The American Spectator

Solo| 8.14.11 @ 1:04AM

I think it's funny that the search for the next great conservative leader is based in garnering votes by giving away free stuff.
LOL!

Politics doth make whores of us all, does it not?

Clint| 8.14.11 @ 4:45AM

We Tea Party Patriots Delivered A Solid One-Two Message That We Have Changed The Dynamics Of Elections.
And, While The Bloviators Were Blowin' Smoke, We Tea Party Patriots Brought In Our Tea Party Co-Favorite Dr.Ron Paul To A Near Dead Heat Finish.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Carpe Diem.

Jack in Wi.| 8.14.11 @ 10:36AM

You are right Clint: The Tea Party runs the the debate. The campaign is down to four already. Michelle Bachman, Ron Paul, Willard Romney, and Rick Perry. Perry and Romney are the elite's candidates. Both are a pair of boring stiffs. Ron Paul is setting the agenda on foreign policy. He gets huge applause everytime he calls for an end to the wars and bringing the troops home. 59% of the population, by polling, wants an end to these wars and the troops home. 75% of the population wants an end to foreign aid. Ron Paul is setting the agenda on economic and monetary policy as well. Now every candidate sounds like him in calling for small constitutional government.

A. Doer| 8.14.11 @ 11:32AM

Ron Paul is setting the agenda on foreign policy.

The idea of arming Iran with nuclear missiles is really catching on!

Margie| 8.14.11 @ 2:15PM

LOL. Yet another Liberal with a sense of humor.
That makes 2 in one hour here today.

Clint| 8.14.11 @ 3:05PM

Dr.Ron Paul Foreign Policy Advisor & Former Head Of The CIA's bin Laden Unit, Michael Scheuer

On Iran, The President should:

2.) Publicly state that there will be no U.S. surprise attack on Iran, and no U.S. attack at all on Iran unless the president asks for a formal declaration of war and the Congress votes its approval in a constitutional manner.

3.) Call in Israel's ambassador to the United States and tell him that we understand that Israel believes Iran is a threat to its survival, and that we agree that Israel has every right to defend itself. If Israel believes it must go to war with Iran, then so be it. But also tell the ambassador that if Israel attacks Iran, the U.S. administration will declare U.S. neutrality in the war and immediately cut off military and financial support to all combatants in the war."

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 1:14AM

The day Ron Paul gets elected, Israeli nukes will be flying towards Iran, Syria, etc. Why not? Barack won't giove a shit, and Paul is Amalek.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 1:16AM

You honestly think the US will go to war with Israel to protect Iran? If the US tells Israel that under no circumstances will it stop or attempt to stop nuclear proliferation to Iran, and that furthermore it will not defend Israel in any manner, what is the motivation for Israel not using nukes on Iran?

Jack in Wi.| 8.14.11 @ 11:45PM

That's a lie. He never said thast. He said that our CIA has said that Iran is not working on a nuclear weapon. No sane person wants to bomb Iran. They have done nothing to us. They are surrounded by hundreds of nuclear weapons. They are a third world country who can't even supply it;s own gasoline. Israel is just going to have to learn how to live in it's neighborhood. An attack on Iran would destroy what is left of our economy. The people know we were lied into Iraq. They will not stand being lied to about Iran. You neocons have been wrong about everything why should anyone listen to you?

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 1:07AM

Jacjk and Clint: Schuerer MISSED Bin Ladin. And do you clowns really want Israel to be backed up against a wall with 200 nukes? Are you both morons?

By the way, Bachmann is completely opposed to the idiot Paul on Israel.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 1:17AM

In short, Jack and Clint, neither of you two clowns knows about human beings, aggression, or how international politics work. Neither of you clowns, I am sure, have been outside of US borders other than may be trips to Canada. You are clueless, unlike Michele.

martin j smith| 8.14.11 @ 7:45AM

First, for me its the primaries that really count so I will waite and see--my view of open mindedness has not changed except for RON PAUL--HE IS AT LEAST IS BAD AS OBAMA IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENSE ISSUES AND DO NOT BOTHER
TRYING TO PERSUADE ME OTHERWISE BUT GO AHEAD AND TRY. AND, NAME CALLING WILL PROVE I AM RIGHT.

Whoever is the nominee should NOT emulate GWB ( His silence was poison ) or JohMcC ( his incompetence was obvious--or was he currupt ? --no matter same thing )
The candidate needs to be not only motivated, and articulate but vigorous in arguing these things:
Freedom,Free Market Capitalism,Strong national security and AGAINST State control economy that would be socialist and willing to confront Obama ( with a smile ) about HIS FAILED POLICIES.
And the candidate MUST show they cannot be played for a fool by the Socialists such as setting up conditions for debates--FORGET THE MSM
including FOX NEWS as mediators or controllers.
and, be prepared to tackle the ruthless,dirty tricks,lies slander, mudslinging, as well as voter intimidation and even violence. The candidate should have NO ILLUSIONS about eh SOCIALISTS which actually is an INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENT--( IT IS NO ACCIDENT THAT LONDON RIOTS,GREEK RIOTS HAPPENED ).
IN SUMMARY-BE PREPARED.

martin j smith| 8.14.11 @ 8:02AM

Since there are so many candidates I forgot one other absolutely NO ( so Ron Paul fans should not be too slighted ) that would be John Huntsman--RINO- FORGETABOUTIT !!!!!!!!!!!

JimH| 8.14.11 @ 8:47AM

Mr. Smith, I am not going to argue Paul's merits or lack of them with you, but I will say that there has been plenty of name calling from both sides going on here and the tone of the debate would be vastly improved without it. For good or ill he most closely speaks for what once would have been the small government non-interventionist wing of the Republican party. One can reasonably disagree with the man without accusing him of an aversion to pork and alcohol.

A. Doer| 8.14.11 @ 8:01PM

For good or ill he most closely speaks for what once would have been the small government non-interventionist wing of the Republican party.

The small government non-interventionist wing of the Republican party was never bonkers enough to advocate selling nuclear weapons to Iran.

Ron Paul occasionally says something sensible. The rest of the time he's as incoherent and loony as your typical schizophrenic panhandler ... worse really because I've never heard any of them advocating giving nuclear warheads to Islamic fundamentalist countries. He's even crazier than the crazies.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 1:09AM

Dear JimH:

Go to THOMAS. Look up foreign policy votes over the past 4 years. See how often Paul votes with Dennis Kucinich. Trust me, it will be an hour well spent.

Do not believe my arguments, or listen to them. But please, please, check the voting record. It's important.

Clint| 8.14.11 @ 8:18AM

Hey Poopy Face.

Dr.Ron Paul,
“Our military’s purpose is to defend our country, not to police the
Middle East.

“As the President prepares to send even more support to Egypt, we should
be reminded that it was our foreign aid that helped Mubarak retain power
to repress his people in the first place. Now we have to deal with the
consequences of those decisions, yet we keep repeating the same mistakes.

“I am not the only one who can see the absurdities of our foreign
policy. We give $3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her enemies.
Most Americans know that makes no sense.

“We need to come to our senses, trade with our friends in the Middle
East (both Arab and Israeli), clean up our own economic mess so we set a
good example, and allow them to work out their own conflicts.”

Bob| 8.14.11 @ 8:23AM

What a great day for the Democrats, the victor sucked the straw of her ethanol slurpee...slurp slurp slurp slurp, the senile runner-up received a congratulatory phone call from the ayatollah and the front runner was beaten by a write-in shades of racist Strom's victory back in the 50's. Thank you so much.

MikeN| 8.14.11 @ 9:07AM

alluded should be eluded.

Ivan Ivanovich| 8.14.11 @ 9:25AM

"Bachmann has put a dagger into the heart of fellow Minnesotan Tim Pawlenty's campaign"

Paw shot himself in the foot with his nasty comments.

martin j smith| 8.14.11 @ 10:28AM

JIM H: I believe I mentioned name calling towards me writing my oppinion which I believe was straightforward in terms of stating my areas of severe disagreement with Ron Paul. That is all. If you want to argue with others go right ahead.

But, Lets look at Clint: Who is Poopy Face ?
He proves my point and I new he would rise to the occasion. I knew it. So, JimH--THAT IS MY POINT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JimH| 8.14.11 @ 1:10PM

I was not accusing you of calling names. I've had a few tossed at me on this site myself. Feel free to disagree with Paul all you like. I'm not sold on him as a candidate though he says much with which I agree. My point was that the tone of discussion on this site would be improved (though possibly not as much fun for some) without them. No need to amuse the trolls by having various limited government supporters hurling invective at each other.

Jack in Wi.| 8.14.11 @ 10:40AM

No prowar Republican can win. We are sick of endless wars and endless occupations . This country is broke on that kind of thinking.

Margie| 8.14.11 @ 12:33PM

Nobody is "pro war."
That is a misnomer the Paul-bots use to for anyone who isn't a Paul-bot.
LOL.

Solo| 8.14.11 @ 11:29AM

I'm not surprised that most in the country are sick of the wars. I know I am.
10 years is a long time to be involved in two separate (but related?) actions in the Middle East, of all places.

The cost in blood and treasure is hard to justify--particularly in the case of Afghanistan. I don't think that it will ever get better there.

The RuPaul isn't all bad, of course. He's a reliable fiscal conservative and he deserves his props for that.
The country may appear to be "coming around' to his way of thinking on Iraq and Afghanistan, but that's an illusion. The country is sick of it because we've been in there so long.
The country was 180 degrees out of sync with him when it all started.

I think that we, as a country, have learned to be faaaar more careful about where and when we decide to commit our troops in the future. And....given our fiscal crisis, it is high time that we begin to pear back our footprint around the world...and that would include a good hard look at all the money we shovel out around the world.--and to countries who wouldn't pee on us if we were on fire.
This whole "savior of the world" thing has its applications--but it should also have its limits--the key limit being that we only involve ourselves in places where we have an obvious and immediate national interest.

And....I'd like to echo Donald Trump's sentiments here and suggest that, if we're largely providing security to region or nation, they should be helping with the bills.
I'm sick and damned tired of underwriting Europe's Socialist experiment by funding their security needs with my tax dollars.

simon templar| 8.14.11 @ 12:06PM

You make some very good points. I think our military actions for the most part have been launched with good intentions and reasons but often are, in some cases, poorly executed (primarily under democrat presidents), overtly politicized and undermined primarily by democrats, and last longer than expected due to politization and overcommitments. Then there is the free policing of world conflict brought to you by saving the world for democracy politicians at the expense of the American people and its treasury. Then there is the continual appeasement policies, detentes, MAD, and all the other assorted liberal philosophies that lead to even greater problems at later dates. Of course there is the never get involved crowd and the blast the hell out of them and ask questions later crowd. I think most of us want realistic, swift, successful, efficient, smart involvement not protracted politizied expensive messes.

simon templar| 8.14.11 @ 11:51AM

Aaron:

Now, that Pawlenty is out, let's start on Bachmann..the race for the RINO is on!!!!!!!!
(That was sacasm for the illiterate and slow)

simon templar| 8.14.11 @ 11:52AM

That is sarcasm. I hate typos.

simon templar| 8.14.11 @ 12:23PM

Aaron, if she had not won it, what would she be grasping then, an article of yours claiming failure and irrevelancy? Damn if you do, damn if you do not?

Wayne | 8.14.11 @ 12:59PM

I was thinking the same thing.

Solo| 8.14.11 @ 12:49PM

I'm not really all that hyped up on Bachmann. I know many here (and elsewhere) are and I don't mean to belittle anyone's choice.

I've always said that the Primaries are the time to vote ideologically and the General Election is the time to vote strategically.

I just wish she would get her message honed and bone up a bit on policy. She generates a lot of enthusiasm from her supporters but at some point, she's gonna have to generate some substance.

I watched her interview on Fox News Sunday this morning and it was pitiful. She never answered a single question. I don't think she could, reliably. She just kept dancing around them and mouthing generalities and platitudes unrelated to the questions.

The biggest chink in her armor is her rigid adherence to her "No" vote for the debt ceiling increase, regardless of the consequences for failure to increase. That's the question that Wallace wanted her to answer and she wouldn't do it.
She just prattled on about the need to reduce spending. duh!

You know....if you're going to suddenly decide to quit sky-diving, it's usually better to make that "principled stand" at a time other than the time between jumping out of the plane and hitting the ground.
Pull the rip-cord, land safely and THEN stop skydiving!

She better fix this narrative she crows so much about or they will tear her a new one in the debates.

She's not going to be able to avoid the issue forever.

Wayne | 8.14.11 @ 1:02PM

She was right. Obama did not want to waste a crises, so he ginned one up and she refused to buy it. Meanwhile Boehner did buy into it and we have a panel or 12, with 6 of the most liberal democrats in Congress. Bachman was smart to have no part of it.

Solo| 8.14.11 @ 1:53PM

Wayne...I think you missed my point.

Heres a link to the Wallace interview of Bachmann. I challenge anyone here to go there, read that interview carefully and then tell me what her position is on ANY of what they discussed!

She talks in circles, often contradicting herself from one sentence to the next.
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/.....iby?page=1

Notice her comments on Medicare and Social Security.
First...she crows about her signing on to a policy paper, which she later refers to as an "aspirational document" once Wallace corners her on it. This "aspirational document" raises the retirement age and increases the out of pocket expense for Medicaid well above that of Ryan's plan...and for everyone under the age of 59--again much more stringent than Ryan's plan.
She claims that her "support" for this plan is rooted in a desire to address these problems in a more aggressive way--which she claims is necessary.

Then....she refuses to acknowledge that she actually supports that "aspirational document" and claims that she simultaneously has concerns for retirees who can't afford what she is proposing, so she puts an "asterisk" next to the plan on her website!!

Judas Priest!

She does the same thing on the debt increase issue, as previously mentioned above.
She crows about her "principled" stand on her vote and her understanding of the consequences, but then refuses to admit that she'd be willing to have the government default on its obligations for everything from the Pentagon to the Post Office!

I'll tell you what she's doing..
She's pandering to the Tea Party while attempting to avoid any hard connection to the policies she's claiming to embrace so as to be able to ride the Tea Party wave into the White House.

She's talking out of both sides of her mouth. She's embracing legislation or initiatives and then denying any commitment to them by being singularly vague when cornered.

It's either that, or she's too damned stupid to know what she believes in. But one thing is for sure, she didn't give one single straight answer throughout that entire interview.

Oh...and I liked her little reference to how proudly she signed-on to legislation requiring the payment of our National debt as a priority.
LOL!
That requirement is already in the Constitution!

simon templar| 8.14.11 @ 3:19PM

Solo, this is a common technique proposed by her handlers that many politicians employ during the start of the primaries. I also believe that she is being a bit crafty with the likes of Wallace and the media. Look what can happen in a small misstep, tiny mistake, a little bit of an unclear answer, or the tricky 'where did that question come from' question. Remember the 'special' treatment she got as a conservative woman and the double standards..it is a land mine out there. What is with the stupid stuff..are all women stupid with you if they do not do exactly what you think?
Stupid Palin, Stupid Bachmann. I do not hear any stupid Romney, stupid Christie, stupid Perry. What is with the liberal talking points about default. Are you a troll? Pandering to the Tea Party? Just what are you?

Oldefarte| 8.14.11 @ 2:12PM

The essential topic of conversation should be concerning Obama/Democrats, who are destroying this nation. Next year's elections should follow through on the tremendous successes initiated by the valiant tea party folks, and the most successful Republican candidate will be the one who constantly stresses our country's problem regarding same!!!!!!

Margie| 8.14.11 @ 2:37PM

And Oldefarte lands it, bring it back down to reality.
Each candidate has their flaws, may the best man or woman win!!
At least we have many good souls running on our side, and many that haven't yet entered the fray.
What can be said about our opponent's side?
Nothing! Just more of the same. Who will be their Socialism du jour candidate this time around?

simon templar| 8.14.11 @ 3:29PM

Agreed, OF. If we keep going with the divisiveness and circular firing squad, the there will no one standing up, and if someone does survive he/she will be so full of bullet holes, he will be hard to see.
Bammy will then skate back into the whitehouse...and all the smarmy little know-it-alls can buckle down for the final big one. But damn, they made sure no one but the purest blood of their blood got that nomination!
If we keep this shit up, you can count on his reelection..we are doing all his heavy lifting.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.14.11 @ 3:04PM

Mrs. Bachmann is a fine back-bench Representative. God bless her.

Solo| 8.14.11 @ 6:18PM

Simon.....I've never referred to Sarah Palin as "stupid", or even posed the question.

So...I hardly see grounds for suggesting a "trend" here.

And...I realize that candidates need to be a bit aloof in the interviews for fear of making a misstep.

But...these are fundamental issues upon which she is attempting position herself as the "Tea Party" candidate. These positions are what she is attempting to leverage so as to establish her credential.

She should either embrace them whole-heartedly or try another angle. Or....at least learn what it is that she is claiming to support because right now, she's appears either disingenuous or daft.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 1:13AM

Hey,

except for Ru-Paul and the New Mexico pothead, I would vote Republican for anyone else running. Even Obama hasn't stooped to saying that Iran should have nukes.

And Jack and Clint, why should you expect Israel to do ANYTHING we would want if Ron paul gets elected? The day he gets elected, Israeli nukes are flying.

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 1:59AM

The day Israel does that is the day that Israel disappears. You are calling for genocide for no reason. Pakistan can and will blow Israel off the face of the earth. I told that you Israeli' firsters were loons. No wonder we want to kick you out of the conservative movement. Ron Paul has stated numerous times that he wishes Israel well and that he won't interfere in their internal affairs. But he will cut off all aid to both Israel and the Arabs. Aid to Israel is a total violation of the First Amendment. It nothing but a subsidy to a crackpot branch of the Jewish religion. Israel is just going to have to learn how to live in it's neighborhood. I think the Saudi's have enough A bombs now to blow Israel away. The Turks will get them too. The Egyptians too. The Pakistani's already have them. You guys threaten to use nuclear weapons like they were slingshots. Sooner or later the world will say enough.