CNN will be broadcasting a Republican debate Wednesday night from the Mesa Arts Center in Mesa, Arizona. All four GOP candidates will be participating in this crucial shootout just six days prior to the Arizona and Michigan primaries on February 28. This will also be the final debate prior to the Super Tuesday contests on March 6 now that the March 1 debate has been canceled.

Air Time: Wednesday, February 22 at 8pm ET on CNN

Full Video: Watch the full CNN/Arizona Republican debate

Participants: Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, Paul

Report from CNN:

On Wednesday, Feb. 22, Republican presidential hopefuls will face-off for the final debate before a dozen states take to the polls on Super Tuesday. CNN anchor and chief national correspondent John King will moderate the two-hour debate, which will air live from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET from the Mesa Performing Arts Center in Mesa, Arizona.

King, Wolf Blitzer and Erin Burnett will anchor their respective programs live from Mesa on the days surrounding the CNN debate. Anderson Cooper will anchor special, post-debate coverage.

National political correspondent Jim Acosta, senior political correspondent Joe Johns and CNN Radio’s Lisa Desjardins will report from Arizona. In addition, chief political analyst Gloria Borger, senior political analyst David Gergen and CNN political contributors John Avlon, Donna Brazile, Erick Erickson, James Carville and Ari Fleischer will be on site in Arizona to provide insight and analysis across all programming. On the campaign trail covering the candidates leading up to the Arizona and Michigan primaries are reporter-at-large Peter Hamby, political reporter Shannon Travis, and political producers Rachel Streitfeld and Shawna Shepherd.

All four of the leading Republican presidential contenders will participate in Wednesday’s debate: former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. In addition to questions posed to the candidates by King and Arizona Republicans in the audience, the network will solicit questions and comments submitted in real-time from, the CNN Politics fan page on Facebook and by using the #CNNDebate hashtag on Twitter.

Gingrich has been unable to recapture any momentum this month and it appears to be due in part to the debate drought. Back in November/December/January when there was a debate nearly every 2 weeks, Gingrich was able to build on his performances and sway some voters. Similarly Ron Paul hasn’t been able to build any momentum yet having not won a single contest but that probably isn’t due to a lack of debates.

As it stands now, this debate will focus on Santorum and Romney since they are neck-and-neck in both Michigan and Arizona. Recent polls showed Santorum with a substantial lead in Michigan, however, it appears he may have come down off the bounce and the race is tightening again. Arizona has moved the other way for Santorum where Romney held the lead literally for years in polling, however, recent polls show a difference of only a few points.


  1. will this be up anywhere to watch after it has been broadcast? It’s been really difficult to see these debates without tivo or watching pirated uploads on youtube.

  2. Due to the usual voting shenanigans of the ‘Grand Old Party’, “Ron Paul reportedly hasn’t won a single contest”, which is only the usual and expected manure dutifully parroted by the paid shills of the MSM.

    Carry on Ron Paul for the Common People and for Liberty!

    • Windisea

      It’s clear that the GOP doesn’t want Ron Paul. Voter Fraud is running rampant in EVERY Primary and Caucus. In Maine, people are calling for the censure and removal of the “Establishment” GOP Chairman. Ron should run as a Republican right up to the Convention, give his speech and then “break-off” and run as an Independent. This will definitely “piss-off” the GOP, but he’ll surely win the Presidential Election.

      • Darryl — a plausible scenario.

        I trust Ron Paul’s intellect, that he’ll make the right move according to the pieces on the ‘chess board’ at the right time.

        Right now, we need to push on all sides to get his message across, and to assure VALID counting of all votes!

      • Darryl you are 100% correct. This government is total fraud. They are not letting Ron Paul to move forward. They don’t want him to win the elections. See there is a video about the fraud in Maine. It is incredible the things that occur in this country. People think that we are voting for a president??? Think again. Our votes are a dramatic stage. The president have been already selected by the builderbelt, Rothchilds and the gangsters behind the Federal Reserve. For those that are unaware. Federal Reserve is not part of the government is private like Federal Express. Who is behind? Morgans, Rockefeller, Rothchilds, and others. They elect the president for their sinister plan. Not the American people.

      • Ron Paul advocates legailizing drugs….yup great idea mr. Paul after Whitney Houtsons death. now some would dsay she was on prescriptions which is ture, but so you want someone on mushrooms, heroin or other drugs behind thw wheel of a car bangin into your family- not me, I will shoot them!

        • miko shows how much you know about Drugs. Shrooms are harmless, you can’t OD. Who cares about what other people do as long as they are not hurting or stealing from you.

      • Lol. Ron Paul is getting his message out there. People are REJECTING IT. RP supporters turn even more people off by acting like they are the only people ‘paying attention’, and insulting anyone who disagree’s w/ even SOME of his ideas. Now they talk about using ‘hidden’ delagates to vote for him regardless of who a given state might have actually selected. WTF?!?! He chose to get into the GOP race, and now his supports get upset when his message is rejected by that party? Oh, and please explain to me how, if Ron ran as a Republican right up to the Convention, gave his speech and then broke off and ran as an Independent, that he’d surely win the Presidential Election? All that would do is ruin his, and his sons (a much better spokesman for his idea’s, IMHO) place in the GOP, and help re-elect a person who is the antithesis of all he claims to support.

      • So, Paul can’t win primaries because of voter fraud, but he’ll win the general election? I’m a Paul supporter, but I don’t think you’re thinking straight.

    • Windisea — if Ron Paul is marginalized again (as in the other “debates” by the ‘moderators’/orchestrators), then, the Main Stream Media will truly earn the title of: MSM (Maggoty Shilling Marionettes)….

      The funny part is this prediction — Ron Paul will be placed in his usual corner at the podium. Rick is beating his chest saying: “By now, I deserve to be next to Mitt in the center!” Newt is whining: “No way are you putting me in the other corner….”.

      • I’ve been in the business a long time. I keep telling you, Ron Paul needs to come up with snappy one-liners. Take his concepts and boil them down to just a few words. Bumperstickers. The media wants headlines, not exposition. If you talk like a professor, they’ll tune you out. That’s the real reason he’s not getting coverage. His staff is failing him.

        • Goethe Behr — agree that Ron Paul needs to condense his prime Time Message into powerful one-liners (even though this is contrary to his nature of spelling out the substance, not turning it into slogans ala the defunct CCCP practice of slogan propaganda only).

          Disagree that “that’s the real reason he’s not getting coverage” — I believe this to be just partial (the dog-and-pony show of Newt and Mitt had entertainment value (and the media loves such circus), and the upcoming cat-fight btw Rick and Mitt, with sidekick Newt trying to get back into the fray, will be even more entertaining).

          The main reason is that the ones pulling the strings (the financial owners of our country) have instructed their media outlets to do a near black-out on Ron Paul — they fear that if the people hear his true message, they may actually do something about it….

  3. Windisea, I agree that the bias against Ron Paul from this site is pretty obvious. But the bias against Romney is equally biased. But that’s okay — it provides a very valuable service, one which I greatly appreciate, and everyone has a bias. Even us — you for Paul and me for Romney. BTW, Paul is my 2nd choice.

    • You got to tell the people what they want to hear or you just won’t be around very long in the news media.

      Most Americans support the Patriot Act, Ron Paul doesn’t. Most Americans want our armed forces in every country in the world, Ron Paul doesn’t. Most Americans want a war with Iran, China, North Korea, Venezuela, etc. etc., Ron Paul doesn’t. Most Americans want more from the government than it can ever hope to give and don’t care how much it has to go into to try to give it, Ron Paul doesn’t.

      • Billy, I’m not sure it’s true that Americans love war. A lot of it has to do with the way pollsters ask questions. Or “analyze” the results.

        Remember that the American public was overwhelmingly AGAINST war in Iraq UNTIL we got boots on the ground. Then the public thought we should support our troops.

        The trick is to avoid sending our troops into “preemptive” wars with no real goal in the first place.

      • I think that majority of Americans do not support patriot acts, ndaa, wars, genocide and crimes against humanity and that´s why they should support Ron Paul, because he is hope for real changes. Foreign politics of Ron Paul should be constant, because it is very good issue of him: end of foreign wars, US troops home. Many domestic issues are good: lower taxes, spending money where it is needed and many other issues.
        He should change some another issues: firstly, as republican he should strongly support conventional family ( mother, father, children ), social issues should be a little bit improved especially social issues for families, even social support for families and even single parents.
        Changes in foreign policy are very needed, change in domestic politics and strong support for conventional families and even single parents.
        Do not condemn gays and prostitutes but do not support it strongly.
        To be president is the art of compromise just like marriage and some issues should be rather corrected . Republican electorate is conservative electorate and very brave issues like gays and prostitutes can be not accepted by this US society especially, but republican electorate. It should be changed to make from Ron Paul really ideal candidate of republicans. He must win, he makes it for his own country.

      • You are so ignorant, most of America is against the patriot act, and most people who support it don’t even know most of the contents, its just because of the name “patriot” which is what got it passed in the first place, if it had been called “Repeal of 4th Amendment Act”, you really think it’d be passed?

        • Pierre, it’d be nice, but it’s not true that “most of America is against the Patriot Act.”

          The sad fact is that “most of America” just doesn’t care. If it doesn’t directly impact them, they’re too busy scraping by to care.

          Look at Prohibition. They took away our BOOZE, for cryin’ out loud, and it took us a DECADE to get it back.

          I’m amazed we have any rights at all.

  4. Everybody thinks everybody else is biased against their candidate.

    That is the nature of the religion we call politics.

  5. Let’s stop this “holier than thou” attitude about “bias” for or against politians. I’m more concerned about those who have “no dog in the fight”

    • Loran Partigianoni

      I’m not sure what you mean when you say “I’m more concerned about those who have “no dog in the fight”

      Because I’m a Ron Paul Supporter, I also have STRONG reservations concerning the Candidates who have “no dog in the fight”. I’m assuming that because you used the word “fight”, that you’re referring to war.

      Ron Paul is the ONLY Military Veteran in the race. With that said, Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Obama elected NOT to Serve Our Country in the Military. In fact, NONE of their Children bothered to sign-up as well. So, the “dog in the fight” analogy is quite clear to me. Ron Paul understands that the United States SHOULDN’T go to War unless it’s Declared by Congress according to Our Constitution. He reiterates that “Going-to-War” should be done with a CLEAR OBJECTIVE in mind and only when necessary after the Congress (the People) consider the whole matter. All the other Candidates are “Chicken-Hawks” who have NO Dog in the Fight, but they are “quick” to pull-the-trigger.

      • Darryl, I agree with you that a declaration of war is essential, but I do think Congressional resolutions and funding of war efforts constitutes a implicit declaration of war — but I do wish the declaration of wars were explicit, not implicit.

        However, I strongly disagree that military service is an essential requirement for the President. In the Viet Nam war we had a draft, with legitimate deferments, and anyone who got a legitimate deferment still has my respect. I don’t believe having served in the military is an essential experience to being Commander in Chief. In fact, long service in the military has not proven to be a good predictor of being a good President, and I don’t think Kerry’s service in the military did him any favors, nor did McCain’s. There are many ways to serve our country — being in the military isn’t the only way.

        • Marlene

          Is there a “qualification” difference between Commander in Chief and Chicken-Hawk in Chief? If the Commander in Chief is going to be sending our young men and women into harms way, he/she HAD BETTER DAMN WELL have some Military experience! This isn’t a video game. The lives of our young people depend on someone who UNDERSTANDS Military SERVICE! Look what we have now – A “Community Organizer” using our Military to invade Countries and commit Mass Murder against a Civilian Population! These Countries have done NOTHING to us!

          Ron Paul is the ONLY Veteran in the Race, hence, the ONLY Candidate QUALIFIED to be Commander in Chief!

          • Daryl, show me in the Constitution where having military experience is a prerequisite for being President? It isn’t. It’s your mind-set that a person can’t be a good Commander in Chief without military experience, but it’s not a Constitutional prerequisite. It’s certainly not a factor that I consider essential. Are you telling me that if Paul had the same foreign policy views but had not served in the military, that you would say he was not qualified to be commander in chief and call him chicken-hawk in chief?

            • Marlene

              I never said it was a Constitutional prerequisite for the Presidency. That was my opinion. However, you do make my point quite clearly. If you don’t think that that factor is essential to be Commander-in-Chief of the Military, then what is?

          • Darryl,
            The whole idea of separate services is that each has a specialty. Although they sometimes share skill sets they don’t always. As a vietnam vet I can tell you that there are many men that I would follow into a firefight that I would not want at the nation’s helm and vice versa.
            I agree with Ron on his views. My concern with Ron Paul is that his leadership skills may not be the most needed at this time.
            If you look at the military service of presidents past you will see that it did not portend the actual accomplishment or lack thereof. In fact one of the greatest presidents of the twenty first century COULD NOT SERVE! Yes FDR was a liberal dem but he led the US to WWII victory!
            Ron did serve. in the Air Force Medical. Yes he saw combat. That does not mean don’t vote for him. But it certainly does not prequalify him any more than Eisenhower’s military service qualified him. as history shows.
            And calling other people names for dissagreeing with your views will lose them. and the chances your candidate will win diminish.

          • Oh btw.
            three of the first five presidents had no military service.
            thirteen of our fourty four presidents had no military service.
            Of those with military service five were state militias or national guard.
            one was a chaplain.
            nevermind where he served. how did he serve? what did he do? How did he lead?
            I’ll take a man who served as an entertainer in the army over a boat commander in the Navy if they demonstrate skill in leading a civilian group to effective legislation and governance.
            Again. I agree with the Ron Paul position. I doubt his ability to lead a divided nation. He still has time to change my mind.

  6. The attacks are going to be aimed at Santorum, we’ll see how RS is on the defense instead of always attacking.

    • It should be interesting. The last several debates have been between Mitt and Newt and two other guys. This time, it will be between Mitt and Santorum, but there’s no way anybody can shut up Newt, so it’ll be a three-way fight.

      Ron Paul needs someone to write some one-liners for him. The media only really hear bumpersticker mentality.

      • Goethe Behr — very astute observation.

        All you stated is spot on!

        My only reserve is, will it be a true debate this time….

  7. Why not highlight Rick Santorum’s name in the list of debate participants? Every other candidate is highlighted/able to be clicked on. Thanks!

  8. Ron Paul may have won the Maine Caucus, the most recent voting of only a week ago. We’ll see if there is any mention of this in the debate. There was either incompetence or an intentional attempt to give the election to Romney. Yesterdays Chicago Tribune has a summary of what has been going on for the last two weeks.

    The front page of the Albany Herald (Georgia) newspaper announced the start of early primary voting by showing pics of Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and Obama. You’d think that with only 4 Republicans in the race they could fit all 4 onto the front page.

      • Now johnny…. how did you ever get that conclusion. O.o Last time i checked he was (and still is) bashing Romney for being a flip-flopper, making a model for Obamacare, shady tactics in Bain Capital, and increasing military spending/size. He’s never once commended Romney in the debates, only Santorum and Gingrich.

        Are you sure your not a Ron Paul supporter because it seems like your smoking something strong.

      • What, exactly, are YOU listening to? Several times, when asked if he could support Romney as the GOP nominee, Paul has said that he couldn’t imagine himself doing that since they saw the issues so differently and he sees Romney as just “more of the same.” How, exactly, does that make him a Mitt Romney supporter??

  9. Ron Paul is almost ideal candidate and he would be really good, strong president.
    His issues: foreign policy, domestic policy are good.
    He must improve some issues: he must support family and middle class more strongly.
    He could resign from some issues just like this prostitution or gays. It would help him. His electorate is conservative electorate and he must make compromise with his electorate.
    He should promote such issues:
    – foreign policy – end all foreign wars immedietely, because it is not moral and it bring USA to brink of bancruptcy, bring all US troops home because they are Americans too and they are not cannon fodder for illegal, criminal wars of some global criminals. No new wars.
    – to repeal patriot acts, ndaa and all this act of war, like prevent war
    – to stop to support another countries financially, because it will bring USA to bancruptcy
    – to support American especially conventional families strongly with all possible methods auch financially, help for single parents, to support middle class, to low taxes
    – not to condemn such issues like prostitutions or gay marriages, but not to promote it for every price, it is really not important and it will bring nothing better, if it will be legal or illegal. There are many more important issues, which should be promoted and changed.

  10. The media and the moderate has been too kind to Mitt Romney and has been too harsh to Santorum. Is the media in Mitt’s deep pockets?

  11. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (we’ve heard the Bad and Ugly on all candidates), so interested only in the “GOOD” for this topic.

    What is the attraction that makes people vote for them:

    Mitt Romney I see as a distinguished-looking gentleman (tall and handsome) with the right amount of silver on his temples. Speaks smoothly and cracks the occasional joke, always well groomed and confident that his business abilities can translate into political success.

    Newt Gingrich has proven his ability to land on his feet time and again. His resilience to bounce back from whatever setbacks he dug himself in, or were dug by others, is astounding. His debating skills are outstanding.

    Rick Santorum — on this one I’m a kinda stumped. (Family man and a good Christian)?

    Please, post your views ONLY on the GOOD you see in each (so perhaps we can deduce why voters are attracted by them).

    • The only thing I hear about Romney over and over is “he’s electable.” Newt’s is “he’s a fighter.” Santorum’s is “he’s religious.” And the praise for Ron Paul has more to do with honor and integrity and dedication to the Constitution.

  12. I just hope John King is done with the gotcha questions.. Oh and that group on CNN who analyze after the debate they are all liberal nuts..Why is this? They should have equal number of left and right analyziers to be fair..I want CNN to be fair and when the debate with Obama and whomever takes place I want them to treat both candidates the same instead of the kid glove treatment for OBama , who is not even elgible to be President…

  13. Ron Paul running as an independent will give Obama another four years. We have to rally around the nominee because it’s a close election.

    • TJ

      No. Rallying around any other Candidate, besides Ron Paul, will just bring 4 more years of the Status-Quo. Democrats and Republicans are the SAME despite what Rush Limbaugh says. Just look at the NDAA Legislation. This Unconstitutional Legislation was “authored and sponsored” by Republicans. It passed the Senate 93-7 and President Obama signed it on New Years Eve. The Status-Quo is the Problem with America, not Obama!

  14. Statement by Michael Farris, constitutional attorney and founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association, regarding Ron Paul.

    “The very best evidence of a person’s views are what comes out of their own mouths. And given Ron Paul’s views on homosexual marriage, the morning after pill, pornography, etc. there is confirmation that he in fact is not allowing his Christian views to influence his public policy points. And, I am frankly tired of the inaccurate (both factually and constitutionally) defense that all he is saying that he simply doesn’t want the federal government to be involved. If you read his book, if you listen to his speeches, it is beyond debate that he argues that drugs should be legalized by all levels of government. He argues that homosexuals should be allowed to marry by all levels of government. Moreover, there is a LIMITED federal role in all of these areas. The federal government has the duty to stop drugs from being imported from Mexico. Most drug crimes should be at the state level. But international importation of drugs is a constitutionally legitimate federal issue. The same is true on the international importation of porn. The same is true about marriages performed on military bases. So, it is simply false to say there is NO federal role on any of these moral issues. LIMITED ROLE? Yes.

    Ron Paul is a libertarian first and foremost. That is the explanation for his philosophy. The people who try to falsely wrap this stuff up as biblical worldview and in the name of federalism do damage to both a legitimate understanding of the both the Bible and the Constitution.

    I am not saying that any of the other candidates are heroes. But, none of the other candidates are being foisted on the Christian community with the steady drumbeat that everything he says is the equivalent of a Christian worldview.

    This is the worldview of Ayn Rand–a blatant atheist.

    I will not stand by silently no matter how many Christian leaders line up to defend this godless political philosophy. I am getting the tar kicked out of me for being willing to criticize this man for his erroneous philosophy. But, I can do nothing else. Here I stand. I will not relent. The defense of the Word of God and a Christian worldview is at stake.”

    Michael Farris


    “Ron Paul is an enemy of the legal principles that the homeschooling movement has used successfully to defend our freedom to teach our own children. He recently said that he does not believe that the 14th Amendment trumps the 10th Amendment. He said this is an abortion context (which proves that he is not politically pro-life) but, let’s examine what this means in a homeschooling context.

    In the 1920s, the State of Oregon banned all private education. This Oregon law was challenged as a violation of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause prohibited states from banning private education because this overrode parental rights in an unconstitutional fashion.

    If Ron Paul’s philosophy were applied to this case, then Oregon’s law would have prevailed under the 10th Amendment.

    The case I won before the Supreme Court of Michigan for homeschooling freedom was based on the 14th Amendment. The federal constitutional principles of religious freedom and parental rights overrode the power of Michigan to require homeschoolers to all be certified teachers.

    The homeschool victory that I argued before the Court of Appeal of California when that court had previously ruled that homeschooling was illegal in that state–was based on the 14th Amendment.

    I could go on.

    Home schooling would be legal in about 3 states in this country today if Ron Paul’s view of the Constitution was actually practiced by the Supreme Court.

    So I have a question for all of the members of Homeschoolers for Ron Paul: Do you agree with Ron Paul that the states have the exclusive authority over the legality of homeschooling and the 14th Amendment provides no constitutional right to homeschool?

    How can you support a candidate who denies the very constitutional principle that our movement used to win our freedom?

    Supporting Ron Paul in the name of homeschooling is like supporting Barack Obama in the name of reducing the national debt.”

    Michael Farris


    “Whenever I post anything about Ron Paul, I can expect a firestorm. The post from this morning was no exception. The responses I got from Ron Paul supporters tend to indicate that there is a general lack of understanding of what it means to be a constitutional conservative–to support the original meaning of the Constitution.

    And there is a great deal of misunderstanding about the principles of federalism.

    My objective here is to make sure that the Christian community in general and the homeschooling community specifically learns how to analyze and think from a constitutional perspective and with a biblical worldview.

    Let me make sure that I am very clear about what I am saying about Ron Paul and homeschooling. First, there is no doubt that Ron Paul supports homeschooling in a personal sense. That is absolutely clear. Second, (in the utterly unlikely event that he ended up being President) he would veto any legislation that would be considered anti-homeschooling.

    All of that is to conclude that Ron Paul would support homeschooling as a LEGISLATIVE matter.

    However, it is beyond debate that he opposes the CONSTITUTIONAL theory that has been the basis of homeschooling freedom for the last 30 years.

    So, my goal is to make sure that homeschoolers understand that if they are supporting Ron Paul, they are supporting a man who does not think that they have the US Constitutional RIGHT to homeschool your children.

    Here is why that is so.

    Ron Paul says that the 10th Amendment is not overridden by the 14th Amendment.

    That is simply not true. The 10th Amendment is still valid and settles almost every dispute between CONGRESS and the STATES. If we were following the Constitution, the states would win virtually every current debate with Congress.

    But, the 14th Amendment does not deal primarily with disputes between Congress and the States. Rather, the 14th Amendment is the source of law that protects the PEOPLE against the STATES.

    It was the 14th Amendment that the Supreme Court used to say that the states cannot deny the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. The Second Amendment does not apply directly to the states. It applies through the 14th Amendment.

    And it is the 14th Amendment that, if it was correctly interpreted, would protect the right to life of the unborn. The Amendment says that no PERSON shall be denied life without due process. And it is beyond legitimate debate that at the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment that unborn children were recognized as persons possessing the right to life both legally and medically.

    And it was the 14th Amendment that protected the right of parents to choose private education when the State of Oregon passed legislation in the 1920s banning all private schools.

    It was the 14th Amendment’s protection of religious freedom and parental rights that I have used for almost 30 years to protect the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of parents to choose homeschooling.

    And here comes Ron Paul saying that the 10th Amendment trumps the 14th Amendment. His words have meaning.

    By those words he is not taking a stand on behalf of the states against Congress. Rather, he is taking a stand on behalf of the states against the rights of the people.

    Frankly, if I could sit with Ron Paul and explain all of this to him, I think he might well change his mind.

    But, this is just one more example of the fact that Ron Paul is not very well educated on the meaning and working of the actual Constitution.

    He understands Ayn Rand’s economic and amoral libertarianism very well. He does not understand the Constitution of the United States at the same level.

    The 14th Amendment’s core meaning is that the States cannot trample the rights of the people. I am really glad we have the 14th Amendment.

    Every homeschooler in America should be really glad we have the 14th Amendment.

    Do you really want a president appointing federal judges who think that there is no US constitutional protection for parental rights, religious freedom, gun ownership, etc. as it pertains to the states?

    I don’t.”

    Michael Farris

    • @TJ

      You have misunderstandings of Ayn Rand when you say (or present without further clarification) something like this:

      “He understands Ayn Rand’s economic and amoral libertarianism very well. He does not understand the Constitution of the United States at the same level.

      The 14th Amendment’s core meaning is that the States cannot trample the rights of the people. I am really glad we have the 14th Amendment.”

      Ayn Rand and her Objectivist followers were clearly in favor of individual rights. Ayn Rand said repeatedly that she favored the individual and the ego above all else. At, which is one of their major publications, they have actually criticized the states right movements when they see that the states rights views do not coincide with their own.

      Also, where does he get off calling libertarianism amoral? What is amoral about not starting violence against someone else? Do you or I attack people on the street for money? No. All libertarianism asks is that we extend this logic to politics as well. Peaceful interaction is the default or the null hypothesis. I don’t have to explain why people should be peaceful with each other. I do have to explain why someone should be violent against someone else.

      The constitution as followed is quite a libertarian document, contrary to what many conservative and liberal sophists claim.

    • TJ, here is the crux of Michael Farris’ problem: He (Farris) says: “Frankly, if I could sit with Ron Paul and explain all of this to him, I think he might well change his mind.” But has Farris called/written Paul and asked for a meeting on the topic? I’d give you 100-to-1 odds that he has not. Farris is a good attorney, and in presenting his case against Paul, Farris would never leave out such an important piece of evidence (that being, if he had asked to meet and been denied).

      No, Farris apparently prefers to rant without responsibility.

      I personally believe that Paul is not 100% right on this 10th-vs-14th issue, but I am not all that concerned because 1) a President who follows the Constitution does not rule by executive fiat, 2) Paul, more than anyone else now or previously in the race, follows the Constitution, 3) if presented with a sound argument that rebuts his own understanding, I am confident that Paul would change his stance, but only based upon a sound argument AND his own followup analysis.

      Farris is just plain mis-directed on some of his other issues. For instance, he states that the Federal government has a limited role in the “drug war”, for instance, based on the notion that the fed. gov’t has a legitimate interest in controlling the import of drugs. But that notion is based on the idea that the fed gov’t has a legitimate interest in any trade issue it decides to get involved in. Would we allow the fed gov’t to get away with categorically denying the import of all foreign-made electronics? Of course not, and neither would Farris, I’m sure, so it is clear that the issue is not trade per se, but drugs pure and simple, so his argument fails. If the federal government needed the 18th Amendment 100 years ago to control production/transport/sale of intoxicating beverages, then it certainly needs the same explicit constitutional permission today to restrict drug use. Idiots will still abuse drugs, just like idiots still abuse alcohol (and much more often).

  15. Okay, here goes, in order of my preference — in highlighting these “goods” I’m not suggesting the other candidates are lacking, just listing what I think each candidate’s strongest, differentiating points are, and as is always true in life, what I see as a strength another will see as a weakness. Some things are true about each of the candidates, to enough of a degree that they count: principled policies (not just what the voters want to hear), love of country, recognition of the severity of the situation we are in, willing to make bold moves and take the political flack if any policies fail, pro-life, and pro-family. However, negatives do play a significant role in my ranking, but I’ll just list the positives.

    Romney: proven ability to run a successful business, understands from first-hand experience how the Federal Govt impacts business, proven ability to turn around a bad situation in both business and politics, ability to work with the other party that is in the majority and not get deadlocked, balanced a state budget and the budgets of the Olympics and businesses, appealing to independents and moderate Democrats because he is not as extreme in his social views, strong sense of State’s rights, good sense of humor and can laugh at himself, has definite plans for downsizing the federal govt.

    Paul: ability to focus on core problems, willingness to stand firm in the face of opposition or indifference from his own party, willing to call his own party down when it is wrong, strong sense of State’s rights, strongest sense of loss of personal freedoms over the years, more interested in being free than in being safe, the most radical plans for downsizing the federal government (radical is not a pejorative in this instance), good sense of humor and can laugh at himself

    Santorum: understands how the Congress works and all its various nuances, willing to be very vocal in matters of faith and doesn’t back down when attacked, able to build coalitions, life experiences that demonstrate he practices what he preaches when the going gets really tough on social issues

    Gingrich: proven experience working with other party, proven experience being able to build a large coalition, intimate knowledge of how Congress works, proven ability to deliver on promises made to voters, balanced a federal budget, has good ideas for downsizing the federal government

    • Marlene — very cogent post.

      Since I don’t think people at this time are voting for the “lesser evil” but for what they perceive is the GOOD in a candidate — I’m trying to gain an understanding as to WHY.

      So far the voting for Mitt, Newt, Ron makes some sense (disregarding the money spent on commercials, or alleged voter fraud).

      What I still cannot understand is the Rick phenomena….

      Perhaps others will post their views on what they perceive is GOOD about Santorum.

      • Surfisher, I hope others do respond to your request, but I also have an opinion on the subject of the Rick phenomena. He appeals to the social far-right. He not only holds the right views, but his life experiences demonstrates that he full believes what he preaches. The social far-right needs an alternative to Romney because of the anti-Mormon issue. They flirted briefly with Newt then realized it was really pretty hypocritical because of Newt’s morally-scarred personal life — they could have accepted his ‘reformation’ but why do so, when you have a candidate that doesn’t stand in need of reformation (thus no baggage). So they saw the light and ran en masse to Santorum’s support. So Santorum’s strength to them is an unabashed, unapologetic stand for everything they believe in: pro-life (even in instances of rape and incest), pro-marriage (not just retaining the current definition of marriage, but eliminating all gay unions), creationism, rejection of global warming, getting the government totally out of schools (not just pushing out the Feds by eliminating the dept of education, but also getting State governments out of education), and pro-Israel (not to just be an ally, but to fight Israel’s battles for her). For me, they are not positives for Santorum because they are unnecessarily extreme as indicated in the parenthetical remarks.

        • Marlene, I applaud your even-handed analysis. I want to point out (I am a Paul supporter) that I agree with a great many of Santorum’s “extreme” philosophies, but a very big problem is that Santorum has proven himself all too willing to put pragmatics above principle (e.g. voting FOR an omnibus spending bill that included funding for Planned Parenthood). Santorum readily admits this, and (shockingly, at least to me) touts it as a positive. One live-blogger of last night’s debate put it this way “Santorum, on live national TV, just said that he set aside principle for nakedly political purposes.”

  16. -Ron Paul: Has been an OBGYN for over 30+ years, he knows how to fix the medicare

    problems, he is the only veteran, and served in the air force, and he knows about the

    constitutionality of war, he is not afraid to speak truth to power, and cares more about

    getting you to understand his points than to just catch your attention with one liners

    but not have any backing, which is what the other candidates do, he has lived the

    longest and has the most variety of work experiences, he has been married for 55 years

    and has VERY good moral values, he knows that we are born to be free, and he does

    care about safety, so much that he wants to increase our national defense by bringing

    the troops onto our own soil instead of diluting them across the world and bombing

    other countries, did you know we have more troops on the south korea border than we

    do on our own borders?

  17. I don’t understand how people who consider themselves to be a conservative back Mitt Romney when if you do any research at all, as easy as watching him in videos on youtube, you find what he really stands for. There are many videos where he himself speaks to his beliefs and stances on the issues, showing him to be a moderate at the very best, liberal on most.Romney is truly only slightly right of Obama on most issues. I can understand changing your postion on 1 or 2 issues, but to change on the majority of them just reeks of political expediency.

  18. Darryl, Obama is about to change the status quo and make it ALOT worse with Obamacare. At least Rick Santorum has integrity, and plans to cut one trillion the first year. Mitt Romney balanced his budget in Massechusetts. If we get a republican president, Paul Ryan will make them pass his budget plan. If you are in a swing state, any vote for Ron Paul this fall is a vote for Obama and this country will go bankrupt in a few short years. This is very serious and I hope you will listen.

  19. Sorry, TJ, but it is RON PAUL who will cut 1 Trillion the first year and balance the budget in 3 and he will protect our rights and liberties. Dr. Paul won’t have cameras in your bedroom or expect you to be “just like him” or be pushing the buttons of war on a whim like RS.

    If we don’t stand for what is right and who the right one to bring it to bear is(RON PAUL), we don’t stand a chance.

  20. CNN better not try to skip and ignore Dr Ron again.

    Only Four Candidates
    Equal Time For All
    Only One Veteran

  21. Please read my announcement. I will discuss any topic and give you my views and ideas. You can see my Facebook page “Christopher Canaski for President”

    I am announced my candidacy for the Republican nomination for President of the United States on September 7, 2011. I made this decision for many reasons, but there a few very important ones. Leadership is the most important. This is the most important quality that the citizens of this country demand of their President. Our President has displayed a continued lack of leadership, eloquent speeches, but no action. President Harry Truman said, “In periods where there is no leadership, society stands still. Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better.” Where are we now under President Obama? His lack of leadership and courage dates back to his days as an Illinois State Senator when he refused to take a stand and voted present 36 times.

    As President I will take a stand on the issues and you will know my position and why I believe in those ideas. No eloquent speeches without substance, just action. I will lead us in the right direction, with everyone working together for the good of the nation.

    I am the polar opposite of the President on the role of government. Government is not the answer to all of our problems. The federal government has grown too large and interferes in our daily lives. It needs to be vastly reduced and we must remember what our founding fathers wrote about the purpose of government.

    “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    In the days to follow, I will detail how we must reduce the size of the federal government to conform to the principles of our Constitution. One example of promoting the general welfare means taking care of children, the elderly and the disabled; not telling us what type of light bulb we can use or how we choose to provide for our own health care.

    I do not believe in an “entitlement” mentality in our society, but I do believe in a safety net for our citizens. People should be rewarded for hard work, not penalized by our government. I believe in capitalism, not socialism. The private sector creates jobs. Government should create an environment that allows the private sector to grow and create jobs. The only jobs created by government are those for essential services.

    I believe in a fair and equitable tax system. We should not be scrambling every year to fill out tax forms. There should be no need for individuals and businesses to search for tax “loop holes.”

    We will fight terrorism and defend our country. We will secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws. Our nation is a nation of immigrants. We are all proud of our heritage, but we are all Americans. We are a free nation. Free to practice our religion, but we are a Christian nation.

    It is time for ordinary citizens to become involved in government. Every election cycle gives us career politicians who are out of touch with the day to day problems we face. I have had personal and financial struggles and have suffered being laid off, only to accept a job at half the salary I was accustomed to earning. What day to day struggles do the current candidates have in common with the working people of this country? I don’t think I personally know someone that can afford to attend a thirty-five thousand dollar fund raiser.

    I pledge to do bring honor to the office of President of the United States. I pledge to be an accessible and hard working President. I will surround myself with a competent and experienced cabinet and staff to give this country back to the people where it belongs. I will never forget that I work for you.


    Christopher C. Canaski

    I am hoping to do well in the Washington State caucuses.

        • Here is what I posted on my FB page this morning.
          ?”Bombing, shooting spree kills 50 in Iraq”, “Man dressed in Afghan army uniform kills two NATO soldiers”, Iran condems Chrisitan pastor convert to death, Syrians and Egyptians are killing each other and 5 are killed in Afghanistan during Koran burning protests. Why are we bothering to “change the hearts and minds ” of these people? On September 12, 2001 we needed a George Patton to take care of business in Afghanistan and get out.


          The 2 NATO troops killed in response to the Koran incident were American soldiers.

  22. TJ… the dollar is toast regardless of who becomes the next president. Ron Paul is the only candidate that understands this and is willing to fight the FED.

  23. Any of those “so called clowns” plus my dog would be better than we have now. Most people still prefer freedom and liberty to tyranny. Of course, if you want to continue to be told how to live your life, maybe a different country would do. I prefer not being told what to eat, the kind of light bulb to use, or the kind of car to drive, etc.

  24. Anyone have the link to the live debate? CNN’s site is like adult ADD on crack and the only link I can find turns out to be a commercial for the debate…

  25. how is it the presidents fault that the auto bail out passed isn’t it congresses job to appropriate money?

    • Zadoc Paet

      I just voted Zadoc her are the results at 10:32 PCT


      Texas Rep. Ron Paul flag

      Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich flag 7%

      Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney flag 3%

      Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum flag 1%

      No one won flag 0.6%

      It was a four-way tie flag 0%

  26. Ron Paul is the only constitutional candidate! Media will not stop the Revolution! His and only his record is as steady as his flight surgeon hands. GUN OWNERS RON PAUL IS THE ONLY ONE THAT WILL PROTECT THE 2ND AMENDMENT!

  27. Santorum, is a fake be not afraid America RON PAUL WILL RESTORE AMERICA NOW! THE MAN WE CAN TRUST. The rest are RHINO’S!

  28. RON PAUL will protect America stop letting the media scare you that Ron Paul is week on defense! He is stronger on defense than any of these other RHINOS

    • Goethe Behr

      “Ron Paul did make the point that it’s not “good” to vote for “bad” things just to be a team player. Clearly, the audience didn’t like that. And that’s his problem.”

      Wrong. It is America’s problem, that and our spoiled self-indulgent complacency which may too soon be our end.

      • And that’s what’s wrong with this blog. People agree and still yell at each other. It IS Ron Paul’s problem, because HE is the one running.

        In today’s media world, you need to look good and to have quick jabs.

        Ron looked old and frail because he didn’t have makeup. And he didn’t get much attention, because he didn’t have prepared one-liners.

        When he’s giving a speech, he can give full explanations, but at a debate, he needs to learn out to boil down his message to just two or three words. It shouldn’t be that way, but it is.

        • Goethe Behr

          Repeat Post

          Realistically – NO one cares about politics. They know it’s all a sham.

          And without Ron Paul in the race, that number would be even less.

          I don’t mean to pick-on-you, Goethe Behr, but certain things must be put into perspective on what you said about Ron Paul, his age, not having make-up on and not being prepared with “one-liners”. I’ll call the scenario you put forth – the PROBLEM with “typical” voter.

          The typical “voter” would much rather live in a FAILED Economy as long as they get a leader who “looks” strong.

          These voters are the typical “scared little kids” who need a strong “father figure” in the house – even if he’s a DRUNK ABUSER.

          These voters cannot stand living in a “Healthy” household with a “frail appearing” or “older” father figure. (Ron Paul) They need that “strong looking”, “Presidential looking” guy sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office, no matter if he’s just an Unqualified “Politician”. They NEED their President to “look strong”. It doesn’t matter to them what he stands for or how much he will “abuse” them with his Policies. He’s got to “look strong!”

          These “typical” voters have been SO ABUSED by these CORRUPT and SELF-SERVING “Politicians” during each and every election cycle, that they don’t know any “different way” to view a Candidate. The Media ABUSES them, too, by just promoting Candidates of the Status-Quo. These voters have now become so “acclimated” to the ABUSE that they can NO Longer “grasp” the concept of a Society or an Economy that is “Healthy”. So what do they do? They JOIN-IN with the ABUSER mindset and proceed to “verbally” Abuse Ron Paul publicly by calling him “old and frail”.

          It just shows that Ron Paul is WAY TOO INDEPENDENT for their psyches to handle. These voters would rather have a Romney/Newt/Santorum/Obama as President, who will exemplify the strong “father” leader who makes “everything appear okay”, but is really shoveling more sh*t under the rug.

          It’s all about perception as usual.

          The Independent intellects perceive Ron Paul to be a good leader.
          The Dependent “scared” little children perceive Romney/Newt/Santorum/Obama to be a good leader.

          I would say that the PROBLEM is NOT Ron Paul’s PROBLEM. It’s a “typical voter” Problem.

          • Dream what you like. As Claudius said in Hamlet, “the distracted multitude,
            Who like not in their judgment, but their eyes.”

            Paul can be brilliant, but nobody will know if he looks like a frail old man and can’t deliver a memorable phrase.

            The fact is that most people are not policy wonks. They just want to put food on the table. They don’t have time to wade through long speeches. If Paul can’t distill his message to a few words, he is just not going to reach the public.

  29. Ron Paul did make the point that it’s not “good” to vote for “bad” things just to be a team player. Clearly, the audience didn’t like that. And that’s his problem.

    • Goethe Behr

      And Ron Paul is EXACTLY Right! The Democrats and Republicans are essentially the SAME! They Vote the SAME way. They work for the SAME “Puppet Masters”. (The Banks on Wall Street) They REPRESENT the SAME Corporate Entities. (The Special Interests) They BOTH follow the “dictates” of Israel to “use” OUR Military to fight undeclared Wars of Aggression against Israel’s Enemies.

      The Right/Left Paradigm is all a hoax designed to keep Americans Divided. NOTHING Changes!

  30. The moderator, again, did not do his job. The final question was “what misconception about you would you like to correct.” Ron Paul gave a great answer. Newt gave a good, relevant answer. Then Romney went off on his stump speech. The moderator pointed out that he wasn’t answering the question. So Romney said, you can ask any question you want, I’m gonna give a campaign speech.

    THAT is when the moderator should have asked, “do you think that’s fair to Mr. Paul and Mr. Gingrich, who answered the question honestly and appropriately?” Instead, just as our wishy-washy media always do, he crawled away with his tail between his legs. The immediate follow up question should have been, “are you being fair to Mr. Paul and Mr. Gingrich? And Mitty woulda been dumbfounded.

  31. Hey everyone! I totally missed the debate tonight 🙁 Does anyone know of a link where I can re stream it from?



  32. The post debate discussion of CNN and Anderson Cooper’s panel certainly proves Ron Paul’s point about being ignored by the press–in spite of being in second place, in spite of being absolutely consistent, in spite of answering every question directly. Apparently the panel is in favor of undeclared wars and continuing slaughter in the Middle East.

  33. It’s funny, if Ron Paul was running for president of the teenie boppers and college kiddies, especially the druggies he would win. maybe he could be the new mascot for McDonalds. But as for the real elections thank goodness most of us understand the importance of having a real president. The reason he can’t ever win is HE IS A LIBERTARIAN. The republican ticket is normally mostly a conservative one, as are most republican voters. legalizing drugs, killing the military, pro gay marriage, that is not conservative. He will never beet out a conservative in the republican primaries. He would have better chance running democrat, in fact they love radicals. So sorry to hurt everyone’s feelings but he is and always will be unelectable for the republican conservative party. If you don’t believe me, just wait and see, conservatives way out number libertarians, even the teenie boppers. Even third party, it would be just like always a throw away vote. This has been tried many times before. You will never get a majority. Some truths are tough, and the truth is, there is not a large libertarian party or group.

    • If the republicans were smart, they would nominate Ron Paul. He is BY FAR the only one who can beat Obama.. if that’s the only thing you care about.. RP would get not only the mainstream republican vote (what, are they NOT going to vote for the republican candidate?), but he would also get EVERY independent vote. and THAT is the key. without the independents, the republicans will fail.

    • I agree with you that Ron Paul is unelectable by the Republican Party but not because he is not a true conservative. The Republican Party was originally founded on the principles of fiscal conservatism combined with social libertarianism. It was the Republican Party that was responsible for getting the black slaves freed and pushed for full incorporation of same into society. But Republicans ORIGINALLY sought to encourage CHARITABLE support of downtrodden minorities. It was the Republican position that free enterprise and altruistic giving could do more than government to lift the poor from said poverty. Americans have a short memory and history teachers with agendas. It was the democratic party that passed laws that allowed and supported slavery until the civil war changed the picture and then they captured the idea that blacks could be a rich source of votes that would not have to actually see change if they were promised same.
      Ask the native americans when they were most persecuted and match it up with who governed and you will see the correlation. The psuedo christians that have taken over the party have reacted against the left by stabbing themselves in the foot. By attempting to force false christian morality they have in fact caused an equal and opposite response. Ron Paul will not get the nomination. nor ever the presidency. But not because he’s not conservative. And, God help us, he’s correct.

    • Imagine that! Here I thought all along that the election that counted was the one between the Democrats and Republicans. PS–in picking between the teenie boppers and sabre rattlers, I’ll pick the first as being more positive for the country.

    • See what a bind we’re in?

      The Republican nominee has to be a conservative. The Democratic nominee has to be a liberal. So take your pick: war, crony-capitalism, an expanding police state, debt, and shameless dishonesty, or bureaucracy, crony-capitalism, an expanding police state, debt, and shameless dishonesty. How could you go wrong?

      Want something else? **gasp** But that’s throwing away your vote!! Nevermind that your vote hasn’t decided an election once in your life. Nevermind that the Democratic Party was started by Thomas Jefferson on a libertarian platform. Nevermind that the Republican Party started in 1956 when enough people threw away their vote to kill off the Whigs.

      Congress has something like a 15% approval rating, and almost nobody is happy with the governance from either party. Unfortunately, they’ve conned too many voters into blaming all our problems on the other party, instead of questioning their adherence to “conservatism” or “liberalism.” These two nearly indistinguishable factions have been in charge for almost 50 years, and they’ve both failed. It’s time for the Republican and Democratic parties to change or die.

  34. I thought it was a very good debate, and I thought King did a very good job of moderating. Romney seemed to get the most positive audience reaction, and Paul the least. Paul is not a good debater – he tends to lose his train of thought.

      • He just stutters, still, if conservatives did what their names implied (Saving money) Correct me on that if I am wrong on that.
        Legalizing drugs, well, anyone that knows the results of a federal drug war would realize legalizing is actually conservative. Killing the military is also conservative, besides, nobody likes war (at least conservatives claim they don’t, but Bush and well ya know…) and he isn’t “pro” gay marriage either.
        Let the churches define what a marriage is to those who believe in that particular faith (and yes, crazy conservatives are typically bible huggers) so I see what your saying, and sadly he won’t be elected, but man, it would be interesting, because you see, with the other guys up on stage scare me into voting for Obama, which…ya know…

    • Man who is writing this comments? Does big media has army of commentators on payroll writing stupid comments on on-line blogs and forums?

  35. King, a typical CNN super slick. Purposely drove the debate so that Paul, the Peacenik would have the last word on the Iran discussion. All these left wing ideologs representing these re-elect OBama networks work their agenda. They really don’t think that we the people catch their manipulative little moves. Thats what they really think of you. Well, they do make most of these idiot kids and the pacifist old ladies that make up the bulk of the Paul followers happy, but they still do not see the extreme danger in what they are doing. It wont be until something truly terrible happens that they will wake up. I am quite sure that at that time though, they will blame any future tragedy on either the top one percent or the oil companies, never on their syncopant Obama protecting or pandering.

  36. King, a typical CNN lib, purposely drove the debate so that Paul, the peacenik, would have the last word on the Iran discussion part of the debate. All of these left wing ideologues representing these reelect Obama networks work their own liberal agenda. King really doesnt think that we the people caught his manipulative, little move. That is typical. That is what they really think of you. Well they do make most of these completely out of touch with reality kids and aging flower children that make up the bulk of the Paul followers happy, but they fail to see the danger of what they are doing with their misguided agenda. It wont be until something terrible happens that they will wake up. I am quite sure that if and when it happens, they will probably put the blame on the top one per cent or the oil companies, never on their pandering of Obama and his dangerous policies.

    • Jim

      It’s all about perception, as usual. You can try to say that CNN has some kind of an agenda to get Obama reelected by giving Ron Paul a Platform to expound upon his message of “Peace” to the Republican voters. But the same can also be said when FOX News allows the “Warmongering” Neo-Con GOP Candidates (Romney, Santorum and Gingrich) to have a Platform for their message of Preemptive War, Covert Terrorism and Mass Murder.

      However, the American People (Democrats and Republicans) are tired of War. They’re also tired of being “lied to”. The trouble with you is you don’t want to hear the Truth. You “stick-your-fingers-in-your-ears”, then call Ron Paul and his supporters names and belittle his positions.

      You see, Ron Paul tells the Truth concerning the History of America’s “meddling” in the internal affairs of Foreign Countries. He tells the Truth about the “hubris” attitude of the Neo-Con Warmongers towards the people in Foreign Lands and how the World views such “hubrises” with utter contempt. He tells the Truth about when these people in Foreign Lands keep getting sanctioned, bombed and “told-what-to-do” by the United States, that they will eventually resort to acts of Terror in order to defend themselves. He tells the Truth concerning Israel. He tells the Truth about the Federal Reserve’s “Destructive” Policies to our Monetary System and our Economy. He tells the Truth about the Government’s “Fascist” Role with the Private Sector Corporations and how it will hurt small business. He tells the Truth about the Government Bail-Outs of the Wall Street Banks and how it only made them BIGGER and More Powerful. He tells the Truth about encroaching Government infringements upon our Civil Liberties and why our Freedoms and Liberties are in danger of Tyrannical Take-Over. He tells the Truth concerning our Borders and how, through the “Welfare State” we attract Illegal Immigrants to come to the United States. He tells the Truth concerning our FAILING Educational System and our DIS-FUNCTIONAL Health Care System and that why “Government Involvement” is the Culprit and the reason why Prices are so high and continue to rise. He tells the Truth that the States should decide the matters concerning Abortion, Contraception, Marriage, Healthcare and Education and why “Government Involvement” always leads to misappropriation of taxpayer dollars and FRAUD. He tells the Truth about our National Debt, Federal Deficits and the strength of the Dollar as the World’s Reserve Currency.

      Jim. It’s time to FACE the Truth and the FACTS about Ron Paul and his message. If Ron Paul runs against Barack Obama, Obama will LOSE! Plain and Simple. From what I listed above, tell me how Barack Obama would answer the American People in a one-on-one Debate with Ron Paul. He couldn’t. Thus, Obama would lose the Presidential Election in a Landslide!

      • All true, and the famous statement in the film Network applies here. You Don’t Want The Truth Because You Can’t Handle The Truth. It shouldn’t end there, and should continue with an important question. WHY Can’t You Handle The Truth? My view is that those who choose to ignore these truths are first cowards and are lazy. Second, they have a deep slave mentality and want to be taken care of, either because it’s easier to live that way or because they have been victims of the dumbing down of Americans through our educational system for years. It takes a brave American to shake off the mental shackles, to stand like a free human being, and kick arse of those who want to control them. We have all the tools to be free, to defend truth. We have the talent, but alas we have increasing numbers of people who are afraid of freedom, afraid of life, afraid of people, thus they are useful idiots of the destroyers and will remain so by their fearful choices. Lovers of Freedom must drag these poor souls along or step over them to keep Freedom for all in this country. O and his controllers are counting on the weak, slave mentality that are afraid of individualism and freedom, and the lazy who want handouts to vote for him and support him.
        Except for the wealthy who want to keep the useful idiots under their control, if you look at O’s supporters you will see people who have done nothing for freedom and have volunteered their lives in support of destruction of the individual.

        • “You can’t handle the truth” is actually from A Few Good Men, spoken by Jack Nicholson, as a general, who is saying that security is more important than rights.

          While I admire people who fight for rights. You have to remember that the majority never will–and it is the majority that elects candidates. If you ask most people, they cannot tell you what the so-called “Patriot” Act is, probably think it has to do with protecting the country, and will say it must be necessary, and they don’t care, since they don’t think they’ve felt any impact.

          But here’s the deal: if you can deliver a message with vinegar, and deliver the same message with honey, you are doing yourself nor your audience any favor by purposely making it unpalatable. Make it SHORT and sweet, or people just won’t get it.

      • History will show two points of view on this
        Moses son of Amram, Confucius, (sorry Zhòngní of Qufu Americans don’t do history), Mozi of Lu:
        The government follows the character of the people.
        Jesus of Nazareth, Sankara Vijayamm Paul of Tarsus:
        People, like sheep, need a shepherd.
        I hold to the latter. Romney, if he wins the nomination will win because there is no one else for people to believe in. Paul’s views ARE correct but IS he shepherding? or lecturing? And it will come down to Obama’s ability to chameleon into a shepherd again. Yes, he is now lecturing. Beware, without a true shepherd the sheep will follow a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
        Don’t bank on debates settling the issue. remember some of the famous debates of the 21st century?
        Hoover/Roosevelt – thank God he did NOT do what he said.
        Stevenson/Eisenhower – unless you enjoyed the cold war
        Ford/Carter – Sometimes truth is NOT correct
        Bush/Clinton – come on I dare you: what WAS that debate about? See any similarities?
        Again, I agree with Paul on most issues. But can he lead? Can he unify? Can he shepherd?
        If he can convince people he truly cares about them they will vote for him. If he only proves he is correct he will lose to the overwhelming machine of Romney and would lose to Obama for the same reason.

  37. ‘How to Chop Down the Tree of Liberty and Succeed’: A Politician’s Handbook (Chop it at the base, and the People may revolt, but a barely noticeable branch at a time, for as long as it takes, will work for sure).

    In the beginning, the Citizens had the Freedom to walk all paths. Then Government decided that some paths are not good for the people, so closed off a few paths. Now, the People had Freedom to walk a few less paths. Encouraged by this, the Government passed even more laws telling the People what other things they cannot do (because it is for their own good). Pleased with the outcome — the Citizens’ obedience — the Government went into the full-time business of Manufacturing Laws (rules, regulations).

    Since Politicians produce nothing of intrinsic value — they found their calling in writing stuff on paper, telling people what not to do (“for their own good” of-course).

    As of 2010, it is estimated that there are about 1/2 Billion Negative Laws/rules/regulations on the Books telling the People what they CANNOT DO upon threat of punishment (that’s more Laws than there are US Citizens)!

    Headlines at end of 2011 read: 40,000 New Laws in effect for 2012. Translation — 40,000 more paths each Citizen has lost the Liberty to walk. The crude graph below is for visual effect:


    Are the Citizens this blind, not to see the end result — the eventual straight-and-narrow path Government wants to dictate its Subjects to walk….

    Only Ron Paul is talking about this near complete erosion of our Freedoms — the rest are silent-partners-in-crime against our Liberty!

  38. i know it is to late for getting a question in for tonight but i have a question for all candiates that i feel know one ask as i understand all 4 are pro life what i need to know that when the pro life movement wins sometime in the future what will be the crime a woman will be charge for killing her unborn baby as i see it can only be charged as murder whith life in prison if this is not your stance then why change the law as we have now i feel that there is 2 parts to the aboration arugement first the moraul side and that is between god ans the woman the second part is the legal side wheather it is a criminal act in goverment view this is a losy choice a woman has to make should be between her and god and the goverment needs to get out of it unless we are ready to charge her with murder

    • Ieland,
      clearly you also have not done your own research but are writing what someone else has vomited into your mouth.
      1. causing the death of another has three possible outcomes. a. murder. voluntary manslaughtor and involuntary manslaughtor.
      2. the murderer would be the doctor not the woman.
      3. the penalty would be set by your favorite group: the courts.
      While I support the idea that any democrat that wants an abortion should get one, I abhor the idea that republicans must pay for it. We don’t make you pay for missionary trips to Haiti and Congo. Why do we have to pay for you to practice your religion? Yes. religion. Wiccan and Druid religions are unique in modern religions in that they still allow the death of those not strong enough to survive.
      YES! the government should get out of it! DO NOT MAKE ME PAY to kill someone who has not done any harm! The charities that I support would help your ‘victim’ have the baby and give it to a supportive family to adopt.
      You won’t allow me to teach your children that sex outside of marriage is wrong. Don’t teach my children that killing someone who has done NO wrong is right.

      • The baby killers never face the financial and societal and moral burden they put on others. They think only about themselves and will kill to prove it. You can blame the Abortionists, but as a woman, I know the first shot goes to the female. No one makes her get up on that table and put her heels in the stirrups and hold that baby in a position to be ripped apart. The service providers who do the actual killing are not doctors, they are Abortionists. Please do not connect my good Doctor with the gang of money grubbing murderous heathen Abortionists.

        Augie, you are right. She opens her orifices to receive the vomit of devils. Her brain has no part in what she regurgitates and expels.

        • Constitution,
          I agree with everything you said but with a caveat.
          When a 13 year old girl has an abortion it is not always voluntary. The abortionists (I do apologize for implying that a medical PROFESSIONAL would do one) say that in cases of rape an abortion should be allowed but I say that since they also keep the abortion confidential they are exposing the child to continued harm since most rape is done by someone known to the victim. If it were reported the child would carry the evidence – DNA – for all his/her life that could convict a rapist/child abuser well into his victim’s adulthood.
          And I have little room for anyone that claims to be an evolved human being that protects child abusers by destroying the evidence.

  39. It’s funny. I was watching MSNBC “Morning Joe” this morning. Joe Scarborough, the host, was saying that NONE of the Candidates are addressing his “pet peeve”, the National Debt.

    During his Diatribe, he mentioned EVERYONE of the Candidates by name, except Ron Paul! He didn’t mention him ONCE!

    It just goes to show that the Media wants and “promotes” the EVER-FAILING Status-Quo!

    • Scarborough is a chicken. Stopped watching him quite a while ago because instead of firing her, he was wincing from the blows of the masculine-female overpowering him and enjoying it. Ashamed of both of them. Her big Ace is her papa. She would need to team up with Maddow or the other one who the Media clowns pushed forward on the public if Scarborough would dump her. He wouldn’t dare speak the name Ron Paul because his co-hostess/host and his bosses would kick him out of his job… the bosses are terrified of RP and truth, and kicked Buchanan out because he was honest, and some others too. Time to go after those slime controllers. We can do that for sure when Ron Paul is President… and THAT’S why those slime are terrified of RP. Their time will be up.

      • FOX aired this show: “Illegal Everything” — well worth watching!

        Shows how Americans are “breaking” the law daily, without knowing it, because of the hundreds of millions of rules and regulations. And how cops are using this as an excuse to arrest anybody for just about anything!

        I think the below link works:

  40. Ron Paul WILL become President in 2012 — IF, Romney becomes a Patriot, and forgoes his ego, for the Good of the People!

    Mitt Romney could become one of the greatest Statesmen in US History! He’d be the Savior of our Nation — the one that generations to come would tell their children: “Look at this statue, this is Mitt Romney, he saved America”!

    Or, he can reduce himself to just a tiny footnote…what is amazing is that his fate rests in his own hands (a very rare occurrence throughout the history of the world)!

    All Romney has to do, is to take advantage of this rarest of historical moments, and make a SINGLE DECISION!!!

    Withdraw his candidacy IN FAVOR of Ron Paul, with the following grandiose and heart-wrenching patriotic speech (to save his political skin):

    “I, Mitt Romney, will sacrifice my political goals for the Good of the People. Now I understand that only Ron Paul can save our Nation. I agree with all he stands for, therefore, I have deemed that our Nation’s salvation can only be accomplished when Ron Paul is elected as President of the United States of America. Without regret, but with joy, I do the most honorable and patriotic deed I can — I withdraw myself from this election, and give my full support to Ron Paul!”

    One honest person is needed to bring these logical conclusions to Romney’s PERSONAL ATTENTION (not the myopic sycophants surrounding him and stroking his ego by chanting wishful thinking as ‘fact’: “You gonna win Boss, you gonna win Boss….).

    Regardless how egotistical, arrogant and narcissistic Romney may be, some semblance of reasoning of what’s best for him, should still remain in his skull. The instinct for self preservation dictates that even the smallest of minds will chose the path that leads to safety, not the one leading to disaster.

    An honest realist needs to talk to Romney one-on-one — and explain the following to him, so Mitt can comprehend it:

    1) If you don’t win the nomination, than your political career is over (you’ll become just a tiny footnote in US History as a failure).

    2) If you win the nomination, and don’t defeat Obama — which is the most probable outcome (you’ll become just a tiny footnote in US History as an even LARGER failure).

    Therefore, Dear Mitt, whichever gamble you take from the above, may lead to total disaster for your political career (and probably will)!

    However, here is an action you can take, Dear Mitt, that guarantees you’ll become immortalized in the annals of US History — becoming the 21st Century Savior of America (surely this carrot of success will entice Romney’s egotism to go for it — over the probable political beatings he’d receive otherwise)!

    All one needs to do, to assure Mitt’s Historical Greatness of Sacrifice for the Good of the Nation, is to present the above to Romney’s eyes alone! I urge all able to do so, to place this document in front of him!

    Send this to Mitt Romney — as an Open Letter, e-mails, etc. — the more you send, the greater the chance he’ll get to read it!

  41. It doesn’t look like Mr Paul is getting much bang for this political move. If he really thinks he can win he needs to attack Romney as hard as he attacks Gingrich and Santorum. Right now is not the time to complain that the media is against him. They are. But complaining only falls on deaf ears. And it is not helping him gain delegates for the nomination.
    Frankly, he has a better chance of getting asked to join the Romney ticket as Vice Pres.
    Unless Ron Paul is angling for a third party run which would be a disaster for the Republican Party. But as a third party candidate he would siphon at least a third of the Republican vote and about forty percent of the democratic vote.
    Depending on Pauls ability to win key states he could win outright even with less than a plurality of the popular vote.
    Even if he does not win outright he could throw the election to the congress and there he has the edge.
    But if he stays true to the path he is on he will lose outright at the convention and lose the support he needs in congress to win in the end. He needs to attack Romney hard enough to show Romney’s weakness against Obama. Don’t forget – Obama is a master at this game. He uses sound bites and twisted logic better than anyone I’ve ever seen! Note Obama’s speech where he accuses republicans for rejoicing at a worsening economy when it was the democratic media that said republicans should be smacking their lips.
    We have to hope Obama learns the lesson Clinton learned: run democrat, govern republican. And learn the lesson Clinton did not learn: The world is not your friend. They don’t like us out there.
    Or hope Romney picks Paul as VP, gets impeached for tax fraud and leaves Ron Paul in the big seat. Hey, I was in Nam during the Nixon years. It IS possible.
    As I said before. I agree with Ron Paul’s positions. Not with how he campaigns and now, not with how he leads.

Comments are closed.