First thoughts: How did Fred do?

Posted: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:33 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: First Thoughts

From NBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Julia Steers
*** So how did he do? First and foremost, yesterday's GOP debate was about Fred Thompson's debut, and the collective sense is that he scored from anywhere from "survived" to "just fine." The campaign is very happy, particularly with his performance in the second hour. Be sure to note the disconnect on Thompson -- between those who have spent a lot of time with him on the trail (most of these folks believed he did MUCH better than expected) to those who haven't (who seemed to emphasize his uneven performance).

*** First, consult all the lawyers: If the debate has legs for anyone, it will be for Romney -- and that may not be a good thing. If there was a gaffe committed by any candidate it was Romney's answer on Iran when he said he'd have consult attorneys before anyone else before deciding whether to unilaterally go after Iran's nuclear facility. One can picture the attack adds now, even hear Thompson possibly say, "I may have played a lawyer on TV, but the last group of folks I need to consult is a bunch of lawyers when I decide what I need to do to keep this country safe." This is a tricky thing for Romney's to clean up since, technically, he was speaking the truth because EVERY president consults counsel to decide certain constitutional questions.

*** Gut check: Or is it a head or heart check? How many GOP primary voters are finding themselves split on whom to support because their head tells them Romney is the brightest guy to put up against Clinton; their heart wants them to believe Thompson could become the answer; and their gut keeps coming back to the idea of Giuliani? A few other debate thoughts: Did anyone else notice Huckabee disappearing a bit on stage? His normally well-received schtick didn't seem the right pitch for an economic debate, and Thompson definitely seemed to overshadow him. McCain had a couple of good moments, but he also didn't seem to be as involved in this debate as he was in previous ones. By the way, when will the front-running candidates begin banding together and ask debate organizers to shrink the field. All of them would likely benefit.

*** Bartlett's quotations: Is the GOP having a unity problem? First there was Dan Bartlett’s rough analysis of the GOP field, which seemed to get extra play because reporters were wondering if he was channeling the White House. Then there was the waffling by Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo at the GOP debate about whether they'd support the eventual GOP nominee. Remember, it wouldn't take more than a percentage or two in some states for a third party candidate like Paul or Tancredo to cost the GOP a whole bunch of Bush '04 states out West.

*** A boost for the GOP? The happiest folks about yesterday’s decision by some of the Democrats to yank their names off of the Michigan ballot: the Michigan Republican Party. This means their primary will be the ONLY game in town on January 15. Oh, and that news came on the very day the Michigan GOP was co-hosting the CNBC/MSNBC/WSJ debate, which certainly helped the party remind their presidential candidates of this potential opportunity. Also on the Dem side, Clinton is taking media elite incoming today -- from a Washington Post editorial and Maureen Dowd. Their message is the same: She's waffling or straddling, depending on your point of view.

*** On the trail: Clinton today campaigns on innovation in New Hampshire and then attends a Club 44 event in Boston; McCain stumps in Iowa; Obama stumps in Maryland; Richardson raises money in Iowa; and Romney has a meet and greet in Royal Oak, MI before heading to Denver, where he holds a press avail.

Countdown to MA-05 special election: 17 days
Countdown to LA GOV election: 10 days
Countdown to Election Day 2007: 27 days
Countdown to LA GOV run-off (if necessary): 38 days
Countdown to Iowa: 85 days
Countdown to New Hampshire: 90 days
Countdown to Michigan: 97 days
Countdown to SC GOP primary: 101 days
Countdown to Florida: 111 days
Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 118 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 391 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 468 days

Click here to sign up for First Read email alerts.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

To see real leaders at a real debate is refreshing. The Republicans are light years ahead of the Democrats in holding debates that matter. Democrats have all the dog and pony shows, and photo ops. Republicans get down to the business of discussing the issues and problems the country faces todays. It is also great to see the Republicans holding a debate with a host and questioners that have been nothing but hostile towards the Republicans. If you can't hold up to questioning by adversaries in the media, how are you going to hold up to it when you are President?

All and all, a great debate.

Ben Steele (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 12:02 PM)

Enough already with Ron Paul. He is a wasted vote. Enough already with downgrading everything if it isn't Democratic or does not suit your need to be entertained, amused, or coddled. Enough with the disrepect for our president, even if you don't agree with him. ( Most terrorists enjoy reading and knowing we don't favor this leader, not a good thing for them to know) Either Guiliani or Thomson will win. So let's get on board already. On question: Do you want to pay ALOT more taxes? If so vote in a Democrat. I prefer not, thank you

Mike, Lee NH (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 12:02 PM)

how low - Is he denying it? I'm not sure...to me it just seemed like he wanted Congress to pretend it never happened so Turkey will still be our buddy.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 12:10 PM)

On the MSNBC webpage there is a 'rate the candidates' for the Republicans. Looking at the ratings before the second debate and after I notice one thing immeadiately. Ron Paul is the only one with a positive rating. THE ONLY ONE, before or after the debate that rates a positive. And that rating jumps through the roof after the second debate to 66% positive with almost 9000 votes.

I'd watch out Rudy, the dark horse cometh...
RH Oregon (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 10:00 AM)

Considering that 85% of MSNBC's audience are Left-wing Liberals it's only natural that they would vote for the mentally challanged candidate.
Looking for the Truth (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 10:57 AM)

lol, it's soo true.

Susan (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 12:12 PM)

The media thinks this is a freakin beauty pageant. We have these NeoCons (or should they be called Decepticons) talking about taking America into a war with Iran and discussing the nuclear option.

The supposed reason is to kill terrorists. Well what about the collateral damage. Do the lives of the hundreds of thousands of Iranians that are not terrorists count at all? Does anyone sincerely think that attacking Iran will improve muslim relations with the US? Even a retard could tell you, no this will turn stir the entire muslim world and make the whole world a more dangerous place.

What kind of madness is this?

And what does the media do? They talk about lapel pins and simply shun the issue. Way to go media!! Way to flush your country down the crapper!

Decepti-Cons (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 12:17 PM)

HP you took the words right out of my mouth. My husband and I watched the debate and were almost embarrassed for them. I said ALMOST. Clueless, phoney and despicable; every one of them.

Susan,Miami (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 12:24 PM)

Carrie, I'll say it again, I think Hillary backer's do so Only because of the prospect of having Bill back in the Whitehouse.Are the voter's of our country so dumb to think Only a Bush or a Clinton know what's best for this Great Nation. I think that's Not the case.Between these 2 family's, we've seen the Most devisive Politics ( in my 52 years)this country has survived thru.War's, job's leaving, etc. etc. etc. I know we have other people very capable of Presidential material, that would'nt bring that kind of crap with them to the oval office. I'm sick of tired of this same-ole same-ole Nonsense. My hope is that many other voter's share my feeling's about this. It has nothing to do with hillary being a woman ( my girlfreind is a very strong minded LPN). So in the word's of us country folk's " THAT DOG WON'T HUNT"

Rick,ky (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 12:31 PM)

So this report says they should "narrow the field", yet someone like Paul or Tancredo could be an impact 3rd party candidate...

Why does the MSM keep do their corporate master's bidding? After EVERY Democratic debate or Republican debate, it's let's narrow the field. How about, let's let the people decide???

Liberal Journal (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 12:38 PM)

hillary was created by the wealthy elite to protect the wealthy elite, elect her and see how all the plans to help the middle class and poor evaporate right before your eyes, the excuses for this have already been written and only await the proper timing for release, don't give them that opportunity

MK,MO (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 11:45 AM)

While some rely on the signals coming in from the antenna on their tin-foil hats, the rest of us sane folk like to get our information from other sources in the real world...

Here's an in-depth analysis by the left coast as to the oft-repeated, but never substantiated smear that Hillary is, "owned", by corporate interests;

Monday :: Oct 8, 2007
Is Hillary Clinton a "Corporate Democrat"? - Part 1

by eriposte
UPDATE: Also see Part 2 and Part 3.

SUMMARY

This post examines the allegation that Sen. Hillary Clinton ☼ is a "Corporate Democrat" - namely, a person who is beholden to "Corporate America" and who is more likely to support "corporate interests" as President than the interests of average or middle-class Americans.

I find that the existing evidence, based on her Senatorial voting records compiled by Progressive Punch, Americans for Democratic Action, AFL-CIO and SEIU, does not really support this allegation. Indeed, the evidence suggests that Sen. Clinton's voting patterns are substantially and surprisingly progressive (ranging typically from 90-100%), including on corporate or labor issues. There are certainly serious issues where Sen. Clinton has unfortunately taken anti-progressive positions (e.g., her vote for a version of the Bankruptcy Bill in 2001), but the data reviewed here suggests that overall, she is far more progressive than corporatist. In the absence of additional or new data, I have to conclude that the label "Corporate Democrat", as applied to her, is inappropriate and extraordinarily misleading. In other words, while it is true that she has strong links to corporate America and corporatist interests, there is little or no evidence that she systematically votes in lock-step with those interests or even significantly in line with their positions. I provide a few plausible explanations for this dichotomy in the conclusions of this post.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011131.php

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 12:41 PM)

Fred's camp may say he did good but he had a "senior moment" which lasted about 20 seconds but seemed much longer when he had forgotten what the question was. I have those too Fred but I am not trying to get my finger on the nuclear button.

Rufus Gibbons, DC (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 12:47 PM)

Re thinking my previous post I suppose if you compared Fred's performance to "W"s first debate with Kerry he would look pretty good.

Rufus Gibbons, DC (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 12:50 PM)

Fred Thompson is a wash! THIS is what we've been
waiting for? Wake up, people! Or we're going to be
living in The People's Republic of America, THAT'S
what HillandBill will do to this country! ("WE THE
PRESIDENT...")

Rudy's the ONLY one who can get down to switchblades
and garbage can lids with Hillary. And THAT'S what
it's going to take. Can't anybody else see that?

These two (Hill and Bill) are the dirtiest political
infighters in the game, and we've got to go after them
with hammer and thong. Or we lose! Period.

Jim Whittaker, Hemet, California (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 12:53 PM)

"I'm really surprised by what has been left out of all this observation."

You shouldn't be.

"Wasn't it evident during this debate that Mitt Romney was clearly head and shoulders above anyone else?"

No.

Join me, fellow Repukagains - Ron Paul.

Lee in CA (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 12:57 PM)

I cannot believe how the media is portraying grandpa fred's performance last night as acceptable. The position he is running for is president of the United States not president of the local old-fart service organization. This guy even seems incompetent for that.

Jared, Houston, Texas (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:00 PM)

Its the media anointed front runners, Rudy, Mitt, and Fred who will be waffling once they realize its Ron Paul who has the voters and the consistent conservative view in this race. Media, please stop already with your biased debate format and your biased coverage. The people want to hear more from and about candidate Ron Paul's plans to rescue this country from the toilet bowl where Republicans and Democrats have sent us with their collectivist policies. Let's return to true conservatism, mind our own business, stop meddling internationally and in the private lives of individuals.

Lee Walker, Escondido, CA (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:05 PM)

waffling by ron paul? umm...he seems pretty clear to me. unlike most partisan politicians, ron paul has principles and integrity. why would he vote for someone with completely a different set of principles(or no principles like the rest of that candidates) simply because they have a little (R) next to their name. this is absurd.

JL, Detroit, MI (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:12 PM)

Debates are useless. Until the real American can stand up and face the American public just why (the real reaon) this country chose to fight another weaker, poorer and defenseless country that had nothing to do with Sept.11, 2001 with a small "All Volunteer Amry and Citizen Soldiers to fight for what you people don't want to give up anything.
I'll not vote for anyone until they say that the USA well completely vacate the Middle East and that we have real American that are not afraid to fight for our freedom. I refuse to wrap my self in the flag and stand in back of the military during any invasion of this country. Further more this country was not invaded as there were no large military to take over our govt. We stand beside the flag, not wrapped in it and we stand beside our military, nor behind it.
John Kennedy asked "Ask what your country can do for you, ask what "YOU" can do for your country" I find very little that we can do for our country since they have made us "FEARFULL" of anything. This is not my America that I grew up in. WWII everyone pitched in to halt the agreesive nations, now the USA is the agressor with the superior weapons and still stuck in this "Cinco de Mayo" in Iraq. This country needs to rebuild itself rather than build a nation with military permanent bases and the largest US embassy in the world to expliot the occuping population. Doctor, heal thyee self before trying to heal the world.

Bob. Lipsett Sr. North Attleboro, MA. 02760-4388 (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:13 PM)

MK, MO.....the "tax the rich and feed the poor" thing will never work while we have a fiat currency. 60 years of trying it - the rich are richer, the poor are still poor, and the middle class is drying up. The government has never done a good job at fixing anything.

Alexia, NY NY (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:14 PM)

FRED FLINTSTONE THOMPSON either lost the script,didn't have enough rehearsal time or else his EDGAR BERGEN had to leave town in a hurry.PERHAPS he simply forgot to take his AVODART.

scott, lithonia, ga. (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:15 PM)

What happened to the online poll? Why are MSNBC afraid to show that viewers thought Ron Paul won the debate? He was the one that smacked down Romney. Consult the attornys? The guy sunck himself with that. He should save his money and just leave now.

And as for what you call "waffling" of Tancredo and Paul, neither waffled. They will not support a candidate who will conduct business as usual. And neither will the voters.

If the republicans want tostay in power, they need to do some serious self relection and consider that Ron Paul is the only one who will beat Hillary.

The American people are sick and tired of having to hold their nose while voting for President.

We want someone who has integrety and tells the truth. The only candidate who fits the bill is Ron Paul. He is also the only one who will hold congress responsibe for their actions. That is why he scares them. And that is why America needs him in the Whitehouse.

Jason (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:21 PM)

I have had it with these pundits! I am ready to pull my hair out. I guess the only people on the internet are Ron Paul supporters? NO other candidate has people on the internet? Ridiculous! The main job of the President is to uphold the constitution and the ONLY candidate who is talking about doing that is Ron Paul. Yet pundits or "experts" treat him like a crazy person! MSNBC please fire Chuck Todd! He is out of touch with real politics and the constitution. He is doing the American people a real disservice!

Mike, Atlanta, Ga (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:25 PM)

There you go again. "Collective sense?" Among whom? Do you really think that the public at large is swayed by national media pronouncements,as if they descended from on high to a waiting, qui vive,accepting congregation of mindless automatons and drooling, confused voters?

JACK DOFF (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:31 PM)

ron paul is the only republican candidate that can make an honest statement, and the only one that is truly for what is best for the nation, the rest are just hillary clones

MK,MO (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:34 PM)

The one thing that always comes up for me about the current group of candidates (mr happy, the used car salesman, and the remaining batch of racists and nut cases)is why is Ron Paul here? He talks a good game and sure sounds progressive... so why is he a Republican? This is a good question to ask him if you are a progressive voter and support him. It is critical to know the answer to this...

Lets hope that he will not be this years Nader and end up running as a third party candidate to siphon votes away for the Democratic candidate(spoiler)...

Joe Bob, TX (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:38 PM)

Susan in Miami:

At least you saw a debate with some MEN in it.....

Not like Hillary Clinton and the seven neutered men who are supposedly running against her.......

But how are you going to vote if Howard Dean says your vote does not count?

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:52 PM)

Once upon a time, many years ago, I met a very beautiful person who's parents fled Armenia. This person told me of her parents flight, history.Ironically, her future husband was a Persian (now Iran). He wanted to go back home.This was 1971.
I lost track of her but I will never forget her.

suzanne, i will always remember (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:52 PM)

I strongly believe that the Republican Party is slowly dying, and it will continue to do so if it does not become more moderate in general. The religious right is too nationalistic and unrealistic when it comes to both domestic politics and foreign affairs - in particular, the reputation and ideological policies of the United States ( Pax Americana. Isolationism is no longer impractical once you have ballistic missiles to protect you from outside aggression. We need to focus on the future of this nation and what its true philosophy really stands for.
What we need is another Lincoln; fair, honest, and above all, possessing great dignity. All of these men seem to me to be too compromising, and they alter their own personal histories and positions just to get elected. There simply are no statesmen any longer, and they possess a very superficial intelligence.

RDHenker, USN veteran, Chicago, IL. (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:58 PM)

rEVOLution is the way to go!!! keep it up Paul supporters we will heard.

Chuck (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:00 PM)

we've got to go after them
with hammer and THONG. Or we lose! Period.

Jim Whittaker, Hemet, California (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 12:53 PM)

Rudy has THONGS in a rainbow of colors!

George (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:03 PM)

Jim Whittaker, Hemet, California /

if hillary and rudy are the only choices on the ballot there will be no reason to vote, both are owned entities of the same corporate machine, that is an already verified fact, they are politically identical, everyone loses except the corrupt political machine

ron paul is the only candidate that the republicans offer that is not a business as usual clone, do your party a favor and nominate him, that way if hillary is nominated the democrats will have a palatable alternative

MK,MO (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:04 PM)

Dr. Paul was given the least amount of air time out of all the canidates. For every one question that was asked of Ron Paul, canidates such as Giuliani, Romney, and stuttering Thompson were all asked four or five. How can the media, which is supposed to have an unbiased atitude towards all candidates even if they have different, "unrepublican" ideas, give a man who stands firmly with his befiefs of less government intervention so little air time to defend his positions? Ron Paul is a constitutionalist, which is something out country has forgotten about. He believes in the principals that this country was founded on. Other canidates such as Huckabee and McCain, used there catch phrases and jokes to try and win over the public. Ron Paul has written BOOKS on economics and government spending. Why not ask the person who has the most experience with the issue what he would do? It is because of coverage like this, that the average american will simply shrug Ron Paul and his ideas out the window. It is time to give him a fair chance by recognizing that as long as we let the media choose our canidates for us, no matter what medium that might be on, the average american will not have a chance to decide for themselves. It's not just an internet thing. Ron Paul has a realistic plan to bring this country back to its former glory and reduce our needless oversees spending. Please fight to give him equal air time. You will not regret it!

Ben Wercholuk Manchester, NH (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:05 PM)

Are some of you actually taking the MSNBC post-forum poll seriously?

That's like saying a poll of Rush Limbaugh's audience favoring Rudy Guiliani over Hillary Clinton by 80-20 is meaningful in the big scheme of things.

I still say Fred Thompson had the best line of the night:

"No one asked you, Christopher!"

Richard, Washington State (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:12 PM)

I just wonder how much more damage bush and the stinking repubs can do to our country before Hillary takes office.

Blue state baby (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:13 PM)

Ben - It's a shame the Republicans are so choosy about which debates they will show up at, and which groups they will take questions from. I mean, if they are all about addressing the issues that matter, why are they not about addressing issues that matter to hispanics? Or to gays and lesbians? Or to African Americans?

Oh, that's right. Those people usually vote for Democrats.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:19 PM)

Rick - Perhaps you shouldn't speak for a group of which you are not a member. People support Hillary for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with Bill.

I'm the first to admit that I think one of the best things about Hillary is that she was First Lady, and she will have a former president at her disposal to advise her pretty much all the time. I also think she is intelligent, articulate and, quite frankly, she knows how to succeed in politics. And like it or not, Washington is all politics. We may wish that it was not so, but that's the reality. I'd rather have someone capable of dealing with that reality than someone full of idealism that will not be fulfilled.

Looking forward to hearing your response.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:25 PM)

Call 911. ALMOST IF NOT ALREADY DOA.

scott, lithonia, ga. (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:28 PM)

jerry said "I think we can put Ron Paul out with the cat"

Put him out? I didn't know he was on fire and cats are not good fire suppressants!!
(ta-rumph)

nuanced (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:29 PM)

I'd vote for Ron Paul. I'm a moderate voter from California. I'm not into religion. I'm very anti illegal alien (amnesty), want to end the stupid war. Would like to see a candidate who will discontinue the phoney illusion of a sound economy. Kill off NAFTA. Concentrate on the best interest of the US first. Enforce our current immigration policies (build walls included). Smaller government, stronger military. The world sees us falling apart. Stregthen the dollar

Robert, Corona California (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:57 PM)

Joe Bob, TX: You imply that Ron Paul sounds progressive. Could you explain what you mean by that? Is it because he sometimes sounds like a lib/Dem on the war or tweaks the Republicans?

Aside from his war stance; his positions on protectionism, the gold standard, rescinding trade agreements, cutting taxes, shrinking government, judicial activism, opposition to public funding of embryonic stem cell research on the grounds that it is immoral to force taxpayers to fund it, opposition to gay marriage, his strong pro-life position and even his defense of Christmas all sound conservative, if not reactionary, relative to todays liberal/progressive political paradigm.

The reason he is a Republican is because he obviously doesn't fit in the Democrat party (even his reasons for opposing the war fundamentally differ)and his chances of winning any office by running as a Libertarian would be slim and none.

Democrats "like" him because he is stirring up the Republican pot in the forums but they could never really vote for him, except in the MSNBC "poll".

The possibility of being a Republican "Nader" (or even Perot)is interesting and might indeed be a negative and allow the possibility of a Hillary Clinton presidency on less than 45% of the vote, just like Bill.

Both parties have some possibility of third party activity, the Democrats because of their one issue anti-war faction. But I think in the end there will be (maybe after some interesting conventions) a traditional one-on-one between the major parties.

Richard, Washington State (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:05 PM)

ANN COULTER PROMISES TO SUPPORT FRED FLINTSTONE IF HE GETS AS FAR AS THE PRIMARIES.
THE UNDERTAKER FROM THE TV SERIES ASSURES HER THAT SHE HAS NO REASON TO FEAR.

scott, lithonia, ga. (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:10 PM)

Election, erection, NONE ARE IN THAT LEAGUE.

scott, lithonia, ga. (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:22 PM)

I'm a registered Democrat, and the only two candidates that actually state what they will do and not beat around the bush are Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. I would vote for either one.

Amy Miller, Lansing, Michigan (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:22 PM)

HP, your stupid comments aren't worth being posted once, let alone three or four times!

Richard Brodie (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:26 PM)

I'm a registered Democrat, and the only two candidates that actually state what they will do and not beat around the bush are Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. I would vote for either one.
Amy Miller, Lansing, Michigan (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:22 PM)

That tells me both sides of your brain aren't functioning.

Jim B., Towanda, PA (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:41 PM)

H P, Your comments are great and so true. Keep it up lady!

Blue state baby (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:52 PM)

H P, Your comments are great and so true. Keep it up lady!

Blue state baby (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:53 PM)

I'm a Democrat, but I can understand why people would vote for Ron Paul. Afterall, who doesn't want to end interventionist foreign policy and who isn't in favor of fiscal restraint.

Nevertheless, the man simply is not credible:
1) Abolishing the Fed will kill our economy. It is true that inflation has grown steadily due to the actions of the Fed, but our ENTIRE way of life depends on the availibility of money for loans. Think about that the next time you want to buy a car, a house, or a new TV...Which do you like better, your shiny new Pickup or Ron Paul?

2) A man who endorses the ANTI-VACCINATION movement does not have national interest at heart. I know that libertarians hate the idea of the Federal Government regulating health matters, but the fact is that vaccination saves lives and YOUR boneheaded choice to NOT GET VACCINATED could kill me or my family...How can a DOCTOR be against vaccination?

3) I pay more in income tax than some people make all year, but the fact is that reverting to property and excise taxes as RP supports will be a national disaster. BTW, I live in Texas where we do NOT have state income taxes and we have big fiscal problems here. Our property taxes increase every year, but poor folks suffer because they can not find funding for their local school districts. National property taxes are a bad idea...

What I am trying to articulate is that Ron Paul supports some good ideas which people resonanate with, but he also adovacates ideas that will kill our economy. That is why Ron Paul gets no coverage in the MSM.

Flame On!
--ZP

zen_pollo (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:57 PM)

Rudy's the ONLY one who can get down to switchblades
and garbage can lids with Hillary. And THAT'S what
"it's going to take. Can't anybody else see that?

These two (Hill and Bill) are the dirtiest political
infighters in the game, and we've got to go after them
with hammer and thong. Or we lose! Period. "

Jim Whittaker, this is some of the most beautiful imagery I've seen on these posts. I don't necessarily agree with your position, but this statement is AWESOME!

-ZP

zen_pollo (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:01 PM)

Once again, most of the MSM is trying to belittle Ron Paul. I think Cris Mathews may get demoted for even remotely suggesting that Ron Paul's principles are good ones. Realize that if you cumulate all of the straw polls, that Ron Paul has won 13 out of 30 of them and gotten 2nd or 3rd in 10 more. They are now closing the primary in New Hampshire and setting the registration date to this Friday in order to cut off his support from the Democrats and Independents. Now that should indicate that they are afraid of him pulling more than they want him to.

Jim Lundberg, San Diego, CA (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:37 PM)

President Bush, genocide did happen in Armenia.Osama bin Laden is still on the loose.These are facts.

revisionist historians need not reply (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 7:24 PM)

<< Previous

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=405003