Patterico's Pontifications

No one can deny that Rudy’s reaction to Ron’s ludicrous comments drew a roar of approval from the audience. However, nothing Rudy did was new or surprising. Tom Tancredo came across as the most consistently conservative, reality driven candidate on the stage.

Richard (adbab4) — 5/17/2007 @ 7:12 am

beldar’s piece was ok…
right up until the end, where he called upon the next president to “find a spot” in the cabinet for jeb bush. that’s a conehead for you!

assistant devil's advocate (1b530f) — 5/17/2007 @ 10:12 am

Richard–

What are you looking for: the candidate you can (perhaps grudgingly) win with, or the candidate you will be happiest losing with?

Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 5/17/2007 @ 10:49 am

There are a couple of interesting post in response to Rudy’s outburst at http://theagitator.com

Phil (427875) — 5/17/2007 @ 10:57 am

Paul never said that the US “invited” an attack. I’m surprised that people are willing to had the title to Rudy after kicking the crap out of a strawman.

arparp (1b13d2) — 5/17/2007 @ 1:15 pm

Actually, Giuliani demonstrated all the character traits that make him unsuitable for president. Unless of course you want another imperial president disaster like the one now on the throne.

kishnevi (ba7408) — 5/17/2007 @ 1:22 pm

Mayor Giuliani, as President, would you ask Congress to pass a bill making it illegal for all Americans to keep ferrets for pets?

The Liberal Avenger (b8c7e2) — 5/17/2007 @ 4:09 pm

Giuliani beating up on a demented fruitcake like Ron Paul qualifies him only as a prosecutor in involuntary commitment proceedings. On the issues, he has already lost. He’s pro-abortion, pro-illegal immigration, anti-gun, with a history of adultery and sending Hillary to the Senate.

nk (1185e3) — 5/17/2007 @ 4:27 pm

Worried that you and Sirkowski will be sent to the pound, LA?

nk (1185e3) — 5/17/2007 @ 4:28 pm

Rudy loves illegals, and he gave them sanctuary. Some of them flew into towers. He’s partly culpable for 9/11, not a hero.

Ron Paul’s opposition on the war is consistent with the majority of americans. The rest of you belong in an asylum.

Petit Bourgeois (375601) — 5/17/2007 @ 6:48 pm

I don’t detest Ron Paul the way I detest Giuliani but it is a lot fun tweaking Ron Paul’s supporters. Both of them.

nk (a074d4) — 5/17/2007 @ 7:28 pm

The one positive of Ron Paul’s performance is that I’m sure the Editorial Board of the OCRegister loved it.

Another Drew (8018ee) — 5/17/2007 @ 8:33 pm

The one amusing thing about Ron Paul is that his followers are complete whackos stomping all over the internet. On any unscientific poll I see, bee in on Foxnews or some website, I always chuckle when predictably Paul’s followers have inflated his stats thirty times or so.

Anyway, Ron Paul is certainly quite wrong about the cause of 9/11. Certainly Islamists are mad that the US has bases and used some in Saudi Arabia helped Kuwait not be overrun by a tyrant…

But the real cause of Islamic terror is Mohamed’s command to “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”

These people follow a religion that is completely unlike Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, or most other major religions. While all the later examples have some examples of war-speak, Islam’s entire nature is to force others to “Submit” or die. It’s a substantial difference (but I know I must admit or be trolled that Christianist killers and such, though absurdly rare, are equally barbaric).

Insofar as many Republicans are unwilling to admit that we are in a long-term struggle against a difficult to reform breed of religion, perhaps there is some culpability. But that’s the exact same kind of culpability a slutty woman has when she is raped: not any that matters.

Dustin (50889f) — 5/17/2007 @ 11:16 pm

Giuliani and Paul serve as a nice, entertaining foil to each other, but neither is fit to be the POTUS.

Chris (f6ecc4) — 5/18/2007 @ 12:00 am

According to the bible, isn’t the world supposed to end with a “submit or die” proposition made to everyone, Dustin?

alphie (015011) — 5/18/2007 @ 12:30 am

Only in the Gospel according to Hollywood, Alphie.

nk (a074d4) — 5/18/2007 @ 3:33 am

If Ron Paul is our best candidate, what does that say about the rest of the field?

Dana (3e4784) — 5/18/2007 @ 3:45 am

It says we need a new field not populated by morons…

Where the HELL is Fred Thompson? He was supposed to be on stage 5 minutes ago. Someone go knock on his dressing room door and tell him he’s on!

Scott Jacobs (feb2f7) — 5/18/2007 @ 4:56 am

There isn’t a scientific poll which is why you don’t cite one. Y’all just keep drinking the kool-aid and believing all the newspeak. You think 50 years of foreign intervention in the middle east is going to get you peace? Call it what you want, it’s not conservative; and neither are any of you so-called educated people. I’m tired of another country (Israel) dictating foreign policy.

Ron Paul is a congressman who gets re-elected over and over again–unlike anyone opening their piehole here–and he actually has a solid background. Rudy Giuliani is a prosecutorial prostitute, like someone else who writes here.

Besides, Rudeboy did a great job of cleaning up mexico city when he went on their payroll, right? He knows everything about security, right? He cannot secure a city, much less a country, and you are loathe to admit it. The GOP needs to clean its own house before you start the circular firing squad. Expect to have your heads handed to you in 2008 if you can’t produce a viable candidate. I also like how y’all paint him as a wackjob, because you cannot attack his conservative credentials, damn misanthropes. It’s entertaining to watch Captain Ed, Hewitt, Hannity and the rest of you assholes get all riled up because Paul poses a credible threat like Perot did in 1992. Y’all probably voted for Arnold too, since the kool-aid is de riguer for party hacks incapable of a coherent thought process.

Petit Bourgeois (375601) — 5/18/2007 @ 6:09 am

Paul’s assertation that we caused/invited 9/11 (in essence saying we deserved it) kills his chances. Kills them dead.

Scott Jacobs (feb2f7) — 5/18/2007 @ 6:12 am

This is fun. Petit Bourgeois, do you know whether Ron Paul has applied for a driver’s license yet?

nk (a074d4) — 5/18/2007 @ 6:40 am

Dear Scott Jacobs,

Paul did not assert that we caused/invited 9/11 (in essence saying we deserved it). Besides, you’re beating a dead strawman – and Rudy’s the murderer.

Best Wishes,
ARPARP

arparp (99d9d2) — 5/18/2007 @ 7:25 am

Dear Petit-
I think you are largely correct in your analysis. I feel the only discourse on actual ideas associated with Ron Paul are analyses of an intentional misinterpretation of his statement. Otherwise, it is namecalling of him and his supporters, or digging up stories from relatively recent history that paint him as a racist.
I like the ideas I’ve heard from Paul, but I wouldn’t consider myself a supporter. I just believe his analysis was not as its been widely distributed, and is more akin to common sense. I don’t think I would agree with many of his other ideas, but I haven’t researched them well enough.
I find his statements demonstrate much more competence and intelligence than those who say they’d look for a fictional TV character after a terrorist attack amidst thunderous applause.

arparp (99d9d2) — 5/18/2007 @ 7:30 am

He didn’t?

I guess “we caused” has a different meaning for you than it does for me…

Scott Jacobs (feb2f7) — 5/18/2007 @ 7:32 am

Dear Scott Jacobs,

“cause” does not mean “invite”.

Sincerely,
arparp

arparp (99d9d2) — 5/18/2007 @ 7:43 am

MR. GOLER: Congressman Paul, I believe you are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq, who would bring the troops home as quickly as — almost immediately, sir. Are you out of step with your party? Is your party out of step with the rest of the world? If either of those is the case, why are you seeking its nomination?

REP. PAUL: Well, I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy.

Senator Robert Taft didn’t even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy — no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There’s a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them.

Just think of the tremendous improvement — relationships with Vietnam. We lost 60,000 men. We came home in defeat. Now we go over there and invest in Vietnam. So there’s a lot of merit to the advice of the Founders and following the Constitution.

And my argument is that we shouldn’t go to war so carelessly. (Bell rings.) When we do, the wars don’t end.

MR. GOLER: Congressman, you don’t think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?

REP. PAUL: What changed?

MR. GOLER: The non-interventionist policies.

REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East — I think Reagan was right.

We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we’re building an embassy in Iraq that’s bigger than the Vatican. We’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

REP. PAUL: I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we’re over there because Osama bin Laden has said, “I am glad you’re over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.” They have already now since that time — (bell rings) — have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don’t think it was necessary.

arparp (99d9d2) — 5/18/2007 @ 7:44 am

It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them.

I’m sure Jefferson would have had a good laugh at that one.

Taltos (c99804) — 5/18/2007 @ 9:18 am

i don’t agree with ron paul all the time, but i think he’s a good man.

assistant devil's advocate (d3b5f6) — 5/18/2007 @ 9:30 am

He might be a good man, but politically he’s a damned joke, and a fool…

Scott Jacobs (feb2f7) — 5/18/2007 @ 9:34 am

Anyone who has more wisdom and an IQ higher than you is a joke, of course.

I have two words for you Giuliani corruptionists: Bernard Kerik.

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, comrades.

Petit Bourgeois (375601) — 5/19/2007 @ 12:25 am

I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we’re over there because Osama bin Laden has said, “I am glad you’re over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.” They have already now since that time — (bell rings) — have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don’t think it was necessary.

Easier than what, you might ask? Easier than coming to do it here.

Pablo (08e1e8) — 5/19/2007 @ 3:36 am

If Ron Paul had been around in 1836, Texas would still be part of Mexico. (Which is not to say that Giuliani will not do his best to give it back.)

nk (a074d4) — 5/19/2007 @ 3:43 am

5/17/2007

Beldar on the Debate

32 Responses to “Beldar on the Debate”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out