Ron Paul: Tear down missiles, Mr. Whatsyaname

If anyone wants some "Cox/McFlightsuit 08" bumper-stickers, IM me...

Paul said during the 1961 Cuban Missile Crisis "we again talked to Gorbachev and worked something out. We removed missiles from Turkey and we avoided a nuclear holocaust."

Put a fork in this fool. He is toast.

America is proud of Ron Paul. His base is growing and now Clinton is starting to see polling numbers to suggest he is the only GOP member who can defeat Clinton.

A simple flub. Dr. Paul is forced to speak so quickly during the little time he gets on the national MSM stage that it is only to be expected that he misspeaks now and then! That anyone would pick on this 72 year old for a simple name mix-up is shameful. You don't hear any of the other candidates actually presenting historical analysis to bolster their policy arguments!

Ron Paul's philosophy on foreign relations makes perfect sense. It's time to get back to the basics that the party once embraced. This must happen in this election or it will be too late for the GOP.

"We should have a strong national defense but not be so frightened that we're afraid to talk to people," Paul said, contending that a traditional Republican position is advocating "non-internvention."

Ron Paul

America land of the free and the home of the scared. That should be the GOP platform. Go Ron Paul.

So... Ron Paul wants to be associated with Ronald Reagan... heh... don't they all...

Like Romney's Osama/Obama flub, it's embarrassing but everybody knows he didn't seriously mean it. Why should Ron Paul's slip of the tongue be any different---at least he named two leaders from the same country! Compared to W referring to Nelson Mandela being dead or Queen Elizabeth having been present in 17..(76)this is small potatoes! Give the guy a break. His point is well-taken though, we did talk to all of those leaders---including Nikita Khrushchev with his shoe!

How about a debate between Ron Paul and
Dennis Kucinich? They can talk about their joint ventures in going nowhere in a hurry. Is it just me or did this entire campaign for both the Democrats and Republicans get dreadfully boring months ago. Is anybody other than their families,
lobbyists, fund raisers and people in Cornpone, Iowa paying any attention?

Why do so many love to hate Ron Paul? So he got the name wrong. Big deal. Does this disqualify his candidacy? Does it subtract from his viability? He's the only candidate that refuses to accept special interest money. Maybe that's why the establishment/media is scared to death of him.

uh, Ron Paul was actually associated with Ronald Reagan.

Ron Paul was one of the only people to nominate Reagan in 1976, when Ford ran against Carter. Reagan got the nomination in 1980 and won. Ron Paul was ahead of his time then and ahead of his time now. Reagan knew Paul both personally and professionally and wrote many great things about Paul. So, coconut head... research before you comment please.

Ron Paul served in the military during the Cuban missile crisis. It was just a simple mistake.

What's worse, slipping up in your reference to the correct leader of the fmr. Soviet Union, in a contextually correct statement - OR, misleading the world with deliberately false information which leads to the death of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's all while destroying the American rule of law by subverting the Constitution? Sorry, you haven't convinced me yet to drop Ron Paul. By the way, Paulites, it's time to start organizing your own campaigns for Congress. Google me and I will help.

Pete Mackin

Considering the volumes Ron Paul has written concerning foreign policy, I'm sure he's gotten those details right before.

Oh and CH..Ron Paul doesn't want to be associated with Reagan. He was.

One of the most direct expressions of "Ronald Reagan’s disdain for big government came during a private conversation I shared with him when flying from the White House to Andrews Air Force Base. As the helicopter passed over the monuments, we looked down and he said, “Isn’t that beautiful? It’s amazing how much terrible stuff comes out of this city when it’s that beautiful.” - Ron Paul

Here's something Ronald Reagan said about Ron Paul -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyXW1hb-JQg

Well yeah, but Ron Paul is the only candidate that is talking anything like Ronald Reagan did before he was elected president. As Joe Scarbourogh has said, Ron Paul is the closest candidate there is to Ronald Reagan.

Considering that Ron nailed the situation of the 1961 Cuban Missile Crisis (the Soviets pulled missiles out of Cuba in exchange for us pulling missiles out of Turkey), he clearly is knowledgable of the incident in great detail. This was a simple slip on the stump; it happens to everyone. It happened during the Florida debate last weekend, when he said that "technology has raised prices in medicine." What he has said along these lines, and meant to say, is that prices in medicine are increasing DESPITE the raise in prices. This isn't the first time it's happened, and it won't be the last.

As for Ron watning to be associated with Reagan... he is, and has been for a long time. Ron Paul was the leader of the Ronald Reagan delegation to the 1976 GOP Convention, and President Reagan had this to say about Ron Paul:

"Ron Paul is one of the outsanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our Armed Forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yuzMYIXhTE

Given a choice between mistakenly calling Osama bin Laden by the name "Barack Obama" (as Romney did last week) and calling "Khrushchev" by the name "Gorbachev" ...
I'll take the latter.

Oddly, I didn't see the equivalent Romney headline appear here when he fumbled.

Of course, FredHead probably still doesn't know the full name of the Prime Minister of Canada!

Coconut Head, Ron Paul would never be associated with Ronald Reagan's policy of appeasing, and in some cases propping up, tin horn dictators around the world. Also note that he praised Kennedy's approach to the CMC, even though he would surely reject most of JFK's platform.

That's Ron Paul in a nutshell, praising good decisions and condemning bad ones, no matter which party or what person was responsible for them. And that's why we love him.

He has associated with Regean, look it up. He was a member of the Texas deligation for Regean at the National Convention

Coconut Head, while I agree that all of the GOP candidates want to be associated with Ronald Reagan. Ron Paul is the only one who actually received an endorsement from President Reagan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yuzMYIXhTE

He mentioned Khrushchev's name earlier in the speech. Just mispoke.

At least he didn't call Obama Osama, like Romney did.

And Coconut Head: It was a Ronald Reagan dinner, he went and talked about Ronald Reagan. In fact, he's the only one who supported Reagan in 76, ran his Texas delegation, and he was the only one out of the candidates to be endorsed by Reagan. He has much more right to talk about him than any other candidate does, and he doesn't talk about him often.

Reagan understood history for his time. Paul understands the world has changed.

Ron Paul was one of only six incumbent Republican Congressmen to support Ronald Reagan over Ford in 1976.

In fact, Dr. Paul led the Texas delegation for Reagan to the nominating convention.

Some things never change...

History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.
~Ronald Reagan

People do not make wars; governments do.
~Ronald Reagan

Protecting the rights of even the least individual among us is basically the only excuse the government has for even existing.
~Ronald Reagan

...no mother would ever willingly sacrifice her sons for territorial gain, for economic advantage, for ideology.
~Ronald Reagan

A people free to choose will always choose peace.
~Ronald Reagan

Peace is not absence of conflict, it is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means.
~Ronald Reagan

We must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.
~Ronald Reagan

Our reluctance for conflict should not be misjudged as a failure of will.
~Ronald Reagan

History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.
~Ronald Reagan

Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.
~Ronald Reagan

The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor.
~Ronald Reagan

People also called Reagan a nutjob at first. It didn't make it true.

Yea, how dare that 72 year old man forget who the Soviet leader was in 1962! I mean sure, the he was making was correct in context and analysis but why give him credit where credit's due? It's much more fun to rip him for saying the wrong name.

That's up there with pronouncing the word nuclear, nucular. People like that will never be President... Wait...

“Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country”- Ronald Reagan

It is the responsibility of the media to correct factual errors Chris.

I'm sure this same outlet noted how Huckabee stated erroneously during the last debate how '56 of the founding fathers were clergymen', when in reality there was only one.

heh! Dr. Ron Paul was THE FIRST Congressman to back Reagan in 1976..

Reagan came out in support of Ron Paul in 1982..

Don't kid yourself... aint NO ONE closer to the Reagan ideals than Dr. Ron Paul.. Romney & the Ghoul wouldn't even BE Republicans if RR was head of it!

And he's one of the smarter Republican candidates.

What Dr. Paul said was TRUE in principle just a small detail was incorrect, but the name still communicated what the TRUTH behind the historical analogy.

That Being Friendly Makes Friends and Being Agressive and Protectionist Makes Enemies. OUR FORIEGN POLICY IS MAKING ENEMIES AND HAS ALREADY DESTROYED OUR CURRENCY.

Ron Paul was good friends with Ronald Reagen. President Reagen even endorsed Ron Paul for our country's defense! He is the only candidate that can claim to be associated with Ron Paul. Look it up my friend!

www.ronpaul2008.com - Find out for Yourself why this man is my Hero!

A name mix up much less severe than Romney's "Obama, Osama" mishap. Or when Romney misspoke to say "we should be like Hezbollah [in their civil service programs.]" Ron Paul is so eloquent, sincere, and articulate, it is a wonder anyone walks away with an unfavorable opinion of him. It takes an impatience, facile, and naive person to do that. If you don't have much to work with mentally, you'll naturally be skeptical of a great intellect such as Dr.Paul. America loves you Dr.Paul! Keep up the good work! We're all pulling for you to have a roaring last quarter!

I'd be more concerned to learn that Paul called his wife by the wrong name. That Paul could momentarily substitute the name of the fat, bald commie who pounded a table with a shoe for the name of the fat, bald commie who looked like he'd been pounded in the head with a shoe neither surprises nor bothers me. Seriously, Paul was serving in the USAF at the time; does anyone really believe that the Duke educated doctor doesn't know who Khrushchev was? Rick Pearson should be ashamed of himself.

Anybody can quote Ronald Reagan but here's a few quotes from Ronald Reagan about Ron Paul:

"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding Leaders fighting for a stronger national defense."

"As a former Air Force Officer, he knows well the needs of our Armed Forces, and he always puts them first."

"We need to keep him fighting for our country."

-U.S. President Ronald Reagan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74JF0Xf6hPY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyXW1hb-JQg

No way can this slip up be a big deal. I have listened to GW babble his way through barely coherent English for 2 terms...who in their right mind would consider this slip a problem. If Paul spoke pig latin it would still be a breath of fresh air.

Coconut Head, Paul was also one of only four Republican Congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan for president against Gerald Ford in 1976,[32] when Paul led the Texas Reagan delegation at the national Republican convention. Check wiki and its references for proof. Too bad Reagan is not alive to endorse Paul.

Oh please,give me a break.Are you saying you have never made a mistake during a speech? I assure you Dr. Paul is very well versed on his history. I have listened to him many times and he knows who is who. It was a simple mistatement,you should recognize that since we have a president who is known for so many of them. Ron Paul is fighting for us,I hope you get that!

C.Morris,

It was 1962 not 1961. Mistakes happen when speaking or writing quickly.

Shall we stick a fork in you?

Rather than attacking him for a simple mistake perhaps you should educate yourself about what he stands for. There's nobody on that stage that holds a candle to Reagan except for Ron Paul!

Ron Paul was one of the 1st to support Reagan back in 1976 dumbass. The Reagan Revolution started then no thanks to the eastern est, who tried like hell to put him down then. Ron Paul is Ronald Reagan Redux. Ron Paul 2008! Gorbachev/ Khrushchev who cares? It was the point he was making that was important. Anyone attending with half a brain could figure that out.

They all do, however Ron Paul was the only one of the pack that was close friends with Ronald Regan.
Do some research. Ronald
Regan help Ron Paul in high esteem.

While the internet is still free, i suggest you use it to your advantage, to figure things out. By saying that i mean you need to question things such as the (federal income tax, socialized health care, and suppressed energy technologies that exist, and have existed since the days of Nikola Tesla... We are living in the stone age with fossil fuels.. and though we are in the information age with the internet.. it could be the flip of the coin... whether its purpose is to promote freedom of speech, or mind control... like fox news.

Reagan endorsed Paul when in office, he is not trying to be associated, he was a friend of Reagan. So please try another attack!

"So... Ron Paul wants to be associated with Ronald Reagan... heh... don't they all..."

Ron Paul was one of the few to endorse Ronald Reagan when he first ran for President. Do some research and you'll find that Reagan had some nice words to say about Dr Paul's defence strategy as well.

A name flub? Bush can barely get a sentance put together on a daily basis... Ron Paul makes a name flub, and it gets jumped on like he said the sun is made from Nacho Cheese.

Pretty stupid.

Of course Ron Paul is associated with Ronald Regan he is one of four of the orginal republicans who supported Regan's run for president. So don't even compare Thomspon, Gulianin, Mcain, or Rommney to Paul when it comes to being close to Regan you will just make your self look like a fool. Thompson by the way is "dumb as sh!t" (says Nixon, even dead people think Thompson is worse then being dead).

Ron Paul-
The only living politician I don't want to see up in front of a firing squad!

Jeepers! For a second there I thought I would have to defend Ron Paul because of an honest slip up. Glad to know it isn't so.

C.Morris ...give Paul a break will ya!? The guy mentioned the name wrong from 1961. Stupid Romney mentioned Barack Obama's name instead of Osama Bin Laden....now thats a SERIOUS MIX UP!

Yo. I am a Ron Paul fan. A former Dem. and liberal kinda guy from NYC. I have been taught o hate Reagan all my life and for good reasons. I would love to know why so many love the guy, especially Ron Paul.

Why do conservatives continually praise Reagan and look on his presidency with such fondness and nostalgia? Only a few years after Watergate, Reagan proved himself simply yet another president willing to violate the constitution when congress got in the way of his pet project; namely, unconstitutionally arming the brutal Contras to depose the Nicaraguan Government with illegal money raised through arms deals with the Iranians and Israel as proxy. I know that Dr. Paul speaks highly of Reagan, but this must come from a personal feeling of warmth towards him and not for his international policies. Moreover, what did Reagan do domestically that was so great? Trickle down economics? Give me a break! Could someone who was old enough at the time of this affair and Reagan?s presidency please enlighten me.

Peter

How about a debate between Ron Paul and
Dennis Kucinich? They can talk about their joint ventures in going nowhere in a hurry. Is it just me or did this entire campaign for both the Democrats and Republicans get dreadfully boring months ago. Is anybody other than their families,
lobbyists, fund raisers and people in Cornpone, Iowa paying any attention?

Posted by: Grosspoint | October 27, 2007 10:39 PM

Well because they're smart and not phoney plastic versions of what a president should look like, and act like, they are dismissed. Unlike the front runners they actually have valid points and ideas but...it's all about marketing isn't it.

The 'hit' pieces keep coming. No reference to Ron Paul cash on hand (more than anyone except Guiliani), no reference to Straw Polls (Ron Paul won more than half of them), no mention on internet polls (Ron Paul won ALL of them). This negative article is all about the censorship. The US gov't (and their corporate MSM friends), already detain protesters, ban books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon and Wikipedia, shut down Imus and fire BYU physics professor Steven Jones because he proved explosives, thermite in particular, took down the WTC buildings. Free Speech forever. Give Ron Paul some balanced coverage.

I'm a family values conservative, and yes, Paul impresses me. But I'm not a big fan of Reagan. Liked him when I was younger, but got to know the fallout from some of his policies alittle better, and there I see him as little better than a speechmaker, not much on constructive tangible policies (other than those that effectively threw gas on hot spots in the world and hurt others, innocents mind you, this country is better than that). I hope Paul can put together a serious bid for the White House, but that is where I hope the parallels between him and Reagan end. I hope he stands taller.... The slip up is beyond forgivable.

That anyone would pick on this 72 year old for a simple name mix-up is shameful.

Posted by: Chris Berryment

Good point, but I wouldn't go around defending Paul's errors because of his age. You make it sound like he's above criticism because he's so old he can't remember to tie his shoes half the time.

Absolutely incredible...Ron Paul, who knows more about foreign politics than any other "GOP" candidate, is attacked for mistakenly saying Gorbachev instead of Khrushchev.

If a Democrat (or anybody else for that matter) did that for one of Bush's countless faux pas'es, then the neo-con lapdogs like Hannity would be incensed.

Just another sign that the GOP doesn't want Ron Paul around. And just another sign that the GOP is a joke and a bunch of gangsters just like their Dem brothers and sisters.

Could someone who was old enough at the time of this affair and Reagan's presidency please enlighten me.
-
Be happy to. Age: 53

Nixon set the bar for GOP criminality in the last half century, and Reagan set the bar for fiscal irresponsibility. Both bars were vaulted by the first Bush presidency, and then again with the younger Bush.

Reagan created the illusion of economic prosperity by increasing the national debt. Sort of like an individual getting about fifty credit cards, maxing them all out by buying guns, and then leaving the bill to his children. His tax cuts were just like Bush's, for the rich. When Clinton restored them in 1993, America reached a record setting prosperity that was immediately ruined by a new Bush simply showing up.

The iran-Contra act of treason was more Bush/CIA fault than Reagan's, who slept through his second term while in the early stages of Alzheimer's disease. Reagan and Bush escaped prison when Bush pardoned everyone in his administration who had blood on their hands, and there were quite a few. I think there were 22 or so.

Ron Paul would be wise to distance himself from Reagan, but judging by the way his followers here have Reagan coming out of Paul's womb, that isn't going to happen.

This verbal slip is meaningless to me. I am far more concerned that Ron Paul is a Libertarian masquerading as a Republican. As a moderate, I feel this country does not need to be moved any further to the Far-Right Fringe. While his philosophy may sell in Ruby Ridge or in Waco in his home state of Texas, I simply wont buy into it.
And his rabid internet followers can shriek all they want, but they should have learned from the Howard Dean thing: The Truth Will Come Out...

Our standing president can't even say "nuclear"...

A little more about Reagan from a 55 year old:

Another feature of Reaganomics was the flooding of the world with fiat money due to trade deficits that roughly matched the federal spending deficit. This kept prices down at home but masked the problem and ultimately cost us our manufacturing base. Today, support for the dollar is unraveling, so get ready to say hello to your Chinese landlord as foreigners buy up US assets for a pittance. The only hope is to fix the dollar as Dr. Paul proposes.

Ron Paul will be more Reagan than Reagan, whose cabinet was filled with neocon big spenders. Because Ron Paul's support is from the grassroots, he will have none of these political obligations.

Thank you for pointing out the obvious and gross ineptitude of Ron Paul. We cannot, will not stand for our next POTUS to make such careless mistakes in quoting the names of leaders from the 60s. Just think if we had a President who did stupid things like - Telling the country - they should use the Internets - "I am the Decider." - "OB/GYNs should be free to practice their love on women" - "Nuc-U-ler" - "I will not rest until we capture Osama Bin-Laden" - "Its nice to be here at OPEC"- (at the APEC Summit) - Get real - in every debate and speech so far, Dr. Paul has shown that he knows the things he talks about, he doesn't use speech writers and marketing agents to make sure he has great sound-bites - Please look at the heart of each candidate and judge them for that, Dr. Paul's knowledge, heart and passion are what our ailing country needs we elect our next "Decider"

Try giving several speeches a day and trying to stay on top of legislation in the Congress. This was a harmless transposition; we all do it, everyday.

To the poster calling him a fool, the whole point is that by reaching an agreement with the Soviets in 1961 we avoided a war. We took out missiles from Turkey in exchange for Cuba being missile free. No shooting was necessary. Seems to bolster Ron Paul's point.

Reagan created the illusion of economic prosperity by increasing the national debt. Sort of like an individual getting about fifty credit cards, maxing them all out by buying guns, and then leaving the bill to his children. His tax cuts were just like Bush's, for the rich. When Clinton restored them in 1993, America reached a record setting prosperity that was immediately ruined by a new Bush simply showing up.

This statement blames President Reagan for what congress did during his administration. Such reasoning is unfounded in fact, as it ignores the separation of powers. Application of simplistic assumption (everything that happens during a given administration is a result of negative or positive executive characteristic) is worse than sophism, it's just ignorance.

Age 51

if you could get inside of Dr. Paul's head and understand the massive amount of information contained within, and it was your job to crunch positions that take hours to explain into a sentence or two, you could not do it.

the problem Dr. Paul has is that his message CAN NOT be explained in sound bites. So when he seems rattled, its simply his brain trying to reduce an encyclopedic answer into a 10 second response.

if any doubt this mans COMPLETE understanding of the problems facing us, i urge you to search the web and listen to or read the numerous speeches he has given on the floor of the house.

start with a speech entitled "Neo-Conned"...and you will see!!!

What's the big deal? This is the first such mistake I've ever heard Ron Paul make, and it was just a slip of the tongue in the middle of a long rant.

If only BUSH was so fortunate in HIS speech...

The problem with the rest of them is they are so rehearsed, they won't make many mistakes, but they also don't believe a word coming out of their own mouths either. They'll say whatever gets them elected.

Give me a break. It's an obvious slip of the tongue. I bet ron paul knows more about the history of this country (and others) than the rest of the candidates combined.

Ron Paul was one of only four Congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan back in 1976, when Reagan was considered "unelectable". As usual, he had the courage to stand by the minority position when he knew he was right. And as ususl, he was ahead of his time.

An obvious slip of the tongue, Ron Paul was in the Air Force when Khrushchev came into power.

Gotta love the MSM. I won't miss it when it's gone.

Ron Paul is still my choice. There is simply no better GOP candidate. So what if he misspeaks occasionally? He's 72 years old and isn't allowed do-overs! Our current President, I should remind you, cannot once pronounce "nuclear" properly and mangles our language daily in many other ways. Some of Bush Jr.'s more noteworthy gaffes are available on YouTube if you'd like to hear them, and I've seen them circulated for years in e-mail.

Ron Paul is right! He makes ahigher moral argument thatn all of you who are against them- 1st We are alot less safe now and are going bankrupt!
2nd- Osama gave reasons they attacked us and it is a fact that all muslims just think we are trying to steal their oil- So I f we just pull out they will think they have Won- And I say so what.... They will still need to sell there oil- They don't have anything else....
3rd- Why does Ron Paul get more donations from the Military in Iraq than any other canidate?
You Neo Con supporters remind me of the Nazi supporters even as Germany was falling- The world hates us now and laughs at ua we are less safe and probably will have a huge attack on us because of it- Do you block out the fact that Bush just recently tried to join us with Mexico!!!!!!!!! WAKE UP!!!!!!
All neo Cons should be rounded up like Nazis......................
Hiilary= Mexico Romney= Mexico Mcain=Mexico Obama= Mexico They all do except fpr Ron Paul!
Why is that- you may say Romney is not for that. Oh really listen closely he will comply with the global plan once the fence is up. You Neo Con types are helping to ruin this Country you've been severly brainwashed and need to read more- All frontrunners will mariginalize us into World Communism!

WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ron Paul is probably the most well-read US statesman since Benjamin Franklin. He is very well versed in the history of the founding fathers, the creation of the Constitution, and the economic development of the United States over these last two centuries. The other candidates' competence in this regard is simply insignificant compared to Ron Paul's.

This statement blames President Reagan for what congress did during his administration.
-
While the Dems must bear part of the blame, the budget was guided by Reagan and filled with $$$ for things like Star Wars. Had he built bridges and levees he would have been a genius.

bastiat,

>>>>Reagan created the illusion of economic prosperity by increasing the national debt. Sort of like an individual getting about fifty credit cards, maxing them all out by buying guns, and then leaving the bill to his children. His tax cuts were just like Bush's, for the rich. When Clinton restored them in 1993, America reached a record setting prosperity that was immediately ruined by a new Bush simply showing up.>>>>

The democrats under Clinton also borrowed heavily. Both the Republicans and Democrats have been raiding the Social Security trust for decades.

They've taken people's money by force using government agents (IRS), under the pretense of saving for their retirement, then given that money to their friends in the Washington elite.

There's exactly zero dollars in the Social Security trust.

Ron Paul has tried to enact legislation that would prevent the marauding members from Congress from using the Social Security trust money for other programs, but it hasn't been supported by his cohorts in Congress.

Anyway, Ron Paul is so far superior to the rest of the candidates, I actually have difficulty communicating my self to people like you.

Remember, both Republican and Democratic politicians are corrupt:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Washington is all about the money, he writes. In 2005, the Census Bureau listed seven suburban counties around the capital as among the 20 richest in the country. And it’s not just Republicans cashing in on their service. “Upon leaving office,” he notes, “more than half of the senior officials in the Clinton administration became corporate lobbyists.”>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

All of Congress needs to be thrown out and replaced with honest politicians, and Ron Paul needs to be elected as president.

Peter - I love Reagan too. That doesn't mean I am not objective about his shortcomings.

The Contra war was a mistake as was meddling in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Grenada.

He was dead wrong on the war on drugs, and should have known better.

Spending was too high and he often compromised with the congressional dems instead of holding his ground.

But these things are one side of a very complicated story and, on balance, Reagan did much more good than bad.

Before we get too wound up in Ron Paul, MD, as the heir to Ronald Reagans legacy, is it not true that while this OB/GYN was one of the 4 Rupublicans to nominate Reagan in '76, he became so disenchanted with Reaganomics that he ran for President in 1988 as the Libertarian candidate, garnering 0.47% of the national vote?

Funny, but I cant find any mention of this on his campaign website.

Nor can I find any mention of his failed 1984 run for the US Senate (losing in the GOP Primary), other than "In 1984, he voluntarily relinquished his House seat and returned to his medical practice."

Granted, Ron Paul, MD, is a man of great integrity but he is too polarizing, flip-floppish with his assessment of Reagan, too fringe to serve this country's highest office.

Well that is harmless. I'm sure he knows who the current Russian leader is and thats all that matters. Hey at least he didn't mistake Obama for Osama the way Mitt Romney has twice now...

Reagan vs Ron Paul:

Political reality should be weighed for all administrations. No one works in a vacuum with the possible exception of this administration. By that I mean in the last 7 years we have seen the abrogation of authority by the 3 branches of government shift away from the Constitution that guides them. Congress (Legislative) has allowed the President (Executive) to act as almost a monarchy; taking us to war and making alliances with other nations without Congressional oversight. Congress allows this to avert responsibility. SCOTUS (Judicial) as well as the lower federal benches have become more legislative in nature. There are many cases to support this observation.

In 1959 (I think), Ike warned about the Industrial Military Complex. This has manifested itself into a larger and more dangerous multi-national corporation(s) that world-wide governments- including the US has fallen prey to largely because the MSM has become a part of the morphed IMC. These things are not new ideas, but what is new is their growth and status. Look at the EU and how GWB wants to promote the NAU.

It should come as no surprise that NAFTA, CAFTA, OPEC, EU, the UN...are all gearing nations to accept central authority away from individual national sovereignty.

I am not convinced Reagan played an active role in that development (but those in his cabinet did: Rummy, Wofowicz, Cheney, Baker...)

Reagan may have been naive in that sense and that is why I think the two men (Reagan and Ron Paul) share some similarity and friendship- a genuine American spirit established by the founders. I do not fault wit RR lowering taxes while increasing the debt to defeat the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Money is less expensive than lives. I even give credit to Bill Clinton for reaping the benefits of the Reagan tax-cuts to pay off the debt Reagan amassed, but fault Clinton for departing from that policy. It isn’t really a secret the GHWB was a globalist more than a nationalist, but his was a transitory administration. At the end of Clintons 2nd term he had set the stage for the multi-nationals to step in and under GWB they did with both feet. Hillary intends on continuing that trend.

The difference now is that Dr. Paul is not naive and the FEC, GOP, DNC and MSM know it which is why the media blackout and demeaning punditry is so vile. There is little to no difference between any of the “top tier” candidates for both the RNC or DNC- except Dr. Paul.

If you prefer the global community where the UN sets our foreign policy, trumps our civil liberties, and dictates the global redistribution of wealth- vote for anybody except Ron Paul. I want my nation back. I intend to vote for Ron Paul if I have to write in his name.

Ron Paul is in third place among Republicans...

http://www.truthalert.net/Republican%20Presidential%20Candidate%20Rankings.htm

Reviewing other candidates has been disheartening. Ron Paul has always based his information on historical events and for the most part has been extremely accurate. I can point to a lot of discrepancies from other candidates, however, why? Other candidates do not have the heart to be a U.S. President they only have the pockets. None of the other candidates have openly and repeatedly enforce their candidacy using the Constitution for their beliefs. This is the establishment of our rights in this country and limits government to govern a certain way so that those rights are not violated. I fear this country has sought a less independent nature and will sacrifice the meaning of being a United States Citizen because of greed. My freedoms are important to me, they should be important to you.

Listen to what he says and then listen to what other candidates say. You will find one has established, legal reasons for his decisions, the other does not really know why they would make their decisions. Listen to what he says and understand that your rights are important to him, the other candidates are seeking power.

As to the slip-up at the speech, I agree: It’s trivial.

As to the Paul-Reagan comparisons, I have a suggestion (as one who was also around during the Reagan presidency). Focusing on Reagan rather than Paul may be missing the point. The whole reason Ron Paul stands out from the crowd of candidates in 2008 is that Ron Paul is willing to plainly describe what he espouses. If you want to know what Ron Paul thinks, ask him or read his writing.

Saying Ron Paul is “like Reagan” or “like Jefferson” might be helpful to people who want CliffsNotes versions on some of the issues, but they are general analogies and labels prone to inaccuracies. Ron Paul demonstrates parts of these labels, but given only them, we could also think Paul is a: “Fiat money supporting slave owner.”

Ron Paul is like Ron Paul. If you want to know what he espouses, check http://www.ronpaul2008.com or http://www.ronpaullibrary.org or http://www.youtube.com/RonPaul2008dotcom

Reagan was addressing Gorbachev, who was, at the time, a Leader. Unless the author doesn't consider General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to be a leader. Obviously Reagan did, or else he would have addressed someone else.

"Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

June 12, 1987 - Address from the Brandenburg Gate
http://webstorage4.mcpa.virginia.edu/rwr/audiovisual/speeches/spe_1987_0612_reagan.mp3

It's almost exactly at the halfway point of the audio.

Mr. Pearson might want to brush up on his history.

"Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor."

http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/scripps/digitalarchive/speeches/spe_1987_0612_reagan

"So he got the name wrong. Big deal. Does this disqualify his candidacy? Does it subtract from his viability?"

Well, yes, it does. It, along with his isolationism demonstrates a weak understanding of the world. In a small country with limited power and trade exports no big deal. For the only superpower left in the world...yeah it matters. With President Bush the second we got a guy who didn't know the capital of France and look at the foreign policy disaster he allowed.

Go Ron Paul! Keep speaking out and don't give up! Vote for Ron Paul, because if you don't, your vote will be wasted.

End the Clinton/Bush dynasty.

*****

Today, support for the dollar is unraveling, so get ready to say hello to your Chinese landlord as foreigners buy up US assets for a pittance. The only hope is to fix the dollar as Dr. Paul proposes.

*****

Posted by: Pete B | October 28, 2007 9:25 AM

Although I agree with your choice of candidate, I cannot subscribe to the fear mongering involved in this statement of yours. The inflation we are suffering right now has an obvious effect that will keep all those evil “foreigners” from buying up everything in sight. In particular, inflation drives prices up. In fact, inflation has become synonymous with its effect of driving prices up. Once prices go up, all those nasty foreigners have lost the advantage, and have no particularly better chance of buying up U.S. assets than anyone else.

The real shame of inflation, as Dr. Paul explained, is that it eats out everyone’s savings and disproportionately harms poor people. Rich people don’t suffer from inflation as much because they have the ability to invest their money as a hedge against inflation. Furthermore, the wealthy also have better access to the money supply, which allows them to use inflated dollars before the ill effects of inflation kick in.

* * * * *
Gotta love the MSM. I won't miss it when it's gone.

Posted by: FZappa | October 28, 2007 11:35 AM

Since you referred to the MSM in the singular, I take it that you were referring to MainStream Media. So, pray tell, who or what is going to make the MainStream Media go away?

What's the big deal about this slip up?

Romney basically told the country that he knows nothing about the constitution when he said that his LAWYERS would be the ones to inform him about decisions. Whereas Ron Paul knows and understands the constitution and history of this country better than any candidate, Democrat or Republican.

I gotta say, this slip up, not a big deal.

Paul is gonna win this, he is a true conservative, and thats what Christians love, true man of his word. And Ron Pauls word is the Constitution.

Bruce Y, great post. I'm continually astonished by the Reagan hagiography. Why anyone would want to emulate his corrupt and incompetent administration is puzzling.

Kristen W.

What are you talking about?

"Paul said during the 1961 Cuban Missile Crisis "we again talked to Gorbachev "

It's not the mistake of one year that is the problem.

He thinks Gorby was in charge in the 60's.
It was Kruz!! And he got the year wronge.
How many mistakes does he have to make in one sentence before it counts as a screw up?

A real 'Jerry Ford' moment, IMO.
"Poland is free"

"An obvious slip of the tongue, Ron Paul was in the Air Force when Khrushchev came into power."

Zappa,

That was then, this is now. He's got to keep it straight now if he wants to be prez.

All,
Making old age excuses is a poor campaign tactic, to say the least.

PS;
In review, I said nothing about 1961 re. Paul.

Ron Paul doesn't "prepare" like those other androids. He already knows his own positions.

Here is same speech but different audience - the Arab American Institute . He says "Khrushchev." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgEkZoe025Y

So, obviously, he just mispoke in Iowa.

I see all the Paul Robotroids are out in force, mindlessly mouthing the nonsense they are becoming well known for.

Today's talking point: "It was a slip of the tongue." Whatever. What's NOT a slip of the tongue is his foolish Blame America First and borderline anti-semitic foreign policy, his head-in-sand attitude towards predatory commerce, and his basic ignorance of the Constitution (hint: it's not the Articles of Confederation, folks, it's a COMPACT that REQUIRES that the states support the Federal government, and yeah, that means PAYING TAXES. Read your Hamilton.)

Go Ron Paul! Compared to the other idiots running for the nomination for both parties, hes the only one who wont ruin the US completely.

Ron Paul 2008!

There is a difference between President Reagan and the 1964 Goldwater Reagan. In 1980 Reagan could not bring down the size of government as he should have.
Ron Paul Will.

"I see all the Paul Robotroids are out in force, mindlessly mouthing the nonsense they are becoming well known for."

Posted by: Stephen | October 28, 2007 9:46 PM

Speaking of robots Stephen go to the bathroom and look in the mirror. Then vote for one of your robotic, lame frontrunners.

The GOP is a lost cause.

Hmm, Lets compare Ron Paul's flubs with George bushes. It is sad and scary that George has been running things for so long without firing on all cylinders. I also find it odd that the world is taking global warming advice from the noble winner that "invented the internet" and cant spell potato.

I also find it odd that the world is taking global warming advice from the noble winner that "invented the internet" and cant spell potato.

Posted by: dddienst | October 29, 2007 11:34 AM

Gore never claimed that he "invented" the Internet, which implies that he engineered the technology. The invention occurred in the seventies and allowed scientists in the Defense Department to communicate with each other. In a March 1999 interview with Wolf Blitzer, Gore said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

Taken in context, the sentence, despite some initial ambiguity, means that as a congressman Gore promoted the system we enjoy today, not that he could patent the science, though that's how the quotation has been manipulated. Hence the disingenuous substitution of "inventing" for the actual language.

But the real question is what, if anything, did Gore actually do to create the modern Internet? According to Vincent Cerf, a senior vice president with MCI Worldcom who's been called the Father of the Internet, "The Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier role as Senator."

The inventor of the Mosaic Browser, Marc Andreesen, credits Gore with making his work possible. He received a federal grant through Gore's High Performance Computing Act. The University of Pennsylvania's Dave Ferber says that without Gore the Internet "would not be where it is today."

Joseph E. Traub, a computer science professor at Columbia University, claims that Gore "was perhaps the first political leader to grasp the importance of networking the country. Could we perhaps see an end to cheap shots from politicians and pundits about inventing the Internet?"

Hope this lears up the internet canard dddienst.

Logic Prisoner, you quote Gore correctly, but contend that he was taken out of context. If you read the transcript, you'll see that the confusion was created because there was no context. He was asked about his accomplishments, and he just threw that "created the internet" statement out there sans any explanation, and certainly did not provide the explanation you attribute to him. After being skewered by the media for it, he became defensive and looked even worse.

You seem to believe there is a significant distinction between the terms "invented", which has been attributed to him, and the term "created" which he actually used. I don't see a significant difference between the terms in this context, and neither accurately explains his contributions, even as you describe them. I think a better description is that he furthered the development of the internet, or something similar to that.

In my view, Gore was either trying to exaggerate his contributions or simply misspoke when he claimed to have "created" the internet. I don't doubt that what Gore actually did is similar to what you contend, but he did an extremely poor job of conveying it, and turned what should have been a feather in his cap into an embarrassment. While I know the media had too much fun with this, Gore need only look in the mirror to find the source of the confusion.

"Hmm, Lets compare Ron Paul's flubs with George bushes. "

ddd

Oh yeah, without question he would bwe better than the current dimwit.

No arg. there.

But that's too low a standard.

It was Quayle, not Gore, who could not spell "potato." You've got your distorted wingut history wrong, D3.

Gore can spell potato with the best -- and eat 'em too.

Ron Paul in 2008 is the only decent, honest candidate, who, by the way, will also save America from its current downward course. How much of the current leading Republican's do you think only have numbers do to name recognition?

"The Swamp" is an apt name. If all Mr. Pearson can report about a serious candidate is a simple misspoken sentence,instead of the issues that face our nation, then shame on him. Mr. Pearson, do you look for pimples on the faces of pretty women?
Please remove yourself from the gutter.