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

“I would remind you that extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. And let me also remind you that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”     Barry Goldwater

November 28, 2007

Republican CNN/YouTube Debate Roundup And Reaction

by Doug Mataconis

Well, that was a complete and total waste of about two hours of my life.

Tonight, the Republican candidates for President (not including Alan Keyes, who’s campaign has somehow gotten my email address and decided to bombard me with daily updates) gathered in Florida for their version of 2008′s latest fad……..a bunch of inane debate questions asked by people with webcams.

I’m sure that the professionals will have their own opinions of how things went but here’s my reaction, grouped by candidate, influenced by Cabernet Sauvignon, and in no particular order:

Mitt Romney: I’ll hand it to Romney, he certainly looks the part of President. And, for the most part, he seemed to come across as the kind of candidate that would do well in a national election. In the course of a two hour debate, however, we were treated to evidence of three times that Romney has changed his position on an issue of importance to conservative Republicans in the last three years. On abortion, he used to be pro-choice and now he claims to be pro-life…..he attributes this to a “mistake.” On immigration, his policy as Governor of Massachusetts accommodated illegal immigrants, and now he claims to be tough on illegal immigration. And, finally, back in 1994 he said that gay men and women should be permitted to serve in the Armed Forces and, tonight, even when confronted by a retired Brigadier General who happened to be gay, he parroted the same nonsense about gays in the military that we’ve heard from Republicans since 1993.

Rudy Giuliani: For a front-runner, Giuliani seemed surprisingly on the defensive. When Anderson Cooper confronted him with a question about the story that had broken late today about questionable charges by his security team when he was Mayor of New York, he dodged the question quite badly. He was put on the defensive early thanks to three questions in a row on immigration and New York City’s status as a “sanctuary city”; which led to an exchange between Giuliani and Romney about some allegation that Romney employed illegal immigrants…..or maybe that he hired someone who may have employed illegal immigrants. Whatever.

John McCain: McCain struck me tonight as a man who knows that his campaign is pretty much over but is staying in the race to make a point. On at least two points, he said things that struck me as right. On immigration, he refused to join in the immigrant bashing along with Giuliani, Romney, Tancredo, and Hunter and pretty much condemned them for it. Without coming out and saying it, McCain said something that no Republican ever will — there is simply no way that the 12 million people here illegally are going to be deported. That’s not what America is about.

The other issue where McCain took an admirable stand was waterboarding. In response to a direct question, Mitt Romney, refused to say that waterboarding was torture. McCain, who strikes me as the only man on the stage tonight who knows what real torture is, took him to task for it, and rightly so.

Mike Huckabee: I still don’t get what the big deal is about this guy. He isn’t saying anything different from anyone else, and his record in Arkansas makes it fairly clear that his not a fiscal conservative. He didn’t do anything tonight to change my mind.

Ron Paul: In all honesty, I’m pretty sure that tonight may be the night that Ron Paul pretty much guaranteed that whatever chance he had of winning the Republican nomination went out the window.

Let me count the ways.

In one of the few YouTube questions directed specifically to him, he seemed to confirm that he believes the nonsensical stories about some conspiracy, of whatever variety, to create a so-called North American Union. Then, in the second hour, he used a phrase in response to a question about foreign policy that I’m convinced will be used against him when he said that we have to take care of “America first.” It doesn’t take too much creative thought on the part of someone to draw a parallel to the last group of people who used that phrase — and they haven’t exactly been proven right by history. Beyond that, I’ve got to say that I don’t think that he did much better in this debate than he did in the MSNBC debate back in October. And this time, the audience seemed far less receptive.

After tonight, I can honestly say that I think that any chance that Ron Paul will be taken seriously by mainstream Republicans is pretty much gone.

Duncan Hunter: Other than advising one YouTube questioner about gun safety, I can honestly say there isn’t anything memorable about anything Congressman Hunter said.

Fred Thompson: Honestly, I forgot to include him in the original version of this post, and that’s probably a reflection of the impression he made on me. If nothing else, this debate just confirmed for me that he’s not the candidate that political junkies such as myself thought he would be back in May. He still doesn’t seem to be totally into the race, and I don’t think he’ll last past Super Tuesday.

Tom Tancredo: For the first half-hour of this debate Congressman Tancredo was in his glory. Three questions in a row, and arguably the fourth, dealt with pretty much the only issue he’s campaigned on —- immigration. Other than that, he didn’t make that much of an impact, although he did have the best line of the night when he said, in response to one YouTubers question about which candidates would promise to put a man on Mars by 2025 “We can’t afford some things, and going to Mars is one of them.”

Unfortunately, that’s pretty much what the night was reduced to is a bunch of one-liners. Then again, I’m not sure why we should have expected anything different.

Cross-posted at Below The Beltway

Further debate reaction from fellow contributer Kevin Boyd. Meanwhile, Brad Warbiany wonders why Ron Paul’s fund-raising success hasn’t impressed the traders at Intrade. Quite frankly, after tonight’s debate, I think I know why.

TrackBack URI:
Read more posts from
• • •


  1. I completely agree Doug, although I don’t think it’s quite over with Paul’s campaign. Watch for him to stick around until February. I do think tonight was a grave disaster for any success he may have been garnering in the primaries, but at the same time, the front runners did astonishingly poor as well. You also forgot to mention Thompson. While he may not have said anything completely earth shattering, he came off relatively smooth and confident. He did poorly, but better than just about anyone else.

    Comment by David Wilson — November 28, 2007 @ 8:03 pm
  2. I don’t think Paul did as badly as you seem to, but it was far, far from a shining performance.

    The chief problem is the format and duration of these debate answers. Paul can make a robust case for getting out of Iraq and ratcheting down our intervention in the ME and the world, but he can’t do it in 30 or 90 seconds (nor could anyone). If Paul and McCain had an hour to debate foreign policy, I believe the former would clean the latter’s clock…but when limited to 30 second answers and rebuttals, the bumper sticker slogans of McCain and all the others leaves a better impression.

    Comment by David M — November 28, 2007 @ 8:10 pm
  3. Hey look, Doug Mataconis is trashing Ron Paul again. In other news, the sun came up today.

    Paul did fine, and McCain sunk his ship by attacking him. You’ve talked trash about Paul for months now, why should anyone expect you to all of a sudden sing a different tune?

    Comment by Chris S — November 28, 2007 @ 8:10 pm
  4. Are you kidding? Mitt did horribly. I think he answered maybe two questions clearly, even though he had the most talking time with Giuliani.

    Pathetic, I hope he fails trying to buy the white house.

    Comment by John Masen — November 28, 2007 @ 8:10 pm
  5. David,

    You’re right, I did forget Thompson. It wasn’t intentional but, geez, I just forgot he was there…..and I bet I’m not alone in that.

    I’ve update the post to include my thoughts on former District Attorney Arthur Branch.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 28, 2007 @ 8:10 pm
  6. John,

    Did you read what I said about Romney. On substance, he was horrible.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 28, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
  7. Apparently, you both watched a different debate than I did. Paul clearly won the exchange with McCain. Paul did unusually well. He slamned him down by retorting that he had more support from the troops and hit back at McCain’s claim that he was an isolationist. I wonder: Doug: are you planning an endorsement of McCain or Romney? Please tell us where you stand.

    Comment by Dodsworth — November 28, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
  8. Chris,

    Did you hear the reaction of the crowd ? Do you honestly think that crap like “America First” is going to play well outside of whatever people decide to buy Pat Buchanan’s latest screed ?

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 28, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
  9. Doug,

    You’re right, I did forget Thompson. It wasn’t intentional but, geez, I just forgot he was there…..and I bet I’m not alone in that.

    You weren’t :).

    I was talking to a FredHead tonight, she may switch her vote from Fred to Tax Hike Mike after tonight.

    Comment by Kevin — November 28, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
  10. Dodsworth,

    I plan on staying home.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 28, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
  11. I plan on staying home.

    Same here. Thankfully, the nomination should be decided by the time Louisiana votes on February 9th.

    Comment by Kevin — November 28, 2007 @ 8:14 pm
  12. Dodswsorth,

    Paul tanked. I support the Dr., but let’s be honest. He has repeatedly refused to disassociate himself with the truthers and other conspiracy theorists. His answers were shaky and without substance, further adding to perceptions of insanity.

    Comment by David Wilson — November 28, 2007 @ 8:14 pm
  13. Please consider contributing on the 16th of December.
    Ron Paul needs the publicity of another big fund raising day.

    I’m a veteran of the U.S. Air Force active duty (4yrs) and I currently serve as a traditional guardsman in the Air National Guard. All military personnel upon enlistment take the oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…” A vote for Rep. Paul does just that. Ron Paul has my support.

    There is an obvious media bias and it is sad. Rep. Paul is the one candidate of the crowd who has substantially differing views and he was not given much of a chance to articulate those views. Much time was given to marginal issues and small differences between other candidates’ positions on the issues. I suspect many special interest groups have much to lose if a President Paul had a chance to use his veto pen. This is reflected in the lack of time given to Rep. Paul.

    Comment by Gary Danelishen — November 28, 2007 @ 8:20 pm
  14. Gary,

    I understand your frustration. But when Paul registers poll numbers, he’ll get more time.

    Comment by David Wilson — November 28, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
  15. Ron Paul didn’t lose his chances during this debate.
    If you didn’t notice the bias directed against Ron Paul by CNN you would have to be an oblivious fool.
    Out of nearly 5000 questions the two directed at Ron Paul where the worst of the evening and a clear attempt to make him look bad. Then during the rest of the debate he was almost completely excluded.

    Also Ron Paul didn’t ever said he believe in any conspiracy in his response.

    Comment by Mark — November 28, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
  16. Paul wasn’t asked about the truthers so when was his opportunity to deny that he agreed with them. He has already done this many times before.. The Trilaterial Organization (the questioner brought it up) is not a fictional organization. It is is real and pushes an interventionst/establishment agenda. Paul simply pointed that out. He specifically rejected the idea that the Organization was part of hidden conspiracy. It was a perfectly reasonable answer

    Comment by Dodsworth — November 28, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
  17. Dr. Paul did fine considering the time he had and the questions he was asked. Most viewers will see Paul and wonder why CNN was trying to do a hit job on him. I did and I’m not even a Paul supporter.

    Comment by Andy — November 28, 2007 @ 8:22 pm
  18. I meant to say Trilateral Commission, not Organization.

    Comment by Dodsworth — November 28, 2007 @ 8:23 pm
  19. Hit job, Andy? I think that’s a bit much. And Dodsworth, you may be right, but it still APPEARED as if he was crazy. That’s all that matters.

    Comment by David Wilson — November 28, 2007 @ 8:23 pm
  20. David,

    Good point.

    Politics is largely about appearances and impressions and I don’t think that Ron Paul made a good impression on potential Republican voters tonight.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 28, 2007 @ 8:28 pm
  21. Crazy? I don’t know. I thought his grandfatherly smile as McCain lectured him on isolationism was rather charming and benign.

    Comment by Dodsworth — November 28, 2007 @ 8:29 pm
  22. Gary,

    Stop spamming.


    Quit spinning. CNN was fair to Ron Paul.


    Ron Paul said that there was an attempt to bring about a New World Order and a North American Union also.

    Comment by Kevin — November 28, 2007 @ 8:29 pm
  23. It wasn’t Ron Paul’s best performance, but anyone who thinks CNN didn’t have an agenda is crazy. They put his video and question on right at the end. he had the least time of any other candidate. All the wonderful policies he’s proposing and they set him up with a conspiracy question. He look flustered and frustrated and I don’t blame him. He should take the advice of Mark Strauss and run as a third party candidate. He’s going to raise close to 20 million this quarter, which means he could raise around 70 million for a legitimate third party run. You can’t get this guy in thirty seconds, You have to study what he’s saying and voters today aren’t going to do that. But I will never waiver in my support. Donate nov. 30 and Dec. 16th.

    Comment by Jeffrey S — November 28, 2007 @ 8:30 pm
  24. Jeffrey,

    The first question directed specifically to Ron Paul came within the first 45 minutes of the debate.

    Considering his standing in the polls compared to the other candidates, I think the amount of time that Cooper spent directing questions to him was appropriate.

    And if he runs as a 3rd Party candidate, he will, at best, go down in history as another Ross Perot.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 28, 2007 @ 8:33 pm
  25. Doug and Kevin: Do you also plan to extend your boycott into the general election? If so, can we expect you to turn Liberty Papers into an anarchist blog. Now….that would make sense given your refusal to make a choice of any kind. What are waiting for?

    Comment by Dodsworth — November 28, 2007 @ 8:35 pm
  26. dodsworth,

    Just because they are real about this election cycle does not mean they have some conspiracy or boycott agains Paul. Why do you have to be so combative?

    Comment by David Wilson — November 28, 2007 @ 8:37 pm
  27. [...] Cross-posted at The Liberty Papers [...]

    Pingback by Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Republican CNN/YouTube Debate Roundup And Reaction — November 28, 2007 @ 8:37 pm
  28. Kevin: I never claimed that CNN was unfair to Paul. Actually, I thought they treated him much more fairly than in previous debates. Please addess a point that I actually made such as my last ones about anarchism, general election boycotts, and refusing to make a stand.

    Comment by Dodsworth — November 28, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
  29. Only the ignorant fail to recognize conspiracy as the major dynamic in civilization. I am so proud to have met Dr. Paul last week in Nevada…

    “Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery.”

    —Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774

    Comment by Leland Thomas Faegre — November 28, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
  30. Leland,

    I have an open mind. However I am also a Philosophy student. This has made me a skeptic, particularly of things with such astounding claims and fallacious suppositions.

    Comment by David Wilson — November 28, 2007 @ 8:40 pm
  31. Dodsworth,

    I can’t speak for Kevin, but…..

    As I’ve said before, if the choices at the top of the Democratic and Republican tickets are who I think they will be then I will have to decide among a few options

    1. Vote for the Libertarian Party candidate — I’ve done this before and would do it again even though I know nobody will notice that I did it.

    2. Write-in the name of someone else — even more pointless in the grand scheme of things.

    3. Leave the Presidential ballot blank — quite probable given that there are likely to be statewide and local elections that I care about

    4. Stay home and watch a movie.

    Right now, I’m thinking it’ll be either # 3 or # 4.

    And to answer your question, I am not an anarchist, or an anarcho-capitalist.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 28, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
  32. Dodsworth,

    Doug and Kevin: Do you also plan to extend your boycott into the general election? If so, can we expect you to turn Liberty Papers into an anarchist blog. Now….that would make sense given your refusal to make a choice of any kind. What are waiting for?

    We’ll see in the general election. I’m making a list of candidates I can support in the general election.

    However, I don’t see Ron Paul as either a viable candidate or even as a protest candidate. He has no shot in hell to worthy a “lesser of the evils vote” and he his anti-trade, anti-immigrant, conspiracy mongering, isolationist positions make unworthy of a protest vote.

    Comment by Kevin — November 28, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
  33. David: I never claimed that David and Kevin have a conspiracy against Ron Paul. They don’t like him . Fine. This means, IMHO, that they some obligation to present an alternative, even an anarchist one. I have my disagreements with Paul but he is the best choice out there. I have, at least, taken a stand. It is very easy to criticize and nitipik about Paul’s failings It is a lot more difficult to frame a constructive alternative. What is theirs?

    Comment by Dodsworth — November 28, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
  34. Oh and Dodsworth, I’m not an anarcho-capitalist.

    Now put that in your pipe and smoke it.

    Comment by Kevin — November 28, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
  35. Dodsworth,

    I never said I don’t like Ron Paul.

    The first time I was eligible to vote in a Presidential election, I voted for him. That was back in 1988 when he ran as a Libertarian (although that fact isn’t mentioned anywhere in his official campaign biography).

    The thing is that I’ve found myself getting more and more disappointed as this campaign has progressed. Tonight just reinforced that.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 28, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
  36. They have no obligation to make a choice, and if they did choose they have no obligation to tell you or justify it.

    Comment by David Wilson — November 28, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
  37. Oh and Dodsworth, I’m not obligated to come up with an alternative. Your job is to persuade me to vote for your guy. Your guy is not doing a good job.

    Comment by Kevin — November 28, 2007 @ 8:45 pm
  38. Now….you may disagree with Paul but he is clearly not an isolationist. Unlike Buchanan, he is a defender of free trade in the respectable unilateralist pro-diplomacy tradition of Cobden, William Graham Sumner, and Bright. He is no more isolationist than they were. Anti-immigrant? Paul had many chances tonight to demonize immigrants but, unlike all the other candidates, refused to do so. He is clearly the least nativistic candidate in the GOP field. Please note that, unlike Paul, I am an open borders guy but let’s have some comparative perspective here.

    Comment by Dodsworth — November 28, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
  39. Yeah,

    I thought Ron’s performance was pretty bad, too. He does come off as paranoid at our own government, but the questions were questions that asked about his paranoia of government. Paul, of course, is actually paranoid about government.

    I thought Mitt and Rudy sparred to the detriment of both of them. I liked McCain’s response on the torture issue. I don’t know how much respect Republicans have for never torturing and securing the high ground.

    Huckabee looks like he’s sitting pretty and secured the Social-Con voting bloc. Rudy will probably get the Big-Government Law-Enforcement Destroy-Bad-Guys crowd. Fred’s Dead. Tancredo’s raving about illegals. Hunter’s done, too. Mitt is in serious trouble. The future for Ron Paul and McCain are uncertain, but bleak.

    I happen to think the last two are the best candidates for the Republican party.

    The thing about fiscal conservatism is that removing departments is nice, but to put a dent in the budget, you need to cut either defense or entitlements, and it’s really unpopular to do either.

    Comment by TanGeng — November 28, 2007 @ 8:48 pm
  40. Doug,

    I have to side with the others here that you’re being too negative. I think Paul did well. In fact, he did far better than his last debate.

    This is a time for choosing. We have a rendevous with destiny. The time is now. The hour and the man unite. Ron Paul did well at this time and hour.


    Dude, you are making a sampling error about Paul. We don’t need polling ignorance. We get enough of that. You need to support your anti-Paul stance with facts, not opinions. Opinions aren’t helpful unless supported by objective logic. Paul did a great job.

    PAUL DID A GREAT JOB!! (Just in case you missed it.)

    Comment by Chris Kachouroff — November 28, 2007 @ 8:49 pm
  41. Kevin: Thanks for the honest answer. Some of us feel such an personal obligation, however, to take a stand in an imperfect world full of hard choices. But hey if you feel happy in the role in the role of critic, and only critic, that’s up to you.

    Comment by Dodsworth — November 28, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
  42. I agree, it wasn’t Paul’s best performance, but let’s be honest here: CNN clearly was structuring tonight’s debate to further the ends of the Democratic Party. The stage could just have well have been reduced to only four candidates, as the questions were limited to and chosen to facilitate weakening the front runners. And Paul, as the only candidate bringing fresh ideas to the race, was taken out after being ignored for half an hour with an out-of-the-blue ad homonym hit video: Tell us, Dr. Paul, when did you stop beating your wifet?

    Comment by David. S. — November 28, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
  43. And for all of you who may wish to TRY–TRY I SAY– to attack me, you need to know that I do hold an LL.M degree from Georgetown University in International Law. That means I had to go to law school first before getting this degree.

    NOTHING Paul said was untrue in the international scene. If it’s too intense for you, then spell out where Paul is wrong….hmmmm? I think the answer will be dead silence. So I guess you all are paranoid too????

    Sorry folks, I was in a bar tonight with about 60 people who came to hear Paul. Most thought he’d won. I did, too. You all must have been expecting more in the comfort of your own homes….

    Comment by Chris Kachouroff — November 28, 2007 @ 8:53 pm
  44. David,

    Come one, let’s not ascribe this to a CNN conspiracy here. If anything, the Republican candidates had it easier in their YouTube debate than the Democrats did since CNN decided to actually exercise some degree of editorial control over the videos that were used.

    Quite honestly, I was expecting more than what we saw. A video asking Giuliani about his extramarital affairs, perhaps, or one asking Ron Paul about Alex Jones and the 9/11 truthers idiots.

    Frankly, I think this whole YouTube debate idea is dumb to begin with, but the quality of questions was better than I expected.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 28, 2007 @ 8:55 pm
  45. David,

    I am being honest. It wasn’t Paul’s best but it wasn’t his worst. It was above average. Paul wasn’t taken out. Would you folks stop???

    He’s not a great communicator but he communicates great things. That’s his attraction.

    What I hear from you all is he doesn’t sound like Reagan. Too bad. Reagan is dead.

    Comment by Chris Kachouroff — November 28, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
  46. Chris,

    Im sorry I am a small town philosopher and do not hold a law degree. However, this does not mean that I do not have the capacity to reason. I am sure you know many idiots with degrees. However, I was not disagreeing with Ron’s arguments, for what it’s worth. I simply think that he showed a fairly poor performance tonight.

    Comment by David Wilson — November 28, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
  47. Chris,

    We’re down to crunch time now. 35 days from Iowa. 42 days from New Hampshire and 68 days from Super Tuesday.

    Within the next 70 days more than 50% of the delegates needed to decide the GOP nomination will be chosen.

    For RP to win this, he has to appeal to more than just people who think that there’s some vast conspiracy out there and I just don’t think he did it tonight.

    Frankly, I don’t like where the numbers are going but there’s not a lot that can be done about that at this point.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 28, 2007 @ 8:59 pm
  48. David,

    That’s my point. You rate his performance on what he showed, not what he said.

    If that’s his measure, he wouldn’t raise 4.3 million in a day, see?

    Let me repeat, he is NOT a great communicator but a communicator of great ideas. That’s why he’s good and that’s why his performance tonight was acceptable and above average. It’s also why your reason should hold you back from critiquing him so harshly. Deep down you want him to smoke the others. I thought he did well with McCain–as judged from the sampling of the bar.

    So relax. I throw my degrees around to show that Paul isn’t a kook about the international thing. (Although, I may be.)

    Comment by Chris Kachouroff — November 28, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
  49. Doug,

    Ron Paul doubled in two weeks in NH from 4 to 8%. I like those numbers. He’s doing well. He just started spending money there and in Iowa. Hold fast my friend. I think you’ll be surprised.

    By the way, where are my petitions?

    Comment by Chris Kachouroff — November 28, 2007 @ 9:03 pm
  50. I have an open mind. However I am also a Philosophy student. This has made me a skeptic, particularly of things with such astounding claims and fallacious suppositions.

    Comment by David Wilson — November 28, 2007 @ 8:40 pm

    The defense rests…

    Comment by Leland Thomas Faegre — November 28, 2007 @ 9:03 pm
  51. Chris

    I am weighing what he said as well. What he said (if you truly understand where he is coming from) was alright. But the problem is that most Americans are not used to an academic approach to politics, and when an individual tries to make such an approach, people tune out and pay more attention to the way they act, or stutter, or forget things. In this sense, Paul looked bad. But I do not think it was absolutely horrid, just mildly unsavory. He could have done far better.

    Comment by David Wilson — November 28, 2007 @ 9:05 pm
  52. Chris,

    I’ve seen the N.H. polls, but I’ve also seen the polls from pretty much every other state.

    As for the petitions, I was recently informed that our neighborhood doesn’t allow door-to-door solicitation so I’ve got to figure out how to be creative.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 28, 2007 @ 9:05 pm
  53. Doug,

    You want Paul to perform a certain way. I deal with the grassroots daily. None of them think Paul is charismatic.

    All of them agree that it’s the message. Paul’s message tonight was great. That’s all that counts.

    The traditional conservative may never vote for Paul. But they’re a small minority of the voters, maybe 10%? Paul’s greatest source of support is the larger group of never voted.

    BTW, did you comment on the ZOGBY blind poll? It’s where Paul won 38% of the vote….

    Comment by Chris Kachouroff — November 28, 2007 @ 9:06 pm
  54. Chris,

    And I spent ten years dealing with grassroots rock-solid Republicans and they’re the ones who vote in primaries.

    Politics has changed, but it hasn’t changed that much.

    And I posted about the Zogby poll before Thanksgiving. Like much of what Zogby has done over the years, it has its flaws.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 28, 2007 @ 9:08 pm
  55. Doug,

    No excuse on the petitions. I have veterans in wheel chairs going to Obama rallys to collect signatures and yes persuade Obama supporters.

    There’s only two weeks left, effectively. Get me 20.

    Comment by Chris Kachouroff — November 28, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
  56. I hope Ron Paul sticks in it long enough so I can vote for him if people don’t wake up and vote for him. I’d hate to go through another election cycle not voting. Then when the country is finally bankrupt I’ll be able to say “don’t blame me I voted for Ron Paul.”

    McCain is the better candidate among the McCain-lite front runners because he isn’t afraid to state what he stands for or what he thinks even through he thinks all American workers suck. I admire his honesty about it.

    Comment by uhm — November 28, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
  57. Humans are creatures of fleeting interest and short attention spans. While I may love devouring hundreds of pages of literature and policy studies, most Americans don’t. They want their sound bites. This is why Huckabee is fairly popular.

    Comment by David Wilson — November 28, 2007 @ 9:10 pm
  58. David,

    If humans are such fleeting creatures with short spans, then explain Paul’s popularity???? If he’s so bad, then how to explain his fund raising????

    You’re buying into the conservative tri-polarism. These are the same people who would tell you that Guliani’s victory over Hillary is a slam dunk and a cake walk.

    Don’t do it. Resist it. Huckabee is only popular with Christians who aren’t constitutionalists. They’lll abandon him in a heartbeat once they see he’s like Bush.

    Most have no clue that he supports:

    A federal ban on smoking
    Farm subsidies
    No child left behind
    And higher taxes (


    Comment by Chris Kachouroff — November 28, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
  59. Chris,

    I don’t know that there’s anyone who thinks that Rudy would beat Hillary in a “slam dunk”….if anything, the polls would say it’s the other way around.

    And I think Huckabee is worse that Rudy, if that’s possible.

    But if you look at how the American public votes, I don’t think they care.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 28, 2007 @ 9:21 pm
  60. Doug,

    If polls have flaws, then don’t use them for support. Let go and use the force Luke.

    This is about freedom and liberty. There wasn’t this excitement in 1988 when you voted for Ron Paul. I get 10 volunteers per day just in Virginia. The other campaigns could only wish for that much and aren’t even reaching out to anyone.

    After all, anyone in this forum has been approached by any other candidate seeking your vote??????? (Crickets are chirping in the background.)

    Comment by Chris Kachouroff — November 28, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
  61. Doug: You don’t even qualify your praise of McCain on torture by noting that he was the one to deep-six the attempts to limit the power Military Commissions when he was needed the most Again, a little skepticism of McCain comparable to that you show for Paul would be nice.

    Comment by Dodsworth — November 28, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
  62. Doug,

    It is possible that Huckabee is worse than Guliani. I fully believe that and can support it with facts.

    And the only ones who believe that Guliani can win are the traditional republican conservatives.

    WHy? Because they believe we should hold the line in the place where the last liberal moved it, FOR THE LOVE OF MIKE!!!

    Comment by Chris Kachouroff — November 28, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
  63. Let me add another thought. I’m fairly pumped up tonight. I was at a bar where folks were not silent about Ron Paul. They were cheering him on. I was there. It was a meetup event. Nothing you say here will get me down tonight. It was awesome.

    But let’s discuss your attitude. You’ve been told there’s only left and right and the middle. I tell you there’s only up and down. You have the message of life, liberty and the pursuit of happines; at then bottom, you have the ant heap of totalitarianism. You’re depressed. Well stop it.

    I know you all are supporters of Paul. You don’t want to be disappointed. Let go of it. You can’t control the results. Get out there and do something to get Paul elected. He’s the last of a dying breed. As I said, the time and the hour unite. You have a rendevous with destiny. Make it so.

    Comment by Chris Kachouroff — November 28, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
  64. Chris:

    I agree with you but take it even farther. Doug and Kevin actually seem comfortable in being apostles for depression and despair and total inaction. Folks who sit on the sit lines, criticize from the peanut gallery, and stubbornly refuse to take a stand, will never change an imperfect world

    Comment by Dodsworth — November 28, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
  65. To everyone else aside from Dodsworth,

    I’m on All of the folks think Paul has done a great job and better than the last!!!! What are you folks thinking? WHere is this negativity coming from????

    Comment by Chris Kachouroff — November 28, 2007 @ 9:47 pm
  66. I know and understand the temptation to be a critic and naysayer. I’m more skeptical and most and gave up on the LP many years ago. Ron Paul is the best thing to happen to libertarianism and years. The evidence is all around us in terms of meet-up groups, youthful enthusiasm, and new interest in libertarianism in the MSM.

    This is not the time to be a defacto nihlist who is always ready to pisses in the lemonade. Criticism is fine but hollow when it becomes almost an end in itself. It is downright counteproductive to people who actually want to do something constructive when the critics feel almost cocky and proud that they do have to propose an alternative other than watching a movie and/or total inaction.

    Comment by Dodsworth — November 28, 2007 @ 9:57 pm
  67. I didn’t even see the debate tonight. (due to power outage – It’s a conspiracy I tell ya.) I wonder how many did watch? If a candidate does poorly, and nobody sees it, does he appear weak?

    All I see on the web (Ap, Reuters, etc.) is that McCain and Paul tusseled on Iraq, and Ron had a great comeback about having more military donors.

    Again I didn’t see it, so if the delivery was poor, I wouldn’t know it, and neither will most Americans. They will get their info from the text in the newspaper tomorrow, or off of the web.

    It’s no surprise that Doug and that other Kevin thought he did poorly, they have said the same thing after every debate. Yet Dr. Paul’s meetup group membership, fundraising, and even his POTS (Plain Old Telephone Survey) numbers (for those who take stock by such things – I don’t) are on the rise.

    Comment by Kevin Houston — November 28, 2007 @ 10:18 pm
  68. “And if he runs as a 3rd Party candidate, he will, at best, go down in history as another Ross Perot.”

    I’m hoping he does go 3rd party. I’d like to see the GOP go down in flames at this point. They have been hopelessly co-opted by religious extremism.

    Countries get the leaders they deserve. At this point I think America needs someone who can really complete driving this thing into the ground and finish the job.

    We don’t deserve liberty any more. We’re collectively too stupid to appreciate it.

    Comment by yeahyeahyeah — November 28, 2007 @ 10:19 pm
  69. I think Ron Paul handled the NAU question very well. He showed the people who care about that issue that he’s on their side, but he came across as reasonable and intelligent — not kooky.

    He repeatedly stressed freedom and cutting government spending, not just taxes, and was in stark contrast to Fred Thompson on the issue, who couldn’t name 3 programs, talked about Social Security, then said he wasn’t saying he would cut it.

    The debate was a disaster for Romney and Giuliani. They are the ones who now have no serious chance to win conservative votes.

    Comment by Doug D — November 28, 2007 @ 11:09 pm
  70. Yeah, there are lots of people in Texas worried about NAU. I don’t think that the NAU will be close to fruition.

    The thing about the Trilateral Commission and SPP is that it’s the executive bypassing Senate’s approval of all treaties. They’re unconstitutional.

    Comment by TanGeng — November 28, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
  71. David,

    Ahhh, the old “former Ron Paul” supporter routine. Huckabee fans’ favorite in their bag of tricks.

    You don’t come across well, when you stick to the blog and attack every person posting something positive about Ron Paul even when it isn’t directed at anything you said. And not one single positive thing to say about Ron Paul (on ANY issue) except to claim at first “I used to be a Ron Paul supporter.”

    My friend, if you were a Ron Paul supporter at one point, you would have already known his position on this. And Ron Paul is not alone in congress, senate, govenors and pundits. The NAU is very real for anyone not living in Rhode Island far away from where it is being implemented.

    You say it isn’t happening, ummm, because the media isn’t talking about it? The media doesn’t talk about a lot of things that are happening. We only find out about them when it is too late.

    Have fun, David.

    Comment by Scott M. — November 29, 2007 @ 12:11 am
  72. Ron Paul made a mistake against McCain. He let McCain frame it so that Iraq is central to the war on terror when really it is wherever the hell Al-Qaeda is hiding around the Afghan border. In reality Iraq has been detrimental to the war on terror, taking resources away from the real fight in Afghanistan. The 9/11 and Iraq connection myth lives on. I hope we can secure our oil at least.

    Comment by uhm — November 29, 2007 @ 12:14 am
  73. Doug, I’m a fan of yours, but you’re starting to get pretty insufferable on this concern trolling thing.

    So you think this debate will sink his chances within the Republican party primarily because he used the phrase “America first”, in the context of “I think we ought to take care of America first”?

    And your expectation is the bulk of Republican voters watching took those two words being used together to be a connection to an obscure nativist agenda, and that they will then decide they want no part of Ron Paul. Because, in a grammatical sentence, he joined the words “America” and “first”?

    That was your take-away from tonight’s debate?

    Seriously, are you kidding?

    You’re really, really, really looking hard at this point for reasons to doubt the Paul campaign.

    Comment by Brad — November 29, 2007 @ 2:06 am
  74. Because God knows, if there are two deal-breakers within the Republican party, it’s an expression of distrust over NAFTA, and the phrase “America first”.

    Seriously, listen to yourself.

    Comment by Brad — November 29, 2007 @ 2:09 am
  75. Brad,

    The America First comment is basically something that pissed me off personally. It’s a stupid remark, and indicates to me just where his foreign policy is coming from.

    What I think hurt him more in the mind of thinking Republicans his is response to the question about the non-existent North American Union and the fictional “Nafta Superhighway.”

    Come on, you can’t honestly tell me you think Ron Paul did well last night, can you ?

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 29, 2007 @ 3:10 am
  76. Brad,

    You’re really, really, really looking hard at this point for reasons to doubt the Paul campaign.

    I’ve been a doubter from the beginning, not because of the candidate but because I didn’t think that a radical small-government message would prove popular among most Republicans.

    So far, it would seem, I am right.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 29, 2007 @ 3:25 am
  77. I don’t think the NAFTA Superhighway is a conspiracy theory. If it is then it is one well done hoax! Sigh the conspiracy theorist forget it’s real name the North American SuperCorridor!

    Comment by uhm — November 29, 2007 @ 4:14 am
  78. Uhm,

    If that’s what the so-called NAFTA superhighway is, then I don’t see what the big deal is. Basically, it’s just a plan to link transporation hubs in Canada, the U.S., and Mexico together in a way that allows trade between the three nations — which is already pretty much frictionless — to flow more efficiently.

    What the heck is wrong with that ?

    To listen to Ron Paul last night, you’d think that there was some secret plan to use eminent domain to take people’s property and build a massive superhighway that stretches from Mexico City to Ketichan, Alaska. Based on the link you sent me, and other things I’ve read about the “ports network” proposal, it’s clear that that is simply not true.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 29, 2007 @ 4:19 am
  79. Did you know that the EU recently celebrated its 50th anniversary? Surprised? You should be, because officially the EU was formed in 1992 and supposedly had its genesis in the 1980s. But…but…the 50th anniversary they were celebrating was the formation of the Coal and Steel Union. At the time, publicly, denial after denial was issued that this union was anything more than a simple trade federation. But privately, the people pushing for the CSU (which became the EEC and eventually the EU), were quite clear that the EU was their long term goal.

    The idea that because the NAU is unnamed and not officially acknowledged by anyone means that the concept or goal doesn’t exist…well…what planet of gullibility and credulity do you live on?!

    About Paul in the debate. I’ve watched a number of television appearances by him. It has become almost a given that he is asked the “what will you do when you don’t get the nomination” question. The fact that CNN chose to air that question, which Paul has answered many times already, seems rather calculated, transparent even. It’s insulting. Can you imagine any other candidate being asked that question, over and over again? In my opinion, he could have handled this question better, especially since he’s been asked it so many times.

    About the conspiracy question. Out of 5K questions, they pick THIS?! I happen to agree with him here. He didn’t say there was a conspiracy, but there were people with a shared agenda that is at odds with the principles on which America was founded. Do you disagree? But still, the choice of this question seems designed to marginalize him.

    Comment by Scott — November 29, 2007 @ 4:37 am
  80. Here is what I gathered people are afraid of:

    The teamsters are going to be out of a job according to what they say. They are going to be bypassed. Goods are going to ship from China to Mexico and Mexican trucks will take them throughout Mexico, the US and Canada along that supercorridor. Populist fear that whatever is left of our industrial base is going to be sunk with large shipments of cheap Chinese goods.

    The source of all the paranoia I think:
    We are indebt, the dollar has fallen, Bush has ravaged the Constitution, our social programs are in trouble, and the American people are paranoid about globalization. They don’t want to work for pennies unable to better themselves or their children as they work in sweat shops or other horrible working conditions always in fear of being replaced by someone with a guest worker permit. They see globalization as the race to the bottom and they don’t want to be apart of that. They are scared about everything.

    North American Union:
    People are afraid they will lose all power to corporatist. People notice these ideologues wanting a North American Community, wanting us to think of ourselves as North Americans. Then they look over at the EU which is said to have a democracy deficit telling nations what to do. The disrespect shown by our government concerning our laws makes people think that our elected officials are only puppets for multinational corporations, being American means nothing, and liberty is going to be killed off by a supranational government someday after the structure is in place for it like what happened in Europe.

    Comment by uhm — November 29, 2007 @ 5:08 am
  81. I almost forgot there is a hologram on new NC licenses. It is a picture of North America so this leads people to think it’s another step to being like the EU.

    Comment by uhm — November 29, 2007 @ 6:24 am
  82. The America First comment is basically something that pissed me off personally. It’s a stupid remark, and indicates to me just where his foreign policy is coming from.

    Well, if it’s just a personal quibble, then say so, don’t frame it as “this sinks his chances of being taken seriously as a Republican contender”, which is exactly how you phrased it.

    I have no idea why you consider the notion of putting America first as an organizing concept of foreign policy to be stupid or offensive. It’s a pretty basic value statement, not some kind of “code” for a specific agenda. The alternative is we should put other country’s welfares first. Is that more inline with your thinking? I hardly think that’s what you mean, but again, that’s what you’re saying. Paul’s point was pretty simple, having to do specifically with Iraq. You’re not just making a leap to read it as a conscious endorsement of “America First”, you’re making several. That’s you going out of your way to read into a pretty simple and bland statement about priorities to be some kind of coded message. I mean, come on, the man can’t use the words “America” and “first” together without you giving him shit for it?

    What I think hurt him more in the mind of thinking Republicans his is response to the question about the non-existent North American Union and the fictional “Nafta Superhighway.”

    I, personally, agree with you there that it’s a stupid issue, but again, you’re taking your personal pet peeve and transferring it onto the Republican voting public. You think most Republican voters characteristically knee-jerk against that kind of statement? I’d say it’s a pretty safe statement on Ron’s part, in terms of political gain. Voting Republicans, believe it or not, don’t tend to share your point of view. These are the people for whom “New World Order” was a major, enthusiastic issue in the early 90s, people for whom hatred for the United Nations (which I still don’t understand either) is a reflex, and people for whom a distrust of multilateral organizations continues to be a major component of GOP thought. You’re fooling yourself if you think anybody but pretty much you were sitting there seeing red flags raised with that remark.

    Come on, you can’t honestly tell me you think Ron Paul did well last night, can you ?

    I think he did fine, as far as it goes. What most people will remember him for is the exchange with McCain—which Ron, I think, got the better of.

    At this point, though, what hurts him—what gets him booed—has absolutely nothing to do with your personal quibbles, and usually just revolves around him being anti-war and socially liberally. It’s not like a huge swath of Republican voters are giving him a look and passing because of a comment on the North American fucking union.

    I’ve been a doubter from the beginning, not because of the candidate but because I didn’t think that a radical small-government message would prove popular among most Republicans.

    So far, it would seem, I am right.

    He’s done far, far better than either you or I imagined he would at the beginning. If you’re being smug because you presciently predicted that Ron Paul wouldn’t win the nomination and turned out to be right, please get in line to accept your medal with EVERY OTHER POLITICAL COMMENTATOR ON EARTH.

    If your metric of success is simply whether he wins the nomination, of course you’re right.

    My argument is, and always has been, that he need not win the nomination to be a success. And, so far, I’m right on that score. He’ll probably end up, when it’s all said and done, with 10% of the Republican vote in a very crowded field of a lot of top tier candidates. If you would have told me that would be the case six months ago, I would have thought you were crazy.

    Ron Paul has ALREADY surpassed expectations. Mine, and yours.

    Comment by Brad — November 29, 2007 @ 6:25 am
  83. Scott:
    You’re wrong. It was not the “Coal and Steel Union.” It was the “Coal and Steel Community,” which was an agreement by the Benelux countries, plus Germany, France, and Italy to essentially create a free exchange of coal and steel amongst themselves. It was also founded in 1951, not 1957, and from the beginning it seems they were pretty clear that it was intended in large part to ensure peace amongst those countries through trade. Guess what? It worked- or do you forget the lengthy history of problems between Germany and France that have gone by the wayside.

    By the way, the 50th anniversary being celebrated is that of the Treaty of Rome and the EEC, which was pretty explicit in its goal of creating peace through trade and a limited form of supranational government. Also, the European Parliament has been around for a good 30 years.

    But ask yourself this- are the EU countries better or worse off now than they were before the EU? Has it helped or hurt peace within the EU countries? Are they politically more or less stable (keep in mind- the French have now been on the same Republic for 50 years!)? Are people in Ireland and the UK better or worse off since they entered the EU? Sure, they’ve had to give up a degree of sovereignty, but I still fail to see why a supra-national government is inherently less trustworthy than a national government.

    We tend to forget that in some ways the US government was originally a supra-national government, yet it has been the most successful form of government in history, and on the whole we are still an extraordinarily free people. The worst hiccups that have occured have for the most part been at the hands of the state governments or thanks to a blatant twisting of the constitution in the Roosevelt era. Not to say we don’t have to be concerned about our freedoms- just that we’ve done a pretty good job of keeping them so far, and have eventually restored lost freedoms most of the time. If we theoretically joined in an NAU with Canada and Mexico, I fail to see how that would be materially different (given our existing form of federalism) from adding two new, very large states.

    Comment by Mark — November 29, 2007 @ 6:30 am
  84. Brad,

    I don’t think its being anti-Iraq War per se that is upsetting the Republican base when it comes to Ron Paul, it’s when he goes beyond that and talks about bringing the troops home from everywhere that I think he turns off most mainstream Republicans.

    I’ve met plenty of Republicans who know that Iraq was a mistake and that we need to get out of there as soon as possible. That doesn’t mean that they agree it’s time for a fundamental change in American foreign policy.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 29, 2007 @ 8:40 am
  85. Again, you’ve got this weird habit wherein you try to justify your own eclectic qualms with Ron Paul by bluntly stating that that’s how everyone thinks.

    Here’s a quick, admittedly unscientific metric for what upsets the Republican base about Ron Paul. When does he get booed in these debates?

    Hint: it’s not when he talks about bases in Germany or North American Unions.

    Comment by Brad — November 29, 2007 @ 9:42 am
  86. Doug,

    Got to agree with Brad…Paul gets booed by the GOP “faithful” when he brings up Iraq, not when he talks about removing our forces from South Korea, or Germany, or any number of other places. Guiliani’s doing well because he is pushing to stay in Iraq. You’ve got your assessment completely backwards.

    Comment by UCrawford — November 29, 2007 @ 10:05 am
  87. This site sucks. It was better with Dondero, but I guess they don’t want any competition when it comes to slamming Ron Paul so that they can pat themselves on the back and circle jerk each other when the outcome that will be the least desirable for the country comes true and they can say, “see. The establishment won. I told you so.”

    An anarchist site? LMAO, what a joke. The posters here are obviously ok with the status quo. This place is more like a site for wannabe establishment bootlickers, maybe if they’re lucky and earn their Establishment Libertarian stripes they can go off to STATO.

    Comment by Chris S — November 29, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
  88. Chris, it’s clear that you were really misinformed about about what The Liberty Papers is:

    1) This is not an anarchist site. The only anarchist contributor is moi (although I have my suspicions about Brad).

    2) This is not a libertarian site. Most of the contributors are not libertarian and never have claimed to be libertarian.

    3) The website is intended to be a debating society where people discuss things related to the American experiment in self-government.

    4) The only common viewpoint among all the contributors is that we all seem to have a fondness for Robert Heinlein, which also explains the predominance of former and current U.S. service members amongst the contributors.

    5) If any of my fellows have an agenda to torpedo Ron Paul or land jobs at Cato, they are playing their cards close to their chest.

    6) There is no sitewide agenda. It is not uncommon for contributors to publicly take positions in opposition to each other.

    7) Nothing is more laughable than the idea that we’re OK with the status quo.

    8) Nor is there uniform hostility to Ron Paul. All of us respect what he accomplished. Most of us disagree with Ron Paul about one thing or another. Some love him on immigration and hate him on foreign policy. Others love him on foreign policy and hate him on immigration. The points of agreement are not interesting, and the points of disagreement are. So that what gets written.

    None of this is secret, and we have never misrepresented ourselves. I don’t how you came to be so badly misled, but it wasn’t because we were trying to trick you.

    Comment by tarran — November 29, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
  89. Na they just Post about Ron Paul here to get the traffic.

    There interest is the status quo, and being good little boot licking establishment hacks

    Comment by Max — November 29, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
  90. “CNN was fair to Ron Paul” ROFL

    The best was the NAU question

    If the NAU is a conspiracy theory made up, then why did CNN feel it was important enough to bring up in a presidential election?

    Comment by Max — November 29, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
  91. tarran,

    5) If any of my fellows have an agenda to torpedo Ron Paul or land jobs at Cato, they are playing their cards close to their chest.

    Is this to say that destroying RP might land one a job at Cato? I’ve noticed that Cato has passed on every opportunity to positively mention a candidate that seems to roughly fall in line with their vision of the country as it should be. Do you know of anything going on with the Cato Institute?

    Comment by Brian T. Traylor — December 1, 2007 @ 11:50 am
  92. Brian,

    Because Cato as a non-profit think tank cannot endorse candidates. So they can only criticize candidates on specific issues.

    Comment by Kevin — December 1, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
  93. It may be a Steve Watson infowars article, but this contains a great compilation of information on the ongoing plans between Mexico, Canada, and the U.S.

    Comment by mike — December 3, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
  94. Clearly many youngsters on this site. Any fool could see Congressman Paul’s strong issues were absent from the debate. Being a Viet Nam Vet and currently working as a contractor for the US Army in Germany I see and hear the voices of the Contractors and troops (except the “experts” CNN and FOX force on us) coming from and going to the sand box every day. Went to visit the injured many times in Landstuhl Hospital over here. I guarantee you this. Ron Paul will take the Military vote because especially since this unconstitutional war began the troops have taken a new look at the constitution they raised their hands to uphold. Our constitution is clear concerning foreign entanglements and wars of aggression. The Federal Reserve System is and always has been a scam against all peoples of this planet though Americans have been hurt by them less than other nations. Looking at the current value of our dollar, this may soon change. In fact I agree with Dr. Paul on nearly every issue except I can’t for the life of me figure out how he will make Corporations treat their bread and butter (workers) as share holders rather than slaves. Until 8 years ago the company I currently work for was employee owned and the employees were given a fair share of the profits. Since going private, it’s been table scraps. Some posters here clearly have not even read Ron Pauls policies concerning any subject. Their replies reflect this clearly.

    Comment by Jim — December 4, 2007 @ 1:34 am
  95. One more quick comment for the youngsters. A great American Marine General, Smedely Butler wrote a book called “War is a racket”. It’s online. Google it, short, sweet and very interesting. Tell me the guy wasn’t a prophet. Remember this was written before WWII. Would like to hear Doug’s comments on Butlers ideas. Another graet story concerning Butler was Corporate types trying to get him to kill FDR. Just a few thoughts from an old Republican.

    Comment by Jim — December 4, 2007 @ 1:50 am

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