E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSSurging in the polls, former Sen. Rick Santorum talks Tuesday's Iowa caucuses, President Obama and foreign policy.
NBC's Domenico Montanaro reports on the ad race in Iowa, why Santorum's making his move, and how undecided voters might break on Election Night.
Breaking down the Des Moines Register poll… How Santorum and Romney could end up winning Tuesday’s caucuses… Santorum’s appearance on “Meet the Press”… Paul’s appearance on CNN… The campaigning continues, even on New Year’s Day… And DNC tries to seize on the Bain Capital issue.
DES MOINES, IA -- The Des Moines Register’s poll last night became the third-straight survey in the past week to show the same storylines in the GOP presidential contest in Iowa -- Mitt Romney in the lead (but not above 25%), Ron Paul a close second, and Rick Santorum surging in third place. The numbers from the poll conducted Dec. 27-30 of 602 likely caucus-goers: Romney 24%, Paul 22%, Santorum 15%, Gingrich 12%, Perry 11%, and Bachmann 7%. But get this about Santorum’s surge: In the Des Moines Register’s final two days in the field, he jumped into second place and was running neck and neck with Romney. “[Santorum] averaged 10 points after the first two nights of polling, but doubled that during the second two nights. Looking just at the final day of polling, he was just one point down from Romney’s 23 percent on Friday.”
*** How Santorum and Romney can win: Bottom line: You can see how Santorum might be able to win this thing, especially if Perry and Gingrich supporters decide to go with the former Pennsylvania senator. What’s more, Santorum appears to have crossed a viability threshold, with just 6% of likely caucus-goers in the poll finding him the least electable in a general election. Indeed, Santorum’s closing TV ad in Iowa plays up his electability, calling him the “trusted conservative who gives us the best chance to take back America.” On the other hand, you once again see how Romney can win the Iowa caucuses -- with 25% or less -- because the conservative vote gets divided up.
*** Other numbers in the poll: 51% of likely caucus-goers surveyed in the poll said their minds were made up, while 41% said they could still be persuaded. Also, Gingrich was seen as the most knowledgeable (41% said that) and Bachmann the least knowledgeable (26%); Ron Paul was the most consistent (35%), and Gingrich and Romney the least consistent (36% and 24%, respectively); Romney the most electable in a general election (48%), Paul and Bachmann the least electable (29% and 28%); and Bachmann, Paul, and Santorum the best able to relate to Iowans (all tied at 20%), and Romney and Gingrich the least able to relate to Iowans (26% each).
*** Santorum on “Meet the Press”: One of the more fascinating parts of Rick Santorum’s appearance on “Meet the Press” this morning was his talk about having to accept compromise -- for example on abortion -- to get where you want to go. “I supported the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act," he said. "Now does that ban all abortions? No. But it moves the country in the right direction. And so what I've said in the past consistently is I'll support laws that move the ball forward.” He went on to say, “Of course my background is to find compromise. That's what you have to do in order to get things done. You don't compromise on your principles.” The word “compromise” might not sit well with some conservatives; then again, it highlights a sense of pragmatism not often associated with Santorum. NBC’s David Gregory also asked Santorum about his endorsement for Romney in 2008 and what has changed since then. His answer: “Well, what changed was who he's running against... I made the political judgment, right or wrong, that the best chance to stop John McCain, which was what my concern was, I had served 12 years with John McCain.”
*** Paul talks Civil Rights Act, Iran, and third-party bid: Meanwhile, on CNN this morning, Paul was asked about his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He said the country was better off without Jim Crow laws, but said the Civil Rights Act “destroyed the principle of private property and private choices.” He added that it creates the slippery slope of the government coming into people’s bedrooms. “It is the government that causes so much of the racial tensions,” he said. On Iran and it acquiring nuclear weapons: “I don’t want them to have a weapon… We just need to be more cautious… We don’t need a war in Iran carelessly.” And Paul once again didn’t rule out a third-party presidential bid, if he doesn’t become the GOP nominee. “I don’t like absolutes,” he said. “I have no plans on doing it.” Paul added, “On Tuesday, we’ll find out a lot more on the future of this election.” *** EDITOR'S NOTE *** This item mistakenly said earlier today that Paul had said the country was better "with" Jim Crow laws. That was a typo and has since been fixed. He said that the country was better off "without" Jim Crow laws.
*** On the trail: With two days until the caucuses, all of today’s New Year’s Day activity is in Iowa: Bachmann attends church in Oskaloosa… Gingrich holds events in Ames, Marshalltown, and Waterloo… Perry attends church in West Des Moines… Romney stumps in Atlantic and Council Bluffs… And Santorum holds rallies in Sioux City and Rock Rapids… Meanwhile, Jon Huntsman continues to campaign in New Hampshire… And Ron Paul, at home in Texas, is off the campaign trail.
*** DNC seizes on Bain: Also in Des Moines, IA today at 4:00 pm ET, the DNC is holding a press conference with a worker -- Randy Johnson -- who was laid off from his job at an American Pad and Paper plant in Indiana that Romney’s Bain Capital took over in 1992.
Countdown to Iowa caucuses: 2 days
Countdown to New Hampshire primary: 9 days
Countdown to South Carolina primary: 20 days
Countdown to Florida primary: 30 days
Countdown to Nevada caucuses: 34 days
Countdown to Super Tuesday: 65 days
Countdown to Election Day: 312 days
Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower
Leave a Comment:
If we want to see just how out of touch both the Republicans and the Democrats are with Main Street America, we need look no further than their fundraising efforts to date. As this article shows, even the candidate with the lowest expenses to date has still spent more than an average American family will make in 20 years:
That's why Lobbiests and Special Interest Groups should be banned from Washington, including repealing the "Citizens United Decision".
You should put into perspective, though. In this country, Kim K can make over half a million hosting New Years Eve, steroid prepped athletes make untold millions, and do I even need to mention the "cast" of Jersey Shore? At least this is money well spent if you win the nomination. This is why Huntsman is so good, his dad could fund his own campaign.
They're all liberals. Only Ron Paul wants to take the federal government out of all sorts of programs. The REAL definition of liberal is trying to force the entire nation to conform to your set of values regardless of how narrow-minded it really is. Real freedom, in the eyes of the conservative, should be seen as less federal laws, not more. All the "conservatives" on the ballot are trying to get the federal government to control people's lives - just like the President's party.
So you think Bush's 10 year tax breaks for the Billionaires(welfare)that was "JAMMED DOWN OUR THROATS"(Reconciliation act of 2001 and 2003) was "FREEDOM"?
I think you've mistaken what I've said somehow. Anything that funnels money to the federal government to pay for anything is more of a liberal idea. Tax cuts for billionaires and corporate "citizens" is very much a liberal thing. It's funny how conservatives take a liberal idea and make it their own and call it a conservative idea. Look at same sex civil marriage laws (DOMA): it may be a conservative idea but it is liberal idea of cramming ideas down the throats of people who do not want it. It brings less freedom, more federal interference.
To make what I said more simple: many so-called conservatives are anti-states rights which is the foundation of conservatives principles.
Any talk of Santorum’s surge is preposterous. He may be gaining popularity with Iowa republicans, but so what? They are no more representative of mainstream America than republicans in Alabama or Mississippi. Mike Huckabee won the Iowa caucus in January 2008. In March 2008, he was out of the race. Get real, newsies. The American people are not going to elect an extreme right wing jesus freak.
MSNBC is lying. Ron never said the U.S. was better off with Jim Crow. He actually said, "The Jim Crow laws, we obviously had to get rid of, and we're all better off for that. And that is an important issue and I strongly supported that." You can criticize his sentence structure, but as it currently stands, you MUST print a retraction.
I heard Paul say that private business should have sole control over whom they hire, sell to, and cater to. As a women that kind of talk puts me off, I remember the days of women need not apply and bring your daddy with you to sign the papers........no thanks.
Oh, I see, you would rather be murdered, tortured or imprisoned for life without charges AT THE DISCRETION OF THE PRESIDENT. That's what can happen under the National Defense Authorization Act, passed by Congress and just signed into law by President Obama. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate condemning that law and promising NOT to enforce it.
I DON'T agree with Ron Paul on federal anti-discrimination laws, but Paul does NOT oppose state anti-discrimination laws, which are sometimes tougher. Paul argues "property rights," I argue "contract rights" trump property rights when property is used in commerce. However, a Paul administration will be too busy saving our economy and defending our liberty to touch anti-discrimination laws, even if there were support in Congress to do so.
Didn't Obama signed a statement to show that he had reservations about the NDAA??
The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents.
"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45834862/ns/us_news/
To reply to Kathryn below, what Dr. Paul proposes is Constitutional.
And to Dennis of Columbus, Ohio
The Constitution allows the executive to sign a bill into law or if there is something he or she disagrees with (unconstitional) to send it back to the original part of Congress that started the bill to work on it again. Or he can veto it. If he didn't agree with the indefinite detention, he should've vetoed it or sent it back. Signing statements to do nothing to stop what's in that bill. And instead of following the almighty Obama in this, how about think about what this means. It means you better hope EVERY American president from here on out will not use that power. I'm still not convinced Obama won't use it; in fact, I think he will if we end up in a massive economic crisis.
..... If the article was a typo, it sure was convenient, yup twisted around the frontrunner in everyway they can!
Jane,
Sending the bill back to Congress or using a veto would mean that our Department of Defense would run out of funding as of Jan 01, 2012 (today). Several members of Congress (like Ron Paul) said they will be actively working to undo this amendment that was added to this Defense Authorization Act/Bill.
I hope that someone uses it so that it will get the SCOTUS ruling it deserves.
The t-Goper game of musical "surging" chairs, continuies.
romney, who has been non-stop campaining for over 6-straight years, has not once topped 25% in polls. Just a steady 25%... leaving one to wonder how much he paid each of those who steadfastly support this flip-flopping elitist...
newt the grinch -- well, as it goes -- callista, the adultress, is not ever going to be first lady of anything.
Sanitarium?? Opps, santorum... easy to confuse those two words, isn't it? The guy is a flake, which some would say reflects on the caliber of folks who would actually support this nut.
belchmann... who??? lmao...
Dr. Paul? The "powers that be" have done all in their power to ignore this man, no matter how high he polls.., so, get a grip kiddies, he's not going to factor into it. The GOP is 100% owned and run by the wall-street elite, and paul is poison to them.
Ron Paul DID NOT say the country was “better off with Jim Crow laws.”
In fact he said the EXACT OPPOSITE. Just view the interview:
#t=5m42s
The authors of this piece are either liars or incompetent.
Is anyone else sick to the point of nausea at this circus and the coverage of it? I don't watch any of the reality shows because they arn't real. And this reality show is 10 times worse because it is real and is covered as if it were dancing with the stars or whatever the show is with a bunch of idiots on an island. Watching a bunch of jokers who are trying to convince me that they are worthy to be my president by showing me how close they can come to the right wing-nut edge of politics is not only stupid but, worse, is distracting from how they would deal with the real problems of the day. I'm tuning out. I'm not watching. Have fun. I'll see whichever one of you makes it to next November.
This article contains an outrageous lie. Ron Paul did not say the country would be better off with Jim Crow laws, he said the exact opposite. This is why the media has only a slightly higher approval rating than Congress.
Why would you risk posting a bald-faced lie in your article? Can the MSM really be that desperate?
'He said the country was “better off with Jim Crow laws,”... ' WTF?
A review of the tape shows nothing like this. Explain, please.
Grover Norquist, the professional Republican intimidator, has said that it really doesn’t matter what the qualifications of the next Republican president are as all they have to do is sign the bills sent to them by Mitch McConnell and John Boehner. That arrogant and cocky attitude says it all and should really scare the majority greatly. What they are literally saying is that all they want is to have “puppets” who will perform as instructed and that others will actually “pull the strings”. We saw it with George W. Bush and were offered it with Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell and others. Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich and many more fit the same profile of being bought, owned and controlled performers. We see that mentality in the stubborn and arrogant actions of John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and others as they present their “my way or no way” attitude. Because we experienced and suffered with Bush-Cheney we know that no where in there is there any concern for the majority. In fact, with the money and power behind them they are confident they can con the people and manipulate public opinion, being literally cocky, even emboldened from past successes and now sure they can do whatever they want. Without having any conscience and with their insatiable “more” appetite, those “pulling the strings” are steadily pushing the country towards being a two-class society with the few competing in having it all and the majority just struggling - to now give them the power again would just expedite that.
The majority has experienced a constant decline while the wealthy have benefitted from substantial growth. Wall Street use to say to expect 6% average return for retirement and now they say your are lucky to count on 4%, all while their own compensation has increased dynamically. Corporations have continually laid off people, cut salaries and exported jobs all while the executives’ own take home has grown to as much as 3-400 even 500 times employees’ salaries. There simply isn’t just a growing number of poor and of the struggling middle-class but at the same time there is a growing number of millionaires and billionaires. The spread between the middle-class and the wealthy keeps getting larger, as the one class continually benefits and the other looses. We have seen repeated crises from exploitation by “the few”, in Savings and Loans, banks, dot.coms, investment, mortgage, financial industries and even in corporate corruption, like Enron, with a permissive government just looking on as the majority looses substantially. News from the media, who are owned by “big money”, constantly bombards us with the story that things are tough, getting worse and that the majority must sacrifice, that there simply is no choice - except for the wealthy. This isn’t a hard luck story of someone down and out, it is the literal truth for a nation. The people are being consistently conned all across the board and it is being done by “big money” who are “pulling the strings” and using the Republican / Tea Party as their totally owned and controlled “puppets”. Their current aim is to con the people into supporting a return to “more of the same” - and that is the very real problem!
Obama, while certainly not perfect, is not the problem! We are constantly and aggressively being told that he is and if we buy into that, we are then set up to buy into returning to “more of the same”, Bush-Cheney style, which is the problem. It simply is a con! Obama inherited the problems, he didn’t cause them, and ever since the Republicans have constantly, stubbornly and belligerently done everything they could to fault and block all efforts to address the problems. Groups like Norquist’s, Cheney’s, Rove’s, others, also PACs and SuperPacs provide money, influence and the power to intimidate and coerce their own, squelching individual consciences and assuring total unity behind “the money’s” goals. They even brag they can “make or break” those who do or don’t conform. We have seen well organized, well directed and well financed efforts, like the manipulation of the Christian block, the Swift-boat propaganda and the Tea Party movement, all aimed to sway people in the same single direction. The Republicans / Tea Party have put their political ambitions above all else, at any cost to the people, and are striving to have Obama fail, which really means America fails, just so they can gain political advantage. It actually is a total con! That is reality and if we don’t see it, if we can’t check our own rationalized fears, emotions and loyalties, then we will simply be conned and set up to give the perpetrators their sought after reward - that being control and a return to “more of the same”.
Obama and the Democrats have not solved all of the problems but they have not had real opportunity as they have been blocked at every turn. Our government is designed to work with bipartisan cooperation, to have compromise in order to get the best answers and the Republicans have strongly and stubbornly rejected all of that for their own selfish interests. The Republicans / Tea Party are owned and controlled by “big money”, those hiding behind calling themselves “ultra conservative”, who aggressively use their money and power to first, intimidate and coerce their own politicians and second, to appeal to the public’s fears, emotions, prejudices and biases in order to manipulate public opinion. None of it is in the majority’s best interests, all of it is fully and deceptively just aimed to benefit “big money”, and as Bush-Cheney proved beyond any doubt, the “trickle down” theory is a total fraud. If we are returned to “more of the same”, as they want, it will literally be a continuing catastrophe for the majority and a further moving of the country towards a two-class society that takes advantage of its own people.
I believe the trickle-down theory does work, but not in the way that conservatives point it out. Sure the wealthy create jobs, but those are mostly in response to an increase in demand, not tax cuts. In actuality, if the government is to be cutting taxes on ANYONE (which it shouldn't, at least not now), it must be on the middle class. THEY are the ones who stimulate demand. The money they spend can trickle down to the poor and up to the upper class, and back to the middle class. It is more of the "spread the wealth" economics, in which the middle class spreads wealth through spending and consumption. I think that Obama and the Democrats know that, and they should be the ones who should implement it in 2012 and beyond.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
DEMOCRAT CONGRESS 2012
They didn't have to put Newts video picture at the top of this post.....Yikes......
Another lie by the lame-stream media. Ron Paul should sue for defamation
mbsnbc is going to get sued for slandering Dr. ron paul who clearly and repeatedly said jim crow laws were bad.
no wonder nobody believe anything y'all say anymore.
sue sue sue
He did say he would have voted AGAINST the CIVIL RIGHTS and Voter Rights bills of the sixties. He has absolutely said that. He is also anti choice which means he is for freedom and liberty for white males only.....
Maybe his argument will help you understand his views a little better.
Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.
end
Your making the assumption that the civil rights act improved race relations to begin with. A federal law would not improve race relations, only the attitudes of the people can do something that big.
I strongly disagree with MSM propaganda: "Ron Paul has NO CHANCE to make it through the Republican nomination process." I once shared their opinion.
Life long democrat (60 yrs old), me, converted (greatly surprising even myself)!
I will admit that Dr Paul has some "strange" ideas, but he would not be king.
We still have checks and balances (at least at this writing).
Ron Paul is getting a lot of face time on MSM now! Have you listened to him? He ACTUALLY answers questions and does not respond with canned "talking points", nor with obscure verbage that is not an answer to the question.
"We’d have a hell of a fight on our hands in a Ron Paul presidency, defending Social Security and Medicare, promoting economic equality, fighting climate change and pollution, defending abortion rights and maybe fighting a resurgence of Jim Crow in some parts of the country, but at least we wouldn’t have to worry about being spied upon, beaten and arrested and then perhaps shipped off to Guantanamo for doing it." - DAVE LINDORFF is a founding member of ThisCantBeHappening!, the new Project-Censored Award-winning independent online alternative newspaper.
http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/10528-better-than-obummer-progressives-for-paul.html
"Meanwhile, on CNN this morning, Paul was asked about his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He said the country was “better off with Jim Crow laws,” but said the Civil Rights Act “destroyed the principle of private property and private choices.”
Better off with Jim Crow? Please tell me he was wildly mis-quoted!~
The Civil Rights Act destroyed the principle of private property? Well if you want to look at it that way, so did the Emancipation Proclamation! Was that a bad thing? Not if you have any human decency!
Somehow the Republican Party has morphed into this wierd amalgam of states-rights reactionaries, fundimentalist fanatics and crony capitalists, and seems determined to refight the Civil War.
How sad.
YES HE WAS ABSOLUTELY MISQUOTED. He is very much ANTI-RACIST. Watch the full video.
Lie about Ron Paul
"He said the country was 'better off with Jim Crow laws,' - THIS IS A BALD FACE LIE! CHANGE THIS IMMEDIATELY.
The relevant language starts at 4:50 of the below clip, "Well, we could have done it a better way because the Jim Crow laws obviously we had to get rid of and we're all better off for that. And that is an important issue and so I strongly supported that." GETTING RID OF THEM.
youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QvvciND6Xg4#!
He was misquoted. He supported the removal of the Jim Crow Laws.
Here's the CNN interview in question on utube, skip to 4:45: /watch?v=QvvciND6Xg4
Re: majimportax,
"The Civil Rights Act destroyed the principle of private property?"
Yes, the part that forbids discrimination between private parties.Like it or not, this part of the law violates the principle of private property by not allowing people to freely exchange with whoever THEY want. You might think it is good to stop discrimination in places of commerce because you believe it would never be used against minorities, but it has left the door open to anti-discrimination lawsuits against businesses that were not discriminating at all. It did leave the door open to QUOTA HIRING. I remember a case presented in 60 Minutes during the 90s about a lamp manufacturer that resided in the Bronx being sued by the government because of a complaint from a person that was not hired and happened to be black. However the business employed mostly black people because it was in a predominately black neighborhood. So Paul's position is entirely correct:The wrong the CRA 68 tried to correct was simply replaced by another, more insidious wrong. Getting rid of Jim Crow was one of the good things the CRA 68 brought and that Paul supported 100% - MSNBC lied about that.
He said we would be better off without the jim crow laws. For crying loud watch the video and listen. Ron Paul is a libertarian. He thinks everyone should have the same rights. The left right want to choose the rights you get. wake up
Here is an interesting web site and video produced by a group of Democrats that are not entirely happy with their present situation. It is important that all Americans view it.
http://wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/
In my opinion, what Iowa voters think about who the Republican candidate should be means little or nothing.
Any group of people who have not "made up their minds" by now, have no idea who the candidate should be. That being said, it sums up the whole Republican field, flavor-of-the-month mentality that has continued for the last few months. If the GOP can't even decide 11 months from the election who they'll support, then why should we even care who they pick. I don't follow people who can't make up their minds which way to go.
ANYONE JUST A LITTLE NERVOUS? I am. You know the feeling you get when around people that are questionable, as in a little crazy? Well that is how I feel when watching these fruit loops of the GOP race. Is it possible that these are the strongest in the GOP, if so then I am really nervous. Obama may not be everyone's dream but holy smokes, compared to this GOP filed he is Einstein and then some. America has a population to draw the best athletes in the world from but we cannot do better than this rabble of a presidential candidate race. I am getting really shaken that the answer may be this is the best of the bunch.
"He said the country was 'better off with Jim Crow laws,' - THIS IS A BALD FACE LIE! CHANGE THIS IMMEDIATELY.
The relevant language starts at 4:50 of the below clip, "Well, we could have done it a better way because the Jim Crow laws obviously we had to get rid of and we're all better off for that. And that is an important issue and so I strongly supported that." GETTING RID OF THEM.
youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QvvciND6Xg4#!
I think you better fix the part wherein you claim that Ron Paul says the nation is "better with jim crow laws" when in fact the transcript states "better WITHOUT jim crow laws"..Disgusting!
MSNBC is lying (again). Ron Paul never said that we were better off with the Jim Crow laws. Here's the specific interview with CNN which this article refers to done today where he specifically said: "The Jim Crow laws, we obviously had to get rid of, and we're all better off for that. And that is an important issue and I strongly supported that."
Here's the video evidence of that interview (skip to 4:46):
This is the third time I catch MSNBC lying regarding Ron Paul, the sad part is that most people on here believe whatever they say without even verifying anything...
The video link is utube: /watch?v=QvvciND6Xg4
Ron Paul said the country was better of WITHOUT Jim Crow laws!!! Correct that!!!
That's some serious bull, in regards to Ron Paul saying that "our country was better off with Jim Crow laws."
What Ron Paul said was the the "Country is better off without Jim Crow laws."
4:45 in #!
Is it too much to ask for you to fix the article? Ron Paul said we are much better off WITHOUT Jim Crow Laws.
I just watched Santorum here in Iowa. Is there not one Republican out there who does not cry... seriously... here is a tip... when you stand there and act like your going to cry or you start crying it just shows me you can't be President of this Nation. I was a big Hilary fan until she cried. There is just something about it that to me shows weakness. Stop crying all over the place, stop bashing the President, stop acting like clowns and start showing us you can lead a nation. Tell me your plan, tell me how you expect that plan to go thru congress and why. Tell me you will uphold our Constitution for all and just some. Tell me your plan on the restructuring taxes, closing loopholes, stopping earmarks and not only your plans but why they will work.