The most inspiring speechs of our time in my mind were Reagan saying “tear down this wall” and GWB speaking at the site of the WTC’s with his arm around a fireman over a bullhorn. That was inspiring.

Name me one single speech that Clinton gave that demonstrated leadership. Are any of his speeches memorable? Most of Bush’s aren’t either, but that one was a defining moment of the post-September 11th need for unity. After 9-11, Bush was inspiring in a way that reminds of Churchill or MLK or Kennedy.

Sure he can’t say “nuclear” but he is the twice elected President of the United States and that speaks volumes about Americans and our idea of leadership. Liberal Elitists want Academics to lead by scaring us of “Global Warming” or “Big Oil”. They want people that are intellectual SOUNDING. Bush has never claimed to be a great mind. He is an average American that loves baseball, apple pie, and hails from Texas. Presidents come in all shapes and sizes, but don’t project your own discontent onto Bush when the Dems have offered up nothing better in the last two elections.

And at least Bush’s “lies” are no where near as intentional or phony as Nancy Pants and Dingy Harry’s campaing promises to drain the swamp and 100 hours. They sure are inspiring leaders aren’t they.

The President should be lauded for overcoming his obvious dyslexia, but the hypocritical lefties don’t really want to help “challenged” people, if they are Republicans, just like they hate gay Republicans and black Republicans; and don’t forget that they also hate Republican women.

These things are nothing new, the sinking of USS Maine was most likely an accident yet it was used to force war with Spain.

Slavery is taught as the reason the civil war was fought, but Lincoln himself said that “if the war could be ended without a single slave being freed he’d do it.” The slaves were freed to create an insurgency, not for some great humanitarian reason.

Pearl Harbor was incurred when FDR launched an OPEC-like embargo of oil against Japan; FDR wanted to get into the war in 1938, but the America First movement wouldn’t let that happen until Pearl Harbor.

Gulf of Tonkin probably never happened, and if it did it was in the North’s waters.

And Donald Rumsfeld explained that Saddam had weapons because he (Rumsfeld) sold them to Saddam.

This country has a history of going into Justifiable wars for unjustifiable reasons. That will never change because there will always be want to goto war and find reasons that seem right in the moment.

Ron Paul does not think Americans should fight for other nations. Call it being a kook, or call it supporting limited government to a fault. TR once said something to the effect of “100 dead Spaniard aren’t worth the spilled blood of one American.”

The task must be to fight the wars that we end up fighting, in an effective manner to justify the American lives lost.

Notice he said “Gulf of Tonkin”, which info now declassified, never really happened. this false-flag event resulted in the escalation of the Vietnam war,
killing over 50,000 us troops and 1.5 million Vietnamese.
Now declassified “Operation Northwoods”, which proposed terror events involving hijacked airliners
to be blamed on Cuba in the 1960s.
Sinking of the unarmed USS Liberty by Israeli aircraft in 1967. Admirals, other Navy officers, as well as cabinet officers have gone public on this one. EVEN ONE OF THE ISRAELI PILOTS WENT PUBLIC.
McNamara actually called off us fighters en route to
save the Liberty. THEIR IDEA WAS TO BLAME EGYPT.
THIS IS HISTORY, PAL. ADMITTED FACTS.
DO I HAVE TO CITE MORE FALSE-FLAG OPERATIONS
THAT WERE USED BY OUR GOVERNMENT? THERE ARE MORE.

Leaving Ron Paul out of the equation, you’d like us to take a conservative, make him love socialized medicine, big government and all sorts of other government entitlements (see: turning into a liberal) and suddenly you’d like him?

No – just drop the inane social conservatism. Doing that would probably be a steep political price to pick up some Rockefeller Reps on the coasts, though, so I understand why this isn’t a viable strategy.

What Buckwheat said.

Looks to me like the only flake is the nutjob that wrote this post.

This is being drummed up over on Politico, too….Dr. Paul is an honest, principled man with core beliefs (like, in the Constitution). He doesn’t have to practice lies in front of a mirror, or change his talking points (and accent) depending on where he speaks. This makes him a dangerous man to the so-called conservatives and liberals alike. Now that his message is starting to be heard by more and more Americans, and his popularity is growing, I expect to see more distortions and outright lies in an attempt to discredit him.

From a strategic perspective Paul might be the GOP’s best shot for retaining the White House

Paul has said some unsavory things about blacks (can’t remember what it was, but it was obviously stupid. It may have been in his newletter, so written by staff, but that doesn’t matter too much). He will never win. The only thing he can do is push the GOP candidates against the Iraq war by being a protest candidate.

He’s a net negative for the GOP, which is why so many Dems are cheering him on.

(jeez, I’m sorry for being so long-winded)

I’d be interested in reading a diary from you explaining your pro-life position. I’ve actually thought at times there were two different Robs: the atheist one and the pro-life one. It’s only recently that I realized you were one and the same.

Just for a mater of historical record:

1- Lincoln supported an end to slavery and had no issue with using the war to that then. His primary goal, however, was to preserve the integrity of the country. That is the context of his oft-quoted statement. Wars are allowed to have multiple goals of varying priority.

2- The USS Maine was indeed most probably an accident (involving the ships magazine). This did indeed trigger the Spanish-American War, yet was not a premeditated, fabricated incident.

3- The US oil embargo against Japan was a move largely in response to Japanese atrocities such as Nanking and the Panay Incident. Information available suggests that Roosevelt, in fact, was opposed to the sanctions and that the move was orchestrated by the State Department.

4- The Gulf of Tonkin incident did occur, although it is almost certain that the second wave of the attack did not. This is a fault of communication and detection technology at the time, as it appears evident that the commanders of the Maddox and Turner Joy initially believed they were under continued attack. The Johnson Administration, however, did exploit the incident, embellishing it.

5- The USS Liberty did NOT sink. The air support dispatched to it was called off because of government fears that Soviet forces were involved in the attack. The reasons for the Israeli attack have never been fully explained.

Bush even admitted it!!!!!
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” –Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004
SOMETIMES THE TRUTH JUST SLIPS OUT

Not only have we seen large steps over federalism (no child left behind – big, but not unprecedented legally)…

I find it humorous when a leftie complains about Republican spending; they are just jealous they didn’t get to do that spending, and much more…

Pure hypocrisy.

I have a number of libertarian Dem friends that are thinking about reregistering (R) to vote for Paul in the primaries.

He’s certainly got his nutty moments, but his libertarian conservative bona fides are pretty solid. And he doesn’t trust Bush. Sounds like a conservative to me.

Another thing I’ve been discussing with pals here: take someone like Paul, eliminate the crazier stuff, ditch the religious right social policy stuff, and me and a whole lot of people would be in play. Heck, I might even switch parties.

Well, hell then Neiman the President can be a damn dictator! No, not at all! The President, the head of the Executive Branch in the cases of high crimes and misdemeanors is subject to impeachment, wherein both the Judicial and Legislative Brances play a key role; but the true Constitutional Corrective, the most sure corrective to an imperial presidency is the incredible power of the ballot box.

Congress can just cut off funds for your Presidency too. Like say you decide to trade Blood for Oil and the American people decide to elect a different Congress.

I bet most folks on the left didn’t know that. They should look it up. Perhaps Nancy Pants and Dingy Harry could take Civics in High School and learn about the poer of the purse. It seems that their “mandate” did not include an instruction manual explaining that they could stop this “illegal war”. No, instead, they interpret the Consitution to not allow them to take tangible action, but rather, sit around and make threats and hold mock hearings.

I imagine that their grades in Civics are about the same percentage as their approval ratings given that they do not understand Legislative Power.

so its ok to smear rp any way u can but you cant take it when the bush-baby’s Freudian slips get mention.

“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” –Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

Actually, this may be one of the few times truth
came out of that liar’s mouth.

Do we elected leaders based on their ability to give a slick speech or deliver a good line, or do we elect them to lead?

Part of leading is inspiring. President Bush’s lack of speaking ability makes it difficult for him to inspire people.

For the Ron Paulite disciples and worshippers out there.

It takes more than conservative beliefs to qualify one to be nominated or supported by conservatives; it requires someone with an ability to communicate those ideals and gain the passionate support of conservatives and moderates, as did Reagan. Ron Paul is not a darling of conservatives and if by this time he has not caught the imagination of a majority of them, maybe it is because they sense something lacking in his character, whether they can explain it even to themselves or not.

I heard good words from Paul, but the man seems to lack qualities of leadership and makes me concerned that not only he cannot possibly appeal to enough people to be elected, he seems to me to be on the very edge of being emotionally unhinged.

The National Review Online with the “sloppy” reporting done by Politico on this story. Paul’s remarks were taken out of context.

Think what you will of libertarian Texas congressman Ron Paul, but I’m crying foul over this post to the Politico’s “Crypt” blog: “Ron Paul warns of staged terror attack.” Paul simply did not say that the government is planning a fake terror attack, and to say otherwise is journalistic malpractice.

I look forward to your retraction.

Scott said:

In recent years, the federal government has allowed the power of the presidency to grow beyond the constitutional limits. As is natural, the exercise of that power has grown to fill that capacity. This is extremely dangerous. It needs to be curtailed.

1. It appears you believe the Legislative and/or Judiciary branch are superior to the Executive Branch and may dictate limits upon the Executive Branch? If true, you do not understand the concept of three separate but equal branches at all, which the Founding Father’s, despite their fears enshrined into the Constitution.
2. The Founding Father’s believed in three separate but equal branches of government because they envisioned their lack of specificity would establish a natural tension between the three that would sway back and forth like a pendulum and over time never move far from a true balance of powers. They had more faith in our Constitution and our people than you can claim.
3. If you truly believed in our Constitution you would equally decry the frequent and abusive legislative and judicial activism by those two branches; and you would not desire they take upon themselves a position of superiority over the other branches. The Election Reform Act by McCain – Feingold was an example of the Legislative branch taking upon themselves the power to amend the Constitution outside the Constitutionally mandated Amendment process. Or, the activism of the SCOTUS to amend the Constitution and find a right to child murder (abortion) to exist absent any Constitutional authority; Or, the Separation of Church and State which not only violated the Bill of Rights, but had no precedent in prior SCOTUS decisions nor support within the documents of our Founding Father’s. Isn’t it odd you only want the Executive Branch to obey the Constutution as written, and not the other two branches.

We are not yet in fear of a President becoming a dictator; but we should fear a Congress with contempt for our Constitution and a desire to make the people subservient to the federal government, versus government employees and elected officials being subservient to a nation of the people, by the people and for the people.

In recent years, the federal government has allowed the power of the presidency to grow beyond the constitutional limits.

This statement makes no sense; the “federal govt” is not separate from the Presidency, which is one-third of it. Nobody “allows” the President to do anything; his duties as Chief Executive and as Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces are Constitutionally given. What on Earth are you babbling about?

If by that you mean they can order the President to do this or not do that, I disagree. That would make them the superior branch and the Executive branch the inferior branch. That violates separation of powers and three separate but equal branches of government.

No, merely that they have the check on executive enforcement of laws. Things like defining and interpreting things like Habeus Corpus for detainees, etc. The President for example cannot simply decide that burning the flag isn’t free speech and start arresting people. But typically, their role is to overturn illegal or Unconstitutional law passed by the legislative branch.

You know, I believe under Divine inspiration, our Founding Father’ designed a rather unique and incredible contract between the people and the government; and that is why we should all fight to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as itv was first written, as to its original intent, as it is the best security for or future; that is, aside from Divine Providence.

An excellent quote by Ezra Taft Benson:

I reverence the Constitution of the United States as a sacred document. To me its words are akin to the revelations of God, for God has placed his stamp of approval on the Constitution of this land. I testify that the God of heaven sent some of his choicest spirits to lay the foundation of this government, and he has sent other choice spirits–even you who hear my words this day–to preserve it.

Our job is to protect it as it was written, not to ignore it as we choose. The document had provisions for change that were relatively simple. It is called Amendment. It has been done before, but perhaps my favorite amendments are the 1st, the 2nd, and most importantly the 10th. Why is it that the ACLU only worry about the 1st and the 5th, but not the 2nd and the 10th?

We are not yet in fear of a President becoming a dictator; but we should fear a Congress with contempt for our Constitution and a desire to make the people subservient to the federal government, versus government employees and elected officials being subservient to a nation of the people, by the people and for the people.

This last week, I went on a fishing trip. It did not involve the Patriot Act, Alberto Gonzalez and attorneys, or wiretapping. I went fishing without “political” motives simply to catch fish. That is what fishing is about, not about partisan hacks trying to overextend their power upon other branches.

It seems that the new judiciary has a role to play too. When Bush oversteps his bounds, the courts can curtail it. Bush can deny Congress the power to fish by invoking executive priviledge. The House originates all spending bills. The Senate has the filibuster.

I enjoy the left’s desire to “protect the civil liberties” like freedom from religion because it is “in the Constitution” but to ignore the separation of powers as well as the fact that Bush is the Commander in Chief. Further, I enjoy their running their mouths about stopping the illegal war, but failing to exercise their legislative responsibilities like the power of the purse and the deauthorizing of the war. For all the bluster of all their investigations, the new Congress has the power to cut the funds or deauthorize the war, but instead focus on simply trying to smear Bush and chip away at his executive powers.

That’s funny. For all the talk of evidence, this post cited no source for Dr. Paul’s comments. If the author had actually listened to the interview with Dr. Paul, he would have realized that this post has no basis in reality. There has never been an occassion that Ron Paul accused the US of staging 9/11 or planning to stage anything similar. That idea is completely fabricated and a disgrace to the Right as a political community. It is a sad day that “conservatives” try to tear down one who is more conservative than they’ve ever pretended to be because they are too stupid to even attempt to examine information for themselves.

Ron Paul is all about following the US Constitution, a trait that puts him at odds with every political shill & hack from sea to shining sea. Paul only appears nutty to people that believe the constitution is just a gd piece of paper or have been so dumbed down by a educational system that they are unable to understand simple logic.

Hey Rich!!

I’ve never woken up with any whores in my bed therefore, you must be thinking about your fellow Paul supporters which is exactly why you folks don’t ‘get it’.

The war with Saddam and Al Qaeda was and is exactly the right thing to do in finally dealing with reality head on as only wimps shrink from defending their own freedom and way of life… wake up and smell what you’re shovelin’.

JPE, I’m essentially the type of conservative you describe. I voted to legalize gay marriage in my state. I’m an atheist. I’m hardly a social conservative at all. Outside of the fact that I’m pro-life.

So why don’t you and I agree more?

Libertarian…Democrats?

Please. Modern liberalism and libertarianism have nothing in common.

He’s certainly got his nutty moments, but his libertarian conservative bona fides are pretty solid. And he doesn’t trust Bush. Sounds like a conservative to me.

This from the guy who just said “libertarian Democrats.”

take someone like Paul, eliminate the crazier stuff, ditch the religious right social policy stuff, and me and a whole lot of people would be in play. Heck, I might even switch parties.

Leaving Ron Paul out of the equation, you’d like us to take a conservative, make him love socialized medicine, big government and all sorts of other government entitlements (see: turning into a liberal) and suddenly you’d like him?

I’m shocked, man. Shocked.

Whatever Bush’s faults, I think the constant mocking of his public speaking has been more than a little unfair. Not to mention childish.

Do we elected leaders based on their ability to give a slick speech or deliver a good line, or do we elect them to lead?