September 12-13, 2011
Sep 12 01:09 Spending 9/11 in the presence of heroes Sep 12 07:52 TPaw endorses Romney Sep 12 09:23 CNN-ORC poll damaging to Romney Sep 12 14:37 Announcing the Building Homes for Heroes Challenge Sep 13 01:21 Obstructing for the right reasons Sep 13 05:23 Michele wins debate
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Spending 9/11 in the presence of heroes
Sunday afternoon, I had the privilege of participating in a magnificent celebration of America's resilience. I was privileged to attend a 9/11 fundraiser for a great organization called Building Homes for Heroes. The fundraiser's chief sponsors were John and AJ Kern, Henry Gruber and KNSI.
First, the story behind Building Homes for Heroes, like most aspects of the organization, is an inspirational story :
After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Andy joined thousands of New Yorkers who volunteered in the rescue effort at the World Trade Center site. While it turns out that this event was one of the underlying reasons for the formation of Building Homes for Heroes, it wasn't until a few years down the line that the idea of helping severely wounded men and women of the United States Military became his passion. After a couple years of volunteering and contributing to a similar group, Andy decided to form his own charitable organization, Building Homes for Heroes.
Like many stories about that day, the backstory to Andy's story is awe-inspiring. After volunteering in the rescue effort at Ground Zero, Andy was diagnosed with cancer. Doctors think it's a direct result of the toxic fumes at Ground Zero. Thankfully, Andy's cancer is in remission. Andy says that he'll keep working to build homes for America's heroes until he draws his last breath.
Staff Sergeant William Castillo also spoke at the event. Here's an abridged version of Sgt. Castillo's story :
In 2007, while on a mission to rescue Marines who were under attack, Army SSG Castillo's vehicle was struck by an IED. Despite head trauma and numbing throughout his body, he courageously continued to fight. While under heavy enemy fire, he fought his way back to the vehicle in an attempt to save fellow soldiers.
During the battle, SSG Castillo was shot five times; twice in the chest, once on the top of his head and once in the right leg. Still struggling to get back to the Humvee, he was struck again. This round struck him under the chin and exited out his mouth. As he reached the driver of the burning vehicle, an RPG struck the Humvee and severed his left leg above the knee. William was the only survivor.
For his courage and bravery, he was awarded The Purple Heart. Castillo has dedicated himself to help other wounded soldiers. William and his wife Katherine have four children. The Castillo family will be the recipient of a home provided by Building Homes for Heroes.
Here's a picture of SSG Castillo with Rep. King Banaian:
Another impressive aspect of Building Homes for Heroes is their commitment to transparency and honor. Here's a brief review of their financials :
Andy Pujol, founder and president of Building Homes for Heroes, doesn't take a salary. In 2011, 94 cents of each dollar that comes in will go to building homes or retrofitting homes for these heroes. Just 2 cents of each dollar goes to fundraising expenses, with another 4 cents going for management and general expenses.
This event wouldn't have happened without the work of John and AJ Kern, pictured here:
I can attest to the fact that John and AJ worked tirelessly to make the event a success. And what a success it was. A major tip of the hat for John and AJ for pulling this all together and introducing us to heroes like Andy Pujol and Staff Sergeant Castillo.
The last of the guest speakers was Rep. King Banaian, who did a great job of putting things in perspective. Here's a picture of Rep. Banaian giving his presentation:
I won't forget where I was when the terrorist attacks were first reported. Thanks to Andy Pujol, SSG Castillo and John and AJ Kern, I won't forget how I commemorated the 10th anniversary of the terrorists' attacks.
Thanks to Andy Pujol's labor of love and SSG Castillo's sacrifice, the dark cloud of 9/11 has its silver lining.
For that, I will always be grateful.
Posted Monday, September 12, 2011 1:09 AM
No comments.
TPaw endorses Romney
Tim Pawlenty stunned the political world this morning by endorsing Mitt Romney for president :
Ex-presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty on Monday endorsed Mitt Romney for the GOP presidential nomination, saying the former Massachusetts governor and businessman has what it takes to turn the country around.
Pawlenty, speaking on Fox News, cited Romney's "depth and scope" of experience in the private sector.
"I think he's going to be a transformational and great president for this country," he told Fox News.
This is as bad of an unforced error as TPaw's ever made. TPaw had proven his conservative credentials with the economic policies he laid out in a speech earlier this year. It was an impressive plan by all serious economists' accounts.
In endorsing Mitt, he threw that impressive economic plan out the window. Saying that Mitt will be a transformational president is pure fluff. With all the times Mitt's changed his mind, otherwise known as flip-flops, how do we know what type of president he'd be?
The wisest move for GOP primary-goers is to look into Mitt's attempts to be a lifetime politician, look at the various on-again, off-again positions on key issues, then decide whether you can trust the man who enthusiastically signed the precursor of Obamacare.
Despite Mitt's attempts to distance himself from Romneycare by using a gimmicky Tenth Amendment dodge, the reality is that he still operates from a government control mindset. It'd be wrong to say that Mitt's as addicted to government controlling our lives as our current president. Still, it isn't a stretch to say he's a government-first politician.
Tim Pawlenty's endorsement is the highest-profile endorsement of the election cycle by far. Nonetheless, his endorsement isn't expected to sway alot of votes. There wasn't alot of support for Gov. Pawlenty during the race when he was touting his conservative credentials. There's even less support for him now that he's out of the race.
Finally, this might be Gov. Pawlenty's desperate attempt to be Romney's running mate. Since it isn't certain that that's why he endorsed Mitt, it's best to give him the benefit of the doubt. Still, thinking people can't help but think that that was Gov. Pawlenty's motivation.
Posted Monday, September 12, 2011 7:52 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 12-Sep-11 08:31 AM
Those who weren't confident of Gov. Pawlenty's own conservative credentials will not be persuaded of Gov. Romney's conservative credentials by this endorsement. Those who weren't certain of Mr. Romney's conservative bona fides are going to be even less certain now that Mr. Pawlenty has endorsed. Just a couple of RINOs, some will say, and others (like me) who would have given one or the other the benefit of the doubt are less likely to do so given the pairing.
Comment 2 by Bob J. at 12-Sep-11 09:37 AM
Tim Pawlenty just threw his conservative bona-fides out the window. Too bad.
Comment 3 by Chad Q at 12-Sep-11 08:47 PM
Who'd of ever thunk TPaw would have endorsed his clone? And the guy can't figure out why his preidential run ran out of gas. What a dope.
Comment 4 by IndyJones at 13-Sep-11 11:32 AM
I can't believe this surprised anyone. I was waiting for the Rinos to drag out Mitch Daniels for a run but I think that Daniels could see a Rino run ending up like McCains toe dipping. I did not vote for Bush's second run and not for McCains run...Democrats and Rinos will be the death of this country. If the Republicans run a Rino against Obama then Obama will win because enough conservatives will sit out the vote.
Comment 5 by walter hanson at 13-Sep-11 04:38 PM
It's ironic that a man who fought very hard to win Iowa will endorse the one candidate that was making a point not to run hard to win Iowa. That kind of makes a statement how hollow this endorsement was. Every candidate who beat Rommey made an effort to win Iowa.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 6 by eric z. at 14-Sep-11 10:16 PM
Pawlenty is sniffing for a second-spot opportunity, and you guys also need to admit, he can make his choices just as you can make yours. That, from one not ever a Pawlenty fan. Bachmann did kind of ease him offstage, exit stage right. Or to you guys, stage left I suppose.
CNN-ORC poll damaging to Romney
Mitt Romney has a right to feel depressed this morning. This CNN/ORC poll is bad news for Mitt on a couple of fronts. This is the first part of Mitt's bad news:
The survey, released Monday morning, indicates that 30 percent of Republicans and independents who lean toward the GOP support Perry for their party's nomination, with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney at 18 percent. Romney, who's making his second bid for the White House, had been leading the list of Republican candidates in the national polls, but since Perry launched his campaign a month ago he's jumped ahead of Romney to capture the top spot.
Trailing by a dozen points, regardless of what stage of the campaign it happens in, isn't the type of news he needs the morning of a major debate. Still, here's the worse news:
According to the survey, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is at 15 percent. The 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee has flirted with a presidential bid, but hasn't taken any concrete steps to launch a campaign.
Being 12 points behind the frontrunner is bad enough. It's worse when you're 12 points behind the frontrunner and in a statistical dead heat with someone who isn't running.
It isn't accurate to say Mitt's campaign is on life support. Still, it's accurate to say that Mitt's campaign, while working hard, needs a game-changing moment. Gov. Pawlenty's endorsement is the first high profile endorsement but it isn't a game-changer.
This information isn't good news for Mitt either:
"Perry doesn't simply have the most support in a hypothetical ballot; he also tops the list of GOP candidates on every personal quality tested," adds Holland.
The most commonly used words to describe Mitt aren't complimentary. They talk about how he's competent, that he has private sector experience, etc. Nothing says he's well-liked, that people would run through brick walls for him or fall on their sword for him.
As important as being competent is in determining who the next president will be, being likeable is just as important. Well-liked just isn't the type of term used in association with Mitt Romney.
This information isn't good news for Mitt, either:
Thirty-six percent, for example, see him as the strongest leader in the field, with Romney second at 21 percent. According to the poll, 35 percent say Perry is the Republican candidate most likely to get the economy moving again, with Romney in second at 26 percent.
Nearly three in ten say that Perry is the candidate who is most likely to fight for his beliefs, with Palin in second place at 23 percent and, significantly, Romney in a distant tie for fourth at just 11 percent.
But Perry's biggest strength may be the electability factor, with 42 percent saying he has the best chance of beating Obama next year. Some 26 percent say Romney has the best chance of defeating the president.
"That may go a very long way toward explaining his rise in the polls, since three-quarters of all Republicans say they would prefer a candidate who can beat President Obama over one who agrees with them on major issues," says Holland.
It isn't good news, especially in this cycle, when only 1 in 10 people think you'll fight for your positions. That's likely a result of Mitt's changing positions on issues, not to mention his constant repackaging of himself.
More devastating, though, is the fact that Mitt's chief argument, that he's most electable, just got thrown out the proverbial window. That argument simply isn't credible anymore.
People, including independents, want a tried-and-true conservative, someone who's fought for his principles. That isn't Mitt. That image isn't helped by Mark Levin's Facebook posting this am:
Romney is not only defending RomneyCare and the individual mandate, but he is sounding like the worse of the left-wing fear-mongers in defending the existing Social Security system which the Social Security trustees say is unsustainable. This is why I do not believe Romney can be relied on to roll back the massive federal Leviathan. He believes in it.
Just as Paul Ryan came up with reforms to Medicare and Medicaid, Rick Perry, who I have not endorsed, as I am not endorsing anyone right now, is urging reforming Social Security. But now we have Romney acting like a liberal demagogue, seeking political opportunity by scaring seniors and lying about the program.
None of these statements or tidbits of information sinks the Romney campaign. Still, the Romney campaign, to continue the metaphor, is taking on water. Lots of water, in fact. It'll be interesting to see how long it can stay afloat.
Posted Monday, September 12, 2011 9:23 AM
No comments.
Announcing the Building Homes for Heroes Challenge
This morning, I got an exciting email from AJ Kern about yesterday's Building Homes for Heroes fundraiser. It was exciting new. And then some. After getting the email, I called AJ to talk with her about it. I immediately congratulated her and her husband for the hard work they'd put in and the great results that were achieved.
AJ immediately said that she was putting me on speaker so John could participate in the conversation, too. First, the exceptionally good news. John said that they were shooting for a goal of raising $5,000-$6,000. They topped that yesterday, raising $14,000 .
Having talked with Andy Pujol, I know that Building Homes for Heroes' goal this year for Minnesota was $20,000. Thanks to the hard work of many people, including the Kerns, the indespensible Henry Gruber, KNSI talk show host Dan Ochsner and many, many others, St. Cloud came close to meeting Mr. Pujol's goal for Minnesota in a single event.
First, this is proof that conservatives will put their money where their passions are. When properly motivated, they'll rally to good causes with reckless abandon.
That's the key phrase: "when properly motivated." The goal of this post is to provide that motivation. The need is great, with 23,000 veterans needing homes that assist them deal with their special needs.
To give you an idea of how big this challenge is, Building Homes for Heroes set as their goal this year to build 4 homes. At that rate, we should have built enough homes for these veterans in another 6 millenia.
The goal needs to be 2,000 homes per year, not 4 homes per year.
It's true that the patriots in the Minnesota Organization of Bloggers, aka the MOB, have a special fondness for military veterans. It's also true that these MOBsters have long said that they strongly believe that there are things better left to private citizens and private charities rather than letting the federal government help these citizens.
My fellow MOBsters, this is the perfect opportunity to prove our statements right. It's the perfect opportunity to show the world that our statements aren't just words.
Here's the challenge: Host your own fundraisers. We double dog dare you to top our total. In fact, we're hoping you top our total. In this competition, the real winners are the veterans who've sacrificed so much and deserve alot from those of us whose liberties and way of life they've protected.
Let's help achieve a goal that wasn't on Andy Pujol's radar screen a month ago. Let's put a big smile on Andy's face. Most importantly, let's hope make life a little more liveable for these vets who've sacrificed so much.
Minnesota should be known as a leader in conservative action. Let's set an example for the rest of the nation by exceeding our goal. By alot. Let's see if we can't raise enough to build 2 homes.
We might not achieve that goal but I don't see the usefulness in setting the goal too low. Let's see how many corporate sponsors we can get on board. Let's see if we can get liberals to donate. (Their money is just as welcome as a conservative's money in this effort.) Let's see if media outlets will turn these worthwhile events into high profile events.
The goal couldn't be more right. The time for action is now. If we act with the same dedication that these soldiers did, these soldiers' lives will improve dramatically.
One final thing: don't forget that 94 cents of every dollar raised by Building Homes for Heroes is used to build homes for these heroes. That's a record of transparency and accountability conservatives can admire.
I can't think of a better cause to be part of.
Posted Monday, September 12, 2011 2:37 PM
Comment 1 by AJKern at 12-Sep-11 02:59 PM
Wow! Good job, Gary!
Thanks.
Obstructing for the right reasons
It's past time to address an issue that hasn't gotten the attention it deserves. Salena Zito's article includes a quote that's led an unprecedented number to conclude that if they can simply replace all the bums (including their own members of Congress and the president), things will improve.
Steve McMahon, a Democrat who runs the Purple Strategies consulting firm with Republican Alex Castellanos, has a warning for incumbents of both parties:
"Americans are completely fed up with the gridlock. They can't believe no one is willing to compromise, or that both sides would take America to the edge of default, while the whole world watched in disbelief, just to score political points.
Steve McMahon is a former Clinton spinmeister who I wouldn't trust. It isn't that saying Republicans wouldn't compromise during the debt ceiling debate is devoid of the truth. It's that it's only a partial truth.
The reason why Republicans stubbornly resisted President Obama's 'offers' is because they weren't substantive. They relied almost entirely of gimmicks. Republicans resisted because the Democrats' offers didn't fix the problem. Republicans resisted in an attempt to push the Democrats into accepting a real solution.
What people do matters but their motivation for doing something matters significantly more.
That's where the media's failure is most telling.
Saying that Republicans resisted the Democrats' proposals without saying why they resisted doesn't tell the American people that Republicans were siding with the American people. The biased media didn't tell the people Republicans sided with them because we're spending recklessly and that Democrats want to continue spending recklessly.
In that context, saying no to the Democrats' recklessness isn't something that's worth getting upset about. In that context, it's actually a virtuous thing. If the media informed people instead of quoting politicians, I'd bet that public opinion would shift dramatically.
People need to get past the notion that print media will tell them the whole story. They won't. It isn't news that I've got a pro-conservative bias. Still, it's true that I'm digging far past the headlines to unearth important information that you won't get anywhere else.
Finally, McMahon's mission isn't to tell the truth. His communications are intended to salvage the issue. Rather than just blaming President Obama and the Reid-Pelosi congress, McMahon's goal is to direct people to the belief that a pox on everyone's house is in order.
That's intellectually dishonest. Republicans have worked hard at passing sensible solutions to today's biggest problems. They've been as productive as one house of Congress can be. It isn't the Republicans' fault that Senate Democrats have been lazy and irresponsive.
Posted Tuesday, September 13, 2011 1:21 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 13-Sep-11 10:37 AM
It's this elevation of compromise to the ultimate good that's so baffling, and it's typical liberal BS. Their theory is to go as far left as they can go and, when Republicans balk, they demand compromise. This continual compromise moves us ever closer to the far left position, and it needs to not only stop but reverse. For example, when Dayton demanded the GOP spend another $2 billion we didn't have and couldn't get for a total of $36B, the GOP should have said something like, "OK, but if we're going to compromise, our starting offer is $24B. Will you compromise at $30B?"
Michele wins debate
Tonight's debate produced some pretty clear-cut outcomes. Most importantly, as a result of her performance, Michele Bachmann has earned the right to continue on in the debates.
Prior to tonight's debate, Michele had been slumping badly. After tonight's debate, momentum has shifted back in her direction. She was informative and combative at the same time.
One particularly strong response came when she took Mitt to task for misleading people on health care. It's been Mitt's habit to say that, if elected, he'd sign an executive order telling his HHS secretary to issue waivers for all 50 states to ignore the provisions in Obamacare.
Tonight, Michele said that that wouldn't work once the laws take effect. She said the only way to deal with Obamacare was to repeal Obamacare. She said Mitt's answer proved he wouldn't fight to repeal Obamacare.
That's a bit much but she's right that Mitt's response is more about acting tough than about doing what's required to get rid of Obamacare.
At the same time, she said that the individual mandate isn't constitutional if it's a state that's requiring people to purchase something. She said no level of government could require the purchase of anything as a condition of the person's existence.
The other person who made a great impression tonight was Newt. Simply put, he's the most informed person in politics today. His debating style is to cut to the chase, then lay out policies that offer an appealing solution.
For instance, he talked about cutting spending while criticizing the Supercommittee. He said that tens of billions of dollars of Medicare and Medicaid were paid to crooks each year. He then said that they should stop paying the crooks.
Another time, he said that he wasn't worried about whether Romney or Perry scared seniors because "President Obama scares people every day." The crowd erupted.
Rick Perry got pounded pretty hard tonight. At one point, CNN's camera caught Perry looking at the clock, seeming to want to know when the crucifixion debate would be over.
Though Perry had the worst night of the top tier candidates, Mitt didn't have a particularly stellar night either, contrary to what Fred Barnes wrote .
It's time to get Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul and Herman Cain off the stage. Paul wasn't as nutty as last week's debate on MSNBC but he's still to the left of Pelosi on foreign policy. Huntsman is an insufferable jerk. He's weak on immigration, too.
Finally, Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan is a gimmick. It shouldn't be taken seriously. The 9-9-9 means a 9% corporate income tax rate, a 9% personal income tax rate and a 9% sales tax. That he even thinks that's a serious plan is frightening.
Imagine there being a national sales tax and a federal income tax rate at the same time during a Democrat administration. What makes anyone think that they'd keep the rates at 9%? I wouldn't trust them to do that. In fact, under those circumstances, I'd bet that all three of those rates to be substantially increased.
Rick Santorum continues to turn in solid performances. It's easy picturing him getting the VP nod. As much as I like him on policies, I don't think he's got a shot at winning the nomination. Still, he'd be a great VP pick because he could help tip Pennsylvania into the Republicans' column.
In my opinion, Michele helped herself the most because she was assertive, informative and polished on the policy issues. Newt did well because he's the best debater on the planet. That's who he's been for 25 years. He's also one of the best informed politicians, along with Bill Clinton, in the last half century.
Gov. Perry's rocket ride is over, at least temporarily. Mitt's stumbles are abated, momentarily. Still, I'd rather be in Gov. Perry's shoes than Mitt's because Mitt's problems with Romneycare are alot more treacherous with GOP primary voters than Gov. Perry's troubles with Social Security.
Posted Tuesday, September 13, 2011 5:23 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 13-Sep-11 09:23 AM
1. Bachmann
2. Gingrich
3. Santorum
4. Cain
Just my thoughts. Perry is not a good debater and will be eaten alive by Zero in a one-on-one debate in spite of having largely superior policy positions. Romney is being exposed as the liberal he is, and Huntsman and Paul can just go away.
Comment 2 by Rex Newman at 13-Sep-11 09:52 AM
Bachmann rose really only as Perry fell, on her home turf. This round is more about name recognition for her, possibly but unlikely the VP nomination. What I'd personally love to see is her straighten out a Federal department as its Cabinet officer.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 13-Sep-11 10:40 AM
Bob, Cain must leave, too. The guy is in over his head. His 9-9-9 plan is plainly stupid. You can't have a national sales tax & a federal income tax. It's a recipe for bloated government.
Rex, I totally agree. Either that or have her return as chair of the House Finance Committee.
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 13-Sep-11 04:35 PM
Gary:
One piece of misinformation you gave out. Assuming that the US Supreme doesn't restore the orginial ruling in the 11th circuit (so far it seems like the only rational ruling) we have to repeal the Health Care law in 2013.
You have to have the current President whether it's Bachmann, Rommey, Perry, or who else it is has to give a wavier to everyone while a repeal bill is being passed. And if you don't get sixty Republican votes in the US senate you might not get that repeal bill passed.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 5 by Eric B at 13-Sep-11 05:23 PM
If Paul must go, then so must Bachmann. The Real Clear Politics polling average has Paul at 9.2% and Bachmann at 6.4%. Paul has more standing to be there than Bachmann.
That said, since Paul and Bachmann are my two favorites, I do not want either out of the debates. The two RINOs that are leading the polls need to be shown as the frauds they are.
Note that at this time in 2007, McCain was in third place just like Ron Paul is now.
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 13-Sep-11 11:59 PM
Ron Paul is a foreign policy whack job. He's great on economic issues but we live in a dangerous world. Paul doesn't get that. He'll never get above 15%. That's just reality. The RCP average is meaningless at this point.
Comment 6 by Ron J at 13-Sep-11 08:47 PM
Perry will collapse like Bachmann before him and paper candidates Thompson and Giuliani in 2007-08.
Ron Paul today was a 13% in the CNN poll, third place. He was at 1% in the CNN poll taken 4 years ago:
CNN GOP poll (9/9/07)
Giuliani 28
Thompson 27
McCain 15
Romney 11
Huckabee 5
Brownback 2
Tancredo 2
Ron Paul 1
Comment 7 by walter hanson at 13-Sep-11 10:49 PM
Ron J:
The flaws in your anylsis. Paul is now known that 13% is the top of his support.
Thompson I don't believe had officially gotten into the race yet in 2007. One of the things that brought him down was he got in very late. Perry was much earlier than Thompson.
Giuliani was hurt because he was considered to be too liberal for the party. Not to mention he was betrayed by the Governor of Florida at the time who promised to endorse him and then switched horses to McCain. Should've been a warning for 2010 right there!
Romney was working on a careful plan to win the early primaries and with the exception of Iowa where Huckabee just beat him and New Hampshire where McCain just beat him he could've swept the table and been the nominee.
Your logic is failing to take into account that one of the factors affecting the choice is most electable since we have to defeat Obama. Bachmann just like Paul is considered not to be electable though Bachmann has shown herself to be the more consistent conservative than Paul.
That's why it's considered to be a two man race between Perry and Romney. I'll give the edge to Perry because it seems like he will compete for Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina unlike Romney.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 8 by Bob J. at 14-Sep-11 10:11 AM
Gary, I goofed in my post. My rankings were based on how I thought the candidates did in the debate and I didn't specify that.
At this point, the candidates I feel deserve to be there based on conservative credentials are Bachmann, Santorum, Gingrich, Cain and Perry.
The candidates who actually deserve to move on are, in my mind, Bachmann, Romney (spit) and Perry.
Comment 9 by Ron J at 14-Sep-11 08:20 PM
Walter, as far as being electable, Paul continually does the best in head to head polls with Obama.
Gary, the world is a dangerous place for Americans because of our military adventures around the world.
Comment 10 by eric z. at 14-Sep-11 10:10 PM
I did not see the show, so the coverage is appreciated, even though it is opinion and opinions will differ. Between the post and the range of comments, I get a flavor for feelings beyond Gary's alone. Thanks to all for the coverage and comments, from one who reads the analysis here after missing the show.
Comment 11 by walter hanson at 15-Sep-11 09:33 AM
Ron J:
Rommey and Perry do much better than in the roll poll average than Paul does. Not to mention they're poll because they are considered to be the more electable candidates.
If Paul is so much electable then Perry or Paul why didn't he show up in the top four of Republican voters in Florida. They gave us Rubio and ignored that rhino. It seems like the voters of Florida are reinforcing what I have said and you have ignored.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 12 by Bob J. at 15-Sep-11 02:30 PM
Ron Paul is the only candidate in the field who can make Barack Obama look like a foreign policy genius.
Comment 13 by walter hanson at 15-Sep-11 05:09 PM
Bob:
Considering how bad Obama is that's a hard standard to meet. Unfortunately, Paul easily meets that standard. That's why Paul can't win.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 14 by Ron J at 16-Sep-11 01:53 PM
If Paul's foreign policy so bad, why does he continually have the highest amount of donations from active military personnel?
Comment 15 by Gary Gross at 16-Sep-11 05:43 PM
RJ, Don't you know that non sequiturs make feeble arguments? Is your argument that we should formulate our foreign policy based on what the military thinks? Or is it that you think that this is the best of a bunch of terrible arguments so you went with it?
Comment 16 by Ron J at 21-Sep-11 10:56 PM
I don't think it is feeble or a non sequitur when discussing a persons foreign policy to bring up how those in the military view those policies. I would think that those serving have good insight into foreign policy than those that are willing to make war, yet have never served
Response 16.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Sep-11 11:53 PM
I totally disagree. Using that logic, Colin Powell should've been the best SecState in US history whill Larry Eagleburger should've been awful.
