Posted on 11/29/2007 9:26:18 AM PST by nsmart
Arizona Senator John McCain tried to resuscitate his ailing campaign for the Republican presidential nomination by attacking Texas Congressman Ron Paul's anti-war stance during Wednesday night's CNN/YouTube debate.
But, as in previous Republican debates where leading contenders have stumbled in their attempts to attack the renegade congressman, it was Paul who ended up drawing the cheers of the crowd.
Playing his Thanksgiving visit to Iraq for political points, McCain tore into Paul for arguing -- as part of a discussion about spending -- that bringing the troops home from Iraq would save "a trillion dollars."
Just as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani tried in an earlier debate to buff his national-security credentials by attacking Paul's suggestion that misguided U.S. foreign policies increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks, McCain attempted to burnish his image as a champion of the troops by attacking Paul -- and, by extension, all critics of the war.
Invoking memories of the American First movement's opposition in the late-1930s and early-1940s to preparation for the fight with Hitler and Mussolini, McCain declared, "it's that kind of isolationism that caused World War II."
That rhetorical flourish drew hisses from the Republican crowd that listened to the debate in St. Petersburg, Florida
But Paul did not need the audience to protect him.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenation.com ...
Sure, let's go to the tape.
In the primaries, you have 8 candidates who support the ongoing war that should have been won decisively within a couple of years going after a GOP base that has been decimated by the ass-kicking received in the 2006 midterms.
You have 1 candidate who is bringing in newcomers, independents, cross-over Reagan Democrats, and retaining a sizable portion of conservatives angry at the GOP.
Heads: the good doctor wins in a plurality; Tails, the statist Republican loses.
And I know you're not going to vote for Hillary if her opponent is Paul.
There's no law prohibiting neo-Nazis from donating to the candidate of their choice.
Anywho, Paul has said the money will be used to promote his agenda, not some wacko.
**************
Fortunately, most people don't support Ron Paul.
But of course. Getting Paul to apologize profusely and on the defensive like George Allen is the first step to taking him down. Then they'll demand that he apologizes for the "racist" newsletter that he "wrote" about blacks. Paul's not going to be their organ-grinder monkey, and it pisses them off.
He's going to be his own, fiercely-independent organ-grinder monkey.
Man in the Yellow Hat, is that you?
“The turn will come when we entrust the conduct of our affairs to the men who understand that their first duty as public officials is to divest themselves of the power that they have been given. It will come when Americans, in hundreds of communities throughout the nation, decide to put the man in office who is pledged to enforce the Constitution and restore the Republic. Who will proclaim in a campaign speech: ‘I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel the old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.’”
With this quote from Senator Goldwater who do you think best defines conservatism out of the current field of candidates?
Which doesn't really address the comment one way or the other.
Here's a scary thought for you (unless i've completely misjudged your comment)...Most People didn't support Bill Clinton either...look where he ended up.
In situations like this, i've always followed the advice of George S. Patton Jr.
Our Flanks? Let the enemy worry about his flanks, we're attacking.
This isn't a matter of law - it is a matter of right and wrong.
I understand that Paul supporters may believe that as long as it isn't technically a crime, then it's OK.
But decent people hold themselves to a higher standard of behavior than simply avoiding indictment.
OK, let me put it another way. Most of the people who vote and are not insane don’t support Ron Paul.
Congratulations, you've just slandered an entire congressional district in Texas that re-elected Paul by a greater than 60% plurality, in an election where Republicans were getting their @$$ handed to them nation wide.
Since he has run unopposed for that rather large district a couple of times, it is rather likely that if he fails to gain the Presidential nomination, he'll be easily re-elected to his seat.
Sorry, but it just doesn't wash.
I never said or did anything to you
You trashed my integredy, and that of my son. You deserved everything you got, and apparently can't take it.
On a completely unrelated issue, you have freepmail.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.