Most of you are probably expecting this website – which has offered an enthusiastic endorsement of U.S. Rep. Ron Paul’s presidential campaign – to try and spin his less-than-impressive performance in several recent Republican presidential debates (including one in Myrtle Beach, S.C. on Monday evening).
Well, we’re not going to do that …
Ron Paul has consistently proven himself to be something less than a politically-savvy debater – and there’s really no sugarcoating that assessment. Sure … he’s never flubbed as badly as Texas Gov. Rick Perry did during his train wreck of a performance in an early November debate in Michigan, but he’s clearly incapable of giving the neatly-packaged sound bites that audiences crave.
He doesn’t use “Words that Work,” in other words.
And Monday night’s debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C. very clearly wasn’t Paul’s finest hour (well, two hours). Part of the problem? The fact that the Myrtle Beach debate was focused almost exclusively on foreign policy – an area where Paul’s views are the most out of alignment with those of GOP primary voters (especially GOP primary voters here in South Carolina).
Does that mean Paul is wrong and the rest of the candidates are right? Absolutely not … in fact demonstrably not, we would argue. It does, however, mean that Paul would have to pull a real rabbit out of the hat were he to “win” a debate based on foreign policy issues – something he assuredly didn’t do in Myrtle Beach.
(To read our live blog of the debate, click here).
And while Paul flailed occasionally (okay, frequently) in defense of his principles, Perry and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney scored points with a raucous Republican crowd with their tough rhetoric in defense of American interventionism.
“We go anywhere (our enemies) are and we kill them,” Romney said in describing his foreign policy.
Really, Mitt? That’s pretty tough talk coming from a guy who skipped the Vietnam War to serve as a palace-dwelling Mormon missionary in the south of France.
Nonetheless, though, there was no denying that Perry, Romney and to some extent former U.S. Speaker Newt Gingrich repeatedly scored points by appealing to the blood lust of the crowd rather than acknowledging the reality of America’s new place in the world.
“(Paul)’s answers on foreign policy were repeatedly booed and Perry even suggested that a gong should have been used to cut Paul off,” wrote Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post in declaring Paul the biggest loser of the debate. “While Paul-ites undoubtedly cheered their hero’s willingness to stand up for what he believes in when it comes to U.S. involvement in foreign countries, it’s just not a majority position — or anywhere close to it — in the Republican electorate of South Carolina.”
Cillizza is a absolutely correct in his analysis – although Paul was cheered when he (finally) got around to making his basic point.
“We don’t need another war,” he said. “We need to stop the ones we’re in. And we need to bring that money back here.”
Yet while Paul would wisely reduce American expenditures on foreign entanglements, Romney has proposed shelling out an extra $2 trillion that America doesn’t have on military spending over the coming decade (even though such spending has nearly doubled over the past decade).
Does such a financial commitment make sense?
Of course not … and certainly not given our nation’s current policy of starting wars based on sketchy intelligence with no declaration or congressional authorization and no clearly-defined objectives or exit strategy.
Nonetheless, that sort of principled opposition to the doctrine of “preemptive war” doesn’t sell well … especially when it’s contrasted with the masculine war mongering of a bunch of GOP candidates who might as well have been measuring their cocks onstage (something that’s apparently quite popular in Myrtle Beach).
“If Paul would deflect all foreign policy questions and turn every answer into something about his economic views, he could be a real contender for the nomination,” Cillizza continued. “He won’t do that, so he isn’t.”
Again, Cillizza’s analysis is hard to refute.
Accordingly, we won’t try and spin you into thinking that Paul “rocked out with his cock out” during the Myrtle Beach debate (he clearly didn’t). We would, however, argue that his rocky showing is a necessary consequence of his refusal to pander to voters on foreign policy.
Seriously … if you’re looking for a candidate who will further bankrupt this country by manufacturing a war against whoever is “next” (a.k.a. Iran, Pakistan), then Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum or Rick Perry will represent you well.
We would especially commend Romney and Gingrich to your attention if you’re looking for a candidate who will sound polished and presidential while pursuing such a disastrous policy.
In our endorsement of Paul, we wrote that we “often found ourselves cringing at some of Paul’s more off-the-wall comments. Not necessarily because what he said has been wrong … but because we could feel the air of electability seeping out of his candidacy with each offbeat syllable he uttered. But that’s sort of the point, isn’t it? Ron Paul has never been about getting elected – he’s been about getting at the damn truth.”
Four candidates on the Myrtle Beach Convention Center stage told the crowd what they wanted to hear. One told them the truth.
***
By Jim Kappler January 17, 2012 at 8:56 am
There are currently five (5) GOP Presidential Primary candidates. Choosing one is not an easy chore, especially when you have to rely on news media sound bites, the internet, political attack ads, and candidate stump speeches for information. One method to pick a candidate is to compare each candidate vs. every other candidate, one pair at a time. Below is a 2012 GOP Primary Each-vs-Other Candidate Picker. It is similar to the mileage grid on a road map.
http://paycheckeconomics.wordpress.com/2012/01/15/2012-gop-primary-each-vs-other-candidate-picker/
It also allows people to compare each GOP candidate to Barack Obama. If your opinion is that a GOP candidate cannot beat Barack Obama in the November 2012 General Election, you can save time and scratch that candidate off the list, up front.
By Alabaster II January 17, 2012 at 9:03 am
Ron Paul is a brilliant man, knows his facts and tells it like it is. His performance last nite was not great, had a hard time trying to understand what he was talking about at times. If he had any solutions to the problems, I don’t know what they were, do you? What’s the difference between defense spending and military spending? Most of all he mentioned the “Golden Rule” which would be great if everyone followed it. Unfortunatly not everyone thinks the same way we do especially the terroists. Thought Santorum came across very well and Newt was the best of the debaters.
By Rebecca Lilly January 17, 2012 at 9:24 am
Poor Dr. Paul, I love him and everything he stands for but last night was not his night. In order to understand his political beliefs a person has to do more than just watch the debate. I watched hundreds of videos and read his books and only was I able to see what he meant by poor economic policy, fractured reserve banking and the dangers of causian economics. Many Americans are lazy and will not do this which I believe the the sole reason he has trouble gaining more support. He isn’t given enough time to really explain why its possible to have a 0% tax, and the CIA’s research of BLOWBACK and how that affects middle eastern attitudes toward the US. I can’t stand NEWTS quick answers that sound great but in the long run make absolutely no sense. Really get their associates or training programs, and who the hell is going to pay for that if they are out of work-Oh wait I know, the tax payer. The trick isn’t blame the people out of a job and on unemployment, but to ask yourself WHY are they choosing this instead of working. MANY choose this because they are actually making more $$ than the job market would allow them to make and can you blame them. THEY HAVE FAMILIES AND BILLS! If the market was run with out heavy government regulation and large taxes on small businesses it would become more lucrative for those out of work to get a job because they would be making more then the $400 payment the state pays. You can’t expect a family to stop taking $400 in order to get a $320 a week job when they have children. Make the job market more lucrative, the people will switch back over. Also, NEWT completely ignored the fact that many people laid off have bachelors and masters degrees. So what now they are going back to get retrained? He clearly doesn’t understand the problems behind the economy or foreign policy for that matter, and people blindly follow him or Romney because they are too lazy to look up the facts. RON PAUL 2012
By Alabaster II January 17, 2012 at 10:42 am
Rebecca-that was a very well written post about RP. I do agree with what’s he’s been saying, but cannot understand how he plans to resolve all the problems. His suggestion that we follow the “Golden Rule” threw me off. I love that rule, but it does not work for fanatics in other countries and even some European countries like France, whom we helped liberate from Germany twice and yet they refuse to let our planes fly over their country. Look at all the loans we’ve made to other countries and have they paid us yet? What we need a a LEADER to guide us and show the rest of the world that we are united in all phases in policy making.
By Rebecca Lilly January 17, 2012 at 11:42 am
It takes some time and reading. He wants to lift sanctions and negotiate. Cut military spending overseas, Put it into the military here. If those things have been done the middle east does not want to cooperate he will then ask congress for a declaration with a clear mission statement and go in as quickly as possible. Politicians like NEWT or ROMNEY who were too chicken to serve are ready to throw other people in to die for them and its shameful. There is a reason why RP has the endorsement of the head CIA for 20 years, and the most $$ from the serving military. He has done his research and understands the importance of history. He is not saying he can solve the worlds problems but he is going about it in a much more peaceful and educated way which is all we can ask for. In terms of the economy I strongly recommended reading end the fed as well as researching other peoples takes on the fractured system. However, I did not learn these things from his debates, clearly they are not his strong suit. I learned them from reading his books and OTHERS like BLOWBACK and CURRENCY WARS by James Rickards. Only these and other informative youtube videos showed me the light which is Ron Paul.
His foreign policy can be frightening if you haven’t read about blowback.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RAog2RnRc
That video is amazing and I highly suggest it.
His economic policy is extremely insightful and will solve our problems. Returning to the gold standard, austrian economics, and eliminating the federal reserve which causes extreme inflation. This video is a cartoon explaining the mess -not a RP video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPWH5TlbloU
Whether he wins or doesn’t he will go down in history as an amazing individual and defender of freedom.
By 350ZLADY January 17, 2012 at 12:09 pm
I’m with you on this one… as much as I like alot of RP – last night made him look – well, rellly out of it on the military / defense.. I cringed alot.. and yes, Newt sounded better on most topics… espcially military & balancing the budget 4 times.
By Joe January 17, 2012 at 12:30 pm
I had not seen arguments like this before this FUKSNEWS debate.
1- The point is that your judge on Paul’s responses is based on the Crowds Cheers. A crowd that is conducted by fuksnews.
2- This debate was crucial for fuksnews guys to do their best to make Paul fade away. A guy that is dangerous for cartels of military and Zionism.
The best strategy was to boo Ron and cheer others by the some blood lust evangelists that is biased by fuks news.
3- So even if you bring the most living intellectuals like Noam Chomsky before this crowd, to speak against war with the best proofs, they would booed him.
3- Paul’s answers were consistent with what ever he had said already and has got the applause of huge crowds.
4- Regarding military spending and defense spending, those definitions are so clear and it was frustrating that even the guy asks about military cut, does not distinguish between those.
By STFU January 17, 2012 at 9:03 am
Truth, even spoken in a slightly stammering tone, a tone no doubt molded by twenty some odd years in the bull shit factory of DC, is still the absolute truth.
Paul is not gaining with Republicans like those in SC, he is gaining among independents and will compete in States that have open primaries and states that apportion delegates rather than go winner take all.
Paul wins because the truth always wins out.
Although the U.S. will remain the capital safe harbor of last resort, the simple logic of no longer being able to print currency obligations as military stimulus, is and will come to an end.
Here is a thought, Sarah, you chose the money over supporting someone other than McCain, Romney should make your skin crawl, so how about flying down south, joining with Trump, and make the Florida primaries as uncomfortable as possible for anyone who can not answer the drill baby drill siren. Both you and Trump should recognize it as great reality TV.
Doctor Paul, laugh a little, take deep breath, you know these guys will never support you, so just stay on point, make the point,
Santorum accused you of destroying the Second Amendment, why not use that bulshit as a chance to ask him if he knows how the constitution is amended, and when he says yes, then ask how a single Congressman could do it
By Robin January 17, 2012 at 9:08 am
Yea Newt was great. Lets nominate the only Speaker of the House in over 200 years to be censured and fined for ethics violations. Wait, maybe we should consider Santorum who wants to bomb everyone in the middle east and all the gay people too for that matter in the name of his God. Yea there are some difficult choices this time. They were both great last night.
By Rebecca Lilly January 17, 2012 at 9:28 am
I love this comment!
By Alabaster II January 17, 2012 at 9:08 am
edit unfortunatly-unfortunately
terroists-terrorists
By Bogart January 17, 2012 at 10:08 am
Alabaster….Daily Beast has a great article on Santorum’s wife.Her ex boyfriend seems to be more sane than her husband.
By Alabaster II January 17, 2012 at 11:07 am
You’ve got to be kidding-her old boyfriend is sane? A dirty old man in his sixties seduces young woman in her early twenties and makes a living killing unborn babies. That’s a man who cares only about himself by dating women years younger to build up his ego, shows them off to the world that he still has it, and performs abortions as the fastest way he can make to support his lewd lifestyle. She sure was lucky that Rick wanted to marry her.
By Alabaster II January 17, 2012 at 11:08 am
the fastest way he can make money to support
By Bogart January 17, 2012 at 1:30 pm
Alabaster… I didn’t say boyfriend was sane,just that he was more sane than Santorum,who just happens to be a total nutjob.
By dirtbogger January 17, 2012 at 9:11 am
I agree with this article 100%. The good news is that the other canadets did very well, hopefully deviding Romneys support among themselves to hopefully where Ron Paul pulls off an upset.
By Inletman January 17, 2012 at 9:16 am
There are definitely some blood thirsty war mongers among us. Every politician on that stage other than Ron Paul said what they thought the crowd wanted to hear and damn did the crowd fall for it.
By Stinkbait January 17, 2012 at 10:56 am
Most of the “blood thirst war mongers” I know somehow wiggled out of the tough duty and have since become bayonet clenching steely eyed killers — in their dreams. Clinton, Bush II & Romney come quickly to mind & there’s plenty here, too.
By Jon January 17, 2012 at 9:21 am
I agree that he didn’t shine the entire time…he kind of got tripped up a few times and couldn’t think of the words to use with the limited time he had. However, the other guys all pretty much agreed with each other, and Ron Paul is the only candidate that stands out as being a true conservative that won’t compromise on his principles. Except for Paul, they all want to keep spending trillions of dollars, and the cuts they want to make are programs like social security that people depend on. Apparently some people aren’t actually listening to Romney’s ideas, which scare me! He’s talking about raising the age you can start collecting it (again) so that hopefully most of die before we can collect it (it’s 72 for me already), and then he said he supports means tests (Santorum too), and all that means is the government can deny you your social security benefits if ‘you make too much’ so they can keep the money you paid in all your life. This is no fix. It’s a scam. And what gets me if fools in the audience cheered him on that!
By scott January 17, 2012 at 9:23 am
#1 donor for Obama = Goldman Sachs
#1 donor for Romney = Goldman Sachs
#1 donor for Ron Paul = active military service men and women.
RON PAUL 2012!!
By Sal20111 January 17, 2012 at 9:24 am
Not Ron Paul’s best performance. He hesitated a bit, instead of counterattacking the boos. The rest of the candidates were trying to incite the crowd into a lynch mob against people they don’t know much about. The correct response to the Osama Bin Laden question was capturing him alive would have been far better for the US (executing him later), to interrogate and uncover his entire network. Who better to interrogate to unravel the network than its head. Why aren’t all the other terrorists killed instantly – because interrogation first reveals vital knowledge. The SC electorate need to have Ron Paul’s message better explained to them, rather than drowned out in mob rousing comments which are against common sense and logic. They are against terrorists but not pro stupid foreign policy and actions which will increase terrorism or help terrorists hide – just needs better explaining.
By Elmo January 17, 2012 at 9:27 am
Paul does stammer a bit. However, according to the much touted Twitter results which Fox News was pushing hard last night, Paul won hands down, in every category. Initially Fox News tried to cover up the results , but then thy were forced to tell the truth. Watch the video- viewers(not the bloodthirsty Christians in Rome-I mean Myrtle Bach)know who is bullshitting and who is telling the truth..
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/318026
By The Colonel January 17, 2012 at 10:45 am
Paul’s internet savy “twits” always swamp any online media but their efforts never translate into anything more than 3rd or 4th place votes.
By Mike at the Beach January 18, 2012 at 5:03 am
Here are two “elephants in the room” regarding two of Paul’s most self-promoted facts:
1. The Twitter world / web loves me! Look at the demographics here- RP polls extremely well (best, in most polls) with the 18-24 crowd. Those folks love them some Twitter, Facebook, etc.
2. The military loves me! They send me money! See prior comment (the active duty military is fairly young world, on average).
By The Colonel January 17, 2012 at 9:30 am
All of you Paulistas are delusional (you in paticular Folks).
I am impressed that “Dr. Paul” can even win state wide elections after watching him bumble his way through the debates, viewing his childish ads and reading his positions.
I think we’ve already tried that “disengage from the world” thing a couple of times – how’d that work out for us?
By El January 17, 2012 at 9:55 am
We are on the verge of bankruptcy, our credit rating has been downgraded, we are seriously hated throughout the world, we owe more than 4 trillion dollars to China alone, unemployment is incredibly high, millions have lost and will lose their homes, the value of our dollar is shrinking, our military just spent 10 yrs. fighting a war to nowhere…I could go on and on. How’s what we’ve been doing working out for us?
No one wants to disengage from the world. We just want to stop trying to police the world, stop engaging in preemptive and undeclared wars, stop sinking our money into other countries while ours crumbles, and stop building other nations when we should be building THIS nation.
Just some food for thought.
By Robert January 17, 2012 at 9:31 am
Paul is done. Perry is done. Santorum is on life support. Gingrich may have gotten second wind. Romney is still chugging along.
If a man or woman cannot do well in debates,then they are reasonable candidate for President.
By Sal20111 January 17, 2012 at 9:31 am
It also needs to be explained that South Carolina’s economy will actually improve if the overseas military bases are shut down. Firstly, it doesn’t mean SC military personnel will automatically get disbanded as a result. They could be deployed in the US for defence activity at home. Secondly, even if the military downsizes, the soldiers will find other jobs which are actually more productive in goods and services for the economy. So if SC had less people in the military and more engaged in goods and services in the Palmetto State, its State economy would be boosted relative to others. Finally, of course, if the US keeps spending like crazy on military abroad, it will just get the economy to keel over, whether you’re in SC or Alaska.
By Sal20111 January 17, 2012 at 9:35 am
This was the first hiccup in Ron Paul in the debates. Otherwise he’s been the best in all the rest. Romney was mediocre last night too, even making a hash of a simple question like whether he’ll show his tax slip. Perry was inciting everything into a war, he probably goes to war with his pillow at night and hair colour in the morning, Gingrich was acting defiantly pompuous, and so on.
Obviously the country doesn’t need a smooth talker or good looker, but the person with the most sensible policies and ideas for the nation as a whole. Also has to be capable of independent and critical thinking, not just go with the flow of mobs or bank fat cats. Ron Paul is by far the best choice.
By John Doe January 17, 2012 at 9:40 am
Stop following the line of reasoning this article suggests. I saw the debates and Ron Paul did great. None of the candidate gave any speeches worth arching under ‘greatest speeches ever given’.
At the moment it’s a two man race with Paul and Romney. Once the other candidates quit most of their support will go to Paul not Romney. Look at Huntsman’s, despite endorsing Romney most of his voters will undoubtedly select Paul as that end of the Republican party does not identify with Romney.
The real question should be why are dead horse candidates continuing to press on… if only to take votes away from Paul.
By Robert January 17, 2012 at 9:45 am
My bet is Paul finishes 3rd at best in SC, maybe even 4th.
Unless Gingrich or Santorum can eek out victory in SC on Saturday, the race is over.
By womanforpaul January 17, 2012 at 9:42 am
Ron Paul, a patriot, who has honorably served his country, defends both the constitution and civil liberties, and is for peace and prosperity. Dr. Paul has the wisdom, foresight, honesty and integrity to be president.
Dr. Paul believes spending and deficits are destroying this country. Dr. Paul’s budget plan would save $1 trillion in the first year. Besides the spending cuts, there are other issues of importance to voters. For conservatives, Dr. Paul scores an A+ on all of them: Second Amendment protection, pro-life record, right-to-work, pro-business, anti-tax, states’ rights, you name it.
Dr. Paul also believes America should have the strongest national defense on earth — which he believes begins with not trying to constantly police the earth. Right now, our government puts our best and bravest in harm’s way on a regular basis for questionable reasons and with no discernible notion of victory. This is not supporting the troops. It’s abusing them. Dr. Paul wants an end to this absurd, costly policy.
The voters have declared Dr. Paul the alternative to the liberal, flip flopping Mitt Romney. The other candidates are simply irrelevant. In the New Hampshire Primary, Dr. Paul received more votes than all the supposed Anti-Romney (Santorum, Gingrich, and Perry) candidates combined.
The question for Republican voters is not whether they can afford to vote for Dr. Paul – it’s whether they can afford not to.
America Needs Ron Paul.
By Mike at the Beach January 18, 2012 at 5:05 am
Please stop with the cut-and-paste stuff already…
By LibertyLover January 17, 2012 at 9:46 am
Just watched FOX morning news. Am I the only one who paid attention and heard what Paul first said when answering Bret Baier’s question on Osama bin Laden? Ron Paul said he wanted bin Laden killed a decade ago. But they completely skipped over it as if he was saying bin Laden was a good guy or something. It’s just flat out untrue. All one need do is look up Paul’s record to affirm this. Upon learning of bin Laden’s death Paul said “It is good bin Laden is dead and justice served.” I heard him I saw it on C-SPANN. Look it up.
Youtube this and begin at :09
Ron Paul — “Osama Bin Laden Is Dead… Time To Come Home”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPR5-YjHR6Q
By willie January 17, 2012 at 12:07 pm
LibertyLover wrote: “Just watched FOX morning news….”
willie writes: oops…there goes *YOUR* credibility!!
By The Colonel January 17, 2012 at 9:59 am
Anybody else think that Newt looks like he could be old Jakie’s brother in that picture? Not quite as porcine but close…
By Bogart January 17, 2012 at 10:05 am
Newt Gingrich is a nasty man and any family values Republican voting for him is a hypocrite.
By ceilidh10 January 17, 2012 at 10:21 am
While I like Paul’s libertarianism, he is not electable or acceptable to independents. Ron Paul is a crazy mother like Goldwater in 1964. The GOP crashed and burned then. It will do so again if Paul gets the nomination. And Obama killed Osama bin Laden. No Republican can say that.
By The Colonel January 17, 2012 at 10:33 am
The only thing President Obama has killed was a spliff or a 40 (and the US Economy).
Osama Bin Ladin was killed by members of the US Naval Special Warfare Development Group, aka DEVGRU or Seal Team Six.
By vicupstate January 17, 2012 at 11:11 am
Colonel,
If a REPUBLICAN had given the order and taken the risk Obama did to get Bin Laden with the Seals (as opposed to a drone), you would be demanding he be put on Mt. Rushmore.
Give credit where it is due. Otherwise, you are a douche.
By The Colonel January 17, 2012 at 11:38 am
Vic, I carry a rifle as part of my kit on occasion and I teach history.
We’ve had a few real killers in the White House: George HW Bush, Kennedy, Truman, Roosevelt, Arthur, Garfield, Hayes, Grant, Jackson and Monroe all have a real military record that shows they took personal risk to close with and kill the enemies of the United States. Perhaps our greatest President, G. Washington was a stone cold killer.
I fault GW Bush for many of the mistakes we made at the strategic level during the last 10 years but do not hold him culpable for Abu Grahib any more than I would credit him for our early success in Afghanistan or the complete decimation of Sadam’s army. Likewise, I don’t hold President Obama responsible for those 4 stupid Marines pissing on dead Taliban fighters and would not credit him with “killing Osama”.
Real leaders don’t take credit for the successful actions of their subordinates. Rather they praise their performance and thank almighty God that such men exist.
By Rebecca Lilly January 17, 2012 at 11:57 am
THIS OPINION WILL RUIN OUR COUNTRY.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH1FaLdABFM
That is not crazy, THAT IS TRUTH!
By Skidmarks January 17, 2012 at 1:39 pm
Colonel,
You must be a hell of a history teacher; you left off Gen. Eisenhower, Lt. Carter, Lt. Commander Ford, and Lt. Commander Nixon. And that’s just in the late 20th Century.
Seems you shouldn’t be teaching history or handling firearms.
By The Colonel January 17, 2012 at 2:37 pm
There is no evidence that three of the four you mention actually killed anyone. Everyone on my list is known to have actually participated in combat actions.
General of the Army Eisenhower was stateside during the 1st World War and was to senior a leader to have engaged in combat during WW2.
Carter was a bubblehead (submariner) and served most of his career on shore – again, no evidence he ever heard the rumble of incoming fire. While he was a miserable president, Carter was apparently a “more than adequate” naval officer. Admiral Rickover, the father of the modern submarine fleet, known to not tolerate idiots, selected him for Nuke duty in the early days of the service.
Nixon was an admin officer (he was the travel agent for SPCATC and an Admiral’s Aide) – he saw no combat in WW2
I left Ford off by accident (vaguely appropriate don’t you think). Gerald Ford was involved in naval combat in the Pacific theater. His clumsiness almost killed him while he was serving on an Aircraft carrier. During a storm, he nearly went overboard after tripping and falling towards the deck edge. He spent much of his later naval service coaching football after his ship was damaged in a typhoon and declared unfit for service (the ship, not the man)
By James the Foot Soldier January 17, 2012 at 10:28 am
Colonel,
Mega-dittos.
One caveat to your post though, Congressman Paul has NEVER won a state-wide election.
When you’re bitch-slapped into a corner by someone the likes of Santorum and can’t fight your way out of a paper bag it’s time to go back to the 14th district in Texas and go back to voting no, no, no, a.k.a.Congressman Sanford’s “rock star” strategy.
By L8kGwd January 17, 2012 at 10:46 am
The state of our educational system aside, it would only take a moderately educated person to realize that we can not continually go to War for profit and never consider the consequences of our actions. To see my fellow South Carolinians let themselves get all riled up by War mongers last night was an insult to this Great State and I for one am ashamed. Talk to your neighbors and friends and ask them if they can not support Ron Paul for President, at least understand his positions and ask that of the candidate that they do support. It does not surprise me that Republicans have a hard time grasping his message as they have been brain washed to think that you have to speak like a Preacher and be all for War anywhere anytime. What does surprise me is that Independents and Democrats don’t see that their party has come lock step in line with the Republican War Party. Ron Paul has nothing to loose and nothing to gain from being President. He’s doing it because we need him and he loves his Country and fellow man. That includes people that he has never met in lands where he has never traveled. Because no matter who your God is, we are all in this together and better soon find common ground!
By snodgrass January 17, 2012 at 11:00 am
If someone’s support for Ron Paul depends on his ability to dazzle people with BS, it says more about their own deficiency than his. Those of us who support Ron Paul got everything we needed from that debate. We got honesty, sincerity, consistency and logic. We didn’t hear that from anyone else on the stage, and we know we never will.
Ron Paul’s lack of debating skills are just fine with us. Truth is never spoken with a silver tongue. He may have a few years on those younger candidates, but they would all do well to heed the wisdom that those years have produced. And those boos you heard from the audience? They were a testament to Ron Paul’s character.
Ron Paul doesn’t change his message for any audience. His refusal to pander is sacrilege in politics, so the protests simply expose the juvenile intellect of his detractors. It takes courage and conviction to challenge an established mindset, especially when that mindset threatens the status-quo.
Our economy is facing a cataclysmic meltdown. We have foreign policy advisers talking nuclear warfare as if it were a video game. And we can see a police state emerging before our very eyes as the Bill of Rights is edited, line by line.
We desperately need a leader who can be trusted to do what’s right, regardless of any personal cost to himself. Ron Paul is that leader.
By vicupstate January 17, 2012 at 11:13 am
Macho Texas-style swagger still sells with the GOP Chicken hawks, just like it always has.
By ? January 17, 2012 at 11:33 am
Last night’s debate saddened me so much on multiple levels. It confirmed to me that the mob is running things at a base level, but being manipulated by saavy players successfully.
I’m a fan of Paul and agree with Will, his performance was really bad.
I also agree that it doesn’t make him “wrong” or “incompetent”, it simply was a bad performance. Put in the perspective of a Fox news panel that consistently tries to paint him in a bad way, debate after debate, he was bound to have a stumble.
If the GOP want’s to put up a serial flip flopper or a serial cheater/ethics violator as their “man”, so be it. It just confirms to me that the GOP is hopeless and that principle means nothing in their grasp for the ring of power.
Obviously, unlike all the other GOP candidates, what you won’t see is a huge dropoff in Paul support…because all Paul’s supporters are supporting the man’s IDEAS, not just the man himself. Unfortunately he probably didn’t win any new supporters last night.
They are not subject to the same cult of personality issues the rest of the candidates are subject to.
By Mike at the Beach January 18, 2012 at 5:09 am
You’re right- Paul’s views aren’t off because of his crappy, crazy uncle, shrieky delivery. They’re just off…
By cash January 17, 2012 at 11:37 am
If you like Romney, you are supporting a draft dodger. If he picks Haley as VP running mate, wins, and something happens to his heath, heart attck, stroke, cancer, whatever, then Haley is your president. Scarey as hell.
By sheep will prevail, mitt is the nominee, obama re-elected January 17, 2012 at 11:50 am
newt gingricnch has a silver tongue: good for spellinding dupes and the easily influenced. rick santorum is great at pandering to the low iq sheep. rick perry called the turkish govt “islamic terrorists.” LOL being a good debater makes someone a good politician, i guess. but “politicians” have brought this country to the point of crisis, regression, and potential collapse. vote for these clowns if you want to be dazzled. hell, vote for steven spielberg if you want to be entertained. if this site is so obsessed with pop culture garbage you should endorse lady gaga and her running mate lil wayne. vote for someone with smart, logical, common sense, and concrete ideas rooted in consistent principle if you want a leader, if you can even find one besides ron paul. if not you should have just turned the channel and watched the golden globes.
By ? January 17, 2012 at 12:23 pm
When Paul has to once again explain the difference between Al Qaeda and the Taliban in relation to Pakistan and the foreign policy implications overall you know how low the intellectual level of the debate is…I’ll bet $10 that most of SCGOP party crowd in attendance still doesn’t understand, let alone the candidates he was correcting.
By Ken E. January 17, 2012 at 1:57 pm
No bet. It is the state of the GOP party in this state. It’s a great day in SC, isn’t it??
By willie January 17, 2012 at 12:10 pm
*LOVED* Todd Graham/CNN’s analysis of last night’s “debate”…
“Lately, it’s hard to tell the difference between a presidential debate and “The Jerry Springer Show.”
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/17/opinion/graham-south-carolina-debate/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
By Sarah Nuckles January 17, 2012 at 12:18 pm
“Leadership is a matter of intelligence, trustworthiness, humaneness, courage, and sternness”. “The Art of War” by Sun Tzu.
I was unable to find a passage relating to ability to provide emotional sound bites in debates as a criterium.
No matter whom we select as our next President, I hope it will be for more than just a choreographed debate or a charismatic speaker designed to evoke visceral, emotional responses. Sarah Nuckles
By CoolAireHeights January 17, 2012 at 12:23 pm
My SC predictions:
(1) Romney
(2/3) Gingrich
(2/3) Paul
(4/5) Perry
(4/5) Santorum
By Robert January 17, 2012 at 12:32 pm
1)Romney, 2)Gingrich, 3)Santorum, 4)Paul, 5)Perry
By CoolAireHeights January 17, 2012 at 12:38 pm
Sorry Robert, I just believe that Paul yields too much credible SC support to fall to 4. Also, as a “union” guy, and supporter of violent felons regaining their vote, I don’t see Santorum gaining SC traction. That said, we pretty much agree.
By Ken E. January 17, 2012 at 2:01 pm
CoolAireHeights, did you watch the reaction of the SC crowd to Ron Paul’s foreign policy? I still say he comes in 4th. I think Robert is correct.
By ? January 17, 2012 at 4:07 pm
I’m think Paul barely skates into 3rd.
The problem the Serial Cheater & the Theocratic Tyrant have is that they are drawing from the same pool of intellectually challenged religiously hypocritical chicken hawks. (too many adjectives? Tough shit.)
Though is a vast pool in terms of GOP demographics, it’s not quite large enough to overcome Paul’s staunch electorate when it’s divided up. Which ever chicken hawk gets more of that vote gets 2nd, with Paul next and 4th place to the other chicken hawk.
Once the Neocons consolidate their powers into the Super Neocon
Voltron via chicken hawk elimination matches then Paul’s party is over as far as the GOP is concerned.
By ? January 17, 2012 at 4:08 pm
edit: “I’m thinking” (actually, no I’m not, that’s the problem)
By ? January 17, 2012 at 4:09 pm
edit: “Though it is a”
By Balsak Tee Baghar January 17, 2012 at 1:04 pm
Greetings of Kama Sutra orgasmic bliss to each and all!
I am happy to report the celebratory cremation of the goose of Paul Ron!
Forget the curry, Grandmother, his ashes are now toast!
And so we can now count this whiny, tiny dried-up little cricket from Texas as the newest victim of our darling goddess-governess Nikki Haley!
Handsome Mitt Romney will owe much in future allegiance, money and sexual favortism to the Rising Star of the South, Governor Nikki Haley of politically and scientifically advanced Lexington County!
If you will only mentally dress Paul Ron up in dirty rags, he looks exactly like a dying Calcutta street beggar!
It’s all over but the starving!
To all of Paul Ron’s delusional followers, allow me to repeat for you the words of the Guru Swami Rajneesh Maharashi-Dikshit who once said as he began a walk to the banks of the River Ganges!
“If you follow a fool into the Ganges, then expect to get wet!”
After the debate of last night, Paul Ron looked like Mother Teresa following a gang rape from about a million Calcutta untouchables!
Another relevant saying from the Guru Swami Rajneesh:
“Ancient male rape victims are not too sexy!”
Meanwhile, the glamorous Nikki Haley was looking hot like the crematory fires that made acrid ashes out of the hapless and hopeless Paul Ron!
Looking beautiful as ever and nodding wisely to her fawning associates, all was captured on national television from Myrtle Beach!
I ask you!
Could the future smell any better than it does today?
It’s a great day in South Carolina!
It’s a great day to be Nikki Haley!
It’s a great day to worship Nikki Haley in South Carolina!
Haley-Palin 2016!
I can see India from my house!
By The Colonel January 17, 2012 at 1:21 pm
Hey Fits, we need a like button on this half assed blog site of yours!
By Say What? January 17, 2012 at 1:31 pm
The first time I heard Mark Sanfraud nine years ago I told my friends there was something wrong mentally with him. I hate to tell you but I am seeing the same in Ron Paul. Yes, some of the positions are correct but this man is in the early stages of mental issues . I am very concerned that Davis and the three others are going to hurt themselves. I seriously wonder about their mental conditions now. You have to be crazy to hook your future on this man. You can endorse the platform but not the man.
By Andrew Allan January 17, 2012 at 1:33 pm
Debate, De BS.
Keep in mind that Ron Paul leads all of his opponents in campaign contributions from active duty military personnel. So those booing Paul for his non-interventionist views were most likely not active duty military. More likely they are chickenhawks who have no more war experience than Romney, Gingrich or Santorum. Come to think of it…even less experience than Barrack H. Obama.
Ron Paul may not end up as the pick of the litter for Republican nominee. But he’ll have my vote come the general election, be it as a Republican, an independent, or my write-in. And you can be your sweet patootie he’ll have a lot of Republican and Democrat votes too.
So stick that up your pipe and smoke it.
By The Colonel January 17, 2012 at 1:40 pm
I’d love to see the proof of the oft touted bit of “wisdom” that “Dr. Paul has more campaign contibutions from active duty military personnel than any other candidate.”
I am one of those “…military personnel…” – no one I work with thinks Paul is sane, much less plans to support him.
By Trev16 January 17, 2012 at 2:10 pm
Yes…Ron Paul did not have his best night last night. After all he is not a Ken doll and he does not memorize all the cute slogans that dumb downed citizens want to hear.
I love all the talk last night about Bin Laden. Funny how the FBI never had him wanted for 9/11. I know, I know, I know….never let facts get in the way of an argument.
It’s funny how clueless fellow Americans are when it comes to the debt. The bottom line is the country is bankrupt and there will a currency devaluation of at least 40% in the coming year(s). Maybe at the time when smokes & beer double in price they might start to get it…. I doubt it….because they will turn on Fox news, etc and hear that this is all caused by the boogey man in a cave in the middle east.
Lastly, I wish Ron Paul would say to all those people booing last night….that it would be great if they go down to their local recruitment office tomorrow to sign up for the military so they could go and be on the front line.
By seafan2 January 17, 2012 at 2:42 pm
Ron Paul is 76 years old. In four years he will be 80. My husband is 80. Lord forbid he would become president. Ron Paul shows his age in every debate. How on earth could he possibly hold this country together and deal with 20 crises per day, speak with a reasoned voice to our enemies and our allies, or even find his way to the Rose Garden for a photo op?
Krauthammer says he is only building up a following to pass on to his son, Rand next time. Makes sense.
But even if he were 50 and in prime condition, his views on foreign policy and the military would set us back 70 years. And we all know what happened 70 years ago.
I agree 100% with Romney when he said we must negotiate from a position of strength, not weakness. Heard that all my life and it makes sense. Military might is the only thing despots and tyrants understand. That is the only thing that makes them listen – well that and all the money we throw their way. Sad it has to be that way, but that’s the nature of the beast.
The reason nobody bothered us for so many years is that they knew they were no match for our Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. May it always be so. That doesn’t mean we have to be militant or strike a first blow. It just means by golly if you strike the first blow, payback is going to be Hell.
By Trev16 January 17, 2012 at 3:09 pm
Oh my god……this is exactly why this country is going to be a third world country in a short few years. You can certainly tell by the above comments and age where you get your information from. If you simply rely on TV……you get programmed to think a certain way.
Wake UP!!!!!!!The corporations run this country!!!!! in terms of Romney or Obama…….you are literally choosing between Coke and Pepsi.
How many banksters have gone to jail with all the recent fraud???? zero ……Who are Obama and Romneys largest supporters….Goldman Sachs!!!!! They control each party.
All these politicians say one thing or another….but at the end of the day….nothing changes…..Whether it is Bush/Obama or Romney…..National Debt keeps going up.
The country is bankrupt….it is literally impossible to pay off the debt.
The Federal Reserve is Private and and is owned by private corporations.
Do your homework on the Internet and Wake UP!!!!!
Lastly, I wish Ron Paul would call out all these chickenhawks on Iran and see how many of these candidates would implement the Draft without any deferments for their kids and political insiders.!!!!
By snodgrass January 17, 2012 at 4:36 pm
“The reason nobody bothered us for so many years is that they knew they were no match for our Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.”
Afghanistan has no military at all and we’ve yet to accomplish anything of significance there after a decade of warfare with them.
Fire power is no match for will power.
By seafan2 January 18, 2012 at 10:24 am
Trev16: (I assume that is your age) – I can see nothing in my post that says I get my information solely from TV. And nothing could be further wrong. I get it from reading newspapers, news magazines, yes some TV, studying history and by opinions I have formed by living 74 years of history myself. I remember a lot of things that you will never know or understand becuase I was alive at the time. And something you probably are not familiar with called “common sense” and logic.
Yes, I’m aware that the battlefield is no longer defined in the case of the terrorists. I don’t live under a rock, contrary to your opinion. But there is still quite a large threat from countries who do have boundaries who would be emboldened even more if they saw our military shrink, adopt neutral policies or cease to be the leading military in the free world.
I might add that I get my information in a way that more people should consider: Rather than just tuning in to the pundits taking things apart and telling me their version of what happened or what was said, I stay focused on actually listening to what comes out the politicians’ mouths myself and putting my own interpretation on it before I listen to anything else. You might try that sometime. And you might try tuning in something other than Maddow and Oberman for a little variety.
Just the way that you and others have jumped on my words here and misinterpreted their meaning to suit your own cause, the pundits do the same thing – and they actually get paid for it!
By Mike January 17, 2012 at 3:16 pm
People having a hard time with the “golden rule”? Nobody is willing to start at the beginning of the “terrorist” issue. We are over in the middle east imposing sanctions, dropping bombs etc. because someone isn’t doing what we want politically. We’ve meddled in business that isn’t ours and they don’t like it.
I’m sorry but it’s just the truth. To propose that they are okay with us being over there dropping bombs on houses but despise us because we can wear what we want in public is beyond common sense to even a 4th grader.
The rule of law is VERY important. Why is the rule of law important? Here’s a couple of facts that you can research for yourself. Bin Laden NEVER claimed responsibility for 9/11. Never did. Also, he was on the FBI’s “most wanted” list for 10 years and his rap sheet NEVER included 9/11. So, the reason you follow the rule of law 1.) is so that you can resolve the truth at a later date and 2.) if we don’t follow the rule of law then we have lost our morality as a people in general.
Why did they bother capturing Oswald? He killed the president! But he was arrested and booked. Hussein booked. Newt contradicted himself when he spoke about how close Bin Laden was in Pakistan. If it was THAT clear where he was he should have been easy to arrest for a LONG time.
But now that Bin Laden is dead (or so they say) they don’t have to let him speak at a trial. We didn’t even get a straight story on it. We didn’t see the body or film. There is ZERO proof that he was killed on that day. Absolute GOOSE EGG zero. That event was as believable as Iraq having WMDs.
This is why the rule of law exists is for US the people so the government stays in check and we know what is going on.
By ? January 17, 2012 at 3:34 pm
“The reason nobody bothered us for so many years is that they knew they were no match for our Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. May it always be so. That doesn’t mean we have to be militant or strike a first blow. It just means by golly if you strike the first blow, payback is going to be Hell.”
Do you realize the paradigm is competely different now? The “enemy” is not clearly defined, with borders and a flag for crying out loud.
Large standing/occupying armies are not the solution to our problems.
Bin Laden said he was going to do the very thing he did to Russia(when we supported him), and he’s succeeded. He’s got our military running all over the world stomping out small groups of people in countries throught the middle east via pre-emptive war and no formal declaration.
It makes no sense what so ever. You’re trying to compare WWII era paradigm with the “terrorist” tactic used today in justifying behemoth armies over multiple continents….WHILE WE BANKRUPT OURSELVES.
All this over what could be dealt with in most cases by 50 man death/special forces squads under the cover of night.
It’s pure folly, the bloodlusting morons in the GOP are cheering on their own financial destruction. Damned be all reason and screw the brown people that happen to be “collateral damage”.
There’s a good portion of the GOP that are also economically illiterate as the Dems but even sadder is the portion that is borderline crazy with militarism.(and you can throw Hillary in that pot too)
“My husband is 80. Lord forbid he would become president. Ron Paul shows his age in every debate. How on earth could he possibly hold this country together and deal with 20 crises per day, speak with a reasoned voice to our enemies and our allies, or even find his way to the Rose Garden for a photo op? ”
You’re not the first women to think her husband a moron, in fact I’d say your in the majority.
That being said there are advantages and disadvantages to being older, I personally would like someone of age in office. Yes, older people aren’t usually as quick on their feet, but the experience of having lived so long is not to be taken lightly. I employ 2 people in my company well into their 70′s and they are fantastic. The job of “President” is not done solely by the person we elect. It is done via cabinet, committe, advisors, etc. (usually, see Jimmy Carter when someone tries to do it alone). Not only that, I can guarantee you that Paul not reacting as quick mentally as he would have 20 years ago means nothing under those conditions in which serious decisions are made accordingly.
For God’s sake, when we were still following some vestiges of the Constitution the congress still at least got together to make the decision to declare war on Japan before we got to the business of kicking their ass.
WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A DAMNED MONARCHY AND OUR PRESIDENT A KING.
By seafan2 January 18, 2012 at 10:13 am
I don’t believe I said I thought my husband was a moron. If you can understand the context of the paragraph I was saying that there is no longer any way that he could keep up with a schedule like that, and I don’t believe anyone else 80 could either – and be as effective as they need to be. We saw Mr. Paul stumble and fall the other night most likely because he is trying to keep up with people 20-30 years younger than he all day ahd he was both physically and mentally exhausted. The future of our country demands that we have a president who can meet the challenges of the office and not falter.
By James the Foot Soldier January 17, 2012 at 3:54 pm
Ron Paul’s cult is going bonkers defending the indefensible.
Score some extra doses of THC for Saturday night, the moron just couldn’t resist sticking a fork in himself last night.
By Nardo January 17, 2012 at 4:28 pm
Ron Paul supporters see the writing on the wall but few will actually stop to read it. While Paul may have started off well, the race is not for the swift but who can endure. And the Ron Paul train is running out of steam.
By Trev16 January 17, 2012 at 4:34 pm
The writing has always been on the wall……I get to choose between having a Coke or Pepsi(Obama or Romney).
Wow….how exciting. I will go back to sleep and pretend there is a difference between the two. After all Goldman Sachs is both their largest donors…..interesting how the criminals in the banking world never get charged even though over 100 million dollars goes missing in MF Global.
Nope….I’m a good ol boy…who justs want to sit back and sip my beer…..and send off our kids to fight wars overseas to protect our interest….oops I mean our corporations…..
By Cid January 17, 2012 at 4:35 pm
Typical Republican crowd
They’re all ready to fight like Hell
As long as they don’t have to do any fighting
Charlie Rangel was right
Bring back the draft with NO exemptions
If that happened those tough guys last night
Would have been cheering Paul lustily!
By Chad January 18, 2012 at 1:41 am
A Jewish dorm-roommate in college joked with me once: Do you know why Jews are so smart? They killed off all the dumb ones … So using that logic, maybe there will be hope for the USA in the future … As an aside, when did it become a responsibility of the govt to provide a future for children, instead of a parental responsibility? Who says that there is a law of nature that will provide for any and all children that are dumped into the steel+concrete system? Since when does steel+concrete support life?
By Mike Dar January 18, 2012 at 11:27 am
America will become irrelevant. Hosts of examples where America cannot ‘win’. I’m amazed Americans think 1.5 billion Muslim people living by the standard of get out! America or anyone else.. can be defeated in a military manner. How ignorant do people need to be of any view other than their own..
We cannot ‘defeat’ Afghan anymore than N. Vietnam. Try and get it, they have all the time, we have little, and little money left.
All through history Imperial countries have failed, ALL have failed. We will fail, it does not work just because your in the biggest one yet.
It’s time people understand the the rest of the world(85%) loves America but the whole world(85%) hates American Imperialism.
America thinks it can mainain it’s relavance at the point of a gun no matter what it costs, completely ignoring history for thousands of years showing sooner or later a country goes broke, its Imperialism fails. MSM doesn’t care to explain History, just how much koolaid can be drank.
It used to be, “the more you pay attention, the less you actually know”. Thus it’s important to watch this clip.Realize you are being directed on your vote..The directors are not about you.
Because where you pay attention is all that matters now. 6 companies own the MSM.
Every single person should review this clip, then take measure once again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_lYGyIaK80
By Tim January 19, 2012 at 7:35 am
This article makes points that I’ve been saying ever since 9/11. If Ron Paul is going to talk about foreign policy, he should use the “American Interest” angle. I mean, really… Ever since Clinton, we’ve been taking the side of the Muslims: Kosovo vs. Serbian Christians; Egypt, Libya, Tunisia. Ron Paul should make the point that our leaders have been on the wrong side. Saddam & Gaddafi & Ahmadinejad are all way better than the Muslim Brotherhood and it’s sister allies. And now, thanks to neocons, Syria is cracking too.