Ron Paul vs. Mike Huckabee…you make the call

 and when you're done watching this explain to me when Ron Paul of Dr. No fame became the champion of the Republican party?  He has used the party to get elected, he has voted against them, and though he is certainly a conservative he has attacked the party repeatedly.  Now sudden;y he is worried about how the party will do in the elections.  Is this an example of Ron Paul pandering to the base?  Or just more of his messianic ego run amok?  This has to be the most hypocritical moment of the entire debate.  Ron Paul, defender of the party.

  

Advertisements

9 Responses to Ron Paul vs. Mike Huckabee…you make the call

  1. Fluffy says:

    If any mistake made by the President belongs to the entire country and cannot be renounced or changed, will this same “Huckabee Rule” apply if Hillary becomes President in 2008?

    “Oh well, we can’t change any of Hillary’s policies when we get her out of office, because Mike Huckabee says her mistakes belong to us. We make mistakes as nation, and not as a governing administration!”

    Yeah, OK.

  2. Sounds as if he is defending the traditional conservatism that kept America out of wars in the past, and didn’t overspend. You’re right, Ron Paul is falsely assuming that the modern-day GOP still thinks according traditional Republican values, when in fact many of today’s Republicans think more like neo-conservative ex-Democrats.

  3. Steve says:

    All those questions assume that Republicans in office vote using Republican values, but how is voting for increased spending, more departments, less civil liberties, and wars Republican? Maybe it’s because the Republicans in office aren’t Republicans?

    During the Paul vs. Huck exchange did Huck mention a single fact? I could not hear him say one fact because all I heard where emotional appeals.

  4. J R says:

    I think he is just pointing out that the party is losing because they are out of step with the American people

  5. bhday says:

    CJ, the Republican party has not historically been defined by the neoconservative, big-government, assault-on-individual-liberty-and-economic-freedom madness that has taken over in Washington.

    Rep. Paul is simply pointing out the truth — the Republican party has completely lost its way relative to its traditional values.

    I’m not, and have never been, a Republican — at least not the way it’s currently defined. But I do consider myself a Republican in the sense that Jefferson, Madison, Washington and friends laid out a republican government in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. We’re all created equal, with certain unalienable rights.

    Ron Paul is the only Republican by the founding fathers’ definition. The remaining candidates are as far from republicans as anyone could imagine, and at worst statist fascists.

    Here’s an interesting link:
    http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/gov_philosophy/forget_bor.htm

    And if you really want to get confused about the (mis)use of these oversimplified labels, check this out (esp. the end):
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party_(United_States)

  6. bhday says:

    Oh, and about Paul/Huckabee…

    Honestly, I was shocked by Huckabee’s trite analogy. Prior to this exchange, he was the only candidate other than Ron Paul who didn’t make me viscerally sick when I heard him talk.

    But “We broke it we bought it?” “We all make a mistake together?” Paul slammed him, as he should. How many must die before we’ve “paid for it?” Why shouldn’t we fix the mistake through peace rather than war?

    Iraq is not a vase. And even if it was, you can’t put it back together with guns and bombs. The people who live over there need to figure out how to get along. We don’t live there (although we could, thanks to our new $600 million embassy.)

    Now Huckabee joins the ranks of irrational lunatics who think napalm is the new men’s cologne. How can a minister advocate offensive, pre-emptive death and destruction? Now *that’s* offensive.

  7. this is like one of two instances in the debate where I thought Ron Paul had it going on. The spinmeisters of course callled it for the Huckster. Interestingly enough, it occurs to me that overy few Ron Paul fans that I speak to like him just for his stance on the war. It’s really about the only reason I do like him, and the more I think about it, the more I think he is wrong here as well.

    thanks for all your comments, and I’ll be checking those links Barry. My history is a little rusty, but I didn’t think the founding fathers even had a republican party to consider.

  8. Conundrum says:

    Hey Crimmy

    You have again stirred the debate…I’m referring to the one among the pauliacs and the thinking people.

    As you correctly noted, it is rather odd, or amusing, or downright hilarious to think of good ole ron paul as the defender of the faith for the GOP.

    Oddly, I have felt that our bombs broke their country and we had an obligation to put it back together but in the last three years I’ve realized they (the Iraqi’s) don’t want it “fixed” as long as they all have to live there together. I’ve come to the conclusion that the US should get the UN to negotiate dividing the country into three parts – one for each sect. Maybe then they can quit killing each other and our troops. Everyone could probably agree that Saddam was a bad guy and the world is better off with him out of power but in hindsight, we see that his harsh control was seemingly the only way to govern that place as one country when filled with warring factions.

    As for the leave-with-honor, why should that be a requirement? I ask since “we” went in without honor based on erroneous information (possibly & probably intentional lies), it seems impossible to grasp an honorable exit out of a disgraceful entrance.

    For once I must full heartedly agree with one of Mr. Paul’s remarks – with how many lives must we pay to save face?

    by the way – what might be a “statist fascist”? Fascists I know about but statists I don’t know.

    Thanks for another though provoking moment.

  9. donnie says:

    mike huckabee uses a childhood analogy to defend his position, while ron paul uses historical precedence.

    who would you rather have as president?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: