Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 20, 2014, 08:01:00 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
82949 Posts in 2255 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  2012 Presidential
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 42 Print
Author Topic: 2012 Presidential  (Read 134338 times)
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4135


« Reply #250 on: May 02, 2011, 11:03:34 AM »

"But he didn't do anything at all"

That is exactly right.  The economy was faltering and he said, and did nothing ( some words about just giving it sometime.)

If he had just done anything at all.  At least made some effort as though he even cared.  Hhe would have won.  The silence was deafening, maddening and indeed at the time - astounding!  I recall thinking why doesn't this guy say something.  Anything.  It was like he was in la la land and his lose finally woke him up to reality.  But by then it was too late.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12068


« Reply #251 on: May 02, 2011, 11:27:41 AM »

ccp,

You talking about Bush 41, 43 or both?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31478


« Reply #252 on: May 02, 2011, 12:15:24 PM »

Bush 41 broke his "Read my lips, no new taxes!" pledge.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12068


« Reply #253 on: May 02, 2011, 12:21:02 PM »

Good thing Obama has been so diligent in keeping all his pledges.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4135


« Reply #254 on: May 02, 2011, 12:39:27 PM »

"You talking about Bush 41, 43 or both?"

Oops.  I said W but I meant HW (41).

My take was the read my lips no new taxes pledge was more a rallying point from the left than a real reason he lost.

Sort of like Dukakis lost because he was ambushed by the guy he released from prison who went out and commited another rape.
The MSM went out of their way to turn it into a racial thing by highlighting the guy was Black.  Most of us didn't know or care otherwise.  It was a rally cry from the liberal media more than a real issue.

Or that Kerry was "swift boated" aka a dirty low down Republican trick.  Another figment of the liberal media to deamonize the right.

As for 1991-2 -

My opinion is we were in a recession during the end of HW tenure and he just ignored it.  If only he showed he was paying attention to it and at least trying to fix it.  I think he would have won in '92. 

Then again in those days it was believed that the economy was more out of the President's control and it would right itself with the usual ebbs and flows of the economic cycle.  HW appeared to believe this and thought a laissez faire approach made sense, I guess.

I kind of think that was the beginning of the trend towards it is the job of the President to respond to every single crises and fix it immediately and if he doesn't respond to polls he is no good.

Now we have polls on everything several times a day and constant barrage of the politicians to respond immediately.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12068


« Reply #255 on: May 02, 2011, 04:43:14 PM »


http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=27305

“Cheney’s assassination squad just killed bin Laden”

Mark Hemingway:
 

Under Bush, JSOC was routinely smeared by the left and placed at the center of many Bush/Cheney conspiracy theories. Specifically, New Yorker reporter Seymour Hersh alleged it was Dick Cheney’s personal assassination squad:

"After 9/11, I haven't written about this yet, but the Central Intelligence Agency was very deeply involved in domestic activities against people they thought to be enemies of the state. Without any legal authority for it. They haven't been called on it yet."
 
Hersh then went on to describe a second area of extra-legal operations: the Joint Special Operations Command. "It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently," he explained. "They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. ... Congress has no oversight of it."
 
"It's an executive assassination ring essentially, and it's been going on and on and on," Hersh stated. "Under President Bush's authority, they've been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That's been going on, in the name of all of us."

 
And yet today, many on the left seem to think this all just fine and dandy, now that their guy is in office.
 
Which is cool with me, so long as they continue to miss the bigger picture. Namely, that we notice all this.
 
And bin Laden’s death won’t make a speck of difference for Democrats come November of 2012. When $5 gas, $12 coffee, and $4 bread loaves, and a dying economy take center stage. The President can take credit for military operations whose methods in other contexts (and under different leadership) he’s condemned; he can play with the unemployment numbers to show a decline when we all know the numbers are actually growing; he can pretend that the economy is bouncing back — and the media will dutifully repeat this absurdity.
 
But what he can’t do is hide the inflation; or tell the real unemployed and underemployed that their situation is bettering.

And that means it’s too bad for those beating their chests today that the next election isn’t going to be held this afternoon. And even if it were, I suspect Obama’d lose in a landslide.
 
So we got that going for us.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12068


« Reply #256 on: May 03, 2011, 08:22:28 AM »

http://www.cnbc.com/id/42872032

The euphoric scenes that met the death of Osama Bin Laden will not boost President Barack Obama’s re-election hopes, according to Alastair Newton, a political analyst at Nomura in London.

“The immediate reaction in the US notwithstanding, 'normal business' will soon be resumed in US politics. There will be no change on the fiscal/debt polarization and contrary to some commentators' reaction, definitely no election boost for Obama,” said Newton in an interview with CNBC on Tuesday.

With little or no operational control over al-Qaeda in recent years, Newton believes Osama’s death will have little impact on the terror group’s ability to mount attacks.

“Bin Laden’s role as head of al-Qaeda seems to have been largely symbolic for some years now, he was not responsible for operational planning and decision-making,” he added.

Following the brief rally on news of Bin Laden’s death, stocks gave up gains and Newton told CNBC that he agrees with the market reaction.

“There is no readily identifiable substantive reason for the market rally which the announcement of his bin Laden’s death triggered,” he said.

Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #257 on: May 03, 2011, 09:31:49 AM »

I think everyone here agrees or should agree; Thank you Mr. President, that was a job well done!

This will give Obama a short term pop in the polls.  And if the election was next week, I would expect him to win. 
I mean who is going to beat him?  Trump?   smiley

However the election is a long way off.  People have short memories.  While this event may fortify his right to
say he is a "strong" President, deflecting the naysayers accusing him of being "weak" and will boost his National Security standing,
I too think the next election will be about the economy.  And it should be. 
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4135


« Reply #258 on: May 03, 2011, 09:45:52 AM »

"This will give Obama a short term pop in the polls."

Well no bounce short term grin

Comparing Bamster's "leadership" to WH Bushes as some liberal media are wont to do, is like comparing  Joe Biden to Winston Chruchill.

****Tuesday, May 03, 2011 The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Thirty-six percent (36%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -10 (see trends).

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook

Overall, 49% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty percent (50%) disapprove.

Daily updates are based upon nightly telephone interviews and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. As a result, two-thirds of the interviews for today’s update were conducted before news was released about the death of Osama bin Laden. Thursday will be the first update based entirely upon interviews conducted after that event. Results from the single night of data collected on Monday shows a modest improvement in the president’s Approval Index rating. However, there was no improvement in the president’s overall approval rating. Caution should always be used when interpreting a single night sample from a tracking poll.

The president’s job approval ratings have been remarkably stable over the past year-and-a-half when viewed on a month-by-month basis.

During the month of April, the number of voters unaffiliated with either major party grew for the fourth straight month.

Republicans continue to hold a modest advantage on the Generic Congressional Ballot.

The Rasmussen Employment Index gained some ground last month but is still down from the start of 2011. Nineteen percent (19%) of workers report that the employers are hiring while 24% still see lay-offs. It has been nearly three years since the number reporting hiring topped the number with lay-offs.

Rasmussen Reports is pleased to announce that we now have more than 100,000 Twitter followers. Sign up at twitter.com/RasmussenPoll.

(More Below)

 

A Wall Street Journal   profile called Scott "America's Insurgent Pollster." The Washington Post calls him "a driving force in American politics." If you'd like Scott to speak at your conference or event, contact Premiere Speakers Bureau. Follow Scott on Facebook.

In a book released last year, Scott observed that, "The gap between Americans who want to govern themselves and politicians who want to rule over them may be as big today as the gap between the colonies and England during the 18th  century." He added that "The American people don't want to be governed from the left, the right, or the center. They want to govern themselves." In Search of Self-Governance  is available at Amazon.com.

MAD AS HELL: How the Tea Party Movement is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System,   by Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen, can be ordered atAmazon.com, Barnes and Noble, Borders and other outlets. It's also available in bookstores everywhere.

It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama's numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That's because some of the president's most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote. It is also important to check the details of question wording when comparing approval ratings from different firms.*****

 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12068


« Reply #259 on: May 03, 2011, 09:47:25 AM »

"For the first time in my adult life.....I am proud of Buraq H. Obama".
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12068


« Reply #260 on: May 03, 2011, 09:50:45 AM »

Seriously, he only played 9 holes of golf that day. Probably the most focused he's ever been on the job. The definite high point of his time as president.


Now, if there is a late night press conference to announce that he's killed the nat'l debt, or 0bamacare at the least.....
« Last Edit: May 03, 2011, 10:06:36 AM by G M » Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #261 on: May 03, 2011, 09:53:18 AM »

As for the "pop in the polls" I didn't say how big a pop.   grin  And overall, it can only be good for him.

As for the referenced daily polls, let's wait before we reach a conclusion.

"Daily updates are based upon nightly telephone interviews and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. As a result, two-thirds of the interviews for today’s update were conducted before news was released about the death of Osama bin Laden. Thursday will be the first update based entirely upon interviews conducted after that event."
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12068


« Reply #262 on: May 03, 2011, 10:09:49 AM »

Will Obama seize the advantage and press the war with the treasure trove of intel we now have?

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/02/jackpot-u-s-finds-huge-amount-of-data-on-bin-ladens-computers/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4135


« Reply #263 on: May 03, 2011, 11:16:06 AM »

"Will Obama seize the advantage and press the war with the treasure trove of intel we now have?"

I dunno.  But he is already playing the lets use this moment to all get along card.  Like he did with Gabby.

Which is code for do what I want or you are not compromising.

A Bamster is a Bamster is a Bamster.

Did anyone notice the similarity of Bamster mocking Trump at the Press dinner (which is in itself and elitist joke) to how he had the Supreme Coutr Justices, and Ryan sitting in front of him will he towers on the podium and mock them.

Mock and belittle your oponents.  Isn't that the strategy when logic no longer works?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12068


« Reply #264 on: May 03, 2011, 11:28:21 AM »

Pulling the trigger on Bin Laden was a no brainer. Anyone in the seat would have done it, even Biden, once they explained who he was and how he presented a threat to Amtrak.

Will Obama press the fight, meaning "kinetic military activity" against Pakistani intel/military/political figures?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5997


« Reply #265 on: May 03, 2011, 01:13:04 PM »

The discussion yesterday about how the failed Bush 1 reelection parallels to today was excellent. He got a well deserved war bump in popularity and then later lost for other reasons. The Perot factor was big, the recession was exaggerated but real as was his inability to acknowledge it.  And the broken 'no new taxes' pledge was used ruthlessly against him.

The strangest part of that episode to me was that the opponents of Bush who ripped him the worst for raising taxes would themselves have raised taxes further!  What it exposed was weakness. 

It was the 'centrists' Treasury Sec. Brady and Budget Director Darmon that pushed him hard and publicly, with all the leaks, into raising taxes.  He would have had to oppose his own highest advisers, oppose an emboldened Dem congress (and have a backbone) in order to not break his pledge.  He had no Paul Ryan or anyone else writing or pushing an alternative.  It wasn't opposition to the 'revenue enhancers' that energized his opponents, it was just that it exposed a flaw.  This guy wasn't a 3rd term of Reagan, he is at least on this key issue a spineless centrist that leans with the wind, whose word means nothing.  Much like today.

Lesson learned, caving on principle, being a Dem-lite / RINO in this case in order to win favor with moderates and liberals and the press and the people, gained him nothing.  All those same people turned on him instantly once the deal was inked.  Just like they did after George W Bush teamed with Ted Kennedy on a federal education expansion, a new drug entitlement, campaign finance reform and a failed amnesty initiative.  They was no political gain for compromising or selling out on principles.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4135


« Reply #266 on: May 03, 2011, 01:34:36 PM »

"They was no political gain for compromising or selling out on principles."

Great post and on this point you are exactly correct.  I though compromise was a good idea vis avis Bush W and Rove etc.

But I now realize that there is no compromise with the left.  It is never enough.  Every compromise will be met with more of a fanatic progressive agenda.   There is no end to their agenda until they have destroyed the USA as we know it.  One world government, no carbon fuels, one class, no personal responsibility, complete control.

Compromise from the right is met with being taken advantage of and being one step closer toward their vision of nirvana.

I say no more compromise.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12068


« Reply #267 on: May 03, 2011, 04:25:33 PM »

Pulling the trigger on Bin Laden was a no brainer.

I guess I spoke too soon. It wasn't a no-brainer for our Peter Principle community organizer in chief.  rolleyes

Obama took SIXTEEN HOURS to make up his mind about Bin Laden mission
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 7:20 PM on 3rd May 2011

President 'slept on it' as tense military chiefs awaited decision
Action started the next morning when Obama declared 'it's a go'
Mission delayed by one day after heavy cloud cover on Saturday night

Navy seals dodged Pakistani security to reach Bin Laden's lair

Outpouring of emotion on streets down to 'the same sense of unity that prevailed on 9/11' Obama told members of Congress

Barack Obama kept military commanders hanging by declaring he would 'sleep on it' before taking 16 hours to give the go-ahead to raid Bin Laden's compound.
Hit squads of specialist Navy Seals - who were not even told who they were preparing to capture - had practised the mission at two reconstructions of the terror chiefs sprawling compound.
The mission looked set to be given the all clear last Thursday when analysts confirmed beyond doubt that Bin Laden was in busy town of Abbottabad in northern Pakistan.
 All smiles: President Barack Obama beamed broadly as he presents Michelle Shearer at the National Teacher Of The Year awards at the White House in Washington today
But the president stunned officials when he told a national security meeting that he wanted more time to think - and disappeared out of the room.
'I'm not going to tell you what my decision is now - I'm going to go back and think about it some more,' said Obama, according to the New York Times. He then added 'I'm going to make a decision soon.'
The head of the CIA and other senior intelligence officers who were keen to proceed were left tense as they waited for the president's decision.
But the next morning after 16 hours, Obama summoned four top aides to the White House Diplomatic Room. Before they could speak, the president put his fist on the table and declared 'It's a go'.
With those three words, the greatest military operation in recent history began. Had it not been for heavy cloud cover on Saturday, troops would have been deployed then.
But they waited another day, and reached Pakistan just before midnight on Sunday evening. Obama refused to tell Pakistan about the mission in case it was leaked by jihadist sympathisers within the administration and Bin Laden took flight.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1383010/Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-Obama-took-16-hours-make-mind.html
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12068


« Reply #268 on: May 03, 2011, 07:13:18 PM »

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/315658.php




7 Minutes Vs. 16 Hours: How The Media Reports Delay
George Bush was relentlessly mocked for waiting seven minutes (actually waiting for his security detail to ready the exit and for his vehicle to be readied) before leaving the school he was visiting. He calmly finished reading My Pet Goat for the kids before going to his now-ready helicopter.

On the other hand, after Obama was told (most likely for the fifteenth time) that the CIA was really, really, really quite confident that Osama bin Ladin was at that compound in Abbottabad, he decided he needed to sleep on it.

Sixteen hours later (hours during which Osama might have fled-- bear in mind, his courier's name had just been outed by WikiLeaks), he made up his mind.

How does the media report this? Well, relying upon those in Obama's inner circle (that is to say, his political flunkies and spinners), we're told this:

"But the next morning after 16 hours, Obama summoned four top aides to the White House Diplomatic Room. Before they could speak, the president put his fist on the table and declared 'It's a go'."
Why does it matter that he did this "before they could speak"? They had spoken already yesterday when they strongly, strongly urged the president to give the order, and he had decided to sleep on it.

They were only waiting on him, after all.

So, after 16 hours of vacillation, during which the operation might have been rendered a failure by intervening invents, he fist-bumps a piece of furniture and finally makes up his mind.

This is something to brag about? This is, in Howard Fineman's words, "almost Biblical"?

Seems like a very cautious, feckless, indecisive individual delaying and delaying on critical decisions and then attempting to sound heroic when he finally does what he's being paid to do.

Thanks to OCBill. This is from the Daily Mail, via Drudge.


To Be Honest: I don't begrudge a president some thinking time before a big decision.

But the media still hasn't explained to me which of the previous presidents and which of the potential/hypothetical future presidents wouldn't have ordered this.

If everyone including Jimmy Carter would have ordered this, then I'm afraid I don't see why President Made a Poopie should be so praised for doing what everyone else would have done. That is, why praise him for being ordinary?

And yes, even Jimmy Carter probably would have ordered this. At least the 1970s version Bear in mind: He did order a failed hostage rescue attempt -- also fraught with peril, obviously, since the choppers crashed in the desert.

A commando hostage rescue is a lot trickier than a hit, of course. A lot more moving pieces, and you have to get all those people safely away.

So why should I praise Obama for a choice that every single one of his predecessors and every plausible successor would also make?

And probably not requiring 16 hours to do so, either.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5997


« Reply #269 on: May 03, 2011, 11:12:33 PM »

Sleep on it? That's one hell of a sleep for a Commander in Chief.  It tells me that whoever he wanted to run this past, a crucial foreign policy question, was not in the room of most trusted foreign policy advisers.  When he left, he didn't know.  When he returned, he knew his answer. No follow up questions, no  He also knew that OBL had eluded capture/kill many times before.
--------

Another question is VP Biden.  He didn't know, did he?  He is Mr. foreign policy to the President, but someone in the inner circle, maybe the President, knew not to trust his foot in mouth habit while this progressed since last August.  Just conjecture on my part, but I am curious.

Here is Biden's first statement  about the event, 2 days later.  http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/bidens-first-remarks-on-death-of-obl-breathtaking-staggering-undertaking.html  No mention of being part of the planning or the team.  Unlike the President.  For Obama, it was all about him: "I assembled the team." "I directed the operation".
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12068


« Reply #270 on: May 03, 2011, 11:21:49 PM »

You raise very good points, Doug.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4135


« Reply #271 on: May 04, 2011, 09:50:51 AM »

It really was a "no brainer".

First of all he didn't just decide.

The powers to be had TEN yrs to figure these moments out.

OK look at the choice:

Bomb the smithireens out of a compound and not know who is killed hurt or maimed.  Not know for sure if he is there, if he is killed and have no evidence or proof of anything vs the ground mission which could risk the lives of the Seals, backfire or fail.  But then one could get proof OBL is there and captured or killed.  As to the relations with Pakistan nothing different either way.

Isn't the choice really a no brainer?  If it isn't enough, the liberal media is making this out to be the great commander in chief decision of the new millineum - which it isn't - they are now:

1) this dispells all doubt that he is relentless about the war on terror and is a great commander in chief
2) he was right all along to pursue OBL wherein Bush is replayed to say it is not a top priority  (as thought the hunt of OBL started when he "directed Panetta to make this a priority" which by the way wasn't that well past the start of his reign as king?
3) of course if he is right about this he is right about the rest of his policies
4)  O'Donnel was shamelessly saying Bush put us all through this for "ten years" by not getting OBL at Tora Tora  - he conveninetly left out the next logical conclusion (since he is going that route) is that Clinton put us through 911 by not letting Sudan turn over OBL to us in the 90's when he had the chance. (BTW O'Donnel is definitely the new Oberman.)
5) shopping around those convenient pictures showing the tense Bamster biting his nails etc as something to behold.  I don't recall the immediate release ever before of such pictures of a President.
6) To prove the greatness of the one he will now speak at ground zero?  At least Bush has the class to decline cashing in on this and has gracefully declined to be present.  Probably because he knows it will be a set up.  Him sitting in the front row while the king towers above him on the podium.  We all know what that means - remember Trump, Ryan, Supreme Court.

Now they say he is up several percent in the polls.  Well as Lincoln pointed out - you can fool all of the people some of the time.  Clinton certainly proved that with one speech.

Now all that said Bamster deserves some credit but lets not turn this into a success akin to WW2 invasion of Europe.
Except for the military the planned and carried out the operation.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4135


« Reply #272 on: May 04, 2011, 09:54:03 AM »

Sorry, I should reread my comments before my post;
Correction
You can fool some of the people all of the time
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5997


« Reply #273 on: May 04, 2011, 11:21:41 AM »

CCP, It seems to me the celebrations of this, like 'mission accomplished' for a returning ship and crew, should be held in private.  A victory parade at ground zero sounds highly inappropriate to me.  Bringing OBL to justice / room temperature doesn't reverse any of the destruction he caused.  Risking our best people and equipment to kill him was a job we did not ask or wish for. 

We should act like winning battles and wars is what we do when attacked, not gloat, taunt for more or act surprised.  If extracting ourselves from the Middle East is what we seek, the President's next trip should be to ANWR.

What is to celebrate for closure when KSM is still held, fed and being presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Later I expect it to be a point of historic trivia that it was Obama not Bush who presided over the actual OBL kill operation.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5997


« Reply #274 on: May 04, 2011, 11:55:48 AM »

George W Bush had a 7 week bounce after the capture of Saddam Hussein.  This will be smaller and shorter.  Obama deserves permanent credit for what he did right.  Hopefully he won't waste that by overplaying his hand.


JDN: "...overall, it can only be good for him."

My teenage daughter (non-political) watched the Sunday night speech separately and commented to me the next day that he was very 'I' and 'me' oriented.  I took Obama's side for the moment and explained that he needed to make clear to Pakistan that the mission was authorized by the President of the United States.  When it turns out that he was not 'the director' nor the one who 'assembled the team' and later touts this as one of his big foreign policy achievements when in fact all the pieces of the puzzle were put in place by his predecessor (http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/04/bushs-torture-lawyer-claims-credit-for-bin-laden-death-criticizes-seals/), yes it could backfire politically, just as the mission accomplished banner certainly did.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4135


« Reply #275 on: May 04, 2011, 12:25:20 PM »

"My teenage daughter (non-political) watched the Sunday night speech separately and commented to me the next day that he was very 'I' and 'me' oriented."

She has her father's brains.  She is in the group that Lincoln would have said cannot be fooled all of the time or even most of the time! grin

Rusmussan poll shows no bounce unlike the NYTimes.

"We should act like winning battles and wars is what we do when attacked, not gloat, taunt for more or act surprised."

Well said.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4135


« Reply #276 on: May 10, 2011, 10:27:43 AM »

 grin   I am glad he is running as per recent rumours. 

http://newtexplore2012.com/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5997


« Reply #277 on: May 10, 2011, 12:44:36 PM »

It is better to be in than to wonder forever if he should have been in.  He is the best thinker and visionary in some ways and will elevate the debate.  I don't predict he will go far.  There are some negative points already discussed I don't think he can overcome, but we will see.
-----
No commentary here from the candidate debate last week.  I didn't see it, did anyone?  Many say Herman Cain won it.  Rush L. said that Tim Pawlenty looked presidential and spoke highly of all of them.  With Obama below 50%, there is no one holding back on criticism.  They need to all quit participating in the show of hands questioning.  Raising your hand without opportunity to explain your view is not Presidential.  Juan Williams for balance asked some idiotic questions, do you believe in creationism, for example.  Do we have a religious litmus test in this country?  Does the President set policy in that area?  What we should be arguing is what can we all agree on, not just find the differences.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12068


« Reply #278 on: May 10, 2011, 12:51:53 PM »

At least Trump has fallen to 5th place in polling.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4135


« Reply #279 on: May 10, 2011, 02:29:49 PM »

  I didn't see it, did anyone?

I saw parts of it.  Pawlenty sounded good and Cain also did.

Both Pawlenty and Cain were very good to me.

Cain is so articulate and does indeed have the charisma.

Pawlenty to me sounded good.  One of the interviewers tried to trap him on his early support for cap and trade.
I believe he answered that well.  The interviewer kind of did rightfully say that he may as well ask it because it will certainly be a knock against him later in the campaign.

If Tim is a good learner and practices and works at it I think he has a good shot at being a very good candidate.  He doesn't have to show all his cards now but if he can take on the Phoney One like trump he will win.

This race is the Republicans race to lose.  Obama has a dismal record and has done his best to worsen this country.  I don't see how he could win other than by default.


I still think a key to winning is addressing middle class concerns.  Repubs can ignore the squeeze on the middle class at their own peril.  The libs are already turning this into one of their big issues. 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31478


« Reply #280 on: May 12, 2011, 07:41:23 AM »

Anyone have a URL for the debate?

Anyway, Newt has officially announced , , ,
===============
Trust me, when it comes to the 2012 race for the Republican presidential nomination, I am going to be fair in assessing the candidates. Already I have polled for NewsMax, and my early polls placed former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich in fourth place among announced or potential candidates.

But before I go into my harsh analyst mode -- which once in a while leads to an "I'm hurt" email from Newt -- let me share my personal feelings about the man who has just announced that he will seek the presidency.

Other than the man most call my "other father," former U.S. Sen. Mack Mattingly, no political figure in my adult life has been as close to me or had more moments of importance in my life than Newt Gingrich. For over 33 years, we have laughed and cried together, argued incessantly, shared countless moments of happiness, known each other's family members, and run campaigns together. And after all that, I'm still constantly amazed at the new facets of Newt's life and politics that continue to surface.

But one thing I do know about Newt: Never underestimate him.

I still remember one day in 1980. We had just eaten lunch during a busy day of working on his re-election campaign for Congress. Newt asked me what my ultimate ambition was in politics. I'm sure my answer was something that would read embarrassingly grand if I recalled it today. But when I turned the tables and asked Newt what he planned to achieve, he said without missing a beat that he aspired to be speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

At that time, no Republican in my lifetime had ever served as speaker. I thought he was nuts.

I was wrong. And little did I know that I would have an inside, front-row view of that dream as it unfolded. Looking back, it was all worth it -- the many hours in cars, on planes, in meetings, pleading for money, battling for votes, fighting recounts.

So now my friend begins the voyage for the presidency. It will be an uphill climb. Mitt Romney has a full campaign team in place from his 2008 run. Potential candidate Donald Trump could self-finance his early campaign. Mike Huckabee, should he enter the race, starts out, based on the polls, as the frontrunner. Sarah Palin has a huge following, as does the often-overlooked Ron Paul.

Then there are the new faces, Tim Pawlenty, Herman Cain and Mitch Daniels -- the favorite of the "Bush team."

And even if Gingrich wins the nomination, he must face an incumbent president whose fortunes appear to be on the rise. President Obama displayed decisive leadership and considerable political savvy in ordering the commando raid that, in essence, "executed" Osama bin Laden.

Still, the latest bad news on housing and the overall unemployment figures suggest that Barack Obama is vulnerable.

As for Newt, we all know his plusses and minuses. All agree he is brilliant.

He must harness his desire to address every new issue and every new policy solution, and instead stick to the message that half of the current GOP electorate was too young to pay attention to in the mid-1990s: his accomplishments as speaker.

It is a fact that Gingrich went toe-to-toe with then-President Clinton to force a reduction in the deficit and balanced budgets. He also successfully pressured Clinton to embrace a cut in the capital gains tax and to approve welfare reform.

Yes, I have heard about Newt's "political baggage" -- endlessly. But compared to someone like Donald Trump, whom I find to be a far more serious candidate than most pundits do -- Newt's personal history seems to pale in comparison. And polling confirms that no one really cares about ancient mistakes and misery.

Trust me, I will bust Newt in a minute if he makes a mistake. I've done it privately with him for years. We have had many a knockdown fight in our many years of friendship. So, he will get no free passes from this point forward.

But for a moment, imagine a skinny, overly ambitious kid working with a fairly slender Newt, our eyes both open and optimistic, and our whole lives ahead of us. I would have no heart and soul if I did not feel a special sense of pride in Gingrich's announcement Wednesday night.

Win or lose, Gingrich is owed much by the Republican Party. He is also owed much by me.

Good luck, old friend. I'll see you on the other side of the 2012 presidential race, whatever it may bring.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2011, 08:46:47 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31478


« Reply #281 on: May 13, 2011, 08:15:51 AM »

F. Scott Fitzgerald famously wrote that "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." If we may judge by his health-care speech at the University of Michigan yesterday, Mitt Romney is a very smart man.

The likely Republican Presidential candidate fulfilled the White House's fondest wishes, defending the mandate-subsidize-overregulate program he enacted as Massachusetts Governor in 2006 even as he denounced President Obama's national reprise. He then proposed his own U.S. reform that is sensible and might do so some actual good, but which also runs against the other two plans. These are unbridgeable policy and philosophical differences, though Mr. Romney is nonetheless trying to leap over them like Evel Knievel heading for the Snake River Canyon.

.Mr. Romney says that Massachusetts was "a state solution to a state problem" and that the other laboratories of democracy should also be allowed to run their own experiments free of ObamaCare's controls. But if Massachusetts is the triumph that Mr. Romney claimed yesterday, well, what's the problem with Washington exporting the same successful model? If an individual mandate to purchase health insurance was indispensable in the Bay State, as Mr. Romney argued, why isn't it necessary in every other state too?

The former Governor outlined a national approach like the one he ran on in 2008. Its core virtue is that it would equalize the tax treatment of health insurance, ending the destructive federal bias for employer-provided insurance over the individual market and encouraging a consumer market for competitive insurance and more efficient medicine. Health economists across the political spectrum have recognized this distortion for decades.

Mr. Romney also tried to draw a contrast between his new campaign plan and Mr. Obama's reform, saying, for instance, that it would create no new health-care bureaucracies. He neglected to mention that his state plan did precisely that. Mr. Romney's political appointees converted the architecture of the "connector" that was supposed to support individual and small-business insurance choice into a regulatory body dedicated to stamping it out.

The political tragedy is that Mr. Romney could have emerged as one of ObamaCare's most potent critics had he made different choices two years ago amid one of the country's most consequential debates in generations. He might have said that as Governor he made a good-faith effort to resolve some of health care's long-running dysfunctions, but that it hadn't worked out and that's why state experiments are valuable.

Mr. Romney also sold his plan using the same theories and language as Mr. Obama, and he might have rebutted the President from experience and evidence. Instead, he has lashed himself to the contradiction of attacking Mr. Obama's plan while claiming his own is different.

Many people have tried to talk Mr. Romney down from this daredevil campaign act, but Mr. Romney privately says he doesn't want to reinforce the rap he had in 2008 that he had reinvented himself too often. As a political matter, however, we think it's better to change positions than to try to defend the intellectually indefensible.

Mr. Romney is not taking our advice, as his nearby letter shows. He even said yesterday that he would do it all over again in Massachusetts, which means he is in for a year in which Republicans attack him on policy while Democrats defend him on policy but attack him as a hypocrite. Who knows what GOP voters will make of all this, but we won't be surprised if Mr. Romney's campaign suffers as many broken bones (433) as Knievel.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31478


« Reply #282 on: May 13, 2011, 07:43:29 PM »

I confess to considerable sympathy for RP's willingness to get seriously radical with regard to the size and reach of our government in our lives, to abolish the Fed and restore responsible monetary policy, and for his respect for our Constitution.

OTOH sometimes he is just a fg nut,

I heard tonight on the Bret Baier report that he would not have approved the raid that killed OBL without prior approval from Pakistan.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12068


« Reply #283 on: May 13, 2011, 08:25:16 PM »

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/13/paul-declares-candidacy-in-2012-gop-presidential-primary/

Paul declares candidacy in 2012 GOP presidential primary
 

posted at 9:30 am on May 13, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

 
Go ahead.  Act surprised:
 

It’s official: Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, will seek the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, he announced Friday on Good Morning America.
 
“At this moment I am officially announcing that I am a candidate for president in the Republican primary,” Paul said. “Time has come around to the point where the people are agreeing with much of what I’ve been saying for 30 years, so I think the time is right.”
 
Paul, a mouthpiece for all things small-government, has made the presidential leap of faith twice before: In 1988, as the Libertarian Party nominee, and in 2008, as a dark horse Republican with incomparable niche appeal and formidable fundraising prowess.
 
Hey, it’s the first time that I can recall that someone announced their bid the day after they effectively killed it.  Insisting that he would have asked the same Pakistani government that won’t cut ties with Mullah Omar and the terrorist network that conducted the Mumbai massacre to, pretty please, arrest Osama bin Laden reduced Paul’s level of seriousness as a candidate to, er, the same level it’s always been.   Only the true believers will support that kind of befuddled thinking in a Commander in Chief, and even some of those might have second thoughts — although not in the comments section to this post, I’ll boldly predict.
 
The former record, by the way, was held by Joe Biden, who managed to wait for a few minutes after the announcement to kill his candidacy in 2007.
 
But even putting that aside, and putting aside the issue of his flirtations with white supremacists and anti-Semites for almost two decades in his subscription newsletter (and a donation scandal in 2007, too), why would anyone take him seriously anyway?  MSNBC calls him the “the Tea Party godfather,” which is ludicrous.  Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin did far more for the Tea Party than Paul ever did, and Bachmann is also exploring a Presidential bid.  Paul is a crank that routinely ends up on the wrong end of lopsided votes and has had zero success building coalitions in Congress.  And let’s not forget that the last time America elected a President from the House of Representatives was over 130 years ago, and that in his mid-70s, Paul would be the oldest major-party candidate if he somehow managed to win the primary.
 
And wouldn’t that campaign look glorious indeed?  The DNC would have a field day running quotes from Paul’s past newsletter gems in a campaign against the nation’s first African-American President.
 
So, go ahead and act surprised — and then have yourself a good laugh.
 
Update: Changed “Congress” to “the House of Representatives” for better clarity.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12068


« Reply #284 on: May 13, 2011, 08:28:47 PM »

Paul: Killing OBL “absolutely was not necessary”
 

posted at 8:48 am on May 12, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

 
Ron Paul’s supporters plan on another run for the presidency from the Texas Congressman, and some are saying that the mainstream has finally begun to embrace his ideas on economics and the Fed.  On foreign policy and national defense, though, perhaps Paul is farther out than ever.  In a radio interview on Tuesday, reported this morning in Politico, Paul said he would not have greenlighted the mission that killed Osama bin Laden, and would have worked with Pakistan to arrest him instead:
 

“I think things could have been done somewhat differently,” Paul said this week. “I would suggest the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed. We went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he’s been in prison. Why can’t we work with the government?”
 
Paul also told WHO’s Simon Conway that the mission “absolutely was not necessary”:
 

“I don’t think it was necessary, no. It absolutely was not necessary,” Paul said during his Tuesday comments. “I think respect for the rule of law and world law and international law. What if he’d been in a hotel in London? We wanted to keep it secret, so would we have sent the airplane, you know the helicopters into London, because they were afraid the information would get out?”

For one thing, had we found him holed up in London, we would have been able to trust the British intelligence service to cooperate.  MI-5 didn’t spend more than a decade helping to build up the Taliban and playing footsie with radical Islamists the way Pakistan’s ISI did, primarily as a bulwark against India.  Moreover, as Paul should know, we tried trusting Pakistan once before on an opportunity to target bin Laden when Bill Clinton had a chance to target his compound.  The ISI warned bin Laden, and to paraphrase President George Bush, we wound up sending a $10 million rocket into a ten-dollar tent to hit a camel’s butt.
 
I would have had no problem with capturing Osama bin Laden, or with killing him.  He declared war on the United States and continued to pursue it until his last breath.  Furthermore, I have no problem with us conducting a military mission in Pakistan to get him.  Pakistan has proven themselves unreliable on high-level intelligence matters in the past, specifically on OBL, and we have had little cause to put any more trust in the Pakistani ISI ever since.
 
Paul has a few good ideas on fiscal policy, but is otherwise a nut.  Insisting that we should have asked the Pakistanis to arrest bin Laden proves rather clearly that Paul lives in a fantasy world.
 
Update: I forgot to hat-tip Jammie Wearing Fool — my apologies.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31478


« Reply #285 on: May 13, 2011, 08:55:19 PM »

I was aware of the anti-Semitic stuff.  Got any convenient URLs on it and/or the race-tinged stuff?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12068


« Reply #286 on: May 13, 2011, 09:00:50 PM »


http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/02/17/ron-paul-is-a-vicious-anti-semite-and-anti-american-and-conservatives-need-to-wash-their-hands-of-him/

Ron Paul Is A Vicious Anti-Semite and Anti-American and Conservatives Need To Wash Their Hands of Him

by David Horowitz
Posted on February 17 2011 1:25 pm

David Horowitz is the editor-in-chief of NewsReal Blog and FrontPage Magazine. He is the President and CEO of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. His most recent book is Reforming Our Universities


 
Long ago Bill Buckley drummed the anti-Semites out of the conservative movement, and the movement thrived as a result. But the Jew-haters have returned. For years the Texas crackpot, Ron Paul, has been attacking America and Israel as imperialist powers — the Great Satan and the Little Satan, and calling for America’s retreat from the battle against our totalitarian enemies. At the recent CPAC conference Paul’s Jew-hating storm-troopers swarmed the Freedom Center’s table to vent their spleen against Israel as a Nazi state. Now Paul is making a priority of withdrawing aid for Israel  — the only democracy in the Middle East and the only reliable ally of the United States. Here is an alert from Gary Bauer about the amendment Ron Paul is proposing which may be voted on today.
 
Thursday, February 17, 2011
 To: Friends & Supporters
 From: Gary L. Bauer
 
Special Alert
 
Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) has just introduced an amendment to end all U.S. aid to Israel.  The amendment could be voted on before the day is over.  I need your help right now to stop this ill-conceived proposal!
 
Please click here to quickly and easily send a message to your elected representative urging them to stand with Israel.
 
Don’t be deceived.  This Ron Paul proposal would not lower our budget deficit.  By abandoning Israel while its enemies are gaining strength, the risk of a major war in the Middle East would increase. A major war would cost the U.S. billions and billions of dollars as we have already seen in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
The U.S. gives billions of dollars a year to foreign countries that hate us and regularly vote against us at the United Nations.  But, Israel votes with the U.S. 97% of the time.  They are a loyal ally that shares our values.  The aid they receive is used to buy military equipment from U.S. companies so the money comes back to us. Ron Paul’s proposal makes no sense.
 
Please right now go to www.cwfpac.com to tell your congressman to stand with Israel.
 
You may also call the Capitol Hill Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask for your representative’s office.  If you don’t know his or her name, give the operator your zip code and they will transfer you.  Tell them to stand with our most reliable ally Israel by opposing the Paul amendment to end all foreign aid.  Please take action now!
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12068


« Reply #287 on: May 13, 2011, 09:04:53 PM »

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html

November 14, 2007
The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters
 By Andrew Walden

 


When some in a crowd of anti-war activists meeting at Democrat National Committee HQ in June, 2005 suggested Israel was behind the 9-11 attacks, DNC Chair Howard Dean was quick to get behind the microphones and denounce them saying: "such statements are nothing but vile, anti-Semitic rhetoric."


When KKK leader David Duke switched parties to run for Louisiana governor as a Republican in 1991, then-President George H W Bush responded sharply, saying, "When someone asserts the Holocaust never took place, then I don't believe that person ever deserves one iota of public trust. When someone has so recently endorsed Nazism, it is inconceivable that someone can reasonably aspire to a leadership role in a free society."


Ron Paul is different. 


Rep Ron Paul (R-TX) is the only Republican candidate to demand immediate withdrawal from Iraq and blame US policy for creating Islamic terrorism.  He has risen from obscurity and is beginning to raise millions of dollars in campaign contributions.  Paul has no traction in the polls -- 7% of the vote in New Hampshire -- but he at one point had more cash on hand than John McCain.  And now he is planning a $1.1 million New Hampshire media blitz just in time for the primary.



Ron Paul set an internet campaigning record raising more than $4 million in small on-line donations in one day, on November 5, 2007. But there are many questions about Paul's apparent unwillingness to reject extremist groups' public participation in his campaign and financial support of his November 5  "patriot money-bomb plot." 


On October 26 nationally syndicated radio talk show host Michael Medved posted an "Open Letter to Rep. Ron Paul" on TownHall.com.  It reads:



Dear Congressman Paul:


Your Presidential campaign has drawn the enthusiastic support of an imposing collection of Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 "Truthers" and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists.


Do you welcome- or repudiate - the support of such factions?


More specifically, your columns have been featured for several years in the American Free Press -a publication of the nation's leading Holocaust Denier and anti-Semitic agitator, Willis Carto.  His book club even recommends works that glorify the Nazi SS, and glowingly describe the "comforts and amenities" provided for inmates of Auschwitz.


Have your columns appeared in the American Free Press with your knowledge and approval?


As a Presidential candidate, will you now disassociate yourself, clearly and publicly, from the poisonous propaganda promoted in such publications?


As a guest on my syndicated radio show, you answered my questions directly and fearlessly.
Will you now answer these pressing questions, and eliminate all associations between your campaign and some of the most loathsome fringe groups in American society?


Along with my listeners (and many of your own supporters), I eagerly await your response.


Respectfully, Michael Medved

Medved has received no official response from the Paul campaign.


There is more.  The Texas-based Lone Star Times October 25 publicly requested a response to questions about whether the Paul campaign would repudiate and reject a $500 donation from white supremacist Stormfront.org founder Don Black and end the Stormfront website fundraising for Paul.  The Times article lit up the conservative blogosphere for the next week.  Paul supporters packed internet comment boards alternately denouncing or excusing the charges.  Most politicians are quick to distance themselves from such disreputable donations when they are discovered.  Not Paul.



Daniel Siederaski of the Jewish Telegraph Agency tried to get an interview with Paul, calling him repeatedly but not receiving any return calls.  Wrote Siederaski November 9: "Ron Paul will take money from Nazis. But he won’t take telephone calls from Jews." [Update]  Finally on November 13 the Paul campaign responded. In a short interview JTA quotes Jim Perry, head of Jews for Paul describing his work on the Paul campaign along side a self-described white supremacist which Perry says he has reformed.



Racist ties exposed in the Times article go far beyond a single donation.  Just below links to information about the "BOK KKK Ohio State Meeting", and the "BOK KKK Pennsylvania State Meeting",  Stormfront.org website announced: "Ron Paul for President" and "Countdown to the 5th of November".  The links take readers directly to a Ron Paul fundraising site from which they can click into the official Ron Paul 2008 donation page on the official campaign site.  Like many white supremacists, Stormfront has ties to white prison gangs.


Finally on October 30 Paul's campaign came back with a non-response.  In a phone interview with the Lone Star Times, Ron Paul national communications director Jesse Benton was non-committal about removing the donations link from Stormfront.org.  After a week of internet controversy, the best Benton could come up with is:



"We hadn't thought of these options but I'll bring up these ideas with the campaign director.  Blocking the IP address sounds like a simple and practical step that could be taken.  I doubt there is anything we can do legally.  Tracking donations that came from Stormfront's site sounds more complicated.  I'm concerned about setting a precedent for the campaign having to screen and vet everyone who makes a donation.  It is important to keep in mind is (sic) that we didn't solicit this support, and we aren't interested in spending al of our time and resources focused on this issue.  We want to focus on Dr. Paul's positive agenda for freedom."

Perhaps frustrated by the weasel words, Lone Star Times asked Benton: "Bottom line- Will the Ron Paul campaign be rejecting the $500 contribution made by neo-Nazi Don Black?"


Benton's response:



"At this time, I cannot say that we will be rejecting Mr. Black's contribution, but I will bring the matter to the attention of our campaign director again, and expect some sort of decision to be made in coming days."

On October 11 Stormfront Radio endorsed Ron Paul for President saying: 



"Whatever organization you belong to, remember first and foremost that you're a white nationalist, then put aside your differences with one another and work together.  Work together to strive to get someone in the Oval Office who agrees with much of what we want for our future.  Look at the man, look at the issues, look at our future.  Vote for Ron Paul, 2008."

As of November 11--the Ron Paul donation link is still up and active on Stormfront.  No IP address has been blocked.  Stormfront's would-be stormtroopers are still encouraged to contribute to Paul's campaign. 


The white supremacists do more than raise funds.  Blogger Adam Holland reports:



"one of Rep. Paul's top internet organizers in Tennessee is a neo-Nazi leader named Will Williams (aka ‘White Will'). Williams was the southern coordinator for William Pierce's National Alliance Party, the largest neo-Nazi party in the U.S." 

Pierce is author of the racist "Turner Diaries".   When the Lone Star Times exposed the $500 Don Black donation, Williams responded on the national Ron Paul meetup site,



"Must Dr. Paul capitulate to our Jewish masters' demands?" 

The mild responses to Williams' MeetUp post make a sharp contrast to the hatred and invective with which Paul supporters respond to Medved or any other writer questioning Paul's refusal to disassociate himself from his racist supporters.  Any other campaign would presume Williams' expression of anti-Semitism was a dirty trick by an opposing campaign.  Williams would have been hurriedly denounced and booted out of the campaign.  Not Ron Paul.


Williams has also organized at least one other discussion, "the Israel factor revisited" on the national Ron Paul MeetUp site.  Again the measured tone of the remarks by Ron Paul supporters in the comments section contrasts sharply with the invective Paul supporters rain down upon bloggers who oppose him.  Paul's campaign relies heavily on MeetUp sites to organize.  Over 61,000 Paul supporters are registered on MeetUp as compared to 3,400 for Barack Obama, 1,000 for Hillary Clinton, 1,800 for Dennis Kucinich and only a couple of dozen members for most other candidates.


On the white-supremacist Vanguard News Network, Williams links to Paul's "grassroots" fundraising site and organizes other racists to "game You Tube" to advance a specific Ron Paul video to the top of You Tube's rankings.  Writes Williams, "Everybody here can do this, except bjb w/his niggerberry."  Holland points out, "BJB" stands for "burn Jew burn".  BJB's internet signature is, "Nothing says lovin' like a Jew in the oven."     


Williams is not Paul's only supremacist supporter.  "Former" KKK leader (and convicted fraudster) David Duke's website http://www.whitecivilrights.com/, calls Ron Paul "our king" and cheers while "Ron Paul Hits a Home Run on Jay Leno Show."  Duke also includes a "Ron Paul campaign update" and plugs Ron Paul fundraising efforts.  These articles are posted right next to articles such as "Ten reasons why the Holocaust is a fraud" and "Germans Still Remember their Historical Greatness"-featuring a map of Hitler's Third Reich at its 1942 military height, just in case anybody doesn't get the point.  Apparently "Dr. Paul's positive agenda for freedom" is attractive to those who ape the world's worst tyrants and genocidaires.


There are others.  In a You Tube video circulating the internet, Ron Paul is endorsed by Hutton Gibson, a leading Holocaust denier and father of controversial actor and director Mel Gibson.     


Ron Paul is supported by Patrick Buchanan, whose website carries videos and articles such as: "Ron Paul epiphany" and "Ron Paul a new hope."  Buchanan has a long history of remarks some call anti-Semitic (see link).  Ron Unz, editor of Buchanan's American Conservative magazine, is a Paul contributor and may have helped raise money from Silicon Valley sources. 


Ron Paul's American Free Press supporters run literally from one end of the country to the other: 

•A Maine Ron Paul MeetUp activist who once ran for US Senate describes himself as, "a 911 truth researcher & video documentarian, & a writer for The Barnes Review."  The Barnes Review is a Holocaust-denier magazine founded by Willis Carto.
•A Hawaii Ron Paul MeetUp organizer is pictured here pumping the Paul campaign and selling copies of Willis Carto's American Free Press at a farmers market.

There is more to the Paul campaign than racists.  The mis-named 9-11 "truth" movement has also been a big source of Paul support.  The Detroit Free Press describes the scene as Republican Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani shared the ferry ride back from a Mackinac Island Michigan Republican caucus September 21. 



"According to one eyewitness, Giuliani was beset by dozens of Paul enthusiasts as he was leaving the island, some of whom shouted taunts about 9/11, including: ‘9/11 was an inside job' and ‘Rudy, Rudy, what did you do with the gold?' -- an apparent reference to rumors about $200 million in gold alleged to have disappeared in the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.  Ed Wyszynski, a longtime party activist from Eagle, (MI) said the Paul supporters threatened to throw Giuliani overboard and harassed him as he took shelter in the ferry's pilothouse for the 15-minute journey back to Mackinaw City."

Paul campaign spokesman Jesse Benton told the Detroit Free Press "Ron Paul does not think that 9/11 was an inside job."  But the "truthers" aren't fooled.  Paul's committee paid 9-11 conspiracy nut and talk-show host Alex Jones $1300.  Jones claims the payment is a partial refund after he over paid August 27 when giving Paul a $2300 contribution.  Aaron Dykes of Alex Jones' company Magnolia Management and Alex Jones' Infowars website gave Ron Paul $1600. 

Jones has been pumping Paul's campaign on his nationally syndicated radio show for months.  Alex Jones got Paul's first radio interview January 17 after announcing his Presidential campaign.  LINK: http://prisonplanet.tv/audio/170107paul.mp3.  In a lengthy October 5 interview -- apparently Paul's fourth with Jones -- Paul thanks Jones for his support saying: "You and the others have always said run, run, run."  Alex Jones' websites are piled with Ron Paul articles and campaign paraphernalia for sale.


Other Paul donations and activists come from leftists and Muslims.  Singer and Democrat contributor Barry Manilow is also a Ron Paul contributor and possibly a fundraiser.  There are close ties (but no endorsements) between Ron Paul's San Francisco Bay Area campaign and Cindy Sheehan's long-shot Congressional campaign.


An Austin, TX MeetUp site shows Paul supporters also involved in leftist groups such as Howard Dean's "Democracy for America."  MeetUp lists other sites popular with members of the Ron Paul national MeetUp group.  The number one choice is "9/11 questions" another leading choice is "conspiracy." 


MuslimVoterOnPaul.com chimes in writing:



"Brothers and Sisters, please vote for Ron Paul in the Republican Primaries. It's our obligation to come together and try to stand up for not only our best interests, but the best interests of the entire Ummah." 

A Ron Paul flyer directed at Muslims reads: "Who is Ron Paul and why does the Jerusalem Post call him crazy?"  A "Muslims for Paul" bumper sticker puts the Islamic crescent in Paul's name.


The ugly mishmash of hate groups backing Paul has a Sheehan connection as well.  David Duke is a big Cindy Sheehan supporter eagerly proclaiming "Cindy Sheehan is right" after Sheehan said, "My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel."  Stormfront.org members joined Sheehan at her protest campout in Crawford, TX and posed with her for photos.  Sheehan is also intimately associated with the Lew Rockwell libertarian website which has posted over 200 articles by Ron Paul as well as some "scholarly" 9-11 conspiracy theories. 


The white supremacist American Nationalist Union also backed Sheehan's Crawford protests and endorsed David Duke for president of the United States in 1988.  Now they are backing Ron Paul-linking to numerous Pro-Paul articles posted on LewRockwell.com.



Medved's questions surprise many, but they shouldn't.  Paul's links the anti-Semites and white supremacists continue a trend which has been developing since the 9-11 attacks.  Barely six weeks after 9-11, Paul was already busy blaming America.  On October 27, 2001 Paul wrote on LewRockwell.com, "Some sincere Americans have suggested that our modern interventionist policy set the stage for the attacks of 9-11".  Paul complained: "often the ones who suggest how our policies may have played a role in evoking the attacks are demonized as unpatriotic."  He says the US is "bombing Afghanistan" and is upset nobody is interested in his solution:



"It is certainly disappointing that our congressional leaders and administration have not considered using letters of marque and reprisal as an additional tool to root out those who participated in the 9-11 attacks."

Paul is quick to blame the victim when the issue is Islamist violence.  But when it comes to ordinary criminal violence, Paul once blamed "95% of black males."  During Paul's 1996 Congressional campaign a Houston Chronicle article raised questions about  a 1992 Ron Paul newsletter article.  Under Ron Paul's name was written: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.' Paul added: "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city (Washington, D.C.) are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." 


Texas Monthly later interviewed Paul.  He claims:



"They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing.  'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" 

Adds Texas Monthly:



"It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time."

Paul defenders often point to a December 24, 2002 Paul essay, "What really divides us?"  Wrote Paul,



"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups." 

What his supporters don't often mention is that Paul deployed this fine rhetoric only in defense of Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS).  Lott was pilloried in the press for his flattering words about the segregationist 1948 Presidential run of South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond.


Responding to rioting in Los Angeles under the heading "Terrorist Updates", Paul's 1992 article exposes a double standard.  Substitute the words "Islamist terrorism" for "riots" and try to imagine Paul using this language:



"The cause of the riots is plain: barbarism. If the barbarians cannot loot sufficiently through legal channels (i.e., the riots being the welfare-state minus the middleman), they resort to illegal ones, to terrorism. Trouble is, few seem willing to do anything to stop them. The cops have been handcuffed. And property owners are not allowed to defend themselves. The mayor of Los Angeles, for example, ordered the Korean storekeepers who defended themselves arrested for "discharging a firearm within city limits."  Perhaps the most scandalous aspect of the Los Angeles riots was the response by the mayors, the media, and the Washington politicians. They all came together as one to excuse the violence and to tell white America that it is guilty, although the guilt can be assuaged by handing over more cash. It would be reactionary, racist, and fascist, said the media, to have less welfare or tougher law enforcement. America's number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks.

"Rather than helping, all this will ensure that guerrilla violence will escalate. There will be more occasional eruptions such as we saw in Los Angeles, but just as terrifying are the daily muggings, robberies, burglaries, rapes, and killings that make our cities terror zones."

If one forgets the implication that the US treasury is a "white checking account" or the suggestion that all "underclass blacks" are thugs, it seems that Paul believes that appeasing street criminals "will ensure that guerrilla violence will escalate."  But when it comes to the Islamist terror, Paul's message, now the theme of his Presidential campaign is: "our policies may have played a role in evoking the attacks."


The double standard raises questions.  Paul's real motivation for appeasing Islamists may be underlined in quotes from a May 24, 1996 Congress Daily article:



"Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, ‘By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government' and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism." 

"Ron Paul-America's Last Chance", a January, 2007 article by Ted Lang on the anti-Semitic site Rense.com, makes a familiar argument for supporting Paul.  Lang claims,



"Dr. Paul's best credentials are those identifying him as a true libertarian, meaning a ‘classical liberal' of the anti-Federalist genre of libertarians that helped found this country, true liberals such as Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams...." 

Paul himself writing on antiwar.com says:



"Thomas Jefferson spoke for the founders and all our early presidents when he stated: ‘peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none...' which is, ‘one of the essential principles of our government'. The question is: Whatever happened to this principle and should it be restored?"

Perhaps Paul forgets America's 1801-05 war with the Islamic terrorists known as the Barbary Pirates?  Paul's interpretation of American history is false.  This writer explained in "The Colonial War against Islam":   



"In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, then U.S. ambassador to France, and John Adams, then American Ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Dey's ambassador to Britain, in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote of funding. To Congress, these two future presidents later reported the reasons for the Muslims' hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

"‘...that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.'"

Apparently Paul chooses to remember only the parts of American history which benefit his arguments.  As part of the War on Terror Paul wants the US to abandon, the US Navy is on duty fighting Islamic pirates off the coast of Somalia, in the Persian Gulf, and Southeast Asia.


In spite of official silence from the Paul Campaign, hordes of Paul supporters lit up the comments section of Michael Medved's open letter on TownHall.com.  In a phenomenon familiar to any blogger who posts information negative to Paul, the 500-plus comments include several which indicate that Medved has got Paul's supporters dead to rights:
•"Your own Zionism is slipping, Medved!  Why should anyone disassociate from 9/11 Truthers?"
•"I suggest you take off the tin-foil yamika (sic), your brain is fried."
•"You will do anything to smear this good man to try and safeguard US policy in Israel."
•"Hey Medved. Tell your AIPAC handlers to be nervous. You are failing miserably."
•"It's patently obvious why you don't support Dr. Paul: He's not hand-picked by AIPAC and the Likud Party."

Over at Liberty Post, a self-described "Christian Zionist" identifying himself as ‘David Ben-Ariel' adds this response:



"If discredited and paranoid Michael Medved is so concerned about it, let him actually follow his Judaism to the Jewish Homeland of Israel and take the treacherous ACLU and its liberal ilk, and every other self-hating, defeatist, godless group and loathsome organization with him. What's he got to lose, especially if he fails to believe the Israeli oligarchy is under German-Jesuit control and guilty of murdering Yitzhak Rabin?  ... I'm voting for Ron Paul." 

Besides the Paul backers whose words seem to provide backing to Medved's case, others complain that it is wrong to question the sources of Paul's support.  Writing on the "Daily Paul", Mike Bergmaier complains it is "unfair" for Medved to demand Paul renounce the support of anti-Semites, white supremacists, and neo-Nazis.  Really?  Why?


Lew Rockwell attempts to respond to Medved's question by echoing leftist themes equating Nazis with mainstream conservatives.  Rockwell argues Medved should renounce Cheney and Bush.  In a weak effort at verbal judo, Rockwell calls Medved's letter a "neocon libel."  Rockwell continues:



"Mr. Medved, will you repudiate belligerent nationalists, drooling torturers, scheming warmongers, redistributing pressure groups, foreign aid thieves... (etc)"

and then without even pausing to catch his breath accuses Medved of practicing "guilt by association." 


Perhaps Rockwell hopes weak-minded readers will not notice that associating Medved with "drooling torturers" is itself "guilt by association."   No "drooling torturers" have been identified among Medved's financial backers but actual neo-Nazis have been identified by name amongst Paul's.  Is this what passes for scholarship at the Ludwig von Mises Institute headed by Rockwell?  Judging from many of the comments Paul supporters have flooded the internet with, it apparently is good enough for them. 



Meanwhile, elsewhere on the Daily Paul, Paul's "fair" supporters are organizing to call radio stations and demand they yank Medved's show, thus demonstrating that censorship is a Libertarian value.   


Neither Paul nor his campaign has officially responded to the questions raised by Medved.  But then perhaps these types of comments are the official response. 


Paul supporters complain endlessly that the "mainstream media" is censoring or ignoring their candidate.  They should be careful what they ask for.  If Paul wants to be taken seriously, he must stop cowering behind the internet and face these questions.  Until then it is only reasonable to presume that Paul is happy to wallow in well-financed obscurity accepting the support of some of the worst enemies of freedom and liberty within American society.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #288 on: May 13, 2011, 09:41:58 PM »

Pawlenty is looking better and better....
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12068


« Reply #289 on: May 13, 2011, 09:53:33 PM »

Despite all the money Paul has raised before and the endless obsession of the Ronulan cultists, this is all they got in 2008:

2008 Republican National Convention (Presidential tally):
 John McCain – 2,343  (99.28%)
 Ron Paul – 15  (0.64%)
 Mitt Romney – 2  (0.09%)
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31478


« Reply #290 on: May 14, 2011, 12:01:18 AM »

GM, that's the sort of thing I was looking for; thank you.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12068


« Reply #291 on: May 14, 2011, 10:11:27 AM »

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/161217-paul-says-he-would-have-opposed-civil-rights-act

Senile dementia or pandering to his stormfront base?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31478


« Reply #292 on: May 14, 2011, 11:04:46 AM »

Actually, although I have no idea as to his motivations, IMHO it is a principled distinction he is making here;.  Those wanting to discuss this point further, please take it to the Race thread on the SCH forum.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5997


« Reply #293 on: May 14, 2011, 12:53:24 PM »

I am humbled and heartened by JDN's move to the right, from Huntsman to Pawlenty.  In that spirit, I will match and raise you one by moving myself further to the right, from Tim Pawlenty to Herman Cain.   wink
-----
No offense meant to BBG's post, but to those who always say there are no good choices, I say: jump in.
-----
Pawlenty has been the beneficiary of mostly great press for a second tier candidate.  Real Clear Politics found an obscure liberal site (Washington Post) today that compares him with Dukakis http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/is-pawlenty-the-dukakis-of-2012/2011/03/28/AFe4Su2G_blog.html  competing with me to be the master of botched analogies.

Yes, similarities and Dukakis did win his endorsement.  Small differences.  Dukakis was running to end the Reagan era of economic growth on a Mondale-lite anti-growth platform.  Pawlenty is running to end the stagnation of Carter-Mondale-Obama with a pro-growth agenda.  Just stay on message.

Pawlenty needs to avoid jumping in the Dukakis tank, whatever the equivalent is for him.  He is not Reagan, so don't try to be Reagan, or anyone or anything else.  My favorite line, posted elsewhere and adapted here: In a world where you can be anything  ... even President of the United States  ...  Be yourself.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12068


« Reply #294 on: May 14, 2011, 02:05:52 PM »

I like Cain.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #295 on: May 14, 2011, 02:40:19 PM »

In that spirit, I will match and raise you one by moving myself further to the right, from Tim Pawlenty to Herman Cain.   wink
-----

Don't.  Cain is an inexperienced blowhard and will soon be gone from the race.  Stay will class like Pawlenty.  And someone who might win.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12068


« Reply #296 on: May 14, 2011, 02:44:43 PM »

Inexperienced how? You mean by business success in the real world? As opposed to the wafer-thin resume of Buraq Obama?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12068


« Reply #297 on: May 14, 2011, 02:53:49 PM »

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-not-herman-cain/?singlepage=true

Why Not Herman Cain?

Here's why he knocks 'em dead wherever he goes. Plus: The Tatler/PJTV meets Herman Cain in Texas Friday morning.

May 12, 2011 - 12:00 am - by Kyle-Anne Shiver

The word on the street among the right’s intelligentsia and punditocracy is that Herman Cain cannot, should not, and will not be the Republican nominee for president in 2012.
 
Hmmm.
 
Now, dear readers, those “never-will-happen,” 100%-certain predictions made by mere mortals — and there seem to be more and more of them these days — just remind me of weatherman goofs.
 
You know what I’m talking about. “There’s a 0% chance of rain here today”; it’s raining cats and dogs right out your window. “There’s a 100% ‘probability’ that this hurricane will hit the east coast of Florida by evening tomorrow”; hurricane fill-in-the-blank hits west coast of Florida where all the east coast residents have been moved during evacuations.
 
Weather is a far more exact science, however, than predicting human behavior.
 
And one would really need to be a ninny living under a rock in the San Fran Bay not to know by now that we have entered a new era in American politics, where the unpredictable, unlikely, unforeseen anomaly is becoming a new rule of sorts.
 
The triumph of Barack Obama against one of the most far-reaching, most powerful political machines in American history — the Clintons — ought to have awoken political insiders to the new reality. But if they were sound sleepers, then the rise of the middle-class, grassroots tea party movement ought to have been like a million roosters crowing at dawn, enough to awaken all but the dead-as-doornails beltway folks. Nothing — absolutely nothing — in American politics is predictable using the old rule book. Not anymore.
 
So when a proven American businessman like Herman Cain arises and runs for president, dissing his chances is downright dimwitted. If the politicos are right and 2012 will be all “It’s the economy stupid,” then the voice of exemplary free-enterprise success might be the most appealing one in a room full of nothing else but polished, professional, mealy-mouthed politicians.
 
In the first Republican presidential debate last week, Cain blasted out the response that should have been headline news from coast to coast. When asked about his nonexistent public-office resume — and how he might win the presidency having never won an election — Cain quickly and authoritatively parried: “Everyone in Washington has held public office before. How’s that working out for you?” A slam dunk, if there ever was one.
 
I would not ever want to be caught in a woodshed facing off against Herman Cain.
 
Herman Cain speaks, and people who’ve never even heard of him stand up spontaneously and applaud. Many actually cry in gratitude for the authoritative voice of experience Herman brings to every audience. There was good reason for Ed Morrissey to report on Cain’s CPAC speech as the one that “stole the show.”
 
So why not Herman Cain for president?
 
Before I go further down this road, some full disclosure. No, I don’t work for Herman Cain. I don’t know him personally either. However, I have loved Herman Cain since the first time I heard him on radio, many years ago now. I have heard Cain verbally eviscerate “African-American” poor-mouth callers in a way that surely made them hope no one they knew was listening.
 
Herman Cain is an Atlanta guy; I’m an Atlanta gal. Herman Cain has been married to the same woman his entire adult life and is a family man if there ever was one. I’m Cain’s lifelong-married female societal counterpart. I relate to Herman Cain as though he were my next door neighbor in the other America — where monogamy still thrives and kids still mind their manners and the adults still stick together and raise future citizens who don’t end up costing their neighbors a wad in legal and welfare expenses.
 
Herman Cain is — through and through — the kind of guy you would trust with your last dollar. He’s so honest and so courageous that he has referred to himself as “the dark-horse candidate” — with a smile that could charm the hide off an ornery gator.
 Cain’s outspoken love for America is so scary to the left that they’ve already hurled vicious racist epithets at him. There’s nothing for which the Marxists have less tolerance than a black man not willing to remain on the Democrats’ plantation. I daresay that a black man, courageously standing publicly for American free enterprise and individual meritocracy, is even scarier to the left than a rising Mama Grizzly.
 
But the Marxist, racialist-solidarity card played against Herman Cain is like putty in this man’s hands. I’ve seen him fight back against this leftist canard with a vengeance. Calling Herman Cain a “garbage pail kid” or a “monkey in the window” disgraces the writers, not Cain. And Cain does not — thank God! — take this sitting down or by returning to the back of the bus. (Please do yourself a favor and follow that link to Herman Cain’s pitch-perfect response.)
 
Eric “justice for my people only” Holder won’t find a “coward” on race in Herman Cain. Cain has not only more melanin in his skin than either Holder or Obama. He has the genuine black American experience in spades, no racist pun intended. While Obama and Holder were attending posh schools and being fawned over by white liberals, taking advantage of affirmative action programs every step of the way, Herman Cain was moving up and out the hard way, the all-American way.
 
Herman Cain was born in Atlanta in 1945. Think about that for a minute, dear readers. 1945. I was born in Atlanta in 1951. I know a whole lot about what life was like down South under Jim Crow. I’m six years younger than Herman Cain and I still remember vividly the “White” and “Colored” signs that adorned water fountains in the parks and restrooms in every town south of the Mason-Dixon line. I still remember segregated movie theaters, where black audiences were consigned to balcony seating with a back-door entrance, and where “Whites Only” everything, from lunch counters to hotels to Laundromats, reigned supreme.
 
If a white woman like me remembers these things with shame, how do you suppose Herman Cain remembers them? With justified pride — that’s how. Cain took injustice lemons and turned them into more sweet-tasting, entrepreneurial lemonade — for himself, his family, his community, and more American workers — than you could shake a stick at. And, all the while, he was smiling and singing God Bless America! Fundamentally change America? Not while Herman Cain is standing watch. He knows hard work still pays in America. And he will fight to preserve that opportunity for our posterity.
 
Herman Cain came from a solid, middle-class black family of the kind that once made up the vast majority of black American families. Even under Jim Crow, families like Cain’s (and Condoleezza Rice’s) flowered in segregated enclaves identical to their white counterparts. Black moms, dads and kids living under the same roof, all working hard under an unfair, completely lopsided system that was in place long before they were born. But unlike their modern set of racialist peers, these exemplary black Americans did not become resentful, angry, or vengeful. Instead, they used their newly attained civil rights to rise to the top — like the cream they always were.
 
Cain has literally wowed every single audience in every single venue where he has appeared. Cain has personally spoken at more than 40 tea party rallies. He comes across as the embodiment of American spirit. Perhaps, this love-America attitude in a modern black man is so rare that when it emanates from Herman Cain, it literally knocks people off their feet.
 
Or perhaps Herman Cain has the kind of fire in his belly which can only come from God? Who knows. What mortal among us can accurately define a person’s resonance with masses of other human beings, at a split moment in history’s march?
 
One thing I do know for sure. I would pay huge bucks for the privilege of seeing Herman Cain face off — mano a mano — with the adolescent “first black president.” Cain vs. Obama? Whoa. Now, that would be something. My intuition tells me that this historical face-off would be Obama’s first woodshed experience.
 
Obama could continue to call himself the “first black president” — and Herman Cain could take the title of “first genuine American black president.”
 
Sounds pretty good to this old Atlanta white gal.
 
Go Herman!!  Knock their everlivin’ socks off, honey!
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #298 on: May 14, 2011, 08:24:51 PM »

GM posted, "One thing I do know for sure. I would pay huge bucks for the privilege of seeing Herman Cain face off — mano a mano — with the adolescent “first black president.”

 huh   It's not going to happen.  A waste of Obama's time.  Cain is not even a contender.  He's a joke.  But he says the right things; that's what radio announcer's do.

The guy got his butt whipped running for senator 7 years ago; he only got 26% of the vote.  He never ran again!   What does that tell you?  shocked

His "experience" is that he ran a chain of Pizza Parlors.  And even that was 15 years ago.  For the most recent years, he's been a radio commentator.  Gee,
why not run Rush for President.  Or you seem to like GB; he's equally as qualified.    grin

Hey, Cain is not a bad guy.  He's entertaining. I like the bluntness, but that's not the real world.  But no offense, this is all fun and games,
but if the Republicans want to win, they need to get serious.  And start focusing soon.  Don't underestimate Obama.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12068


« Reply #299 on: May 14, 2011, 09:41:29 PM »

What was Obama's experience again?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 42 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!