Interesting debate, though two hours is just too stinkin' long, even for a junkie like me. The questions were a mixed bag, though could someone please tell me why we needed questions on Iran and Iraq in what was billed as a debate on economic issues? It's not as if these topics haven't been covered ad nauseum in previous forums, whether Fred Thompson was there or not.
That being said there weren't any substantive changes to the field. All the top candidates have their strengths and weaknesses, which they showed. Not one stood out as having a truly superior night.
At the same time, I think the event could be summarized by the responses to a question to the group about how to restore faith in the GOP. All the leading four candidates of Giuliani, John McCain, Romney, and Thompson had decent content in their answers. Yet Giuliani and Romney were conspicuously more optimistic and upbeat during their time speaking than McCain and Thompson, whose more downbeat moods provided an unexpected contrast.
Yes, people want to hear "straight talk" or "hard truth" or whatever you'd like to call it. But in the end people prefer to vote for candidates for President who have a sense of optimism about what can be done to help make America better, not candidates who seem to focus on recounting what is wrong. There is a separate - and necessary - argument about whose platform and position on the issues is better, but candidates who can speak with upbeat vigor invariably fair better in the long run.
With that, here's how I thought candidates fared, in order of how the first questions were posed:
Fred Thompson - exceeded expectations for the event, which were rather low after a month of mediocre reviews on the campaign trail. Some of his answers were great, others not so much. He had the look of someone reasonably well-prepared for the debate but not of someone seasoned in performing in them. Whether or not voters have higher expectations for him based on perceptions of his communications skills and acting career is a bit of an unknown. Overall, while he "outperformed" expectations, his overall demeanor just seems dour, punctuated by a frequent heavy frown. His voice was crackly at times too. Not a huge issue, but it wasn't the smooth baritone people expect from Fred Thompson the actor. Overall: Thompson probably benefits from all the attention paid to his appearance at the event, especially since he avoided a major stumble.
Mitt Romney - looked and sounded like a confident, articulate candidate. Some good answers, some not so good. He gets points for the Michigan specific response to a question on the economy, complete with a shot on Governor Granholm (all of which should receive good mention from the local press corps on site covering the hometown debate). He was aggressive on the theme of optimism and had a very good, though obviously prepared, the line at the end about the debates being like "Law & Order": the cast is huge, they go on forever, and Fred Thompson shows up at the end.
I'm not sure anyone had an advantage in the exchange between he and Giuliani about their records on fiscal conservatism (as they've been doing in New Hampshire). They both looked prepared, sharp, and landed punches. Romney's goal appears to be to knock Giuliani's halo askew since no one else in the field has done so, plus it makes the two of them look like the front-runners since the exchange will lead a lot of the news coverage. That's exactly what Romney's camp probably wants.
Rudy Giuliani - another very solid performance. He's really good in these formats, period, absent social and family issues at center stage. His upbeat, strong answers make the overall tone of the debate better and his consistent ability to hammer on Hillary and/or Democrats helps his cause. More could be said, but it comes down to nothing new: aside from the significant issues where he differs from the Republican base, he's a strong candidate with palpable personal appeal. Every debate he completes without a major gaffe is a good thing for him given his front-runner status.
Ron Paul - I've said before he doesn't belong on this stage. He's essentially a Libertarian running for the Republican nomination. His first answer out of the gate talking about getting rid of the Federal Reserve just puts an exclamation mark on that divide. Between that his increasingly shrill tone (he seemed ready to pull a Dean-like scream at a couple points) the downside of his participation now outweighs the entertainment value. It's time for these debates to get more serious. Side note: his line about the "military-industrial complex" no doubt thrilled the robust Oliver Stone contingent in his following.
John McCain - as with the rest of the crew a pretty nice performance, he had several good moments. But absent talking about Iraq or cutting spending he just doesn't have the same passion in his voice. More importantly, he didn't appear to stand out, which is what he needs to do given the overall state of his campaign.
Mike Huckabee - just wasn't as pithy as he's been in the past and seemed more subdued. That and it's just tough to take him too seriously given the utterly anemic state of his fundraising, which will play havoc with even his most basic efforts to compete Iowa.
Other candidates - what's the point? Whatever their merits as individuals, none of them are going anywhere and that's obvious.
All that being said, how many people actually watched this debate live on CNBC at 4 pm EST or on the MSNBC tape delay? The debate's impact will mostly come down to news/blog coverage of the event, which will probably be dominated by a focus on Thompson actually being there and on the Mitt v. Rudy dust-up. Thompson lived to see another day, which is important. A poor inaugural debate performance would have been a disaster based on the tepid reviews for his first month of campaigning.
I suspect lots of GOP voters and the pundits would agree that a debate stage with Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, Romney, and perhaps Huckabee would have some real appeal. An honest to goodness back and forth between the candidates who can actually win the nomination would be tremendously useful at this point given the wide-open nature of the race.
UPDATE: Holy angry Ron Paul supporters in the comments, Batman! Clearly this post got captured in the Internet news feeds monitored by the Paulites. I love it.
Posted by Eric Earling at October 09, 2007 08:11 PM | Email ThisIf we've got to start pruning out the weeds, time to drop McCain and Huckabee, not Paul.
Posted by: Zolo on October 9, 2007 08:37 PMUnder his leadership the rich will continue to get richer,just not at the current rate.
He has idea's and beliefs.
Thompson is trying to be a teflon pan and wise crack his way into contention.
The polls say otherwise.
Your views reflect why our state republican party continues to get it handed to them year in year out.
You ignore most of the polls and favor a war happy candidate that will have no shot at all to win.
Just like our state republican party has done you are backing a losing republican argument,and a losing republican candidate that has no chance to win in 2008.
You are out of touch.
Aren't you tired of whining about the D's and gathering signatures yet.
He represents the Old Right, the Robert Tafts, Barry Goldwaters, Ronald Reagans. Stop acting as if getting rid of the Federal Reserve has never been talked about in the Republican Party.
Posted by: Brent on October 9, 2007 08:46 PMIt seems weird to me that Republicans don't want to win.
Ron Paul has all the support. Face it.
Posted by: Willis Williams on October 9, 2007 08:51 PMI have voted a straight Republican ticket for every election since the 1980s. It warms my heart to see Ron Paul returning our party to its roots.
Go ahead, ridicule him, dismiss him... because it will be even sweeter for Ron Paul supporters to see him win the primaries. When he wins the primaries, then the mainstream media will have no choice but to reckon with him and to finally give him a chance to speak to the American people.
Go Ron Paul!
There's more at stake in this election than hairstyles, soundbites, and horse races... please do your job and report what matters.
Posted by: Aaron on October 9, 2007 08:56 PMThere's more at stake in this election than hairstyles, soundbites, and horse races... please do your job and report what matters.
Posted by: Aaron on October 9, 2007 08:56 PMIf so, then that's Ron Paul.
Despite what you think, being pro unujust wars does not define a Republican.
Posted by: Victor on October 9, 2007 08:59 PMSomebody has to get the ball rolling,Eric does just as good of job as anybody.
Eric,Here is the link to the msnbc poll.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20873697/
The polls .and the fund raisng tell a much different story About Ron Paul's chances.
He is the only chance The R's have right now.
Face it you need the libertarians votes more than ever now,even though I think Paul is trying to get the spend and spend R's back to fiscal responsibility,and get them back to their old positions..
Posted by: Publicbulldog on October 9, 2007 09:02 PM-We've already gotten rid of more then one Central bank in this country so don't act like it's that far out there.
-Paul and Tancredo, at this point, are the only republicans running for the nomination. The rest are just liberals in disguise.
-Rudy performance was only "solid" because he is basically unmoderated time wise and fields the most questions. It's easy to pick and choose a few decent answers when he answers so many questions.
-McCain is a single platform that only has a small minority of american support. He also made it painfully clear he has no grasp on economics.
-Thompson has no platform, he just recites what other people say in his own, boringly slow, words.
-Huckabee sounds like everyone else now.
-Brownback looks stoned most of the time.
-Romney reminds me of a used car salesman.
-Hunter doesn't seem to feel strongly about anything except hating China for taking our jobs.
Posted by: Jake on October 9, 2007 09:11 PMRonPaul admits he's not a Republican - he won't support the Republican candidate for Prez if it's not him.
That's not a Republican.
Posted by: steve miller on October 9, 2007 09:13 PMThis isn't journalism here: it's a guy with some technical savvy providing a place where blowhards can bloviate. Horsesass.org is no different: just a different climate of thity-somethings thinking they know more than anyone, alive or dead. Don't confuse this neo-con cyber-bulletin board with journalism.
With that said, Ron Paul is the only "Republican" running. The others are no better than the crop of Democrats hoping to get elected in '08. McCain, Huckabee, et. al., use the "Republican" label, but they're just pro-big government opportuinists. They're no more "Republican" than Chairman Mao.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on October 9, 2007 09:15 PM"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together."
-Eisenhower in his fairwell address.
Posted by: Jake on October 9, 2007 09:19 PMFred Thompson gets a few extra points for putting Chris Matthews, the hack moderator in his place. Other than that, I don't see much difference between the frontrunners and Bush, except that they are all better communicators but with similar stands - a disturbing commentary and a recipe for defeat in '08, unless there is some sort of transformation. McCain is looking more tolerable all the time.
Posted by: KS on October 9, 2007 09:33 PMthe responsible check ACTUAL voting records and match those to their own wants & dreams;
everyone else is too busy playing video games, shopping for the latest useless doo-dads and keeping up on the latest sitcom or sports team score, hoping their elected rep's will 'do the right thing.' almost like treating their elected reps & actions as someone who plunges the plugged toilet--a necessary job, but not sexy nor something to watch with interest;
in short, delegating something they know not the true value of...their vote and how its used; cynical? yep...proof? look at post 9-11; we are comfy again; not on watch; not alert;
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 9, 2007 09:35 PMRon Paul was the only true Republican on that stage. Open your eyes, the party has lost many supporters due to the war and exponential growth of government spending. Dr. Paul is the only one who can defeat Hillary or Obama. His argument is simple: follow the constitution. This simple ideal appeals to most republicans as well as independents and democrats.
Posted by: Chase on October 9, 2007 09:35 PMSo, yeah, keep telling yourself a band of internet crazies can win a presidential election. Remember Howard Dean? Yeah, I know, Howard who, right?
Posted by: AD on October 9, 2007 09:37 PMIt's called Google News Search. Try it sometime. It pulls articles/blogs and that sort from the entire world. And no, there is no massive email, just grass root activists who care about our country.
Posted by: Chase on October 9, 2007 09:40 PMI think this debate was more about being another opportunity for Chris Matthews to show that he is a smarmy, biased, Progressive assclown. All Republicans should refuse to debate on a toy network like MSNBC.
Posted by: Jeff B. on October 9, 2007 10:41 PMEisenhower is praised for attacking the military-industrial-complex. He also attacked the space program, for very similar reasons. Funny how the antiwar people usually don't bring that up (although I am sure most Ron Paul supporters would agree with Eisenhower there, too: I am just speaking generally).
It amazes me that Huckabee is seen as a conservative candidate. He may be a good social conservative, but he represents more spending, more taxes, more government. Just read his his answer to the question of why he thinks people might want him to be President: They want you to be able to solve real problems that touch them every day.
NO I DO NOT. I am a Republican. I do not want my President to have anything to do with the real problems I face every day, let alone try to SOLVE those problems.
That, my friends, is Mike Huckabee in a nutshell.
Those of you reading my posts all this time know I am not in the bag for anyone. I actually and truly have liked ALL the candidates. I like Rudy Giuliani and I like Ron Paul, though I wouldn't vote for either one in the primary, because they differ to much from my own beliefs on key issues.
But Huckabee differs from the Republican Party on the one thing that most makes us all Republicans. Maybe Paul is more Libertarian than Republican, but Huckabee is even less a Republican than Paul is. I am not saying this because I don't like the guy, or because I favor someone else. I am still undecided on who I want. Huckabee just deeply offends my sense of what the federal government should be.
I actually think that Huckabee is the one guy in the race I'd most want to hang out with, or maybe the best candidate to be a mayor or county exec. or maybe even governor. But he's the worst one running, on the GOP side, to be President, or hold any federal office. He's one of the two kinds of Republican that made Republican voters stay home in 2006 (the other kind hangs out in airport bathrooms chatting with pages on a laptop computer while making deals to pass legislation in order to get paid off by defense contractors and developers).
Posted by: pudge on October 9, 2007 10:41 PMA conservative case for Ron Paul. Seems like a good article to provide more discussion on this thread.
Posted by: Travis Pahl on October 9, 2007 10:53 PM"It's called Google News Search. Try it sometime. It pulls articles/blogs and that sort from the entire world..."
Of course. Anybody with any internet savvy knows this, and can use it.
But wait, only the Paul faction does it?
Really? Why, pray, tell!
Posted by: Richard on October 9, 2007 11:02 PMOne of the cornerstones of the fervor is this everyone's-out-to-get us mentality. They talk about real entities, but focus on them like lasers and create irrational fairy tales about what they represent. For example, the average Ron Paul supporter ascribes to most of the following beliefs:
1) The military-industrial complex is out to take over everyone's life.
2) The Project for a New American Century is out to take over everyone's life.
3) 9/11 was an inside job and the people who did it want to take over everyone's life.
4) The Council on Foreign Relations wants to set up a world government that takes over everyone's life.
5) The US federal government is spraying us with diseases and chemicals, and if you don't believe us, look up in the sky and you'll see the contrails! This is likely being done so the government can take over everyone's life.
I could go on, but those are the most common ones. :) Anyways, they're all COOKOO FOR COCOA PUFFS.
Posted by: AD on October 9, 2007 11:39 PMWhat the far right R's do not seem to understand is that there are not enough of them to win a majority,and that they are riding a far right ticket to nowhere.
The far right R's also do not seem to grasp that people from the middle are going to the polls in droves to stop a pro war candidate.
Paul is the only R that seems to have a shot at getting more votes from the middle.
The Far right R's had better come to their senses
or we could very well be looking at 4-8 years of blue bloat if they trot out another far right R to get hammered by the middle...
Jeff B's comment above regarding Matthews was what my first thought was. I think he kept himself under control, which up to now everyone thought was impossible. Also, he only popped off the Thompson once and advised him that a plain no answer was sufficient after Thompson gave an explanation. Thompson retorted back, "Christopher, that is your opinion but not mine" or something to that effect.
So, once again, the moderator became the center of stage and not the presidential candidates. So, when do we get good debates sans Paul and others?
Posted by: swatter on October 10, 2007 06:48 AMOur times are no different then 300 years ago with the exception of technology. There is nothing new under the sun. Anytime you screw around in other countries and try to enforce your will, you fail. Remember those Romans? What about the Mayan and Aztec Empires; Hell, even the English, Spanish, and Dutch failed for these reasons. They failed because they over expanded and couldn't manage their territory and created many enemies along the way. In essence, they imploded due to internal corruption, loss of rights, and loose fiscal policy. Our basic history lessons tell us that.
It seems that Paul is the only Republican that understands history and our constitution and the very real consequences of not following it
Posted by: chase on October 10, 2007 06:57 AMAfter Jan 14, 2008 and Iowa...that should pretty much narrow the field.
He is not a Republican, folks. He is a Libertarian.
He says until the US pulls out of Iraq and Korea and Japan and Germany, he won't vote for a Republican.
Why is this guy even in the Republican debates?
Ed. Note: I do have a citation for Paul's no vote for a Republican comment if needed.
Posted by: swatter on October 10, 2007 07:46 AMAll you neocons and liberals can pontificate all you want. Meanwhile your audience shrinks on a daily basis. You have no clue why most Americans have fled the major parties and staying home on election day.
Ron Paul is one man who can bring them back again.
Posted by: Richard on October 10, 2007 08:01 AMThe only reason to refer to these "polls" is to try to convince others that Ron Paul really (really!) has a chance to win the Republican nomination and is the only Republican with a chance to win the presidency.
I would probably be a Ron Paul supporter if it wasn't for his foreign policy position. I did vote for him when he ran as a Libertarian in 1988. But I think his foreign policy views are both incorrect and dangerous in today's world situation. Just as I reject the conclusion of The Economist when they said "Dozens of plots may have been foiled and thousands of lives saved as a result of some of the unsavory practices now being employed in the name of fighting terrorism. Dropping such practices in order to preserve freedom may cost many lives. So be it", I reject Ron Paul's "principles" when it comes to foreign policy. We might end up being a "principled" country destroyed by our enemies.
LOL, all the better for our next POTUS, Mrs Clinton.
"A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction."
or:
"We face a hostile ideology-global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration."
or how about this:
"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions."
I'm just asking. Read the whole thing for yourself at: http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/speeches/farewell_address.html
I didn't like his MO during the 90s, but isn't that what he and Bush I have been supposedly doing for the last 7 years already?
Posted by: swatter on October 10, 2007 09:12 AMw. is/was a horrible politician in republican clothing, and unfortunately most voters, and virtually all republicans, bought into it. we now see what bush has wrought: larger federal govt., increased deficits, pseudo-tax cuts (they'll have to be repealed to pay for republican spending from 00-06); FUBAR foreign policy; increased federalism over states' rights.
let's see if the republicans fall for the same tricks again....
Posted by: dinesh on October 10, 2007 09:18 AMNot that you need to be against Paul to be sane, but just recognizing that Paul's policies are not perfect is amazing.
I feel the same way about him. I agree with most of his views, but not his foreign policy. And even where I agree with him, I think his views about how to go about it are untenable: I oppose our welfare state, but we can't just abolish it. Not only would it create chaos societally, but it would also create a huge backlash against the GOP.
Also, I think he would not function well as President, his policies aside, since he would be a President without a Party, and get nothing done. Which may be what his followers want, but sometimes, occasionally, we DO need to get things done. :-)
Posted by: pudge on October 10, 2007 09:32 AMThat is one of the most naive things I may have ever read. Our times are NOT like 300 hundred years ago. 300 hundred years ago, you couldn't cross the globe a couple of days, wipe out an entire city with one bomb, get instant information from anywhere in the world, and have so much of everything everywhere be so interconnected.
300 years ago, globalism didn't exist. Love it or hate it, it's here, and it isn't going away. Ron Paul would be perfect if it was still the 1920's, but it's not. Isolationists with delusions of grandeur who can't seem to grasp that and prefer to stick their collective heads up in the sand and ignore the rest of the world do so at their own risk
Posted by: Mike H on October 10, 2007 09:35 AMIt will be interesting who comes out on top, come next summer. It is a wide open race, I wouldn't put my money on anyone yet. The party will need to come together, otherwise, they will end up like the Democrats, who seem to nominate someone from the edge of their party, but who doesn't speak to the middle. You see, elections, like the Presidency, is not won from the edge basis, it is won by the middle. It doesn't matter if Ron Paul is the true Republican or not, he can not win the general election because he doesn't come at the election from the middle. He can definately make an impact, but his impact is the same as Ralph Nader's is on the other side. He is the Republican's Ralph Nader (politically speaking).
Posted by: tc on October 10, 2007 09:36 AMThat would be the singularly most stupid thing to do! The problem from 00-06 was NOT the lack of tax revenue, it was the profligate spending. You need to be clear here--there were tax-RATE cuts, but total taxes have gone UP, not DOWN. Have you seen what has happened with federal tax revenues since the 2003 tax-RATE cut? Receipts have increased by 44% between 2003 and 2007 (from $1.8 trillion to $2.6 trillion)--that's a compounding rate of over 9.5% per year. I guarantee you that the deficit would have been much greater without those tax-RATE cuts and the impact they had on the economy.
Lack of tax revenue is NOT the reason for the deficit, spending is!
Posted by: Bill H on October 10, 2007 09:47 AMI worry, however, that some on the left have learned this lesson and are going to implement socialism one step at a time--witness the SCHIP debate. I fear we are moving closer to socialism rather than further away from it
Posted by: Bill H on October 10, 2007 09:58 AMRudy Pres
Fred VP
Romney Sec Treasury
Hunter Sec Defense
Huckabee Sec Education
Tancredo Sec Homeland Security
Brownback Sec Agriculture
McCain Ambassador to France
Paul Mayor of Mars
Shades of H Dean scream moment. It is inevitable; she has had 15 yrs of softball questions from the press and is not battle hardened. This will be priceless; I hope to see it on live TV.
Then what for the Dems? Utter sheer panic...
Posted by: Hank on October 10, 2007 10:11 AMYou need to excuse Dinesh. He still thinks 2+2=5
Seattle lib schools, what can I say.
To bad the libs never care to say that JFK did the same thing and look what happened.
They love the Stalin school of math.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on October 10, 2007 10:12 AMThere was an article in the Wall Street Journal in July that spoke to this issue.
"Libertarians and the War
By RANDY E. BARNETT
July 17, 2007; Page A17
...Other libertarians, however, supported the war in Iraq because they viewed it as part of a larger war of self-defense against Islamic jihadists who were organizationally independent of any government. They viewed radical Islamic fundamentalism as resulting in part from the corrupt dictatorial regimes that inhabit the Middle East, which have effectively repressed indigenous democratic reformers. Although opposed to nation building generally, these libertarians believed that a strategy of fomenting democratic regimes in the Middle East, as was done in Germany and Japan after World War II, might well be the best way to take the fight to the enemy rather than solely trying to ward off the next attack..."
If you have a subscription to the online Wall Street Journal, you can read the whole article here:
If you don't subscribe and are interested in reading it, let me know and I can send you a link that will allow you a one-week access to it via e-mail.
The jist of the column was that while there are many libertarians opposed to the war on terror (I prefer to call it the war on islamofascism), there are also many that feel it is the rightful use of force for self-defense. I am in the latter category.
Posted by: Bill H on October 10, 2007 10:13 AMGet it?? He is not a Republican. Get over it. There is no debate. He is a Libertarian.
Posted by: swatter on October 10, 2007 10:37 AMPossibly wishful thinking on your part, but THAT WILL NOT happen. [She's now even controlling her f'words] There will be NO H Dean moment.
Posted by: Duffman on October 10, 2007 10:52 AMThe Votes from the middle took away the majority.
Why in the word would you want to go into another election with a far right foreign policy.
You far right people better come to the realization that the far right foreign policy won't fly in 2008.
The far right is in complete denial.
You far righters better snap out of it or we will be looking at blue buy-you for 4-8 years.
You had better show support for a candidate that can get more votes from the middle.
There simply are not enough of you to counter act the anti war votes from the middle this time.
The last election proved that.
Snap out of it before it is too late!
Posted by: Publicbulldog on October 10, 2007 11:31 AMPssst. Rep. Paul is the most extreme, far-right candidate. In fact, he's so far right on foreign policy issues, he hooks up on the backside with the far left.
Know what you're talking about regarding the political landscape before you spout off what the solutions are.
Posted by: jimg on October 10, 2007 11:41 AMEnd of that story.
Far right foriegn policy is winning the war on terror, in case you missed the news lately...
Posted by: Hank on October 10, 2007 11:42 AMEnd of that story.
Far right foriegn policy is winning the war on terror, in case you missed the news lately...
Posted by: Hank on October 10, 2007 11:43 AMAs an independent who wants both parties to nominate the best candidate so that I can choose the best of the best instead of the best of the worst, I do think the Republicans are in a quandry over which direction the party wants to head. This is probably due to the fact that there is no default/establishment candidate this time. One would have to go back to '64 before one found a similar situation, although then Nixon should have been the establishment candidate after coming close to being elected in '60. Whereas, on the Democratic side you do have actually two "establishment" candidates (Gore and H. Clinton), but the better of the two won't run (i.e., Gore). It should be interesting, because Hillary is not Bill. I don't see her as the "charmer" that Bill was. She could have a "Dean" moment (let's hope so).
Posted by: tc on October 10, 2007 11:44 AMWhether you think that is far right or not doesn't matter.
Their are not enough of you to carry a majority here,or anywhere else.
Insisting that that small collection of FAR RIGHT stakeholders can win here or anyone else is going to get us stuck with blu buy you for the next 4-8 years.
It already has been a blowout here,now you are working on a national blowout too.
spin the wheel buy a voweel throw in the towel.
Posted by: Publicbulldog on October 10, 2007 11:49 AM300 years ago globalization was alive and well. Communication and air travel was not as advanced, but, nonetheless, we were still human beings. You are a moron for thinking Paul is an isolationist. An isolationists believes that there should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other countries (think North Korea).
Ron Paul is an Non-interventionism. This political theory means countries should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense (think Switzerland). This is the advice the founders gave us and IT IS relevant to today. He believes in free trade and opening up trade much more than it already is. Thats how you make friends in the world. You forgot about the now no-non existent cultures around the world and why they vanished. It was no coincidence.
Posted by: Chase on October 10, 2007 11:50 AMLatest Ron Paul For President Video
****
Rudy Lectures A Ron Paul Supporter... "Okay, this is a humor post, mmmkay?"
****
Air travel was not as advanced 300 years ago but, nonetheless, we were still human beings.
I implore you... CaCaCan't we just make more friends in the world so our culture won't vanish? Pleeease, Let's not become the next coincidence!
Posted by: jopalm on October 10, 2007 01:02 PMChurch? Nope.
Law enforcement? Nope.
Corporate? Nope.
Military? Nope. But I'm a veteran. Does that still count for your silly stereotyping?
And just what that has to do with your argument is beyond me.
Whether you think that is far right or not doesn't matter.
Well, yes it does because it's you who is doing the broad labeling of constituencies, not me.
Their (sic) are not enough of you to carry a majority here,or anywhere else.
1. Yeah. I'm a member of the far right. Snort. Without getting into specific positions, I can easily state I am nowhere near the far right. And according to your haphazard categories of 'non-RP' supporters, I only fit one. Kinda.
2. Nobody - except you - is suggesting the far right carries any majority. Any more than the far left carries it, or the vaunted middle on its own.
insisting that that small collection of FAR RIGHT stakeholders can win here or anyone else
And nobody is suggesting that. It's you and only you who is saying they can't.
My point - which obviously sailed over your head and you still haven't addressed - is you are going round and round about the far right and suggesting that Ron Paul is the answer to your fevered imagination about grabbing the middle vote.
Repeat after me - Ron Paul is the most conservative candidate on the right. He is the far right by any reasonable definition. Yet you support him and claim that somehow the far right is the problem, and Ron Paul is the answer to getting the majority by grabbing the middle vote.
In other words, you don't know what you're talking about.
Posted by: jimg on October 10, 2007 01:05 PM'I like turtles.'
Posted by: OnYawn on October 10, 2007 01:08 PMi take alan greenspan's word over yours. referring to greenspan:
He says that he was warned that his testimony on the proposed 2001 tax cut would send a different message than he intended and that he ignored those warnings, which proved correct. Greenspan says his support for a tax cut was nuanced and partial, provided there were triggers to prevent budget deficits but that his statements were interpreted by the news media and politicians as a blanket endorsement. He adds that he did not understand how institutionally corrupt and thus unconcerned about good budget policy his Republican Party had become by early 2001.
medic: care to make a dismissive comment about greenspan, or are you too busy waiving a flag and providing unconditional (and therefore unthinking) support to w.?
Posted by: dinesh on October 10, 2007 01:24 PMquotation marks are needed around the paragraph beginning with "He" and ending with "2001."
taken from
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-book17sep17,0,1474034.story?coll=la-headlines-calendar
For a group of people whom seem to care about the world, why don't they really care about our military? I have listened to Ron Paul and he has absolutely no respect for our military. But, that I guess is to be expected when the aphorism "I support the troops but not the mission" is used over and over again. Some call that statement an oxymoron. I just call it like I see it, moron.
/My son did his duty and went to war in Iraq. How about yours?
Posted by: kim in vancouver on October 10, 2007 01:43 PMThe same issue happened after the Reagan rate-cuts in 1981. Congress did not follow through with the promised spending cuts. While tax revenues went way up in the 1980's as they did in the 2000's, spending was not controlled and went up even faster.
If you want to rail on the Republican congress for not reigning in spending (or Democrats not reigning in spending in the 1980's) or on Bush for not vetoing spending bills, I agree with you. But you are absolutely WRONG about the tax-rate cuts causing the deficits--and your quote from Greenspan does nothing to refute that.
Posted by: Bill H on October 10, 2007 02:07 PMthus, we had increased federal spending and decreased tax revenue (i.e., while tax revenue may have increased year over year, without cuts, that revenue would be even higher, thereby mitigating rather than exacerbating the federal deficit).
tax cuts would be ideal if politicians knew how to responsibly spend tax dollars. the republicans have now demonstrated that irresponsible federal spending is not a function of party affiliation.
Posted by: dinesh on October 10, 2007 02:23 PMYou are absolutely wrong and almost every economist who has studied Kennedy's tax-rate cuts in the 1960's, Reagan's tax-rate cuts in the 1980's and Bush's tax-rate cuts in the 2000's would tell you you are wrong. At the level of taxes that we have had over the last 50 years, it has been proven over and over that tax-rate cuts improve the economy and lead to higher revenues than would otherwise be the case.
Static revenue projections (where you pretend that you will have the same economic activity regardless of tax incentives) is simply wrong. Incentives incent. Lower taxes increase economic activity.
You can disagree all you want, but it doesn't change the facts.
Posted by: Bill H on October 10, 2007 02:36 PMfrom the brookings institution (not a liberal bastion!):
"What about the third mantra? If tax cuts cause deficits, and deficits hurt the economy in the long term, can tax cuts be the best way out of the current mess? Despite the administration's own estimates that show its tax cuts would dig substantial fiscal holes well into the future, the president and other administration officials argue that tax cuts will actually help restore the budget surplus. Their claim is that cutting taxes would cause the economy to grow so rapidly that we would more than make up for the revenue lost from the tax cut in the first place.
There are two problems with this claim. Most importantly, no credible economist believes it. Even President Bush's own Council of Economic Advisers has written that the tax cuts would make the budget deficit worse. And, ironically, two years ago, when there were big surpluses, the president himself argued that we needed tax cuts because they reduce revenue, not raise it. Tax cuts, of course, can raise economic growth by encouraging people to work harder and save more. But those effects are not big enough in the president's proposals to more than offset the effect of the debt tax that would also be created--let alone by enough to have the tax cut pay for itself.
The president's reckless approach to tax cuts is a huge fiscal gamble. It benefits the wealthy, but would impose new and increasing burdens on low-income households and future generations, and it is unlikely to succeed in restoring broad-based economic growth and financial discipline. The sooner fiscal sanity is restored, the better."
Posted by: dinesh on October 10, 2007 02:48 PMIt gives itself away by lying "no credible economist believes it". This is total BS--they are simply lying, if you are really quoting them accurately...
Posted by: Bill H on October 10, 2007 03:07 PMYou will never see me support the likes of Ron Paul or anyone else who seems to articulate that kind of sentiment toward our military. Believe it or not, the military comprises of people who are just like anyone else and they vote when given a ballot in time.
That is nonsense. The Constitution says no such thing. It says only that Congress can declare war, NOT that such a declaration is necessary for using military force.
Unless all he means is the tautology, "a conflict is only war if war is declared," in which case Paul was saying nothing interesting, since by that standard we are not at war in Iraq.
So Ron Paul was either incorrect or irrelevant.
Posted by: pudge on October 10, 2007 03:30 PMThis also looks as though it was written BEFORE the 2003 tax cuts and perhaps even the 2001 tax cuts--notice they talk about "the president's proposals". It is grammatically true to say that "tax cuts" increase the deficit--that's like saying of a company that a decrease in revenue lowers profits. However, it is also uninteresting. Not all changes in tax structure are created equal, however. Changes in the marriage penalty, child tax credits and the EITC, while nice in reducing taxes do not impact the economy much. However, the 2003 reductions to the capital gains tax, the dividend tax and the speeding up of the rate reductions passed in 2001 had a huge impact on the economy.
Even with the recession we were already in when Bush took office and the terrorist attacks on 9/11, and the Enron, etc. scandals the U.S. only experienced a mild recession and came roaring back after the 2003 tax cuts. Had you been in charge and RAISED taxes after 9/11 we would likely have gone into a deep recession or a depression.
By the way, raising taxes is what Hoover did and was a big reason we started into the Great Depression. From Encarta "Convinced that a balanced federal budget was essential to restoring business confidence, Hoover sought to cut government spending and raise taxes. But in the face of a collapsing economy, this served only to reduce demand further."
This was wrong from both a Keynesian standpoint as well as a Supply-side standpoint...
thanks for the response. i think we'll disagree on this one. the tax cuts were irresponsible in light of the federal spending going on and bush's inability to spell v-e-t-o.
that said, i prefer tax cuts to tax increases, naturally and find that giving irresponsible politicians more to spends simply means they spend more.
i recall a recent article describing the death of supply-side theory.
Posted by: dinesh on October 10, 2007 05:11 PMone last quote from me, then you can have the last word on the topic if you choose:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/07/22/cbo-tax-cuts%e2%80%99-impact-has-faded/
"CBO: Tax Cuts' Impact Has Faded, by Greg Ip, WSJ Washington Wire: The stimulative effect of Bush's tax cuts has worn off and the supply-side benefits are "small," the Congressional Budget Office says. At the request of House Budget Committee [chair] John Spratt (D., S.C.), the CBO analyzed the impact on the economy other than through the direct impact on tax revenues of the Economic Growth and Taxpayer Relief Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA).
In a letter to Spratt released Friday, CBO director Peter Orszag said, "The short-term effects of EGTRRA and JGTRRA in stimulating aggregate demand in the economy have largely dissipated by now, and the supply-side effects of those policies are uncertain but are probably small."
Some of the tax cuts' provisions "increased incentives for people to work and save (which can increase growth), but other provisions had no effect on incentives. In addition, the two tax laws increased the budget deficit, and doing so tends to reduce economic growth over the medium and long term. At this point in time (several years after enactment), once those various factors have been taken into account, the overall impact of the tax legislation on the economy is likely to be modest," Orszag wrote.
Orszag concluded that the tax cuts' indirect impact on economic growth, investment and saving and could affect this year's budget deficit anywhere from an increase of $3 billion to a reduction of $14 billion, depending on the assumptions used. That is separate from the direct boost to the deficit through lost revenue and the added interest on borrowing to cover the gap of $211 billion.
It currently expects this year's deficit to be between $150 billion and $200 billion, implying that without the tax cuts, the budget would probably be in surplus this year."
Posted by: dinesh on October 10, 2007 05:17 PMYear.....Expected.....Actual....Difference
2003.....$1770 B.....$1783 B...$ 13 B
2004......1825 B.......1880 B.......55 B
2005......2064 B.......2154 B.......90 B
2006......2276 B.......2407 B......131 B
2007......2421 B.......2568 B......147 B
Total 5 year underestimate of revenues of $436 billion. Oh yes, the CBO has a great record on projecting the impact of tax changes (sarcasm off). As I said before, static revenue estimates are silly and do not work. It has been proved over and over again, but those who do not wish to learn the lesson will end up screwing up our economy with large tax increases.
You and I agree that spending is way too high. Live a bit longer and watch what happens if Hillary gets in office and eliminates the 2003 tax cuts--hunker down and prepare for the recession that will follow...and the sound you hear will be the bottom dropping out of the stock market.
Posted by: Bill H on October 10, 2007 07:33 PMThey have continually overestimated what the deficit will be because they have continually underestimated the tax revenues. You would expect that 2 months before the end of the fiscal year they would be able to be pretty accurate on the range ($50B is a pretty big range!). I'll be very interested to see if they are--I say it will be below the midpoint of $175B and probably under $165B.
Posted by: Bill H on October 10, 2007 07:59 PMThat is my projection for 2008.
Ron Paul will not win the nomination despite any leads in the polls.
The Bible belt and deep South will elect a war candidate in the primary.. I predict that war candidate will lose to any D's anti war candidate.
Take that projection for 100 please alex or leave it.
Too bad Paul would have gotten my vote over any of the D's.
If Paul does not win the nomination I will vote for Obama or Richarson,or a write in.
It sounds like you are bailing on the R's war candidate because you know they will lose.
I have never made any claims whatsoever that Paul would win a R nomination,I have only said he is the only one I would vote for.
Saying he is leading at the polls was done to refute the argument that he does not belong on the same stage.
Ron Paul and Cocoa Puffs are the only good things to ever come out of this country, and don't you forget it.
True Republicans oppose Liberalism.
Liberal Republicans are Truly Democrats at heart.
Opposing the impending liberal republican candidate is Truly Republican.
Posted by: bigskybob on October 15, 2007 08:50 PM