AP Fact Check: Gingrich Was ‘Off’ on Budget History & Bachmann Has ‘Worst Record of Accuracy’
- Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:14am by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
WASHINGTON (AP) — Newt Gingrich overlooked a couple of years of red ink when he asserted Thursday night that he balanced the budget for four years as House speaker. And in claiming sole credit for the achievement, he glossed over the fact that budgets are not a one-man show: There was a Democratic president in town, too.
In the last debate before the leadoff Iowa Republican presidential caucuses, Gingrich persisted in repeating a claim he has made often in the campaign, sometimes more accurately than others. Here and there, other candidates, too, reprised misstatements or partial truths from the string of debates and from the stump. Mitt Romney once again declared he has spent his life in the private sector, ignoring his years as governor and political candidate.
A look at some of the claims in the debate and how they compare with the facts:
GINGRICH: “I balanced the budget for four straight years, paid off $405 billion in debt – pretty conservative.”
THE FACTS: In the 1996 and 1997 budget years, the first two years he served as speaker of the House of Representatives, the government actually ran deficits. In 1998 and 1999, the government ran surpluses. Two more years of surpluses followed, but Gingrich was gone from politics by then and had nothing to do with them.
Moreover, the national debt went up during the four years Gingrich was speaker. In January 1995, when he became speaker, the gross national debt was $4.8 trillion. When he left four years later, it was $5.6 trillion, an increase of $800 billion.
To be sure, Gingrich did not single-handedly deepen America’s debt, just as he didn’t balance any budgets on his own. He was a driving force, along with Democratic President Bill Clinton and figures in both houses of Congress, in the economic setbacks and advancements of that time.
—
ROMNEY: “I spent my life, my career, in the private sector.”
THE FACTS: This is true – except for four years as Massachusetts governor, recent years running for president in the 2008 and 2012 elections, a few years running the Olympics and the time he put into his failed run for a Senate seat in 1994.
In essence, Romney has devoted himself to political endeavors since his successful run for governor in 2002, and has been pursuing the presidency for five years.
A month after his term as governor ended in 2007, he announced his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. After John McCain defeated him for the nomination, Romney devoted himself to building a political network, helping Republican candidates raise money, and writing a book that set the stage for his second run for president.
Indeed, Romney, who made his fortune as founder of the investment firm Bain Capital, has not held a private-sector job with a regular paycheck for more than a decade.
—
MICHELE BACHMANN: “We have an IAEA report that just recently came out that said literally Iran is within just months of being able to obtain that (a nuclear) weapon.”
RON PAUL: “There is no U.N. report that said that. It’s totally wrong, what you just said.”
Bachmann: “It’s the IAEA report.”
THE FACTS: As Paul said, the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency does not state that Iran is within months of having nuclear arms. The U.N. agency report does suggest that Iran conducted secret experiments whose sole purpose is the development of nuclear weapons but did not put a time frame on when Iran might succeed in building a bomb, and it made no final conclusion on Tehran’s intent.
Bachmann also erred by arguing that Iran has “stated they will use it (a nuclear weapon) against the United States.”
Iran vehemently rejects that it is developing a nuclear bomb, let alone that it plans to drop one on the U.S.
—
ROMNEY: “I’m firmly in support of people not being discriminated against based upon their sexual orientation. At the same time, I oppose same-sex marriage. That’s been my position from the beginning.”
THE FACTS: In large measure, Romney has been consistent in those two positions, despite accusations of flip-flopping on gay rights.
He walked a fine line back in his failed 1994 Senate campaign, vowing to fight for equality but stopping short of endorsing gay marriage. That’s the same line he walked Thursday night.
He has changed, though, on whether gay marriage should be addressed at the state or federal level. He has favored a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage at least since the beginning of his 2008 presidential bid, when he was the only major Republican candidate to do so. In 1994, he had said the matter should be decided by individual states. That was before the idea of a constitutional ban had gained traction in politics.
—
BACHMANN: “After the debates that we had last week, PolitiFact came out and said that everything I said was true.”
THE FACTS: False.
For the second debate in a row, Gingrich complained that Bachmann wasn’t getting her facts straight, this time when she went after him for the big money he made from Freddie Mac. In her own defense, Bachmann cited ratings from PolitiFact, a fact-checking organization that ranks statements on a scale from true to false, with the worst offender being “Pants on Fire” false.
PolitiFact rated two Bachmann statements from last week’s debate. One, claiming Gingrich once believed in an individual health care mandate, was ranked mostly true. The other, that Romney introduced “socialized medicine” in his state, was judged “Pants on Fire” false.
Indeed, Bachmann has the worst record of accuracy in the Republican field, as rated by that organization and traced by others. Fully 73 percent of her statements checked by PolitiFact were judged mostly false or worse. Gingrich was wrong the next most often, 59 percent of the time.
Popular Stories
MSNBC Host Snaps in Heated Segment: ‘What in the World Is Riskier Than Being a Poor Person in America?’ 684 Comments
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 647 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 523 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 361 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 314 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 173 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 211 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 146 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Scathing New Ad Capitalizes on Rep. Ryan‘s ’Fading Obama Posters’ Remark 124 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 173 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (225)
Militvm Xpisti
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:25amRick Santorum for President
http://www.ricksantorum.com/
Report Post »gwssacredcause
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:19amAP Fact Checks, that is like President Obama admitting he has been wrong about his attacks on capitalism, military, and America.
Report Post »coindexter
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:42amthey all look like wannabe celebs except for ron paul
Report Post »Ballzonya
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:46amReally? Please disprove the AP facts then. It’s just numbers, man. If you count the number of times these candidates have been “inaccurate” with the issues etc over the course of the campaign, you’ll see that Bachmann has the highest number.
It doesn’t take a big brain to figure this out. Your knee-jerk reactions to any criticism of the potentially next leader of our country is irresponsible and reckless. Grow up.
Report Post »Patrick Henry II
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:58amYes AP fact checks are also wrong. Iran (Mamoud) Has stated in english that he would turn US into fire refering to a Nuclear blaze. Yes he also states he will not turn the US into a Nuclear Blaze. He says both often.
Report Post »AZindependent
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:59amThis will be Bachmann’s last appearance in the debates (along with Huntsman, Santorum). Time to cut this down to three or four, and give the remaining candidates more time to answer and expand on their plans.
Report Post »Fly on the Wall
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:13amMichele with false statements 73% of the time, followed by Newt 59% of the time. And these are some of the people you would like to put your faith in and our country in their hands? No thanks.
Report Post »Ballzonya
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:14amPatrick, I understand that interpretation of his statements, but it’s only interpretation. Facts are literal and strict.
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:23amThe most-serious offense wash Bachmann and Gingrich interfering with JUDGES! Don’t they know the Constitution? I agree with Ron Paul — “What happens when our party is not in charge and the Democrats use that against us?” COMMON SENSE and the CONSTITUTION will save America.
Report Post »Christhefarmer
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:33amPeople should vote in the primaries as if their one vote would elect that person to the presidency, that way they would have voted for someone who represents them rather then someone who they have been told can win. Paul is a libertarian who I would be happy to vote for if it was 1900 (before we got involved as we have on the global scale) or if he change his foreign policies to match the time rather then what we should have been doing. Santorum and Bachmann are the next in line from right to left, Santorum is my guy he has been my guy since 2002. He has been a little dishonest and listens to his handlers to much so I have been disappointed but hey whatcha gonna do. Bachmann has been extremely dishonest and she does it in obvious ways. You could be talking to her and say something, she would turn around and tell the person next to her you said the opposite even though they heard what you said. Perry my gov… Texas rocks because Texas rocks, the government here just stays out of our way, and Perry while he has left us alone for the most part has got in our way several times. Newt… Newt is a big thinker but the problem with Newt is he will use liberal policies in his thought process, which means he thinks they have value. Romney is a moderate, with him we will continue to slide to the left. So I think we all can say the government has taken us to the left so why dont we get a guy on the far right to head us back to the center.
Report Post »snidley-whiplash
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:42amAt times I have to check if I’m reading the Politico or the Blaze. SOOOOOOO sad!
Report Post »gwssacredcause
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:48am@BALLZONYA I believe you missed the point. How about we take the amount of mistakes the AP, the New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh has made, without regard giving any regard to the total number of statements, which number do you believe would be higher?
Report Post »Ballzonya
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 11:02amGWS, I don’t have the numbers to verify your hypothetical, but if I was to take a guess at who (or what) has the higher ratio of inaccuracies I’d still go with Bachmann. The AP has made hundreds of millions of statements. Bachmann has made way way less than that, and she seems to always be flubbing one story or another. We know her percentage is very high. This is common knowledge.
Report Post »JRook
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 11:03amBachmann is beyond stupid. Her only possible explanation is some kind of hormonal imbalance. She even more ridiculous than Palin was with her fabricated sound bites and cute labels. Still can’t believe she was able to secure enough votes to get into congress.
Report Post »JRook
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 11:13amBachmann’s statement about the Iranian constitution stating the goal of eliminating Israel was also false. The only accurate thing she said was that much of the rhetoric regarding Iran is dangerous. However, it is her rhetoric and absurd claims that are fear mongering at best. She should be removed from the intelligence committee as she brings none and, makes statements that are damaging to both our security and national interest.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 11:23amSeriously? AP offered that Iran vehemently rejects it is seeking nuclear weapons as a “fact check” against Bachmann? Put a fork in the AP it’s done.
Report Post »I want to see Gingrich get the nomination. He will make an outstanding president. His views on the U.N. last night were brilliant. However..ANY of the GOP candidates will make a far better president than Obama and whoever the nominee is will have my unwavering support. ANYONE BUT OBAMA! My only caution with Gingrich is this…I’m certain he will appoint an effective and quality cabinet. He’s already considering John Bolton for Secretary of State. My caution is that will he listen to the quality people he will have around him? My bet is he will. But I’d like him to address that. What we have with Obama of course is a gaggle of liberal-academic elitists, corruptocrats, icompetents and marxists being led by one of their own in Obama. It’s almost impossible for a sensible decision to come out of the cabinet and advisors Obama has surrounded himself with. I’d like some other Blaze readers thoughts on this.
Polwatcher
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 11:28amBachmann acts like some kind of shrew when she attacks other candidates.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 11:34amPlease BOLOGNA…..spare us your pious “how many times have these candidates been innacurate” buffoonery. Obama and his gaggle of incompetents and marxists have made “innacuracies” their stock-in-trade and you won’t utter one criticism against them will you? Joe Biden is a pillar of integrity and accuracy for you? How about Energy secretary Steven Chu and Solyndra? How about Eric Holder and his “we withdraw our first statement” games with Fast and Furious? Everytime Obama opens his mouth you have to ask yourself..”is that true?”. From his attempt as a candidate to use the Selma rally as the spark for his parents getting together (Selma happened in 1965, Obama was born in 1961..DO THE MATH BOLOGNA) to his morphing positions on our troops (”just airraiding and killing civilians) to his “I will create 3 million jobs” which became “I saved and created 3 million jobs” to “lives touched by the stimulus” chicanery. The man should be hooked up to a polygraph each time he addresses the nation for all the “innacuracies” he contemptuously throws on us. I suggest you take your own advice and grow up.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 11:36amJROOK..if Bachmann is “beyond stupid” thanks to “some kind of hormonal imbalance”..then what‘s you’re excuse? Inbreeding? Dropped at birth? Congential?
Report Post »jzs
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:06pmI’d like to see Bachmann as Surgeon General, given her expertice on the dangers of vaccinations among other things.
Report Post »ccr
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:49pmThe Blaze is OVERREACHING with the petty “fact” check on Mitt’s time in private business vs not. He RETIRED and SERVED (pocketing nothing in his last spin at Bain, the Olympics and Governor. THAT’s SERVICE, private & public!)
Yes, Mitt was planning and preparing if he were running again…….BUT MOSTLY he helped get conservatives elected and helped with the 2010 upset elections! Heeeelllllllllloooooooo! You can use symantecs or try to split hairs, but he was an important factor in the 2010 elections and the Republican Party.
Mitt has been SERVING…..free of charge………..for the past how many ever years! He wasn’t getting personally richer off of connections!
Report Post »Okie from Muskogee
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 2:04pmThis pesky facts seem to elude a few candidates….
Who knows what today is? It is the anniversary of the TEA Party. Everyone likes to say TEA and say they are aligned with TEA but how many are reminding you about today…
The founder of the modern TEA Party, Ron Paul, which began 4 years ago is holding his TEA Party money bomb again today. He has already raised 1.4 million in 12 hours and has a goal of 4 million. Your support is needed….
If your TEA please donate….You are greatly appreciated!
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/
Report Post »JRook
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 2:59pm@AvengerK So that’s your response to her having an inability to speak intelligently and truthfully. Her words define her. Your attempt to define me is pitiful. Pick the topic tiger and put up a cogent argument. Hint, try not to quote Bachmann.
Report Post »JRook
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 3:01pm@jzs LOL actually it is probably a good thing she doesn’t really do much in Congress.
Report Post »JRook
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 3:06pm@AvengerK Pretty obvious from your statements that even you can’t defend Bachmann. As you offer no defense other than identify someone you believe is as inaccurate or stupid. Her poll numbers speak for themselves, and its still Iowa.
Report Post »richard the lion-hearted
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 11:13pmI read all these comments & just shake my head at all the over exaggerated, half-truths either by design or pure ignorance. I am also sure that much has to do with the STILL lazy approach Americans take to getting information, usually 2nd hand, sometimes 3rd. I’ve watched the videos, read the quotes from Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad & he most definitely has said that he will destroy Israel & America, & the ONLY way he can do it is with a nuclear strike on Israel, thus forcing America’s hand, & quickly the rest of the world will overreact & World War III will be everyone’s reality. This is when Iran believes it will fulfill it‘s measure of Allah’s will, the twelfth Imam’s return (when the world has fallen into chaos & civil war consumes the human race…) generalized? Maybe, but it is NO LESS true. I don’t have the time or patience to teach all of you, I do enough of that among family & friends, they are exactly like 85% of the people commenting on this site…still clueless. The AP is NOT any measure for truth and morality, or is it that none of you are aware that a few years back when the rockets from the Gaza Strip that were being fired at Israel constantly by Hezbollah & the ‘doctored’ photos from the west bank that the AP purposefully posted to falsely condemn Israel targeting “innocent” Palestinians?! Shame on all of your short term memories…Newt sat with Nancy (her face was nothin’ fancy) Pelosi in a ‘infomercial’ about the truth of man-made global warmin
Report Post »WeDontNeedNoSteeninBadges06
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 2:51am“AP Fact Check: Gingrich Was ‘Off’ on Budget History & Bachmann Has ‘Worst Record of Accuracy’”
Oh, wait. We’ve got that wrong again. It SHOULD have been:
Report Post »“AP Fact Check: MSNBC Was ‘Off’ on Budget History & AP Has ‘Worst Record of Accuracy’”
Sorry. We’ll try to do better in future. Or not.
Jim in Houston
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 3:12pmAP and facts should never be used in the same sentence.
Report Post »Clara88
Posted on December 18, 2011 at 7:57pmWow…Ron Paul’s tea party money bomb is about to hit $4 million
http://www.dailypaul.com/192852/friday-ron-paul-tea-party-moneybomb-december-16-2011
Report Post »NewAmericanist
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:17amOne thing we conservatives need to do immediately to change the lexicon is stop allowing the networks to call republican states “red states”. If we are going to win the war of ideas we cannot let them beat us on the battlefield of language.
Socialists have red states.
Communists have red states.
Every war Americans have fought, the side in red has lost (Brits, South, Nazi’s, USSR).
It may seem minor but this is a war of psychology. We must win the hearts & minds of our prodigal Americans.
Conservative states are Blue States.
Report Post »ashestoashes
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:36am@NEWAMERICANIST…Ron Paul has no chance to win the nomination? Now why would you make a statement like that? He is the only one up there telling the truth and the only one who has a snowball ‘s chance in hell of turning this country around..THe man knows what he is talking about and it is getting it through to brainwashed heads…and believe me..there are a lot more of them waking up than you realize. It is true that this man gets no news coverage and he is carried by “We the People” but we the people are sick and tired of the goings on in Washington…and we want to go back to our Constituition..We will come together on this thing…Conservatives, Dems and Independents…Ron Paul 2012!!
Report Post »NewAmericanist
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:11amHelp me… Please help me find one issue RP has lead on in his 18 years as a career politition.
One bill authored?
One concrete plan implimented?
A co-sponsorship bill that passed?
Anyone? Anyone?
We need leadership, not a complainer.
Report Post »ashestoashes
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:23amThis is who Ron Paul has been as a Congressman and how he has voted and what he has done..He is just one person in that Congress..It is up to us to vet our Congessmen and hold them accountable and let them know that they work for us…not us for them.
Report Post »http://www.dailypaul.com/170744/ron-pauls-accomplishments
Vechorik
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:25amNewAmericanist, GOOGLE IT!
Report Post »NewAmericanist
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:47amYou are right! Newt was only one man in congress an in less time than Paul has been there became the leader, brought the first conservative majority with him in 40 years, ran on big ideas, got a coolition behind him and helped them get elected. Then this one man in congress implimented his plan in spite of having a democrat president and an opposition senate.
- if balanced budgets
- entitlement reform
- individual sovereignty
- strong national defense
Are not conservative enough for you…
If being “one man” leading a conservative revolution is not conservative for you…
If you don’t think America is the land of big ideas…
You may be in the wrong place.
Report Post »ashestoashes
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:50am@NEWAMERICANIIST Did you go to the site? If you did…you will see what Congress..not specifically this Congress but in Pauls 10 yr term..has voted against the American people and for themselves…Paul is the only one who has voted for us…I would say that that is quite an accomplichment for an individual..Paul is a doctor..what are the rest of them but lawyers and career politicians…this is a man for the people…please They just tried to get the “Indefinite detention” passed…Obama has opposed it but not vetoed it.. They are working on SOPA..loss of free internet speech.. So if the indefinite detention passes. you can be kidnapped off the street..never to be seen or heard from again..Wake Up!!
Report Post »ashestoashes
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 11:09amNEWAMERICANIST…Maybe I’m in the wrong place? WHy don’t you try going to the website that I posted on Gingrich…maybe it is you in the wrong place. ..oh but wait…the communists and dumbasses have taken us over.
Report Post »NewAmericanist
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 11:25amAshestoashes your argument was who says RP doesnt have executive experience
I have nothing against Paul: wish more congressmen voted like he does…
I’m just saying casting votes is not leadership nor executive experience.
RP says a lot of good things, but he also says a lot of scary utopian things. Worst of all he has no plan, and has no track record of implimenting his vision of America or leading anything but a campaign.
Report Post »ashestoashes
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 11:46amNEWAMERICANIST You listed some of the things Gingrich has done.. If you read this acticle..you will see he was spinning it…he spins a lot..Please read the website I provided..It has links with headlines..it isn’t a long drawn out thing..Newt is for Newt only..My idea about Paul is he is so revolutionary…back to the Constitution…smalll government…building our military here at home, closing our borders..Do you realize the impact on jobs this would have..to keep it here at home…We have not had anyone in Congress to work for us We need to make sure that they are or kick them out…We need to help us..We are a large nation..Look at China..She keeps it close to the vest and she does well..We are a Christian Nation..Ron Paul is a Christian man..It’s time we had someone who is in a position to fight for us…It took me awhile to get out of the brainwashed war propagand machine..but I have always thought we should keep our trade at home..and keep our military here.. When a former President sold Nuclear secrets to China,,he should have been tried for treason..We need to man our country..We the People!!.
Report Post »West Coast Patriot
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 1:42pmNewamerican, One bill authored? It may take two posts but how about this one:
Report Post »Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, January 9, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I rise to restore the right the founding fathers saw as the guarantee of every other right by introducing the Second Amendment Protection Act. This legislation reverses the steady erosion of the right to keep and bear arms by repealing unconstitutional laws that allow power-hungry federal bureaucrats to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
Specifically, my legislation repeals the five-day waiting period and the “instant” background check, which enables the federal government to compile a database of every gun owner in America. My legislation also repeals the misnamed ban on “semi-automatic” weapons, which bans entire class of firearms for no conceivable reason beside the desire of demagogic politicians to appear tough on crime. Finally, my bill amends the Gun Control Act of 1968 by deleting the “sporting purposes” test, which allows the Treasury Secretary to infringe on second amendment rights by classifying a firearm (handgun, rifle, shotgun) as a “destructive device” simply because the Secretary believes the gun to be “non-sporting.”
cont…
West Coast Patriot
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 1:44pm…Thomas Jefferson said “The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; …that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” Jefferson, and all of the Founders, would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising their right and duty to keep and bear arms. I hope my colleagues will join me in upholding the Founders’ vision for a free society by cosponsoring the Second Amendment Restoration Act.
Progressives blocked this as they do not want our 2nd amendment rights restored to our founding fathers ideas. Everything Paul trys to do is based on Constitutional principles but we have too many Progressives on both sides of the aisle that fight the Constitution and would love to see it go away completely.
Report Post »TskTsk
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 1:54pmCome on! Should we then remove the red out of our flag? How about thinking of all the blood Americans shed in the fight for freedom? I have no shame in the red for Conservative states! I never looked at this as representing Communism! We have bigger fish to fry here- and that is to get lots of Conservatives in Congress and in local races, as well as in the White House!
Report Post »West Coast Patriot
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 1:54pmHeere is a link to read more: http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/rep_bios.php?rep_id=47384468&category=views&id=20100506100859
Report Post »West Coast Patriot
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 2:14pmHere is another interesting point, Fox News who is saying this morning that Paul may have hurt himself from last nights debate has a poll on their Happening Now section which asks Who Won the Debate? Paul: 52.31% Gingrich: 20.75% Romney: 9.96% Perry: 11.84% Bachman: 3.14% Santorum: 1.99% and Huntsman: 0%. Fox wants Romney period. Do not let the media sway you.
Report Post »NewAmericanist
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:05amGlenn has forgotten his Overton Window premise. We cannot go from socialism, welfare/nanny state to a Ron Paul libertarian at the helm. RP has done a great job at changing the debate on some issues but is not and never will be executive material.
I would like Romney if he came across a little tougher. My fear in him is weeknes of conviction & seems to get really flustered by the heat of the kitchen.
Newts big ideas move the Overton Window at each debate. Ike a CNN anchor recently said “at least every time you hear Newt speak you learn something”.
Newt is a trained operator who knows how Washington works (for better or worse) and begin executing as executive from day one. Newt has big ideas and has the most proven conservative track record.
Report Post »V-MAN MACE
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:20amRon Paul isn’t executive material because YOU say so?
I differ.
Ron Paul 2012.
Report Post »Rightallalong
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:22amNewt Gingrich at a Virginia Conservative Action PAC fundraiser in Richmond in 2007 supports four boxes for health care reform. They include mandatory 5 day a week PE class and posting a bond in you don’t buy insurance
How is that Conservative? I think the normal definition of conservative means LESS government control and more?
http://nation.foxnews.com/newt-gingrich/2011/12/14/flashback-newt-loves-individual-mandate
Report Post »spankadonkey
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:31amA big AMEN to your post. Gingrich has a real list of accomplishments, many well-thought-out solutions, and the proven ability to get things done. Paul sounds good to the young, inexperienced, idealistic anti-war crowd but has no significant accomplishments nor evidence he can get anything done. And did you notice in the debate, Paul ignored the direct request that he state that he would not run against but support the Republican nominee.
Report Post »ashestoashes
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:03am@NEWAMERICANIST…Newt is a trained operator who knows how Washington works (for better or worse) and begin executing as executive from day one. Newt has big ideas and has the most proven conservative track record.
Report Post »Where on earth have you been?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2818630/posts
Newt is a highly accomplished con man..“slick Newt”
“We cannot go from socialism, welfare/nanny state to a Ron Paul libertarian at the helm. ”
So just where do you think that all that money is going to come from when we are..what is it 15 trillion dollars broke? We can go back to our Constituition., Austrian econmics with Paul’s financial advisor Peter Schiff.. God Almighty and our going back to our Constitution is the only thing that can save this country..Or maybe you like all this continued immigration into a broken land. Maybe you like all these wars and relocating all of those people over to here..Maybe you like having our young men and women die so that the hiearchy can rule the whole world and do as they see fit…you know..that one world order…where they already thought that we were too populated t6 billion and now we are 7…Have you heard of Agenda 21? Their meeting was just confirmed on Ya Hoo news . but could not find it on any other media outlets…here’s what they are doing…
http://www.infowars.com/un-calls-for-eco-fascist-world-government-at-durban-summit/
NewAmericanist
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:04amI appreciate Ron Paul. Some of the things he says are thing many purist libertarian & conservatives fantasize about.
But RP is like a crotchety old man who sits in his arm chair and bitches about how things ought to be. If he was a leader (executive skills) he would have already have made an impact in his 18 years in congress. Please outline for me examples of Paul being a leader in congress.
Report Post »bhohater
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:19amI could support anyone but Ron Paul. I will give him credit for not flip-flopping though, his wacky ideas are the same as they were four years ago. Listening to him one gets the impression he believes we should just do away with government and let people do anything they like. Hell, that’s anarchy.
Report Post »KrishnaDas
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:20amNewt Gingrich is a proponent of the Third Wave – please read about this if you truly love the Constitution: http://thereaganwing.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/the-phony-right-wing-part-2-newt-gingrich-the-third-wave/
I’m a Desert Storm Vet (USS Leahy CG-16) who supported the Iraq War and I thought Ron Paul was wrong at first, but I challenged myself to really think about what he said. I had no problem with his economic views, but had a hard time with his foreign policy at first. By applying what I know about logical vs. false arguments to his arguments, and I kept coming back to the fact he is right. If you truly believe in small government this should naturally extend to keeping our foreign actions strictly to defense. The military is the government and the more war there is, the less liberty– and a more drained national treasury– there will inevitably be. Look this week they are destroying the 4th amendment and voting on being able to control the Internet, all while the next war is being pumped.
Heck, John Adams didn’t really even want a full-time standing army, so the Constitution defining that the Congress should only make war was inspired by this concern.
Thing about it. I did. We can change our ways– orderly with Ron Paul’s leadership– or we will be forced to deal with the reality of going broke and having to scale down in a much less desirable and honorable manner.
Report Post »V-MAN MACE
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 11:08amNewAmericanist
Fact of the matter is that Ron Paul interjects REAL ISSUES such as nation building, the Federal Reserve, etc, and if it wasn’t for him interjecting those REAL ISSUES (instead of talking about who cheated on their wife ***cough*** Herman and Newt) we would be talking about a lot of garbage.
He’s the only one to introduce a bill to audit the Fed every session.
I can go on and on, but it’s really up to you to research and find out for yourself who Ron Paul really is, being reelected 12 times, and stonewalled by Liberals and Neocons the entire time.
They even tried to redistrict the man out of Congress the way they’re trying to do Dennis Kucinich, and he, like Kucinich, STILL GOT REELECTED. The people REJECTED the neocon/liberal party line and reelected that magnificent man.
Report Post »West Coast Patriot
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 2:30pmNew, go here: http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/rep_bios.php?rep_id=47384468&category=views&id=20100506100859
Paul is only one true patriot fight many progressives in Congress. What you are asking to show is something that cannot be done unless “We The People” wake up and start electing all officials that take their oath to protect and defend the Constitution seriously. We have been asleep for decades and now face the total destruction of our liberties. I am glad that there is at least a handful of officials in Congress since the 2010 elections that do, but we need more.
Report Post »koibaby
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:58amI am so disappointed. They all suck!
Report Post »GFWSR
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:25amDitto!
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:27amhttp://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain…-nuclear-iran/
Here is a good article that puts last nights debate into a real sense. Stop listening to Fox news…they are the only people troubled by Ron Paul last night — Fox is the last 20% or so of the Republican party that loves endless wars. People are awake now and we know what is going on.
After 10 years of Iraq it is hard for anyone to not want to examine threats before jumping to a conclusion.
Report Post »ashestoashes
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:42amVECHORK…I noticed that about Fox News last night.. I no longer watch Fox…but saw how the Fox commentator disrespected Paul..treating him as if he were 2 yrs old when he ran over the bell..He didn’t treat the rest of them like that and Huntsmen ran over 2 consecutive bells..Then Sean Hannity disrespected him but said he admired his fan base…Fox News is fixing to get their eyes opened!!!!!!!!
Report Post »West Coast Patriot
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 2:46pmGo here and see a Fox News poll before they take it off: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/happening-now/index.html#/v/1325832768001/vets-urge-supreme-court-to-uphold-stolen-valor-act/?playlist_id=86919
Fox talks bad about Paul, but the people will make the decision, not Fox News.
Report Post »LIBS-ARE-DINGLEHEADS
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:54amBachmann is a whining, montone-y goofball – unfit to hold office.
Newt has more baggage than Paris Hilton on a month breather to Ibiza.
Report Post »hazmat2010
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:53amso since none of the other candidates were mentioned does that mean they had all their facts straight?
Report Post »Sam the Casual Movie Guy
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:52amRon Paul is the only constitutional choice. All of the others are for ongoing military campaigns to fight evil around the world – but the definition of evil is a slippery one. Apparently, at any time a country or group of people disagree with U.S. foreign or domestic policy, it gets the label “Evil”. Granted, evil does exist, and every so often it actually threatens the national security of the U.S. (Japan, Germany in WWII, U.S.S.R. during the Cold War). But absent an attack on the U.S., or a declaration of war against the U.S., there is NO REASON for U.S. military involvement – not pre-emptive, not as proxy for another nation, period. The Evangelical love affair with Israel, coupled with this country‘s total disregard for Washington’s Farewell Address, will be the death of us all.
Report Post »Lordchamp
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:05amI can agree with much of what you say. However, as history shows us, there was much of WWII that could have been avoided IF we would have taken those steps BEFORE we got to the “fighting” point. Had we worked harder to help prevent Hitler from coming to power or paid closer attention to Japan’s expansion policy, etc we could have avoided many casualties and even possibly avoided WWII all together. Many of the things that were happening in that era are happening or present today also. There are many similarities.
I to disagree with being the world’s policeman. I think in most instances we are way to anxious to do that. However, I do believe we must protect our long term interests and to do that we must be the “biggest, strongest kid on the block”. A big part of that means saying AND meaning, “you mess with us and we’ll kick your butt”. No messing around, we declare war, kick your butt and come home victorious.
Report Post »Dismayed Veteran
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:48am@Sam
“…absent an attack on the U.S.,…”
The US was attacked on 9/11. No one in government chose to seek a declaration of war. But, we are at war and will remain at war for the foreseeable future. To ignore that is folly.
Report Post »Johnny Cocheroo
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:04am@ Dismayed Veteran
“The US was attacked on 9/11. No one in government chose to seek a declaration of war. But, we are at war and will remain at war for the foreseeable future. To ignore that is folly.”
True Dismayed – We were attacked but what we ignore is the attack came from within our own borders. The terrorists were in our country, trained on our planes and were in airplanes that took off from U.S. airports.
For a trillion dollars – we could have made a lot of improvements here. We could have a fully functioning fence and better security procedures. Looks like we really haven’t done anything to solve the problem that allowed 9/11 to occur in the first place. And if 9/11 never happened…..would we have went to war at all?
I am have updated my candidates to Ron Paul & Michele Bachmann. I like Paul’s strategy of building up our country from within & keeping many troops close. Then, if an enemy strikes, we strike hard and fast. Defeat the enemies & immediately bring our troops home. Time to save money and make sure we have treasure if needed.
Report Post »West Coast Patriot
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 3:04pmLordchamp, I understand your argument, but what in the Constitution gives us the right to go around the world and tell other Nations that they had better do it our way or else we will kill you? I believe that is the job of diplomats. We can send diplomats to argue to other Nations that we do not agree with what they are doing and offer solutions that would be better for them and us. If they disagree, that is their porogative. If they threaten our security, or they decide to attack us, we the people, through our elected officials in Congress, decide if it is enough to declare war and then we go in swinging, kick butt and then leave. If they attack and ally or are a threat to our ally and our ally asks us for help, agian, we go to Congress. If Congress then declares war, we go in with all our might and then get out. That is what Paul would do. If Congress was in recess and there was no time, Paul would give the order and then go to Congress to see if we should continue. Again, the power is supposed to be the peoples, not the President or the U.N. or Nato. The Constitution is our only hope of turning this country around.
Report Post »Lordchamp
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:41amYes, folks, we’re down to Santorum or Bachman and we conservatives need to decide quickly, get behind one of them and stay there regardless of the outcome. I think either one could do the job and I can see pluses to both. At this point, I think possibly Santorum might be a bit more electable than Bachman but I like the point of running a woman/minority against Obama to at least take some of the attack points away from the liberals.
Santorum on the other hand seems to be a bit less “desperate” and so he answers questions more accurately rather than embellishing his answers which leads to inaccuracies by Bachman.
Santorum’s work ethic impresses me. He has been in every county or at least almost every county in Iowa personally. 300 plus town hall meetings sounds like a huge number to me so the man is not afraid to put his “nose to the grindstone”. I definitely like his stand on family values and manufacturing. Without both of those we won’t climb out of this mess.
I do believe one of those two will win Iowa.
And NO, I won’t consider Paul because of his foreign policy stances. Although I do agree with some of it, I believe the majority of it is naive. There IS evil out there and just being “nice” to it does not make it go away. At some points in history that might have worked. Now is not that point in history and he misses that completely.
Report Post »NewAmericanist
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:51amBachman has zero chance of getting the nomination and if she did, would be eaten alive by Obama & his big red machine.
Santorum seems like a good/nice guy.
If RP happened to get ellected he would be a lame duck from day one.
I’m voting for Newt. He is not just a campaigner, he is an operator and knows how to get things done.
Report Post »JAHodel
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:56amBachmann and Santorum seem a little too eager to start another war which means we go even further in debt…doesn’t sound too conservative to me.
Report Post »Lordchamp
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:13amSpeaking the truth about the state of foreign affairs does not necessarily mean they want war. I don’t think either of them would want to send our men and women in the military to die. However, there ARE many ways of dealing with the Iranian situation that do not require declaring war. I think both of them would explore and use those means and would most likely eliminate the threat easily.
So that brings us right back to the point that we need someone leading us that has a TRUE conservative background and values. Both of them fit that and the others don’t.
Report Post »JAHodel
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:20amI’m sorry but after Iraq, when we invaded a country that MIGHT be a threat to us, I have no faith in anyone who supports that policy.
Report Post »V-MAN MACE
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:23amNot voting for either of those two warmongering neocons posing as conservatives.
Ron Paul is the ONLY choice for conservatives. Anyone else, and you’re just voting Neocon/Liberal because you want to police the world and police American citizen’s personal and financial freedoms.
Be honest with yourself.
Report Post »Lordchamp
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:14amI’m VERY honest with myself and also a very logical, critical thinker. Paul, even though some of his ideas are good and Constitutional will puts is in harms way much quicker than anyone else because of his “play nice” theory. I say theory because history does not bear out HIS logic. Just because we ignore problems and isolate ourselves does not make them go away. Hitler comes immediately to mind. We had many chances to influence and even stop him and chose to ignore the obvious signs and look where it got us. I don’t condone many of the battles we have fought but without having a strong military and negotiating from strength and having the world know that we will not be messed with, we leave ourselves open for attacks like Peal Harbor and 9/11.
Report Post »Johnny Cocheroo
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:15am@V-MAN MACE
Not voting for either of those two warmongering neocons posing as conservatives.
Ron Paul is the ONLY choice for conservatives. Anyone else, and you’re just voting Neocon/Liberal because you want to police the world and police American citizen’s personal and financial freedoms.
I’m about 85% for Ron Paul. Last night, many of his comments were well said and made sense.
Russia, China, India & Pakistan all have nuclear weapons….. are we really truly willing to go into another war to stop Iran?
– remember the lack of WMD we found in Iraq….. could our intelligence be wrong again & God help a republican president if it is.
- We are already don’t have money, we can’t afford another war.
- War with Iran could eventually lead to war with Russia (who has close ties with Iran)
- lets invest HERE in ourselves. Lets develop our missile defense system and build up the military. Who cares if Iran has nukes if they can’t use them on us.
Ron Paul made sense regarding the Courts…. we just can’t start calling them in front of Congress. That also creates a “checks & balance” problem. Just like Romney said, Congress is just as bad as the courts.
Cuts a trillion dollars and has an actual plan on paper to do it? Hellooooo Tea Party?
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:52amBachmann and Santorum have “sold us out” by breaking the Constitution — by supporting the antiPatriot act, which led to the “indefinite detention” bill. They are too inexperienced.
Four Supreme Court Justices will be nominated by the next President to replace Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer.
Report Post »RON PAUL will make sure those nominees are Constitutionalists that protect “We the people”
West Coast Patriot
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 2:40pmA note about the Supreme Court, it was not designed to create laws, it was designed to interpret the laws to make sure they are Constitutional. Congress is the legislative body that makes laws, the executive branch enforces the laws. We need justices that take the Constitution seriously and do their part in interpreting the laws on their Constitutionality only.
Report Post »ColoradoMaverick
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:40amAP fact check: Isn’t that a contradiction in of itself?
Report Post »NOTAMUSHROOM
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:48amYup. That’s called an oxymoron.
Report Post »EqualJustice
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:28amAll the so called “FACT CHECK” people are liberal and are FUNDED by liberals.. ALL of them!
Report Post »“But if the United States launches an unconventional attack, Iran needs to respond with a nuclear strategy,” the Iranian defense ministry analyst contends.”
“Iran Admits It Could Pull Nuke Trigger on US”
votemallout
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:25amSantorum would start a war mongering Theocracy and trample on what liberty we have left. RP for me.
Report Post »escape_from_socialism
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:34amMe too, more I learn about Washington, more I like Paul.
Report Post »Lordchamp
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:52amYes, just like Obama. Ask them nicely and they will play nice. Yeah right. If you truly believe that you have no knowledge of human nature. There is a time and place for that but at this point in history, this is NOT that point. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being strong and prepared and I would add, only use that strength Constitionally which I agree we usually do not do. That much I will give Paul. He is naive though to believe that if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone. We tried that when we first became a Country over 200 years ago and we ended up having to go fight them. Read your history. Tell me we were interfering with them back then when were had just finished fighting the American Revolution. They HATE the west because they hate Christianity and have for many, many centuries.
Report Post »tobywil2
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:16amIf Obama’s teleprompter malfunctioned and flashed the TRUTH and Obama chocked on that truth, could the HEIMLICH MANEUVER be applied in time to avoid Biden becoming President?
Report Post »Why does AP not do a fact sheet on President Obama’s speeches?
http://commonsense21c.com/
Mudslinger
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:16amI was a Cain guy, even though now I’m embarrased by being fooled by him. I always felt guilty for not supporting Santorum because I have always liked him. I find it very hard to fully trust any of them, but I’m backing Santorum in the primaries. If it’s a can of dog food running against Obummer in the general then I will vote for the dog food.
Report Post »nanzofsc
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:43amYou will vote for dog food – as will I – but sadly, GB has said there is at least one candidate he will not vote for – this saddens me. We have to get O out of office!! A potted plant will suffice as well!
Report Post »bikerr
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:52amEmbarrassed?.Why,have ANY of the things reported(On Cain) been ‘FACT CHECKED”?.I hope Cain is asked to help the next NonObama Administration in some capacity. Remember, Newt has been married three times!. Hardly an excuse to stop him from running?. May the best person who Loves the U.S.A. Win!
Report Post »rpa1121
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:04amHey AP “fact checkers”, I am fact checking this statement of yours: “Iran vehemently rejects that it is developing a nuclear bomb, let alone that it plans to drop one on the U.S.”
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/iran-nuclear-weapons-israel/2010/10/05/id/372644
Report Post »rwandrw
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:39amgood call
Report Post »NOTAMUSHROOM
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:45am“Iran vehemently rejects that it is developing a nuclear bomb, let alone that it plans to drop one on the U.S.”
Right. Cuz Muslims never lie to infidels.
Report Post »farm7
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:01amI was a Cain supporter, then leaned toward Newt. It looks to me like Santorum is the best option now. He seems to be a straight shooter without all of the baggage. Wish he would pick up some steam! We can’t look for the best personality, rather the best person.
Report Post »Churchill
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:16amSantorum isn’t my guy, but I can understand why people like him. Newt on the other hand?
Report Post »countryfirst
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:00amRick Santorum deserves a look at, he seems to be accountable and trustworthy.
Report Post »MarylandPatriot
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:18ami couldn’t agree any more, no one can say his answer to his foreign policy question didn’t go down reaaal smooth
Report Post »stopthespending
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:40amHe stands for the TRUTH, and I think that he will do the peoples will, just to many progressives up in DC that don’t want him in their, but he gets my vote, because they Rail Roaded Cain out.
Report Post »bigfatslob
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:59amBachmann and pants on fire …..hmmmmm. That thought aside, I finding Romney the safest candidate and am leaning his way, though I never thought I say it. Newton is too progressive and he scares me.
Report Post »Countrygirl1362
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:50am“Iran vehemently rejects that it is developing a nuclear bomb”
Could this be because they already have it? With Russia’s help, it would not surprise me.
Report Post »mwhaley
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:44amAP where were your fact checkers for president Pookie?
Report Post »Mathew Manhorne
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:41amBachmann is nothing but a complete loon who I truly believe has no idea what she is even talking about half the time…All those who buy into her non-sense make me laugh… She is no different than any other politician yet so many have convinced themselves that she is different just because Glenn likes her because she hangs at his house….Give me a break… Wake up to reality!!!!!
Report Post »Publius Novus
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:15amThis is one instance where Glenn is dead wrong. I think she has snookered him completely.
Report Post »PossumRoadkill
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:21amI agree. She just spouts slogans and catch phrases that she knows will resonate with a certain group of people. If she were the leading candidate in the polls, I’m sure that a lot more about her would come out. She seemed desperate last night and won’t last past February.
Report Post »NewAmericanist
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:45amHer campaign died (and I died laughing) when Bachman reassured us that she “is a serious candidate”.
If it were true, she wouldnt have to say it.
Report Post »nanzofsc
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:48amI think she is a good conservative – BUT – she has turned into a flame-thrower. Oh, and first she is bashing the 999 plan when Cain is in the race – then he gets out and she praises him so she can get his supporters – well, I was on the Cain train and won‘t go to Bachman unless it’s her and O then I would vote for any of our candidates! Hope you all will as well!
Report Post »mcpbob
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:38amGet off the Ron Paul Train… cause on foreign affairs he is a wreck, THINK ABOUT IRAN WITH A NUKE.. are you kidding me, it is like giving a heroin user keys to the pharmacy… these people want us dead, not because we are in the middle east but because they beleive they are the ones to rule the world, Ron Paul as much as you might like his domestic policies, he is very very dangerous to have a commander in chief.. Obama is actually better on foreign policy than Paul
Report Post »Steve Lindsey
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:54am@MCP-Agreed.. Ron Paul is a train wreck waiting to happen. If he got his way Israel would literally be toast and Islamo Fascist in charge of the Middle East. The flow of oil would cease at least to us and we would become isolated as they continue to move into and take control of Europe. The Fanatical Islamic Jihadist already control parts of France, Spain, Greece and almost the UK. Ron Paul would just sit back and let it happen…
Report Post »Al J Zira
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:55amPaul’s constitutional stance on everything is admirable but naive. It‘s true that we shouldn’t be all over the world but that is only because recently we’ve been able to expand our reach. Decades ago we wouldn’t be able to react in time to advances from enemy states before a disaster could take place. i.e. threats from Russia, Iran, N. Korea threatening a launch. Now we can pretty much reach anywhere in the world from Kansas if we want.
But, Bachman is right in saying that while leaving governments to their own affairs only goes so far. When you have Iran making statements that they want to blow Israel off the map and then the U.S., the constitution also says that one of the few jobs the government is supposed to do is protect its citizens. Obama was so wrong dismantling the missile umbrella Bush was trying to set up. When Iran does launch a weapon, it’ll already be too late.
Report Post »Churchill
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:00amThat what people were saying about him in 2003 when he said Iraq didn’t have WMD. What a nut!!!
Report Post »V-MAN MACE
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:35amFirmly on the Ron Paul Train.
All aboard the Liberty Express!
Our biggest enemies, China and Russia, has tens of thousands of Nukes.
Do you see me squirming? This is the Israeli lobby desperate for the US to back a war or start a war with Iran.
We can’t afford it.
Report Post »escape_from_socialism
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:43amPut Rp on the side,
Report Post »It is 2013, you are freshly elected president. Iran announce, they have nuke. They didn’t used, they just saying, if they get attack, they will used.
What will you do?
KTsayz
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:19amI remember after The Wall came down with the fall of the USSR, wondering who our next ‘enemy’ would be. Seems my whole life the fed govt has needed an enemy to keep the minions under its control. Look at what this fear/warmongering got us: the unPatriotAct, the DHS, the TSA, the Military Commissions Act (which is where the FEMA camps come from even though it doesn‘t seem they’ve built any yet) and now the NDAA.
Report Post »All this fea/warmongering has done is created legislation where we lose every right once guaranteed in our Constitution.
Why are so many enthralled with the fact that we’ve lost our liberties along with our founding principles?
I am appalled that so many are begging for WWIII to happen and I guarantee that if Ron Paul is not elected as our next president it will begin. Every candidate BUT Ron Paul is chomping at the bit to bomb Iran. Russia and China have already warned America against an Iranian strike and should that happen they very well could back Iran. And there are reports that Barry has deployed troops to the Syrian/Jordan border – for what? A preemptive strike on Iran?
Please don’t support the wars. Lets try peaceful relations and a return to liberty.
BenFranklinLivesHere
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:36amHow many other countries have nukes that don’t really like us? What makes Iran, who doesn’t have a nuke, any scarier than the others?
Look folks. It’s the week-kneed and uninformed who are falling for the war mongering. Both Bachmann and Santorum are using the fear mongering tactic that was launched by Beck and they’re both desperate to get off the bottom of the pile. Most people are just tired of all the lying.
The truth has no agenda, it isn‘t always pretty and it isn’t always what you want to hear. Ron Paul is the only candidate bringing that truth.
Report Post »A vote for Ron Paul is a vote of courage. Now is time for courage in the face of all the lies.
V-MAN MACE
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 9:39amKTsayz
The FEMA Camps are built already and Halliburton subsidiary KBR is issuing contracts to now staff the Concentration camps.
Have you seen Jesse Ventura’s Conspiracy Theory? He did an entire episode on FEMA Camps and went TO one of the FEMA Camps. Right to the FRONT DOOR. Just search “Jesse Ventura Fema Camps”…
Report Post »Underground Man
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 11:53amAL J ZIRA said, “Paul’s constitutional stance on everything is admirable but naive.”
What a hypocrite and fraud you are. Do not EVER complain that Obama tramples on the Constitution when you’re nothing but a “cafeteria Constitutionalist” yourself, respecting it when it suits you and dismissing it when it suits you. The only difference between you blissfully ignorant, angst-ridden, trigger-happy neocons and the progressives is your opinions about how the Constitution ought to be violated. In many ways you and the Bachmannites are worse than the Leftists because you actually masquerade as guardians of the Constitution, which you evidently think is “admirable but naive” to actually follow. Ron Paul is a man of integrity and consistency, who is not afraid to defend the Constitution from political hacks on either side of the aisle.
Absolutely disgusting.
Report Post »ashestoashes
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 3:02pm@V_MAN I listened to you on Cain..you were right..I thought you were a Paul supporter..However..you might want to take a look at this video..There is one with Glenn and Bibi in which he tells him basically the same thing..like they don‘t want our money and they haven’t asked our men to die for them.It will give you a new respect for Israel.
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVORRHn7rg8
West Coast Patriot
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 3:30pmSome of you are so blind it is pathetic. Iran doesn’t even have the technology to refine their own oil into gas and you think they are a threat? The only way they will get a Nuke is from Russia or China. If that happens, our beef will be with them not Iran. Iran already somewhat live like in the stone age. Isreal could pound them into the ground with no trouble. All this talk of war is ridiculous. Wise up people.
Report Post »V-MAN MACE
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 3:30pmOh yea I saw that video!
Absolutely AMAZING COMMENTS!!!!
Report Post »GIDEON612
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:27amWhy do we have these people running? Can’t we find someone that is a true conservative who is a servant of God and does not feel that lying is OK?
Report Post »Is that too much to ask?
MirabellaDesign
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:32amWe have, open your heart and your mind and look at the good Dr. Paul!
Report Post »Look for the truth
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:33amRick Santorum is Your GUY
Report Post »Steve Lindsey
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:47am@Mira-Ron Paul does it too.. He just covers his in bills then votes against them. Those he knows will pass any way.
Report Post »mom4times
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:55amSantorum…..most integrity i’ve seen yet….end of comment
Report Post »kcares
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:22amSo tired of all these lying politicians! Why is there not an honest person out there?
Report Post »Look for the truth
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:32amRick Santorum
Report Post »is it funny you never see his credibility touched
he is never caught in a contradiction
he has been honest
they fear if he catches fire, nothing will bring him down. and he would EASILY beat OBAMA
MidWestMom
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:01amSantorum is on my short list. I’m taking a hard look at his record, his stance on the issues etc. While I do watch some of the debates, I don’t believe they offer an in-depth profile of the candidates.
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:57amRon Paul is honest to the core. All the other candidates are DISHONEST, or make mistakes or are ignorant of the Constitution. Those mistakes all lead to the same thing: a LESS PROSPEROUS AMERICA WITH LESS FREEDOM!
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:21amThey are really after Bachmann!
Report Post »GIDEON612
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 7:32amThey can’t have a so-called minority running against them. Look at what they did to Herman.
Report Post »V-MAN MACE
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:36amPatriot Act Extension Bachmann?
No thanks, I stand for liberty.
Ron Paul 2012.
Report Post »Fed up in Bama
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:05amYou and me, both!!!
Report Post »nanzofsc
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 8:45amPerry is hilarious – but can’t take him seriously as Pres. I like him – and will vote for whoever the candidate is, but worry if he can stand up to Chicago-style politics!
Report Post »neverending
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 10:06amMe too because I believe he will make a REAL comeback.
Report Post »Utahcatholic
Posted on December 16, 2011 at 12:45pmPerry makes Dubya look like the smartest guy ever to be POTUS. Perry makes me hack.
Report Post »