What do you say

Once someone gets a glimpse of Ron Paul and starts to look into his positions on the issues, some will inevitably come up with a few facts, padded by many misconceptions and conclude,
In short, Paul is extreme.

He also receives support from such organizations as the (an offshoot of another white supremacist group), the John Birch Society, and conspiracy theorists who believe 9/11 was an inside job and that the evil CFR and New World Order is out to get us, whom he also panders to on a regular basis.

Find a nice big kook bin and throw everyone in there. If anyone would actually look at the John Birch Society rather than run away scared, they would see they don't fit in that group. I haven't heard of the Council of Conservative Citizens, and the 9/11 Truthers are over the top with the conspiracy stuff.

But just because some kooks support a guy doesn't mean he panders to that type of thinking. Up here in Idaho we have some racist white supremacists. One makes lots of noise about Ron Paul. But that only serves to detract from his message of freedom. Just because a few facts intersect with some far out ideologies doesn't make those facts wrong. Same with a man campaigning on a certain agenda. Did anyone rail against Gore because the eco-terrorist group Earth First supported him?

One of my favorite answers of the recent YouTube debate was when Dr. Paul was asked directly whether he supported the "conspiracy theories". He responded with the facts. (and I am paraphrasing him here) There is a European Union where there used to be sovereign nations. There is a push to form the American Union, NAFTA and the mega-highway legislation bear that out. It isn't a "conspiracy theory", there are different ideologies. One believes in the formation of the American Union and would strip us of our sovereignty. That isn't a theory, it is fact. The Texas and Oklahoma legislature has passed laws fighting the mega-highway. Dr. Paul said he is of a different ideology that those trying to remove our sovereignty.

Ron Paul effectively removed the scare quotes from around the "theory" and presented facts. And that exposed a breed of politics that he opposes.

He isn't an isolationist, he has made that clear many times. He wants to approach countries as a free nation interested in doing business and being friends, not pushing the U.N.'s nation building policies. In the article, Mr. Dart refers to Ron Paul wanting

to withdraw from the U.N. and let Sudan work out the Darfur genocide itself.

And we are supposed to find that scary because the U.N. has done so much to stop the Darfur genocide? And the U.N. was so instrumental in saving the millions of lives in Rwanda and other African genocides?

Mr. Dart could stand to do a little homework here and not just regurgitate all the propaganda he could dig up against Dr. Paul. Listen to the man and decide, or listen to the media sound bites and scare quotes. One has an agenda, one doesn't. Figure it out or don't, I am sure one of the other clowns will offer some warm fuzzies to sooth that fear.

GOP debate review

As
Peggy Noonan notes in her fine column about the debate, the Sept 5th debate showed some fireworks and some good conversation on the war. As Huckabee pointed out afterwards, it could have use a few new fresh topics in the 1 1/2 hour debate.

Romney still looks like a stuffed suit and never answers a question. The quintessential politician. I had to laugh when moderator Brit Hume asked Romney if he had any thoughts and my wife interjected, "Nothing original." He dances like Astaire, ever looking for the sound bite.

Guiliani wears thin with his statistics about reducing crime in NY City. We all know about lies, damn lies and statistics. So the city improved while he was mayor, good for him. But that would be the expected outcome for any elected official. Now tell us why he would be a good president. So far, he has not done that.

Ron Paul and Huckabee had a good jab fest over the troop withdrawal. As much as Noonan loves Huckabees "If we make a mistake, we make it as a single country, the United States of America, not the divided states of America."" comment, I thought Paul's response was even better; "If we make a mistake, the American people through their representatives should correct that mistake." I like Huckabee, but I am not as attached to the Republican party that I think they should all be like honorable captains on a sinking ship. Especially when the ship hasn't sunk, and there is still time to change courses and find harbor.

Dr. Paul made his comments quite emphatically, especially when the moderator tried to mock him with the "orders from Al-Qaida " comment. And while on the subject, the snickering teen-age mentality of some candidates was seriously out of line. Fox News and the establishment must be worried to sink to the level of engaging in these subtle discrediting tactics.

Duncan is about done, I like his stance on the border, but the super-hawk isn't going to distinguish himself from a mostly pro-war field. Brownback looks more and more like a big government Republican every day. Thinking the fed-gov should fix everything and write an amendment for all the social problems would set a bad precedent. It may be tempting to solve it this way, but what happens when the party of opposite ideals wants to solve their "problems" in the same fashion?

Presidential Sweet

I already mentioned the amazing video of Giuliani's response during the lightning round of questions, now I will try to bring out more detail of the other candidates from the New Hampshire debate.

Once again, Ron Paul's internet presence is being felt as he is sweeping the debate scorecard (the meaningful ones anyway) winning the votes by 58%. I wasn't as impressed by Dr. Paul's performance this debate. His knowledge of actual issues is unmatched, and is one of the few believable candidates. But he turned in what looked to be a one-trick pony for this show. His answers were good, but when he said the undeclared war was the greatest moral issue of our time, that seemed a bit over the top.

However his answer on gays openly serving in the military was dead on. It isn't about orientation, but about disruptive behavior. See my post on military conduct for more details. The military has the right to ensure the safety and readiness of their soldiers. Immoral and disruptive behavior work against that readiness.

Romney was very disappointing even for someone who already dislikes him. He should have been part of the Democrats debate (yes we watched that too, at least the half of it we could stomach.) He blathered on and on turning most every question into a black hole about how the Republicans were the party of the future. Don't ask what I mean because I couldn't figure out what he meant, other than he had little to say and took too long saying it.

Giuliani continually went over the time limit and ignored the moderator with more of his politico-speak. Not much substance and everything seemed related to him being the most capable of protecting our nation. McCain was on the defensive most of the night because of the amnesty bill he co-sponsored with Ted Kennedy. Someone pointed out that he had more in common with Kennedy than with the Republicans. So he stumped and he whined about that every chance he got.

Jim Gilmore finally got something of substance right when he was asked about global warming. He pointed out that the Kyoto treaty was more about financing Russia and China than protecting the environment. Tancredo has some wonderful points, but I pity him when he has to speak. He stammers and pauses and winds his way around some great ideas, but by the time he is done, the concept is mostly lost. Tommy Thompson got an infusion of charisma and actually looked comfortable on stage.

Excluding the rest of the candidates giving Rudy "sparky" Giuliani a wide berth, the best lines of the debate were between Huckabee (or Hucklebee as my kids say) and Hunter. Huckabee was asked whether he believed in evolution or in a 6 day creation as the Bible says. The former minister proved his credentials by giving a 60 second sermon on what most Christians believe. Namely that we don't know the "how" of creation, but we know the "Who" and the "why". Did God make it in six literal days, or 6 millennial days? Huckabee said he didn't know. But he did know that there is a God that loves us and that created us for his purpose. Amen to that pastor!

Hunter is still the king of the hawks, but I would say maybe more of a mother hawk. He is genuinely concerned for the security of OUR nation. He would be a great Secretary of Defense. But his line came when asked if he would pardon Scooter Libby. He responded that he had not read Libby's transcripts, but that he had read some others, those of border agents Ramos and Campion. He said he would immediately pardon these two who have been jailed for doing their duty and protecting our border.

Brownback also had a worthwhile comment. When asked about evolution, he showed his well researched Catholic roots by mentioning that the college hosting the debates was named after St. Anselm and one of the things he was known for was seeking faith through reason. Brownback stated that faith and reason are not opposed to one another. If we find that they are, we need to check either our faith or our reason.

Too sum it up, the big three were unimpressive to downright worthless. Ron Paul was good if somewhat limited and many of the others continued to bring out great points. Hopefully this will resonate well and help shape the platform for whomever is nominated.

Divine intervention

A very humorous "intervention" in tonights debate as Giuliani answered a question about the bishop who took him to task over his stance on abortion.

Wonder if he will have a conversion on the road to Des Moines now too? Doubt it. His reasoning that he "consulted his religion and the constitution" caused my wife to ask, which religion and which constitution? The ones he is inferring to have some very pointed stances on the sanctity of life.

Giuliani didn't seem to get the message, but his colleagues on stage did. They all suddenly gave him plenty of space while he finished the comment.

Who says God doesn't still speak in our time?