The seemingly final GOP primary debate is scheduled for March 19 and organizers released the details a few days ago outlining the format and moderators. This debate will be sponsored by Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB), The Washington Times and PBS/NPR nationwide. It will take place in Portland, Oregon at the OPB headquarters.

Air Time: Monday, March 19 at 9pm ET on PBS Television and NPR Radio

Participants: Still awaiting campaign responses to invitations

Press release from OPB:

Plans Moving Forward for Oregon Republican Presidential Debate Moderators, format selected for March 19th Oregon Presidential Debate Portland, OR – Ray Suarez, Senior Correspondent for PBS NewsHour, Ralph Hallow, Chief Political Correspondent from the Washington Times, have been selected to moderate the Oregon Republican Presidential Debate, on March 19, 2012 6:00 PM PST (9 PM EST), Oregon Republican Party Chairman Allen Alley announced today. Invitations to the debate, which is sanctioned by the Republican National Committee, have been sent to the candidates; responses are pending.

The leading candidates vying for the Republican Presidential nomination will have an opportunity to discuss the issues in a live, 90-minute broadcast debate. The Oregon Debate will air live on PBS and NPR stations nationwide and can be heard on Voice of America and Armed Forces Radio and Television worldwide. PBS stations are making this program available to Hispanic audiences through closed captioning and live language translation on a secondary audio channel. This debate is a production of Oregon Public Broadcasting with the Washington Times, organized by the Oregon Republican Party, and sanctioned by the Republican National Committee.

The setting for this 90-minute debate is a round table with Suarez and Hallow and the candidates, in front of an audience of approximately 120. The debate format is designed to create an intimate conversation for an in-depth discussion of the issues.

I was skeptical this debate would end up taking place but now only 10 days away, it looks like it could be an informative, entertaining broadcast given the current state of the race.


  1. It will only be informative if you listen to what Ron Paul has to say. I can guarantee, the other 3 candidates will be guarding their damaged, hypocritical records, delivering canned speeches about “Restoring America’s Greatness”, and “Being the strongest nation in the world” (at the expense of our freedom and prosperity).

    Ron Paul always speaks to topics of substance, in the debates, though he is largely ignored. The national debt is important, the other candidates only want to grow it, and the media wants to ignore it. Ron cuts to the heart of the issues, and that is cutting spending, shrinking government, and sending the power back to the states as the constitution dictates. He’s the only candidate of the Reps or Dems who actually wants to bring troops home. Don’t fool yourselves, politicians have been talking about a “timetable for withdrawal” since late in Bush’s second term. Every new candidate can create a new timetable, and we can be “at war” against an invisible enemy until the end of time.

    Iran = Iraq all over again. So quickly we forget. It will be another 4 trillion dollar (more with inflation) joke after we bomb the country to ashes and kill 100,000 more civilians when they don’t find any nuclear weapons (WMDs…)

    If you want to turn this country around, you only have one choice people.

    RON PAUL 2012!

  2. If anyone is wondering ‘who’ they should vote for.. please look at the videos below.. They will tell you so much. And as you are thinking about voting.. remember whatever you do.. you will be doing it for your children and your grandchildren.. and not just for YOU.

    The story of two men trapped in one body

    Ron Paul’s 2002 Predictions All Come True – Incredible Video!

    To anyone who believes Ron Paul doesn’t know what he’s talking about.. he’s the closest thing to a prophet that I’ve come close to. Instead laughing and joking when he speaks. Please HEAR what he’s telling you.. since 2002.

    From Canada

    • Over 200K people view said video. Don’t the believe fact? Sure are quick to believe fiction.

    • Add this one, too — and pass it on..

      ILLEGAL EVERYTHING — Must-Watch special aired on FOX! See it below:

      It is estimated that nearly 500,000,000 as of 2010 (and each year EVEN MORE are passed) — about 1/2 billion — NEGATIVE Laws/rules/regulations are on the books, meaning: “You, the US Citizen, cannot do 1/2 billion things, because we, the Government, have deemed such actions ILLEGAL.”

      More Negative Laws than the total count of US Citizens (including babies, children, and adults in our Nation)!

      The Arrogance of Office is best displayed by this pernicious Sophism: “Ignorance of the Law is no excuse”.

      No sane person can expect an individual to memorize all the names of the 312 million US Citizens — but same individual is expected to know the EXACTITUDE of ALL 1/2 billion LAWS (or be penalized for the IGNORANCE)?!

      The Great Roman Statesman Cicero stated: ‘The MORE Laws in a Nation, the LESS Justice for the Citizens’ — nearly 2000 years later, Cicero’s warning rings true: *More Laws = Less Liberty*!

  3. We already have an isolationist in the white house. Homs, Syria is no more because of it. Bullies must die. Bomb there house and not the rest of Syria.

    This is what Reagan would and did do to stop terrorist.

        • Hold on: as best I can recall Reagan dumped 60 tons of munitions on Mr Muammar back 4/86 because one of his friends owned stock in the some bar in West Berlin. An over zealous agent in East Germany set off a bomb in the place. Anyhow the 60 tons netted 60 kills at a cost close to a billion dollars because France, Italy & Spain wanted nothing to do with the project thus air to air refueling had to be brought in. (40 Aircraft used)

          As some people push back, in 1988 some clown from Muammar’s camp hit the USA with 12 to 16 oz of a munition and killed 270 people at a cost of under $700.00 (including air line ticket cost)

          Yeah and it gets worse as the story goes on. Mr. Muammar sometime down the road made a deal with the devil and agreed to pay damages via hiking the taxes on foreign oil companies operating in his country. Thus those who use the most oil (USA) pay both ways.
          Reagan’s billion dollar bombing and the damage done by the 12-16 oz bomb. (Pan Am 103)
          Way to go USA

          • Regan bombed him because of the marine barracks bombing in Lebonon. I am not for invading and nation building. I you have leaders that are doing for example what is going on in Syria right now I would bomb the leaders house.

            I would stop the bullies from mass murder. I wouldn’t say a word. I would use our air support and take them out.

            I guess I am saying if we have a Hilter lets take them out now.

            • The experts disagree with you on that one:

              he 1986 United States bombing of Libya, code-named Operation El Dorado Canyon, comprised the joint United States Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps air-strikes against Libya on April 15, 1986. The attack was carried out in response to the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing.

            • Tim’s idea of bombing the Syrian leaders themselves as Reagan did Khadaffi’s compound — so far history shows that was effective. Perhaps it is right for the Syria situation as well.

            • Effective at bring down Pan Am Flight 103.

              6o tons via USA = 60 killed, cost 1 billion dollars

              12 oz via Libya = 270 killed cost less than $700

              One of us just doesn’t know how to count!

  4. Oh I forgot to add, 3 people died at the West Berlin bar, 60 died via the 60 tons of munitions dumped by Reagan, then 270 died because of the 12 oz bomb from East Berlin. Things can get out of hand in a hurry 3,60 then 270 and it never ended there now did it?

  5. I admire each of the four remaining candidates for various reasons. For me no imperative is greater than beating Obama. I trust the character and skills of Romney. Independents will not vote for Santorum because of his social conservatism being front and center (I am a registered Independent). I admire and appreciate Ron Paul — his impact on how many of us think will be permanent and positive. But his statements about Iran and some other foreign policy issues are knockout factors for me. If only we were friends with Iran — really? I hope Romney wins the nomination and the election and then includes Ron Paul in financial/fiscal planning for our country.

    • financial/fiscal planning for our country. Romney ?????????

      He wants a much bigger navy. Ships start with a “b” as in $ billion $$$$$$

      He wants 100,000 more army soldiers so he can have another trillion dollar war.

      • Romney wants to protect our country, which will not be protectable under Obama’s budget cuts — even Leon Panetta says that. Our federal government is actually charged with protecting our country. It is not charged with most of what else it does these days. I am a fiscal conservative just right of Atilla the Hun (not a social conservative). I favor living according to our Constitution. If we did that we would have separation of powers, and the (unelected administrative branch of government (wait — where is THAT in the Constitution? Oh oh — it’s not) would diminish greatly as states and on-the-ground communities took their proper place in solving regional and local problems.

        • Romney wants to protect our country, which will not be protectable under Obama’s budget cuts — even Leon Panetta says that.

          Now there Debbie is where the line in the sand is drawn between the better of the two ways to do it. It’s either offense or defense. The Swiss way of stand your ground or the American way of occupation with soldiers in over 126 countries.

          I know not what course others may take, but I have seen the results of the Swiss way vs the American way in two World Wars and many a war thereafter, and I go with Ron Paul and the Swiss way.

          • First, my name is Deborah.

            Second, having a strong defense doesn’t mean you go on offense, it means you can defend yourself.

            Third, I admire several things about the Swiss, but to compare our countries’ situations in the world in this area, as well as influence in the world, financial contribution to the world (we are still the most generous country), go-to country when others are in need, and the degree to which we are targets of radical Islam — is a really silly comparison. And no, I don’t believe we were attacked on 9/11, on the Cole, in two US African embassies, nor in the first World Trade bombing because of our foreign policy. It is because many of us would rather die than live under Sharia law, and we are in position to help the rest of the world resist that abomination as well.

            Come on Billy.

            • 1. Our names are irrelevant.

              2.Second, having a strong defense doesn’t mean you go on offense, it means you can defend yourself. We are on common ground

              3. Common ground again as America is no comparison to Switzerland as they mind their own business and America minds everyone business all over the world and as Bush senior stated, “What we say goes”. As for being generous…..right with someone else’s money, like China’s as we are so generous we are 16 trillion in debt.

              Lastly you are jumping all over the calender. You started with Reagan’s reaction to a 3/86 small bomb blast that killed 3 in a foreign country. Said reaction came weeks later via an attack on a sovereign nation in which 60 tons of munitions were delivered via 45 military aircraft killing 60 people. An act of war by any international standard. In retaliation (alleged) 16 oz of explosives were placed on a US aircraft killing 270 people. That was in 1988. Subsequently a deal was struck between the two nations at issue and case closed.

              Now you go on to bring up 1998, 2000, and 2001 incidents that have no connection to the country at issue here libya.

            • Maybe in the good old USA but when you live in a tough neighborhood like the middle east
              you need an iron fist or you get what we got now in Egypt. How many car bombs went off when Saddam was in power in Iraq. How many since the USA spent a trillion dollars to “improve” their way of life. How about Bush standing on that balcony where Saddam stood and tell the people how much better off they are now because of what the USA had done for them. I noticed when Saddam spoke there were a lot of guns in the crowd. When Panetta spoke, the guns were removed. The world may be a better place without Saddam but as of today Iraq is not.

    • Romney is Obama Lite! There is actually very little difference between them. A vote for Ron Paul on the other hand will re-focus our government on what it should be focused on (The Constitution). I refuse to give the right to our president to send our children to other nations to fight and die without a VOTED ON DECLARATION OF WAR! If you think that is radical foreign policy then there is no hope to reason with you!

      • Now that has happened only 5 times in the history of this country but the Prez has sent troops in 125 times without Congress.

  6. I would like to see MORE debates not less. I learn so much from each debate. I know Romney doesn’t like the debeats because he can’t debate well. He had the most money and tries to buy the election. I am not thrilled with any of them enough to decide who I will vote for. I was hoping through the debates I could find “the one” I feel would be the best. Romney will lose if he’s the nominee and that’s a scary thought…4 more years of the same. Romney flip flops and seems so insincere. I’d like more debates to see if my impressions of him are wrong. I like things about each one but no one has sealed the deal for me yet. I hope this won’t be their last debate.

  7. The belief that because Obama is a great Orator, does not mean he is a good Debater.

    1) As Orator (meaning: during an uninterrupted monologue) Obama’s reading of the tele-prompter is superb — he has the hand gestures down pat, the movement of his head to stare at an upper left, or right, diagonal, while taking a pause to underscore his point and thus allowing time for applauding, before he stares at the camera again and delivers the next segment of his PRE-WRITTEN Speech. His mastery of delivering dogma as “truth”, is only second to Goebbels propaganda abilities.

    2) As Debater (meaning: the ability to prove whose ideas are valid vs those that are illogical) — Obama is lost without the tele-prompter. Unless the questions were submitted beforehand, and his answers scripted, he gets annoyed when asked something he did not expect. When stumped by a question he does not know the answer, Obama becomes peevishly angry, he whails, clutches his hands, shakes his head, and responds with the COARSEST of Cliches! Then, he stumbles and bumbles his way trying to correct his outbursts by spouting irrelevant dogma! Pathetic — is the only proper word describing his debating “skills”.


    For those that believe BO is a great orator — you are 100% correct!

    For those that believe BO is a great debater — you are 100% wrong!


    Note this — when BO ran in 2008, he had NO record to be debated.
    Now, he has a horrible record as president — so anyone (without skeletons in the closet) will DESTROY this small-minded, perfidious clown!

    Ron Paul — who is a CONSTITUTIONAL Patriot — is best equipped to dismantle BO’s socialist dogma in a one-on-one debate for the Presidency!

    The rest have the ability (since a logical high-school kid can make Bama look silly in an unscripted debate) — but don’t have a clean closet (and Bama will attack their skeletons, since he can do nothing else).

    So, unless you do your best to elect Ron Paul — you’ll be party to the ignominious reelection of BO!

  8. Ron Paul wants a stronger military here at home to protect this country. These other, undeclared, unconstitutional wars are not legal. There hasn’t been a legal war, approved by the people, since World War II. When you say Romney will protect our country…Do you believe these needless wars are protecting our country? They are only for oil and for the establishment to put money in their own pockets. This is going against “We The People”. Only Ron Paul is for the people. Ron Paul would defend this country faster and harder than any candidate but please wake up to the fact that that is not what we are doing. Do some reserach online and stop listening to the media brainwashing you.

    • There hasn’t been a legal war, approved by the people, since World War II. When you say Romney will protect our country…Do you believe these needless wars are protecting our country?

      Well………….Congress has approved war 7 times but has only declared war 5 times. The *Pez on his own has brought us to war 125 times.

    • Respectful dialogue would avoid calling each other brainwashed. I admire Ron Paul hugely, but until he ends his view that “if only we treated Iran like friends” I’ll be concerned that he does not understand the relentless agenda of radical Islamists. I find him naive in his believing that Iran having a nuclear bomb is a neutral point. I, too, believe only in declared wars. [And Billy (a few emails back) I did not refer to any Reagan activity. The Cole, two African embassies, and first World Trade Center attacks were all under Clinton and were all on American soil — yes, embassies are considered the soil of whatever country they represent and our battleships are the same. The Beirut Marine barracks attack, which killed over 200 Marines, was under Reagan and was an Islamist attack way back when…..] These days I believe almost nothing I hear without trying to verify it myself, and that includes Internet research, which I am sure we all know is a vehicle anyone can use to say anything. I believe these are tremendously complex issues. I LOVE the ideas Ron Paul has brought to the debates. He has influenced the dialogue, I believe permanently, with his integrity and intelligence. He is one of two reasons that I am studying libertarianism this year. All that said, I do not believe we can ever, realistically, be Switzerland (ref. back to my new friend Billy, not to RPaul).

      • Look Miss D.

        You posted an event that happened on April 14, 1986 via Reagan’s orders. I posted what event it was in response to (a bomb set of at a bar in Germany killing 3 people) I also posted the events that followed up to and including the agreement between Libya and the USA. You then jumped way ahead to the USS Cole, 9/11, and several other events that followed long after Reagan left office. My point being that if Reagan had let the local police in Germany handle the problem, using proper German channels, which they did anyway, all that followed in the loss of life and property could have been prevented. The guys that set off the bomb at the bar in Germany were arrested by the Germans, tried and convicted. They sure as hell didn’t need any help from the USA and they sure as hell didn’t ask for any help.

          • Yes they did it was TIM on 3/10. So sorry I got you mixed up with him. His post in part read:

            Bomb there house and not the rest of Syria.

            This is what Reagan would and did do to stop terrorist.

            • Just my opinion but it’s not so much who starts what leads to a war but who escalates said incident into a war.

  9. My biggest concern is Santorum. He stated that he almost puked when he read JFK’s comments on the separation of church and state. The reason that JFK made his speech was because many Americans were troubled with the idea that he (JFK) would be where a President of the United States would accept what a Catholic prelate (including the Pope) could or might attempt to request or make a influence the President of the United States to make or support ANY LAW OR ORDER that would specifically benefit a specific religion. John F. Kennedy made an extra effort to state his views.
    “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute–where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote–where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference–and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

    I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish–where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source–where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials–and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

    JFK strongly believed that Church, especially the Catholic Church should not have a direct line to the President of the United States.

    Santorum believes that his religion should be in control of the United States.


    We are a people whose roots come from our desire to have RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. That RELIGIOUS FREEDOM was not only to be FREEDOM OF RELIGION, it was meant to be freedom FROM RELIGION.

    When we reject Sharia Law (as practiced by many Islamic countries, we must make sure that we don’t have our own religious laws (Christianity) that determine all of our laws.

    We are a nation that values religious freedom. That means that we are not to be a nation where our President or our elected congress could ever even ATTEMPT to make their religious beliefs part of our system of laws.

    Rick Santorum should be asked specifically if the Catholic Church would have any influence in how our country should be run.

    Our religious beliefs are strong and they have an influence on how we vote, but the laws of the United States of America must be a government that is high above our own personal beliefs.

    We should not even consider any candidate who states the the Separation of State and Government is wrong. Santorum said that he almost puked because of JFK’s comments. He wants to make the United States of America the UNITED STATES OF CATHOLICISM.


    • I admire all four of the remaining Republican candidates (I’m a registered Independent) for various and specific reasons. I am an anybody-but-Obama voter this time because I do believe the very future of liberty in our country is at stake. That said, I am deeply concerned that the many Independents who are fiscal conservatives and social keep-government-out-of-peoples-lives voters will not stomach Santorum’s sanctimoniousness. We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good here. Santorum may not be electable.

      • Not only that but he has a record and it ain’t good.

        Bridge to Nowhere

        Tea pot museum

        5 times hike up the debt ceiling

        The Prince of Pork may have problems up against Obama.

      • Some of us are much more afraid of our freedoms being taken away. We have lost more of our right to believe the way we want to.

        Take the attack on the Catholics (I am not by the way) just to give Obama ammo to use in the election.

        You think we should just sit in the corner and lose our rights. There is much more of a danger of this happening than to us than the social conservatives taking over.

        You say “Santorum’s’ sanctimoniousness” I say “Santorum’s defense of liberties”.

        • I agree — I am deeply concerned about losing our rights. I am not catholic either and support completely that church’s position on not being coerced by the government. I do wish Rick S. sounded less sanctimonious, but this doesn’t keep me from appreciating his and every candidate’s defense of our basic liberties. It seems right now that many democrats are willing to let collectivism blot out individual freedom, and when we have less than half the population paying any taxes (and many of those getting $$ back in credits) we will have crossed a very difficult line to come back over. We are almost there. ANY republican candidate will help reverse this course. And we all need to know our Constitution inside and out to help with this fight.

          • individual freedom: as in a seat belt law, or being searched before you can address your civil servants. Might have jury duty then no choice on being searched.

    • To answer your question in a word. YES

      But I don’t think one need a religion in order to be a control freak.

  10. First off, I will say that I consider myself to be a fiscal conservative, and a social conservative personally, but more moderate when coming to laws for others.

    In a nutshell, here is where I see the major faults of these candidates.

    1) Newt Gingrich – The only fault I see with Newt is his temper and ego. Politics has always had its mud-slinging, but after Florida he made it clear it was now a personal vendetta for him to see Romney go down. Funny thing is, the one thing he could do to ensure a Romney loss back then was to drop out and let the “very conservative” vote coalesce around Santorum. His ego would not let him do that, though.
    He has since only appeared to me to be a vindictive, egotistical, angry old man, and I worry how his temper would affect our standings in diplomatic circles.

    2) Ron Paul – Every time I hear Ron Paul debate, for the domestic and financial questions, I can get behind him. Then come the foreign policy questions and he says something off the wall that makes me wonder how I could’ve agreed with anything he could have said. Prime example was his statement that we should be concerned about the US using the Mexico fence to keep us in the country.

    3) Rick Santorum – The one thing I can find that worries me about Santorum comes from statements he made in October and November 2011 regarding that the US laws should be compared to God’s law and brought into alignment with the higher law. Not once, but twice he said this. Once was with Perry and Bachmann sitting at a table with him. Even as a devout Christian, I find this view extremely disturbing. And, for clarification, he states that he is speaking of the God of “Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”'s%20law&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CFMQtwIwAg&'s%20law&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CFAQtwIwAQ&

    4) Mitt Romney – OK. I agree he has the emotional range of a turnip, and watching a race between two drops of rain down a window draws more enthusiasm than this candidate. I believe he has the financial experience to help our economy. In speaking or debating, there are two types of crowds, the group and the individual. Unfortunately, Romney is not comfortable with group speaking, and that is the type he must appeal to for an election of political office. Being a former CEO and the work he did for the Olympics shows he is better at the individual speaking, because it is motivation and delegation and the one-on-one level that moves a company or corrects the problems he fixed. That is what we need in this office right now to correct the mistakes of the last few administrations that caused this economic debacle and prolonged it. That is why I believe him when he says he will dismantle Obamacare. It costs too much and the taxes it levees will only serve to prolong or increase the pain financially of all Americans. He may not be what Americans want right now, but he is what they need. And many people have the problem of not seeing what they need until it is too late and the opportunity has past.
    What he needs to excel in this race is someone who can write for him a proper vision of where he wants to take this country. The proposals he has shown before are great for investors of a company or a boardroom of directors. Yes, the people want specifics, but they also want the vision of the final destination with the details. Something simple, iconic and original. Reagan had his “shining city on a hill”. Bush, Sr. had “1,000 points of light”. Obama had “hope and change”. We are still waiting for his vision of the future destination.

    I always expected whoever won in 2008, McCain, Obama, or even Hillary would only be a one term president. The economy was so bad off that it could not be solved in four years. Americans tend to have little patience and quick to try a new solution if the current one does not show immediate improvement. It’s still a long way to November to see if I was right, I just can’t see us being able to survive four more years of Obama’s policies.

    • RWHG, I so appreciate your comments on each candidate, though I am even MORE concerned about Santorum than you are. Romney is ready to do this and do it well. We have learned how much charisma matters (I have always been suspicious of it. As an individual I have it and avoid trading on it. It’s superficial and unimportant and completely unrelated to someone’s character.) Romney is a humble man despite his significant talents and success. He is thoroughly decent and very deep strength of character. He has led a democratic legislature and state. He absolutely will disassemble Obamacare if he can overcome democrat resistance in the House and Senate. He (like me, I might add) has grown more conservative the more he learns. As we have heard before, let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Our country will suffer very bad damage if Obama gets another four years. We must get behind Romney to beat him, I feel.

      • We would have had a nice clean primary season if Romney had not started buying the election with attack ads.

        The main problem with Obama is his progressive attacking and dishonesty. Do we really need a Republican Obama?

    • Prime example was his statement that we should be concerned about the US using the Mexico fence to keep us in the country. 3)

      Yet another individual who believes a fence has only one side. I would suggest you read up a little history on walls, fences, moats, and other barriers used by governments and rulers. Bush used the red tape visa approach to keep us “safe”.

  11. Everywhere I see foreign policy being discussed it is always “occupation” versus “fundamentalism” as the cause of aggression. I would like to argue that it is both.

    We have vilified every enemy we have ever opposed. It is simply the only way, the only mental construct available, to justify the death and destruction that is the result of military engagement. We are not unique in this. Every enemy we have opposed have vilified us as well. I would suggest that this is true in every conflict lasting long enough for people to make judgements about.

    We became their enemy because we meddle in their affairs, or in affairs that they perceived as having negative impact on them. (occupation)
    We became a justifiable target because their world view allowed them to vilify us. (fundamentalism)

    We can resolve this by addressing either, or both, of these root causes.

    Do you believe we can change their world view? (fundamentalism)
    Do you believe we can stop being an active enemy? (occupation)

    This I believe is the root of the argument Ron Paul presents. Their world view has been primarily consistent for generations. We are not going to change this. Let us instead stop meddling in their affairs and look to our own. If we take this step and they continue to pursue aggressive action against us, we ask for a declaration of war and destroy them completely. If they do not, we can move forward in mutually beneficial manner such as trade. Either way the problem is resolved decisively.

    Our current approach is very costly and has so far proven incapable of resulting on decisive resolution.

    • Luke W, thank you for the coherent and articulate statement of your understanding of this element of Ron Paul’s approach to foreign policy. It is clearer than others I have read, and its merits are clear to me. THAT SAID, IN ALL SINCERITY—–I have a question: One lingering issue (not in your statement) is the charge that we are in the middle east because of oil. In the first Gulf “war” Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait to acquire a monopoly on mideastern oil. Do you think Americans who opposed that war understand the consequences of our country not having oil (other countries as well, but I’m focusing where Ron Paul wants us to focus — on ourselves only)? Are we ready to live without clothing, electronics, fertilizer, plastics — I guess I could have stopped at electronics to catch the attention of those who want their I-Pods but think they fall from trees, not hard work, invention, and manufacture using many petroleum products. Would it have been right to turn our backs on the first Gulf war? Had we done so it is likely we’d be living in a depression that makes 2008 look like a bad hair day. THAT is why we have an interest in free flow of goods/oil in the Mideast. Do you think our general population is ready for the sacrifice involved in not having Mideast oil?

      • To be clear, I do not personally have an issue with the use of our military. I am former military myself. Operation Desert Storm was before my time, I did not enter the military until 1995, so I can only speak to it from a research perspective, not a personal experience perspective.

        I do believe the US Government has the right, and at times an obligation, to conduct offensive military opperations. I do not believe the US Government has the right to conduct offensive military opperations without the say of the people.

        I do not argue that we have interests if the Middle East. Your question is absolutly the correct one to ask; “Do you think our general population is ready for the sacrifice involved in not having Mideast oil?”. My response is that the people through their representatives in the House and the States as a whole through their representatives in the Senate, are often not given or fail to exercise their authority to take the opportunity to debate and answer that question before action is taken.

        If, as a whole, we decide our I-Pods are worth it we declare war.
        If, as a whole, we decide we are ready for the sacrifice involved in not having Mideast oil we do not declare war and stick to diplomatic measures.

        In my opinion, the single greatest factor that makes the United States truely exceptional is that our government derives 100% of it’s power from the people, not the other way around. This also means we are 100% reponsible for the actions taken by our government. I am personally willing to accept this responsibility, but I demand that I have a say in what that government does and that I can hold the representatives making decisions on my behalf responsible for those decisions. Fortunately, this is accounted for in our founding document. Congress, the voice of the people, has the authority to declare war.

        • “Do you think our general population is ready for the sacrifice involved in not having Mideast oil?”.

          What are you trying to say here? Is it occupation of foreign lands that insures the oil supply? How about doing it the old fashioned way, buy it with money that is worth something. Ever do any business with people from the middle east? They all seem to have one thing in common as far as I have seen. They all like the color of money. 115 countries produce oil and it’s a lot cheaper to buy it that to try and take it.

          • Not what I was attempting to imply.
            I was attempting to respond to a specific question asked with a response that at least addressed that specific question.

            The overall point I was trying to make was that these kinds of questions should be raised and that the forum to do so exists and is not being properly exercised.

            You can insert any question into the above and it will still hold.

            Is reason X a good enough reason to go to war?

            If yes, we declare war and proceed with offensive military action.
            If no, we do not proceed with offensive military action.

            The authority of organizations like the UN and NATO does not supersede the authority of the Constitution, and we absolutely must not allow it to supersede the authority of the People of the United States.

            I also agree that monetary power is often far more effective than military power. I would hope that that argument would be presented during any discussion about whether or not to declare war. It can not be presented if that discussion never takes place.

            • The amount the defense contractors contribute to the campaign funds and how powerful a lobbyist they got working for them kind of trumps all rational for going to war.

        • Luke W I appreciate your response to my statement about mideastern oil (at 11:21am — I just got back home). I agree completely about the necessity of war declarations. I will also say (responding to Billy) that, while yes there are often several sides to a story, few disagree that S. Hussein invaded Kuwait to monopolize mideastern oil.

          • Guess I’m one of the few. I go with horizontal drilling.

            Then again maybe the USA has a monopoly on said practice:

            Some unscrupulous operators had drilled slanted holes from across their lease lines into the productive portions of the Woodbine formation. Inspectors found 380 deviated wells and shut them down, with the assistance of the Texas Rangers.

            Hey they had to learn it from someplace but Kuwait wouldn’t even think of doing it now would they????

      • Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait to acquire a monopoly on mideastern oil.

        Now that is only one side to the sorry . How about posting the others side. We got the American version, how about the Iraqi version of why they invaded Kuwait?

        Somehow I just don’t see how two countries and monopoly fit here but I’m sure you have an explanation. Last I checked there were 115 countries that produced oil.

        • Absolutely true we often look at only one side. It gets harder and harder to vilify enemies the more you look at a situation objectively.

          Issues between the regions of Iraq and Kuwait go back a long way before Hussein.

          Just a few examples:
          1961 Iraq (President Qasim) threatens Kuwait, invoking old Ottoman claims. Britain supports Kuwait and Iraq backs down.
          1973 Iraq occupies as-Samitah, a border post on Kuwait-Iraq border. Dispute began when Iraq demanded the right to occupy the Kuwaiti islands of Bubiyan and Warbah. Saudi Arabia and the Arab League convinced Iraq to withdraw.
          1980-1988 Kuwait supports Iraq in the First Persian Gulf War with Iran.

          • One more that might have been overlooked, horizontal drilling into the other guy’s well.

            nothing more than a common chicken thief and a trillion dollar war follows.

  12. Today’s Headline:

    “In ‘highly unusual’ move, Marines asked to DISARM before Leon Panetta speech!”

    Not sure, but can a Marine (unless placed under arrest) be disarmed in hostile territory, even by the Four ‘Starest’ of Generals…?

    (Some can put a spin that Panetta is so liked by the troops, that he does not trust his own soldiers with weapons in his presence….).

    Curious if someone knows the answers:

    1) Was it ILLEGAL — a breach of military law/conduct/rules — to DISARM the US Marines in a HOSTILE combat territory (in order to be herded without arms to listen to a speech from Citizen Panetta)?

    2) Name and rank (or civilian status) of person RESPONSIBLE for disarming the US Marines?

  13. Every time I hear / think US military.. I remember this video from Desert Storm.. and I get sick.. It’s a must see.. of how the US REALLY treats its military and people in the Middle East.

    Beyond Treason and the use of Depleted Uranium

    Then I read articles concerning Panetta..

    Obama Admin Ditches Congress, Cites Int’l Permission, As Legal Basis For Action In Syria

    and you have to wonder.. Since so much of the Military is being Ron Paul.. so most military KNOW that what’s taking place in the Middle East is illegal.. I can only guess that Panetta is feeling the heat from ‘everyone’ from the USA including Military overseas.

    Can you say… I’m scared of my own military? LOL

    Especially after the recent killing by a US soldier in Afghanistan.. I’ll bet Panetta is worried someone may want to ‘take him out’ also. Afterall.. isn’t everyone ‘immuned for their actions in a foreign country?

    For those of us who were able to ‘see the video (which I included) I can say.. I have NO respect for him or Obama (who’s plan is to bankrupt the USA).. They should be nervous.. and those still sleeping need to be woken. Lest you lose ‘we the people’ along with your constitution.

    • I’m scared of my own military?

      Even if that were true they couldn’t have gone about protecting him in a dumber way.

      His presents did little to build up and moral for sure but let’s say they was one or two soldiers that wanted to take him out. Everybody turns in their weapons except two. They hid their 45s under their clothes. Get the picture. Start shooting and everybody hits the dirt as they have nothing to return fire with. When will they ever learn guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

    • I’d drink to that. Just think we could find a few good men who served in the military and went on to have the smarts to run for President.

      Okay we got one now, Ron Paul but only one. The other guys got washed off like the snow in the rain. Well I have always said the voters deserve what the get. 16 trillion and counting and it’s going to get ugly come payback time.

  14. I just hope they don’t try to censor the applause for Ron Paul as on a past debate, or only allow a minute and a half for him to talk for the entire debate like a past debate. They should ask a question and then give every candidate an equal time to answer it. The pretending that Ron Paul or other less favored candidates don’t exist on the debate floor is down right disgusting. Give them all equal time, and let the voters decide for themselves.


    • Yeah but the networks are in business to make money and the most popular guy thus gets the most time. I don’t like it but it’s the right thing to do. It’s just good business

  15. I would like them to debate and rebut the financial analysis done by Citizens for a Fiscally Responsible Budget. From what I saw of this Gingrich and Santorum will have the deficit well over 100% of GDP. Romney came close to maintaining what is current, and only Paul would start a decline that would bring us back to several decades ago.
    There’s a lot of oil here in the US if we can get past our need to preserve the land. We refine a lot of oil into gas and export it. Apparently even Iran doesn’t have the ability to do this. I think that trade agreements would end up more level with Paul’s policy of “entanglements with none, trade with all” and we could get back to exporting goods as well as importing them.
    We do have entrepreneurs working on alternative energy, we need to support that industry so we can be free of our need for foreign oil – a matter of national security so we can keep getting our goodies if nothing else.
    Do we want all our little goodies we already get and have? Sure we do, why don’t we make them here? The jobs would be a huge help to the economy all around.
    What I can’t see is voting in anyone who would have us sinking lower into the debts. I believe in Ron Paul and hope to get him in the White House, pray that there will be another candidate like him for the four years after that, and that, and that. But if I have to choose between Gingrich, or Santorum, and Obama – my vote will be against Gingrich or Santorum. I do not want them even more than I do not want Obama.

    • Sure we do, why don’t we make them here?

      Because they cost to much to make here. If the same product is made else where at a much lower cost, you are SOL.

    • I am hoping that Obama’s willingness to raise our debt, which is already a serious threat to our viability as a nation, will convince people that Obama MUST go no matter how much we wish for a different republican candidate. Obamacare MUST be repealed — and that is just one of Obama’s terrible influences. Please look carefully at all Obama has done before voting to keep him in office. It will take us years to recover and we may not.

      • Oh I doubt if you would see any difference if any one of the 3 GOP frontrunners were to get in. Only way out of this mess is on the spending end and all I here thus far is expanding to role of government, RP being the only exception.

Comments are closed.