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 ...
CNN stacked the questions and audience with libs and Ron Paul Truthers too.
I thought McCain did an excellent job in the debate for the most part. I don’t like it when he gets sanctimonious about torture or Katrina, but other than that he did well. If he’s going to talk about people’s lack of faith in government and it’s failures, he should say government is trying to do too much, rather than implying that it isn’t doing enough.
He had the right message on Iraq and projected strength and leadership. Ron Paul on the other hand looked quivering and on the verge of tears. He has a few good ideas on the domestic side, but I think he’s moderating his real views in public to mask a deeper paranoid insanity.
Are you really that afraid of a few terrorists? If you are, then they have won.
Show a little respect for reality if not for your own credibility!
“A few terrorists” killed 3,000 Americans one Tuesday morning...
Getting cheered at CNN is nothing to brag about. Unless you are a NUT like Ron Paul.
I'm not afraid of fighting terrorists at all, because if we fight them we will annihilate them.
I'm afraid of traitorous clowns who want to appease terrorists and surrender to them instead of fighting them.
The only way they can beat us is if we fold.
Hey nsmart, does the ‘n’ stand for ‘not’?
After 9/11 Ron Paul submitted a bill to immediately send an attack force after Bin Laden. End of Story!
By using terrorism as a fear-factor, Bush has grown govt far and wide .. all the way into the local police through homeland security. You may be okay with that, but I was against it when Clinton sent money to local cops, too. We don’t need our local police turned into military-robocops. That ALWAYS ends badly. For a bunch of guys who I used to think of as macho, fear of a bunch of rag tag terrorists now seems to ooze from every pore. The true patriots, the military are donating to Ron Paul.
Hey nsmart, does the ‘n’ stand for ‘not’?
get some new material.
Sending in a task force of special forces following 9/11 is appeasement? That was the bill Ron Paul wrote immediately after 9/11. Bush preferred to turn it into a WWII type War and lost bin Laden.
So tell me, do you wish we would have crushed bin laden immediately or not?
Yep. A commie liberal said something nice about him, so we know he's a commie liberal. It's just so easy.
Hmmm... so I guess you've heard that one a lot, then.Hey nsmart, does the ‘n’ stand for ‘not’?get some new material.
You've never been around "a few terrorists." I have, and by the way, I'm not afraid of them, but I do not like the impact they have on day-to-day living. Nor would you.
Pretty easy to thump your chest while sitting safely behind your computer monitor, eh?
You have no way of knowing what life is like when terrorism is rampant.
Any American with any sense would like to keep it that way at home.
Ron Paul and some of the Democrat candidates would likely make terrorism a regularity in the US, and I'll wager you wouldn't be displaying your false bravado so eagerly then.
Thank goodness that barking moonbat Ron Paul has no chance of getting the nomination.
In fact, he'll be fighting for his Congressional seat.
“A few terrorists” killed 3,000 Americans one Tuesday morning...
Yes. I watched that event with horror.
Immediately following 9/11, Ron Paul wrote a bill authorizing a tactical strike force to immediately go in and get bin laden. Waiting for a WWII type of invasion of Afghanistan was a tactical mistake. We lost bin laden by the delay.
But in an Indian newspaper, prior to 9/11, (which the 9/11 commission blames on our foreign policy of interventionism, by the way) an article appeared that India, Pakistan, Britian and the USA were planning to invade Afghanistan to rout out the Taliban. I think Bush saw an opportunity to justify the plans.
What I cannot understand is how a group of macho patriots accepts the growth of the government here in the US, the entangling of the feds down to our lowest level of police in the US when they were on board with me and lots of others during Clinton’s term that he was overreaching in those areas. Do you think the next president or the one after that will not MIS-USE these powers?
I can’t begin to tell you how impressed I am with Ron Paul.
With 1% support in polls ... he’s a sure winner!
LOL!!!!
(1) Ron Paul wrote no such bill.
(2) If Ron Paul had written such a bill, it would have been unconstitutional.
(3) What Bush did in Afghanistan was precisely to deploy special forces teams on the ground.
Nothing about our presence in Afghanistan is "WWII-style."
So tell me, do you wish we would have crushed bin laden immediately or not?
It certainly would have been preferable to not finding him or worse, appeasing him like Ron Paul advocates.
But what is more important strategically than killing bin Laden is destroying his networks and reducing his capability.
And I notice that, for six years, his crew have been unable to make even a token terror attack on our soil.
You may be okay with that
I love that technique but it does not work on me.
The true patriots, the military are donating to Ron Paul.
This statement has been proven untrue at least one million times but go ahead keep repeating it, its so cute.
“... I’m not afraid of them, but I do not like the impact they have on day-to-day living. Nor would you”
Just look at the nation’s spending and amassing of powers at the DC level in the last 6 years and tell me things have not changed! And you are correct — I don’t like it.
“Pretty easy to thump your chest while sitting safely behind your computer monitor, eh?”
Do you mean like all the neocons who have never served? Ron Paul was in the military and gets the most donations from them of any GOP candidate.
“You have no way of knowing what life is like when terrorism is rampant.” But we all will if we don’t quit poking that stick in the hornets’ nest. You think the idea of Blood Feud hasn’t been around for centuries in the ME?
“Any American with any sense would like to keep it that way at home” as would I by changing our interventionist foreign policy.
“Ron Paul and some of the Democrat candidates would likely make terrorism a regularity in the US, and I’ll wager you wouldn’t be displaying your false bravado so eagerly then.” If you are reading bravado from this grandmother, clean your glasses.
And I’ll ask again, do you really think the next president or the one after that will not use Homeland Security and the new powers of the administration against the patriots at home?
“... preferable to not finding him or worse, appeasing him like Ron Paul advocates.”
Giving bin laden the status of waging war, gave his rag tag bunch of creeps much more power than any other thing we could have done.
Sending strike forces immediately to search and destroy = Appeasement — hummm? not sure how that correlates.
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.