Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.”     H. L. Mencken

November 28, 2007

GOP You Tube Wrap-Up

by Kevin

Tonight, the Republicans had their YouTube debate. I recommend my co-blogger Jason’s live blog about it.

Basically, I think tonight ended some bids for the White House and it gave some dark horse candidates a boost.

Winners: (In order of best to worst)

Mike Huckabee:

He was outstanding in his delivery on all the questions. He has reduced the campaign down to one-liners and quips. Huckabee earned his spot on the ticket tonight, unfortunately. The only question is, which position.

John McCain:

He hit home runs on Iraq and torture. He also criticized Republicans for spending too much. He acted presidential.

Rudy Giuliani:

He did what he needed to do, which was not screwup. His YouTube video was the best of the night.

Losers: (In order of worst to best)

Mitt Romney:

Constantly flip-flopped on everything from immigration to religion to gays. His campaign is pretty much over.

Ron Paul:

Came off as a raving lunatic when talking about well…everything. Except, his response to the last question, which was excellent and the response of agencies to eliminate, except when he went on a tangent about Iraq and set up a home run opportunity for McCain. The criticism of the Iraq War sounded like a “Blame America first” response. Also, Ron Paul missed numerous opportunities to make a cause for the free market and fiscal responsibility and ceded that ground to McCain and others. Paul made no impact with Republican voters tonight but he’ll stay in the top tier because he kept his supporters fired up. Also, the Ronulans that were there drowned out McCain when he responded to Paul and that will not go well with Republican voters.

Fred Thompson:

He didn’t stand out overall, but when he did, it was because he was too mean. His YouTube video was the worst of the night. Fred Thompson needed a good performance and he didn’t deliver. His campaign is over as he’ll now fall off the top tier.

TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/11/28/gop-you-tube-wrap-up/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

90 Comments

  1. I disagree Kevin. I think Thompson did much better than that, and so did Paul. McCain was strong but not strong enough. Paul was relatively bad this time around but his support in the audience made a huge difference in how he is seen by the viewers. This alone is one reason why I think he did alright. Giulianni and Romney absolutely destroyed each other, and while Huckabee was strong with his sound bite bullcrap, I do not think he did as well as you think.

    Comment by David Wilson — November 28, 2007 @ 7:53 pm
  2. It would be nice if Paul actually had time to talk.

    Comment by Jim — November 28, 2007 @ 7:59 pm
  3. CNN is terrible with these debates. Lots of dumb questions and incredibly uneven.

    They intentionally made Huckabee a center of attention.

    Comment by John V — November 28, 2007 @ 8:02 pm
  4. while i am voting for ron paul – he did poorly tonight. I HOPE, he doesn’t repeat a performance like this – it was terrible. Huckabee took the night because of his “i love jesus” rhetoric. For me, religion is terrible, and even worse in politics. Sadly – most citizens are stupid enough to put the bible ahead of the constitution. I fear Huckabee is going to be the republican candidate.

    Comment by Lorenz — November 28, 2007 @ 8:03 pm
  5. McCain’s so-called “home run” backfired on him immediately. McCain claimed that the message from the troops waas “Let us win”… to the guy getting more contributions from the military than all of the others combined. Ron Paul was quick to respond with this fact… a fact that completely deflates McCain’s point.

    Comment by Scott — November 28, 2007 @ 8:03 pm
  6. David,

    . Paul was relatively bad this time around but his support in the audience made a huge difference in how he is seen by the viewers. This alone is one reason why I think he did alright.

    I don’t know if you noticed, but CNN did a wide shot and I noticed that whenever the Ronulans applauded in the back, the rest of the audience stayed silent. The Republican voters will see that also.

    Comment by Kevin — November 28, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
  7. I don’t think Ron Paul was very polished this time around, but he was able to get key points across such as wanting less government and bringing the troops home immediately. He does need to control his tone and delivery.

    However, with regard to the Iraq war, reality is on Dr. Paul’s side. McCain sounded like the lunatic when he claimed that we’re winning the war. McCain did school Romney though on torture.

    I would agree that Mike Huckabee was the winner. He was honest and straightforward, which is more than I can say for Mitt. He was purposely evasive.

    Comment by PoliticalCritic — November 28, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
  8. If Paul does not do well in the primaries, Lorenz, he wont get a chance for another debate. If anything, you can hope that he can sail through February on his fourth quarter earnings.

    Comment by David Wilson — November 28, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
  9. Scott,

    McCain’s so-called “home run” backfired on him immediately. McCain claimed that the message from the troops waas “Let us win”… to the guy getting more contributions from the military than all of the others combined. Ron Paul was quick to respond with this fact… a fact that completely deflates McCain’s point.

    No one is going to pay attention to Paul’s claim about the military donations.

    Comment by Kevin — November 28, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
  10. Kevin,

    I noticed this as well, although the sheer sound of them over everyone else might make a difference. I think you could notice this when they booed the hell out of the other candidates. I do agree that he dropped the ball on just about every chance he had to make an impression, and I also doubt that cheers alone will propel his status, but it cannot be discounted.

    Comment by David Wilson — November 28, 2007 @ 8:08 pm
  11. [...] debate reaction from fellow contributer Kevin Boyd. Meanwhile, Brad Warbiany wonders why Ron Paul’s fund-raising success hasn’t impressed [...]

    Pingback by Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Republican CNN/YouTube Debate Roundup And Reaction — November 28, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
  12. The entire concept of “winners” in a debate like this is frivilous and not worth any analysis. If you’re trying to do an objective analysis, the best you can do is describe the manner in which someone articulated their position, and even that can lead to subjective description (I don’t need someone to tell me who looked presidential, or who was acting like a “lunatic”). Until debates are reformed to allow for more lengthy discourse on less issues each night, they’re nothing but sound bite arenas.

    Instead, why wouldn’t you write about the issues the candidates brought up? Defend the candidates you agreed with, or point out why you don’t agree with others, but *please*, stop contributing to the horse race/image war.

    Comment by Andrew — November 28, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
  13. PoliticalCritic,

    However, with regard to the Iraq war, reality is on Dr. Paul’s side. McCain sounded like the lunatic when he claimed that we’re winning the war.

    Right now, Iraq is mostly quiet with casualties at their lowest in 18 months. McCain is the one that benefits from Iraq right now. Paul also didn’t do himself any favors when he said al-Sadr was the legitimate Shi’ite leader in Iraq.

    Comment by Kevin — November 28, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
  14. PoliticalCritic,

    People don’t care about reality. Their perceptions are shaped by quick sound bites. This is why, unfortunately, Paul’s tirades bore most people and turn them off.

    Comment by David Wilson — November 28, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
  15. I mean honestly, when the media begins to analyze the effects of *clapping* in forums that are supposed to help the democratic process of choosing a leader, society as a whole is screwed.

    Comment by Andrew — November 28, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
  16. Kevin,

    Right now, Iraq is mostly quiet with casualties at their lowest in 18 months. McCain is the one that benefits from Iraq right now. Paul also didn’t do himself any favors when he said al-Sadr was the legitimate Shi’ite leader in Iraq.

    And among mainstream Republicans, McCain scored a point against Paul when he talks about coming back from a Thanksgiving trip to Iraq where he was told by soldiers to “let us win.”

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 28, 2007 @ 8:17 pm
  17. Andrew,

    Do you not think it is the automatic reaction of viewers to gauge who they think performed better?

    Comment by David Wilson — November 28, 2007 @ 8:18 pm
  18. Doug,

    It would be interesting to see what kind of reception Paul would get if he actually traveled to Iraq.

    Comment by David Wilson — November 28, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
  19. while i am voting for ron paul – he did poorly tonight. I HOPE, he doesn’t repeat a performance like this – it was terrible.

    Unfortunately or not, this was the second debate in a row where Paul’s performance was less than spectacular to say the least. The good thing is that the October one was on MSNBC which means nobody noticed ;)

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 28, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
  20. I think it’s the automatic reaction for people to responde favorably to the person they agreed with already, or if not that, to whatever made them the most entertained.

    Automatic reactions are perfectly fine to discuss, and even shoot for, when analyzing entertainment. When presidential politics becomes entertainment (when any media outlet focuses on scandels, personal attacks, or witty sound bites), important issues are kicked to the curb and the public continues to be uninformed.

    Of course you aren’t alone in this, as many organizations (especially CNN itself) seemed obsessed with seeing how people responded to tones of voice, or how funny a joke was, or whatever. I’ve watched, and read, plenty of analysis over the debate, and I’ve yet to see anything worthwhile.

    I know that I’m not alone in wanting to see professional discussion on the issues the candidates brought up over who won a metaphorical medal tonight.

    Comment by Andrew — November 28, 2007 @ 8:26 pm
  21. Doug,

    And among mainstream Republicans, McCain scored a point against Paul when he talks about coming back from a Thanksgiving trip to Iraq where he was told by soldiers to “let us win.”

    Don’t count McCain out yet. If Iraq stays quiet, he’ll win New Hampshire and be alive across the country.

    Comment by Kevin — November 28, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
  22. Andrew,

    Point made. But tonight is not just about substance. While I may believe in Ron Paul’s platforms, I can tell that he did not register well tonight. The substance in question at the moment is whether or not candidate x did well in this particular debate. If that candidate is Paul, I would say he came off as weak.

    Comment by David Wilson — November 28, 2007 @ 8:28 pm
  23. I guess you can argue that point as far as how the audience reacted. Pretty much all of the people there (including Chuck Norris, I guess) were diehard supporters of someone, or party officials or reporters, so whenever a controversial point was made, it was met with an instant blend of hisses, cheers and boos. No one really went to have their mind changed.

    I’d be shocked if even five of the potential voters in that audience had a drastic change of heart. The people who this debate could have impacted were the millions of viewers quietly taking it in throughout America, and you can’t tell me that you have an empirical way of judging who “registered” the best with all of them.

    Comment by Andrew — November 28, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
  24. There is no empirical way of registering this, particularly because of it’s fleeting and subjective nature. But I think it is relatively intuitive to judge the outcome of most people’s perceptions.

    Comment by David Wilson — November 28, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
  25. “It would be nice if Paul actually had time to talk.”

    You have to make time to talk, like Giuliani and Romney do. A debate is not the time to play nice guy and always stop when time is up and always wait your turn to talk. That’s the surest way to lose a debate.

    Comment by Drena — November 28, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
  26. Sadly, Kevin…you’re right about Huckabee.

    I won’t vote for any ticket with him on it though.

    Comment by Jason Pye — November 28, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
  27. TO ALL OF YOU POSTERS:

    Where, pray tell, did any of you watch the debate???? Ron Paul did extremely well save for the abortionist question in which he neither won or lost.

    Ron Paul had a great debate. He’s not a great communicator but he communicates great ideas. Just because he doesn’t come across like a chocolate covered pretzel doesn’t mean he didn’t win or is weak. Far from it.

    Cheer up folks. Ron Paul did well….unlike you all, my meetup group had a whole bar full of Ron Paul supporters and we thought he did a fine job.

    If you’re not convinced, there is still the CNN online poll to vote in. It’s scientific you know. Ron Paul is currently ahead….but I’m sure you weren’t expecting that.

    Comment by Joseph Story — November 28, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
  28. Joseph,

    All I can say is….

    Comment by David Wilson — November 28, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
  29. Alrighty, point made. You’re free to write about whatever you wish on your website. I hope that, in my continued searching, I’ll be able to find a place with substantive discussion about the important issues we face.

    I’m sure that everyone here already knows this, but keep in mind that once someone becomes a president, his or her ability to condense an issues into pointless soundbites will definately be overshadowed by whether or not their ideas have merit. Issue discussions will continue to be relevant long after we’ve moved on to the next sound bite cirus.

    Comment by Andrew — November 28, 2007 @ 8:48 pm
  30. Jason,

    Sadly, Kevin…you’re right about Huckabee.

    I won’t vote for any ticket with him on it though.

    Nor will I.

    Nor will I vote for a ticket that includes either Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney. I guess I find myself rooting for either Fred Thompson (although his campaign is pretty much over) or John McCain. I also find myself hoping Ron Paul will get more sane and start talking about fiscal responsibility and freedom instead of a single issue campaign about the war and the latest conspiracy theories he believes in.

    Comment by Kevin — November 28, 2007 @ 8:49 pm
  31. Kevin,

    It’s ironic that John McCain is the one guy who came across and said things that most Republicans wouldn’t — on immigration and torture.

    I could still never vote for the guy based on McCain-Feingold alone, but when he’s right, he’s right.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 28, 2007 @ 8:51 pm
  32. Kevin,

    I have been thinking the same thing for a few months now, about how Paul needs to emphasize issues that are not directly linked to the war. Instead it seems like he links everything else to the war.

    Comment by David Wilson — November 28, 2007 @ 8:55 pm
  33. Doug,

    It depends, but in the general election, I am more than willing to forgive McCain-Feingold.

    McCain is right (rhetorically at least) on immigration, right on torture, and right on fiscal responsibility. Again, I probably will not vote for him for the Republican nomination, but I will vote for him in a choice between Hillary and McCain.

    Comment by Kevin — November 28, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
  34. Kevin,

    It’s going to take a hell of a lot for me to reconsider John McCain, even if Darth Hillary is the Democratic nominee.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 28, 2007 @ 9:10 pm
  35. In many ways, Paul (of which I am a big fan) has cought a lot of libertarianish lightniging in a bottle. However, it is clear to me from this debate that he needs a lot better communicaion coaching than what he is getting … even with a message that everyone agrees with, any candidate can come off looking like a stark raving lunatic. His tone, nervousness, and lack of personality in these events as of late do not play well. He has always had the message, but lately, the Messenger has not performed well. CNN and the Talking Head/MSM that be cannot be expected to give US a fair shot. Tonight’s lack of air time almost being laughable. When RP did get a question the question was either weird or uninspiring. No Huckabee softballs. Furthermore, it’s clear to me that the 60 year old Republican Grandmothers the Luntz Pollistas dredge up these days have become far more Christian than Conservative. However, at the end of the day, we have to put on a better show.

    I know it’s easy to be a “Monday Morning QB” when I’m not on the stage in front of millions viewing the boob tube, however, I think the Message can be cast in a big-time, winning, light. He could have easily talked about intervention in terms of it’s unworkability, irony, (despite trillions, WHERE IS BIN LADEN?) bombing innocent people to save innocent people (sorry HB), etc. instead of comming off as a “blame America game”. He came off better from the hip until the last two. Now the MSM has decided to make him uncomfortable … yawn questions, less air time, more mediocrity so that he stands out less. At least we haven’t given something like the shriek heard ’round the world ala Howard Dean yet.

    Ron I love ‘ya, but in terms of libertarian style communication, persuasion, and wit you need to watch a lot of Harry Browne interviews … God Rest His Soul.

    Comment by Rod — November 28, 2007 @ 9:12 pm
  36. I have been thinking the same thing for a few months now, about how Paul needs to emphasize issues that are not directly linked to the war. Instead it seems like he links everything else to the war.

    I’ve been saying the same thing for awhile now.

    There are two dangers in this approach.

    First, if things really are turning around in Iraq. An anti-war candidate may find themselves at a disadvantage.

    Second, as I said earlier this week in another post, the fact that the American public has turned against the Iraq War does not mean that they favor the type of non-interventionist foreign policy that Paul and the guys at LewRockwell.com advocate.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 28, 2007 @ 9:12 pm
  37. Doug,

    You are absolutely right. And I do not think that Iraq will get too much worse by the time the primaries come around. LewRockwell.com is an interesting site…hardline Paul fans, but a little much for me at times.

    Comment by David Wilson — November 28, 2007 @ 9:17 pm
  38. First, if things really are turning around in Iraq. An anti-war candidate may find themselves at a disadvantage.

    If things are turning around in Iraq and if Ron Paul was smart enough, he can turn it to his advantage by talking about fiscal responsibility, the free market, limited government, and yes federalism. As Iraq becomes less of an issue and as Huckabee’s fiscal liberalism becomes more well known, Paul can take the pissed off vote and the fiscal conservative vote along with independents.

    Comment by Kevin — November 28, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
  39. But having said that, I don’t think Ron Paul will adopt the above strategy. Instead, we’ll continue to hear about the war, “Blame America first” foreign policy, anti-trade ranting, and dabbling in the latest conspiracy theories.

    Comment by Kevin — November 28, 2007 @ 9:20 pm
  40. Kevin,

    If anything, I think the one think that Cong. Paul said tonight that bothered me most of all, was when he was talking about foreign policy and said that we have to “take care of America first.”

    The parallels to an historical legacy that I think is entirely discredited were just too much for me to ignore.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 28, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
  41. Kevin and Doug,

    His campaign needs a message tweek. He’s been a loner in Congress for a long time and needs to take some chip shots at the Establishment Congress, W, and his rivals on stage when they lament and pander about “fiscal responsibilty”, spending, etc. He should strip some of these guys bare to the public since most all of them have no record to run on. He needs to run as though he was an Independent within the primary. He’s the only one with such a record and message to go with it. Stop looking like the old crazy guy across the street who always wore the trenchcoat. Have fun. The pressure should be on the one’s who have consistently voted and endorsed the policies that have gotten us into these various messes.

    He should have just dissed the conspiracy bit … poor gamesmanship there even if he believed in it. It feeds way in to MSM bable.

    Comment by Rod — November 28, 2007 @ 9:34 pm
  42. Doug,

    If anything, I think the one think that Cong. Paul said tonight that bothered me most of all, was when he was talking about foreign policy and said that we have to “take care of America first.”

    The parallels to an historical legacy that I think is entirely discredited were just too much for me to ignore.

    Agreed.

    Comment by Kevin — November 28, 2007 @ 9:35 pm
  43. I personally think that Ron Paul’s hammering on the cost of the war will become very important in coming months.

    I hate to compare Ron Paul to Al Gore, but Al Gore’s trail blazing on ‘Global Warming’ looked kooky 5 years ago, and positively statesmanlike now. And this despite the fact that there is very little substance to his advocacy (I view it as yet another boondogle where certain industries are lining up to get subsidies from the poor tax-payer, much like the Agriculture department).

    Whatever my objections to Ron Paul, in my opinion, he is the only guy with his head screwed on right about monetary policy, and that trumps all.

    I have several extended family members working in the financial industry, and based on my conversations with them over Thanksgiving, I think we are on the verge of a massive ‘financial crisis’, much like the ones that triggered the Great Depression in the late 1920′s.

    I’ve observed that what most people take to be a focus on the war on the part of Ron Paul is actually a single-minded focus on the Federal budget. He views the war as the biggest easily abandoned liability on the balance sheet.

    When the financial crisis hits, Ron Paul will look visionary. On the other hand maybe we’ll go another thirty years without the crisis, in which case he will look like a crank.

    Of course we Austrian economics fan-boys have been predicting imminent collapse of the U.S. financial system for over 30 years now. We’re starting to sound like Seventh Day Adventists.
    “It’s going to happen! Really! Any Day Now!” ;)

    Comment by tarran — November 28, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
  44. Tarran,

    Agreed 100% on the finacial concerns. From an Austrian’s point of view, it ain’t looking good from the cheap seats.

    “When the financial crisis hits, Ron Paul will look visionary. On the other hand maybe we’ll go another thirty years without the crisis, in which case he will look like a crank.”

    Missed one point there … crank or not, the Rebub primary will likely be WAY over (let’s hope). Despite the foolishness of our current crop of politicians, it is likely American can hang on at least that long in spite of all they are doing to destroy the country.

    This guy needs a Candidate Makeover like those reality TV shows … style, fun, smiles, jokes, confidence, calm:

    Karl Hess (speachwriter for Goldwater) was once asked about armed revolution in this country …

    He quipped “why reach for the musket when all you need is a custard pie”.

    Comment by Rod — November 28, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
  45. The only time I can take seriously analysis of a debate is when it is given by people that either don’t have a dog in the race, or haven’t openly attacked a candidate from the beginning.

    I mean, listen to yourselves. Ron Paul did absolutely horrible in your eyes because that is already what you believed. Before even watching the debate, you already had your “analysis” of his performance.

    And to mention “this is his second poor debate performance…” The last in October… uhh, let’s see what has changed from that last debate. Ron Paul has quadrupled in cash, doubled in polls, and the media is given him much more facetime, some of it, even unbiased.

    So, again, a biased analysis is completely worthless because it argues AGAINST reality to fit a perception.

    I’ll keep looking for someone just hearing Ron Paul for the first time, thank you.

    Laters

    Comment by Scott M. — November 29, 2007 @ 12:34 am
  46. Big Loser was Kevin:) Ron Paul didn’t do as well as he could of, but he still layed the smack down the the establishment, mccain was the one who sounded like a lunatic when it came to iraq and you can say ron paul is with blame america first, that smear isn’t going to work, and the obvious smear with the north american union question was just sickining and Mike Huckabee, the establishment knows the public isn’t digging on Rudy, Mitt or Fred so there gonna use there man Mike Huckabee to try and hurt Ron Paul

    Comment by Max — November 29, 2007 @ 10:30 am
  47. “take care of America first.”

    Ya Kevin and Doug we should keep policing the world, and spend Billions of dollars we don’t have all over the world, thats a great idea, we have sick and homeless people here but lets take care of the world first, the world first, america second, you guys are so out of touch with reality

    Comment by Max — November 29, 2007 @ 10:33 am
  48. Kevin the status quo is just fine, go ahead and vote for Rudy or Fred or what ever establishment hack you wanna vote for, go for it

    Comment by Max — November 29, 2007 @ 10:34 am
  49. “Paul needs to emphasize issues that are not directly linked to the war” Sorry the enonomy and the war and foreign policy all go hand and hand my friend

    Comment by Max — November 29, 2007 @ 10:37 am
  50. And as for Mccain, he’s right on torture, thats about it, for someone who fought in another war that was a disaster, Im dumbfounded he can send these young men to there deaths over this war that never should of been fought, and the idea that we need to “stay the coarse” is insane, like John Mccain

    Comment by Max — November 29, 2007 @ 10:41 am
  51. “hoping Ron Paul will get more sane and start talking about fiscal responsibility and freedom”

    You must live under a fucking rock or something, what the hells wrong with you, anyone other than ron paul is gonna spend another 10 trillion dollars on iraq, what aree you smoking on? You think its “fiscal responsibility” to spend trillions on a failed foreign policy? Really?

    Comment by Max — November 29, 2007 @ 10:52 am
  52. “freedom” Kevin Ron Paul is the only one you will protect your freedom and civil liberties

    Comment by Max — November 29, 2007 @ 10:54 am
  53. Max, I suggest you read all the comments and then make one post.

    Also, it helps if you use blockquotes. Otherwise you come off like a crazy old guy talking to a trash can.

    Comment by tarran — November 29, 2007 @ 11:10 am
  54. The public isn’t biting on Rudy,Fred,McCain and Romney so that is why the MSM media whoars are now crowning Huckabee as the new front runner because he’s the only one that can beat Paul, and then will lose the general election to Hillary and then Bush will pass the baton over to Hillary and she’ll pick up where he left off

    Comment by Max — November 29, 2007 @ 11:11 am
  55. Also the button just to the right of the comma on your keyboard, the ‘.’ button, is known as a period. It separates sentences. You should use it.

    Comment by tarran — November 29, 2007 @ 11:15 am
  56. Sorry I do it point by point:)

    I didn’t know this wuz englz klass

    Comment by Max — November 29, 2007 @ 11:26 am
  57. So are you the english teacher/enforcer or are you gonna comment on the thread?

    Comment by Max — November 29, 2007 @ 11:27 am
  58. Or are you here to back up your buddies?

    Comment by Max — November 29, 2007 @ 11:28 am
  59. Tsk, I already have commented. I was the guy comparing Ron Paul to Al Gore.

    Comment by tarran — November 29, 2007 @ 11:44 am
  60. Al Gore ROFL, the sky is falling!!!! Watch out for Man Bear Pig!!!

    Comment by Max — November 29, 2007 @ 11:49 am
  61. tarran,

    Maybe Max is posting like a raving lunatic because is he is a raving lunatic :).

    Comment by Kevin — November 29, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
  62. I have noting to be angry about right?

    since 9/11(the day that changed everything)

    The erosion of civil liberties. check

    The immediate and continual passage of draconian legislation. check

    Big Brother. check

    Police State. check

    The talk and legitimization of giving up liberty for security. check

    Fake News. check

    Perpetual war. check

    Equating dissenters with the enemy. check

    Have I forgotten anything?

    Comment by Max — November 29, 2007 @ 12:19 pm
  63. Oh wait one more,

    A shady, seedy, shadow enemy that can never be defeated. check

    Comment by Max — November 29, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
  64. Kevin, even though I agree with most of the points he is making (though not the abusive tone), I am leaning that way too.

    Max sweetie, when you write the way you do, it just reaffirms Kevin and Doug’s view that Ron Paul’s platform is a kooky one.

    If you want to convince them, on the other hand, the invective ridden unbalanced diatribes are not the way to go. Note I have strongly disagreements with Doug, Kevin and even Brad, yet we have nice civil discussions and even sometimes change each others’ minds.

    And your one sentence posts are driving other people’s comments off the front page (and thus killing what would be some interesting discussions). Please stop. Write one substantive comment, then wait for a reply then make another substantive comment.

    Comment by tarran — November 29, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
  65. Im hostile towards them because I see them as a wolf in sheep’s clothing, I do not see them as real patriots or part of the patriot movement or the alternative media. I see them more in toe with the MSM(Corporate Media), status quo and politics as usual.

    Ron Paul is the most pro liberty,small government, pro free trade candidate that any of you have ever see in your life time(name another one) and he actually has a chance since he’s running as a republican and not a third party and has a shit load of money to spend.

    All people like Doug and Kevin can do is talk about pimps,hookers, neo nazis and reasons not to vote for Ron Paul

    Comment by Max — November 29, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
  66. “And your one sentence posts are driving other people’s comments off the front page” Oh shit your right, my bad, im re tarted sometimes

    Comment by Max — November 29, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
  67. If the NAFTA Superhighway and the North American Union are really just “conspiracy theories” that Dr. Paul is a nut to believe even exist, then why would this bill exist? Check your facts next time before you start ranting and name-calling.

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.con.res.00487:

    H.CON.RES.487
    Title: Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.
    Sponsor: Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] (introduced 9/28/2006) Cosponsors (6)
    Latest Major Action: 9/28/2006 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

    Comment by TishJo — November 29, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
  68. Max,

    I will let Kevin speak for himself, but as for me.

    I am a libertarian. I am most emphatically not a member of the so-called Patriot movement. I remember running across that particular movement in the mid-90s when I first got online and pretty much concluded they were nuts back then. I wasn’t surprised when one of their kind murdered 168 people in Oklahoma City in 1995. I remember them talking about conspiracies back then too, they’ve changed their story but the song remains the same.

    I haven’t brought up pimps (though I don’t see what the big deal is about the fact that Paul was endorsed by the owner of a perfectly legal business in the state of Nevada) and I’ve pointed out the issues regarding Stormfront and the 9/11 kooks because I think that their affiliation with ideas that most Americans know little about will harm the cause for liberty.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 29, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
  69. TishJo,

    I live in Virginia, Virgil Goode is to Virginia what Dennis Kucinich is to Ohio.

    The fact that he’s introducing legislation opposing a construction project that doesn’t exist (and even if it did, I still don’t see what the big deal is) doesn’t mean a thing to me.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 29, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
  70. Then I guess your just a well meaning idiot

    “one of their kind murdered 168 people in Oklahoma City in 1995″ LOL For sure because in the constitution it says killing civilians is ok, yup Tim McVeigh was a true Patriot.

    There is a movement behind Ron Paul Doug, and obviously your not part of it, so you can continue with politics as usual

    Comment by Max — November 29, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
  71. There is a movement behind Ron Paul Doug, and obviously your not part of it, so you can continue with politics as usual

    And after reading what you just wrote, where you basically justified mass murder, I’m not sure I want to be a part of it.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 29, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
  72. “doesn’t mean a thing to me”

    Because your a well meaning douche bag who thinks Islamofacists are the greatest danger to this country

    Comment by Max — November 29, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
  73. “where you basically justified mass murder”

    Not familiar with sarcasm I see

    Comment by Max — November 29, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
  74. Max,

    The reason that Goode’s bill doesn’t mean a thing to me is because Goode is an idiot. Well-liked by his constituents from what I hear, but nonethless an idiot.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 29, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
  75. Max,

    Me: Pointing out that the Patriot Movement gave birth to the man who murdered 168 innocent people

    You: Tim McVeigh was a true Patriot.

    You are aware that he was involved in the movement before `95 aren’t you ?

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 29, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
  76. Sorry Doug anyone who kills civilians is not part of any patriot movement

    Comment by Max — November 29, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
  77. My post earlier Doug about anger, Am I off base on anything on this post 9/11 list

    #

    I have noting to be angry about right?

    since 9/11(the day that changed everything)

    The erosion of civil liberties. check

    The immediate and continual passage of draconian legislation. check

    Big Brother. check

    Police State. check

    The talk and legitimization of giving up liberty for security. check

    Fake News. check

    Perpetual war. check

    Equating dissenters with the enemy. check

    Have I forgotten anything?
    Comment by Max — November 29, 2007 @ 12:19 pm

    Comment by Max — November 29, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
  78. Max,

    Well, considering that back in the 90′s the so-called Patriot Movement was a bunch of conspiracy theory obsessed guys with guns, I’m not quite sure what the definition of a “patriot” is.

    As a wise man once said, patriotism is the last refuse of a scoundrel.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 29, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
  79. Max,

    I do not have to justify my stances on the issues and my political beliefs to anyone, most of all you.

    However, I am a classical liberal in the tradition of John Locke, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin. I believe the the sole purpose of government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens; in that order.

    I am not a part of the “patriot movement” and I oppose the militia movement for the simple reasons that I do not agree with them on the issues and I do not believe the situation in this country has gotten bad enough that peaceful change through the ballot box is not possible.

    I have not brought up the brothel endorsement except to say in a comment threat that I did not see a problem with reporting it in the media. However, I have criticized Paul for associating with and allowing racists, conspiracy kooks, neo-Confederates, and fascists to associate with him. I will continue to criticize him for this because the associations with these whackos and authoritarians will harm the cause of liberty in the eyes of the American people.

    I also will not stop criticizing Ron Paul on the issues I disagree with him on just as I will criticize the other presidential candidates whenever they issue policy proposals I disagree with. On the other hand, I will praise candidates when they do something I support.

    Most of all, I will not be silenced by the various wannabe digital Brownshirts that have surrounded the Ron Paul campaign.

    Comment by Kevin — November 29, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
  80. Doug when toilet paper is worth more then the dollar, when we attack iran and start WWIII, when this country has collapsed then you only need to look in the mirror to ask who’s responsible, You and people like you

    Comment by Max — November 29, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
  81. Both of you fail to recognize the real threat to this country.

    You never gave Ron Paul a chance, your interest is the status quo not in liberty, if you loved liberty you would know how much danger it is in.

    One more time am I wrong

    I have noting to be angry about right?

    since 9/11(the day that changed everything)

    The erosion of civil liberties. check

    The immediate and continual passage of draconian legislation. check

    Big Brother. check

    Police State. check

    The talk and legitimization of giving up liberty for security. check

    Fake News. check

    Perpetual war. check

    Equating dissenters with the enemy. check

    Have I forgotten anything?

    If you dont think those things are killing our liberty you are a fool, you better recognize a threat when you see one, and if you think Rudy,Thompson,Romney,McCain or Huckabee are gonna set this country on the right track you are gravely mistaken.Tancreado and Hunter dont stand a chance they dont have the money or support, there decent men with good intentions but they wont win

    Comment by Max — November 29, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
  82. OK, Max, that is total bullshit! If you truly believe that, you are an idiot and it is a waste of time to argue with you about anything.

    BTW, I’m sure that Karl Rove is glad that Ron Paul supporters like you are actively pissing off people on the fence about Ron Paul. You’re doing a good job carrying water for all the guys who want to paint Ron Paul as a kook.

    Comment by tarran — November 29, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
  83. “that is total bullshit! If you truly believe that”

    What that our liberty is in danger?

    Why would I convince you guys to vote for Ron Paul, your not gonna vote for him? Why preach to deaf ears?

    Comment by Max — November 29, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
  84. Max,

    You are blaming Doug (among others) for George Bush’s policies.

    That is pretty moronic.

    You are also claiming that only Ron Paul’s policies will avert disaster, but you are not going to waste your time getting people who are on the fence to vote for him.

    Either you want Ron Paul to lose (and the U.S. to go through a disaster) or you haven’t really thought through your positions really well.

    Or, far more likely, you are one of those guys who cares more about feeling good about really jumping down someone’s throat and would rather do that than to win an argument by convincing an opponent to see it your way. In other words you’d prefer to lose, but feel good doing it.

    Much like you accuse Doug of doing. I believe the psychiatrists call it projection.

    Comment by tarran — November 29, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
  85. “You are blaming Doug (among others) for George Bush’s policies”

    No, and its really not George Bush’s policy its the policy of the Military Industrial Complex, something the writers here at the liberty papers think is a conspiracy theory

    “You are also claiming that only Ron Paul’s policies will avert disaster” Ya pretty much, name another republican front runner that is gonna take another coarse other than the one the establishment wants.

    “by convincing an opponent to see it your way”

    Thats not gonna happen so why try? Dude they think the Military Industrial Complex is a conspiracy theory.

    The only thing im accusing doug of is being a naive fool who who thinks islamofacists are the greatest threat to this country.

    Doug my question to you is, how do you fight a physical war with an army,navy and air force against an ideology?

    And lastly how can they say there thousands of miles away fighting the war on terror and supposedly protecting us when they leave our front door open(borders) they cant stop millions of people coming here illegally and yet they say there protecting us?

    Comment by Max — November 29, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
  86. Max, instead of ad hominems you should find credible sources for your arguments, post them and let them speak for themselves.

    Comment by uhm — November 29, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
  87. “credible sources” The governments actions after 9/11 speak for themself

    And i got to my final point and raised to prefectly legitimate arguments

    1.how do you fight a physical war with an army,navy and air force against an ideology?

    2.And lastly how can they say there thousands of miles away fighting the war on terror and supposedly protecting us when they leave our front door open(borders) they cant stop millions of people coming here illegally and yet they say there protecting us?

    Comment by Max — November 29, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
  88. It depends on your interpretation of the government’s actions. There is mist over this issue. It is taboo in many ways. Ron Paul spoke facts about blow back and his opponents shrug it off. Now why does that happen? Giuliani never even heard of blow back until Ron Paul explained it to him. After Giuliani’s attack Ron Paul didn’t call him names. He continued explaining his point.

    1. The problem is they forgot step one which is to understand thy enemy.
    http://www.scotthortonshow.com/2007/09/10/antiwar-radio-michael-scheuer-3/
    2. I agree with you on this point but still need some documentation of actual terrorist coming in through our open border.

    Comment by uhm — November 29, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
  89. Here is one more link for you Max! It dissects the term “Islamofascism.”
    http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/215

    Comment by uhm — November 29, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
  90. [...] Check it out! While looking through the blogosphere we stumbled on an interesting post today.Here’s a quick excerptHe didn’t stand out overall, but when he did, it was because he was too mean. His YouTube video was the worst of the night. Fred Thompson needed a good performance and he didn’t deliver. His campaign is over as he’ll now fall off the … [...]

    Pingback by b0om__box » GOP You Tube Wrap-Up — December 8, 2007 @ 4:58 pm

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML