

“And now, Paul’s national campaign chairman, Jesse Benton, confirms that the decision last week by the two campaigns to skip a March 1 CNN debate in Georgia was a closely-coordinated one.

“Benton, asked on MSNBC Thursday afternoon to detail the specifics on how the two candidates have cooperated during the campaign:

“‘A lot of it just comes down to scheduling. Both of our campaigns, for example, had places, specific places we wanted our candidates to be on March 1st, and they weren’t in Georgia. Other states that were priorities for us. And so we talked it out and we said, ‘Hey, let’s present a united front and make sure our candidates can get where they need to be rather than being at the 22nd or 23rd debate in Georgia.’ That’s how we cooperate.’”

***

“Senator Rand Paul first discussed his higher aspirations at the beginning of this year. He said he wouldn’t close the door on being a Vice Presidential candidate. After a speech in Louisville today, Paul held that door firmly open, saying he wants to be part of the national debate.

“Paul’s name has swirled as a possible pick that would give Romney points with the Tea Party. When asked directly what he would say if Romney made the offer, Paul tried to punt.

“I don’t know if I can answer that question, but I can say it would be an honor to be considered,’ he said.”

***

“Of course, this could be much ado about nothing — just a politician answering a question. On the other hand, it is sure to spark more speculation that some sort of deal may be in the works between the Romney and Paul camps. It’s not as if Ron Paul’s campaign hasn’t stoked speculation. As the Dallas Morning News reported, Paul’s national campaign chairman, Jesse Benton, recently said: ‘Any Republican should have Rand Paul on his short list.’

“On the surface, tapping Paul as veep might not make sense. But conservatives are refusing to go along and eat the dog food with Romney — and adding Rand Paul to the ticket would fire conservatives up – and ensure that Ron Paul drops any plans to launch a 3rd party challenge. And just imagine if Romney arrives at the GOP convention needing some of Paul’s delegates to win the nomination?

“It’s not an absurd idea.”

***

Via the Daily Rushbo.

***

Ingraham: Hey, Governor, when you watched this last night, did you take away this impression that some are taking away — and I think I stated this a couple days ago on the show — that your Texas compatriot there, Ron Paul, seems to be, you know, guarding the flank for Romney. He seemed to go in at various junctures and either amplify Romney’s points or try to take Santorum out at the knees on issues that clearly benefit the would-be frontrunner Mitt Romney. Do you get the sense that there’s an unspoken alliance there?

Perry: You know, I don’t know whether there is an alliance there or not, but that’s been the case all through the debates, all 20 of them I might add. That Ron Paul and Mitt Romney had a really interesting partnership, let us call it.


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 4 5

FloatingRock on February 24, 2012 at 12:49 AM

Well, I like libertarianism. I’d love for our elected officials to have to uphold their oaths, and the Constitution to be adhered to.

I like Paul’s idea that we pull our guys out of Europe (at least on the ground). BUT, his stance on the Middle East? It’s okay for Iran to have nukes? Also, I seem to remember that he’s not too keen on Israel–our only real friend in the region.

Finally, the libertarians have (unfortunately) been taken over (at least a bit, you must admit) by the “legalize-it” crowd. (BTW, if we could make people be responsible for the health problems inherent in using drugs, I’d be all for the legalization of all drugs. And, no, I don’t do them.) This fact saps credibility from Paul, IMO.

RedCrow on February 24, 2012 at 1:00 AM

Thanks for the laugh!

FloatingRock on February 24, 2012 at 12:58 AM

Tell me who was better and how.

Lanceman on February 24, 2012 at 1:01 AM

Awful? Motherfletcher, please! As I’ve always said, with the exception of Reagan, you’d have to go all the way back to Eisenhower to get a better President.

Lanceman on February 24, 2012 at 12:57 AM

OK you made me laugh. My dad always said “motherfletcher” and I find myself doing it often as I try (w/out much success) to not say the F word. I knew you was my brother from another mother.

arnold ziffel on February 24, 2012 at 1:01 AM

Lanceman on February 24, 2012 at 12:50 AM

I did asterisk the word endorsement. I also made sure the source I linked to provided the context of the endorsement.

But, if we look at today, between Romney, Gingrich and Santorum, I’d vote for Romney (if I were forced to vote for one of the 3). Romney isn’t a raging buffoon like Gingrich and he won’t immediately alienate minorities, gays and women like Santorum.

The batch in ’08 was just as bad, sadly.

gyrmnix on February 24, 2012 at 1:01 AM

Lanceman on February 24, 2012 at 12:54 AM
Not sure if you’d like this one, but I really like the version. Found it the other day. Where’d Dire go, beddie-by?

SparkPlug on February 24, 2012 at 12:56 AM
Listened to your tune. For some reason it makes me think of lots (and lots) of hair. Also, sorry to bring the thread back down with my selection. (Lol)

RedCrow on February 24, 2012 at 1:05 AM

Romney isn’t a raging buffoon like Gingrich and he won’t immediately alienate minorities, gays and women like Santorum.

The batch in ’08 was just as bad, sadly.

gyrmnix on February 24, 2012 at 1:01 AM

Santorum won’t alienate voters when it comes down to it. Gingrich could win if he got any traction. Romney can win. This election is gonna be all ‘it’s the economy, stupid’. In spades.

Lanceman on February 24, 2012 at 1:05 AM

Tell me who was better and how.

Lanceman on February 24, 2012 at 1:01 AM

I thought W was a good POTUS, too. Though, he made some mistakes late in that second term (TARP). (He shoulda just road-out the last several months on his ass. Make Obama could have leant him his golf clubs?)

RedCrow on February 24, 2012 at 1:07 AM

Lanceman on February 24, 2012 at 12:54 AM
Not sure if you’d like this one, but I really like the version. Found it the other day.

RedCrow on February 24, 2012 at 1:05 AM

Not fond of blues.

Lanceman on February 24, 2012 at 1:07 AM

Ron Paul is very likely to be the GOP king maker. Ignore or dissmiss him at your peril.

lexhamfox on February 24, 2012 at 12:57 AM
OK, bluefox, you seein’ this?

Lanceman on February 24, 2012 at 12:58 AM

Got it, LOL

bluefox on February 24, 2012 at 1:07 AM

I thought W was a good POTUS, too. Though, he made some mistakes late in that second term (TARP). (He shoulda just road-out the last several months on his ass. Make Obama could have leant him his golf clubs?)

RedCrow on February 24, 2012 at 1:07 AM

He made some doozies in the first term too. NCLB and MedD come to mind.
But does anyone think Owlgore wouldn’t have done those and worse?

Lanceman on February 24, 2012 at 1:08 AM

Got it, LOL

bluefox on February 24, 2012 at 1:07 AM

We once had a silverfox. And a whole ton of cats.

Lanceman on February 24, 2012 at 1:10 AM

But, if we look at today, between Romney, Gingrich and Santorum, I’d vote for Romney (if I were forced to vote for one of the 3). Romney isn’t a raging buffoon like Gingrich and he won’t immediately alienate minorities, gays and women like Santorum.

The batch in ’08 was just as bad, sadly.

gyrmnix on February 24, 2012 at 1:01 AM

I’m not terribly pleased with our choices (then or now), but what worries me more is voters on the right who won’t vote for ABO.

RedCrow on February 24, 2012 at 1:12 AM

Heh. It just occurred to me that the header picture is Romney saying to Paul “Got yer nose! Yes I do!”

Lanceman on February 24, 2012 at 1:14 AM

bluefox on February 24, 2012 at 12:23 AM
Wow!!!!! No phone calls!!!!!

That’s serious.

Dante on February 24, 2012 at 12:28 AM

Did you listen to the replay? I know, you don’t want to learn anymore:-)

bluefox on February 24, 2012 at 1:16 AM

Lanceman on February 24, 2012 at 1:14 AM

Nah…he’s telling him about a Three Stooges episode and what that awful bully Moe did to Curly.

RedCrow on February 24, 2012 at 1:17 AM

i think it is a little early for Rand Paul for VP…sounds a little too much like Sarah. Ron Paul is something of a nutcase…and so the question will be: Can Rand Paul be President?

He needs more time. This could simply be Ron Paul being smart enough to see that Romney is the only one that can beat barry…and yes, Ron does want his son to have a bright future…so bet your money on the strong horse.

Romney will be grateful..and Rand will have a bright future.

Remember the Personal Destruction by any means necessary Machine is already up and running…Connie Mack is their current target. They will be at full force on all fronts come the fall

r keller on February 24, 2012 at 1:19 AM

RedCrow on February 24, 2012 at 1:12 AM

I’m more worried by the people who will vote for ABO. If you’re going to vote against a candidate, vote for the person as close to your beliefs as possible. Whether that be Green, Libertarian, Constitution, Reform, etc. We whine endlessly about how terrible our candidates are. And why wouldn’t they be terrible? They know that you’ll go out there and vote for them regardless of how bad they are.

Same goes for the left, who don’t like Obama but, come up with weak excuses for voting for him. Excuses like, “well, he’s better than the republican candidates.” Grow a pair and vote your conscience.

gyrmnix on February 24, 2012 at 1:19 AM

Grow a pair and vote your conscience.

gyrmnix on February 24, 2012 at 1:19 AM

I did. I voted for Santorum. And I’m no Christian type.

Lanceman on February 24, 2012 at 1:21 AM

Here in Michigan today, we’re starting to see a lot of Obama commercials which look more like attacks on Romney. Shows who Obama really fears and Dems are starting to smack their lips, just thinking about an opportunity for a landslide victory against Santorum

Goodale on February 24, 2012 at 1:21 AM

Paulites will vote for Obama in the end.

Flapjackmaka on February 24, 2012 at 1:22 AM

gyrmnix on February 24, 2012 at 1:19 AM

Um…if you’re talking about the primary, then okay, I agree with you.

I was talking about the general, and the fact that a bunch of folks here have stated that, “I’ll never vote for Mitt.” To me, that means you’re fine with four more years of Obama.

Ron Paul is my least favorite of those left. I will gladly vote for him in the general against Odumbo. ABO.

As far as “growing a pair and voting my conscience”, I’m good in the former, and my conscience tells me that if Odumbo gets four more years then the US is over.

RedCrow on February 24, 2012 at 1:26 AM

Lanceman on February 24, 2012 at 1:21 AM

If so, then more power to you.

Although, it makes me wonder, if it came down to Romney as the republican and Santorum as an independent, would you still stick with Santorum?

Flapjackmaka on February 24, 2012 at 1:22 AM

You do realize that Paul supporters and Obama are polar opposites, right? The LP candidate will get more Paul supporter votes than Obama will, and so will the GOP candidate. That’s assuming Paul doesn’t run 3rd party, of course.

gyrmnix on February 24, 2012 at 1:28 AM

Goodale on February 24, 2012 at 1:21 AM

I’m from MI, too.
Go ahead and vote in the primary. (I’m going to, also.)
But, your vote doesn’t matter, because MI’s candidate will be decided by the labor and public unions.

RedCrow on February 24, 2012 at 1:28 AM

We once had a silverfox. And a whole ton of cats.

Lanceman on February 24, 2012 at 1:10 AM

That name sounds familiar. Not too fond of cats tho:-)

bluefox on February 24, 2012 at 1:29 AM

gyrmnix on February 24, 2012 at 1:28 AM

If one of these guys runs third party, it’s four more years of Yes We Can.

RedCrow on February 24, 2012 at 1:30 AM

Although, it makes me wonder, if it came down to Romney as the republican and Santorum as an independent, would you still stick with Santorum?

gyrmnix on February 24, 2012 at 1:28 AM

Are you insane? I’ll be voting for the ‘R’ regardless. This ain’t no election to be playing games with third party votes. Should obama win, the country’s done. We’re talkin’ scrotched earth.

Lanceman on February 24, 2012 at 1:31 AM

You do realize that Paul supporters and Obama are polar opposites, right? The LP candidate will get more Paul supporter votes than Obama will, and so will the GOP candidate. That’s assuming Paul doesn’t run 3rd party, of course.

gyrmnix on February 24, 2012 at 1:28 AM

No. Obama and Paul supporters are both nuts. Vocal paulites will vote third party or go Obama like in 2008. But the Paul vote is insignificant to do anything. It’s been his best run so far but its because know one knows who he is and he has been there forever without vetting.

Flapjackmaka on February 24, 2012 at 1:32 AM

RedCrow on February 24, 2012 at 1:26 AM

To me, that means you’re fine with four more years of Obama.

Perhaps that would be true if there were only 2 candidates on the ballot. But, there’s not. There’s a whole laundry list of candidates to vote for.

I guess it could be argued that voting against Obama is voting ones conscience. I just strongly disagree with that outlook.

gyrmnix on February 24, 2012 at 1:33 AM

Wow, Perry is such a boob.

TruCons were this close.

Think he knows the name of the desk the President uses?

freshface on February 24, 2012 at 1:34 AM

Anyway. going to bed

Flapjackmaka on February 24, 2012 at 1:35 AM

Flapjackmaka on February 24, 2012 at 1:32 AM

I like to spew nonsense on the internet, too. Here’s my attempt.

Romney, Santorum and Gingrich are far closer ideologically to Obama than they are to Paul. So, that means that non-Paul supporters are insufferable liberals hellbent and taking America down the path of self-destruction.

gyrmnix on February 24, 2012 at 1:36 AM

Tell me who was better and how.

Lanceman on February 24, 2012 at 1:01 AM

Reagan was among the best, he defeated the USSR.

Bush was among the worst, he bankrupted America fighting useless proxy wars against people who didn’t attack us and nation building under fire, and now that America is spent and broke from pounding so much sand, the Islamofascists are spreading across the ME like wildfire assisted by neocons.

And while Bush was spending so many trillions overseas, he was spending great gobs of money back here at home, too, and at the same time allowing the housing/debt bubble to swell to herculean proportions, sinking our nation under a mountain of debt just as a huge demographic bubble is about to retire, which will cause the entitlement bubble to burst and so forth.

Name me one other president besides Bush that said he was abandoning free market principles in order to save the free market?

FloatingRock on February 24, 2012 at 1:38 AM

Reagan bankrupted the USSR, Bush bankrupted America.

FloatingRock on February 24, 2012 at 1:39 AM

We’re talkin’ scrotched earth.

Lanceman on February 24, 2012 at 1:31 AM

I did laugh…but I can’t write the acronym, ’cause you’re totally right.

gyrmnix on February 24, 2012 at 1:33 AM
Well, okay. Obviously, I disagree wholeheartedly with you. Whoever’s on that “laundry list” that you’re talking about and doesn’t have a D or R by their name is not going to win.

I think you were the one talking about how we have bad candidates because we settle for bad candidates. Well, I might agree with you…but I’m not willing to throw away my vote on the Macaca Party candidate.

RedCrow on February 24, 2012 at 1:40 AM

RedCrow on February 24, 2012 at 1:05 AM

Nice tune..:)

Dire Straits on February 24, 2012 at 1:44 AM

Reagan was among the best, he defeated the USSR.

FloatingRock on February 24, 2012 at 1:38 AM

And even though I italicized the ‘with the exception of Reagan‘ part, you still brought him up.

I said tell me how any of the others were better and I will debunk each one beginning with the first and only President to provably steal an election. The same one who got us into Viet Nam and lost Cuba.
Then I’ll finish with the fratboy who tried to take over healthcare and will be forever remembered for ‘sexual relations’ who so overreached that the Rethuglicans overwhelmingly took the House after 40 years.

Lanceman on February 24, 2012 at 1:44 AM

Dire Straits on February 24, 2012 at 1:44 AM

Thanks. Thought you turned-in from the interwebs for the night.
Lanceman’s not too keen on blues, I guess. (We’ll let him slide.)

RedCrow on February 24, 2012 at 1:46 AM

Bush bankrupted America.

FloatingRock on February 24, 2012 at 1:39 AM

No, that would be Nan Pelosi. Bush’s deficit for fiscal year 2006 was 461 billion.
Have we even had a budget from FY ’07 to now?

Lanceman on February 24, 2012 at 1:47 AM

I do miss Ronny.

OT (Lol): Ever read those “Historian’s Rank the Presidents” results? Ronny’s got to be in the top ten, at least.

RedCrow on February 24, 2012 at 1:49 AM

BUT, his stance on the Middle East? It’s okay for Iran to have nukes? Also, I seem to remember that he’s not too keen on Israel–our only real friend in the region.

RedCrow on February 24, 2012 at 1:00 AM

Pakistan has nukes and they’re more responsible for 9/11 than Iran, and I believe Pakistan is a bigger state sponsor of terrorism than Iran is.

Why do you say he’s not keen on Israel, because he apposes international welfare payments, AKA foreign aid? He is against foreign aid on principle, it’s not an anti-Israel thing. Ron Paul is correct that we give more money to Egypt and other ME nations than we do to Israel, so they actually get the short of the stick.

FloatingRock on February 24, 2012 at 1:50 AM

Ronny’s got to be in the top ten, at least.

RedCrow on February 24, 2012 at 1:49 AM

Ronnie is in the top 4. Maybe even top three.

Lanceman on February 24, 2012 at 1:51 AM

RedCrow on February 24, 2012 at 1:40 AM

So, according to your logic, voting for McCain was a wasted vote? Voting for Kerry, Gore, Dole, Bush, etc. were all wasted?

Your vote isn’t a bet on who is going to win, it’s a vote for who you want to win.

And the “they’re not going to win” is a self-fulfilling prophecy. They don’t win because you (as in all voters, not you specifically) don’t believe they will. Lets drop the us vs. them mentality and start voting for who is best for the country. Not who is ever so slightly less bad.

gyrmnix on February 24, 2012 at 1:53 AM

No, that would be Nan Pelosi. Bush’s deficit for fiscal year 2006 was 461 billion.
Have we even had a budget from FY ’07 to now?

Lanceman on February 24, 2012 at 1:47 AM

I admit that the Democrats have been even worse but our economic problems are deep seated. While Obama has made a blood curdling crisis even worse, the problems have been building up for many years and Bush and the GOP played a huge role.

We don’t have a choice but the change course but they refuse, instead they give us rejects from the past and try to dress them up with a new wrapper.

FloatingRock on February 24, 2012 at 1:58 AM

RedCrow on February 24, 2012 at 1:46 AM

Good deal..He will like this “bluesy” tune..:)

Dire Straits on February 24, 2012 at 1:59 AM

FloatingRock on February 24, 2012 at 1:50 AM

Pakistan has nukes and they’re more responsible for 9/11 than Iran, and I believe Pakistan is a bigger state sponsor of terrorism than Iran is.

C’mon. So, let’s give up on dangerous countries not having nukes? Pakistan has nukes because India has nukes. And, BTW, Pakistan is a huge threat, IMO, with those nukes because of the split in that country between secularists and islamists.

Ron Paul is correct that we give more money to Egypt and other ME nations than we do to Israel

I oppose a lot of these foreign aid payments, also. There’s no way we should continue the huge outlays to Egypt, especially after they threatened us. We give less money to Israel because they’re not a third world nation. They’re industrious and successful, and if they weren’t surrounded by barbarians trying to eliminate them from the earth, they probably wouldn’t need our help at all.

RedCrow on February 24, 2012 at 2:01 AM

Its been pretty obvious to all but he fools that Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are in cahoots. The thing is, just as Mitt Romney used Michelle Bachmann and then threw her away when she fulfilled her purpose; so shall Romney do to Ron Paul when he outlives his usefulness. The mere fact that Mitt Romney has to rely on Ron Paul of all people shows his desperation.

eva3071 on February 24, 2012 at 2:03 AM

, the problems have been building up for many years and Bush and the GOP played a huge role.

We don’t have a choice but the change course but they refuse, instead they give us rejects from the past and try to dress them up with a new wrapper.

FloatingRock on February 24, 2012 at 1:58 AM

No doubt about it. Bush disappointed many times. Mostly out of fear. But he protected the country the best he knew how. The wars in Afgonistan and Iraq were not for naught. They showed those freaking weirdbeards that we meant business. A gun must be held to the head of the middle east one way or another.
But you have to remember that it could have ended quickly and well but for the democrats and the media. The ‘unity’ lasted all of ten seconds.
Alas, public education has destroyed many Americans’ ability to reason and use logic.

Lanceman on February 24, 2012 at 2:04 AM

Lanceman on February 24, 2012 at 1:51 AM
Yeah. I think so, too. I was kinda hedging my bets.

Dire Straits on February 24, 2012 at 1:59 AM
Good tune. But the audio is awful. Did you see the SRV link on the side-bar? F’in great! Too bad audio sucks on that one, too.

RedCrow on February 24, 2012 at 2:05 AM

And I didn’t say that W. was right below Reagan. There’s considerable distance between the two. But it’s indicative just how bad the rest were as well. He just happened to be the best of the lot.
If we go in descending order:

Reagan

Buncha steps down

W.
Clinton
H.W.
Kennedy
Tricky Dick
Ford
Johnson
Carter
obama.

Lanceman on February 24, 2012 at 2:09 AM

RedCrow on February 24, 2012 at 2:05 AM

SRV tune was/is excellent..Such a shame to have lost him too young..:)

Dire Straits on February 24, 2012 at 2:11 AM

In fact, I might switch Johnson & Carter. Johnson, over the long run, did far more fiscal damage than Carter.

Lanceman on February 24, 2012 at 2:11 AM

So, according to your logic, voting for McCain was a wasted vote? Voting for Kerry, Gore, Dole, Bush, etc. were all wasted?

gyrmnix on February 24, 2012 at 1:53 AM

Sorry, but I don’t know what this means. Obviously, you’ve misunderstood me.

I’ll be very explicit:
Chuck goes to his polling location on election day. He picks up his ballot from a nice old fellow (without showing any ID, of course) and goes to the nearest empty booth. Chuck inspects the category of President on his ballot, which lists the following: Jones(D), Smith(R), Holmes(Macaca), Johnson(Rat-B@stard).

Now, Chuck really hates Jones, really bad. He’s not too keen on Smith, either, but shares some of the views he feels are important. He absolutely loves Johnson, of the Rat-B@stard Party–adores him.

Who should Chuck vote for?

You would say Johnson (who will get a total of 72 votes, nationwide.)

I say Smith, who actually has a chance to beat (the hated) Jones.

So, I guess we differ on voting strategy.

RedCrow on February 24, 2012 at 2:14 AM

Anyhoo, too slow in here. No trolls, so, off to bed.

Lanceman on February 24, 2012 at 2:19 AM

But you have to remember that it could have ended quickly and well but for the democrats and the media. The ‘unity’ lasted all of ten seconds.
Alas, public education has destroyed many Americans’ ability to reason and use logic.

Lanceman on February 24, 2012 at 2:04 AM

Correct.

Dire Straits on February 24, 2012 at 2:11 AM

Correct. (Lol) I got to see him three times. He was quite a presence. Did you ever see, “Live at the El Mocambo(sp?)”?

Check this out!

Beeeee-u-tiful!

RedCrow on February 24, 2012 at 2:21 AM

Lanceman on February 24, 2012 at 2:19 AM

Night. I’m off soon, too.

RedCrow on February 24, 2012 at 2:21 AM

RedCrow on February 24, 2012 at 2:21 AM

I didn’t see him play live..Consider yourself lucky..:)

PS..That is a good tune..:)

Dire Straits on February 24, 2012 at 2:27 AM

Dire Straits on February 24, 2012 at 2:27 AM

Yeah. It is such a shame, because he had been through the “wilderness” of addiction. And, he was better. He was loving life and never sounded better.

Shoulda never been on that helicopter. I like to think God just had to have some great tunes.

RedCrow on February 24, 2012 at 2:31 AM

I don’t know what’s going on for sure but they’re all out to get me. I know that much. They’re probably in league with Satan.

VorDaj on February 24, 2012 at 2:33 AM

Well, I was waiting to see if gyrmnix was going to respond.

I didn’t think I had been unclear in this thread, but….who knows.

Night, Dire.

RedCrow on February 24, 2012 at 2:33 AM

Well, like Iraq, neither Iran nor Pakistan attacked us on 9/11. So I don’t really see what your argument is here since it’s contradictory, unless you were wanting to use the attack as an excuse to wage war on nations you don’t like. Waging war on Iran and Pakistan would have been just as foolish.

Dante on February 24, 2012 at 12:27 AM

Pakistan is a state sponsor or terrorism that created the Taliban in Afghanistan which aided and abetted Bin Laden on 9/11. After we invaded Afghanistan, which was Pakistan’s client/proxy state, Bin Laden moved to Pakistan and was provided safe harbor there, most likely with government assistance.

After 9/11 the top priority should have been to prevent/reduce the possibility of nuclear terrorism and nuclear blackmail. Now that Pakistan has a hundred nukes or so, if they attack America how are we going to retaliate without risking a nuclear war? If we attack Iran and Pakistan get’s involved what are we going to do?

The world is extremely unstable right now. It’s at times like these when world wars start. Iran is a client state of Russian and China, people had better take this sort of decision a lot more seriously than Rush Limbaugh who lost his credibility in Iraq.

FloatingRock on February 24, 2012 at 2:35 AM

RedCrow on February 24, 2012 at 2:33 AM

Later..:)

Dire Straits on February 24, 2012 at 2:36 AM

I, for one, am just glad we don’t have to hear about how principled Ron Paul is anymore from the damn cicadas. Now we know he’s as big of a prostitute as any other pol. Heh…imagine that…a libertarian prostitute…we should have seen this coming all along!!!

CycloneCDB on February 24, 2012 at 2:38 AM

Santorum scares me.

Firefly_76 on February 23, 2012 at 11:19 PM

Is it the sweater vest?

BDavis on February 24, 2012 at 2:44 AM

I, for one, am just glad we don’t have to hear about how principled Ron Paul is anymore from the damn cicadas. Now we know he’s as big of a prostitute as any other pol. Heh…imagine that…a libertarian prostitute…we should have seen this coming all along!!!

CycloneCDB on February 24, 2012 at 2:38 AM

Why do you say that, because of the rumor you guys started?

FloatingRock on February 24, 2012 at 2:46 AM

They showed those freaking weirdbeards that we meant business.

Lanceman on February 24, 2012 at 2:04 AM

Yes, but we didn’t seriously attempt to do was to defeat our enemies, we just blew through the trillions spinning our wheels in the sand rebuilding their nation while they attacked us. And Iraq didn’t attack us on 9/11, what the heck were we doing there enforcing the measly no-fly zone after 9/11? Wasn’t 9/11 a bigger priority? Now we’re broke and, although Bin Laden is finally dead, they say, Islamofascists are spreading across the ME like wildfire with the help of many of the same damn idiots that brought us the war in Iraq. And now, with the world as unstable as it has ever been in history, they want to go into Iran.

There are already over 60 Islamic-bombs in Pakistan, America needs to start paying more attention to Ron Paul and less attention to Rush Limbaugh, I think.

FloatingRock on February 24, 2012 at 3:05 AM

Recall that now we know for certain that Bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan, BTW, not Iraq.

FloatingRock on February 24, 2012 at 3:07 AM

But you have to remember that it could have ended quickly and well but for the democrats and the media. The ‘unity’ lasted all of ten seconds.
Alas, public education has destroyed many Americans’ ability to reason and use logic.

Lanceman on February 24, 2012 at 2:04 AM

And here again is another way in which Ron Paul is correct while Rush Limbaugh is wrong. If Bush had mustered the nation to war and persuaded America to support the effort and called for a declaration of war so that Congress was committed to the effort as well, then it would have been much more difficult for Democrats to behave as they did.

If instead of all the “religion of peace” nonsense Bush had explained to the American people who the enemy really is, what they’re all about and engaged in some straight talk instead of useless, misleading propaganda then things would have been very different. Instead of getting bogged down spending trillions of dollars rebuilding stink holes on the other side of the planet we might have actually defeated our enemies so that our troops could come home and let our enemies take care of their own rebuilding efforts, perhaps with our help—but if they attack us, screw them!

There are numerous ways that Rush Limbaugh is wrong and Ron Paul is right.

FloatingRock on February 24, 2012 at 3:21 AM

RedCrow on February 24, 2012 at 2:33 AM

Sorry about that, got distracted by some personal projects.

If you see this in the morning, looks like we’ll have to agree to disagree. I’d rather mark my vote for the guy who I think would do the best, regardless of the odds. But, then again, I’ve always been the type to cut off my nose to spite my face.

gyrmnix on February 24, 2012 at 3:49 AM

failed children = failed marriages

Jailbreak on February 24, 2012 at 12:45 AM

Jailbait=clueless.

Bmore on February 24, 2012 at 5:46 AM

Sorry Allah 370 comments. I really thought a Dr. Paul post would do better then that. I guess it really hurt. The Paul supporters must really not know what to say about this.

Bmore on February 24, 2012 at 5:54 AM

Oh well , Off to produce.

Bmore on February 24, 2012 at 5:54 AM

Considering Neutron Newt has pulled out of MI, why is he still running anti-Romney ads, but not anti-Sanctorum ads?

Protecting Sanctorums flank?

csdeven on February 24, 2012 at 6:45 AM

Senator Rand Paul first discussed his higher aspirations at the beginning of this year. He said he wouldn’t close the door on being a Vice Presidential candidate. After a speech in Louisville today, Paul held that door firmly open, saying he wants to be part of the national debate.

That’s just wonderful. Now we’re going to have another 30 years of Paulbots.

ddrintn on February 24, 2012 at 6:54 AM

That’s just wonderful. Now we’re going to have another 30 years of Paulbots.
ddrintn on February 24, 2012 at 6:54 AM

.
Time will have to tell, but I don’t believe Rand will be as much like his dad, as everyone thinks.

listens2glenn on February 24, 2012 at 7:01 AM

Wow, politicians who might actually work together for common goals. Say it ain’t so. Trasonous slime! Don’t they know it’s all about me and my hobbyhorses? They should be apologizing for their past and pandering much more to us because we’re so important to us. Everybody should just drop out now. ;-)

rhombus on February 24, 2012 at 7:02 AM

Considering Neutron Newt has pulled out of MI, why is he still running anti-Romney ads, but not anti-Sanctorum ads?
Protecting Sanctorums flank?
csdeven on February 24, 2012 at 6:45 AM

.
HEY . . . that ain’t no fair . . . . . .

listens2glenn on February 24, 2012 at 7:08 AM

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to 2012 and the full blown Global War on Disrespect for Islam. This is now Mission Number One for the U.S. Army and U.S. Marines. What a Lovely Bunch of Coconuts we have for generals. Actually none of them have any nuts at all.

VorDaj on February 24, 2012 at 7:09 AM

Time will have to tell, but I don’t believe Rand will be as much like his dad, as everyone thinks.

listens2glenn on February 24, 2012 at 7:01 AM

I’m not too concerned about a more libertarian influence in the GOP. Not a lot, but some more focus on fiscal restraint would be very welcome.

csdeven on February 24, 2012 at 7:13 AM

Time will have to tell, but I don’t believe Rand will be as much like his dad, as everyone thinks.

listens2glenn on February 24, 2012 at 7:01 AM

Oh, Rand will try to be as close an approximation as possible in order to hang on to his dad’s contingent of fanatical supporters. He’ll be running for president in 2016, mark it down, and we’ll have this crap for the next 20 years of a Paul with no real shot at the nomination getting in for the ego-stroking.

ddrintn on February 24, 2012 at 7:15 AM

Anyone see Gingrich attack Santorum or vice versa? How about Gingrich and Perry when he was still in the race. This is so “much to do about nothing”.

rubberneck on February 24, 2012 at 7:26 AM

Anyone seen Canopfor, I’m missing my buds news and witty banter?

angrymike on February 24, 2012 at 7:34 AM

listens2glenn on February 24, 2012 at 7:01 AM

I’m not too concerned about a more libertarian influence in the GOP. Not a lot, but some more focus on fiscal restraint would be very welcome.
csdeven on February 24, 2012 at 7:13 AM

.
Fiscal restraint? WE AGREE ! (I’ve got to enjoy this moment : ) . . . )

listens2glenn on February 24, 2012 at 7:38 AM

Listens2glenn, I’m a little worried now, I’ve hit some threads and don’t see Canopfor anywhere.

angrymike on February 24, 2012 at 7:39 AM

He’ll be running for president in 2016, mark it down, and we’ll have this crap for the next 20 years of a Paul with no real shot at the nomination getting in for the ego-stroking.
ddrintn on February 24, 2012 at 7:15 AM

.
NOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo . . . . . . .

listens2glenn on February 24, 2012 at 7:40 AM

Listens2glenn
PLEASE tell me you saw Canopfor yesterday.

angrymike on February 24, 2012 at 7:43 AM

angrymike on February 24, 2012 at 7:39 AM

.
I don’t know what to think, either.

Yesterday, I was in for short time periods, and out for long periods and really didn’t take note who was or wasn’t here.

listens2glenn on February 24, 2012 at 7:45 AM

Listens2glenn
PLEASE tell me you saw Canopfor yesterday.
angrymike on February 24, 2012 at 7:43 AM

I may have; I just can’t pull a confirmation one way or the other, from my ‘biological computer’.

listens2glenn on February 24, 2012 at 7:47 AM

Listens2glenn
I looked back and didn’t see him, he’s usually adding Breaking news in the early mornings.
I hope he is well!

angrymike on February 24, 2012 at 7:52 AM

Santorum can sit down with Glenn Beck and they can have a good cry together about how those mean meanies, Paul and Romney, are not adoring him. Santorum is Twelve Step Friendly, so Glenn can’t help but love him.

jan3 on February 24, 2012 at 8:03 AM

Listens2glenn
I looked back and didn’t see him, he’s usually adding Breaking news in the early mornings.
I hope he is well!
angrymike on February 24, 2012 at 7:52 AM

.
I think you just spoke for all of us.

listens2glenn on February 24, 2012 at 8:09 AM

Ronulans can only be trusted to cause chaos if they don’t get what they want. Which, by definition, is anarchy. So they’re essentially upper crust anarchists.

platypus on February 24, 2012 at 12:33 AM

No, anarchy means without archon. That is, without king, chief, ruler, etc. It does not mean chaos.

Dante on February 24, 2012 at 8:12 AM

Santorum can sit down with Glenn Beck and they can have a good cry together about how those mean meanies, Paul and Romney, are not adoring him. Santorum is Twelve Step Friendly, so Glenn can’t help but love him.
jan3 on February 24, 2012 at 8:03 AM

.
I watched that interview, last night. In fact, I recorded it (unfortunately the recording didn’t come out right, so I’ll try again today).

I didn’t see any crying or even whining.
Glenn asked the questions that SHOULD have been asked at every debate; it made Rick hesitate with some answers. Nothing milquetoast about it.

What do you remember of the interview?

listens2glenn on February 24, 2012 at 8:17 AM

Boo-hoo-hoo tough guy Santorum lashes out with his pathetic “best” shot, bigot that he is, trashing Romney for attacking Santorum by asserting a conspiracy against him from the likes of the Mormon-Rockefeller allied with the Goldwater-Republican. Ooooo, look out for satan!

In debates, Romney was sneering whenever Paul was allowed to speak.

Romney is Keynesian, and crony Federal Reserve capitalist to boot.

That Mitt can mimic is no surprise to any with perception. So the Romney team gathers how best to imitate (as if assimilating), a la “Promise them anything; just get their votes!” from their horse’s mouth. (Newt actually assimilates what he logically processes as he considers to be best ideas, willingly dialoguing in the process, which threatens lamebrains who must have data spoon fed as if “facts” from the onset.)

That Romney utilized Paul’s legitimate attacks against Santorum hardly makes Paul Romney’s “mate” or visa versa.

That Santorum can’t defend himself, but resorts to whining, proves his inability to fulfill the requirements of the POTUS, crumbling under duress in debate, then attempting to smear those who legitimately attacked his record.

That Romney’s team has this week been propagandizing their message linking Romney with Paul is merely another of Romney’s outreach efforts to gain more votes by spinning, broadcasting and selling whole cloth.

Anyone who believes that corporatist Mandate Romney aligns with smaller governance and greater Liberty for our nation of citizens is a sucker, begging for more federal abuses of power against humanity.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Meritocracy that insulates the elite denies upward mobility, selfish interests maintaining glass ceilings and all.

maverick muse on February 24, 2012 at 8:20 AM

So Paul is nice to the very man that has economically endangered our survival as a capitalist nation with his Oromneycare. Just this week, he vowed to punish the rich 1% (sounds just like Obama wrote his script)
This reduces the “independent true conservative” Paul to just another flip-flopping compromising politician -anything to get ahead -principle is for the useful idiots to belive in.

Don L on February 24, 2012 at 8:22 AM

Pakistan is a state sponsor or terrorism that created the Taliban in Afghanistan which aided and abetted Bin Laden on 9/11. After we invaded Afghanistan, which was Pakistan’s client/proxy state, Bin Laden moved to Pakistan and was provided safe harbor there, most likely with government assistance.

After 9/11 the top priority should have been to prevent/reduce the possibility of nuclear terrorism and nuclear blackmail. Now that Pakistan has a hundred nukes or so, if they attack America how are we going to retaliate without risking a nuclear war? If we attack Iran and Pakistan get’s involved what are we going to do?

The world is extremely unstable right now. It’s at times like these when world wars start. Iran is a client state of Russian and China, people had better take this sort of decision a lot more seriously than Rush Limbaugh who lost his credibility in Iraq.

FloatingRock on February 24, 2012 at 2:35 AM

I appreciate the response, but I don’t see how this addresses my post at all. You say you wanted to attack Iran and Pakistan after 9/11. You say that Iraq didn’t attack us and it was foolish to invade. This is inconsistent: Iran and Pakistan did not attack us on 9/11; invading and waging war on two countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 would have been equally foolish (and would still be foolish today). I don’t care if one or the other is a state sponsor of terrorism or who is a client of Russia/China.Tthat isn’t the point.

Dante on February 24, 2012 at 8:25 AM

platypus on February 24, 2012 at 12:33 AM

Spoken as an authoritarian dhimmi in self defense.

If you respect our founding fathers, you’d want to learn better of Liberty, what General Washington wrote, led and fought to create as “Our Great Cause.”

maverick muse on February 24, 2012 at 8:27 AM

maverick muse on February 24, 2012 at 8:20 AM

By multiple numerous posters, at multiple numerous TIMES over the last several months, it has been said that Ron Paul would be our candidate of choice, IF . . . he could adopt a REAL foreign policy instead of what he is endorsing in the way of a foreign policy, NOW.

listens2glenn on February 24, 2012 at 8:31 AM

adding Rand Paul to the ticket would fire conservatives up

New campaign slogan…”Get Randy with Mitt”. Hmmm… just might work!

lynncgb on February 24, 2012 at 8:37 AM

Don L on February 24, 2012 at 8:22 AM

You like to think so, at any rate.

Obviously you failed to listen/register what Paul stated when the previous debate moderator asked each candidate how their personal religious views would influence their official policy from the Oval Office.

Ron Paul stated that his spiritual convictions determine how he treats people with respect on a daily basis. But so far as governance goes, that he works from the basis of Constitutional Governance.

Through the flood of demagoguery inundating Ron Paul, particularly during a debate when Santorum blurted out calling him a liar, you might notice that Paul maintains his integrity while enunciating his point.

As regarding the points referencing Santorum’s “fake” conservatism, do take note of the record.

As regarding “conservatism”, you’ve failed to consider the distinctions between traditional American conservatism that once found representation for limited government from within the Republican Party, contrasted from corporatist neoconservatism which has everything to do with dissolving Constitutional Governance by imposing autocratic super-bureaucracies that preempt the Constitution via unconstitutional policies and mandates.

maverick muse on February 24, 2012 at 8:42 AM

I wonder why the article showing that Ron Paul is the only one who will reduce the federal deficit never made it to the front page while three posts made it to the front page involving debunked rumors that Ron Paul is shilling for Romney. You’d hope discussion of policy would trump discussion of petty rumor and gossip.

Louisvillian on February 24, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5