E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSBy NBC's Carrie Dann
STORM LAKE, Iowa -- The X-factor candidate in the Iowa caucuses is in Rick Perry's crosshairs.
"Dr. Paul's just wrong on this issue," Perry said on Friday after ripping his libertarian-leaning rival's view that hawks have inflated the dangers of a nuclear Iran. "You can't make nice with the mullahs. They hate us."
Perry, who trails Paul in the first caucus state, said that Paul's isolationist policies "truly make me nervous" and warned Iowans at two small-town campaign stops that such views could lead to the destruction of Israel or even the United States.
"We cannot have a president of the United States that basically is so hands-off to a country like Iran that they say "it's not our business, we're not going to get involved,' he said. "It is our business."
The swipes come as political observers increasingly wonder if Paul's organizational strength and fervent base of support could vault him to victory in the Jan. 3 caucuses.
But Team Perry hopes that Paul's dogged doveishness, particularly on the issue of a nuclear Iran, is a bridge too far for Iowans.
"You're trying to dramatize this, that we have to go and -- and treat Iran like we've treated Iraq and kill a million Iraqis, and 8,000- some Americans have died since we've gone to war. You cannot solve these problems with war," Paul protested during Thursday night's FOX News debate in Sioux City.
Bob Haus, Perry's Iowa state co-chair, told NBC News after the debate that Paul's comments about Iran could give pause to voters who have been drawn to the congressman's deficit- and spending-based message.
"His success has really stemmed around the economic side of his message," Haus said of Paul. "And in debates like tonight when you start seeing the foreign policy side of his message, that's where he starts to really have some difficulties. I don't think he represents most Republicans or even most Iowans on a lot of these defense issues."
Paul was not the only GOP candidate on the receiving end of a jab from Perry during the third day of his Iowa barnstorm. Asked by a reporter if former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's work for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac disqualified him from serving as president, the Texas governor slammed Gingrich's attempts to distance himself from the label of "lobbyist."
"The idea that somehow or another 'I'm a consultant, I wasn't a lobbyist.' ... For most of us that is a very weak excuse at best," Perry said.
Perry hit stops number four and five of his 44-destination Iowa bus tour, appearing in two crowded but intimate venues in conservative northwest Iowa. The retail-rich blitz is designed to repair the damage from Perry's early debate stumbles by placing the candidate face-to-face with Iowans.
But the campaign faced disappointment late Thursday night when it lost a key endorsement race in South Carolina, with Gov. Nikki Haley announcing her backing of Mitt Romney.
"I respect Nikki. [She's a] good governor," Perry said today. "But, you know, she made her choice. And we'll see who was right."
GOP candidates are now hoping to hold everyone's attention, right before Christmas. NBC's Chuck Todd reports.
Leave a Comment:
Just this Thursday we folded the Flag on a liitle dance started by a Texan. Cost us about a Trillion and 4500 fine young men and women. Now we got another Texan deperate to start another Shindig. I am forced to the conclusion that Texans don't know how to dance and only a fool dances with ugly partners that can't dance.
Then there's Ron Paul.
First they ignore him, then they laugh at him, then they attack him, then he wins.
Ron Paul 2012
It looks like Paul's isolationist policies is what we need right now. Get out of international affairs and recuperate from wars, financial and economical loses. Just take care of US and leave others on their own. It doesn't look like we can effort to participate in the world affairs.anymore unless we want to head to total crash. So it looks like Paul is the best candidate so far from republican party. It looks like he is only one I would vote for so far.
Ron Paul IS a Texan.
ARGHHHHHH!!! Dr. Paul is NOT an isolationist he is a non-interventionist, I really wish these people would look up the difference in the two words!! Including YOU Governor Good Hair sheesh.
Funny how Perry says we are bankrupt but somehow we can afford to police the world? If not for interventionist policies we wouldn't be having these discussions about massive deficits..
At some point 2 + 2 = 4 and at some point we must have the courage to elect someone like Dr. Paul who would actually be a conservative and allow the chips to fall where they may. Its time to be a Republic again not an Oligarchy, which I fear we are headed that direction..
Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate that is for America, The rest off the corrupt politicians are open to sell out the U.S. to organizations like the American Israeli PAC for pennies on the dollar. Ron Paul is a true Patriot, the rest are just sell outs being paid to do Israels bidding
They always talk bad about isolationism, but, when you look at China, it seems to have done them pretty darn good.
Google Ron Paul and earmark see what you get. Captain Crazy says that cocaine being illegal is a states issue.If a state wants to legalize it that is OK with him. Captain Crazy wants to cut entire departments from the government without saying who would pick up the necessary work they do. Like the Department of the Interior. He says get rid of it. But he does not say who will manage the National Parks and National forests!
They don't know how to dance (Karl Rove, oh my), and Perry "swipes" like a little school girl.
You have to love it when Ron Paul asks his fellow Hawks how they plan to pay for a war against Iran. Iran is no Iraq--much larger, richer, and sophisticated -- And no Libya other than the real beginning to the Arab Spring that was brutally squashed. Find ways to support the Arab Spring in Iran and other countries like Syria--much better for winning hearts and minds without losing blood and treasure. Idiot war-mongering Teapublicans.
The more I watch these debates, the more I an sure to re-elect Obama, If you put Newt into office-you can kiss this nation goodbye. Newt is a crook and a GOP reject, Also he is no man of family values when he lied to two Wife's. Newt is a serial liar.
Patriotic american- Ron Paul is the only one that does not want to go to war with Iran. We can not afford anouther war especially a losing war like Iraq and Afganistan, the only war we won is Lybia. Check out the travel channnels Rick Steves Iran, there are actually jews in Iran and they are able to vote. Ron Paul is also the only one that remembers what we did in Iran in the 50s. These 10+ years of war have bankrupted our nation and profited the arms dealers. More fraud has been found in one year of our wars than it would cost to protect our power grid from an EMP or CME which could kill off 80% of america but was deemed to expensive.
Also the soviets and china are backing Iran, the stealth drone was taken down by a soviet made mobile jamming station. China is americas banker,at least as far as provideing loans to prop up the federal reserve they could call in their debts if we attacked iran. The russia and china will not take lightly their investments being sold off to zionist bankers.
It doesn't matter what state they're from. Hell, I thought Bush wasn't really from Texas, is he? Just look at the job he did.
Incompetence knows no state borders.
@GTXPO77. When a country takes a policy of not policing another country it is called non interventionist policy's. Exactly what our founders never wanted us to do. When a country takes a stance of imposing border restraints against another country,(such as China wants with the yellow sea or Denmark at protecting her borders of free commerce) or tariff's, or currency restraints, or any form of trade restraints or policing that country's actions, or restraints on trade, or sanctions, it is called ISOLATIONISM from the perspective of the history books.. This policy of isolationism was a big issue in the worlds history of attempts at globalization.. If country's agreed to certain trade agreements, but later took a stance of isolation due to issues that had led to protectionism, it creates real issues for the country who is being attacked with such policy. An example would be China agreeing to fair trade with the U.S. but later began manipulating its currency unfairly. Thus America may impose tariffs, thus China counters with another tariff or restraint. A culmination of these issues is often described as a trade war. Every leader on the stage for President, (including Obama) have been speaking the trade war speak lately. With the exception of 2 people. John Huntsman and Ron Paul. So every candidate for our next President is looking to take us down the path of trade war or ISOLATIONIST Policy's except these two.. As we know, the last trade wars led to WW1 & WW2... Can the world handle WW3??? Huntsman envisions diplomacy, which may work, but we would need to be reduced in compensation some more to be competitive. I don't like that path anymore, look at our paychecks and loss of manufacturing.. Ron Paul is very different in his approach. He speaks with a true education of history in many of his videos that can be seen outside the public media. He understands banking at the international level or central banking which is where the root of most trade wars lie. Any flavor of protectionist policy's can be traced back to the central banker one way or another. He knows where to take up the fight for us and other methods of fighting the powers that cause the effects. Lets elect a real leader. Ron Paul 2012
The Republican machine should have treated Paul with a little more respect, I just seen Hannity ask him if he would support the republican nominee if it was not him and he made it very clear he has no interest in asking his supporters to back any other republican candidate if he does not get the nomination. Ron Paul is going to spell big trouble for republicans, he may still run as an independent if he does not get the nomination, and even if he don't he is going to syphon votes from their nominee, because his supporters will not jump on the GOP bandwagon.
"The Republican machine should have treated Paul with a little more respect, I just seen (sic) Hannity ask him if he would support the republican nominee if it was not him and he made it very clear he has no interest in asking his supporters to back any other republican candidate if he does not get the nomination. Ron Paul is going to spell big trouble for republicans, he may still run as an independent if he does not get the nomination, and even if he don't(sic) he is going to syphon (sic) votes from their nominee, because his supporters will not jump on the GOP bandwagon."
Forrest, you reinforce the notion that right-wingers are ignorant.
Gumps, you are right, they are just as ignorant as the left-wingers.
Actually what Forrest is describing is reality, and so far the establishment righty's haven't figured it out yet. Paul has repeatedly stated he will not run as a third party. WHY? because he knows that if the party doesn't get behind him he will never be elected, but neither will any other republican.
I've just this last week seen liberal news commentary on just this issue, I would think that Obama's re-election people are going to start toning down the attacks on Newt and Mitts, they do not want to assist Ron Paul by destroying the competition.
So poor grammar is what makes me an ignorant right winger?
Forrest, I probably should have hit on that one but I'm just an ignorant left winger that didn't want to come across as a grammar nazi.. ;o)
Merry Christmas bud.....
No Forrest, not just ignorant but uneducated as well. Let's just hope for your sake that English is never made the law of the land, because you'll be ordered to go somewhere else . . . like back where you came from . . .
Now I am not only an ignorant right winger, but uneducated as well, and just where do you suppose I came from patrick. I assume you would know that as well since you can determine so much about a person from just a few sentences they write.
Merry Christmas to you and yours Egilman, my friend.
@Forest Grump. Well said,
Ron Paul "The PEOPLES President", Not the MEDIAS
I'll bet Ron Paul gets plenty of publicity as soon as some babe comes forward with an allegation of impropriety from him.
Lets all pretend we need 268 military bases in Germany alone. The cold war is over.
If people would actually listen to what Ron Paul says instead of reacting positively only to spear shaking from the other opportunists, I mean candidates, then they would know there is nothing weak about his stance on Iran. He sees another war coming for the same phony reasons as Iraq.
Any rumor is enough for the spear shakers to go into their patriotic act.
Of our 865 foreign military bases, many are dilpidated or on the wrong front. Europe is well enough to take care of themselves 70 years later. Other countries left Germany long ago and came home. We will bear the costs of their "protection." We cannot afford it, pure and simple. The military does not pay for itself.
At least four hundred bases could be decommissioned without hurting our security at all. We could could then use that money to build some more bases where they are actually useful to us.
Forty-two American generals are stationed in Germany. Each one of them lives in an historical estate that does not come cheap. They love it there. Wouldn't you?
When we send a soldier to Germany, his whole family comes along at taxpayer expense too. His car, his furniture his pets, they all go too. We send thousands of them every year. Then in three years they come back to the U.S. at the same expense. Well connected moving and shipping companies are lobbying like mad against shutting some of our foreign military bases, and of course the generals are screaming too.
Ron Paul is the only candidate willing to do the right thing. He has not changed his stance an iota. Wouldn't you rather have someone who bends with every breeze, trying to pich up a new vote.
Vote Ron Paul 2012
There are many things I respect Ron Paul for. His foreign policy is sensible and his libertarian social policies are very much in tune with mine. But he's not a perfect candidate, and his nearly religion-like following should see that.
Paul's obsession with a small government is almost delusional. If he can veto a bill giving a glass of water to a thirsty man on the grounds that the constitution doesn't specify the government's obligation to give a thirsty man a glass of water, rest assured, he'll veto the hell out of it. He'd veto it even if a group of rich men came into his office and said, "President Paul, take our tax dollars to give that man some water." And that would be fine by me, if all Americans happened to think we don't need the government at all. But while most of us want a small government, we don't want it to be so small that it couldn't possibly assist anyone in need, be it the poor or the elderly or the scientific community in need of funding to make progress toward the cure against a disease. The overwhelming majority Americans agree that in order to close the gap between revenues and expenditures, we NEED to raise revenues, especially by putting an end to tax cuts to the rich. It is an indisputable fact that a majority (supermajority, if you will) of Americans want this. But it is my impression that Paul doesn't give a rat's furry ass about this. Paul couldn't care less what the people want. If he thinks the federal government should be reduced to 545 employees (the President, Congress and the Supreme Court), he doesn't care whether Americans agree with him or not—he'll fight for that. And that's why I'll never vote for him.
I'd actually love for you to tell me I'm wrong, because I think he's right on 50% of the issues and he's one of our most principled and honest politicians. But his ideas for how the government should work are so detached from today's realities that I can't vote for him on the grounds that he's a good man or he's not into flip flops. Integrity alone does not make a candidate. It's integrity and talent and sensibility.
Dr. Paul would probably not give that man water while on the governments time but would surely do so on his own time. It goes back to the belief that people cannot be forcibly parted from their income on what the government deems right. Charity will exist with or without government.
Except voluntary 'charity' has always come up woefully short, in the past and today. Try getting a tooth pulled by the united way. You will wait a good 6 months. And what if its hurting you now? Well, we hope the infection doesn't spread to your brain before then. If you were placed in a position where you were dependent on society's voluntary charity for your survival - trust me, you wouldn't survive.
Government assistance programs however aren't just about being charitable. It's meant to stabilize society and prevent the wild excesses of the 19th/early 20th centuries. You know, that period of time that spawned Marxism in response to wanton poverty and people dying in the streets. That is a effect that benefits us all, as a society. We don't want to go back to those days. Well, a FEW of us do.....
286 bases in Germany? Sorry homeboy, they shut most of those down a few years back. There are 26, and some of these are just family housing (like Mark Twain village). Most of the ones that are left have been dramatically scaled down. And yeah, i was stationed for a good part of my adult life in Germany, and deployed to Iraq from there. As far as number of Generals, I don't know about 41, but palatial mansions is hardly the term to describe their quarters. Quite a few of these posts have a colonel as post commander, and at most of them, the quarters they live in weren't as nice as the places I either stayed on post at or rented in the States. They were slightly better than what I lived in in Germany, in that they were single family units whereas most enlisted and officers live in Stairwell type apartment housing. P.S., pet shipping was always at my expense. Thankfully, for my dog, I loved it very much. It was not cheap.
Just curious if you've ever heard of China.
That said I agree with you on a certain level.
I'm just sayin'
If Paul is for a small government, then why is he for getting the government involved in people's private lives?
What makes you think that Alverant? He's for getting the federal govt out of people's private lives.
I agree with AndresTM.
While Ron Paul is candid and consistent with his beliefs, that does not mean that his ideas are sound. I read his book "The Revolution" and I was surprised at how naive it was for someone so educated. He does believe that if government were to step out to help those in need (ie, poor or non-insured), that people would step in and help instead. Very vague, not one example of how this would work. If he expects people to give up government programs that have been in place for decades and take care of things themselves, he's in for an unpleasant surprise. All he has are ideas of what the US would be like without federal agencies, but nothing has been tested, and the few close, real-world examples we have of non-government intervention around the world are pretty disastrous. Capitalism has to be moderated. Slavery (in it's broadest definition) had to be outlawed by the government. Government has to recognize your land rights and property rights (otherwise, who does?). Government makes sure that we don't get attacked. Government can guarantee your freedom. The world is more complicated than what he seems to think it is.
I understand that government agencies are not perfect, but the solution to get rid of them altogether is preposterous and outright dangerous for the country's social and economic stability.
It seems to me most Ron Paul supporters have not traveled outside the US much or are not well informed about the rest of the world and seen or experienced what can happen when little to no government is around to regulate. If you want to change the US Government so radically, then you best have studied your US and world history and the real-world scenarios that are out there. Don't fantasize that people will finally behave like good little children and follow the rule of law because it just occurred to you that this is the way things should be.
AndresTM
This couldn't be farther from the truth than if I was claiming I was the president... He cares a great deal about what the people want, and he sees that the people want government out of their lives, marriages, families, jobs, businesses, bedrooms, delivery rooms, schools, playgrounds, etc, etc.....
He would like all special interests permanently removed from any position of influence in our government. and most Americans would see that it is not the responsibility of government to give that man a glass of water, it is the responsibility of his neighbors. That being said, if the whole town needed a glass of water, Dr Paul is just the kind of compassionate man we need as president to quickly marshal the needed resources to get it done. And he wouldn't have to waste time by flying over in an airplane or helicopter to decide to do it like some of our "Leaders".
He absolutely intends to raise revenue, by elimination of a ton of the bloated government we now have, this is also desired by a super-majority of the people, the revenue raised will go to strengthen the countries commitment to Americas most neediest, reestablish some balance in our country.
If you cannot see that what he brings to the table is honesty, compassion, integrity in our government, responsibility as individuals to help ourselves rather than complaining that you didn't get yours or rather the government didn't give you yours.
Dr Paul cannot be challanged on the intregrity issue, he is the best man for the job today, I don't care if you vote for him or not, but you have to respect the man for what he brings to the table and how his being in the race is changing the debate for the better.
Keep the blinders on if you want, that is your choice and is your right.
I wish a very merry Christmas for you and yours....
HispanicDi
Then what I wrote above is for you also, I am a student of history, not the altered history taught in schools today, I had my education before the big change from teaching real history to teaching Social Studies.
The world of geopolitics today isn't that much different from when the founding Fathers created this wonderful country, I suggest that you learn about some of that history before you pigeon hole Dr Paul as out of touch with the real world.
If you really believe that the geopolitics of today aren't "that much different" from the founding fathers' then I have to question your own knowledge of geopolitics today. I don't know what "altered history" is, but your bringing it up says a lot about where these ideas come from. You haven't refuted what I wrote with real examples. And that is because there are none.
HispanicDi
Unfortunately, You missed the whole point.
Geopolitics are driven by people and peoples, the desires of one over another. The quest to shape the issues of the day into whomevers skewed version of reality.
You are right I misspoke, I didn't mean "Altered" history, I really meant dumbed down history relabled as Social Studies.
Geopolitics:
Absolutely no differences from the 1780's to the 2010's
In the 1780's it was the Hudson's Bay Company, Today it's the international Mega Banks.
In the 1780's it was the colonies fighting the imperialism of the British empire, in todays world, the 60's we were supporting French imperialism (which Ike decided against) which we then took upon ourselves as our own. (thank you LBJ) and today seems to be this governments mantra in every international relationship we have no matter which party is in office.
During WWII with the easy early victories the Japanese had, a Captain Tomioka of the imperial navy general staff drew up plans for the invasion of Australia using five army divisions. A Colonel from the Army general staff explained in a very simple way that what was being planned was impossible.
This Colonel named Takushiro Hattori, picked up a cup of tea and poured it on the floor. Doing this he illustrated that the army has finite resources and can only go just so far. therefore invading Australia was impossible.
The same thing is true today, we the US have finite resources, yes FINITE. Even for the military, what we have only goes so far. (even as efficient the US Military is at obtaining it's objectives) The troops are tired and do not understand anymore why they are over there being killed for NOTHING. the current government for the last 30 or so years has this vision of converting the world to our brand idealism.
Imperialism, ours of today is the same as the British Imperialism of the 1770's - 80's, Japanese Imperialism of 1932 - 45, US Imperialism 2000 or so to the current day. The British Empire was eventually destroyed, the Japanese Empire was eventually destroyed, and if we continue to decide to pursue an empire, so will we be destroyed.
The weapons may change, the players may change, but the intents are identical.
No differences friend.
I don't know where you think we hae 268 bases in Germany, so would you care to link to your info? Bet you won't/can't as we don't have that many in Germany. ROTFLMPO on that one.
While it is clear that we have disagreements over how good a president Paul would be, I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your responses.
Derek,
Perhaps my metaphor wasn't the best one. He might give a glass of water to a thirsty man privately, but private charity has neither put a man on the moon, nor has it provided funding for the Interstate Highway System. Moreover, consider that people who are highly dependent on entitlements would not even come close to being as well off, let alone better off, if, let's say, all entitlements were eliminated on the illusion that such slash in the government's overreach would be met with increases in charity of equal magnitude.
I do believe in the power of charity. After all, Americans are the most charitable people in the world, and the bulk of this comes from private donations. But a social safety net cannot be held by the strength of charity alone. Less rich countries like Denmark or Sweden have much lower poverty rates than the U.S., and this is largely due to a very effective social safety net. I don't want the U.S. to be Denmark or Sweden, but I don't want to have a conversation with a Dane or a Swede and hear them talk about how wonderful their country is and how much poor people they don't have compared to us. It gives them the false impression that they're better than us. We're a far richer country, and we could do far more to help our disadvantaged than they can theirs.
Egilman,
I believe your response is a bit misguided. First off, I did say that I respect Dr. Paul a lot, and actually agree with him on many of his policies (about 60% of them). Just because I don't fully agree with him doesn't mean I don't respect his unique approach to politics.
Also, I didn't say he doesn't care about people. What I said was that he doesn't care whether people want more/less government or not, or whether they are willing to pay more taxes or not. If he disagrees with the majority of the people on such issues, he doesn't care that he's disagreeing with the majority of us. This being a democracy, his stubbornness in that respect is a huge no-no as far as I'm concerned.
And no, he doesn't intend to raise revenue. He intends to cut spending. Noble a cause as that is, it's not the same as raising the revenue. By "revenue increases," people mean more money brought in to the government, regardless of whether there are spending cuts or not. This is simple math, my friend. We owe $15 trillion dollars. What do you think is the easiest way to pay off that debt: by (A) cutting spending by $5 trillion over the next 10 years, or by (B) cutting spending by $4 trillion AND raising revenues by $2 trillion? Alternative A yields $5 trillion less in debt over the next 10 years. Alternative B gives a $6 trillion reduction. Simple arithmetic tells you that alternative B is better, if your goal is to reduce our debt. Also, that extra trillion in spending cuts in alternative A could mean no cure for cancer, reduced entitlements for the elderly (ergo, less spending on their part), no NASA, and no investments in our infrastructure.
And here's the trick: you might say that Americans don't want that extra $2 trillion in taxes that alternative B poses. Oh, but they do. Poll after poll shows that Americans of all political orientations agree on something: if we are to reduce our debt, we have to do it through a combination of revenue increases AND spending cuts. For example, this summer, President Obama offered $3 trillion in cuts and $1 trillion in revenue increases to deal with our debt and secure a budget agreement for the next few years. The next effect on our debt would have been a $4 trillion reduction. We would have kept our AAA rating by S&P. In the end, we settled for a lesser plan, which brought only $1 trillion in deficit cuts, all through spending cuts. Why did we settle for the lesser plan? Because despite the fact that 75% of Americans agreed with President Obama's plan, Representatives like Ron Paul were absolutely reluctant to include any revenue increases in the plan. This, they alleged, was because they people didn't want them. But they did! So I don't see a reason to call Paul's attitude in that regard anything but delusional and out-of-touch.
So, yes, I respect the man, but I also see his flaws. I don't have "blinders" on, and frankly that's why so many people are bothered by Paul's followers, because they think anyone who doesn't love the man is blindfolded.
Merry Christmas to you, too, and thanks for a respectful debate.
Thanks, HispanicDi. I haven't read his book, but I would imagine I would be equally disappointed by some of his ideas. See, the problem is that in this country, whenever they want to compare us with a country whose government is to the left of us, they do so with very poor countries. I can count the number of countries whose per-capita GDP is higher than ours with one hand, but it would take me all of my fingers and toes to count the number of countries that have achieved lower poverty rates than us. And none of these countries have put Dr. Paul's theory of less government, more private charity to effect.
And like I said before, I'm not advocating that we go for a Denmark-style economy. I'm even willing to see our government shrink a bit. But Dr. Paul's idea of reducing it to almost nothing is not sensible or realistic. I don't want to live in Cuba, but I don't want to live in Somalia, either.
I have a 22 year old son who had died at birth, was revived but resulted in severe CP. The insurance company who had paid my wife's 1st pregnancy no problem and took our premiums for the first 5 years of our marriage. They would not pay the bill on my second son, which ran north of 100k and at first would not even pay my wife's. They claimed pre-existing condition. 4 months later they paid the wife's bill but still nothing on my son. I feel this was a real infringement on my rights, but guess what? No one at the federal level cared. I felt helpless. The people in charge of a large company I worked for stepped up to help. They paid big bucks to hire a lawyer to fight the insurance company. After a 1 year battle the insurance company paid my sons bill. They settled by adding that he is now pre-existing and they would not give him insurance. During that 1st year I went to every agency out there for help because he needed more operations and we did not yet know the extent of his injury's, but we knew he was in horrible pain. Charity hospitals performed those operations, like the Shriner's hospital in St. Louis. After learning I would never get him insurance I applied for government help. Guess what happened? They told me I made to much money to qualify. I made a whopping 38,000 in 1987. I told my company I was going to have to quit work after 8 years and BTW I was the best worker they had ever seen. Great numbers, no problems, on time, liked, everything. (same reason they raised the attorney fees) So next I had to work at a gas station for the paycheck stub 40 hours and pour concrete for darn near 40 hours by a dead beat who paid me in cash just to get back to the point I could keep paying our house payment. After a month I figured with the low pay I could now show I would get the boy insurance. NOPE. Rejected again on the basis of assets. Home collateral, wife's car, my truck, and my only toy I bought, my motorcycle. The wife and I considered divorce to get around the problems of getting help. I opted on selling the home, her car, which I bought her (no one ever paid our way since HS) my bike, and downsized a new GMC for a 1978 clunker. Now I was accepted for my sons insurance. As I watched the last of our life go down the tube and feeling like a worthless husband and father to my 1st son, I considered for the first time in my life, to become a serious criminal. Maybe rob a bank or hijack or kidnap or something that would allow me to buy insurance AND go back to my great old job. Instead I opted to start my own ditch digging company. I knew if I hand dug and back-filled a trench 3 feet deep by 2 miles long I could outbid a project that was full of utility's and the only way to do it was with expensive directional drilling, or hand digging, and no one was going to dig it. No one would ever even consider it. I DUG IT ALONE 16 HOURS A DAY, Every day, rain or shine. I wanted to shoot myself many of those days. 3 MONTHS later I was paid almost 35,000 dollars. I rolled that into a company so I could show I still made no money, which I really had not, but not by choice.. My bail out plan worked but it took 4 years before I could ditch the governments help for my son and start showing income. I missed most all of my healthy sons first years, deprived my family of our earnings, and spent way to much time away from my home trying to make things work for those 4 years. Now my handicapped son is 22 years old. He is on his own Medicaid policy. I really can not afford for him to loose it, but guess what. I want the Medicaid gone. I have learned that health care is a scam. The trach my son uses cost over 600 bucks and it looks like a 50 cent piece of plastic. His chair cost over 5k and looks like it should have cost a couple hundred bucks. His bed was 5k and looks like it should have cost a couple hundred bucks. We look at his dental cleaning bill and its always close to 1k for a 1 hour visit. Every single bill he has is a total scam. The money comes from yours and mine tax dollars and we should care. The industry is full of crime because they know that the bills are not our personal bills and the governments checks are good. I feel if government was not involved and its cronies and bureaucrats and its ridiculous regulations like the ones imposed on the guy who builds the wheel chair, that the prices would drop back to where they should be. I am willing to tough it out if I can get Paul elected and somehow I will survive till the real market can be allowed to work and fix the pricing problems government has created. I will also hope that if your pay increases by 30% since government will no longer steal from you to pay our bills, that some of you may use a little of your newly found money to help us. And here is the best part. Those who help others personally, instead of being forced, may get to see the person on the other end of your voluntary charity. We can form a personal connection and be rewarded with the personal feelings of satisfaction that comes when you personally help someone. The feelings to each other the government has deprived us of. If you pay by force, you may instead feel begrudged. You should at a minimum feel ripped off because of the waste these crooks cause you. When people help each other it gives us all a sense of belonging. This is something our children really, really need. Because they can't find it, well thats the same reason they resort to joining gangs. In our hearts we are all good. Proof? See how many of us of any race or religion will come together without prejudice and risk life forming human chains to save a kid who falls through an icy pond. All of us. And we always get it done. We always walk away with a personal bond to each other. I would love to go on about the corruption in the departments that Ron wants ended but this story was just to let you know, you can not count on your government to take care of you. Remember, they almost pushed me to rob you or commit a horrible crime. They didn't care to uphold the oath to protect me from the law breaking insurance company. They were not there to do any good or offer help if I wanted to be a proud working American.
Ironic.
Haus uses Paul's sane foreign policy positions to say most Republicans or even most Iowans are insane.
Sad state of affairs if Haus is right.
SOOOOOOOOO true !
Tax cuts for the rich, no regulation and endless war is all they want.
Rick Perry should be a stand-up comedian because it's a big joke that he still thinks he has a chance to become president...
Well, I’m glad Mr. Paul got the chance to elaborate on his foreign policy philosophy. I was afraid he was really starting to make sense on economic issues and gaining support. I even started to agree with him.
His foreign policy ideas will push a lot of independents away, and hopefully keep him from running as a third party and splitting the vote.
Candice, you are absolutely wrong. His foreign policy ideas are pushing independents toward him! Most people in America see we cannot get into all these wars. Do we want to control the entire Middle East like an empire? Or is this just our way to get "cheaper" gas prices? Either path is the wrong one for our nation. We should DEFEND our nation not ATTACK others.
Jay, I agree that most Americans feel we cannot get into all these wars. I admit our involvement in some military actions was very hard to justify. We can't be completely isolationist though. Our friends need to believe we are friends and they need to believe we'll be there for them, if necessary. If we ever need our allies, we need to know they are there.
For those countries who are happy to tell us repeatedly that they hate us and want to do us harm, we can't dismiss the possible necessity of protecting ourselves - even if that means defense through offense. Unfortunately.
I believe in "peace through strength" and "strength through peace." But facing reality, there are going to be times when our "strength" is forced on other nations by our great and able military.
Candice..
Dr Paul is not an isolationist, he is a NON-interventionist, just like the founding fathers. He is not going to end trade with anyone, he is not going to close all our embassies around the world, in fact he will probably open a few more. he is not going to end immigration, he's going to clean it up.
Trust me if some fools in the world decide to attack us, he will be the first one to stomp them into the dust. but he will do it the right way.
Let me explain something, after japan attacked pearl harbor, our military forces were given orders to commence operations against the forces of japan. It was two days later that FDR asked for a declaration of war, and got one. Did he have to? YES, the constitution require it to act NO.
So to the people who will claim that he will not act until he has gone to congress do not have a clue about how these things actually function, or, they do and are lying to the people who don't. (your government would never do that now would they?)
Absolutely! I agree, but not until they have done something to earn the privilege facing our military.
Al-qaida and the Taliban earned that privilege, once it was done the troops should have come home.
Saddam, invaded an ally, who requested our help, it was authorised by congress, and we did it. along with a great number of allies, (including the Syrian army)
I do not think Dr Paul would have any problem as president ordering our military to deal with an enemy from the moment he decided to become one. As far as foreign policy, he doesn't want to turn them into enemies so our military HAS to deal with them.
Do you understand the difference?
Nikki Haley, now there's a monumental endorsement. LOL she's just as Shat bit crazy as that Bachman "pray the gay away" Idiot.
Perry, who trails Paul in the first caucus state, said that Paul's isolationist policies "truly make me nervous" and warned Iowans at two small-town campaign stops that such views could lead to the destruction of Israel or even the United States.
And Iraq had WMDs that could destroy us and Israel too right?
Perry conveniently forgets that Israel has enough nukes to flatten every major city in Iran, as for us, well, everyone knows how many nuclear cards we have.
Our leaders have cried wolf too many times
Shouldn't the GOP candidates sign a "pledge...Not to Swipe, each other"?
Perry is a Bush redoux and we all know how that turned out. Amazing how Perry has so much time to campaign. Shows how important he is to his state. Also goes for the other serving politicians. The rest? So freakin' rich they can waste time and efforts on this nomination circus. Yet when one is picked, they will say support the guy I just spent millions on destroying and complaining that they will ruin this country. Forget everything I said and vote GOP to get Obama. Why don't they just come out and say...no policy talk...just let's get Obama
Ugh as much as it makes me ill to say this, We just finished the 82nd legislative session here, and Mr. Perry was present for it, he's still doing his "job" though you also have to remember that unlike other states we have a plural executive branch system that limits the Governor's power.
PS....and save the POOR rich people from those mean ol' taxes
Let`s see, we have Trump, Johnson, and Paul maybe contemplating third party runs. Should be interesting. Gopers fighting among themselves, growing roster of possible third party candidates. And Obama just being presidential. As I said, should be interesting.
Perry is toast, a moron who's demonstrated his utter lack of fitness for the office to which he aspires. Perry is the poster boy for hubris, exaggerated self-confidence. But, with Teapublican voters accepting any human being capable of walking upright so long as he opposes Obamacare, I suppose we can await his departure next month, when the first votes come in.
Perry should take his hair and do hair product commercials--about the only thing he's certainly qualified to do. And shame on Texas again.
Really, if Perry has a single good friend left, that person should pull him aside and tell him the truth.
"Rick, I know you might think you are doing the right thing, but you are just embarrassing yourself, and ignoring your current job. Plus, you are making all Texans look as dumb as a bag of hammers."
Perry and the rest of the repuglican clowns remind me of a cow-pie. You can view it from any angle but it will always the same pile of Shyte.
Perry = CTM or better known as the Christian Taliban Movement. Just like the Taliban in the Middle East, they want to strip you of your freedoms to put their version of Christan law in there place.
Why is Perry even in this race if he is retired? He started collecting a $7,700 a month pension to go along with his $12,000 a month gubernatorial salary, and that's not even mentioning his $10,000 a month state subsidized mansion. That's about $30K a month on the public dole.
Hey Rick, ain't it great being a tea-bagger and getting to rant about all the OTHER freeloaders sucking up hard earned taxpayer's dollars. Hypocrite much?
Yes, Dr. Paul is not perfect. He is merely the most honest on display this cycle. Many of his ideas are so good we cannot afford not to elect him.
He will be unable to implement 80-90% of what he intends to, like any president, so folk needn't overreact thinking he will tear down the America they know and love. Give a president 50 years for that job.
The 10-15% of his intentions he might be able to implement, should be of great interest to all Americans.
Dr. Paul might be the most radical president in American history. We tried it their way--for the last 59 elections. I say give Ron Paul a chance for 1 election.
Actually Perry, no, it isn't our business. Israel can defend itself with their up-to 400 Nuclear weapons they own vs Iran's possible 1. They do not need our help nor can we afford to get involved.
There's been more terrorist attacks on US soil from Jewish Radicals than Islamic Radicals since 1980 (Yeah, google that one), so you're not fooling me.
Don't be so scared, America, the War on Terror isn't against who you're told it is against.
I am a canadian and usually dont have an opinion on your politics, but the last thi ng Americans need to worry about is another country attacking it. You really need a president that stops all wars and reigns in spending. Because the way its going it would be good if you were invaded because they would just be taking over all the banks property from foreclosed homes and rotting infrastructure and you might be better off starting all over again no dems no repubs. And one more thing perry bachman cain are all made fun of every where else in the world. Ron paul is the only sane person to run for repub nomination why dont you listen carefully to what he says instead of the same old same old from the other clones and their corporate interests.
Now you can all read about my buddy Newt
Ethics sanctions
Eighty-four ethics charges were filed against Speaker Gingrich during his term. After extensive investigation and negotiation by the House Ethics Committee, Gingrich was sanctioned US$300,000 by a 395-28 House vote. It was the first time in history a speaker was disciplined for ethical wrongdoing.[63][64]
Gingrich acknowledged in January 1997 that "In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to the committee". [65] Most of the charges were dropped, in one case because there was no evidence that Gingrich was still violating, as of the time of the investigation, the rule that he was found to have violated in the past.[66] The one charge not dropped was a charge claiming tax-exempt status for a college course run for political purposes. In addition, the House Ethics Committee concluded that inaccurate information supplied to investigators represented "intentional or ... reckless" disregard of House rules.[67]
Special Counsel James M. Cole concluded that Gingrich violated federal tax law and had lied to the ethics panel in an effort to force the committee to dismiss the complaint against him.
Resignation
Republicans lost five seats in the House in the 1998 elections—the worst midterm performance in 64 years for a party that didn't hold the presidency. Polls showed that Gingrich and the Republican Party's attempt to remove President Clinton from office was deeply unpopular among voters.[75] Gingrich suffered much of the blame for the election loss. Facing a rebellion in the Republican caucus, he announced on November 5, 1998 that he would not only stand down as Speaker, but would leave the House as well. Gingrich made this announcement only a day after being elected to an 11th term from his district. Commenting on his departure, Gingrich said, "I'm willing to lead but I'm not willing to preside over people who are cannibals. My only fear would be that if I tried to stay, it would just overshadow whoever my successor is."[76]
Gingritch's record proves he performs much better as a person lacking in self-discipline, and as a smooth-talking, hypocritical, manipulative lobbyist and impulsive opportunist, than he is at leading his own party.
More so, he's a high-paid, wealthy lobbyist, of which his retirement age is catching up with him pretty fast from the looks of his face and his body form as he seemingly drags himself gracefully through the stresses of campaigning... but just my opinion, he's definitely not of presidential material.
I'm surprised that Gingritch, like old Ron Paul, hasn't already suffered from some heart attack or stroke by now. Campaigning is a consistently stressful activity, and if you're not physically up to it, the lack of sleep among other endless stressors they encounter while on the long road of endless hand-shaking, won't help make your mind the sharpest tack in a box of old nails.
Let me try to explain it to you, Rick. Let's say President Perry, based on incomplete intelligence, orders a joint US/Israel strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran retaliates by closing the Straits of Hormuz, cutting off oil to Europe. Europe's economy collapses overnight. Meanwhile, China calls in the ONE TRILLION DOLLAR debt the US owes China, freezing our overseas accounts. The US, Great Britain and Israel retaliate by carpet bombing Iran's major cities. China and Russia, sensing an opportunity for a first strike, nuke Israel and US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now we have World War III. Way to go, President Perry.
Please don't bother Perry with details. The GOP just goes with its "gut".
Ron Paul makes sense to me. Too many wars for no reason. Massive deficits with no candidate other than Dr. Paul proposing any real cuts. I like what I've seen from him and he's earned my vote.
Ron paul needs a doctor something is very wrong with him.
Whay agency do you work for bud? The taxpaters can't afford you all! The private sector and individual states need to take things over. The gov't wastes too much. Ron Paul is the only repub/dem/independant with any sense! He's the only one not wrong!
"You cannot solve these problems with war,"
Mr. Paul, your remark is one of the truest statements that anyone in the electoral field has had the balls, and wisdom, to say so. To all Republicans and Democrats alike
YOU CAN NOT SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS WITH WAR!
I sure hope conservative Iowans do not buy into "Pastor" Perry's sound bites. He's a great schmoozer and psuedo-Christian who panders to the religious right for votes. His policies and governance in Texas demonstrate little concern for people who are under-resourced or middle class. His polices are devoted to supporting the rich. Plus, his job creation program is a joke consisting of many minimum wage jobs. In addition, he is a simple-minded and incompetent politician, who in his own financial statement indicates he never worked outside government. He's always been on the dole. Add to that, he also is a person of double standards who lacks integrity.
For example, he recently had his party pass a bill which prevents teachers in our state from "double dipping." Yesterday, we found out the reason why he twice postponed revealing his finances until after the last debate. It's this! Because he himself is "double-dipping." He is not only receiving a salary of $130,000 per year, while out on the campaign trail, but also a pension of $7,700 per month. In addition, he has healthcare coverage for life. If the conservative Iowans buy into this con artist, they are the most gullible and naive people on the face of this earth.
I wouldn't worry about Iowa buying the manure Perry is spreading. Rick Perry seems to be the only person left on earth that doesn't know he is done.