“Is that a conservative position?” That’s the question over his support for abortion that Rudy Giuliani could not answer in tonight’s debate. The answer is no, and it’s been giving him a lot of heat lately.
In fact, so much heat that I really thought he was going to begin dropping off the map. To say that you believe others should have a right to do something even though you think it’s wrong “for you” is quite disappointing. It’s not just a cop out, it’s pure nonsense. Imagine asking people to apply this logic to rape or murder.
Enter Ron Paul. His big idea of the night is that terrorists attack us because we are “over there” and not because of our wealth and freedom. He suggested “we listen to the people who attacked us and the reasons they did it.”
A man who thinks we should sit down and chit-chat with terrorists is not a worthy candidate for our highest office. If there’s one thing you can say about terrorists, it’s that they are non-discriminatory; no matter your race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or even political affiliation, if you support the ideals of freedom, they want to kill you.
Ron Paul’s ridiculous statements were Rudy Giuliani’s chance to shine, and he took full advantage. As much as he can be put in an awkward position over abortion, Paul’s statements brought out the strong Giuliani. Rudy even interrupted the debate flow and angrily demanded that Paul take back what he said. If you looked carefully, you could actually see Giuliani’s right hand shaking in rage as he finished his response. This was the genuine Giuliani, and for now it unfortunately may take some of the heat off of him for his abortion stance.
Of course, when all is said and done, Ron Paul’s hyper-organized supporters still had him leading the Fox News text message poll half an hour after the debate, two points ahead of Mitt Romney.
Last 5 posts by Katie- Marquette Must Prosecute - Fully and Publicly - March 5th, 2008
- ¿Por qué no te callas?: Hugo Chavez Still Won´t Shut It - November 18th, 2007
- Tribune Preoccupation Wows Me - September 19th, 2007
- "Clout" Proves Easy to Come by at Black Journalists' Convention - August 12th, 2007
- License Plate Splicer on Campus - July 18th, 2007
Sad Sad Sad.
Terrorism does NOT happen in a vacuum. People just do not wake up one day and think “gee I hate america because they are free” Our policies
in the middle east have effects.
Like Paul said if china was doing that kind of crap we’d do something about it. That said, screw Iraq, get Bin Laden and then come home. Here’s hoping
Paul gets nominated, because “McRomleoni” will not win in the elections.
What RP was saying was the attacks of 9/11 were “blowback” from the stupid US policy of intervention in the affairs of other nations. Who says? Osama bin-Laden says. In his 1998 fatwa, bin-Laden gave the reasons why it is OK for Muslims to kill Americans – the presence of US troops in the middle east. So, he was right. And as he’s said so many times before and a point that so many of today’s GOPers forget is that that is the historic Republican position. A position of non-intervention. If everyone remembered that, true conservative statements like what RP made wouldn’t be so shocking. We have a short memory.
You are so wrong…you are like most Americans who can’t think for themselves and parrot what they hear on the MSM and probably you do not have a passport and have never traveled abroad…and you will most likely censor my post…like a good nazi…oh I’m sorry, I met to say neo-conservative….
In actuality, the debate was most typical of the MSM and their loaded questions to Dr. Paul…still, I think the exchange with Giuliani was good…Dr Paul did not take back his comment and rightfully so; rather he tried to explain the concept of “blowback†which the other candidates did not understand-or they did not want to address-we do face consequences for our foreign policy decisions and 911 was most certainly directly related to the foreign policy of 20 plus years of meddling in the middle east and doing so in a biased manner….
Nah.
Ron Paul’s the man. Everything he said was absolutely factually correct. American foreign policy=terrorism toward America. If you enjoy bombs going off at a mall near you go ahead and stick with these other losers.
Why are we so worried about terrorism anyway? For fifty years people were fretting about the Soviet Union blowing up our entire country (the world actually) and now we’re worried about some two-bit sandscratchers on the other side of the globe? Give me a break.
[...] Fighting Like Warriors and Thinking Right. Systematically Debunking Liberal Rhetoric. « Second Republican Debate: Ron Paul’s Gift to Rudy Giuliani [...]
It is possible to believe in something but not think everyone should be forced to agree. Isn’t that what freedom of religion is? Believing one thing but saying that doing otherwise is also okay? I don’t believe in getting a tattoo or a nose piercing, but I don’t have a problem with other people getting one. I don’t think that’s a cop out at all.
Abortion is different, of course, but the basic reasoning isn’t “nonsense”. There are just some cases in which it doesn’t apply, and some in which it does.
[...] Wycklendt has the right take on Ron Paul’s foolish terrorism statement. I actually like Ron Paul because he has a unique perspective as the nearest thing we have to a [...]
There are a lot of Ron Paul spammers out there… so I’d expect a few posts and any future straw poll to go nuts with Ron Paul support. In th end, the Ron Paul hyper texting fizzled out — Giuliani gained to 18% and Mitt pulled ahead. Mike Huckabee by the way had fourth place at 9%. Everyone else below 5% or not even registering.
I respect Ron Paul’s positions however his statement that we were at fault for our actions was unwarranted. Even if we weren’t involved in the Middle East we would have been attacked because we are #1 and hard core Muslims believe non-Muslims should convert or die. In that respect he was right in saying we don’t understand Muslim politics.
As far as the overall debate goes, I don’t see a clear front runner as this time it was definitely a lot more balanced than on MSNBC with ample time to answer a variety of questions and rebuttle. All of the questions were Presidential and there wasn’t any wasted time. The time was definitely more spread out… I challenge someone to verify that.
What is definitely clear is that some candidates can be eliminated.
I’m sorry, Tommy Thompson still did a horrible job. He was definitely a lot better (especially at the beginning)… but he just looked like a robot and not a Presidential candidate. He had a definite chance tonight but he just flopped. Maybe he had diarrhea again and he wanted to get off stage??
John McCain looked like he was back peddling the whole debate… no new ideas, just defense.
Romney had his moments of offense and defense overall performing very well.
Mike Huckabee is a rising star… his brilliant one liners are putting him on the same plain with the top tier… He responded very well to the Tax question. I think he has a good chance and will do very well.
Duncan Hunter did a fair job… his stance on Immigration is going to help him quite a bit. Seems to be a good choice for Vice President at this point.
Sam Brownback did a real good job explaining his Pro-Life stance and conservative values when it comes to cuts in Government spending. However his view on the ‘Surge’ may hurt him. We’ll see, but he is still in the running and I think he will do well in Iowa.
My list of elimination– Tom Tancredo, Jim Gilmore, Ron Paul, Tommy Thompson and John McCain. When they are eliminated… the debate should intensify and we’ll have a better view of who to pick from in the primary.
I’d like to see what happens in a debate if Fred Thompson enters the race… honestly, I don’t think he’ll have a commanding lead like the hype suggests… but it should be interesting.
Totally agree. Giuliani’s performance was bland until he was handed that gift by Ron Paul. I thought McCain outshined him overall, but that moment will be the most played of the night. Mike Huckabee was also good.
Paul may be what conservative used to mean, but that isn’t where today’s Republican Party stands. He is clearly out of step with the rest of the candidates and probably most of the Republican voters.
Good to see Rudy is still running for the president of 9/11
Both Paul and Guliani are right in their own respects. I don’t believe that Ron Paul was trying to say that our foreign policy “caused” 9/11 any more than the sale of a gun to a person “causes” them to use it. Only the people involved in 9/11 were the cause of 9/11. However, I think the point Paul was making was that the general anger among much of the Muslim community (even those who are not radical) was at least partially the result of U.S. foreign policy over the past 20-30 years. I’m not sure how one would go about disagreeing with that statement, given that it has been so widely accepted in intelligence circles. I think Guliani is also right in that the perception among radical Islamic fundamentalists is that America is a hedonistic culture that stands contrary to Islam’s teachings. So in a sense, I think both contributed to general anti-American sentiments among radical Islamic fundamentalists, but the only true “cause” of 9/11 was the actions of those involved. I also think Guliani knew what Paul was getting at and turned it around to serve his own purpose. In any case, simplistic analysis like:
“Even if we weren’t involved in the Middle East we would have been attacked because we are #1 and hard core Muslims believe non-Muslims should convert or die”
really makes me worry about the intellectual future of the party.
If the debate was Paul’s gift to Giuliani, then why did the post-debate text-message polls close with Paul ahead of Giuliani?
Ron Paul did not say that we “invited” the attacks, only that our policies have inspired hatred among potential terrorists.
I think you switched some names– Rudy Giuliani’s comments were “ridiculous” while Ron Paul’s were in line with what the 9/11 Commission Report and our very own CIA have already told us.
The CIA’s former bin Laden and al Qaeda specialist, Michael Scheuer, told CNN, “We’re being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live.”
Rudy was wrong, as were the people who clapped for him and the warmongers who said that Ron Paul was wrong. He was absolutely correct. He is a true patriot and I was proud of him for being the only one to say the emperor has no clothes.
Why do people insist that Ron Paul supporters are hyper-organized and are set to rig polls and blog coverage, when of all the canidates, he seems to have the least resources to actually devote to that kind of organizational infrastructure? The most I’ve been to find in his campaign is your typical running for election web page, a myspace page and some good use of meetup.com. Posts related to his positions and debates tend to get voted up on social networking sites like reddit and digg, but so do posts like this that presumably show that he didn’t so hot. Besides, those sites have been around for quite a while and I suspect are resistant to the kinds of manipulations that you seem to suggest. Why is it so hard to believe that a good number of Americans hear the voice of reason rather than rhetoric when they listen to RP and respond appropriatly?
Hell, I’d vote for Rudy. And I’d sooner fall backwards over a fish hook than ever consider voting Republican. His views on abortion are what we like to call “fair.” It’s making decisions for yourself but not trying to impose personal medical decisions on others. Again, the law doesn’t equate abortion with murder, so until the law and the medical community do that, you can’t make that connection either. Just think… if a woman gets pregnant via a violent rape, Rudy wouldn’t make her carry the child to full term and make her trauma even worse by giving her a daily reminder of her violent victimization… I think if women care about themselves at all, they should support candidates that support safe, legal abortion. Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean everyone is forced to run out and have one. Here you’ve got yourselves a GOP candidate that’s right for a change when it comes to a woman’s right to control her own body. It’s win-win for you guys — women aren’t stripped of their personal rights, and you still get a guy who’s nutty conservative everywhere else. What’s not to like?
‘“Even if we weren’t involved in the Middle East we would have been attacked because we are #1 and hard core Muslims believe non-Muslims should convert or dieâ€
really makes me worry about the intellectual future of the party.’
Please don’t be ignorant of what is going on. We must have a full understanding of our current enemy in this war or we are in trouble.
The Muslims that actually believe jihad is a long tough struggle and enemies should be forgiven are moderates and most of them are in the United States. Elsewhere where the ‘Islamic Shariaah’ is strictly enforced, Islam is a religion of suppression and hate. People are illiterate so they don’t have an understanding of anything except what is taught in the mosques which is a hatred of the United States and Israel… this is even happening in a country like Great Britain. I’m describing to you our enemy which believes in Islamic Fascism, an enemy more dangerous than Nazism in Europe. BTW, ask Christians in Iraq and Nigeria what they think. They’ll tell you these people promote violance against people against their faith and will capture people frequently requiring conversion or death.
Since we have the #1 economy in the world and stand for everything Western Civilization has to offer, we will be their enemy even if we don’t consider them one. Ron Paul is wrong that we caused 9/11 by bombing Iraq for 10 years. How do you explain the bombing in 1993? and the previous terrorist attacks? You forgot we liberated Kuwait a Muslim country… the USA has been friends with countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and Jordan for decades. And we did declare war by drafting the authorization use of force against Iraq in 2002.
“Why do people insist that Ron Paul supporters are hyper-organized and are set to rig polls and blog coverage, when of all the canidates, he seems to have the least resources to actually devote to that kind of organizational infrastructure?”
Because you have no idea if those numbers are legit… are they democrats doing the voting to skew the polls? If you are right, than I expect high numbers in the Straw Poll this August in Iowa. I’m glad Ron Paul is a candidate, he offers something other candidates don’t. He is the Al Sharpton candidate.
mu socialist, I expect you to stand by your statement and vote for Giuliani in the primary.
[...] gloves and his glasses, ‘cuz he’s about to provoke a blog slap fight. Gop3.com writers Katie and Brandon, you’ve been led like sheep to the slaughter, like every South Carolinian idiot [...]
Indeed. Paul is able to win all of these online polls, yet his real world poll numbers are next to invisible. Something isn’t adding up…
Regarding the Islamic fundamentalism debate going on here, I think both sides make valid points. There are people hellbent on infliciting damage on America because of their religion, in this case, Islam. The reason they are compelled to adopt that violent religious ideology is because they see injustice all around their part of the world, and as SPETER notes, don’t have all the tools necessary to make an informed judgment. So it’s not just religion and it’s not just foreign policy, it’s both.
In the 90s the US bombed Sudan, Iraq, Kosovo, Afghanistan. It supported crippling UN sanctions on Iraq that severely diluted the quality of life of ordinary Iraqis. Right or wrong, these actions have consequences. Al Qaeda and its partners are using their religion to capitalize. Fair enough?
Ron Paul – Press Release
For what it is worth…
Why Hasn’t Rudy Giuliani Read the 9-11 Commission Report?
May 16, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
ARLINGTON, VA – During the “First in the South” GOP debate in South Carolina last night, one thing was made clear: Rudy Giuliani does not understand how to keep America safe.
When Congressman Ron Paul, who has long served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, explained how 50 years of American interventionism in the Middle East has helped compromise our national security, Giuliani interrupted saying he had “never heard anything so absurd.” This statement is particularly troubling coming from the former mayor who tries to cast himself as a security expert, since Dr. Paul’s point comes directly from the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission Report.
“Rudy Giuliani has tip-toed around the issues of abortion, guns and marriage. The only issue he has left is security, and he doesn’t even get that right,” said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. “It is clear from his interruption that former Mayor Giuliani has not read the 9-11 Commission Report and has no clue on how to keep America safe.”
###
My own thoughts:
Giuliani is center-left on abortion, guns and marriage. On national security, he is probably an authoritarian and supportive of the current strategy in Iraq.
Ron Paul is the most free-market, Constitution-respecting candidate there is. In aggregate, it would be very difficult for anyone to make a sound argument that any other candidate is more “pro-America” than Ron Paul. Sure, he faces very long odds at ever receiving a nomination but demonizing Dr. Paul is misguided and damaging for the future of conservative ideas.
Almost every conservative recognizes the danger posed by Islamic fascists and Ron Paul is no different. If we are going to fight a war, Congress should declare war and not just “authorize the use of force.”
Vagaries and euphemisms (War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Terror) take away the transparency from our federal government and are used to convince voters that a strong, centralized, unconstitutional government is necessary.
More to the point, I don’t think Ron Paul handed Giuliani a gift as much as Giuliani stole a moment. I have not had a chance to listen to the entire debate but I doubt that Ron Paul said anything last night that was inaccurate or disagreeable to the majority of Americans.
At no point did Ron Paul say America invited the attacks on 9/11. He was discussing the CIA’s idea of “blowback.” At which point, Giuliani plainly misstated Ron Paul’s position. There is no evidence on YouTube to support any other honest interpretation.
Sorry STPE3R, I can’t vote for both Rudy AND John Edwards in the primary…
Chuck, I agree. Paul didn’t really say that America provoked the attacks. He only said that there were reasons beyond “they hate our freedoms”.
mu socialist — how are you going to vote for both Rudy and Edwards if they both win the primary, lol!
I reviewed Ron Paul’s comments over and over. He is an Libertarian isolationist, no questions asked. On this issue he is just wrong. Greg, our actions in the 1990s didn’t warrant Iran to take hostages in 1979, the attack on our Marines in 1985 or the 1993 World Trade Tower attack. If you read more into what Osama has said, he didn’t expect our reaction to come after him following the 9 / 11 attacks in light of our actions in Somalia (Blackhawk down) in 1993 and the attack on the USS Cole in 2000. The terrorists expect us to be isolationist so they can take us down or control key areas of the world. Thats the whole problem with this position. Its not just us… look at other parts of the world like India, Nigeria, now as of today France!
Sure you can, mu socialist! You just can’t do it legally.
I’m not an isolationist, I want to make that known, I think America has a huge role in world affairs. I think there are values that we should suppot as Americans living in a free nation. However, Iran’s hostage taking in 79 was in some part due to American support for the shah. Islam the religion made it happen too, no doubt, but our foreign policy was a cause as well. Attack on Marines in Lebanon? Result of Reagan sending Marines there to begin with. Not saying it’s right or wrong, but no kidding someones going to attack Marines if they are attempting to mediate a civil war, right? By the way, Reagan’s withdrawal emboldened terrorists.
Regarding Somalia, man that is a whole different cup of chai, but you gotta look before Blackhawk Down to understand the dynamics of that one. Cold War politics have made Somalia and Ethiopia what they are today, namely countries with a weak rule of law and too many guns for too cheap to do any good. Where should I stop? Not a Dr. Ron fan, but he’s right about our foreign policy having negative consequences in the “Arab street”. How do we fix it? Multilateralism, diplomacy, make people rich, build bridges, etc. And yes, by now, my sick liberalism is revealed.
Nigeria’s problem in the Niger delta is not a religious issue, it’s an economic one. If I was al Qaeda I’d be trying to set up shop there, but it doesn’t seem to be the case at the moment. Could be. India? What? Please clarify that one.
MU-Socialist
If you lived in Chicago you can vote as many times as you want… However, only for the dems… oh the windy city
Of course, Ron Paul is technically correct to say bin Laden is angry at americans because of our troop stationed in the holy land, Saudi Arabia — the state control Mecca. That being said Paul offered an observation not a solution. Let’s get one thing straight. We did not invade Saudi Arabia, we were invited. Bin Laden was angry at americans for many things beside our troop presence. He was angry at us because we reject the true god. He has written numerous statement about fighting Soveit first and then USA. That happened during the Cold War, way before our troop presence in Saudi. Bin Laden has attacked US embassy in 1998, which has nothing to do with our troop presence, does it?
For Ron Paul to compare our presence in Saudi is the same as China invading a south american country is ridiculous. First, if China invades a south american, we would be very angry at the Chinese, but we are not going to fly planes into their buildings and masscure their embassy. We have never done that in our history. Even during the Cuba missile crisis with nuke warhead pointint at us, we did not kill Soviet’s civilian did we? Not only we did not do that, we never considered that as an option. Second, we did not invade Saudi.
All Paul said is that bin Laden is angry at us and so we should back off. Well, Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were angry at us too in WW2. Soviet Union was mad at us during the Cold War. According to Ron Paul’s logics, we should have assisted Nazi Germany instead of Britain because that will make Nazi happy, but would that not make the Bristish unhappy? We should have become communism because that will make Soviet happy. Oh yes, we should convert to Muslim to make bin Laden happy.
Paul’s logics is submission without principle. If a man slaps his wife because she talked too much, then the wife should shut up. Afterall, having you read statement from the husband? He said he is angry because she talked too much. Ridiculous! You need to ask yourself if slapping a woman is a correct response for “talking to much”, and you have to ask yourself if September 11 is a correct response for our troop presence in Saudi — when in fact we were invited by the Saudi government, and the Arab League. Countries like Saudi, Turkry, Pakistan, Qatar… and even Syria invited us to go there. Iran which was and still is very hostile to US were quiet. Yes, even Iran did not object to it. Somehow, Al Qaeda’s opinion means more?
Look at other countries, for decades the Chinese and Japanese debate about the ownership of “fishing island”. Every year there is emotional massive protests from the Chinese side. (Currently, fishing island is under the Japan’s control. Historically, it once belonged to China). The point is you do not see Chinese perform terrorism on Japan or vice versa. What Al Qaeda did was not justified in any Western mean nor 99.999% of world cultre.
By the way, I just want to add, this is not even a Republican or Democrat issue. Ron Paul attacks 70 years of American foreign policy, starting our intervention in World War 2. Is there anyone here honestly American brightest years were before 1930′s? That is what Ron Paul offers. In addition, if you are a Democrat, you have more reasons not to agree with Ron Paul. He specifically said the reason why we got 9/11 is because we bombed Iraq for 10 years, and stationed troops in Saudi for those years. Well, 8 out of 10 years bombing and the troop station were under Clinton, and most aggressive bombing of the Iraq were under Clinton too.
To agree with Ron Raul is to literally disagree all the foreign policy for the last 70 years.
I’m sorry, for a group of Republicans, it seems baffling to me that some reading this thread are unable to understand that there are CONSEQUENCES to ACTIONS. Maybe the point of my prior post was missed. If installing the Shah in Iran was the action, then the reaction was general resentment of America among the middle-eastern Muslim community. The consequence WAS NOT 9/11, and Paul was not attempting to say that it was; that was simply how Guliani characterized it. And if we put a President in office that doesn’t understand the relationship between action and consequence . . .
Wall Street Journal: Was Osama Right?
http://opinionjournal.com/edit.....=110010080
A look at America’s response to violence over the last 50 years.
looks like it was our lack of foreign policy in that article scott.
Making Fred look better all the time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L92d0ioaArU
Wow. It’s unbelieveable that Katie Wycklendt would dismiss the introspection suggested by Paul as “chit chatting with terrorists”. It’s sad to see such a great country as the US fouled by people who are unable to see past their own selfish paradigm.
This is the attitude that the current Bush government presents and it’s no wonder the world has come to hate the US the way it does. You reap what you sow.
“They hate our freedom” – what a ridiculous attitude.
Ms. Wycklendt’s symplistic analysis is typical of the reasoning that got us into the Iraq debacle in the first place. First, she suggests that the “terrorists” want to kill us for our “wealth and freedom” or that “if you support the ideals of freedom, they want to kill you.” While I don’t have time to give a history lesson here, suffice it to say that the al-qaeda movement was only given the conditions that allowed it to start because our dollars have been proping up an illegitimate “anti-freedom” autocratic tyranical monarchy in saudi arabia for the last half century. After 9-11, the world was united against al-qaeda. They were united, that is, until we confirmed what until then had seemed to be bin ladens lunatical ravings about us trying to conquer muslims by invading Iraq. We confirmed exactly what Bin Laden had been saying, and provided him with the best recruiting tool he could have possibly hoped for: Confirmation of his complaints by his enemies. The hole has been dug for this country by bush and his anti-intellectual supporters like Ms. Wycklendt, only with truth, honesty, and real reflection of all the history that has led to our present condition will we ever get out.
Ron Paul was right on target…Rudy Guiliani should actually be in jail right now, as he committed a felony under NY state law by removing & destroying evidence related to a crime…this, of course, was when he had
the debris from the WTC removed and shipped to China & India to be disposed of, with the remains of NYC firefighters still in the debris…in the response to Katie Wycklendt’s article, one person commented that Ron Paul ‘spammers’ have been skewing the post-debate polls in favor of Rep.
Paul…I would suggest this person is out of touch with the pulse of the American people, who reject the criminal Bush administration, and their racketeer war in Iraq…Ron Paul is simply the only candidate running for
the GOP ticket who is not bought & paid for.
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article s Gift to Rudy Giuliani, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.