This is from the CNN website:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, winner of the Iowa caucuses, hoped to position himself well among evangelicals and other conservatives to turn around several consecutive losses since Iowa. Long-shot candidate Ron Paul, a representative from Texas, also participated in the debate. CNN

Is it fair to say that Ron Paul, of Mike Huckabee for that matter, actually participated in the debate? Almost all of the questions were directed to Romney and McCain while Huckabee and Paul sat on the sidelines waiting to be asked a question or invited to respond to a McCain or Romney answer.

It was obvious to me from the start that CNN was determined to form the debate around Romney and McCain and provide America with who they believe to be the top choices rather than allowing the viewers to see all the candidates to take a decision. At one point Huckabee informed the moderators that he was part of the process as well and the barrage of questions they promised turned out to be one. Ron Paul stated he wanted to elaborate on something he was not permitted to discuss earlier and Anderson Cooper cut him off and promised him that in a few minutes he [Paul] would get a chance. More than five minutes passed as Romney and McCain were asked question after question while Paul was ignored.

It is also fair to say that Huckabee and Paul (even more so Paul) were kept on short leashes and not given anywhere near the time the other two received to address issues and attack each other. When Huckabee answered he was more thoughtful and expressed cogent thoughts without attacking anyone and Paul actually seemed like the adult on the stage. At one point McCain and Romney spent nearly ten minutes arguing about who said what regarding timetables. When Paul finally got to speak he said that they should be addressing the issues rather than arguing about petty stuff like who said what and when:

I don’t even think they should have gone [to Iraq], so keeping them for 100 years, where’s the money going to come from? (APPLAUSE)

You know, the country is in bankruptcy. And when I listen to this argument, I mean, I find it rather silly, because they’re arguing technicalities of a policy they both agree with.

They agreed with going in; they agreed for staying, agreed for staying how many years? And these are technicalities. We should be debating foreign policy, whether we should have interventionism or non-interventionism, whether we should be defending this country or whether we should be the policemen of the world, whether we should be running our empire or not, and how are going to have guns and butter?

You know, the ’70s were horrible because we paid for the guns and butters of the ’60s. Now we’re doing the same thing. And nobody even seems to care. The dollar is crashing, and you’re talking about these technicalities about who said what when?

I mean, in 1952, we Republicans were elected to stop the war in Korea. In 1968, we were elected to stop the war in Vietnam. And, tragically, we didn’t stop it very fast: 30,000 more men died.

So when I talk about these long-term stays, I think, “How many men are you willing to let die for this, for something that has nothing to do with our national security?”

There were no Al Qaida there. It had nothing do with 9/11. And there was no threat to our national security. They never committed aggression. It’s unconstitutional. It’s an undeclared war.

And we have these silly arguments going on about who said what when. I think it’s time to debate foreign policy and why we don’t follow the Constitution and only go to war with a declaration of war. CNN

I have to agree with Paul on this one (with regard to the debate). These guys spent a lot of time arguing about who said what on an issue they both agree with. No matter what one says about Paul, he makes sense on some of the issues and he is right that the issues matter more than who said what and when especially when they both agree with the policy.

Huckabee and Paul were ignored through a large portion of this debate. It almost seems that they received as much attention on stage as they would have if they had been in the audience. Governor Schwarzenegger got more face time than they did and he was sitting in the crowd.

Ron Paul is still hanging around and has done better in the last few primaries than Rudy Giuliani. The Michigan primary was yesterday and it was won by Mitt Romney (no surprise and not because of Kos). Ron Paul placed ahead of Rudy and Fred Thompson, two candidates who do not get excluded from debates. It also appears that Paul has plenty of money coming in while Rudy’s folks are going without pay this month. Rudy’s plan is to wait until Florida and the others are now trying to compete in the South. Dr. Paul seems to be plodding along and about the time Super Tuesday comes he might be in the best shape.

Romney was one loss away from being out, Huckabee and Thompson need to do well in the South and McCain might not win another state. By the time they get to Florida it will be important to have plenty of money for ads because no candidate can afford to run ads in all the states on February 5th and it is physically impossible for them to be in all of them. Florida is the last big showdown before the stuff hits the fan and Paul might end up in the best position.

If Fred loses SC he is probably out or soon will be. Same with Huckabee and Romney cannot afford many more loses or he is through. Right now it seems to be a race of staying power to see which one can afford to keep going. If the ones who are left make it to Florida and have little money for the blitz, Ron Paul just might sneak in and win.

He is still a long shot and there are still folks who don’t get him but he is the one who believes in reducing spending, reducing our presence around the world and fixing our monetary system.

Ron Paul gives the impression of being the tortoise running against the hares in the Republican Party. When the race is over he might just be the one to end up across the finish line.

I just wish he did not look (and act) like a grumpy old man.

Related items:
LA Times

At least this is what the people who voted by text messaging said. Last night Fox News had a Republican debate that featured all contenders except Duncan Hunter. The debate was pretty feisty at points with candidates attacking each other. Fred Thompson finally showed a bit of spark and he was, in my opinion, the clear winner of the debate and the focus group also believed Fred had won. Mitt Romney had a good night, McCain was solid and Huckabee was strong on domestic issues but weak on Foreign policy as was Ron Paul.

Ron Paul had some supporters in the crowd and he, in my opinion, performed OK for most of the night. There were a few times though, where he looked like an angry, out of control old man. I don’t think the message is that far off but the messenger needs to find a better delivery. He ranted for 90 seconds about rushing to fight with Iran before being told that the others had praised the restraint shown by the military. I think it was a very subtle moment where Brit Hume was able to take him down a notch. It made Ron Paul seem out of touch or as if he was not paying attention. Paul said he could not hear the moderator but I was reminded of Admiral James Stockdale, Ross Perot’s running mate, when I saw that exchange.

At the end of the debate Fox had text messaging voting set up so that people could dial in to vote for the winner. The results that were posted about 45 minutes post debate were Ron Paul ahead with 35%, Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee tied at around 17 or 18%. I laughed when I saw those results because there is no way that Ron Paul won the debate and there is no way he is polling that high without the Ronulans voting over and over again.

The post debate text voting was exactly the same as the way Fox allows voting on American Idol which returns very soon. Perhaps Fox was tuning America back up so they could prepare to vote in that show. Whatever the case, Ron Paul was in the lead for one reason and one reason only, multiple text message votes by those who support Ron Paul and his revolution.

But believe me when I say, Ron Paul did not win the debate.

What was Fox thinking?

UPDATE: Several commenters have pointed out that one could only vote once. Another commenter pointed out that Paul supporters were more likely to be young and tech savvy. They are also the same people who will not show up on election day (not in the numbers that the less tech savvy will). Also, there were a number of posts in the Ronosphere telling everyone to be sure to vote. The fact that Ron Paul had more people willing to use a cell phone to vote does not mean he won the debate.

I have not decided on a candidate yet and since my state primary is after Super Tuesday it might not matter. I have tried to give everyone of them a fair shot at earning my vote. I have watched Ron Paul as I have the others and I like some of the things that he says. I agree with most of his domestic policy ideas and some of his foreign. I have a hard time taking his blame America for everything position. Yes, we as a country have done some things that are not nice. But we are not to blame for all the world’s woes. I would love to see us bring our troops home from Germany, Japan and South Korea and Iraq (but only after we win). I just have some trouble with his insistence that we caused the attack to happen and that our only interest is oil.

The thing that bothers me most about Ron Paul is that he never says HOW he is going to accomplish the things he espouses. He says that he will abolish the IRS. How will he do that when it will take Congress to pass the legislation? Paul says that he will go back to the gold standard. How will he do this without Congress enacting it? I like some of what Ron Paul says but he never tells me how he is going to get it done. Considering he has been in Congress for quite some time I assume he knows that Presidents do very little (regarding these kinds of issues) other than set an agenda and either sign or veto what Congress passes. Without Congress Ron Paul cannot do anything that he says he will. Paul cannot change things because of the very Constitution that he believes in following (and rightly so) and that means nothing will ever get done, regardless of who is president, without Congress.

This is not to say that the other candidates will accomplish what they say because they will face the same hurdles but at least they say how they intend to do things. McCain says he will work with members of both parties to hammer out bills they can agree upon. Thompson says he will put forth plans to work with Congress to get his things done. That is true for all the candidates except for Ron Paul. I like the guy and I like what he believes in but I want to know the HOW part.

As I stated, I have not selected any candidate and there might not be as many by the time I get a chance but I want to give them all a fair look. I want each to have a fair chance at convincing me why I should vote for them.

If some of his supporters, after reading this post, could comment and tell me how he will do these things I would be appreciative. I am not talking about the fringe folks who attack and go all nuts when someone writes anything perceived as negative about Paul. I mean the folks who support him and know his policies. If you know how he will do it or can steer me in the right direction then I would appreciate it.

Please don’t tell me why I should vote for him. Tell me what he is going to do and how he will do it. Convince me that he is the best person for the job.

As many people know, Ron Paul was excluded from the Fox News Forum and the ABC debate in New Hampshire. Those events are to take place this weekend and Paul was excluded from Fox who decided to only take candidates who had polled in double digits. ABC has criteria for inclusion. In order to be in the debate a candidate has to meet one of these:

• place first through fourth in Iowa
• poll 5 percent or higher in one of the last four major New Hampshire surveys
• poll 5 percent or higher in one of the last four major national surveys

As far as Fox is concerned, Paul does not have double digit support in New Hampshire so if that is their criteria he should be excluded. But, so should Fred Thompson who, in the latest Zogby Poll (1/4/08) polled lower than Paul. I can’t imagine Zogby is not one of the major surveys.

However, the ABC event should include Ron Paul because he polled at 7%. While Thompson polled at 2% he came in third in Iowa so he should still be included. When ABC and Fox announced their requirements they probably felt safe that Ron Paul would not be able to meet any of them. That is the case with Fox but Paul has exceeded one of ABC’s requirements and should be included.

I am willing to bet that ABC will not let Paul in the debate even though he has met their threshold. It is a shame, but they will exclude him even though he raised more money that Giuliani and placed 7% higher than him in Iowa. Of course, Giuliani has already been invited to the debate.

I am not in favor of excluding anyone. These people have decided to run for the presidency of the United States and all of them have some number of supporters. Additionally, the American people should hear everyone so they have all the information they need to take an informed decision.

I might not support Paul (I have not selected anyone as of yet) but I completely support his right to participate in the debates.

UPDATE: It appears as if Ron Paul will be part of the debate in New Hampshire. After posting this Drudge put up a story that did not make it clear as to whether he had been included or not. I checked the ABC site and he is listed as part of it. Duncan Hunter will not be invited. If he is still in he should be allowed to debate.

This is the message out of the Clinton camp today as Hillary suffered a stinging defeat in Iowa. The caucuses were held yesterday and on the Democratic side it was Obama, Edwards and then Clinton. The Republicans selected Huckabee, Romney and Thompson as their win, place and show horses. Interestingly, Ron Paul garnered 10% of the vote, more than Giuliani (3%).

Today has to be a bad day for both Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney. Both spent a fortune in Iowa and did not do as well as they had hoped or expected. Clinton, who was supposed to be the shoe in for the Democrats was smacked hard by an upstart Senator named Obama who handed her a 9 point loss. Clinton’s people have a few problems. When this all started she was inevitable and then people actually got to see her and meet her and she lost. First she had experience and when that was not working it was decided that Hillary needed a make over. Her campaign needed to get her out and let America see who she really is. Evidently, at least in Iowa, they did not like what they saw. Her campaign blames this on unthinking voters:

“Everyone underestimated this conflagration,” said a former Clinton administration official.

“If people think he’s electable, they’ll vote with their hearts and not their minds.” The Politico

This statement just shows the arrogance of anything Clinton. Even this defeat was not her fault because people did not vote with their heads, they voted with their hearts. To me this says, if you had brains you would have voted for Hillary. Hillary has vowed to push on and she should. One state is not the end for her because she has a huge organization and lots of money. A one state loss means the end for candidates who have little money even if they are most experienced. Such was the case with Dodd and Biden who both threw in the towel last night.

The remarks of the Clinton campaign show how much disdain they have for the American people. They believe that only thinking people will select Clinton and any other pick is an event that did not involve a thought process. I would make the argument that voting for any Democrat involves no thought process but with regard to this situation, the Clinton campaign remark shows contempt for the American electorate.

People from every state should remember that if they vote for someone other than Hillary they are unthinking rubes who are getting in the way of Hillary’s birthright. You people, and you know who you are, are not worthy of the Queen…But please vote for her, K?

“We’re going to keep pushing as hard as we can,” she said, with former President Bill Clinton and their daughter Chelsea at her side. “I am so ready for the rest of this campaign and I am so ready to lead.” Breitbart

It is too bad that they could not be gracious losers and move on to the next contest. Instead they chose to take a swipe at the people who get to decide in this process. therein lies the problem. Clinton does not believe you should have a choice. Her platform involves a number of things that people or companies have no choice in. She will mandate any number of things involving our lives, if only she can win the big prize.

Remember America, she cannot mandate what you do and how you do it unless you give her a mandate by voting for her.

Think about it…

Others with similar items:
Nuke’s, Outside the Beltway, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Allie is Wired, Adam’s Blog, Shadowscope, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Cao’s Blog, and Wolf Pangloss, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Fox News is putting together a forum of Republican candidates to take place two days before the New Hampshire Primary. The release indicates; “Participating in the forum will be Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson.” Notice there is no mention of Ron Paul. Ron Paul’s people have contacted the NH GOP Chairman and asked if Paul would be invited and were told that this was unknown. The Chair indicated that this was in the planning stage but that the decision was ultimately Fox’s.

If this is a forum for Republican candidates then Ron Paul should be included as should any other person who is running for the Republican nomination. Fox would not consider excluding Romney or Giuliani and if they did there would be an uproar. The idea of the forums is for voters to get to know the candidates and to be better informed for when they vote. Eliminating any candidate tarnishes the process and makes it appear as if the media (in this case Fox) is deciding for voters who they should and should not hear.

Ron Paul has raised a great deal of money in this quarter and he has a lot of supporters regardless of what his poll numbers show (though money or not, all candidates should be invited). By ignoring him Fox is demonstrating that they are afraid of his candidacy and that they worry he might actually be the nominee. One would think Fox would be a little more sensitive to this considering how the Democrats refused to attend a debate sponsored by the network. Fox was none too pleased to have its credibility challenged and yet the network acts in a way that leaves it open to such criticisms.

Ron Paul deserves to be heard and the people who support him deserve to have their candidate at that event unless he chooses not to participate. All candidates should be invited and all candidates should be heard. Anything less is harmful to the election process and disenfranchises voters.

I did notice that in addition to Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter is not mentioned in the invite. I do not know if he was invited and declined or if he was excluded along with Paul.

Maybe it is the political season that forces writers to inflate headlines in order to get readers and maybe it is just a desire to get them to click on the link. In the case of Matt Drudge it is neither because he generally misrepresents the character of a story in order to get people to click on the link. The Politico (more specifically, Daniel Riley of The Politico), on the other hand, usually has an accurate depiction so I was a bit surprised to see a headline that read “Ron Paul won’t rule out a third party run.”

Ron Paul has made it clear a number of times that he does not intend to run as a third party candidate and he did so again on Meet the Press. Ron Paul, when asked about running as a third party candidate, stated that he was 99.9% sure that would not happen. I imagine that in the overall scheme of things that 0.1% technically means he will not rule it out but since it is such a little number perhaps a more accurate headline would have been; “Ron Paul unlikely to run as third party candidate.”

I know politicians like to engage in double talk and to say all the things that everyone wants to hear. Hillary did that with her sandbagging in New York and her run for the presidency. She told people she was not thinking about it and she was only concerned about winning the Senate seat. She would never say that she would serve her term if elected which means she was, in fact, thinking about it. Ron Paul, on the other hand, has been pretty straight forward and I think he will probably not run as a third party candidate.

Anything is possible though and I am sure if enough Ron Paul supporters pressed him he might just go for it. However, until that time, a 0.1% chance makes it an unlikely event and it should be reported that way.

Ron Paul was on Meet the Press and he had to defend himself against accusations that he put earmarks (pork to the rest of us) in bills while in Congress. Paul claimed that he never voted for an earmark and that he only put them in the bills because some of his constituents were asking for some of their money back. He said that he does not like the tax system but that does not stop him from claiming the deductions to which he is entitled because he wants his money back, just as his constituents do.

I am no fan of earmarks and I think the whole process should be done away with. No one from Congress should be allowed to add anything to a bill. Our tax money should not be getting thrown around to build bridges that help 200 people, build planetariums, or fund secret and usually non existent companies (Jack Murtha). No bill (especially a spending bill) should ever be introduced unless the Article and Section of the Constitution that authorizes it is cited. I find it odd that Paul would insert them and then vote against them.

If he wants his constituents to have their money back then why would he vote against the earmark? If he intended to vote against it then why add it in the first place. I’m sorry but this sounds a bit fishy to me. Paul is supposed to be the guy who keeps watch on such things so it is disheartening to find out he is involved in the process. Maybe his views are not as absolute as he would have us believe.

Paul is a long shot to win so maybe after he loses he can go back to Congress and keep introducing bills that take away the earmark process. Until all earmarks are gone I don’t want to hear Democrats or anyone else tell me that we are in debt because of George Bush or the Republicans. We are in debt because all of them have no control and they spend our money with little regard to the huge debt they are causing.

Earmarks must go before we ever discuss ending a war or how much war costs. Evidently, we are doing well if they can throw money around.

Ron Paul needs to get this fixed.

Source:
My Way News

Tom Tancredo officially dropped out of the GOP race today and he threw his support behind Mitt Romney. Tancredo has great positions on immigration but he is a one trick pony. All he ever talked about was immigration. I am sure there are other issues he has positions on but he failed to come across as anything more than an advocate for tough immigration law enforcement. The one trick got old fast for a number of people who realize that there are many issues in addition to immigration. In dropping out Tancredo had the chance to show how principled he was with regard to his signature issue. Unfortunately, he failed miserably.

Tom Tancredo threw his support behind Mitt Romney who Tancredo met with to receive assurances that Romney would be tough on the issue of immigration. In throwing his support behind Romney Tancredo stated that he was “the best hope for our cause.” This is where I have problems and where it appears to me that he abandoned his principles and went for the politics of the issue. Romney is not as bad as Giuliani or Huckabee when it comes to immigration but he has had his issues with it. I don’t believe that Romney should be held accountable if the company he hired employed illegals. It is the responsibility of the company to do that. However, the company in question had been caught using ILLEGALS before and Romney failed to keep an eye on them or to replace them all together. It took a news report showing admitted ILLEGALS working on his property for him before he fired the company. This man is running for the presidency. He is under much higher scrutiny than the guy next door and he should have been on top of this. He says he is tough on immigration but it does not appear that way.

Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul are the only remaining GOP candidates with records that reflect tough immigration policies. If Tancredo wanted to show that he was absolutely concerned about the issue he should have selected one of these candidates to throw his support behind. Ron Paul has a very good plan with regard to immigration and while I am not in favor of many of his other policies I like his stance on immigration and our borders. Fred Thompson has an equally good plan at his site as does Duncan Hunter. Any of these guys would have been a better choice to be “the best hope for our cause.” Yet, Tancredo neglected each of these people, people who have stands and would not need to provide reassurance, in order to support Romney, a man with questionable views on Immigration. Before the Romney crowd beats me up, remember, Tancredo needed to get reassurance. That is usually not necessary if you have been clear and consistent.

It is unfortunate but Tancredo traded his principles. It gives the impression that Tancredo was not all that serious about immigration because he could not back one of the people who is actually tough on the issue. Since that was his only issue he could have at least picked someone who held the same beliefs. If Romney gets elected and he ends up signing an amnesty bill Tancredo and his efforts will go to the ash heap of history. He will be viewed as a man who backed the guy who gave the country away.

It is unfortunate that Tancredo could not get this right but at least it shows that he would not have been a good president. If he blew this easy choice this badly think about how terribly he would do with judges, justices, and just about any other appointee.

Source:
Des Moines Register