-
Who’s Politicizing Benghazi?
May 9, 2013 | 6 comments
-
A Tale of Two Teams and Two Stars
January 10, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Mitt Romney Just Got Himself Elected President
October 3, 2012 | 17 comments
-
Obama to Gays and Hollywood: Show Me the Money!
May 9, 2012 | 13 comments
-
Ruinous Obama Austerity
May 9, 2012 | 2 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The 2012 election is still 18 months away, which is several lifetimes away, given how fast news moves today. Nonetheless, Fox News last evening sponsored the first GOP presidential debate for the 2012 election.
So take these initial results with a considerable grain of salt, especially since several key candidates — including, for instance, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich — were no-shows, and few people probably were watching.
Still, for what it’s worth (admittedly not all that much), here’s what we learned, I think:
Tim Pawlenty is a very serious and compelling candidate. Indeed, if anyone can beat Romney, Pawlenty can. He appeared calm, poised, and presidential. His answers were mostly sharp, crisp and to the point. He was in command and anything but boring. The bottom line: Pawlenty outperformed and may well be the 2012 GOP presidential nominee.
Rick Santorum will command serious voter interest and should not be discounted. He also performed well, though not as well, I think, as Pawlenty. He deftly deflected tough questions about his socially conservative views — questions which might have tripped up a less experienced and less serious-minded candidate.
For example, when Juan Williams asked about a passage in Santorum’s book, It Takes a Family, which Williams said suggests Santorum is against working women, the former Pennsylvania senator didn’t blink. The point, he explained, is that the decisions women make, whether to work inside or outside of the home, should be affirmed and not disparaged.
Gary Johnson’s libertarian-isolationist views strike me as foolish and dangerous. But even if you are a fan of Johnson, I think you’d have to admit that he was a real dud this evening — a nonentity throughout most of the debate and boring and dull when he spoke. He clearly underperformed and did not impress.
Herman Cain seemed to strike a chord with Frank Luntz’s voter focus group, though I’m not sure how or why. Cain did articulate faithful conservative positions; and he has a certain folksy, down-home appeal. That he’s a retired businessman and entrepreneur, and not a career politician, also adds to his electoral allure.
Ron Paul was Ron Paul: In his mind, answers to all questions are always the same: Take government out of the equation and all will be well. On some issues, of course, this makes total sense. But radical libertarianism is less compelling, I think, when you’re talking drug legalization and alleged U.S. “militarism.”
Surprisingly, none of the GOP hopefuls seemed to adopt Donald Trump’s winning strategy, which has been to rough up and attack Obama rhetorically. Yet this approach clearly is what drove up Trump’s poll numbers over the course of the past several months.
Of course, Trump went too far, as is his wont, and soon began to look like his boorish, bullying self, and that’s not a winning strategy. Still, the candidate who can attack Obama with cutting wit, grace and humor will have a real advantage, I think. We will see.
View all comments (62) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John R. Guardiano
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/05/06/two-heavyweights-three-welterw
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Brian72| 5.6.11 @ 9:45AM
"the candidate who can attack Obama with cutting wit, grace and humor will have a real advantage, I think. We will see."
Gee, I wonder who that could be?
What a mystery!
Watch the 2008 GOP convention, and you may figure it out.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 5.6.11 @ 9:49AM
Ron Paul is a non-issue.
He is the perpetual candidate who has lost all credibility - the Libertarian version of Lyndon LaRouche. Furthermore, by running as a Republican, he proves himself to be a liar, since the world knows that he is really a Libertarian. He and his acolytes continue to to delude themselves into thinking that he could ever poll outside the single digits. In fact, he might actually be able to poll better, if he were to run as a Libertarian, since that would mean that people wouldn't see him as lying about his party loyalties. Then, add to that the fact that he is a "Blame America First" loon. For that reason alone, he would alienate the vast majority of the GOP and ensure an Obama 2nd term.
When a person runs under a party banner, he is essentially telling voters that he supports at least the basic principles of that party. If that candidate's position is closer to that of another party, then by running under any other party's banner, he is, for all intents and purposes, lying. Ron Paul, like John McCain and both Bushes, only supports a very small part of the GOP's basic principals. But unlike both Bushes, who despite their big-government RINO agenda, were not really closer to the Democrat party, Ron Paul is and always has been a devoted Libertarian. Neither of the Bushes deserved the "R" after their names on the ballot. But there is no other party into which either of them would fit better. They were simply RINOs. But Paul, who is and always has been a devout Libertarian, by running as a Republican, takes it a step further. He is LYING.
The point is that Paul is a Libertarian - NOT a Republican.
If there was no other party that he was closer to, then it would be understandable that he might run for office as a Republican. But he is solidly in line with the tenets of the Libertarian Party, so when he runs as a Republican, he LIES.
Republicans - even RINOs - understand that 9-11 was caused by Islamic extremism. We understand that Islam is a religion of hatred and that the way that they are told to make peace, is to kill all those who will not convert to their religion of hate. Yet, despite the facts that such instructions are written in the various works of Muhammed, Libertarians and Ron Paul, seem to think that some how Americans must have traveled back in time and influenced Muhammed to write those words of hatred, which led to the attacks.
Ron Paul clearly has NOT read the Koran and the relevant parts of the Hadith. If he had, he would know that Muslims are instructed to KILL anyone who will not convert to their religion of hate and he would not be blaming the USA for 9-11. But due to his ignorance on the subject, he just opens his mouth and spews all kinds of vile garbage.
If it wasn't for the fact that a relatively small number of libertarians worships him, no one would even know his name.
WilliamR| 5.6.11 @ 10:41AM
If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism---Ronald Reagan.
Would Barry Goldwater be a Republican today?
http://www.radicalmiddle.com/x_avlon_goldwater.htm
Occam's Tool| 5.6.11 @ 10:44AM
Zbig, beautiful note.
Dan| 5.6.11 @ 1:19PM
Paul is a libertarian, not a Libertarian. There is a difference.
But this is BS. When principled conservatives are not satisfied with the GOP nominee and encourage other conservatives to vote third party, all the loud mouths start whining about how a vote for a third party candidate just "takes votes away" from the Republican nominee and helps elect the Democrat. Work within the GOP we are told. But many of the same loud mouths tell dissident Republicans (whether libertarian leaning or strict constitutionalists or populists or whatever) to go join a third party "where they belong" when they attempt to work within the GOP. Well make up your mind. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.
Of course, what the loud mouths are really saying is that all these people concerned about those pesky principles should just sit down and shut up and do as their party boss masters tell them.
Warrior | 5.6.11 @ 4:28PM
The problem with your rant is the problem with the candidates on stage. You fail to state why anyone should support the big government loving Republicans. Instead you attack the only candidate that has a proven track record in governing according to the Constitution. What makes it even worse is your comparison to Bush and McCain. Why don't you review the voting records for Paul, Pawlenty, Romney and especially Santorum and then tell us again who is closer to the Bush and McCain version of Republican.
Maybe Ron Paul is not electable as a Republican, but unfortunately for the Republican party, him and Gary Johnson were the only candidates on the stage that offered us a significant difference to running other big government and entitlement loving, reach across the aisle Republican.
beebop| 5.6.11 @ 6:19PM
... sorry but I cannot let this pass.
It is "he and Gary Johnson" unless you are inclined to say "him is the only candidate on stage." Rule of thumb? Remove the "and so-and-so" from your sentence and return it to singular and that dictates your usage ....
The default position? If it sounds wrong ....
Warrior | 5.7.11 @ 2:59PM
Attack the English ellipses boy. Like many big "R" Republicans on this site, it's easier than discussing an issue on substance.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.6.11 @ 9:56AM
Pawlenty may look good, in fact he did, but I wonder if that's enough.
The reason Herman Cain was fascinating is that he's never been a politician.
The public is wise to the ruling class and apparently wants someone from outside to shake things up.
Sean| 5.6.11 @ 4:39PM
Supporting Cap and Trade and government pushing of "the green economy" is looking good? Pawlenty was stupid enough to fall for that in the recent past. That alone makes him not a very serious candidate. You notice the Neocons are all very impressed with Pawlenty.
bubba16123| 5.6.11 @ 6:38PM
Sean, you are right about T- Paw. I live in Minnesotas 6th Cd ( Cong. Bachmann ) I will not vote for this guy. Like I've said before on this site if you wish to vote for someone thats 1/2 Bush & 1/2 McCain than T-Paw's your guy
SpiralArchitect| 5.7.11 @ 10:55AM
He looked more like a pro dodge ball player to me.
Grzmlyk| 5.6.11 @ 10:12AM
Even though I had it on in the background and couldn't give it my undivided attention, my two cents is this:
WTF was up with Pawlenty supporting cap and trade? Ok, great, he fessed up that it was a mistake, but ANYone who even entertains the idea of cap-and-trade - and the soundbite they played of Pawlenty genuflecting before its premise was damning indeed - is a disqualifier for me.
Just as when Gingrich appeared on that couch with Nancy Pelosi to talk about global warming a few years back he was dead to me forever afterward, so is Pawlenty dead to me now; IMHO the man has "wobbly" written all over him.
It is unconscionable and unforgiveable for a guy who touts himself as a conservative to ever have given cap-and-trade anything but the scorn it deserves.
Cain spoke plainly and was pretty unruffleable. I think it was his utter confidence and common sense that won me over. He didn't seem like an amateur up there at all, and I believe he is a man of principle. I may not be ready to vote for Cain, but I am ready to move him over to the column of candidates I would seriously consider (which means away from the column of also-rans like Trump, Romney, Huckabee, et al).
I liked Santorum, too - he didn't back down from his socially conservative positions; despite the fact that he was oddly untelegenic - I never noticed his tendency to clench his teeth into a sort of grimace while talking before - I have to say Santorum has really grown on me after this and his appearance on Fox News Sunday a couple of weeks back.
Johnson is a moon bat and seemed erratic to me. Very poor showing; he doesn't inspire confidence so much as he inspired me to wish he'd taken a Xanax.
I have nothing to add to what Zbigniew said so beautifully above about Ron Paul. The man gets economics but does not understand modern geopolitical realities. He does make some valid points about foreign policy at times, but isolationism is not possible in today's world; Paul is beginning to look like he belongs in a rubber room.
WilliamR| 5.6.11 @ 10:35AM
Neither Ron Paul or Gary Johnson are isolationists. Both believe in free trade, free travel, against embargoes. That used to be called internationalism. People like John R. Guardiano think if you don't support endless war in the Middle East and nation building you are an isolationist. The man is a crank.
Grzmlyk| 5.6.11 @ 10:46AM
One thing I'll say for Ron Paul - his acolytes are die-hard zealots.
Ok, free trade, free travel - he's still got an essentionally isolationist view, and it is naive in the extreme.
Regardless, if you think he's going to get anywhere near the GOP nomination, you are wrong.
WilliamR| 5.6.11 @ 10:49AM
Son, I suggest you get a dictionary and look up isolationism. Ron Paul is not even close.
And I'd hardly call myself a Ron Paul acolyte. I worked for the Reagan campaign in 1976 and was a delegate at the 1984 GOP convention in Dallas.
Grzmlyk| 5.6.11 @ 10:58AM
Gee, daddy, resorting to obnoxiousness so quickly?
Of course Ron Paul's acolytes get REALLY steamed when you use the "i" word.
Just because you worked for Reagan's campagn and were a delegate at the 1984 convention, that proves you are not a Ron Paul acolyte?
People change.
Regardless of your howling at the label, the fact of the matter is that Ron Paul's foreign policy views are not going to be adopted by rank-and-file conservatives. I've already given him props for his economics and some of his foreign policy pronouncments, but that's not good enough for you.
Like all true believers, you won't rest until everyone sees the messiah instead of the man.
Sorry, sport.
WilliamR| 5.6.11 @ 11:07AM
Like I said, you're not a conservative. Ronald Reagan would be considered an isolationist by you and Guardiano. As he wrote in his memoirs,
" Perhaps we didn’t appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines’ safety that it should have.
In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today."
Neutrality in the Middle East. Quick run Ronald Reagan out of polite society.
Grzmlyk| 5.6.11 @ 12:08PM
See my note below.
Clint| 5.6.11 @ 1:41PM
On October 10, 2001, Congressman Ron Paul led the effort in Congress to give President Bush the tools he needed to capture, dead or alive, Osama bin Laden and the other terrorists responsible for September 11th. Dr. Paul introduced on that day H.R. 3076 - The September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001.
If passed, that legislation would have given President Bush an additional weapon against bin Laden. If Dr. Paul's legislation had passed in 2001, it is likely bin Laden would not have been around until last Sunday.
Also, Dr.Ron Paul Voted for The Resolution to go into Afghanistan.
" Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
-Ronald Reagan
Clint| 5.6.11 @ 1:56PM
Nonintervention - A foreign policy of staying out of other countries' disputes.
Isolationism - A policy of nonparticipation in international economic and political relations
"Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations."
Dr. Ron Paul
"Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; "-- George Washington (Farewell Address, 1796)
Occam's Tool| 5.6.11 @ 10:48AM
Johnson does Marijuana. LOTS of marijuana. I worked as a physician in New Mexico for a year. If you care about your health care, and don't want armed lunatics killing little girls on your streets, don't vote for Johnson.
JimH| 5.6.11 @ 1:51PM
I support your right to smoke, drink and eat all the HoHos you want. Any consensual activity in the bedroom is between you, your adult partner and your God. That does not I advocate doing any of those things. When advocating the prohibition of marijuana and other drugs consider what it costs to do so versus the costs of legalization. Consider also what smoking excessive drinking and eating cost society as well. How much interference in people’s lives can you support and consider yourself a proponent of limited government? Do advocates of a continuing prohibition think that there is a large group of potential dope addicts just waiting for repeal to go on a binge like something out of Reefer Madness?
Warrior | 5.6.11 @ 4:43PM
I thought we were going to get along better after finding some common ground the last couple of weeks. Your post is nothing short of a Pelosi like, far left, progressive emotional attack. Let's cut the budget $1 billion dollars - Republicans want to starve seniors, kill women and keep children stupid. A vote for Johnson is vote of for armed lunatics killing little girls???
Occam's Tool| 5.6.11 @ 10:49AM
Mr. G,
Thank you for existing.
Grzmlyk| 5.6.11 @ 12:48PM
Right back atcha', Mr. T!
Joe M| 5.6.11 @ 10:13AM
I love that people are now attacking Ron Paul. It means he is making progress. And actually, according the latest CNN poll, he IS polling in the double digits, unlike Pawlenty:
http://politicalticker.blogs.c.....omination/
As Gandhi once said: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Ron Paul's message is starting to win. Also, it was Ronald Reagan who once said, "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."
Grzmlyk| 5.6.11 @ 10:36AM
With all due respect, people have been attacking Paul since he became a national figure.
He's not a serious candidate; he won't fly with rank-and-file conservatives.
And I don't think conservatives should take seriously any polls conducted by far-left organizations like CNN.
irish19| 5.6.11 @ 11:14AM
I agree with the last. The MFM would love to pick our candidate for us again. Picking one that had no chance-like Paul-would assure zero's re-election.
WilliamR| 5.6.11 @ 10:44AM
Paul is polling second in New Hampshire behind Romney. He is raising big money and if the dollar continues to slide Ron Paul's chances are as good as anyones
You're a big government NeoCon.
Occam's Tool| 5.6.11 @ 10:46AM
William,
feel free to name call me. But please tell me where Dr. Paul's voting record on non-tax/spending issues differs in the slightest from Dennis Kucinich. That's all. Please do, without quoting Ronald Reagan from 1976.
Clint| 5.6.11 @ 1:44PM
Do Your Homework Israel Firster Propagandist Tool Job.
On October 10, 2001, Congressman Ron Paul led the effort in Congress to give President Bush the tools he needed to capture, dead or alive, Osama bin Laden and the other terrorists responsible for September 11th. Dr. Paul introduced on that day H.R. 3076 - The September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001.
If passed, that legislation would have given President Bush an additional weapon against bin Laden. If Dr. Paul's legislation had passed in 2001, it is likely bin Laden would not have been around until last Sunday.
Also, Dr.Ron Paul Voted for The Resolution to go into Afghanistan
Red Phillips | 5.6.11 @ 3:48PM
Seriously Occam, such guilt by association is simple-minded and should be below you. Ron Paul's non-interventionism is from the right as the political spectrum is generally conceived today, and you know it. Quit trying to mislead people. It is intellectually dishonest.
WilliamR| 5.6.11 @ 10:51AM
Ron Paul voted to go into Afghanistan in 2001.
You on the other hand think we should fight endless war to make the Middle East safe for Israel.
Too Many Tims| 5.6.11 @ 10:57AM
Aren't you sick of bait and switch RINO's ? By all means let's maintain our national greatness, let's continue to field huge armies in dozens of countries and outposts, let's fill the oceans with gigantic warships.
And let's hope China keeps lending us the money to do it.
WilliamR| 5.6.11 @ 11:01AM
Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson were enthusiasts for American domination of the world. Now George Bush appears to be emulating those eminent Democrats. When the Republicans, once upon a time, nominated for the presidency a "One World" candidate, Wendell Willkie, they were sadly trounced. In general, Republicans throughout the twentieth century have been advocates of prudence and restraint in the conduct of foreign affairs----Russell Kirk.
Charles Easterly| 5.6.11 @ 11:19AM
Mr. Guardiano,
Your impressions are similar to the three or four I've read thus far, and interestingly enough they closely echo the predictions of many commentators prior to last night's question-and-answer session.
My impressions are from the last half of the "debate" (I missed the first half).
In brief here were the thoughts I had of the candidates (listed alphabetically):
Mr. Cain appeared to offer "common sense"/good business sense solutions coupled with Republican catch-phrases. Although overall I thought he performed well (his is clearly intelligent, confident, articulate, et cetera), I share your uncertainty regarding his popularity with Mr. Luntz's focus group. He simply did not outperform the other candidates.
The substance of his answers seemed to suggest a philosophy of practicality, and his directness was refreshing.
Governor Johnson made some significant points voters usually do not get to hear but I often found myself thinking he could benefit from a very good public speaking coach.
The substance of his answers could have been better articulated in many cases, but were quite consistent with Libertarian thought so far as I could determine. I wondered if voters would take the time to overlook his "unpolished" manner long enough to hear the substance of his political views.
In general I suppose I can sum up my impression of Congressman Paul's performance as follows: He seemed to offer an interconnected series of significant issues, but left the voters to figure out exactly what he was trying to get across. I wondered if most voters were willing to take the time and thought to understand the potential benefits of his overriding philosophy (reduce the government closer to the size and scope specified in the Constitution and you'll see most of our problems sorted out).
If Governor Johnson could benefit from a public speaking coach, Governor Pawlenty could benefit from getting a new one. So many of his mannerisms and speech patterns echoed those of Senator McCain's that I easily envisioned the latter superimposed over the former.
In this regard I agree with you - Governor Pawlenty appeared "Presidential" in the way voters have been conditioned to see "viable" candidates for the office.
Regarding substance, I thought that the Governor's articulate answers were a blend of principled positions, Republican catch-phrases, and political verbiage.
Senator Santorum resembled Governor Pawlenty in form and I saw a great many similarities between the men. I had the impression that both will be hard to differentiate from among the eventual throng of likely candidates - Governor Romney, Congressman Gingrich, et cetera - once the field fills out. I think Senator Santorum is articulate and benefits from a "Presidential" appearance.
I can offer him the same mixed compliments I gave to Governor Pawlenty: His answers were a blend of principled positions, Republican catch-phrases, and political verbiage.
These are my opinions.
Regards,
Charles
P.S.
I disagree with you with regards to Senator Santorum's responses to the question you mention posed by Juan Williams. I thought that the Senator stumbled his way through several evasions before Mr. Williams finally reiterated the question, whereupon Senator Santorum spoke his way into a coherent-sounding response, yet a response which was inconsistent with what he had previously espoused (in his book). As I wrote of him (and Governor Pawlenty) above , he appears "Presidential" in the way that voters have been conditioned to accept.
-C
Wayne | 5.6.11 @ 11:36AM
Pawlenty would get whipped by Obama. The GOP seriously needs to get a decent candidate.
WJ| 5.6.11 @ 11:37AM
Any one of the candiates, or Palin, or Romney as the GOP nominee = 4 more years of Barrack Obama.
Not one of these pathetic lightweights will be beat B.O., unfortunately.
Pawlenty - boring weasel. Santorum - dumb, (goes for most of them).
I try not to think about the disaster that will happen in 2012 with these clowns.
Grzmlyk| 5.6.11 @ 12:06PM
You are dreaming if you think we can put the genie back into the bottle; ever since the Ottoman Empire broke up, resentments and entanglements have been inevitable, and America is hardly responsbile for the arbitrary carving up of the Middle East; nor are we responsble for the fact that most cheap oil, which powers the industrial world, came from Saudi Arabia in the formative years after WWII, which makes for very complex interrelationships with Muslims and has given rise to many of the problems we face.
In fact, whatever you want to call it, Ron Paul's desire to stick our head in the sand is not possible.
First of all, Paul says this:
There’s nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today. … I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we’re acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapon.
How is having submarines capable of "wiping a country off the map" going to stop a 09/11? Those planes were domestic, with domestic origins. His vision that it was our "entanglements' that led to 9/11 is both historically simplistic and wrong. And what would he do if a 9/11 happened on his watch? Wipe WHO off the map exactly? This is the problem Bush faced.
With respect to the marines in 1983, first off, that's almost 30 years ago; the middle east continues to roil, with or without our participation. Fundamentalist Islam mandates a global caliphate. How's Ron Paul going to deal with that?
Please note that Jihid hasn't just been conducted against America the mean, bullying hegemon - it's been directed at many other countries who haven't been so "interventionist," both Muslim and European.
Also, I remind you that, first of all, that was an ill-advised peacekeeping mission in Beirut, and the US soldiers were sitting ducks; many of the guards had unloaded weapons and security was minimal. Additionally, that kind of terrorism had not been contemplated or prepared for. That was an avoidable catastrophe.
It's understandable that Reagan felt tremendous guilt about those deaths, but our hasty withdrawal caused problems as well; for one thing, it strengthened Hezbollah, which allowed Iran and Syria to have more influence in the region, and our hasty retreat convinced Osama Bin Laden that America was a paper tiger that would turn tail and run in the face of such terror.
How'd that work out for America?
In addition, our retreat breathed life into Al Qaeda; its members were sent to Hezbollah's training camps, thus empowering both groups and faciliating cooperation between Sunnis and Shia.
Al Qaeda was then emboldened to conduct similar bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.
Hezbollah of course went on to become Iran's proxy in the region, inspired as they were by Khomeini's 1979 revolution, and, with no serious retaliation from us after the bombing, has gone on to become a hegemon in the region.
Additionally, our feckless response to the 1993 World Trade Center bombings emboldened Al Qaeda. I could go on and on.
Basically, a presdient Ron Paul's global vision would meet with reality very quickly, and he would doubtless finding himself quoting Michael Corleone, who thought he'd separated himself from the mafia in The Godfather III: "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in again."
WilliamR| 5.6.11 @ 12:48PM
You sound like a hysterical Neocon. When Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in Iran he spent years trying to get the Islamic world to rise up against the decadent West. Didn't work.
As our own CIA tells us we are creating radicals by our actions in the region.
I suggest you get Chalmers Johnson's (CIA) book Blowback.
http://www.amazon.com/Blowback.....0805075593
Grzmlyk| 5.6.11 @ 1:03PM
And you sound like a whack-job, head-in-the-sand fool.
But then you probably already know that.
Yeah, we're creating radicals. How do you explain the terrorism against Spain? Against Britain? India? Indonesia?
You can't. You are a damned moron. Go back to your life sized cut-out of Ron Paul and and put your tinfoil hat on.
Because reality isn't for you.
Clint| 5.6.11 @ 1:47PM
Ronald Reagan,
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path."
Bob K.| 5.7.11 @ 9:56AM
Regarding the definitions Ronald Reagan discussed in his comments on Libertarian and Conservatism and Liberals and Liberalism and Tories above: You should know that definitions change through history along with the definitions of all words.
Samuel Johnson defined Definitions as "Tricks for pedants."
Words change their meanings over time and as a result, over time, ideas change.
"The history of ideas (indeed of all human thought) is inseparable from the history of words." John Lukacs, "DEMOCRACY AND POPULISM-Fear and Hatred." p.117 (from the chapter 'Misuse and misreading of "Fascism." ') Published 2005.
And brother; does this website illustrate the "Fear and Hatred" part of the Title!!
WilliamR| 5.6.11 @ 1:52PM
Spain had troops in Iraq.
Do you honestly believe we can bomb nations and never expect any blowback??
Robert | 5.6.11 @ 2:21PM
And yet for all France and Italy have messed in Moslem countries, they've experienced hardly any of such blowback. I'm not convinced of a causal relationship there.
Dan| 5.6.11 @ 4:08PM
Saying someone who believes in blowback is "blaming" America is grandstanding gotcha politics at its worst. It is no different from the left-wing race hustler who looks for the first opportunity to play the race card. It is shameful rhetoric that is intended to thoughtstop and cut off debate, not contribute to meaningful debate.
To deny blowback is intellectually dishonest and marks the denier as an unserious thinker. You can argue that the current US role is essential and blowback is the necessary price we must pay. You can argue that Islam is the essential factor and we would have issues even without the factor of blowback. You can argue that disengagement would send the wrong message. But you cannot credibly argue that blowback does not exist because it manifestly does. To deny it is unserious.
Chuck| 5.6.11 @ 12:16PM
Reagan in '66 Cal governor's race is the text book way to run a political campaign. Define yourself and stick to your message then dissect the opponent's record piece by piece emphasizing the mistakes and bad policies and coming up with alternatives. I don't see that here especially with no show Romney. The GOP has a problem, Obama is beatable in the mode of Pat Brown and Jimmy Carter but all Republican candidates have a major X factor(s) to deal with and no plan of action with a winning message.
Robert | 5.6.11 @ 2:17PM
True, the frustrating thing about Ron Paul is that he's as naive about the Arabs as Murray Rothbard was about the Russians*. I like the guy, met him a few times year ago, and want him to do well in the primaries, but would be afraid to have him in the White House for that reason.
I'm hoping he pulls the other candidates in his direction on policy matters. When it comes to foreign policy, you don't have to have his naivety to conclude that there's no excuse for an American empire. His policy pronouncements for the present are the best around, it's just that his beliefs about Islamic extremists could lead to frightening results given certain contingencies that I can't even anticipate if he were inaugurated.
The other thing I appreciate is that Ron Paul and Gary Johnson (and yes, I was disappointed by the latter's performance) are now there to make each other look better and not appear as a faction to be ignored. And it seems Herman Cain is also not to be ignored. Too bad that with both Ron Paul and a former regional Federal Reserve Board member at the podium, money per se (as opposed to fiscal policy) was hardly brought up!
* Please understand that by "the Arabs" and "the Russians" I don't mean to make blanket statements about either ethnic group. It's just the easiest way to synopsize.
Red Phillips | 5.6.11 @ 2:17PM
Mr. Guardiano, I know there was an intended message in labeling Pawlenty and Santorum heavyweights and Paul a welterweight, but it wasn't funny or clever. It was silly and makes you seem unserious.
I don't think Paul will win the nomination, but I guarantee you he will get more votes than Santorum (assuming they stay in for equal lengths of time).
Pawlenty has a chance of becoming the centrist "mainstream" candidate not named Romney or Huckabee, but Santorum doesn't have a chance to become either the "mainstream" candidate or the conservative alternative candidate.
Brad9883| 5.6.11 @ 3:06PM
"Herman Cain seemed to strike a chord with Frank Luntz's voter focus group, though I'm not sure how or why."
It's because you're thinking like an establishmentarian. That's why. That's why "only" Pawlenty can beat Romney, the quote-unquote frontrunner.
If you cannot understand what the Tea Party and the conservative base is looking for in a candidate, you should get out of Washington once in a while and talk to what I like to call "people."
David T| 5.6.11 @ 3:59PM
Pawlenty sounds like a politician who has rehearsed his lines too many times. He is a LOSER for the GOP. Same for Daniels. Same for Romney. Same for Huckabee. Same for Gingrinch.
Oldefarte| 5.6.11 @ 4:54PM
I mostly agree with John's analysis. The serious two have to be Pawlenty and the no-show Daniels, who both are/were governors and know how to manage/administer government [and are conservative]. Yes, game's early, so we'll see!!!!
blackwatch| 5.6.11 @ 6:51PM
I'll vote for Herman Cain 2012.
Here's why we want him: He is an accomplished, successful, articulate (and clean too if your Trolling here VP Joe Biden) black business man who knows how to make decisions and is NOT a ruling class RINO pussy weasel.
He will create a giant sucking sound as independants and conservative leaning blacks flee the Democrat banner.
HE WILL KICK OBAMA'S ASS!
Think about this: Barry Dithers & The Tele-promter vs. a real man of conviction, who knows how to make decisions.
It's really no contest. Look for the daggers from the race baiters (Whoopi?) to come flying his way as Cain rises in the polls.
Tina B| 5.6.11 @ 8:47PM
Blackwatch,
That was my son's reply, moments ago, when I said that a vote for Cain could not be the vote of a "racist" who despises Obama and the Mrs. because of their color. He said they'll just call us something else if not racist.
But, I asked, "how does that work, we vote for a black American and we are still called racist?" He said we'd be called "Tomists" because of course, if he runs, the Democraptic libtard media will even more loudly continue to call Herman Cain, and all black conservatives, Uncle Toms. Thereby making us Tomists, instead of regular racists.
I have such a problem with that. It is so racist to even use the term "Uncle Tom" or "Oreo cookie" in regards to a black American who happens to have the opposite of the liberal, progressive Democrat blood running through his or her veins. That, to me, is the sign of a racist.
What a farce. It will come and we can watch, knowing we predicted it. And vote for Herman Cain if he runs for the job in 2012. God bless him and his family in the journey they face very soon.
blackwatch| 5.7.11 @ 12:23AM
Hi Tina,
Until yesterday I was vaguely aware of Mr. Cain's accomplishments. The lamestream media always mentions that he was CEO of Godfathers Pizza and drops it there.
Well he is more than that. I urge anyone with a small business or who works for a business to visit the Herman Cain 2012 website and read his bio. If you are a state worker and vote liberal go there, read his bio, and cry yourself to sleep over what the resume of a success reads like. Compare it to Barry Dithers resume.
Herman Cain accomplished more, served more, created more jobs, saved more jobs, and made America better stronger by just being an example of a successful leader than Barry Dithers and all his sycophants combined.
The GOP needs to put up a "T" diagram with Barry Dithers accomplishments as president on one side and Herman Cains lifetime achievements on the other side of the ledger. No contest.
As for the "Tomists" remarks--I say bring it on!! It's so stupid and offensive it will turn more voters stomaches.
Tina B. have your self a beautiful weekend.
Spicy Joker| 5.7.11 @ 12:34AM
Santorum lost his own state by 22 points. He sucks.
Pawlenty is bland and lightweight.
Spicy Joker| 5.7.11 @ 12:34AM
Santorum lost his own state by 22 points. He sucks.
Pawlenty is bland and lightweight.
Spicy Joker| 5.7.11 @ 12:38AM
Herman Cain has no substance and no experience.
Gary's Johnson is a joke.
Ron Paul is whiny, eccentric, and humorless.
Mike Huckster is a phony.
Newt Gingrich is a washed-up bigmouth.
Twit Romney is a New England liberal.
Donald Chump is a Democrat mole.
solo| 5.7.11 @ 10:57AM
William R Wrote:
"Like I said, you're not a conservative. Ronald Reagan would be considered an isolationist by you and Guardiano. As he wrote in his memoirs,"
I suggest you read Reagan's speech at Point Du Hoc, France. June 6, 1984:
"In spite of our great efforts and successes, not all that followed the end of the war was happy or planned. Some liberated countries were lost. The great sadness of this loss echoes down to our own time in the streets of Warsaw, Prague, and East Berlin. Soviet troops that came to the center of this continent did not leave when peace came. They're still there, uninvited, unwanted, unyielding, almost forty years after the war. Because of this, allied forces still stand on this continent. Today, as forty years ago, our armies are here for only one purpose--to protect and defend democracy. The only territories we hold are memorials like this one and graveyards where our heroes rest.
We in American have learned the bitter lessons from two world wars: It is better to be here ready to protect the peace, than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We've learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent."
The "Isolationism" he's referring to is Ron Paul's current position on foreign affairs.
You pick your dictionary definitions like you pick your Reagan quotes--based on the convenience of the moment.
Try reading history instead of inventing it.
Oh...and can someone name a country which is truly "isolationist" according to the strict definition in the dictionary? Other than perhaps some obscure tribe in the jungles of Borneo or something, one doesn't exist!
In the modern vernacular, for all intents and purposes, Ron Paul is an isolationist!
Certainly Reagan thought so.
Bob K.| 5.7.11 @ 5:37PM
Solo,
You picked the wrong speech by Reagan to illustrate your point. Read the 1st paragraph again.
The Russian troops are gone now. What in he-- are ours still doing there?
I am a Reagan, large R-big C conservative and I've got no truck with Ron Paul although he keeps getting reelected by his constituency. He must somehow keep bringing home the federal bacon to accomplish that: Which makes his principles a bit elastic I think. And his idea of a foreign policy is hardly realistic. But you have to admit that we have been giving him ammunition with nonsense like still having 700 bases world wide and about 68,000 troops in Germany.
Face facts here: Russia is not going to invade Europe! And if Ronald Reagan were around today he would agree with that!
Michael L. Hauschild| 5.7.11 @ 10:03PM
See above for the reasons Palin has chosen to sit out for a while. She is going to pull a page from the Clinton playbook, he waited till October. Rope a dope, sit out till later and let you heavyweights (and the MSM) beat each other to death.