Replies

In a debate of 10 people, more than one can win. Each has different goals. Romeny’s goal was to take the lead of the top 3. He won that, he did well. Paul’s goal was to distinguish himself in order to try to build a following. He did that, he won.

I'm not going to deny that Romney proved himself the Best Debater amongst the "Big 3". I'm a former Debater myself; I know what I saw.

But that doesn't change the fact that Ron Paul came out of nowhere to dominate the Post-Debate metrics. As Chuck Baldwin observes, "Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and Tommy Thompson... It is safe to say, that none of these men obtained any significant support as a result of their debate performance." By comparison, Ron Paul skyrocketed.

If Ron Paul thinks Scooter Libby is GULITY of the crime in which he was convicted(and sorry, Scooter wasn't convicted of "misleading the country on Iraq"), then the constitutional position is to let Libby rot in jail.

If Ron Paul thinks Scooter Libby is NOT GULITY of the crime for which he was sentenced, then the "Constitutional" position is certainly NOT to lock innocent people up "[The President] SHALL shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons" Article 2, Section 2... unless Mr. Paul is following the Constitution of Communist China or something, a person who exposes liberty and freedom doesn't let innocent people get locked up when there is a constitutional way to free them.

Sorry, the Constitution explicitly gives the President the power to grant pardons in all cases except impeachments.

Paul also said an income tax is "Unconstitutional". Untrue. The Constitution also now allows an income tax since the 16th amendment was passed in 1916. It used to be "unconstitutional" to tax income PRIOR to that time, it no longer is -- just as banning guns is no longer constitutional since the 2nd amendment was passed. I think what Mr. Paul meant to say is he'd like to repeal the 16th amendment so an income tax WILL BE unconstitutional in the future.

Sorry, just because Ron Paul calls everything on the planet "unconstitutional" doesn't make it so. The Ninth Circuit court also likes to proclaim everything "Unconstitutional". The Constitution itself explains what is constitutional, not Ron Paul.

Ron Paul can denounce the existence of the U.S. Supreme Court as "unconstitutional" tomorrow if he wanted to, that wouldn't make it so.

If he doesn't like certain powers being granted in the Constitution, then he should work to repeal them -- not pretend they don't exist.

I'm not going to deny that Romney proved himself the Best Debater amongst the "Big 3". I'm a former Debater myself; I know what I saw.

The only question is whether Mitt got to second-base or third-base with schoolgirl Chrissy Matthews. The funny thing is, only with Romney would you feel very naughty in making such a crack. I have wondered if the man is simply too much an Eagle Scout type to be elected. You know, I'm not sure we really want a president we can look up to, a president who really is squarer than a show like The Brady Bunch. We want one we can look down on more, I think.

But that doesn't change the fact that Ron Paul came out of nowhere to dominate the Post-Debate metrics.

Ron Paul will always have the Friends Of Ron. He has his own national constituency. It is small but very dedicated.

I'd say, to those who don't grasp his appeal, is that so often people see something they don't like and don't want coming out of Congress and they're saying to themselves, "Won't even one of those useless political hacks oppose this thing?". Over and over, it has been Ron Paul who is the only one who will oppose those things. And he does it standing as squarely as he can on the Constitution and speaking the language of liberty.

It's not so much his current positions on any matter, especially Iraq. It's where he's stood and the loyalty he's earned over the years of his congressional career. It's interesting to see how he can survive so well when he's so often stood alone as Dr. No when the rest of the useless congresscritters are rushing to pass the latest un-American feel-good nonsense or hand out more pork.

Devising new ways to slice up the hog isn't really the work of statesmen or patriots.