Kuldebar
09-06-2007, 02:37 PM
The majority of the respondents gave answers amounting to "as long as it takes, we have to win with honor" with two exceptions: Romney and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.
Romney in recent days has seemed to favor reducing troops if the surge appears to be working. He didn't say anything President Bush or the Department of Defense hasn't already said. But it seemed like Fox News tried to trap Romney into saying he supported a deadline for troops to come home. Romney managed to avoid the trap.
Paul, however, happily stepped into Fox's trap. Paul remains the only antiwar candidate and doesn't mind saying the war is unconstitutional. He thinks the war was a mistake. Why continue a mistake when the cost of the war is high in both American lives and money? he asks. He appears to be the only GOP candidate who's aware that Iraq and 9/11 aren't connected.
Paul also seems to be the only candidate who opposes Bush's usurpation of power. He appears to be the only one familiar with concepts in the Constitution like habeas corpus or civil rights. I thought Mitt Romney didn't help himself when he said that the most important "civil liberty the government can protect is the right to keep us alive." The founding fathers might frown on a life without civil liberties.
Nice article by John Fout, excerpted above and linked here (http://www.thestreet.com/s/fox-news-angles-for-rabid-answers-in-gop-debate/markets/marketfeatures/10378131.htmlpuc=googlefi).
Ron Paul's performance in the debates is becoming very hard to ignore. The distinctions and differences are becoming more and more apparent.
Even though Fox tried really hard to not direct questions to Ron Paul that would further play to his strengths: immigration, and yes, even abortion. These two areas were not given to Paul for his comment.
But, even Fox had to open the floor up for debate on the war in Iraq. the funny thing is, I think Fox and the company of neo-cons consider Paul's position on the war and foreign policy to be a weakness, and I believe they are very mistaken.
Romney in recent days has seemed to favor reducing troops if the surge appears to be working. He didn't say anything President Bush or the Department of Defense hasn't already said. But it seemed like Fox News tried to trap Romney into saying he supported a deadline for troops to come home. Romney managed to avoid the trap.
Paul, however, happily stepped into Fox's trap. Paul remains the only antiwar candidate and doesn't mind saying the war is unconstitutional. He thinks the war was a mistake. Why continue a mistake when the cost of the war is high in both American lives and money? he asks. He appears to be the only GOP candidate who's aware that Iraq and 9/11 aren't connected.
Paul also seems to be the only candidate who opposes Bush's usurpation of power. He appears to be the only one familiar with concepts in the Constitution like habeas corpus or civil rights. I thought Mitt Romney didn't help himself when he said that the most important "civil liberty the government can protect is the right to keep us alive." The founding fathers might frown on a life without civil liberties.
Nice article by John Fout, excerpted above and linked here (http://www.thestreet.com/s/fox-news-angles-for-rabid-answers-in-gop-debate/markets/marketfeatures/10378131.htmlpuc=googlefi).
Ron Paul's performance in the debates is becoming very hard to ignore. The distinctions and differences are becoming more and more apparent.
Even though Fox tried really hard to not direct questions to Ron Paul that would further play to his strengths: immigration, and yes, even abortion. These two areas were not given to Paul for his comment.
But, even Fox had to open the floor up for debate on the war in Iraq. the funny thing is, I think Fox and the company of neo-cons consider Paul's position on the war and foreign policy to be a weakness, and I believe they are very mistaken.