Scarborough: Like Beck, I'd Consider Third-Party Ron Paul Over Gingrich
Today's Morning Joe has been one long festival of Gingrich gouging.
Joe Scarborough set the tone early. During the opening segment Scarborough announced that, like Glenn Beck, if the choice comes down to Obama vs. Gingrich, and Ron Paul is running as a third-party candidate, "I'm going to give him a long look." Video after the jump.
Last week, Scarborough criticized Gingrich's political persona, calling him a "terrible person" when he puts on his political helmet. Today, Scarborough focused on his policy differences with Newt, saying that Gingrich is "the opposite of being a small-government conservative." Watch Scarborough contemplate a vote that he went on to acknowledge would hand the election to Barack Obama.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: I want to bring up Glenn Beck really quickly. I bash Glenn Beck when he says really inflammatory statements. But Glenn Beck last week had Newt on. And he asked Newt the type of questions that conservatives need answers to.
Then yesterday, Glenn Beck said something that I guarantee you a lot of small-government conservatives, like me, have thought. And that is, if I have to choose between Barack Obama and Newt Gingrich, a guy that George Will said would have been a marvelous Marxist and who is the opposite of being a small-government conservative, if Ron Paul's running as a third-party candidate, I'm going to give him a long look. Because I can't vote for the two guys who worship at the altar of big government in their own separate ways. And that's the problem with a Newt Gingrich candidacy, Andy: he's not a small-government conservative.
- Mark Finkelstein's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Ron Paul has said he won't run as 3rd party
Submitted by Texndoc on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 10:17am.
Didn't he?
Anyway, if Newt gets the nomination it will be a replay of McCain/Obama without the war record and with the Cynthia McCain lookalike wife, except this one is a former mistress who will never be First Lady, ever.
I'm voting Perry in the primaries and stopping there if he's not the nominee. See you in 2016 with Ryan-Rubio after an Obama second term.
This is exactly what the true
Submitted by Semus on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 10:37am.
This is exactly what the true left wants you to do so go for it. I wouldn't say this but some I know have said that it was as though McCain threw the election on purpose, he was that inept. Also big mistake to believe everything George Will writes as Scarborough seems to, Will supported, covertly, Obama, with his timely attacks during an election cycle whenever it looked like he [McCain] was getting any traction. The result is we have a President who has a compete disdain for America, her culture, and most of the people. So go for, because if Obama is re elected and he has his way, 2012 may be the last election as we know them.
I agree.
Submitted by BBallleaper on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 11:02am.
McCain, from the outset of his disastrous campaign, acted as though he knew he would never be able to defeat a 'black' man (who, amazingly enough is actually a mulatto!) and so capitulated in everything he did. No vetting of Obozo, no attacks on his fraudulent past, his marxist indocrination, his hatred of whites, Jews, and patriotic Americans. Had McLame NOT chosen Palin he would have lost every state. He would have lost by at least 20million fewer votes in a complete landslide!
Funny how we all buy into the
Submitted by amyshulk on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 7:29am.
Funny how we all buy into the msm narrative on how anyone but Mitt will be destroyed.
My fave Garfield - Odie up on a tree limb, Jon saying "Odie, dogs can't climb trees" and next panel, Odie has fallen to the ground and Garfield opines: "It's amazing what one can do when one doesn't know what one can't do"
It strikes me that 2012 *is* different, but we can throw it all away. let's not, OK?
Ronald Reagan
Hi Tex: On Meet the Press,
Submitted by Mark Finkelstein on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 10:20am.
Hi Tex: On Meet the Press, Paul refused to rule out a third-party run: http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/12/paul/cwYL0icj...
If Obama should win/steal a second term...
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 10:20am.
...there will be no election in 2016.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
At this point . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 10:33am.
. . . I tend to agree with Texndoc, though I'm not voting for any Republicans in the primaries because I'm neither Republican nor Democrat/
The GOP mayb have some good potential Presidential candidates, but none of them are running right now. This lot of candidates is very lackluster.
Comparing it to 1996 when the Dems had another weakened President, Gingrich is smarter that Dole, but carries far more baggage. Obama is not as politically astute as Clinton, but carries less baggage than Clinton. His biggest problem is that Obama governs a weak economy, while Clinton governed over a rising economy.
We haven't had the Iowa caucus yet and a lot can happen over the course of the primaries. But if Gingrich wins the nomination, I think Obama has a better than 50-50 chance of winning reelection, especially if the economy begins to pick up.
TexDoc, as a fellow Texan, I
Submitted by marpel on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 11:50am.
TexDoc, as a fellow Texan, I like Perry also. I would probably vote for him in the primaries as long as he stays in. But, if not, I'm going w/ Newt. I think the GOP ticket will be more enhanced by who will be the nominee's running mate as well.
"Deep within my heart lies a memory. A song of ol' San Antone..."
Won't vote for Newt?
Submitted by SpiderMike on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 12:53am.
I can understand where you're coming from, but any one of our primary candidates is better than Obama. If it happens to be Newt and we stay at home in November 2012, even Ryan/Rubio won't be able to turn back the tide. By 2016, the sheer numbers will be against us. More illegal voters, more fraud, more people voting to keep the redistributed money, more 18 year old skulls full of mush indoctrinated by leftist controlled public schools, most of the WW2 generation gone, another four years distant from liberty and traditional American values and millions more too far removed from real freedom to even know what we've lost. No my friend, you're wrong, even a RINO, even a glib Georgian would be better than Obama because we'll hold his feet to the fire every day.
Tomato can
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 1:13am.
Will get my vote over Obama. I beg you folks to do the same!
Yes, let's make sure the Dear Ruler wins a second term
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 10:18am.
What an idiot.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Joe, Just Vote for Obama, Again
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 10:19am.
Please.....leave the drama for Mika the Twit.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Doing all he can to re-elect
Submitted by Semus on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 10:34am.
Doing all he can to secretly, sneakily, re-elect Obama, that's what's expected of all MSNBC employees.
Scarborough's visceral hatred
Submitted by Captain Repus on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 10:25am.
Scarborough's visceral hatred of the 'Republican of the day' (currently Newt) has finally driven him to the point of actually saying nice things about Romney He has decided to do this since his prince-in-waiting Huntsman continues to hover around the 0% polling.
Once Newt is destroyed Joe can turn his hatred back to Romney on his 3-hour DNC infomercial.
Such a small person.
CAP - You're absolutely
Submitted by Gat New York on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 4:56pm.
CAP - You're absolutely right. Scarborough is playing the faux-conservative shill for MSLSD and bashes every GOP candidate the minute they are on top. The guy is an outright fraud. Look, anyone who constantly has to qualify every statement he makes with "as you know I am a small govrnment conservative" is not a small government conservative (which, by the way, isn't small government and conservative synonymous?).
then you must agree with obama
Submitted by ohio granny on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 10:36am.
Anyone foolish enough to vote for a third party candidate may as well pull the lever for Obama. Or if you decide to stay home and not vote at all you are helping Obama be reelected. No matter how flawed the republican candidate is they will be 100 % better than Obama.
This country will be changed forever and not for the better if Obama wins reelection. He does not believe in the constitution or the limited powers of the federal government. Look at all the czars he has appointed and how he decides which laws he enforces or which ones he decides not to enforce. All of this is designed to destroy our constitution. He thinks it is wrong because it does not specify what the federal government should do, only what it cannot do.
The sooner he is out of office the better.
Crazy joe
Submitted by Marsh on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 10:36am.
with all his day dreams of 3rd party candidates and brokered conventions. When reality sets in he'll be hitting the bottle harder and calling in sick more often in 2012.
Hypocrite
Submitted by capav on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 10:41am.
Joe and his motley crew have bashed Beck forever. Even though he prefaces his statement with admitting his bashing, it's hypocritical of him to now promote Beck. He promoted him on Twitter by linking an interview with Gingrich on Beck's radio show. I'm still undecided on a candidate, but if Gingrich wins the nomination, I will take joy in hearing replays of Joe the magnificent crowing about how he's always right about the Republican party. He did declare after all, that Gingrich would NEVER be nominated. Try tweeting Joe about his true faults (factually, not nastily), and find out how fast he blocks you. He is thin skinned and extremely pompous. Gee, kinda like how he describes Gingrich!
Dear Joe,
Submitted by BBallleaper on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 11:07am.
there is NO statute of limitations on murder, especially in Florida. What really happened Joe? Manslaughter? Accident? Pregnancy? Tattletale? Revelations? Come on Joe, get right with God on this. It will make you feel clean. Like Mika!
Obysmal for 4 more
Submitted by Tomorama on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 10:42am.
If we allow the media to nominate Newt, we lose again.
Tex mentions Ryan and Rubio - my dream ticket and we need to start a groundswell for them or Christie ............................
What happened to all of the Cain whores?
The media is doing it again............
Say Joe?
Submitted by KornKing on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 11:17am.
Tell me again how conservative you are, I forget....
I heard Glen Beck's comments
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 11:50am.
I heard Glen Beck's comments yesterday. I am sorry, but Beck jumped the shark. The second Beck finished his I will consider voting for Ron Paul if Newt is no minated, I turned my radio dial and promised never to listen to this guy again. I have been very tired of his gloom and doom scenerios and his Ron Paul comment just put the last drop. Beck is wacked.
Joe Scarborough, well, the poor fool has been running to the Left very quickly.
Conservatives will guarantee Obama his second term if we honestely start with the stupid, ridiculous and always failing third party talk!
Liberallies: Well said!
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 12:46pm.
I'm in complete agreement... Glen Beck is now on my "Will not Watch - Will not Listen" list!
- Grump :o)
I couldn't change the channel
Submitted by marpel on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 11:53am.
I couldn't change the channel fast enough when I heard him say this this morning...he's so disappointing...he's a dope.
"Deep within my heart lies a memory. A song of ol' San Antone..."
Joe wants us to believe he's a Libertarian?
Submitted by Callawyn on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 12:26pm.
Joe Scarborough, a moderate Democrat that used to have an (R) after his name, finds Newt unacceptably far to the Right, so he thinks he might vote for Ron Paul??? Does he really think anyone believes this?
The only reason he'd go there is to try to stir up interest in a 3rd party candidate on the Right that would protect his man Obama next year.
I keep saying it: this is how
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 12:34pm.
I keep saying it: this is how Republicans lose elections. What Joe and Beck are saying is they would rather give Obama a second term than have Newt Gingrich.
So let's just concede Obama a second term and work on a Republican congress and senate to keep him in check (sort of...there's that "executive order thingie" don't forget).
Democrats, for all their bluster, NEVER sit out or encourage a third party candidate. There is never a Democrat candidate that they can't drag themselves to get behind on election day.
In case anyone thinks this isn't the liberal dream scenario, take a look at this from E.J. Dionne:
Is it time for a GOP write-in campaign?
He was encouraging a split in the GOP a month ago!
I have an idea...it's a crazy one...
Submitted by NavyBuckeye on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 12:52pm.
but how about the true conservatives vote for the third party candidate while he is running for the Repub nomination and back him rather than just giving up to a Liberal trying to run with the R beside his name.
If we come out during the Prelims and actually vote for a conservative rather than a R retread such as Perry, Newt and Romney. All three are the same exact thing.
NavyBuckeye, I think you are
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 2:56pm.
NavyBuckeye,
I think you are very wrong when you say that Perry, Newt and Romney are the same. But that is each of our personal beliefs. However, do we elect merely a Conservative to get a Conservative or do we elect a Republican who is Conservative with some Liberal philosphy who will be able to defeat Barack Obama.
At some point all of us have to consider, do we prefer an Obama second term or do we prefer a Republican with mostly Conservative values with some Liberalism who can be elected.
As much as I like Rick Santorum, I know he will never win in a general election. That's a fact of life. We can scream, cry and deny it, but he will never win.
it is much like what happened to Christine O'Donnell. It was great Conservatives got her in the general election, but everyone warned that she could never win the general election.
I much rather get 50% of my beliefs in a President than get what we have now. An individual I not only disagree with 100% of the time, but an individual who is destroying this great nation of ours along with all the Liberal friends and judges he has been appointing all over the Federal government.
Let's not make the same mistake that happened in 2008 where countless of Republicans sat home crying over McCain being a terrible candidate who they would never support in order to punish the Republicans. What this does is not only punish the Republicans, but ALSO the nation and my chidlren! I blame the win of Obama on Democratic voters, Independent fools and the Republican idiots who stayed home and did not vote for McCain!
I would not stay home...
Submitted by NavyBuckeye on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 4:18pm.
all I am saying lets actually get a Republican candidate that is actually conservative. We have settled for crap for years (since Reagan) and it has gotten us no where but under a pile of over inflated government.
The problem with those three: they will do the parties deeds once elected. They will be no different than Bush (I vote for him and liked him but he really failed when it came to the fiscal side of things) when it comes down to it.
We need a candidate that will actually make cuts to the programs the feds should never have started: education, welfare, the social security scam, earmarks, agriculture, etc.
We need a candidate that will push to restore states rights rather than fight them like in the AZ immigration case.
We need a candidate that will actually repeal the health care law and push to get out of our way.
I will not stay home regardless because you are right we can't have Obama again. But why settle? Lets get the guy we want. But we wont because the nimrods in this country will tow the medias boat and fall into their lap. It's already happened to Herman Cain, Sarah Palin and a few others.
I have a better idea . . . .
Submitted by Gat New York on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 5:07pm.
How about everyone vote out Obama.
Frankly any of the GOP candidates are far superior to Obama in terms of experience, capability, and intelligence.
I think many are dismissive of just how horrific a second term of Obama would actually be to this country.
Let's please remember that Obama is not Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter. Barack Obama is far, far worse. He was raised and groomed as a pure socialist. He has been trying to force socialist policies down our throat for a few years now and in the process has created the worst economy in this country since the Great Depression. Other than tossing drones at terrorists, Obama has placed the United States and our allies at serious risk with his feckless foreign policy. With a second term Obama will execute an all-out assault on free enterprise and look to finish the job he started and i have no doubt that his incompetence will draw us into more major battles.
Anyone thinking that any of the GOP candidates will be more of the same as Obama should really think about this a lot more carefully and stop looking for the perfect unicorn.
Bingo!
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 8:32pm.
Finally a winner. The main objective is to remove Obama, even if it's with a crowbar and a rock!
Yet again, where's the "Like" button?
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 8:40pm.
.
Motherbelt, Exactly! the
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 2:50pm.
Motherbelt,
Exactly! the Democratic party is much better at public relations than the Republican party.
We are going to lose the Nov. 2012 Presidential election if this continues!
If you want to see what happens to the Republican party when they start with this, just come to Illinois where when a Republican wins, once in a blue moon or when hell freezes over.
This perfect candidate that too many Conservatives are looking for is going to give Obama the election. How idiotic! Let's hope this is merely primary talk and that we will all get behind the Republican candidate that wins the primary. For example, I do not like Romney at all and I pray he does not become our primary candidate, but if he wins, guess what? I will give Romney my full support!!
Beck and Scarborough, the latter for a while now, I no longer listen to or care much for what they say.
The same thing happens in Michigan, Liberallies.
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 8:44pm.
The voters finally get rid of a democrat abomination, like Soapy Williams, Jim Blanchard or Jennifer Granholm, and the dem control of the House and Senate, then after two years, or four, some in the Repub Party go on a purity jihad, which, in the end, turns over control of the Governorship, House and Senate to the dems for 2 or 4 years.
Like Beck, I'd Consider Third-Party Ron Paul Over Gingrich
Submitted by Conservator on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 12:41pm.
Really? - I thought it was a way of saying I'm voting for Obama again. Joey has been on stating that he is a "small-government conservative" because his inbox, FaceBook page and Twitter account are filled with messages of him being a RINO - the truth hurts this arrogant and narcissistic MSNBC faux conservative..
I don't see what is wrong with this
Submitted by JohninAustin on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 12:42pm.
I like Ron Paul over Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. And I certainly don't see a whole lot of difference between those two RINO's when compared to Obama. Why is this bad again?
I agree
Submitted by NavyBuckeye on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 12:48pm.
John, I agree with you 100%. The three: Romney, Newt and Perry are just another McCain and cookie cutter Repub who will do the bidding of the party...which is not too different from the Dems. RINO....is exactly what they are and a majority of the party.
"And I certainly don't see a
Submitted by Gat New York on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 5:17pm.
"And I certainly don't see a whole lot of difference between those two RINO's when compared to Obama."
You really have to think about this more carefully.
Obama was raised and groomed as a socialist. The only reason he has exhibited some moderate tendencies at times is simply to get re-elected. If he is re-elected what incentive will Obama have not to force government takeovers and even more government regulations down our throats. Make no mistake about it, a second term of Obama will be an all out assault on our free enterprise system abusing executive orders more than he has done to date.
Clinton and Carter may have been liberals but they were not socialists. We have never had a President like Obama before but we have to get rid of him.
Gingrich may not be my first choice but he is smart as hell and certainly knows how to manage the government.
Romney had a spectacular career with Bain and his management of the Salt Lake City was exceptional. And, by the way, conservatives believe in states make their own decisions which is what the People's republic of Massachusetts did with healthcare. That is a lot different than a national mandate that 60% of Americans did not want.
And Ron Paul is the father (or grandfather) of fiscal responsibility with the Federal Government and I do not think he will run on a third party ballot because he knows how dangerous a second Obama term would be.
Irony...pure irony..
Submitted by NavyBuckeye on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 12:53pm.
I have come here for years to get the opinions of other conservative US citizens. Reading through some of the recent posts (not just on this thread) I am appalled by the actual non-conservative stance that many of you side up with the Repub candidates, just because his name may recognized better than some actual conservatives.
I am a Constitutionlist if I was to give myself a label. I am a fiscal conservative who believes in small government and fiscal responsibility.
I thought that is what most people believed on this site as well....but this election cycle is proving me wrong.
I find it funny that conservatives even find Newt, Perry or Romney remotely conservative. All of them favor government, maybe not as much so as Obama, but all of their plans call for some kind of government intervention or rule, rather than getting the f, out of the way.
All three flip flop on fiscal issues, all three play the do as I say not as I do game, all three talk fiscal responsibility but their track records prove other wise, all three tip toe around the real immigration problem, all three are the same exact candidate with different hair cuts and suits. All three are cookie cutter Repubs who will fold to the will of the party rather than stick to conviction and make the tough decisions.
Granted I didn't like Ron Paul for many years because he seemed a little cooky but damn if his message hasn't stayed the same and damn if his voting record doesn't match what he preaches. He and Rick Santorum are the only true conservatives on the candidate panel. The rest are Rhino's.
Truthfully I wish Rand Paul was running, he is smart, articulate, stands up for the Constitution and is not cooky.
I wish everyone would stop looking at more of the same: Perry, Romney and Gingrich and start looking at anybody that is not one of them. Unfortunately the media destroys all those who they fear...and guess what, they don't fear either one of those three.
Consider this...
Submitted by unkeeaf on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 1:25pm.
I'd prefer the most conservative candidate available, but I'll vote for anyone other than Obama. I think that's the sentiment you're seeing in these threads. If Newt is the nominee, I'll vote for him. If Paul is the nominee, I'll vote for him, etc.
However, under no circumstances will I vote for a third party candidate. That is suicide for the conservative movement and it will hand Obama four more years. I may not be thrilled with whoever gets the GOP nomination, but they'll be far superior to Chairman Obama and the only legitimate option to unseat him.
Look, in a perfect world I'd prefer to vote in a great conservative candidate, but that may not be reality this time around. At the end of the day, President Newt sounds a whole lot better than President Obama.
Oh please!! Let's say it like
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 3:00pm.
Oh please!!
Let's say it like it is. Ron Paul is a wacked out, crazy nut job. Period end of story! He is a radical wacko who speaks no different than the radical Left when it comes to our military, 911, and how we should protect our interested abroad! Not to mention that if it were up to the likes of him, the USA would have stayed home and never fought WWII. No thanks. Ron Paul is a wacko FAR from a Constitutionalist.
Every time I hear Ron Paul in the debates all I hear is radical Left wing wackos. Once in a blue moon he makes sense on the economy, but that's about it!
Well that is part of the reason why
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 8:29pm.
I am for Santorum and Bachmann. Paul is a "America is the problem" person. I think the world has benefited by far due to our existence then we have by theirs.
"His voting record doesn't match what he preaches"?
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 12:57pm.
Except he's bat-shiite crazy when it comes to foreign policy, and he's 100% hypocritical on pork, and he's good enough for Stormfront, and he backs whack jobs like Adam Kokesh, it's the fault of the U.S. that there are Islamic terrorists, and he's fine with Iran having a Nuke. Other than those things, and others, he certainly does vote what he preaches.
and tell me this...
Submitted by NavyBuckeye on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 1:11pm.
How does Romney's, Newt's or Perry's plan differ in outcome from that of the typical liberal plan?
They don't, the only difference is the means to which they get there and their use of government to achieve those outcomes. There means are different and there process is slower but bigger government is bigger government.
You are correct, Paul is cooky but why is his foreign policy crazy? Just because he doesn't believe we should be over seas meddling in everyone's business doesn't mean it's wrong. I don't agree with his foreign policy stance 100% but I do agree with some aspects of it. And he is a fiscal conservative who votes that way...unlike the 3 "big" candidates. Romney is the white Obama, he did to Mass what Obama is currently doing to the country. Same healthcare and everything.
and if you are going to say he believes that it's the fault of the U.S there are Islamic terrorists at least get what he says correct; he says its our fault they come here to bother us, he never said we created them and has said they have been around for hundreds of years, our meddling has given them reason to come bother us over here. He is correct to a point but not all the way. They would find there way here eventually.
You can tout Ronpaul all you want.
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 1:44pm.
The fact is, if he's the nominee, he'll make the Reagan-Mondale election look like it was a close thing. He won't carry a state. If he runs as a 3d party candidate, he'll ensure 4 more years of Obama. That's the short version.
No other country, Paul said, is capable of attacking the United States. Maybe he's forgotten China, and their missile submarines, and that North Korea has developed an ICBM that can reach areas of the U.S.
"Paul said of the possibility that Iran has a nuclear weapon is “not true at all.” “It doesn’t mean they might not want a nuclear weapon.”
“How many foreign countries can threaten us right now?” Paul asked sarcastically. “How many are likely to invade us or drop a bomb on us? I can’t imagine.” He can't, but I certainly can. I wonder if he knows that nuclear weapons can easily be transported in a shipping container, and sent anywhere. They do not have to be dropped from an aircraft, or put on top of an ICBM.
Then again, those who fawn over Paul claim he's never been fond of earmarks, but that isn't true either.
"U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) was one of only four House Republicans to break rank from the party and request earmarks despite a Republican Conference earmark moratorium. Paul sent 41 earmark requests totaling $157,093,544 for the 2011 Fiscal Year".
You're right..
Submitted by NavyBuckeye on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 2:34pm.
just get in line and vote for the status quo...
I don't tout Ron Paul but I do like the Constitution and I do like to keep the money I earned.
China's missile submarines will not attack us. They have more to lose if we crumble than anyone else in the world. If you were a bank (eh, hem..China) and issued credit to a customer (eh, hem...the U.S) and that customer completely went under who loses more, the customer or the bank?
And North Korea's ICBM couldn't even leave the local atmosphere before falling apart (doesn't mean they haven't fixed that problem).
Also where in the Constitution does it say we need to have our military bases over seas to defend against those threats? That is what Paul means, he wants our military in our own back yard, stationed at bases here in the U.S. We defend the world by deploying our military overseas and spending money in their economies to support our bases. Bring that money and those troops back home. You don't need to be forward deployed in today's world to respond to threats.
Also you never discussed how the "big" candidates differ from the Democrats.
I just want the same old, same old to end. America needs to wake up and stop putting big government hacks into power.
Yes Romney, Newt and Perry will be better than Obama but only because they will move slower and use different means to achieve the same result: bigger government, more taxes and even more deviation from the Constitution.
If we vote the right guy in as the nomination then the third party thing is irrelevant. I'm not saying the right guy is Paul but more of the same (Perry, Romney or Newt) will be just as bad as Obama. It will just take longer for it to show its ugly head. Let's review some things they won't address:
10th Amendment issues (the amendment that says the states should be doing 90% of the items the Feds are doing now: education, security, health care, abortion law, law enforcement, agriculture, social services, etc)
TSA
Taxes
Defense Authorization Act
Foreign Aid
Bloated Regulation (they will just shift it to those industries that don't favor them from those that do)
Bailouts
Jobs (the government can't create jobs. They can only get out of the way to allow the doers to create jobs. These three, just like Obama, believe they can create jobs....c'mon)
Faux Socialism (GM, GE, Fannie and Freddie, Bank of America, the list goes on)
Those are just some of the issues....
I think we all want Obama out...but I just don't want to replace him with an Obama Light just because we put an R next to his name.
You said,
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 6:39pm.
"You don't need to be forward deployed in today's world to respond to threats". I guess you didn't sit and watch it take weeks to get enough M1A1's and Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and everything else to Saudi Arabia back in GW1? There is not a lot the 82d Airborne and the Marines could have done for about 6 weeks, if Saddam had decided to move south.
Also, you said China won't attack us. That is not what I said, I said, and sourced Paul's words, HE said that no other country was capable of attacking the U.S. Which indicates to thinking people that he has no grasp on what is really going on in the rest of the world, and certainly has 0 credibility when it comes to matters military. And, I think it's pretty common knowledge that Russia has the ability to attack the U.S. If you don't think so, search around for Bear flights near the U.S.
China's submarines won't attack us? Maybe, maybe not. You're dealing with idealogues, so there is no safe prediction in what they will do. Same for the Norks. Maybe their ICBM will fall apart, maybe not. Are you really comfortable with taking that chance?
"Bring that money and those troops back home". What is it with some on the left and some of the Libertarian mindset that think the military is an ATM machine? Why do you get exercised over where GI's spend their money? Part of what goes on at overseas bases is interacting with the military of another country, which helps down the road,. if you ever have to call on them to help you out. Things like a common caliber for small arms, interchangeable systems that let you talk to a unit on your flank, or below your aircraft, so that they don't fire SAM's at you and you don't drop bombs on them.
Now, care to address the points on pork and Paul? If he was the beloved constitutionalist that some claim he is, he would never have sought out a single earmark, but that's obviously not true.
Who voted consistantly to
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 8:22pm.
Reduce our military, who changed parties because of Reagan, what are Paul's great achievements in Office over the last 30 years? Who claimed we provoked 9/11, and WWII?
If Reagan aint good enough for Paul, then he aint good enough for me!
UpNorth
Submitted by amyshulk on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 6:42am.
Not to mention - military people fall under the UCMJ, and can be *forced* to play nice in other nations, thus presenting our best face forward!
I get the "we don't need to be the world's policeman" but with the military, it's never just one objective - in fact, all the complaints about Solyndra etal are because they weren't folded under the pentagon tent.
What I saw happen in the 90's with the R's is what we most need now - down ticket/local leaders that get the big picture and reverse the damage, or at least stanch the bleeding.
If we get enough in down ticket, it won't much matter who we get at the top - Presidents get more credit/blame than they are due IMO, while congress does the heavy lifting.
Ronald Reagan
UpNorth
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 6:45pm.
According to Pat on Glen Beck's show (he used to live in Texas), Ron Paul will propose bills with pork for his district, and other bills that he is idealogically opposed to. He promotes those bills, but when it's time to vote, he votes against them. I admit I haven't checked this out, and I doubt I will because his foreign policy is enough to preclude me from voting for Paul. But if this is true, it makes Ron Paul a huge liar.
Rad, I'd heard that.
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 6:48pm.
I'm just addressing those who will claim that Ronpaul is totally opposed to pork, and has never partaken of it. He has, they know it, we all know it. It's just another irritating thing that his supporters chant that isn't true.
UpNorth
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 6:52pm.
And then I read after I posted, your link about Paul and earmarks. I agree with you. And Paul scares the heck out of me on foreign policy. I'm with you about having foreign military bases. As far as China attacking us, China isn't a democracy. It's leaders don't care if the people of China starve so that they can destroy the U.S. and become a world leader. To many people (Paul supporters in particular) seem to forget that other governments don't have the same restraints/values as our government.
Rad, like I said upthread.
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 8:21pm.
IMHO, if Paul would somehow capture the nomination, the general election between Paul and Obama will make the Reagan-Mondale election look like a very narrow win for Reagan. I truly can not see Paul actually carrying a single state.
And, I think Obama would demolish Paul in any debates, if they have any.
The only good thing about
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 1:30pm.
The only good thing about having Ron Paul be the Republican nominee is that, as you said, he would lose and lose so bad, that the Paulinistas would finally shut-up and face reality. Ron Paul is a wacko, a nut job, a crazy who has ZERO chance at ever winning the Presidency.
And it was well pointed out. Paulinistas love to claim he is a Constitutionalist, yeah, ok, until you start looking up all the earmarks and pork he has brought to his district.
Ron Paul is a radical, Left wing wacko dressed in Republican clothes who is FAR from being a Constitutionalist.
if it were up to Ron Paul, a shield would be built around the USA and he would isolate us from the World and the World from us.
and let us not even start with his anti-Israeli talk, again, no different than what the Left says.
So avoid the scam and go with Paul
Submitted by Hillbilly Genius on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 1:23pm.
Why is it so hard to believe that Ron Paul knows more about how to run a country than the GOP Poster boys? Not once have I heard anyone say Ron Paul doesn't know what he's talking about, that he's got baggage attached to his name like mistresses or hired illegal aliens or was a pick for Obama as an ambassador or is a W. wannabe like Perry or anything else. They just say his ideas are crazy. Yeah, only if you piss on the constitution. Why is it so hard to understand right vs. wrong. Ron Paul has done everything he can to improve the lives of others around him and never once asked someone to do it for him. We need Ron Paul but the GOP wants to keep businesses and the military complex in charge with their fake crony capitalism. They are fighting so hard to keep Ron Paul out because they know he will call them on the power they are abusing. False statements and innuendos about him are just that. Bull Spit. Elect that man and do something worth telling your grandchildren about. Ron Paul 2012. We called for a TEA Party Revolution and now we have a chance to go down in history as a society that got it's act together and pulled back from the brink of destruction.
I understood where Beck
Submitted by amyshulk on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 7:59pm.
I understood where Beck *might* be coming from on Newt - he {like I} thinks we have the chance to get an R who will *not* be another "smartest guy in the room" who will "control the reins" instead of reigning in gov't.
But for Joe? It's venom, not love of country.
Ronald Reagan
Oh Joe
Submitted by Delsa on Tue, 12/13/2011 - 10:41pm.
WHO CARES WHO YOU'D VOTE FOR????????????