The Fox Google Debate-Who Won-Who Lost-Who Hates That New Sound

After taking a detour to MSNBC and CNN, tonight conservatives and Republicans across the country found themselves back in familiar territory... FOX. This time the format was different, more questions from the voters, and those questions were actually voted on by the public. As expected the moderators tried to spark battles between the two front runners and it worked. Lets dive into to the debate top lines.

• Biggest Loser-That's easy,  that new sound for going over your allotted time.  Every time I heard that dammed thing I kept looking at my PC trying to figure out why I was getting an error sound.  Please guys go back to the door bell sound, maybe it will help Gary Johnson with his neighbors dog.

•  Most Tiresome Exchange- The first spat between Romney and Perry, where one guy quoted the others book and the other retorted with "you read it wrong." Personally I skipped both those books. As a rule I skip political candidate's books preferring to get my political propaganda for free. But for those who want to pay for candidate's books I came up with an idea that was actually quoted by Politico:

Jeff Dunetz (@yidwithlid), of New York, said the sparring over Perry’s book, “Fed Up,” and Romney’s “No Apology,” gave him a new business idea.“Hey I think I am going to start an online business,” he tweeted. “The Perry/Romney book club.”

I appreciate the mention folks but next time could you link to the site and invite people to click on an ad or hit the tip jar?

Question Number 1: Why is it so hard for Mitt Romney to say these simple words, "Barack Obama is a socialist"? In 1996 he ran for the Illinois state senate on a the socialist "New Party" ticket that doesn't make him a conservative.

• Rick Perry might have taken a giant step backwards tonight. This was his third debate, and if debates had the same "rules" as dating, on the big third date Perry would not be staying the night.  The last debate Perry was the target and held his own, this time it seemed that the Texas Governor made unforced errors.  When Perry and Romney were in the middle of the great book debate, I didn't really get the feeling that he really read the book.  Perry didn't seem to have a handle on his answers, he was fumbling around too much.  But that was just style, I think he lost big on his immigration answers. He may be right allowing Texas Illegals to go to collage but he is wrong for giving them a major discount. Governor Perry totally blew the question about Pakistan losing control of its nukes to terrorist's.  Well I think he blew it...it seemed like rambling and in the end I had no real idea what he said. he got one of those 3 a.m. calls telling him that Pakistan lost control of its nuclear weapons to the Taliban.  Oh and that nice quote he gave from that woman with Cervical Cancer? It turns out he met with the woman AFTER he made the executive order. And what was with that feeble line about mating Cain and Gingrich, I am going to have nightmares.

Question Number 2 When Michele Backmann tries to push her way into questions she wasn't asked, why don't the moderators tell her to wait for her turn.

• Mitt Romney I am not a big fan of Mitt, but he was the clear winner tonight. He looked Presidential, deflected most attacks with humor, and won most of the exchanges with Governor Perry. I also believe that tonight he gave his best answer ever to the Romneycare attacks, adding I made some mistakes to his usual states rights answer. Warning!  Gov. Romney shouldn't talk about others being "flip-floppers" that's the teapot calling the kettle black.

Question Number 3  Doesn't Herman Cain understand is that the Dems will turn his 999 upside down making it the 666 plan. That may make some of my Christian friends a bit nervous. 

• Newt Gingrich- Once again he proved himself to be Brilliant. He also proved himself to be totally humorless with his arrogant refusal to answer the stupid VP question. Come on Newt, it was a puff question, you could have said everyone is qualified an that was it. But you started out with a little "sermonette" about Newt don't play that. It just made you look stiff. 

Best Line of the night-Gary Johnson's line about his neighbor's dogs being the only ones creating shovel ready jobs.

• Rick Sanatorum-Probably his best debate so far. He really lead the attack on Perry's immigration policy and forcefully criticized Huntsman's call to leave Afghanistan.  On the other hand his answer on "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was...well confusing. 

Question Number 4-Why didn't the moderators ask Ron Paul the Israel question? He seemed to be chomping at the bit to blame the whole thing on the Joooooose.

•  Jon Huntsman- I have to be honest after his first answer where he started with a cheesy sounding declaration of how wonderful his wife is, I forgot he was there. Well except for when Rick Santorum attacked him. 

Question Number 5- OK I know this is sexist because I am not commenting on the other candidates' outfits, but they were wearing dark suits. Am I the only one who thought that Michele Bachmann's red dress was hard on the eyes?  I kept imagining her putting on a green hat with a white fluffy ball at its tip and singing Christmas carols.

• Ron Paul and Gary Johnson the only difference between the two is that Gary Johnson never published a racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic newsletter.  I noticed another similarity between the two, they both seemed nervous.  Not scared-nervous, but Bruce Banner "I am about to snap and become a big crazy green monster" nervous. Speaking of that......

Duh Question of the Night: When Mike Wallace asked Ron Paul a question which basically said,  "Congressman do you REALLY believe that nutty stuff that comes out of your mouth?" Of course he does Chris, didn't you see the tin foil hat he wears?

• Herman Cain-I wish each candidate had his sense of humor and joy for life that Herman Cain has. The story of his cancer survival was the emotional high of the night. His 999 plan is simple and popular,  even though it could lead to a disastrous combination of high income and high VAT tax.

Advice To Fox For The Next Debate: Fox did a good thing by trying the word clouds to see if they would work.  They didn't so please lose them.

• Michele Bachmann- After the first debate I was a big Bachmann fan, now I just find her annoying. She seems to say the same thing over and over.  The Congresswoman had one excellent answer and on totally awful answer. The excellent answer was the revisiting of "What percent of my income do I deserve to keep question." She gave the answer the candidates should have given last time. They deserve to keep 100%, but they need to pay in something to help the country running. But her answer to the question about the charge that the Cervical Cancer shot caused Mental Retardation was awful, she failed to take responsibility for her own statement. When confronted with the fact that medical associations disputed that claim, Bachmann she was only passing along something that a woman told her. Well if she passed along info without knowing it was true she was being irresponsible. If she did think it was true, she should have stood up for it, rather than push it off to an anonymous woman.

As it is now 2am and I need to get up in four hours, I will leave things, at that....more tomorrow.

The No Obama Speech, Lets Use Rick Perry as a Pinata, Republican Candidate Debate at The Reagan Library

Tonight conservatives and Republicans across the country found themselves in unfamiliar territory... MSNBC, the network host for The Reagan Library-No Obama Speeches-Lets Use Rick Perry as a Pinata-Republican Candidate Debate.  This was the first debate that would include the Texas Governor on the firing line. At the beginning it seemed as if the moderators were trying to make the debate, a war between Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. In fact it seemed as if they weren't going to let any of the other six candidates come out and play. But then they switched tactics and made the rest of the evening a game of lets beat up the Texas governor. On many occasions candidates were not asked to express their opinion, but to comment on Perry's.  If one didn't know better they might suspect the NBC news staff was intent on bringing down Perry, or at least trying to give Obama ammo if Perry ends up with the nomination.

Who Won?  It depends,....once again Mitt Romney looked very Presidential. In most case he said the right things, the question is can you believe the guy. Romney did seem like a unifier something that will appeal to independents, but to get to the independents he needs to get the nomination and to be honest Romney is just not popular with his own party because of the lack of belief that he means what he says.

Romney did however have a  great comeback to Perry in one of the early exchanges, on the issue of who's state created more jobs:

"Michael Dukakis created jobs three times faster than you did, Mitt,” Perry quipped, in a stinging reference to the former Massachusetts governor who lost the presidential election to George H.W. Bush.

Romney immediately shot back that “George Bush and his predecessors created jobs at a faster rate than you did.”

Later in the debate Huntsman topped them both reminding both Governors that it was his State, Utah that led the country in creating jobs.

Romney didn't win tonight, but he really didn't have to, for his campaign it was just important that he didn't lose.

While Romney looked presidential, Rick Perry looked "straight out of central casting" presidential.  He looks like a take-no-crap-from-anybody type who follows the old Teddy Roosevelt advice "Speak Softly but Carry a Big Stick." Perry was set up to fail by the moderators and handled himself admirably. 

Perry's appeal is that he is direct and says what he thinks, but he has to learn to explain himself better; he is right Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, but he needs to explain why. Tell people what a Ponzi scheme is and explain why it is a valid comparison. He also should bone up on some of the other theories about what causes climate change, Solar Activity, ocean currents, etc. Its the same thing as his Ponzi scheme line, he is 100% right but needs to explain himself better.

Newt was, well Newt. Just like the Fox debate he went after the moderators and the media, at one point saying , "I'm frankly not interested in your efforts to get Republicans fighting each other."  He continued with all Republicans should "defeat efforts by the news media" to spark an internal struggle when the real objective is to defeat Obama in 2012. He was right, it was a good point but it seemed like deja vu all over again. We heard that act in the last debate.

Michele Bachmann had another bad debate.  More than any of the other candidates,  she seemed as if she was just repeating talking points.  At one point she said one of her jobs as nominee is to elect 13 more Republican senators. To my ears that line sounded like she was trying to work for ACORN. I understand the power of positive thinking, but there is a thin line between positive thinking and flinging too much bull-crap.  Today Michele was a bit to heavy on the Bull-Crap.

If I had a dollar every time Herman Cain said 9-9-9 my bank account would be approaching seven figures.  Its not that his plan is bad, but he uses it as the answer to every question, whether appropriate or not. Besides, doesn't 9-9-9 seem like one of those long distance services that used to be popular like "dial 1-10-10?"

Ron Paul was scarier than usual, we're  talking about "frothing from the mouth" crazy.  The way he jumped from point to point made it almost seem that the guy was losing his hold on reality. And Ron, if you are going to shrink government to your desired levels you do have to answer the question what would you replace it with. 

 If there is a "Mr Cellophane"  in this campaign there it is Rick Santorum. While I don't agree with all of his positions, he handled himself very well when asked a question, but he wasn't asked many.  Santorum's answer to the Catholic-poverty question was really heartfelt and the GOP should heed his approach on the reasons the welfare system needed to be changed.

"There is no one in the 12 years I was in the United State Senate who did more to work on poverty than Rick Santorum," Santorum said. He then went on to discuss his work on the welfare reform bill in the 1990s. "We didn’t pass it to cut money, we didn’t pass it to punish anybody, we changed the welfare system because it was punishing people…it was creating a culture of dependency and we went out and talked to the American public and said trust us to end this federal entitlement, put a work requirement in place, put a time limit on welfare…and we will transform it from a dependency system to a transitional system."

 And finally we have the former Governor of Utah, Doctor Huntsman and Mr. Hyde. Jon Huntsman is so right on so many issues and extremely wrong on so many others. His economic program is excellent, but his refusal to acknowledge that the global warming consensus is non existent is very problematic. Especially when he gives the media (and the Democrats campaign lines about rejecting science). Its not a rejection of science it is a scientific disagreement.

In the end tonight's debate served to clarify the GOP picture for the next five months till people begin to actually vote in primaries.  It is a contest between Perry and Romney, the once promising Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann continue their march backwards.  Santorum and Huntsman have their moments but gain no traction. Newt has good ideas and zingers, but the fact is people just don't like him, and Dr Ron Paul is still a couple of french fries away from a happy meal.

Ron Paul Bigot, Liar or Incompetent Fool ?

Since placing second in the Iowa straw poll, Congressman Paul's supporters have been complaining vigorously because their leader (Officially known as Rep Paul from the Planet Ronulin) and his second place finish has been virtually absent from the press.  As a regular critic of the media, I for one have never been happier that the MSM was biased. Whenever the Congressman is mentioned in the press, I am overcome by a compulsion to dig a hole in the ground and hide. As a conservative with libertarian leanings, my fear is that some of the Ron Paul nuttiness will sully my positions and those of other conservatives.  Perhaps that's why comedians such as Jon Stewart are chiding the press for not speaking about Paul's second place win in Iowa, they want mainstream Conservatives and Libertarians to be grouped together with Paul.



Whenever I post something negative about Ron Paul (which is every time I post about him), I get the nastiest comments and emails. There aren't many "ronulins" in the world, but those who support him treat him almost like a cult leader.  Which wouldn't be bad except for the fact that  Ron Paul is "drooling crazy" type.  Additionally Dr. Paul has a history that makes one thing he fell out of the  bigot tree and hit every branch on the way down.Sometimes that bigotry is displayed by his followers. When Donald Rumsfeld was speaking at CPAC 2010, the large contingent of ronulins began to chant Sheckels, Sheckels in recognition of their anti-Semitic charge that American Jews forced the US into the war in Iraq to protect Israel. Sadly if they followed the facts they would have realized that Israeli Prime Minister Sharon urged President Bush not to invade Iraq predicting a quagmire.

For those of you that can remember life before the internet, you might also remember that people used to publish Newsletters on all topics. Forty years ago, Paul entered the Conservative Newsletter business. The Newsletters contained racist and homophobic writing, written in Paul's name. 

The Congressman defended the writing when they became an issue during the 1996 congressional campaign but  the newsletters when they became an issue in 2008, but he defended them in 1996When the newsletters were republished by Kirchick,  Congressman Paul strongly denied authorship, but as you will see he didn't deny them when they first became controversial in the mid-1990 (more on that later).What was written in those newsletters was nothing short of disgusting. Here are  some examples:

• On Race

“A Special Issue on Racial Terrorism” analyzes the Los Angeles riots of 1992: “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. ... What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided.”

In December of 1990 his newsletter described Martin Luther King Jr. as “a world-class adulterer” who “seduced underage girls and boys” and “replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.”

The January 1991 edition of the Political Report refers to King as a “world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours” and a “flagrant plagiarist with a phony doctorate.”A February 1991 newsletter attacks "The X-Rated Martin Luther King."An October 1990 edition of the Political Report ridicules black activists, led by Al Sharpton, for demonstrating at the Statue of Liberty in favor of renaming New York City after Martin Luther King. The newsletter suggests that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" would be better alternatives--and says, "Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house."

In an article entitled “The Coming Race War,” The Ron Paul Political Report refers to the “pro-communist philanderer Martin Luther King” and refers to his “non-violent approach” as “(i.e., state violence).” The newsletter advises that, “if there is any issue the Republicans have in their favor for the next presidential election, it is the question of race. It was all over for Michael Dukakis when Jesse Jackson gave his awful prime-time speech at the last Democratic convention, and the cameras focused on masses of teary-eyed, left-wing blacks.

That proves Paul is crazy, it wasn't over for Dukakis until that silly tank picture.

• On Gays

In the course of defending homophobic comments by Andy Rooney of CBS, a 1990 newsletter notes that a reporter for a gay magazine “certainly had an axe to grind, and that’s not easy with a limp wrist.” Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”

From the August 1990 issue of the Political Report: “Bring Back the Closet!”

The June 1990 issue of the Political Report says: “I miss the closet.

A January 1994 edition of the Survival Report states that "gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense," adding: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."

• On Conspiracies

This 1978 newsletter says the Trilateral Commission is “no longer known only by those who are knowledgeable about international conspiracies, but is routinely mentioned in the daily news.”A 1986 newsletter names Jeane Kirkpatrick and George Will as “two of our enemies” and notes their membership in the Trilateral Commission. In an undated solicitation letter for The Ron Paul

Investment Letter and the Ron Paul Political Report, Paul writes: "I've been told not to talk, but these stooges don't scare me. Threats or no threats, I've laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.) The Bohemian Grove--perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress's Mr. New Money. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica."

• On The Middle East

The March 1987 issue of The Ron Paul Investment Letter calls Israel “an aggressive, national socialist state.”

In the April 1993 Ron Paul Survival Report, the author--writing in the first person--states, “Whether [the 1993 World Trade Center bombing] was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.” The newsletters also warns readers to “do your very best to keep your family away from inner cities. If you can’t, have a haven remote from the metropolitan areas.”

Was Ron Paul Lying when he said he didn't write the newsletters, or was he lying when he said he did?Whenever I discuss these newsletters with Ron Paul fans, they make the same claim, their fearless leader said he didn't write them no did he know who wrote them. Indeed that's what the he told CNN in 2008

Paul told CNN's "The Situation Room" Thursday that he didn't write any of the offensive articles and has "no idea" who did. Watch Paul's full interview with CNN"When you bring this question up, you're really saying, 'You're a racist' or 'Are you a racist?' And the answer is, 'No, I'm not a racist,'" he said.Paul said he had never even read the articles with the racist comments. See the newsletter excerpts for yourself"I do repudiate everything that is written along those lines," he said, adding he wanted to "make sure everybody knew where I stood on this position because it's obviously wrong."

It is certainly possible that for Paul to be telling the truth, but to do that you have to believe that he never looked at the publications  published under his name by a company that he owned. The evidence suggests otherwise,When they were published in the New Republic, James Kerchick said,

Whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views.

The New Republic also provided this evidence:

• The masthead of March 1987 Ron Paul Investment Letter lists “the Hon. Ron Paul” as “Editor and Publisher” and “Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.” as one of several contributing editors.

• The April 1988 Ron Paul Investment Letter lists Paul as Editor

Perhaps the most damning evidence about Paul's denial of authorship is the fact that when the newsletters first became an issue during his congressional race in 1996 Paul did not deny he had knowledge of them, he defended them as his writing and said the quotes were taken out of context:

• May 22, 1996 Dallas Morning News reported "Dr. Ron Paul, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, wrote in his political newsletter in 1992 that 95 percent of the black men in Washington, D.C., are "semi-criminal or entirely criminal." He also wrote that black teenagers can be "unbelievably fleet of foot." [...]

Dr. Paul, who is running in Texas' 14th Congressional District, todat defended his writings in an interview Tuesday. He said they were being taken out of context."It's typical political demagoguery" [...] Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]

• May 23, 1996, Houston Chronicle:Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." [...] Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."  A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.

• May 23, 1996, Austin American-Statesman: "Dr. Paul is being quoted out of context," [Paul spokesman Michael] Sullivan said.  "It's like picking up War and Peace and reading the fourth paragraph on Page 481 and thinking you can understand what's going on." [...]

• May 26, 1996 Washington Post: Paul, an obstetrician from Surfside, Tex., denied he is a racist and charged Austin lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, his Democratic opponent, with taking his 1992 writings out of context. "Instead of talking about the issues, our opponent has chosen to lie and try to deceive the people of the 14th District," said Paul spokesman Michael Sullivan, who added that the excerpts were written during the Los Angeles riots when "Jesse Jackson was making the same comments."

So the question remains, is Ron Paul a racist who is lying about not writing or even reading the newsletters he defended just a few years earlier? Or was he lying when he defended them even though he never read them?Understand if Ron Paul never read the newsletter it means that he was so incompetent in running his little newsletter company that he never even bothered to read what was printed in his name.  And when he was first confronted about them, he defended the newsletters he never read, which would make him very foolish and reminds me of a certain president who sat in a racist church for 20 year and never once heard the sermon of his bigoted preacher.

In the end it doesn't matter whether Ron Paul is a bigot and liar, or a liar and incompetent fool, either way you go,  this man should never be considered a realistic candidate for President of the United States.

Iowa Debate Review-First Thoughts on Winners and Losers

Tonight's Iowa debate was very interesting, the candidates took off their gloves and went after each other for a bit.  Overall I think that Newt Gingrich scored the most points, Romney won by not losing, Santorum surprised and after a strong opening Tim Pawlenty hurt his campaign more than anyone. Below are my initial thoughts candidate by candidate.

• Gingrich-His attacks on the questioners had to be pre-planned, but it doesn't really matter because everyone loves to bash the press.  He came out and really bashed the "super committee" and said it in a down to earth, rather than his usual professorial manner.   The question is even if people agree with him, will they like him. If Newt wasn't Newt, we'd all be saying that he won the debate--but he is Newt.

• Romney- As the leader of the pack, all Romney had to do is not lose, and that's exactly what he did.  Mitt Romney didn't make any gaffes,  gave credible answers and looked rather presidential. He deflected criticism without getting down in the mud.  So why do I still feel he is full of crap?

• Santorum- Rick Santorum was the surprise of the night.  Unlike the first debate, he forced himself into the conversation, and scored points.  His line about the need to keep morality in mind when discussing the 10th amendment hit home. His line about Ron Paul being wrong most of the time, though true seemed petty. Santorum may have picked up some support tonight, but he is starting off from a very low base.

• Bachmann- At the beginning of the debate, Bret Baier asked all the candidates to skip the regular talking points, but her first answer was 100% talking point.  Once she was forced to confront Pawlenty she hit her stride. The question about being subservient to her husband was unfair and sexist, but she answered it splendidly. She did well overall but she didn't do the best and she needed that to pick up new support.

• Pawlenty- His line early in the debate about coming and cooking dinner for the person who found the Obama plan was great, but once he did the back and forth with Michele Backmann, he lost the wind in his sails.  Frankly even though Bachmann took care of herself,  Mr. Nice Guy Pawlenty seemed like a bully and never recovered.

• Huntsman-Being unfamiliar with the former Governor of Utah, I was eager to hear his positions.  After watching this two-hour debate I would still like to hear his positions.  The Governor's solution to the economic crisis was to form a committee of businessmen. Great, just what we need another president who can't come up with ideas of his own.

•  Cain- He had one of the best lines of the night was "America needs to learn to take a joke." Another great tagline was "if a company wants to give dividends, that's fine its their money!" Herman Cain seemed to be on the defensive a big part of the night. Then again, he keeps saying silly things that he has to defend. Cain is the candidate that you really want to like, but tonight he didn't stand out as much as he has had in the past.

• Paul-  The leader of the planet Ronulin was on tonight, I am just not to sure what he was on.  Many of his answer were rambling as he tried to blame everything on the war in Afghanistan. At one point in the debate Ron Paul claimed that he didn't understand why people thought Iran was a threat. Well Congressman, Iran is a threat because their leaders are even crazier than you are. And by the way, I wouldn't trust Ron Paul with nukes either. The Ronulins will love anything he does, rational people will still believe he is a few fries short of a  happy meal.

That's the top line, more to come....

Ron Paul Congressional Hypocrite

Congressman Ron Paul is bad for America on so many levels. There were the anti-black/ anti-Semitic Newsletters which were published under his name (which he claimed he never read). And yes there were those really whacko public statements like; the federal reserve was behind Watergate, that Lincoln was wrong to push us into a Civil War over slavery, or his assertion that condemning the HAMAS terrorist rocket attacks promotes violence. But those items only suggest that the Texas Republican Congressman is a bigot as well as a bit of a lunatic, which not bad by today’s congressional standards.

On top of all that, Congressman Paul is a hypocrite.

Ron Paul is believed to be a “fiscal conservative” and if you ask him he will tell you that he has never voted for an earmark. That statement is 100% correct. What Paul does is to make sure that the earmarks he wants are put into a bill, and then he votes against the bill. Its the best of all possible worlds. He gets to bring home the bacon on a local basis and makes the anti-earmark claim on a national basis.

For example in last year's 111th Congress, Ron Paul sponsored or co-sponsored 17  earmarks totaling almost $24 Million dollars

During the 2009 Fiscal Paul sponsored or co-sponsored 23 earmarks totaling almost $81  million dollars. That's almost $105 million in earmarks over two years. Can you imagine if he wasn't a fiscal conservative?


In 2009 Paul appeared on Neil Cavuto’s Fox News show to defend his earmarks.
If you cannot see video below click here

CAVUTO:Congressman, the rap is that you’re a porker, that — that a lot of pork, $73 million-plus, went to your district. Is that true?

REP. RON PAUL, R-TEXAS: Well, it might be. But I think you’re missing the whole point. I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.

The Congressman believes that the earmarks are just fine as long as he is open about them. These earmarks may very well be legitimate programs, but by specifying the location and the recipient of the program there is no thought given to “is this the most efficient place to house this program?” Money can be sent to a place that does not have the best resources or personnel to implement the earmark, causing a program to be more expensive than if it were done in someone elses district.

Paul may be very transparent about the hypocrisy of requesting an earmark then voting against the bill (because he knows it will pass), but his twisted logic doesn’t make it any less hypocritical.

Whenever I post something negative about Ron Paul (which is just about every time I post about him), I get the NASTIEST comments and emails. He doesn’t have a lot of supporters but those that do are very well organized and support him do so with a passion. The problem is Ron Paul does not represent himself truthfully. Along with his history of being a “drooling crazy” type and a bigot, the man is the typical Washington DC spin-master, saying one thing but doing another. He has a good fiscal script but frankly we have all seen that movie before and it got old a long time ago.

Last Night's New Hampshire GOP Debate CNN and John King Were The Big Losers

There was something terribly bothersome about about last night's debate between Republican candidates for President, and I couldn't figure it out until I watched it a second time this morning.

First of all there were either too many candidates or not enough time.  It seemed as if the candidates did not have enough time to answer particular questions, and because all the candidates did not answer each question its is hard in some ways to compare.

Secondly moderator  John King was a disaster.  With almost every answer one could hear King in the background, it was hard to tell if the guy was lifting something or trying to answer questions of his own, because the sound of grunts or "ums" coming from King were annoying as hell.

The three most important topics to voters are how to create jobs, how to fix the economy and energy, yet there were few questions on those topics,but there were questions about the tea party which are important only to King and the rest of the liberal media.  The United States is facing economic disaster....why would John King trivialize the debate with those inane "this or that" questions? Is it really important to know whether Herman Cain prefers deep dish or flat pizza?

Despite the problems with the format some of the candidates did find a way to stand out yesterday.

Winners:

• Romney's job in last night's debate was "not to lose it." In other words not to make any gaffes.  He seemed knowledgeable about each of the topics and he even seemed to believe his answer about Romneycare.  Romney was a winner by not losing. I wish he didn't seem like such a dammed politician all the time.

•  Michele Bachamann was a big winner last night.  Her job was to prove that she wasn't the nut job she is portrayed as by the liberal media. Bachmann more than succeeded.  She seemed knowledgeable and enthusiastic, perhaps a bit too enthusiastic the times she tried to get the crowd to cheer along with her. Her answers were knowledgeable, not only her answers to the economic questions which one would expect, but on foreign policy also.  I wouldn't surprise to see her jump up in the polls after her performance.

Losers:

• The biggest loser last night was Tim Pawlenty.  Already with a reputation of being a "98 pound weakling" as a candidate, perhaps the debate's most uncomfortable moment was the "Obamnycare" question.  John King served Mitt Romney's head to Pawlenty on  a silver platter, but the former Minnesota Gov. chickened out. I believe that last night will mark the end of Tim Pawlenty as a serious candidate.

• Most of Newt Gingrich's answers were very good (although his continuing claim that his comments on the Ryan plan were taken out of context doesn't do him any favors). The Gingrich campaign is falling apart. All of his senior people have quit.  Gingrich had to win the debate and win big in order for his campaign to remain viable...he didn't.  Goodbye Newt.

Disappointing:

• I went into last night wanting to really like Rick Santourm. He did an adequate job but for a guy participating in his first candidates debate he needed to do much better.  He looked very uncomfortable when he was asked for economic plan specifics and offered a handful of nothing. Many of his answers seemed like political hooey.

• Anybody that ran a pizza company has a leg up in my book but Herman Cain did nothing to break away from the pack last night. Too many of his answers revolved around "hiring the best people" and/or asking the Generals.  Sorry Herman but you have been running long enough, you should have surrounded yourself with some of the right people and asked a general or two by now...we need to know some specifics. Cain was wonderful when he stopped King and showed how he misquoted the"hiring Muslims" line, but then he took three paragraphs to get to what he really meant Shariah Law. 

 Also there:

•  Racist/Anti-Semite Ron Paul was also there. I am sure he appealed to the Ronulins. 

Overall the big winner was Michele Bachmann and the biggest loser was John King and CNN

 

Trump's Done; Can We Concentrate on REAL Candidates Now ?

Attention Donald Trump your 15 minutes as a presidential candidate are officially over. Public Policy Polling (PPP) most recent survey of likely Republican primary voters has shown your numbers fall off a cliff. In April, PPP reported that Trump was leading all GOP challengers topping  Huckabee by a 26-17.  Today's results have Huckabee in the lead with 19% , Romney at 18%, Gingrich at 13%, Palin 12%, and  Trump tied with Ron Paul at 8%.

The main reason is that Trump was a one-issue candidate, and with the President's release of his long form birth certificate the number of birthers have fallen significantly (thank God). Additionally Trump's support amongst birthers has fallen also.

Beyond the overall support numbers, Trump is simply not like by Republicans. As he got more exposure, voters decided that they were not happy with a cussing, birther whose GOP credentials are at best suspect. Only 34% of GOP voters have a favorable opinion of Trump to 53% who view him in a negative light. A 53% negative is hard to overcome.


Keeping in mind that it is still much too early in the campaign to start following polls seriously, there does seem to be an interesting trend emerging. Romney and Huckabee may be starting Gingrich and Palin. Of course out of the four only Gingrich has declared (actually he as declared that he is going to declare tomorrow).

The survey points out that it is still anyone's game:

 We also looked at a fair number of alternate Republican universes in which various candidates don't actually end up making the race. With Trump out Romney leads Huckabee 21-20 with Gingrich at 15% and Palin at 14%. With Trump and Huckabee out Romney is tops at 24% to 20% for Gingrich, 17% for Palin, and 12% for Paul. With Trump and Palin out Huckabee has the advantage with 24% to Romney's 22%, and Gingrich's 20%. And with none of Trump, Huckabee, and Palin running Romney gets 28% to 26% for Gingrich 12% for Paul, and 11% for Bachmann.

Now that (hopefully) Trump will be gone, all we need is for Ron Paul to go and the GOP concentrate on the REAL candidates.