ADVERTISEMENT

As expected, Rick Santorum easily took the Kansas Republican Caucus on Saturday with 51% of the vote. Mitt Romney took a distant second place with a mere 20%.

ADVERTISEMENT
Results for Kansas Republican Caucus (U.S. Presidential Primary)
Mar 10, 2012 (100% of precincts reporting)
Rick Santorum 15,290 51.2%
Mitt Romney 6,250 20.9%
Newt Gingrich 4,298 14.4%
Ron Paul 3,767 12.6%
Other 252 0.8%

Report from the Washington Post:

Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum has won the Kansas Republican caucuses, the Associated Press projects, giving his campaign a boost as he seeks to make the case for a one-on-one contest against former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination.

With 76 percent of precincts reporting, Santorum was taking 53 percent in this rural Midwestern state that in many ways is tailor-made for him. The former senator has made his conservative views on social issues a focal point in his bid to win the GOP nod.

Romney was running second with 17 percent; former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) was in third place with 16 percent, and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), who like Santorum had been campaigning hard in the state in recent days, was in fourth place with 13 percent.

Kansas awards 40 national convention delegates based on the caucus results, with 12 district-wide delegates awarded winner-take-all, 25 at-large delegates awarded proportionally based on the statewide vote and three delegate spots reserved for RNC members.

Kansas is another boost for Santorum heading into this week which will feature primaries in Alabama, Mississippi and a caucus in Hawaii.

58 COMMENTS

  1. REPUBLICANS LOSING OUT TO THEIR “STRAW MAN” PRESIDENT:

    If Barack Obama really is the “Straw Man” President that the Republicans pretend him to be,
    how can it be so hard for them to come up with a viable candidate to win the election in November?

    It looks like the actual facts of the Obama presidency thus far are making a hard case for the Republican argument
    that we need more hands-off government like we’ve had over the past thirty years:

    01: Private-sector jobs rising faster than Republican can cut jobs in the public sector

    02: Unemployment numbers going down, despite Republican best efforts to make unemployed Americans wait until after the next election, before taking steps to turn the economy around

    03: Millions more Americans insured for healthcare, and tens of millions more insured without exclusions or lifetime limits or preexisting conditions, while the Republican candidates avoid healthcare like a live wire

    04: The auto industry turned around, with GM is once again the world’s leading auto manufacturer

    05: Increasing domestic petroleum production, even as America resumes the march toward cleaner air, greater fuel-economy, and alternative-energy manufacturing readying to take on china and Spain and the rest of the world

    If it truly took the Conservative hand of Ronald Reagan to dig America out of the left-hand ditch
    that the Democrats had gotten us into, it now looks up to Progressive hand of Barack Obama
    to get us back out of the right-hand ditch that the Republicans drove us into during the 2000s.

    If things are so dim as way the Republicans say they are,
    how come America’s future under the Republican “straw-man” President Barack Obama suddenly looks so bright?

    Regards,
    (($; -)}
    Gozo!

    • Oh yeah, happy days are here again. What planet you on? Socialism is alive and well as we have more people on food stamps than in the history of the USA. The national debt is at an all time higs and a gallon of gas will cost better than $4.00 in many places.

      • IF YOU LOST YOUR JOB, WOULD YOU STOP FEEDING YOUR FAMILY, OR BORROWING WHAT YOU COULD THAT YOU NEEDED TO, OR PAYING THE COSTS OF WHAT UTILITIES YOU COULD AFFORD?

        We have more people on food stamps because we have been going through, and digging ourselves out of, the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression.

        But you know this already.
        ____________________

        The national debt was at an all-time high under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, too. After President Reagan, we worked our way up pretty good: a growing economy, combined with a reasonable Congress that works together to bring entitlements and defense into balance, will get us back in the plus column again.

        But you know this already.
        ____________________

        The price of gas is independent of presidential actions, whether by President George W. Bush (wrongly attacked by Speaker Pelosi, among others) or by President Obama. This “energy independence” myth is designed by the oil companies: they know that no matter how much oil is produced here at home, it is a commodity that will be sold wherever it gets the highest price.

        But you should know this already….
        ____________________

        The rest of this stuff is just people believing what they want to believe, instead of seeking out facts independent of political ideology.
        ____________________

        We each get to choose how we evaluate reality. The more that we choose ideological myths and illusions, the harder it is to make progress on the kinds of issues that Congressman Ron Paul, say, continues to study even in his bedside reading.

        Regards,
        (($; -)}
        Gozo!

        • The price of gas is independent of presidential actions, whether by President George W. Bush (wrongly attacked by Speaker Pelosi, among others) or by President Obama.

          Starting wars with the largest oil producers has nothing to do with the price of oil???

          What planet you been on?????

          • DO WARS ON OTHER PLANETS RAISE GAS PRICES HERE ON EARTH?

            Mr. Malone, which war started by President Bush in the Summer 2008 raised gasoline prices up to abut $4.00 a gallon? Which war started by President Obama in the last six months or so has raised gasoline prices up to about that same amount again?

            Speaking of facts versus fantasy, this link leads to the Department of Energy’s price data for gasoline from August 1990 to February 2012:

            http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_gnd_dcus_nus_m.htm

            This link downloads the data into an Excel spreadsheet:

            http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/xls/PET_PRI_GND_DCUS_NUS_M.xls

            From this data, we each may draw our own conclusions about the correlation between recent wars and gasoline prices. I didn’t see one.
            ____________________

            The only planet I know first-hand is this one: Earth. Did you have familiarity with some other planet in mind? 😉
            ____________________

            Would you mind explaining the purpose of the gratuitous insult about planets?

            If it was just a joke, I’d say that jokes like that (without some sort of a smiley face) do nothing these days toward figuring out how Americans can have strongly differing opinions, and yet still work together toward a better American path forward.

            Regards,
            (($; -)}
            Gozo!

            • Average monthly prices of oil rose from $17 per barrel in July to $36 per barrel in August.[3] 1991.

              Result of First gulf war. You know where we are now, over $100 a barrel and still at war. I’d say when you start a war with an oil rich nation and the price of oil jumps over 100% there is some connection.

    • @Gozo I think it’s worth pointing out that the government is bigger than it’s ever been (more public jobs), and real unemployment remains pretty high. The only reason the “official” unemployment numbers went down is because people drop off the “unemployed, still seeking job” grid after awhile, whether or not they’re still seeking. As for health insurance, obamacare has yet to be fully implemented, but the increase in costs are already visible; which is to say that healthcare costs have increased as a result of Obamacare, without any positive benefits as of yet. As for GM, it’s a royal mess, with the Chevy Volt being one of the biggest mistakes in automobile history. The only American car company that you can say has had something of a turnaround is Ford.

      In regards to oil, it seems pretty clear that the response to the BP oil spill awhile back (that is, the suspension of drilling in the gulf, a severe increase in regulations, and a 6-month ban on new drilling) had a detrimental effect on oil prices that we’re still seeing today. It is arguable whether the current administration’s piss-poor efforts at diplomacy are also partly to blame for the lack of stability in the middle east at the moment, which also has detrimental effects on the cost of oil. To make matters worse, it certainly doesn’t help that much of the funding that was supposed to go to new energy infrastructure was diverted to political supporters (such as solyndra and lightsquared). Lastly, Obama refuses to do things that would help to decrease energy costs, such as opening up ANWAR and signing off on the XL pipeline…

      • TAKING THE LONG-WINDED VIEW:

        [OPINION ALERT! Most of what follows results from my own thinking. None of the information is factual unless clearly presented as such. Documentation available by direct-contact request only.]

        ____________________
        metz writes, “@Gozo I think it’s worth pointing out that the government is bigger than it’s ever been (more public jobs), and real unemployment remains pretty high.”

        I wonder how realistic it is to believe that a government that served the several million Americans of 1789 can come close to the size of a government that must serve eighty times as many people, in an era where countless aspects of our lives—from individual abilities to produce food and clothing and shelter and medical care, to technology and transportation and communications and military defense—may be eight-hundred times as complex as they were back then.
        ____________________

        “The only reason the ‘official’ unemployment numbers went down is because people drop off the ‘unemployed, still seeking job’ grid after awhile, whether or not they’re still seeking.”

        One thing we all know is that millions of Americans are unemployed, while millions more find it nearly impossible to sustain their families financially, without either skipping essentials such as healthcare, or else going farther into debt.

        The only reason the “exact” number matters is so that politicians can use it to argue either for how good their government is doing, or how terribly their opposition government is failing.

        I.e., “politics.”
        ____________________

        ”As for health insurance, obamacare has yet to be fully implemented, but the increase in costs are already visible; which is to say that healthcare costs have increased as a result of Obamacare, without any positive benefits as of yet.”

        Numbers documented in the current issue of Harper’s Magazine say that healthcare costs over the past two years since beginning implementation of Obamacare have increased at the lowest rate in years.*

        As a self-employed individual with a “grand-fathered,” high-deductible family policy, I can assure you that essential “positive benefits”—such as no lifetime maximum, no preexisting-condition limitations, no dropped coverage, college-age children insured—have indeed been implemented.

        It’s easy to argue our opinions about Obamacare. But the factual changes are…facts.
        ____________________

        As for GM, it’s a royal mess, with the Chevy Volt being one of the biggest mistakes in automobile history. The only American car company that you can say has had something of a turnaround is Ford.

        In relation to the Chevy Volt, some of us may be too young to remember the Ford Edsel! 😉

        But a mixture of failures and successes is integral to capitalism. I guess most of us remember Thomas Edison’s history of successive failures in the invention of the light bulb. To view intervening failures—such as “unintended consequences”—as arguments against moving America forward seems like a counter-productive way to reach America’s “new and improved” future.

        I’ve heard that General Motors has regained its position as the world’s largest purveyor of automobiles. It took a government-engineered bankruptcy, at a time when no private capital was available. Opinions may argue that General Motors is failing, but the facts tell a different story for today.

        Ford, on the other hand, seems to have managed pretty well without government intervention. Isn’t that what all Americans would prefer for all industry?

        I believe so.
        ____________________

        In regards to oil, it seems pretty clear that the response to the BP oil spill awhile back (that is, the suspension of drilling in the gulf, a severe increase in regulations, and a 6-month ban on new drilling) had a detrimental effect on oil prices that we’re still seeing today.

        Personally, I see no such correlation. The price of oil, “it seems pretty clear,” is currently high because of speculation in relation to the situation in Iran, specifically in relation to international threats of war against Iran. My bet is that world markets do not much fear a U.S. attack on Iran, so much as they fear either Israeli attacks or Iranian closing of the Strait of Hormuz, through which some 20% of world petroleum reportedly passes.

        Depending on the timing of world events, prices will either fall or rise between now and the November election. It will be interesting to see how much we blame or credit President Obama with the price of gasoline as November 4th nears.
        ____________________

        “ It is arguable whether the current administration’s piss-poor efforts at diplomacy are also partly to blame for the lack of stability in the middle east at the moment, which also has detrimental effects on the cost of oil.”

        Just about anything is arguable, especially where facts are not required, or at least are not respected. I’m no expert on diplomacy, and I question the credentials of anyone else posting on a “Comments” site about these things.

        However, this presumption, always by those opposed to the person who happens currently to be in office, that we know anything or everything about what is happening in diplomatic channels behind the scenes:

        What an astoundingly bold belief!

        The tendency for all of us on the outside of these things, to believe that somehow we know much at all about what diplomacy efforts are actually taking place, baffles logic and reason.

        If diplomacy were such a simple, black-and-white matter as our pundits suggest, why would all of our actual diplomats do such a presumably “piss-poor” job of it?

        The familiar phrase is “Monday-morning quarterback.” Quite a few of these exist on the Internet—especially those“quarterbacks” always available on the opposing political parties at any given time.

        I thought President Obama’s recent comments, about the difference between our American liberty to shoot our mouths off at will—such as about international affairs—and the jobs of those in government who must do the actual diplomatic work on our behalf, were reasonable and insightful. He did not come out and say things such as that our sword-rattling is likely affecting the price of oil. He may have thought that we are smart-enough to figure this out for ourselves.
        ____________________

        To make matters worse, it certainly doesn’t help that much of the funding that was supposed to go to new energy infrastructure was diverted to political supporters (such as solyndra and lightsquared).

        Ah! “Crony capitalism.” The convenient thing about conspiracy theories is that they need only be “proved” by the absence of any actual proof.

        I hate to bring up Tom Edison yet again, but it seems like a reasonable, foregone conclusion that the road to a successful future for alternative energy will be littered with quite a few “pothole” failures.

        It’s never been the American way to say “No!” to the future out of fear of intervening failures. At least not until recent times, when other fears seem to have gotten in the way of our self-confidence.
        ____________________

        Lastly, Obama refuses to do things that would help to decrease energy costs, such as opening up ANWAR and signing off on the XL pipeline….

        What are the prospects that, if we let American companies produce more petroleum and natural gas here at home, they will give us special discounts—lower prices—at home, instead of selling their energy product at the highest prices available on world markets? This kind of thinking seems to run counter to the basic tenets of free-market capitalism. Any upper-level management that pursued such a profit-countering course of action would likely be ousted at the earliest opportunity.

        Having lived through an era where the EPA removed lead from our gasoline—leading to higher gasoline prices and countless arguments against government intervention—I’ve seen the effects on the air that our city people breathe. To argue against reasonable environmental concerns in exchange for short-term gratification might as well be to argue for going back to smog-filled air.

        This tendency to use the future (deficit-spending and regulations leading us to long-term economic challenges) as an argument for the present (“Drill, Baby, Drill!”) pretends to be “conservative” and take the long view. The opposite generally turns out to be the way that events turn out.

        As for the pipeline project, enough of it appears to be underway that it will surprise if it fails to move forward. The current impediments will likely serve the sole purpose of minimizing environmental impact along the way. I.e., a present-day version of keeping the lead emissions out of our children’s and grandchildren’s lungs, and acid rain out of their drinking water.
        ____________________

        Mr. metz, I have enjoyed going through your argument points one by one, and thinking up my own arguments in response. It’s taken up a good deal of space, and I find it hard to believe that anyone else—even you, yourself—will care to read all this stuff.

        For myself, I’ve enjoyed my visit to this site overall, but it’s time to move on.

        Best of luck for the future success of all of us, as well as for our beloved country, the United States of America.

        Regards,
        (($; -)}
        Gozo!

        __________
        *”Harpers Index,” Harper’s Magazine, April 2012, p. 7. Sources provided: “Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (Washington)”

        • may be eight-hundred times as complex as they were back then.

          Hell the IRS code is all of that and more.

          GM is a dismal failure. Just look at the retirement pensions at Delphi that got cut in 1/2 or more and the widows and orphans who had to take jobs at Mickey D’s when GM reneged on billions of dollars in bonds they were holding. Oh yeah many had to bite the bullet so a few could keep what they had.

          Then the $240,000 chevy volt. A cynical sham, that’s what it is.

        • AMERICAN MYTHS: THE CHEVY VOLT (AKA THE 2012 CYNICAL SHAM):

          ____________________

          Thomas Alva Edison

          The first light bulbs lasted a mere 150 hours. Edison introduced one that lasted 1,200 hours. Today the average light bulb lasts approximately 1,500 hours.
          ____________________

          How Did Thomas Edison Create the Light Bulb?

          Thomson Edison did not exactly discover the bulb but improved it. Before Edison’s experiment, the problem was that the bulb had a very short lifetime. He had to find a filament that would glow for a much longer time than before. In 1879, after performing 6,000 experiments on different materials, he observed that a carbon filament lasted the longest.
          ____________________

          ”How Many Attempts Did Edison Try Before He Invented the Electric Bulb?”

          After struggling to develop a viable electric light-bulb for months and months, Thomas Edison was interviewed by a young reporter who boldly asked Mr. Edison if he felt like a failure and if he thought he should just give up by now.

          Perplexed, Edison replied, “Young man, why would I feel like a failure? And why would I ever give up? I now know definitively over 9,000 ways that an electric light bulb will not work. Success is almost in my grasp.”

          And shortly after that, and over 10,000 attempts, Edison invented the light bulb.
          ____________________

          Billy Malone wrote: Then the $240,000 chevy volt. A cynical sham, that’s what it is.
          ____________________

          Mr. Malone, here’s hoping your case of “cynical sham” is slight and non-contagious, and quickly cured.

          I’m heading out of here. I’ll leave you opportunity to have the last word.

          Until the next time and place,
          (($; -)}
          Gozo!

  2. The Prince of Pork has to win a few just to stay alive. Romney doesn’t as he has deep pockets and when the money goes so goes the candidate.

  3. Ron Paul Draws 2,500-plus Voters to St. Charles County Missouri Town Hall.

    ST. LOUIS, Missouri – 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul attracted a remarkable 2,500-plus voters at a massive town hall meeting held in St. Charles County, Missouri today.

    The standing-room-only St. Charles County Town Hall Meeting with Dr. Paul and thousands of voters took place at 3:00 p.m. CST at Lindenwood University – Hyland Arena, located at 209 S. Kingshighway, St. Charles, MO 63301. Dr. Paul asked the crowd to consider economic and civil liberties as inseparable, a state of affairs that would result in a freer, more prosperous society. He also mentioned aspects of his path-breaking ‘Plan to Restore America,’ an economic blueprint that experts say far outpaces the recovery proposals of Dr. Paul’s rivals for the Republican nomination for the presidency.

    http://www.dailypaul.com/219941/ron-paul-draws-2500-plus-voters-to-st-charles-county-missouri-town-hall

    Rick Santorum draws crowd of only a “few” hundred people

    http://ozarksfirst.com/fulltext?nxd_id=615712

    Couldn’t find any articles for Romney or Gingrich Rallies in Missouri

    • There’s been vote fraud against Ron Paul in EVERY Primary and Caucus so far. Why not in Kansas too? Even in the Virgin Islands, where Ron Paul WON the most votes, the media still proclaimed Romney the winner. Need I say More?

      Oh… Just one more thing…

      I’m happy to announce that Impeachment Proceedings Against OBAMA began about a week ago! Curious how there’s no mention of that minor news-worthy item on any main stream media channel. Capitulation, anyone?

      • Really? Obama is being impeached? I never heard that on the news outlets! Where did you find that information? I’d love to get that word out (that apparently no media outlet decided to share with the public, instead choosing to bash Santorum for being honest about his answers) Thanks for any help you can give.

    • yes I was at the Ron Paul event at the Lied center and agree.There had to have been fruad! Makes me sick. I also voted for ron paul at the caucus in Douglas county and Paul supports out numbered the other candidates 3 to 1.

  4. 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!

  5. THE 2008 DEMOCRATIC DEBATES COUNTER SOME INSULTS OF “ODS”:

    The thing that Barack Obama and the American people have blowing against them like an Kansas tornado is commonly referred to as “ODS,” or “Obama Derangement Syndrome.”

    We don’t really understand what it is, but the key trait is a bizarre abandonment of facts. A stunning example appears in this forum, here:

    http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012/03/santorum-wins-kansas-gop-caucus/#comment-121941
    ____________________

    The poster says that just because President Obama is a great orator does not make him a good debater. He describes Barack Obama’s debating practices this way:

    “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!”

    Back in 2008, many of us watched the Democratic contenders—including Hilary Clinton, Bill Richardson, John Edwards, and Barack Obama—debate.

    No one ever saw or heard candidate/debater Barack Obama do any of those things he is accused of here.
    ____________________

    When so many Americans go to such lengths against Barack Obama, telling bald-faced lies like these, it’s hard just to let them pass unchallenged.

    This is what I meant when I originally posted above, referring to the “straw man” version of our real president, Barack Obama. Reasonable people may argue with the President’s words and actions. But it would be help our divided Nation if more Obama opponents (for whatever reasons) would stick to a few facts. Instead, they keep making up all kinds of stuff.

    And making stuff up, and telling bald-faced lies, and making the defeat of the sitting President of the United States your number-one priority as a member of the United States Senate:

    These are not the kinds of things that help move our great nation forward.
    ____________________

    ODS: Obama Derangement Syndrome. Clear, irrefutable evidence may be found here on this forum:

    http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012/03/santorum-wins-kansas-gop-caucus/#comment-121941

    With all due respect,
    (($; -)}
    Gozo!

    • Gozo Rabat —

      LOL…quoting out of context invalidates your post.

      Omitted the key point: “Unless the questions were submitted beforehand, and his answers scripted, he gets annoyed when asked something he did not expect….”

      In a scripted venue (such as the 2008 dem “debates”) — he shines, since he’s orating….

  6. MY BAD FOR THE “CONTEXT.” STILL CURIOUS ABOUT THE “WHAILING” :

    Surfisher writes, “LOL…quoting out of context invalidates your post….Omitted the key point: ‘Unless the questions were submitted beforehand, and his answers scripted, he gets annoyed when asked something he did not expect’…In a scripted venue (such as the 2008 dem ‘debates’) — he shines, since he’s orating….”

    My apologies, Surfisher: the context was missed by accident, not by intention.
    ____________________

    But about your position on Barack Obama’s debating deficiencies:

    No one needs to take my word or your word on it. The debates can be found on the Internet, as can the President’s press appearances, and other events, such as the 2010 Blair House meeting with Congressional leaders to find healthcare compromises.

    Here are just a few 2008 links:

    South Carolina Democratic Presidential Debate, January 21, 2008:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD9F1t9GQzA

    First Presidential Debate:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-nNIEduEOw

    Second Presidential Debate:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkBqLBsu-o4

    Third Presidential Debate:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvdfO0lq4rQ
    ____________________

    Based on your post that began this discussion, you appear unlikely to change your opinion regardless of any external perceptions. I have no intention of trying to change your mind.

    Instead, I have posted here is to raise a clear, alternative, fact-based view.
    ____________________

    Meanwhile, I’d be curious to see examples of the kinds of disproportionate behavior you accuse Barack Obama of:

    Peevish anger
    Wailing
    Hand-clutching
    Head-shaking
    Coarse cliches

    I’m also now eager to see “a logical high-school kid…make [President Obama] look silly in an unscripted debate.” But I guess that debate won’t ever happen so that any of us could get to see…;-)
    ____________________

    My point (despite my error of context) is that you present a made-up—“straw man”—version of President Obama. While I can understand your frustration that Rep. Ron Paul will not likely get to debate President Obama, turning that frustration into the LOL insults and sarcasm available to all of us on the Internet undermines your various arguments.

    It won’t change reality. It won’t win elections.

    And it won’t get Ron Paul a larger audience for his positions, many of which are thought-provoking and some of which are quite sound.

    For good or for ill, the vast majority of the American people are immune to the kind and amount of independent thinking that a successful Ron Paul candidacy would require.
    ____________________

    Go ahead. Insult away. It’s a free country. Meanwhile, I will be curious to see your examples of typical Barack Obama debate-meltdowns.

    And, again, I apologize for my carelessness in taking part of your statement out of context.

    Regards,
    (($; -)}
    Gozo!

    • Think you missed a key point here, Obama will be debating his record this time around. I am indeed mindful that the three GOPs record isn’t all that much better. My money is on Obama even though I think he is taking the country into more of the same. (more regs, higher taxes and deeper into debt) If that’s what the voters want there are 4 men running that can & will give it to them. Ron Paul is the only candidate the can take this country in a different direction.

      • Thanks for the reasonable explanation of your position, Mr. Malone. I have two basic points to present in response:

        (1) I wonder why it is that the general electorate of the U.S. does not seem to take Ron Paul entirely seriously as a candidate: while he keeps winning reelection within the Republican Party, the larger party does not grant him much credence. If I were a Ron Paul supporter, I would focus on figuring out, in constructive terms, what limits his successes within that party, as well as with the larger population of American voters.
        ____________________

        (2) Here in the U.S., we always vote as if we are electing a dictator. The reality, of course, is quite different: our President cannot just tell us where to go, but must figure out how to compromise and cajole and inspire us—and a sometime-intransigent Congress—to follow.

        Congressman Paul’s prospects of winning the Presidency seem mostly limited by this limitation on the executive branch: if he can’t figure out how to rally enough people behind him, then the wisdom or folly of his views hardly matter in terms of his becoming elected.
        ____________________

        The Presidency is no different than any other part of life: a mixture of skill, talent, ability, strength, character, adaptability, and good luck all must come together for ultimate success in any venture.

        So far in the history of the world and its billions of people, only forty-four have ever held the office of President of the United States. The competition is pretty stiff—for this job that seems largely thankless.

        Kudos to Dr. Paul for sticking to his guns for so long. Though he will likely never reach the office of President of the United States, his ideas and the enthusiasm of his supporters play a significant role in shaping the whole of American political thought.
        ____________________

        Thanks again for the courtesy of your response.

        Regards,
        (($; -)}
        Gozo!

        • can’t figure out how to rally enough people behind him, then the wisdom or folly of his views hardly matter in terms of his becoming elected. ___________________

          Guess you missed RP’s prediction video. Makes Nostradamus look like a 25 cent fortune teller. It’s not RP who has to figure it out rather it’s the voters who have to figure it out. The Greek voters were not able to figure it out but they are on their second and last lifeline. No country has a lifeline strong enough to keep the USA from sinking. We keep taking on water (debt) and we will surely sink. Only one candidate is talking about pumping out the water (downsizing government spending) the rest are talking about taking on more water (more debt by expanding government.) Government doesn’t produce wealth, it takes the wealth from its people.

          • THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ENLIGHTENMENT TICKET:

            Billy Malone: “Guess you missed RP’s prediction video. Makes Nostradamus look like a 25 cent fortune teller.”

            Speaking personally, I’m not one who finds much profits in prophets. As members of a self-selecting occupational group, their overall record is spotty.

            Billy Malone: “It’s not RP who has to figure it out rather it’s the voters who have to figure it out.”

            Maybe you’re right about this. Only forty-four people have preceded Rep. Paul to the American Presidency thus far. Maybe the People’s Paulist-style Enlightenment is only a scant few months away.
            ___________________

            On the other hand, given that our president is a leader, not a dictator, any candidate’s inability to rally enough voters around him to secure the job—

            Well, I think more-highly of my views than I do of Rep. Paul’s. And it’s a safe bet that not enough voters have figured out my superlative value as a potential U.S. president or vice-president, either.

            I might not turn down the job if it were offered to me. But I guess my voters aren’t any smarter about me than Rep. Paul’s are about him.

            Would Rep. Paul would mind sharing his ticket with Gozo!?

            If so, I’d be willing to flip him for the top spot on the ticket.

            Regards,
            (($; -)}
            Gozo!

            • Well the man who had the least in the way of qualifications for the job thus far is in the White House right now.

          • YOU SAY “TOMATO.” I SAY “OBAMA.” CAN WE CALL IT “OFF”?

            Overall, in the face of pledged Republican intransigence during America’s greatest economic challenge since the Great Depression—and the incredible “Straw Man” statements about every aspect of his administration, his practices, his non-manifest ideologies and his origins—Barack Obama is doing an impressive job.

            Let the record show—

            Well, in the list of accomplishments, the record already does show pretty good…
            ____________________

            How about no more back-and-forth on this? You think President Obama is an under-qualified something-or-other, while I think he stands out among the best, as the third American President ever to suffer such excesses of personal attacks, for his ability to learn on the job.

            Our opinions of the man don’t really matter: what really matters is what ultimately moves the American people forward.

            Regards,
            (($; -)}
            Gozo!

            • Barack Obama is doing an impressive job.

              Sure is just look at what he as done for the food stamp program. The price of a gallon of gas. The high interest rates America offers to foreign investors. And not to mention what he has done for the national debt. Closed gitmo just like he promised.

              I guess if you were from China, yeah he sure is impressive.

          • CHEAP SHOTS DO NOT A BETTER AMERICA MAKE:

            The “food stamp” thing is a cheap shot, directed at an administration working to encourage private-sector jobs faster than state-government Republicans cut them (police, firefighters, teachers, etc.).

            The cheap shot of “the price of a gallon of gas” has as little to do with the Obama presidency as it did with the George W. Bush presidency.
            And what’s this about high interest rates for foreign investors?
            ____________________

            Tangentially related:

            According to Paul Krugman (per Wikipedia), “It’s true that foreigners now hold large claims on the United States, including a fair amount of government debt. But every dollar’s worth of foreign claims on America is matched by 89 cents’ worth of U.S. claims on foreigners. And because foreigners tend to put their U.S. investments into safe, low-yield assets, America actually earns more from its assets abroad than it pays to foreign investors. If your image is of a nation that’s already deep in hock to the Chinese, you’ve been misinformed. Nor are we heading rapidly in that direction.”*
            ____________________

            If one truly expects that the first presidency following the 2000-2008 debacle should have already been able to clean up the substantial mess (under the weight of Republican intransigence, and Tea Party Freshmen sabotage and America’s short-term-memory loss), then why should anyone worry about the size and depth of America’s challenges?

            After all, what’s the big diff between twelve trillion and fourteen trillion and sixteen trillion? Half of us think of one way to turn things around. Half of us think of an opposite way. Ron Paul thinks of a third way.

            But Barack Obama was elected to try the counter-Reagan, counter-Bush approach. He hasn’t been allowed to implement much of it, over the won’t-let-go Republicans.

            If he fails, and the American people won’t let Congressman Paul try the third approach, what’re ya gonna do?

            Regards,
            (($; -)}
            Gozo!

            __________
            *United States public debt

            • CHEAP SHOTS DO NOT A BETTER AMERICA MAKE:

              Yeah sure cheap…. $35 billion when Obama took office now $70 billion (food stamp program.
              chump change to you maybe but real money to me. Results a joke. More 300lb people now than ever and yeah the common denominator of these 300 lb ‘ers is food stamps. Then there is the medicaid cost these hevy weights put that system. The bright side is that the program is riddled with fraud thus a good part of the stamps go buy many thing other than food. For 50 cents on the dollar but so what, it’s out money not theirs.

              Cost of gas: Well I covered that before with all the jets on the taxiways holding for takeoff sometimes for so long they have to return to the terminal a refuel. Long holding patterns all come under DOT (Obama) hasn’t the man ever been to a bakery where they call a number. Money squandered on electric cars….. if Edison couldn’t make it work what make you think Obama can with the $240,000 Chevy Volt?

              US claims against foreign countries like Greece. The check is in the mail.

              Like China As of May 2011 the largest single holder of US government debt was China, with 26 percent of all foreign-held US Treasury securities

            • CHEAP SHOTS DO NOT A BETTER AMERICA MAKE:

              Yeah sure cheap…. $35 billion when Obama took office now $70 billion (food stamp program.
              chump change to you maybe but real money to me. Results a joke. More 300lb people now than ever and yeah the common denominator of these 300 lb ‘ers is food stamps. Then there is the medicaid cost these hevy weights put that system. The bright side is that the program is riddled with fraud thus a good part of the stamps go buy many thing other than food. For 50 cents on the dollar but so what, it’s out money not theirs.

              Cost of gas: Well I covered that before with all the jets on the taxiways holding for takeoff sometimes for so long they have to return to the terminal a refuel. Long holding patterns all come under DOT (Obama) hasn’t the man ever been to a bakery where they call a number. Money squandered on electric cars….. if Edison couldn’t make it work what make you think Obama can with the $240,000 Chevy Volt?

              US claims against foreign countries like Greece. The check is in the mail.

              Like China As of May 2011 the largest single holder of US government debt was China, with 26 percent of all foreign-held US Treasury securities

              What am I going to do, just what I have done, put 1/2 my money in gold and the other 1/2 in the S&P 500. One goes up the other goes down but I RTS.

    • Gozo Rabat — when describing a caricature of a man (BO in this case) one enhances the most ridiculous features.

      Consider this article (based on Norman Podhoretz’s
      Wall Street Journal piece):

      “Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world’s largest economy, direct the world’s
      most powerful military, execute the world’s most consequential job?

      Imagine a future historian examining Obama’s pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a “community organizer”; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly
      devoid of his attention, so often did he vote “present”); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator.

      And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the
      white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama’s “spiritual mentor”; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama’s colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?

      Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz
      addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal:

      To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.

      Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass — held to a lower standard — because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues:

      And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) “non-threatening,” all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

      Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon — affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.

      Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don’t care if these minority students fail; liberals aren’t around to witness the
      emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist.

      Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin — that’s affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn’t racism, then nothing is. And that is what America did to Obama.

      True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois ; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the
      Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?

      In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications
      nonetheless raved about Obama’s oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people — conservatives included — ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that’s when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth — it’s all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.

      And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

      In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.”

      • I take it Norm doesn’t think the Prez is qualified. What about the dumb a$$ voters who put them there. Does he feel they are not qualified to vote. Well in order to get him out many of said voters are going to have to admit to themselves they made a mistake and that isn’t very likely. My money still rides with Obama even though I agree with every word Norm printed.

      • Surfisher: “Gozo Rabat — when describing a caricature of a man (BO in this case) one enhances the most ridiculous features.

        “Consider this article (based on Norman Podhoretz’s
        Wall Street Journal piece)…”

        Thanks for the reminder about this Wall Street Journal piece that came out so soon after the 2008 election.
        ____________________

        Some critics grow older, but do not seem to mature:

        Mr. Podhoretz’s early, off-target appraisal of the Obama Presidency-to-be calls to mind his similarly shallow assessment of those Columbia classmates who later became the brighter stars of the Beat Generation. When On the Road finally came out in 1957, Mr. Podhoretz wrote about Kerouac, Ginsberg, Burroughs, et al labeling them “The Know-Nothing Bohemians” with that same lack of perspicacity that informed his predictions about Barack Obama.*

        Opinion writers, as well as TV and radio political “entertainers,” often get paid more for how controversial and contrary their opinions are, rather than for how factual and reality-based they are.

        The WSJ piece, which came about a half-century after the Beat Generation piece, shows some of the risks of forming one’s opinions too early, and based mostly on those of “entertainers.”

        Present company excepted. Of course. 😉

        Regards,
        (($; -)}
        Gozo!

        __________
        * “The Know-Nothing Bohemians,” Partisan Review (1958). Not available online, as far as I can find.

  7. PRESIDENT OBAMA DISCUSSES WITHOUT A TELEPROMPTER…ONCE AGAIN:

    Here are the links to the 02/25/2010 Blair House meeting between President Obama, and leading Congressional Republicans and Democrats:

    http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/292260-1

    http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/292260-2

    What I found fascinating about this event was that the Democrats all seemed to present different statements and in different forms, while the Republicans seemed careful to keep repeating the same “talking points” drafted for them by Frank Luntz.
    ____________________

    Here, President Obama—without Teleprompter, without pre-screened, scripted questions—seemed to do a pretty good talking job of “thinking on his feet.” Despite that he was sitting down, of course….;-)

    Regards,
    (($;- )}
    Gozo!

  8. So let me get this straight. Ron Paul didn’t loose any states but instead was cheated out of them. Odd though I have yet to meet a single person who is actually voting for Ron Paul except for this group.

    If Ron Paul wins his home state of Texas I would be shocked.

    I actually agree with Ron Paul on everything but his isolationism. But that is too dangerous to not be a deal breaker. His supporters however think everyone is out to cheat him out of it. Yes there is evidence that Romney may have finished with more votes in Main than he should of.

    Answer a question. Why doesn’t Ron Paul attack him like he does the other candidates. His supporters do but he doesn’t.

    I challenge anyone to explain why he wouldn’t go after Romney since he is the most liberal.

    Could it be that he is reached a deal to get his son Rand on the ticket as VP. Sure it is speculation but there is no logical reason Paul would not attack him since they are so far apart.

    Look at it this way. Rand is less of an isolationist and more of a tea party person.

    • RP was asked those same questions a few days ago on Fox. He cited a few time that he did attack Romney and he is well known in DC, don’t bother calling RP as he is a no dealer. He votes in best interest of the people he represents, end of story.

    • RON PAUL & TEXAS, THE REASONABLENESS OF LESS-OFFENSIVE DEFENSES, & THE VALUE OF IDLE ROOMERS:

      It would be interesting to see whether Congressman Paul could win Texas. My guess is that enough voters would choose “None of the Above,” and just stay home on election day. That would likely yield a good outcome not only for President Obama, but also for some downstream offices.
      ____________________

      As for Rep. Paul’s “isolationism,” that position seems deliberately misunderstood by the mainstream of the Republican Party. It is also his strongest point in attracting those on the Left. This idea that, absent Cold War needs to protect against the Soviet Union and China, we somehow need an even-larger military presence in the world challenges reason.

      Given that the war on Islamist terrorists is more of an intelligence, crime-prevention matter, our need for America to be everywhere seems obsessive—if not a little paranoid for “the home of the brave.”
      ____________________

      President George W. Bush’s biggest failure was to rattle America’s sword against the “Three Billy Goats Gruff ‘Axis of Evil,’” and then go after the “easy” one of Iraq: he not only failed to show Iran or North Korea that they should fear American might, but also encouraged them to seek their own weapons of nuclear self-defense.

      This side-bar (the preceding paragraph) speaks to how little America can truly hope to protect and defend by enlarging our show of brute force.

      For the time being, we failed that test.
      ____________________

      Congressman Paul’s idea that we should pull back and start over—expanding only as truly needed, and saving a bunch of deficit-spending dollars in the process—seems remarkably astute.

      Or we can continue pursuing the alternative: staying up in the face of the rest of the world, like the Empire in George Lucas’s great Star War series.

      Regards,
      (($; -)}
      Gozo!

      • he not only failed to show Iran or North Korea that they should fear American might, but also encouraged them to seek their own weapons of nuclear self-defense.

        Oh I think it is out of fear that Iran must have the bomb to survive. They saw what happened to two great nations right net door to them that didn’t have the bomb.

        Libya was give the same kind of deal the native American Indians were given. (So long as the wind blows and the grass grows ………..)

        • Mr. Malone, we pretty much see this the same way.

          But I think that while Iran and North Korea were not scared, Moammar Ghadhafi was. Do you remember how he rushed out, eager to cooperate with the U.S. for the first time?

          I guess that fear and cowardice didn’t last too long. Maybe once he saw the limitations of our might, he went back to his bad practices.

          Regards,
          (($; -)}
          Gozo!

          • Muammar Gaddafi made a deal with the devil and thought the devil would keep his word just like the American Indians. He should have used his oil money to buy a bomb or two and he would still be number one in Libya. I think he came to power in the late ’60s and held on until 2011. Tough neighborhood too, the man was no coward, he was a ruler.

          • COWARDICE OR PRAGMATISM: TWO SIDES OF ONE COIN?

            Billy Malone writes, “Tough neighborhood too, the man was no coward, he was a ruler.”

            In many senses, this assessment of Gadhafi as “no coward” is correct.

            My assessment was based entirel on Col. Gadhafi’s apparent decision not to call President Bush’s bluff, but instead to come rushing to turn in his weapons. Another interpretation might have it that Col. Gadhafi was merely pragmatic, seeing personal or Libyan-national opportunity in America’s invasion of Iraq.

            My glib assessment of Moammar Gadhafi is a great example of the hazards of quickly forming shallow opinions.

            Regards,
            (($; -)}
            Gozo!

            • but instead to come rushing to turn in his weapons.

              I agree with you there but to subject his country to what Iraq went through???????

              I kept the country “safe” for another 7 years anyhow.

              No bluff from a country that has been in 137 wars in less than twice that many years in existence. America will go to war at the drop of a hat no doubt about it.

  9. Lol you President Obama haters crack me up. I was reading about how bad one of you thinks he debates. That is just too funny considering how bad the Republican hopefuls have totally destroyed each other in the past 3 months lol. What is even funnier is after they get through debating each other and sending out negative adds about each other President Obama will have a easy victory lol. The are beating themselves I don’t know about you all but I am not ready for a President that acts totally non profisional about things the way your Republican canidates have.

    • Why don’t you just tell us why you think Obama deserves another term. Do you feel that the majority of Americans are better off than they were 3 years ago? Guess all the ones on food stamps are because they don’t have to work for food like the rest of us do.

      • REPUBLICAN NASTINESS LEADS AMERICA BACK TO OBAMA:

        The Republicans are busy being nasty to one another, as they will all be toward President Obama once their candidacy is decided.

        Listening to all of the televised debates, one gets little idea of where the Republican Party in general wants to take America: decrease regulations and lower taxes (all of which will best serve those of us with ample wealth, while doing little to make us free up more of that wealth for “job creation”), interfere in our personal lives, and take us to war against Iran.

        The rest of the time, they practice nastiness against each other and President Obama.

        I believe that most Americans are hungry for us to move forward, one way or another.

        President Obama at least has the rhetorical power to convey a forward-looking vision to us. The obvious question, of course, is whether a second chance will see him follow through.

        Is Barack Obama a closet “moderate,” desperately seeking compromise with the unyielding? Or did he only try the approach of reason and compromise out of respect for the Right, and—on finding the Republicans too-shackled by Grover Norquist and the Tea Party—now will try to help America go boldly forward into the twenty-first century?

        What can possibly be wrong with American optimism, and hoping for the best?

        On this basis alone (but also on a strong list of sound, presidential accomplishments), Barack Obama “deserves” another four years as President.

        Regards,
        (($; -)}
        Gozo!

        • decrease regulations and lower taxes

          With well over 500,000 regulations on the books as of today I’d say we could save a bunch on printing cost alone if we got rid of say 1/2 that few if anyone would miss.

          As for taxes, it ain’t gunna happen but someone has to take the kid out of the candy store.

        • Gozo Rabat — off topic.
          Would you to elucidate on the questions raised below? You seem to be an expert on most, so interested in your valid input.

          ————————————–

          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?

  10. Ron Paul wanting to legalize dope is enough to turn me off from him. That would insure more people to become less motivated and become charity cases as well as their children. Ron Paul is too old and not healthy enough in mind and body to take on what is happening to this country. He strikes me as being a liberal in conservative clothing.

    • Ron Paul wanting to legalize dope is enough to turn me off from him.

      Then vote for Newt as he is the one who put together the war on drugs

      The biggest supporters of said war are the Mexican drug cartel for without the war they would be out of business. Thus so long as the war continues, it will continue with an end in sight for sure. 16 trillion and counting………….

      • THE PERSISTENT FOLLY OF IDEOLOGY DETACHED FROM REALITY:

        Amen, Billy Malone.

        Back in the Sixties, the comparison between alcohol Prohibition and drug prohibition was clear and obvious. Whoever thinks that handing control of dangerous substances over to outlaws makes more sense than keeping control in society’s hand is someone of limited susceptibility to reason.

        No one really believes that addictive and psychoactive drugs are free of consequences. And many people doubt that governments of any size and shape can do anything constructive. But to insist on keeping control in the hands of organized crime?

        Well, we now have decades and overflowing prisons to assess the wisdom or folly of our ideologically bound approach.

        What a waste.

        Sadly,
        (($; -)}
        Gozo!

        • As Speaker of the House, Gingrich introduced the “Drug Importer Death Penalty Act of 1996.”

          The bill would have required a “sentence of death for certain importations of significant quantities of controlled substances.” It would have applied to anyone convicted more than once of carrying 100 doses — or about two ounces — or marijuana across the border. Defendants would have had a window of 18 months to file their one and only appeal.

          Yeah Newt smoked it too but the law was for you, not him

  11. FINDING OUTRAGE IN ANY GOVERNMENT ACT:

    Surfisher writes: “Gozo Rabat — off topic…Would you to elucidate on the questions raised below? You seem to be an expert on most, so interested in your valid input.”

    I’m flattered by your compliment, Surfisher, that I might have some superior knowledge of military affairs. But the answers you’re looking for are contained in your questions. It would waste time and energy for me to present information about this minor event, for you to use to argue your preexisting political beliefs.

    Here is a link that I found to ABC News about the incident:

    ABC News: Marines Told to Disarm to Match Unarmed Afghan Troops

    Many of the “comments” posted below the ABC story found quick and easy accusations against Secretary Panetta, the Major-General, and, of course, President Obama.
    ____________________

    If you’re looking for “evidence” that representatives of the Federal Government have somehow done something wrong, in treating the Afghan military with the kind of respect that we owe our own, you will find it in the comment opinions posted to the ABC story, as well as on dozens of other links that a Web search gives.
    ____________________

    From what I’ve seen of your comments around here so far, and from what I know of my own opinions, we hold fundamentally different views:

    You believe that government in general—and the Federal Government in particular—functions in opposition to “We, the people,” and ought to be reduced and resisted.

    I believe that “We, the people,” are the government, and that our needs for government are much-greater than when we were a nation of just a few-million citizens.

    Also, I believe it is up to us to quit pushing so hard against each other—such as against Always the President of Another Political Party—and figure out ways to work together.

    Outrage is easy. I come to places like this in hopes of learning ways that we can put our efforts together for the common good, rather than continuing our efforts to push our ideas or candidates to the front, regardless of cost to the American children and grandchildren of the future.

    Regards,
    (($; -)}
    Gozo!

Comments are closed.