The best debater was, without doubt, Newt Gingrich. He would tear Barack Obama apart in a debate.
A good way of understanding just how good a debater Gingrich is may be to compare him to Ron Paul – someone whose opinions I often agree with more than I do with the opinions of Newt Gingrich.
Ron Paul was asked about a radio interview where he appeared to say that Bin Laden should not have been killed by the Navy Seals (I, and a lot of other people, predicted that he would be asked such questions by Obama if Ron Paul was the nominee).
The only way out of such a position is to apologize for one’s confused speech and say “OF COURSE BIN LADEN SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHOT”.
Instead we got a long complicated reply, comparing (at one point) Islamist terrorists in Pakistan to Chinese dissenters in the United States, and saying that the reason that people attack the United States is “because we bomb their countries all the time”.
And on and on (Taliban allies against the Soviets – the Taliban hardly existed at the time, Taliban totally different from Bin Laden’s supporters NOT TRUE THEY HAVE THE SAME THEOLOGY, and…).
Ron I agree with you that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have proved to be a mistake – and I was still almost booing at the television screen as you spoke (a lot of people actually present at the debate could not stop themselves booing you – how you spoke was just so offensive). I agree with your policies (on just about everything), but they way you express yourself…….. You do not just sound silly (and make errors of fact) you actually sound hostile to the United States and the West in general. As if you were an enemy of the West – you are not, but you sound as if you were.
And Newt Gingrich – he told a brief story about Andrew Jackson and “killing the enemies of America” and had everyone cheering him. As he did on virtually everything else…
“But he is still wrong about the issues” – no more wrong than Mitt Romney, Rick Perry (less than one percent of the vote in New Hampshire) and Rick Santorum. And he can debate vastly better than they can.
Still it is all pointless now.
Neither Rick Santorum or (even) Rick Perry will get out of the race and endorse Gingrich – which means that Mitt Romney will win on Saturday.
And that means it is over.
The candidate with the least good economic plan (although light years better than Obama) and the person who, when asked if he would support the new Obama law that allows imprisonment (without time limit) of citizens suspected of supporting enemies of the United States – said “yes” (and meant it).
People are to “trust in the good character” of the President not to “abuse this power” – well that is fine, let us see the end of what is left of the rule of law at once. As long as the President is of “good character”.
Oh well at least Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan Chase will be pleased.
I hear they have switched some of their support from Barack to Mitt – what a good sign of high moral character. Almost as good as being against abortion (as the most senior Elder of the Morman Church in Massachusetts), then being “pro choice” when in politics in Massachusetts, then being against abortion again (when running for the Republican nomination for President). Oh well my “do not say nasty things about Mitt” New Year’s Resolution did not last long – but he is going to be nominee after Saturday, so it is a last negative statement before I (and everyone else interested in defending the West) have to rally behind this man’s banner.
One must draw a sharp distinction between the person of the King (as a human being) and “the Crown”. In the clash against the Marxists, Mitt Romney will be “King” after Saturday (the Coronation is not till the Convention, but a King is King before his coronation) – so his personal imperfections will have to be overlooked, the oaths that I (and so many others) have taken to defend the West against the totalitarians, will bind us to him in the contest (regardless of what terrible end this riding leads to). The choice of not following the banner will still exist – but not as an honourable choice. The statement “the King will lead us to our deaths” may be true – but it is also irrelevant. After all the enemy will still be in the field, seeking to flee (on the grounds that the commander of our own army is useless) is just a “cop out”. When the banner is formally raised one follows the banner – even if it leads into a narrow valley, with the enemy in front and on both flanks. One can advice against it – one can even call the King an idiot to his face. But fleeing is not really an option – neither in honour (leaving everyone else to die), or in practicality (for the enemy will follow after they have done their business – in reality there is no real place to hide). And defeat is not predetermined – if one attacks fast enough (and fortune turns in one’s favour), one may be able to cut one’s way through, before the enemy has time to react.
To turn to lighter matters…. or, at least, the same matters expressed in a lighter tone.
Max Keiser (and the rest of the dodgy people) will be overjoyed – they are already using their “two Dollar whore” lines (and so on) against Romney. The attacks on Bain Capital may be unfair – but “loading companies with debt so that they fail after you walk away with millions” was a line used against Romney by the Wall Street Journal questioner, the left will use it also (and much more). They will love it when he is the nominee.
Which he will be.
In politics, what you say is a great deal less important than how you say it. That’s why such bloody awful people can get into positions of power.
/puts on Dem strategist hat/
What we got on Romney? Is it not obvious? He didn’t even get the Republican nomination in 2008 so…
/takes off hat/
If I were an American I would have followed Gary Johnson to the ends but Romney – whatever!
Quite so Sir.
Excellent post, Paul – thank you.
An Obama-Romney choice may not be such a bad thing, if it provokes enough people into voting for the LP candidate out of sheer anti-establishment frustration. The real choice in this election isn’t between Republicans and Democrats but between the existing political culture and something – anything – new. A choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledumber (your pick of which is which) may yet force people to face up to the fact.
A Romney/Obama election would be the best thing for the LP (and third parties in general). Faced with a choice between two such underwhelming and uninspiring characters people will surely start to look elsewhere.
There is no difference between dems and republicans they both serve the interests of the companies that finance their campaigns.
Obama and Romney will be funded by an almost identical list of financial interests.
The robber barons are no more your friend than the state and at the moment the two are as close as they have ever been.
Elections are about brand not policy.
I can somewhat, kinda sorta, see the appeal of Ron Paul. On some issues he makes sense. But he goes off the deep end on the others. When he makes errors of fact, it’s because he doesn’t know the facts. And worse, those are the areas where he believes he is the one and only oracle of truth running for office. That’s what makes his attempts to explain his national security stance painful to listen to. He believe the hostility we face in North Africa, the Middle East, and Central and Southwest Asia can be blamed all on “blowback.” This is as overly simplistic as those on the left blaming it on oppression and deprivation.
These people have grievances going back to the crusades and the loss of al Andalus. Fighting back is a provocation to them. After all, there were people living in the lands they invaded. When those people who were invaded or their co-religionists fought back, successfully in the case of Spain, it was an insult they can’t forget. So it’s silly to imagine this is all due to any recent US policy. Yet it never occurs to Ron Paul to think there might be some common underlying ideology behind any of this.
He thinks he’s a strict Constitutionalist, and not only are Iraq and Afghanistan mistakes but illegal wars. Apparently there are specific words that must be used to make a war legal. If Congress doesn’t use those words, or worse the President doesn’t even ask Congress for permission, the war is illegal. This is a case of being more Catholic than the Pope. The people who wrote the Constitution would have thought Paul’s views on the Constitution suicidal. This country fought its first two foreign wars without any such declaration. The people who wrote the Constitution would have felt silly declaring war when the state of war already exists. Congress merely needs to use some sort of statutory language to recognize the reality of the situation. So ironically the people who wrote the Constitution gave us the authorization for the use of military force. An AUMF in shorthand. In other words, exactly what Congress gave George Bush after the 9/11 attack. Yet Ron Paul is under the impression that this is unconstitutional.
And, by he way, had Ron Paul’s staff not threatened to resign en mass he would not have voted to use force to defend the country. The former staffer who led the mutiny also tells us that we had no business declaring war on Germany in WWII. He thinks, apparently, we went to war for humanitarian reasons. Again, his history is twisted. We declared war on Germany and Italy because they declared war on us after the third axis power attacked Pearl Harbor. So it’s hard to imagine when Ron Paul would defend the country.
There are a couple of other things about Paul that disqualify him. He claims to be principled. He makes a show of it, but there’s nothing principled about loading up a bill with pork for one’s home district, then making a symbolic vote against it knowing, indeed depending upon the fact, that it will pass.
He can’t get things done. Out of over 600 attempts to introduce legislation since he first went to Congress in the 1970s, only four bills ever made it to a floor vote and one of his bills was signed into law in 2009. His colleagues say he’s a nice guy one on one but he can’t work with people. What’s more he’s just not interested in trying to work to get the bills passed. Like his symbolic “no” votes on bills he really wants to see passed, he introduces bills for the symbolism.
So his grating debating style is really just a natural offshoot of his daily working style. Usually I’d say debating ability is not a good indicator of one’s ability to perform as President. Not here. It’s a window that let’s us see why he wasn’t an effective legislator and couldn’t be an effective President. Fortunately he’ll never be the nominee let alone President.
“I agree with you that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have proved to be a mistake”
Really so how you would kill all alqaeda and taliban and other islamist variants that was killed? The intelligence that came from contact with enemy will came from where without wars?
Ron Paul incorporated all leftist/pacifist “guilt*”, inverted racism and the racist opinion that don’t exist individuals in other cultures.
Ron Paul is the enabler of violence, since he has a Pavlovian response to violence. He retracts every time.
Between a letter from 1000 persons and a bomb, Ron Paul would knee to those with the bomb.
*For the left it isn’t guilt just an instrumental tactic to just make the other side not use their weapons.
George you should really read “The Myth of the Robber Barons” – if you have already done so, then I can not help you. But if you have not read this work – then please do.
As for saying there is no difference between a RINO like Romney and a life long Marxist like Barack Obama – errr I do not agree. As for corporate welfare – certainly Barack has done that, but he has much bigger plans. The “corporate pigs” who financed his campaign will end up in the slaughter house if he has his way (as some of the less short term obsessed corporate types are starting to work out).
On voting LP.
Let us say the Libertarian Party candidate got twice the percentage vote that any LP candidate for President has ever got before. Well that is two percent of the vote (double 1% = 2%).
I can understand voting Republican (even for a moderate like Romney) – at least in a State where the vote might be close (in a State where the vote is not close then there is little point in voting – unless some other contest, lower down the ballot, is of interest). But going for as walk makes far more sense than waiting in line to vote LP.
“But a new political reality is needed” – perhaps it is (indeed I think that is likely), but that will not come from voting LP for President.
Indeed I doubt it can come at all.
After all secession (the logical move if Comrade Barack is relected) – the entire media (and the education system) would scream racist, racist, racist, if any State tried to secede (and States are very dependent on Federal funding now anyway – that was the “poison pill” in programs like Medicare).
Still secession is less wildly unlikely than “Congress limiting what Obama can do” (or other sillyness that is going the rounds at the moment).
The Centre for American Progress (and other such) have long worked on plans to make Congress irelevant.
During the economic crises of 2013 de fact emergency rule will come into operation.
Indeed the softening up process is already well under way – “If Congress will not act, I must act…..” – and on and on.
The real difference between a President Romney and a reelected Comrade Barack?
Romney does not want things to collapse (how can you enjoy the Country Club if there is a mob of cannibals trying to break in and eat all the members?). Comrade Barack DOES want what is left of civil society to collapse – because he believes a wonderful new society would rise from the ashes of this world.
Perhaps the above difference is not enough (after all Romney not wanting the present civilization to collapse does not mean he has a clue about how to stop it collapseing), but it is a real difference.
I’d like to comment on the Libertarian Party bringing about some sort of real change. I don’t believe even Ron Paul believes that will happen. Which is why I believe he won’t run on a third party ticket. He’ll probably stick with the GOP because, even though he probably doesn’t believe he can win the nomination, the only way to advance his libertarian principles is to shift one of the major parties toward them. If he does well in the primary and wins some delegates, that could be enough for him to accomplish that to some degree. And that’s to his credit.
I myself am a political conservative with some libertarian instincts. But I’ve never been too enthused about libertarianism as a philosophy. Ron Paul helped illustrate why that is during the Monday night debate. Ron Paul got into it concerning gun rights and tort reform. While Senator, Santorum helped pass a gun manufacturers liability protection act. Firearms when functioning properly are lethal. Gun banners thought they saw an opportunity to sue manufacturers out of existence for manufacturing an inherently dangerous product. Thus the gun maker is negligent. Ron Paul voted against that in the house. Ron Paul responded that tort law, and tort reform, is entirely a state responsibility and the federal government has no role whatsoever. He discussed it in terms of medical malpractice laws, which is something he’s familiar with. and they do vary from state to state. The transcript is here. That led to this exchange:
The fact is that Ron Paul was reduced to uttering nonsense because Rick Santorum was exactly right. Without some sort of national level protection for gun makers, then those who want to ban guns could simply forum-shop until they found a friendly jurisdiction, and sue the manufacturer there.
Ron Paul gets so fixated on some things, like states rights, that he couldn’t see that what Santorum was talking about was a perfectly legitimate use of the commerce clause. Because products are different from services. They’re traded in interstate commerce. A gun maker can’t control where his products end up. suppose certain states pass strict liability laws (your gun is only safe if it’s broken; you’re negligent for manufacturing a product that KILLS when it works as designed, evil gunmaker!) The gun maker can choose not to ship his guns there. That doesn’t solve his problem. I can buy a gun in a state in which he will market and ship his products. Then move to a state where he won’t. And if I use it there for self-defense, even legitimately, or even worse it gets stolen and used in a crime, the gun maker can still be sued and possibly bankrupted.
Used guns tend to last a long time. And they can end up in places the gun maker never dreamed of.
I suppose this is the sort of thing I was trying to drive at when talking about my problem with him on national defense. He’ll boresight on some part of the Constitution, apply his unique interpretation, and say, “You can’t do that; it says so right here!” And somebody like Santorum will come along and observe the language he’s pointing at really isn’t as restrictive as he’s making it out to be, and then Santorum will point to a different part of the Constitution and say, “besides it says not only can the federal government do it over here, but it says the government is supposed to do it.”
I’m as big a fan of small government as anyone, but Ron Paul and libertarians who see eye to eye with him take such a restrictive read on the Constitution the government can’t perform it’s legitimate functions such as national defense. The result is less freedom, not more. But he can’t see that.
Libertarian arguments can influence people. For example Senators Rubio and Blunt have not backed off the “copyright protection” Bills – now it has been explained to them that such Bills are really a Trojan horse for internet censorship (although the quiet arguments “these Bills are to protect Hollywood interests – Hollywood has been smearing us for 50 years, and now they, the arch leftists, are screaming about property rights???????????”
Anyway, Ron Paul – yes he does want imput into the platform, and a smart nominee would support that.
And RAND Paul might be a good choice for the VP spot.
Although I suspect that the nominee will want someone female and hispanic.
Such as the Governor of New Mexico?
Or just hispanic.
Such as Senator Rubio.
Paul, my use of the term Robber Barons was a poor choice of words.
I was referring to the financial institutions that are a parasite on the wealth generating sections of the economy.
Without these institutions no economic activity can take place.
Their position is legislated into existence and protected by the politicians, Democrat and Republican, that they own/fund.
George I apologize for misunderstanding you.
So you meant the credit bubble bankers (and other such) – well I see what you mean, they have a lot of political influence.
However, I still think they were stupid to get into bed with Barack.
“How can such rich and powerful people be stupid?” – Because they assume that everyone else is like them – and that is just not true. Some people are not motivated by money – they are motivated by much worse things.
Mitt Romney is a more natural fit for Goldman Sachs and co – he does not want to build a wonderful new world (based on a foundation of human bones).
Still I get your point – their system is self destructive.
Even in the 1920s their system (the Federal Reserve and credit bubble banking) did not work – it led to a meltdown.
And that was before the Welfare State and so on.
So although Romney and co sincerely do not want to destroy civil society (they really do NOT) – they most likely will anyway.
We live in “interesting times”.
What now?
Rick Perry getting out of the race and endorsing Gingrich (in very strong terms) took me by surprise.
As did the wonderful debate performance (two of them) by Gingrich – and Mitt Romney falling apart when asked a few questions by the msm insects.
Can Gingrich keep it up?
I doubt it.
But I would like him to.
I fear that Barack Obama would make mincemeat out of Mitt.