Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party VII

[Superman]

Can we stop pretending there is an entity called "The Tea Party" and just acknowledge that it's the same old Republican base with a shiny new coat of paint?

I have no problem with that.

I'm just calling them that because that's what they call themselves.

 

[NHawk19]

Leadership means compromise and putting the country before yourselves. This congress seems to have a major problem with that.

Kind of makes me want a new thread for "Children of the Congress: Why cant we all just get a long". This Congress is horrible on both sides.

Neither party right now is 100% at without fault. Both keep procrastinating and arguing until one digs their heels in enough that people get mad. Honestly I dont like that the republicans caved. If they were going to stick to their guns they should've. This whole thing makes them look week. Democrat's dont come out smelling like a rose either, it looks like they opted for a vacation rather than a real solution. Cant wait to see what happens 24 hours before the 2 month period is up.

 

[Superman]

Ron Paul Newsletters: Ad Urging Subscription Warned Of 'Race War'


(Reuters, Mark Hosenball and Samuel P. Jacobs) - A direct-mail solicitation for Ron Paul's political and investment newsletters two decades ago warned of a "coming race war in our big cities" and of a "federal-homosexual cover-up" to play down the impact of AIDS.

The eight-page letter, which appears to carry Paul's signature at the end, also warns that the U.S. government's redesign of currency to include different colors - a move aimed at thwarting counterfeiters - actually was part of a plot to allow the government to track Americans using the "new money."

The letter urges readers to subscribe to Paul's newsletters so that he could "tell you how you can save yourself and your family" from an overbearing government.

The letter's details emerge at a time when Paul, now a contender for the Republican nomination for president, is under fire over reports that his newsletters contained racist, anti-homosexual and anti-Israel rants.

Reports of the newsletters' contents have Paul's campaign scrambling to deny that he wrote the inflammatory articles.

Among other things, the articles called the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. a "world-class philanderer," criticized the U.S. holiday bearing King's name as "Hate Whitey Day," and said that AIDS sufferers "enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."

As Paul made a campaign stop in Manchester, Iowa, on Thursday, his Iowa chairman, Drew Ivers, repeated Paul's assertions that he did not write the articles that resurfaced this week in a report in the Weekly Standard magazine.

Paul has said that he is not sure who wrote the articles that were published under his name. He has said the articles do not reflect his views, and noted that his public stances - supporting gays in the military for example - have run counter to the incendiary statements in the newsletters.

In an interview with CNN's Gloria Borger on Wednesday, Paul said of the newsletter's articles: "I didn't write them. I didn't read them at the time and I disavow them."

When Borger continued to pursue the subject, Paul removed his microphone and walked out of the interview.

"It is ridiculous to imply that Ron Paul is a bigot, racist, or unethical," Ivers said.

However, Ivers said, Paul does not deny or retract material that Paul has written under his own signature, such as the letter promoting Paul's newsletters.

When asked whether that meant Paul believed there was a government conspiracy to cover up the impact of AIDS, Ivers said, "I don't think he embraces that."

Paul's newsletters "showed good factual information and investment information," Ivers said. "It was a public service, helping people understand and equip them to avoid an unsound monetary policy."

"EXTRAORDINARY SOURCES"

The letter promoting Paul's newsletters was written about 1993. It was during a period in which Paul - who left Congress in 1985 after serving about eight years - returned to Washington after a decade's absence.

(For a PDF of the solicitation letter see link.reuters.com/vud75s)

The letter was provided to Reuters by James Kirchick, a contributing editor for The New Republic magazine. He says he found the letter in archives of political literature maintained by the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society.

Early in the 2008 presidential campaign - in which Paul was a candidate - Kirchick published an article in The New Republic in which he described Paul as "not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing - but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics."

The letter promoting Paul's newsletters claims that Paul - through what he describes as a network of "extraordinary sources" in Congress, the White House, the Treasury and Justice departments, the Federal Reserve and the Internal Revenue Service - had acquired unique insider information that would his subscribers to "neutralize" the plans of "powerbrokers."

Paul's letter went on to describe various plots and schemes that he had "unmasked," including a "plot for world government, world money and world central banking." He also claimed to have exposed a plan by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to "suspend the Constitution" in a falsely declared national emergency.

Despite being "told not to talk," Paul wrote that his newsletters also "laid bare" the "Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica," and a "federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS."

Paul claimed that his "training as a physician" helped him "see through" this alleged cover-up.

Paul also suggested that a planned U.S. currency with new notes designed to curb counterfeiting and money laundering would result in the distribution of "totalitarian bills" that "were tinted pink and blue and brown, and blighted with holograms, diffraction gratings, metal and plastic threads and chemical alarms."

Paul said the money was designed to allow authorities to "keep track of American cash and American citizens."

He urged the letter's readers to send in $99, which would buy subscriptions to his monthly political and investment newsletters, a copy of his book "Surviving the New Money," an investment manual and access to the "unlisted phone number of my Financial Hotline for fast breaking news."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...tter_n_1167260.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

 

[enterthemadness]

Paul didn't write them, case closed.

 

[Quetzal]

Paul didn't write them, case closed.

Case isnt closed, it will be used against him if ever makes the general or later on in the primaries.

However, I dont really consider them documents "he wrote" either. I think he disavowed them ~ 1993 and the NAACP accepted that Ron Paul didnt write the documents.

It shouldnt be a big dart in Ron Paul's back though.
======

I think this is a good example of why one should screen the views of staff members to prevent lunatics from writing stuff like this. Or in the case of Fox News, to find people crazy enough to broadcast what they broadcast.

 

[Matt]

This was two decades ago though... surely he has improved on that...

Then he ought to own up and say, "Yes, my name was on it. Yes, I made a profit off it and while they aren't my views, I should have been more mindful and careful of what I endorsed (either explicitly or implicitly) and I apologize," rather than storming out of interviews like a spoiled ten year old.

Paul didn't write them, case closed.

No, it isn't. The CEO of Nike can't say, "I didn't personally beat the child laborers, I disavow it, so case closed!" Buck stops with him. Paul signed his name to these newsletters. He made a profit off of them. Buck stops with him. If he refuses to even acknowledge that and claims that he did not even read what he was printing, how can I trust that as president, he will not sign bad legislation and then when it blows up in his face "disavow," that too?

Case isnt closed, it will be used against him if ever makes the general or later on in the primaries.

However, I dont really consider them documents "he wrote" either. I think he disavowed them ~ 1993 and the NAACP accepted that Ron Paul didnt write the documents.

It shouldnt be a big dart in Ron Paul's back though.
======

I think this is a good example of why one should screen the views of staff members to prevent lunatics from writing stuff like this. Or in the case of Fox News, to find people crazy enough to broadcast what they broadcast.

To be honest, I don't believe for a second that Paul did not read his own newsletters which he was making one million dollars per year off of.

 

[Marx]

True but I think it's the "Tea Party" that is leading the pack when it comes to not compromising and putting the country first.

Well, they're all guilty of it to some degree as far as I'm concerned.

Kind of makes me want a new thread for "Children of the Congress: Why cant we all just get a long". This Congress is horrible on both sides.

Neither party right now is 100% at without fault. Both keep procrastinating and arguing until one digs their heels in enough that people get mad. Honestly I dont like that the republicans caved. If they were going to stick to their guns they should've. This whole thing makes them look week. Democrat's dont come out smelling like a rose either, it looks like they opted for a vacation rather than a real solution. Cant wait to see what happens 24 hours before the 2 month period is up.

It will be the same sad tired partisan bickering that we've come to expect from this self-serving congress. I've never been as cynical about politics as I am now. I am so sick and tired of these holier-than-thou idiots who care about themselves more than their country and more than their constituents. They all seem to have forgotten how they got to DC and why they're there. It's disgusting to see.

 

[NHawk19]

That's what I was thinking. Then someone will hold out there will be all kinds of last minute scare tactics. The media will vilify either Boehner or Reid or both depending on which channel there will be calls for the President to get involved blah blah.

It's really getting old

 

[hippie_hunter]

Politico is reporting that because Newt Gingrich barely crossed the threshold needed for 10,000 valid signatures (and 400 must be from each district) it is very likely that he will not make it on the ballot in the Virginia Primaries on account that a lot of his signatures will be thrown away.

 

[enterthemadness]

Politico is reporting that because Newt Gingrich barely crossed the threshold needed for 10,000 valid signatures (and 400 must be from each district) it is very likely that he will not make it on the ballot in the Virginia Primaries on account that a lot of his signatures will be thrown away.

So okay, what does this mean? Does this increase the likely hood of a Mitt Romney or Ron Paul GOP nomination? .

And once again Matt...case closed. This crap is nearly 20 years old. But yes...I will give you the fact that once adn for all he needs to come out and say what you said. Because the ''general public'' may not be smart enough to actually research stuff via Google to see whose right. As far as I'm concerned, this is just a smear campaign against Paul. Republicans, Washington, whatever don't want a Libertarian as POTUS.

 

[hippie_hunter]

So okay, what does this mean? Does this increase the likely hood of a Mitt Romney or Ron Paul GOP nomination? .

I think it's more along the lines of it's time to stick a fork in Newt because he's done and isn't going to recover. Newt still holds a small lead in the polls in Virginia, but when he can't even make it on the ballot due to his campaign's disorganization, it's just time for him to give up.

The GOP race at this point is between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, and even then I would bet on Romney. Now don't take this the wrong way. I'm totally a supporter of Ron Paul, I buy his literature, I support his ideology, and I'm considering of donating to his campaign.

But I think Paul's views on foreign policy just doesn't mesh with the current GOP base (it literally pained me to watch the debate where Paul accurately went off in Iran and yet, I knew that this is where Paul pretty much doomed his campaign), Mitt has too much support among the GOP establishment (the Bushes, the elite conservative punditry and even some of the rogues like Ann Coulter, Chris Christie, support in Congress, etc.) for Paul to counter, and first and foremost, Republicans want someone who can beat Obama and Romney is the guy who has the best chance at that.

 

[Banes_Dealer]

I know I'm coming to the dinner table late, and it's old news by now... but whod've thunk that after so many of his campaign people quit that Newt would go from ashes to tied with Romney, according to cnn.com

 

[hippie_hunter]

I know I'm coming to the dinner table late, and it's old news by now... but whod've thunk that after so many of his campaign people quit that Newt would go from ashes to tied with Romney, according to cnn.com

It's not really a surprise, after the faltering of Tim Pawlenty, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain, the anti-Romney vote pretty much turned to Newt Gingrich as a last resort because they really had no one else to go to.

Seriously, who else do they have? Rick Santorum? Hell no, the guy looks and acts like too much of a weenie. He's also a loser, this is a guy who was the third most powerful Republican in the Senate and lost re-election badly. At least Newt has some cajones. Foul and vile cajones, but cajones nonetheless. And while Newt's fall from power was rather embarassing, he at least has success like the Contract for America and being Speaker of the House to fall back on.

So who else? Ron Paul? Again no, Ron Paul is ideologically incompatible with the anti-Romney vote, primarily due to his non-interventionist foreign policy views and utter rejection of Islamophobia.

And now that their last resort has also faltered due to being a horrible candidate (along with being a horrible human being), I think we're going to see a good chunk of the anti-Romney vote just sigh and hop on the Romney bandwagon.

 

[Matt]

Tom Ridge could have won this nomination and the presidency with ease.

 

[Matt]

So okay, what does this mean? Does this increase the likely hood of a Mitt Romney or Ron Paul GOP nomination? .

And once again Matt...case closed. This crap is nearly 20 years old. But yes...I will give you the fact that once adn for all he needs to come out and say what you said. Because the ''general public'' may not be smart enough to actually research stuff via Google to see whose right. As far as I'm concerned, this is just a smear campaign against Paul. Republicans, Washington, whatever don't want a Libertarian as POTUS.

No, a smear campaign is saying Barack Obama is not an American citizen. It is based entirely around distorted facts. This on the other hand has factual basis. Ron Paul signed his name to this newsletter and therefore this is a question that Ron Paul should be asked (regardless of if he disavowed it or denies it 20 years later). If a candidate runs and was in the KKK 20 years ago, can it just be shrugged off if they disavow it? Someone's past shapes who they are. Ron Paul signed his name to this letter. It has nothing to do with the general public being too stupid to see through a dog and pony show. Whether or not a presidential candidate has extreme views on Israel and minorities is a question that should be asked.

 

[Banes_Dealer]

I think we're going to see a good chunk of the anti-Romney vote just sigh and hop on the Romney bandwagon.

SO true. I know a lot of Repubs that say "uhm... i dunno about that mormon business." but I think when you break it down to it's simplest form: who can dethrone Obama? I think Mitt's the clear answer.

Then again you can't really count out Newt. I mean, he does have like you said the speaker of the house to fall back on. AND IN THE CLINTON ERA TO BOOT! Oh man, saying you were the minority whip during peace and prosperity does have a little bit of weight behind it.

I digress though, and go back to my point of Mitt being the one who has a better chance. I also think a lot of us are just going to grin and bear it while jumping on the Romney wagon.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Then again you can't really count out Newt.

Yes you can, while Newt is certainly accomplished his sloppy and unorganized campaign ultimately brought him down. He only rose in the polls simply because he was the last resort for anti-Romney voters.

His ethical and moral failings prevent him from capturing the evangelical vote (the reason why the Family Leader didn't endorse him was because a group of evangelical leaders and ministers arrived to protest against a potential Gingrich endorsement).

Upon actually looking at Newt's record and positions on issues such as healthcare (the biggie), global warming, and immigration are all to the left of Romney. Thus making him incompatible with the anti-Romney vote that was considering him.

The libertarian vote of the Republican Party will never get behind Newt Gingrich.

And Gingrich's failings as a human being like his massive ego, his narcissism, bombastic statements, profiting off of Freddie Mac, his failure to be an actual leader, the fact that he says that he's changed when he really hasn't, etc. drag him down with most voters from all parts of the Republican Party.

 

[enterthemadness]

Ok, then let's have a vote...

Who is the best option in fixing the United States problem? I could go as far as saying this country is a sinking ship or the next great empire to fall to pieces.

Obama: Lolololol no, although we'll see if he vetoes SOPA and or PIPA if they reach his desk.

Romeny: Eh....I'm willing to give him a chance...but my faith in him ain't high.

Paul: yes. He can fix America.

Johnson: he can fix America too, but Libertarian Party is basically worthless. Hopefully he can at least make some noise in the election, pretty sure he'll get the LP nomination.

But hey, I could be wrong and Obama could pull a Tebow and get a second term and actually turn the economy around!

 

[Banes_Dealer]

God damn, hippie hunter... You are very well read when it comes to politics, and I'm not being sarcastic or giving lip service to a mod. You know your politics and every time you retort I've no choice but to nod in agreement and say "Well, he's right on that one."

I admit you've bested me. You're right about him being the last resort for anti-Romneys. I have no retort for that, and I concede.

 

[Venom'sDad]

Upon actually looking at Newt's record and positions on issues such as healthcare (the biggie), global warming, and immigration are all to the left of Romney. Thus making him incompatible with the anti-Romney vote that was considering him.

It's funny how you narrow it to just three positions, when Newt's has huge number of conservative positions, ideas, and policies passed, than Romney could only dream of...compare the record and not media influenced sound bites. Besides, Newt is not to the left of Romney on any of those "3" positions you named.

 

[hippie_hunter]

It's funny how you narrow it to just three positions, when Newt's has huge number of conservative positions, ideas, and policies passed, than Romney could only dream of...compare the record and not media influenced sound bites. Besides, Newt is not to the left of Romney on any of those "3" positions you named.

Oh you mean how Romney advocated the individual mandate but at a state level if the state chooses to while Gingrich advocated it at a national level? Or how Romney is full on conservative with immigration while Newt advocates a certain level of amnesty? Or how Gingrich was with Gore and Pelosi to confront global warming while Romney has never done such a thing? Sure Newt is conservative on social issues, but so is Romney, he just doesn't put them at the forefront.

 

[DACrowe]

Both Gingrich and Romney are fair weather conservatives who flip flop whichever way the wind blows. The difference is Newt knows how to effectively communicate with a conservative/Tea Party crowd and sound like he believes the convictions he preaches. Romney is so phony and transparent that they see through his pandering and lack of core. But he is very disciplined and organized (two things Gingrich is not) on top of wealthy. He also hasn't burned his bridges with the GOP establishment in the 1990s due to bad, self-serving leadership.

Neither is what you guys are really looking for.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Both Gingrich and Romney are fair weather conservatives who flip flop whichever way the wind blows. The difference is Newt knows how to effectively communicate with a conservative/Tea Party crowd and sound like he believes the convictions he preaches. Romney is so phony and transparent that they see through his pandering and lack of core. But he is very disciplined and organized (two things Gingrich is not) on top of wealthy. He also hasn't burned his bridges with the GOP establishment in the 1990s due to bad, self-serving leadership.

Neither is what you guys are really looking for.

Well......yeah. I'm voting Ron Paul in the primaries, but I've long accepted the fact that Mitt Romney will most likely be the eventual nominee at this rate. Instead of being heavily disappointed by the most likely outcome that my guy won't be the nominee, I might as well hop on the Mormon Express. Like they say, when in Rome.

 

[Matt]

Ok, then let's have a vote...

Who is the best option in fixing the United States problem? I could go as far as saying this country is a sinking ship or the next great empire to fall to pieces.

Obama: Lolololol no, although we'll see if he vetoes SOPA and or PIPA if they reach his desk.

Romeny: Eh....I'm willing to give him a chance...but my faith in him ain't high.

Paul: yes. He can fix America.

Johnson: he can fix America too, but Libertarian Party is basically worthless. Hopefully he can at least make some noise in the election, pretty sure he'll get the LP nomination.

But hey, I could be wrong and Obama could pull a Tebow and get a second term and actually turn the economy around!

You do realize that Paul can't just snap his fingers and fix everything, even as president, right? Paul would get less done than Obama because Congress would not work with him. It would be a presidency of deadlock.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Well......yeah. I'm voting Ron Paul in the primaries, but I've long accepted the fact that Mitt Romney will most likely be the eventual nominee at this rate. Instead of being heavily disappointed by the most likely outcome that my guy won't be the nominee, I might as well hop on the Mormon Express. Like they say, when in Rome.

Well...just for the sake of argument, let's say Romney wins the Republican primaries and Paul doesn't run a third-party campaign. Would you ever consider voting for a progressive independent candidate à la Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader, given that their positions on the wars, foreign policy and civil liberties would be virtually the same as Ron Paul's?