Republican Face-Off

Pages: 1 2

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, who announced his candidacy last week, is seemingly another candidate with limited appeal due to his devoutly socially conservative positions on issues like gay marriage and abortion. Yet since his announcement, a Gallup poll showed his support had tripled, putting him in a fifth-place tie with Pawlenty. Rick Santorum came across as personable and seemed most comfortable discussing questions regarding the separation of church and state and abortion, where he too was given a chance to challenge Romney on the latter’s accused flip from pro-choice to pro-life. Much like Pawlenty, he chose to elucidate his own “consistently” pro-life position on the issue instead. Santorum was also comfortable with respect to questions about America’s role in the Middle East, and whether or not we should shut down non-vital military bases, accusing the Obama administration of an “overall policy failure.”

Coming into the debate bruised from the sudden departure of his senior campaign staff, Newt Gingrich performed exactly as expected, and was perhaps the most effective candidate in terms of respecting the time limits for answering questions and offering rebuttals. His strongest moments of the night occurred when he spoke about immigration and the “false choices” we’ve been presented between rounding up 20 million illegals or granting them amnesty, and when he spoke about the need for implementing a “totally new strategy” for dealing with international terror. In response to one of the only testy exchanges of the night, Gingrich defended Herman Cain, who was asked about singling out Muslims for a “loyalty test” before they could work in his administration, a charge Cain said did not accurately reflect his actual statement. Gingrich reminded Americans that there were Muslims determined to destroy this country, and that anyone who couldn’t express unquestioning loyalty to the nation shouldn’t be working for the government.

Michele Bachmann made every effort to be a factor, and to some extent she was successful, if somewhat forced. She used the debate as an opportunity to formally announce her candidacy, and drew applause when she loudly proclaimed that Obama would be “a one-term president.” Her strongest moment of the night came when, despite her opposition to gay marriage, she promised that, as president, she wouldn’t interfere with any state that chose to approve a law legalizing it. Like Santorum, she expressed a strong pro-life position, saying that the “miniscule” numbers of abortions necessitated by such things as a threat to the mother’s life distracted from the overall pro-life argument.

Other than defending himself with regard to the Muslim loyalty question, Herman Cain didn’t say anything one way or the other that would raise or lower his overall standing among the candidates. He took a businessman’s approach to most of the economic questions, and seemed strongest when he made it clear that he supported right to work laws, like the one currently being debated in New Hampshire, as well as his belief that Social Security should be privatized as it has been in Chile.

Ron Paul was Ron Paul: somewhat terse, feisty, and not afraid to score points whenever the subject of limited government and America’s foreign policy came up. His best moments of the night came when he drew applause for saying that government should do virtually nothing to “assist” private enterprise, and when he reminded the crowd that the Obama administration’s weak dollar policy is driving capital and jobs out of the country. He also insisted that we get completely out of the Middle East as soon as possible, reinforcing his radical isolationist views.

With respect to general Republican talking points of debt control and lowering taxes, there was nothing that distinguished one candidate from another. On a host of other issues, including gays in the military, there were mild disagreements, with Cain and Paul having no problem with the new rules, while the other five candidates would defer to military experts. With respect to gay marriage, Cain and Bachmann would defer to the states, Paul would get the government out of the marriage business altogether, and the other four candidates supported the federal Defense of Marriage Act currently on the books. All of the candidates were impressed with the quality of the debate, and the quality of the manner in which it was conducted, with Pawlenty, Romney and Gingrich giving kudos to the people of New Hampshire for their efforts.

So who won the debate? If one assumes winning reflects itself in a surge of support for one candidate or another that wasn’t there prior to the evening’s contest, the question would be very difficult to answer. If it’s about who’s the leading contender for the GOP nomination, no one did anything to wrest that mantle from Mitt Romney.

On the other hand, on a night where there was no clear-cut winner in the debate, Mr. Pawlenty appeared to be the one candidate who stuck out on the other end of the spectrum. Of all the candidates, he seems least equipped for what is likely to be a bruising battle for any GOP candidate taking on both the president and a largely sycophantic mainstream media.

Perhaps Herman Cain offered the most insight into what last night was all about. He said that all of the Republicans at the debate were good candidates, and it will take time for people to get to know them better. For a race that has been criticized as slow-starting with reluctant candidates, and, indeed, with lesser-known candidates still waiting in the wings, it may have been the most insightful thing anyone said all night.

Arnold Ahlert is a contributing columnist to the conservative website JewishWorldReview.com.

 

Pages: 1 2

  • http://aol.com kathin9

    What an impressive lot of BOOBS. If the republicans can't do better than trying to RAM ROMNEY down our throats then the numbers will be what they are, Obama for another hellish, nightmare 4 years. If and only if we get a candidate with backbone, and we get a REAL CONSERVATIVE, not one that appoints RINO BOY Eddy Rollins as her campaign manager, will there be some light at the end of the tunnel.

    • Reason_For_Life

      The presidency is a waste of time. Romney is the choice of the big government Republicans and despite the worst economy in my lifetime, despite being the most incompetent president in history, Obama's poll numbers show him consistently defeating every single Republican.

      The place to put the effort is in Congress. Control of those is possible and with veto override power Obama becomes a White House decoration, not the most powerful man in the world.

  • http://www.m912tpc.com cytnhia

    Mitt is a Globalist and supported UnAgenda 21 policies in Mass. Look up ICLEI in Mass!! Newt was asked if he supported these issues by the Tea party and he does is not. Ron Paul told the truth about the Fed and where was the questions on that. UAgenda 21 is the GRINDING DOWN OF AMERICA. It is behind the green agenda .Florida had it's first UnAgenda 21 250 leaders sold out. Wake up and bring this into the light. Mitt,Tim,and Huntsman are all supported by the Bush establement.

    • Fred Dawes

      All of the monkeys are nothing but Globalists and love to hate the FORMER USA.

  • Chezwick_mac

    I'm looking at the field…and I keep thinking: Michele Bachman.

    • Asher

      I think Michele Bachman is very capable and shows alot of knowledge and strength. I would like to Add Rick Perry to the list of candidates.

  • Cuban Refugee

    Paul Ryan and Allen West …

    • AzDebi

      How can we get Allen West to run? How? Oh, that's right…he might WIN! How stupid of me…what was I thinking? I KNOW how it works…8 years Repubs then 8 years Demorats…I forgot…sorry…

      • Cuban Refugee

        You are absolutely correct, AzDebi — for a second, I forgot about the intricate details of world governance from behind the curtain, and thought the Repubs might actually run some decent, intelligent candidates who also love their country, and are not beholden to the specters in the shadows; however, Jimmy Carter, the worst President in U.S. history until the current one, made us suffer through only four miserable years before the advent of Reagan. Perhaps the same paradigm will be operative as we slide into 2012 … PRAY.

  • Norma

    Where was Gary Johnson?

    • Reason_For_Life

      Johnson will not be allowed in any more debates if it's possible to keep him out without a riot.

      For years, pseudo-intellectuals like Krauthammer have argued that "libertarianism" as a philosophy is a good critique of government but as a philosophy it cannot govern. (That's almost an exact quote of what he said last night on Fox). Gary Johnson governed New Mexico very successfully using that philosophy. He didn't just talk the talk, he walked the walk. He is also the only candidate that still has a positive poll rating in his own state. He's at +12. No other candidate got higher than -8.

      With Ron Paul they can argue that no member of the House has been elected to the Presidency since … But that doesn't fly with a successful state governor like Johnson. Therefore, he has to be ignored.

      Besides, two candidates talking about abolishing the Federal Reserve and slashing entitlements? The Republican party would rather implode than let that happen, and they will. Romney will be the candidate and will lose in the smallest turn out in 50 years.

  • Amused

    After viewing the debate ? God help us all , especially the Republican Party .

    • Fred Dawes

      This is a total mass, we maybe doomed as a real nation and its going to come home to all of us real soon.

  • Amused

    A great Obamacare /Obama bashing party …..as far as substance, solutions ,alternatives ? There were NONE .30% of Bankruptcies in this country are caused by medical costs . And that under the present situation , not Obamacare . So what is the solution ? I didn't hear anything .

    • Jim_C

      Kinda my point, too–they can't run on a negative. (The Democrats know this from experience).

      So then what? More talk of tax cuts? Spending cuts that they won't have the political courage to name? Slightly different versions of what Obama's already doing?

      • aharris

        Not saying it's the only thing they should do, but why can't they run on a negative? Isn't that pretty much exactly what put the current clueless wonder in the White House? He was Hope, Change, and Not Bush. That was it.

        • Jim_C

          I guess there was some "Bush fatigue," but it was pretty clear that Obama's campaign represented something fresh, something positive, and it got a lot of people excited. Conservatives emphasize the "hope and change" thing more than Obama ever did, but those are positives, at least. As a campaigner, he is the only political thoroughbred the Democrats have seen since Bill Clinton. The rest have been hacks with the same old rhetoric, much like this group of GOP'ers.

          Obama's not so fresh and exciting anymore, but he's still a very saavy campaigner with bona fide presidential experience under his belt. If conservatives get someone they can get excited about, it could have the desired effect of influencing the "independent" votes needed to win elections. I just don't see it with this group.

          I think the fresh conservative voices are waiting this one out, knowing their chances are much better in 2016.

    • vladdy

      The generally accepted idea among the candidates was that the federal govenment has no consitutional responsibility in that area. The conservative position usually comes down to the 10th amendment and the unconsitutionality of most federal regulation.

  • Steve Chavez

    Where is the MINORITY representation? What the Republicans need to do is go after the Conservative Hispanics and Blacks! The Congressional Black Caucus is far-left as they gloated about Fidel Castro. The Hispanic Roundtable is the same type of Che and Fidel lovers too!

    I propose to them, "THE CONSERVATIVE MINORITIES FORUM," which I thought of this morning. Have a Forum of all minorities and to focus on our Conservative family values that don't excuse or legitimize actions like Wiener, Rangel, Waters, Jefferson, and the Kennedy's! As Chris Matthews said, the Christians are backwards and outdated, and can't forgive Wiener. Obama too criticized Christians and guns. I can only visualize the amazing music and passionate singing about Jesus in Black churches and they will defend Jesus against his enemies like Matthews and the Left who courts the believers only for votes and money!

    Alan West and my Governor Susana Martinez who is New Mexico's first Hispanic female Governor, and others like them, LIKE ME, should be on stage encouraging Americans to follow their Conservative roots and to switch Parties.

    Below are two of my "25 Reasons-Time TO a Change!" I should be at the next CPAC when they have a whole day committed to Minorities. When I announce these 25, the crowd will say "Time TO a Change" together! Come on people, get excited, be passionate, and most importantly, take off the gloves and stop being nerds!

    5. If your vote is taken for granted because of your race and/or gender, then it’s TIME TO A CHANGE!

    14. If you feel your race is continuously, and purposefully, kept in a perpetual cycle of poverty and government dependability, as they are addicting you to themselves, therefore requiring you to vote for them in order to get your fix, then it’s TIME TO A CHANGE!

    • Neils60

      Don't worry about what Chris Matthews says about anything, as no one is either watching or listening to him.

    • Fred Dawes

      hispanic and blacks? you mean mexico city? and blacks just don't vote and hispanic always vote mexico city ways.

    • mlcblog

      It's about ideas, not skin color.

    • vladdy

      From my observation, conservatives believe in individuality rather than identity politics, although, of course, RINO's are a different matter. The consiitution covers all of us and going beyond the constitution is not popular among conservative voters this year.

    • Steve Chavez

      Los Angeles Times June 15, 2011

      Democrats losing favor with some Latinos
      The victory of three Republican Latinos in last year's election is a warning sign for Democrats. Political activists and campaign strategists say Democrats need to do more to bolster their Latino candidates.

      Republican Susana Martinez of New Mexico became the country's first… (William Faulkner, Associated Press)
      June 11, 2011|By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times
      Early this year, Brian Sandoval and Susana Martinez made history. He became Nevada's first Latino governor. In New Mexico, she became the country's first Latina governor.

      Just as striking as their breakthrough is their party affiliation: Both are Republicans.

      For many in the GOP, the twin victories last November, along with the election of Sen. Marco Rubio in Florida, marked an important step in efforts to mend the party's frayed ties with Latino voters, which have suffered over the last several years of hard-line talk on immigration

  • Fred Dawes

    Just wait the boys will pick one. The Bankers want deal and if one of the Republicans can make a great deal obama is out but if obama can make a deal that looks best deal obama is back inside the white house, its all about money not ideals. but understand this is just one more show of shows.

  • Iron Yank

    Romney is a milk toast moderate who believes in global warming & has exibited poor judgment on healthcare. I just cant support him, only if its against Obama. Newt has already stuck a fork in his own campaign with mind numbing stupidity of some of his comments & actions. Rube Paul is a nutcase who has no business being there. Herman Cain doesnt have a chance although I like some of his ideas. Tpaw is to mild mannered and not aggressive enough.

    For me it comes down to Bachmann, Santorum or Perry if he gets in and I hope he does.

    • Amused

      Funny , the guy that displays any kind of primitive intelligence , get the boot Huh iron yank ? Mass. aint whining about their healthcare plan , and only an IDIOT would deny Global Warming . So Romney gets the Tea-party BOOT .

      • Iron Yank

        Only a complete Liberal drone would believe in global warming or (because its not warming anymore) climate change as they now conveiniently call it. So tell me then drone. What caused the glaciers to melt anyway? Must have been cow methane or something huh? Better get out there and help your EPA buddies cap the asses of the cows so we dont get that again huh drone? This is no joke your Liberal buddies in goverment are actually considering this.

        • Amused

          You had better get an education , and get in touch with reality .All you're doing is spewing recited republican party drivel . Aint it funny that the US military and virtually all of US intelligence agencies are framing their stategies on the geo-political effects of climate change . Not to mkention the DOD goal to reduce carbon energy requirements by 26% by 2020 . Yea you must be the genius huh chump ?

          • Iron Yank

            Republican party drival? No I can think and reason for myself unlike the drones who all make the same argument that somehow manmade emissions of carbon dioxide (you know the stuff we breath out) is pollution.

            The facts are:

            1. not all scientists are in agreement with this by any means nor are they always right about everything as proven in 1492. (todays Liberals are the flatearthers of 1491)
            2.East Anglia E-mails from global warming so called scientist Frauds were hacked & exposed all the lies and BS that has been given to the public on this subject over the years.
            3. The earth has periodically warmed & cooled over the milennia probably caused by celestial events, if you studied history you would probably know this. Example: Southern Greenland was a warmer place during the middle ages when the Vikings once lived there. What caused this warming genius?
            4. The earth temperature has not warmed since the ninetys. Since then it has actually been cooling slightly, explain this Einstein?

          • Iron Yank

            There are many more examples I could give you but since you refuse to pull your head out of the sand no matter how much evidence & logic to the contrary, I wont waste my time, you just keep following that marxist pied pieper & his crowd right off the cliff. You are just another in many mindless fools that have been sucked in by this scam.

    • vladdy

      Yep, those three are consistent in their policy, but I would add Cain, rather than separating anyone out as unelectable. (The media does have the nasty habit of downplaying candidates that are not approved by the Old Boys' Club). Also, there may be others joining the race, with some of these dropping out. I like your choices, tho',' as I bet most constitutonalists do.

      • Jim_C

        I think the problem with joining the race at this point is one of resources. Granted if a really exciting figure decides to join in, that can go a long way toward making a difference. But you've got some serious, established war chests to contend with. Many are surprised to find out what a grim slog a campaign is (remember Giuliani, Thompson, Newt last time?) This GOP field is playing nice, now; but when it comes time to make that breakaway move, the claws will come out.

  • Amused

    Hey look at it like this , atleast we got ONE straight answer from Bachman ……..PEPSI !….or was it Coke ?

    • vladdy

      I hope you are getting paid well per item; I would hate to think that no good at all was coming from your efforts. The remarks on Libya were right-on, and those who underestimate Bachmann do so at their own risk. She has the record and the experience, both in congress and as a tax attorney.

  • Eastjet

    One thing was clear the neocon foriegn policy is at its end

    • vladdy

      No more "nation-building" for the muslims. The more we find out about the Brotherhood and the history and goals of those behind the ME riots, the more infuriating it is that American lives were/are given for such a cause. Would have been nice to get in and out after 9-11, rather than worrying about "hearts and minds." Then, with all that pandering to the "anti-war" crowd, they turned out only to be anti-war with a Republican in office anyway.

  • mlcblog

    I am waiting to see when Palin will throw her hat in the ring!!

  • Amused

    It's got no where to go but down from here .Too bad it took 11 years too many American lives , and trillions to figure that out

  • vladdy

    Who said that — when and where? Do you have an entire quote?

    • Amused

      Pssst ! vladdy ….turn on your tv , turn on your radio , and read your newspaper .

  • vladdy

    Complete agreement with you there. Problem is, the Western world has lost the will to defend itself. Only time will tell if circumstances become so dire that thet will is reborn.

    • Fred Dawes

      the governments not the people have lost will, and if things go south well maybe the people need to remove the real enemy.

      • Amused

        That;s gonna be kinda hard to do Dawes , since there are about 525 of 'em sitting right there in D.C.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    A real person with a real backbone not looking to play the crowd and not
    affraid of the MSM or for that matter not affraid of anyting, that is who I am
    looking for. Is there a real person left in America that will take a hard job
    and is not a film star wanna be or megalomaniac or Communist,
    Socialist, leftist phony. How about a President that what you see is what
    you get and who could care less about popularity ratings but is interested
    in only one thing, America, it's health and the welfare of all of it's people. We
    need to find this type of person, all others are useless…………..William

  • Sandy

    Ron Paul won the debate hands down. Why are you afraid to say it? Does agreeing with his "extreme isolationist views" mean that all those young men died in vain? Isn't it the same in Viet Nam? I think the American people want our country out of these middle eastern wars. They are more of a threat to us with us there. Why should we police the whole world? Is it so we can be on top when the global one world government comes? The US constitution, magnigficent document that it is, is the only thing that stands between us and tyranny. Ron Paul is the only candidate that seems to understand or care about the original, objective intent of the founders.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      Ron Paul is a very self-hating anarcho-kook who vilifies and demonizes America as being an imperialist bully and a serial interventionist harasser, which by coincidence happens to be the same line that anti-American Marxists have used for decades to vilify and demonize America.

      Furthermore, the isolationist anarcho-kook foreign policy he espouses and incessantly proposes would soon result in a world dominated by totalitarianism, since if the USA did as Paul proposes, the giant vacuum we left behind would quickly be filled by totalitarians, and it would only be a matter of a short time before there wouldn’t be anymore freedom left in the world and America would cease being America.

      Indeed, Paul is so self-hating that he has made the outlandish statement that Islam has become radical and Muslims extremist exactly because of America’s foreign policy. Nevertheless, I hate to rain on Paul’s mentally incompetent parade, but Muslims hate us and all unbelievers not because of what we do or do not do, but instead because all Muslims are obligated, per the texts and tenets of Islam, to maintain nothing but enmity in their hearts for unbelievers. Hence, the constant incitement to hatred and violence that takes place throughout the Islamic world incessantly is not a product of America’s foreign policy as that self-hating loser misconstrues and insists, but instead a direct manifestation of Islam itself.

      Why should we police the whole world?

      Of course, we are not the world’s police force and our military should never be abused in such a manner, which is exactly what happens every time the left and the neo-cons have power. Nevertheless, our military should be employed in such a manner as to protect and defend the freedom of the world. Indeed, it is only America and our military might that stands in the way of the totalitarians from taking over the world, which is why leftists and their many acolytes are working together very hard to tear down our military-industrial complex.

    • Eastjet

      right on

  • Jim_C

    Sandy, I'll say this about Ron Paul: of every person up there piously intoning about the Constitution, he's the only one with a shred of credibility on the subject. And the reason he's marginalized is because of all the candidates up there, he's the only one who actually practices real conservativism–not just the b.s. that gets applause lines. This embarrasses the flashes-in-the-pan and outright statists sharing the stage with him. He is, effectively, a third party candidate. Third paty candidates never win, because they're too busy telling the truth.

    I would encourage anyone to go to YouTube and look up old footage of Nader, Buchanan, and expecially Ross Perot. Now we know these men hold widely differing viewpoints–but each of them would have every right to say to us: "I told you so." Because they did.

    • Reason_For_Life

      In 2008 all of the candidates were trying not to sound like Ron Paul whom they portrayed as the crazy uncle of the Republican party. The Federal Reserve? National debt? Over Regulation? Undeclared wars? The Republican chorus was unanimous in seeing no problems with any of these things. Well, almost unanimous. Everyone except Ron Paul.

      Then Monday night we heard even Gingrich say that Ron Paul was right about the Federal Reserve. Suddenly everyone worried about the national debt, Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank as well as the bombing in Libya and Yemen.

      Ron Paul will not win the nomination, but he has already won the argument. We owe him a debt that will not even be recognized much less paid.

      Who will the Republicans choose to run? Whomever convinces people that they "have seen the light" and will cut the size of government. The problem is that every one up there will jump back into the darkness when asked to actually implement cuts and de-regulation.

      No one can take a technocrat like Gingrich seriously when he says he'll cut government. Romney never made any aspect of government smaller. Pawlenty didn't even have the guts to stand by his criticism of "ObamneyCare". Cain avoided specifics like they were typhoid carriers. Santorum supported big government solutions when the Republicans were pushing them like Medicare part D.

      They will all try to sound like Ron Paul but they would govern like George W Bush.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        whom they portrayed as the crazy uncle of the Republican party.

        Uhm…more like the crazy uncle of self-hating Marxists, as Paul’s unhinged criticisms of America’s foreign policy as America being an imperialist bully and serial interventionist mirrors exactly the same Marxist agitprop that has been used for decades to vilify and demonize America as evil incarnate.

        Then Monday night we heard even Gingrich say that Ron Paul was right about the Federal Reserve. Suddenly everyone worried about the national debt, Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank as well as the bombing in Libya and Yemen.

        You are almost as delusional as Paul. When it came to economic and fiscal issues, no conservative Republicans ever disagreed with Paul. However, when it came to claiming that America is an imperialist bully and a serial interventionist that brought 9/11 upon itself, all of them vehemently disagreed with Paul’s sentiments exactly because they aren’t unhinged self-hating delusional kooks like Paul.

        In addition, the new found reluctance of many conservatives with respect to the war today is not because conservatives all of a sudden are becoming as self-hating, delusional, and unhinged as that kook Ron Paul, but instead is a direct result of many conservatives finally beginning to realize that many of the false premises and ludicrous assumptions that were sold to the America people prior to the war like, for instance, that Islam is a Religion of Peace™, are really fantasy based politically correct myths, which means that the things we are trying to achieve in Afghanistan and Iraq are absolutely impossible to achieve.

        In fact, last night in response to Michelle Bachman’s response regarding our stupid involvement in Libya, Newt said it is very atrocious that still after 10 years of war we still don’t have the first clue about the nature of the enemy we are facing, and the reality is we never should ever commit ourselves to war unless and until we understand our enemies as well as we understand ourselves, as that is the first rule of war.

        Ron Paul will not win the nomination, but he has already won the argument. We owe him a debt that will not even be recognized much less paid.

        Dude, I don’t know what delusional world you live in, but it definitely isn’t the same one I reside in.

        Who will the Republicans choose to run? Whomever convinces people that they "have seen the light" and will cut the size of government. The problem is that every one up there will jump back into the darkness when asked to actually implement cuts and de-regulation.

        Not only are you exceedingly delusional but apparently you are oblivious to the fact that Paul is also a statist as well, as he repeatedly stated last night in stark contrast to the other Republican candidates that America’s military-industrial complex should be torn down in order to fund America’s insolvent entitlement programs. Hence, while real conservatives last night were proposing reforming America’s insolvent entitlement programs, like the statist he really is, Paul at the same time was arguing that we should tear down America’s vaunted military-industrial complex to fund and pay for America’s entitlement programs. Hence, if anyone of the Republican candidates is a statist, it is clear that Paul is the biggest statist of the bunch!

        No one can take a technocrat like Gingrich seriously when he says he'll cut government. Romney never made any aspect of government smaller. Pawlenty didn't even have the guts to stand by his criticism of "ObamneyCare". Cain avoided specifics like they were typhoid carriers. Santorum supported big government solutions when the Republicans were pushing them like Medicare part D.

        Dude, you shouldn’t drink, smoke crack, watch debates, and then post all at the same time. Next time try laying off the sauce.

        • Reason_For_Life

          You are as stupid as your name.

          Gingrich described himself as a futurist technocrat prior to his becoming Speaker of the House. Read his first book (or more likely have it read to you) and you'll see how he praised FDR and ignored Reagan. I guess he's delusional about his own views too. Ask his buddy Alvin Toffler. Gingrich believes in an "energy policy" which for him means fighting another imaginary enemy – CO2.

          Cain's website has no particulars except the Fair Tax which neither he nor anyone else will ever sell to Americans. What a courageous call for "common sense solutions". Any of his opponents find "common sense" to be a bad idea? Cain served on a Federal Reserve Bank's board. You really think he really wants to audit the fed?

          Santorum voted for Medicare D and No Child Left Behind. He went down in Pennsylvania because he argued that "Intelligent Design" should be part of the grade school curriculum. He'll impale himself on gay marriage.

          Pawlenty self destructed by showing he hasn't even got the guts to argue with Romney. If he's scared excrement-less by Romney what do you expect him to do to Obama? Probably kiss his ring and offer Obama a night with his daughter. I can't wait to see Pawlenty argue with the Pawlenty of 5 years ago who favored Cap and Trade.

          The facts are what they are and calling me delusional just proves you have no case.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            You are as stupid as your name.

            Yeah right you calling me stupid, when you are the one who supports that self-hating American bashing kook Ron Paul, and with respect to all your other nonsense, it is clear that you aren’t even a conservative. Meanwhile, while all the other candidates argued last night for the reform of our insolvent entitlement programs, that self-hating kook and your idol Ron Paul was the only one arguing to tear down the military-industrial complex to fund and make those insolvent entitlement programs solvent. Hence, go fly a kite you mentally handicapped loser.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      This embarrasses the flashes-in-the-pan and outright statists sharing the stage with him.

      BS! Give me a break, Paul is not only a statist, but he is also a hypocrite as well, as he repeatedly stated last night during the debate that America’s military-industrial complex should be deconstructed exactly to fund and pay for America’s insolvent entitlements programs such as Medicare and Social Security. Hence, not only is Paul an unhinged self-hating anarcho kook, but he is also a statist and hypocrite at the same time.

  • Sandy

    You are right about one thing. Ron Paul won't be president. But to say he's like McGovern is ludicrous. McGovern was a socialist. Anyway, I'm gonna vote for Paul because I'm not just going to cast my vote for the one I think will win, but for the one I think is most right.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      You are right Paul is not a Socialist, but when it comes to foreign policy he is every bit as self-hating and unhinged as Socialist are today.

      • Jim_C

        You're grandiose and delusional. The best thing that could ever happen in your lifetime would be the rise of an all-powerful Islamic caliphate, because it would validate your delusions.

        It will never happen, of course. But the fact that it will never happen won't matter a whit, because you'll be checking under your bed for the next boogeyman du jour and claiming to be one of the only people who could see it coming.

        • ObamaYoMoma

          You're grandiose and delusional. The best thing that could ever happen in your lifetime would be the rise of an all-powerful Islamic caliphate, because it would validate your delusions.

          Not really…I’m just not as ignorant of history and oblivious of Islam as you and your self-hating kook idol Ron Paul both are.

          It will never happen, of course. But the fact that it will never happen won't matter a whit, because you'll be checking under your bed for the next boogeyman du jour and claiming to be one of the only people who could see it coming.

          It will happen, if self-hating delusional kooks like you and that moron Ron Paul ever get their way.

          • Jim_C

            I HAVE gotten my way, and I will continue to get my way, and it still won't happen.

  • Jim_C

    It's true Ron Paul has no chance of winning, but he is the most intellectually influential candidate up there by far (What? are we still pretending Newt has something to offer?) So his ideas will make their impact.

    If you want to talk waste of time and space: Santorum. He's a guy with nothing to say going exactly nowhere.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      Ron Paul is so intellectual that like the unhinged self-hating loon he is, he is totally oblivious of Islam and thus blames America’s foreign policy for what are the natural manifestations of Islam. For instance, Paul agrees with Reverend Wright’s sentiments that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were America’s chickens coming home to roost. Nevertheless, irrespective of what Paul naively believes and stupidly assumes, Islam is not just a religion like any other religion, but instead a supremacist theo-political totalitarian ideology that seeks to subjugate the world into a very draconian form of totalitarianism via the imposition of Sharia, and that is the real reason we were attacked on 9/11/. Thus, if the USA did as Paul insanely proposes, the gigantic vacuum we left behind would quickly be filled by the totalitarians and it would only be a very short time before there would be no more freedom left in the world and America would cease being America.

      The truth is Paul doesn’t have an intellectual bone in his very mentally deficient body!

      • Jim_C

        There is not a single scholar, expert, diplomat, businessman–no serious person who knows what they are talking about who would say that Western interest in Middle Eastern oil did not play some part in the forming of virulent Islamism we see today. Not one.

        Does that make it the root cause? Does that make it the only cause? Does that make it the sine qua non? No…and not even a creep like Chomsky would say so. Only a fool would.

        So why be the flipside of that fool, and be a fool to think US policy had NOTHING to do with it?

        • ObamaYoMoma

          There is not a single scholar, expert, diplomat, businessman–no serious person who knows what they are talking about who would say that Western interest in Middle Eastern oil did not play some part in the forming of virulent Islamism we see today. Not one.

          Dude I have news for you, Islam has been virulent ever since the days that Muhammad was rampaging, pillaging, slaughtering, raping, and enslaving all unbelievers in the Arabian Peninsular almost 1400 years ago. Indeed, only a short 100 years after Muhammad’s death, most of the known world from Portugal to the Indian Subcontinent had already been conquered and subjugated by Islam into a very harsh and degrading system of dhimmitude. Your problem is like Ron Paul, you are totally oblivious with respect to Islam, which also further explains why like an unhinged loon you are also very supportive of Islam’s jihad being waged perpetually against the Jewish unbelievers in Israel, because you are so oblivious of Islam that you aren’t astute enough to figure out the obvious, which is the same jihad that targets Israel also targets you and me and all unbelievers around world. In other words, like that unhinged kook Ron Paul, you are also little more than a useful idiot.

          Hence, when you make the absurd statement you made above, it couldn’t be anymore obvious that you are as unhinged, delusional, and self-hating as that kook Ron Paul, Reverend Wright, Code Pink, and all the other self-hating delusional leftists and anarchists around the world addicted to always blaming America first in response to what are normal and very predictable manifestations of Islam.

          Does that make it the root cause? Does that make it the only cause? Does that make it the sine qua non? No…and not even a creep like Chomsky would say so. Only a fool would.

          So why be the flipside of that fool, and be a fool to think US policy had NOTHING to do with it?

          Why did Islam attack and destroy all those civilizations that it literally destroyed and tried to utterly erase from history? Is it because they were trying to exploit their oil too? Why were the Muslims terrorizing the world from the Mediterranean Sea off the Barbary Coast and all the way up to Iceland from the Dark Ages until the end of the 19th century? Is it because the West was trying to exploit their oil? Why did Islam repeatedly try to conquer the West? Is it because they too were trying to exploit their oil? Why did Islamic civilization kill over 270 million people? Is it because they were trying to exploit their oil too? Why did Islam run the slave trade until the West forced it to stop in the 60’s? Is it because those slaves were trying to exploit Islam’s oil too? Yeah right, you are as delusional, unhinged, and mentally incompetent as that self-hating kook Ron Paul!

  • Steve Chavez

    Please read my original comment and the replies then this post!

    Los Angeles Times June 15, 2011

    Democrats losing favor with some Latinos
    The victory of three Republican Latinos in last year's election is a warning sign for Democrats. Political activists and campaign strategists say Democrats need to do more to bolster their Latino candidates.

    Republican Susana Martinez of New Mexico became the country's first… (William Faulkner, Associated Press)
    June 11, 2011|By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times
    Early this year, Brian Sandoval and Susana Martinez made history. He became Nevada's first Latino governor. In New Mexico, she became the country's first Latina governor.

    Just as striking as their breakthrough is their party affiliation: Both are Republicans.

    For many in the GOP, the twin victories last November, along with the election of Sen. Marco Rubio in Florida, marked an important step in efforts to mend the party's frayed ties with Latino voters, which have suffered over the last several years of hard-line talk on immigration

  • USMCSniper

    I really was impressed with Ms Bachman's savvy, but I think that Mitt Romney will get the nomination even if Governer Perry of Texas decides to run. A good ticket would be Romney-Bachmann as P-VP candidates.

  • Jim_C

    I know. But I'll tell you what. I saw Buchanan and Nader interviewed together in 2000 and it was the first time I thought, wow, ol' Pat has some interesting things to say. The two of them together made more sense in one interview than anyone who has actually won any elections since.

    I also know Ron Paul gets "out there" but if you are talking real, consistent conservativism and not just the pop stuff–he's it. No, he's not a serious candidate.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Paul is so delusional that he wouldn’t recognize the truth even if it stared in him in the face and spit in his eyes.

  • norma

    Where was Gary Johnson?

    • STeve Chavez

      "Climbing to the top of the World's Highest Mountain is a breeze compared to climbing to the top of the World's Highest Hill!" Steve Chavez

      Gary Johnson climbed Mount Everest. Bachman didn't even declare she was a candidate till she was on stage. Johnson was one of the first. He was the former Governor of my state, New Mexico, and left it with a budget surplus which Bill Richardson quickly erased and now we're at least $600,000,000 in the hole and going deeper every day due to his Rail Runner train between Albuquerque and Santa Fe that is a Blackhole that sucks money in to never be seen again. Johnson said on our local radio that it actually costs $75 for a one-way trip instead of the $6 it is now for a round-trip. It's a farce which is filled with Bill's cronies from top to bottom!

  • http://www.usposttoday.com/ Jerrell Denapoli

    Obamneycar­e is such a funny word.

  • http://twitter.com/#!/kladionica sportske

    Hey There. I found your weblog the use of msn. That is a very well written article. I will be sure to bookmark it and come back to read more of your helpful information. Thank you for the post. I will definitely return.