CNN Helps Ron Paulvorkian Poke the Eye of Newt

By Jim "The Right Guy" Lagnese

Whatever you think of Ron Paul, CNN definitely gave Dr. Paul more time than he has received in the last debate and then some. In last night's debate, the true believers might see it as a vindication of Ron Paul and a chance to push his candidacy beyond the single digits he's been in all along. His detractors will say it framed him for the batshit crazy lunatic he is. Some fully expected not only the tin foil hat, but the matching aluminum foil gauntlets as well. Never say that Dr. Paul is sartorially challenged. Of course, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Ron Paul is 100% right on economic and domestic issues. Where I part with his adherents are that they think he's 100% right about everything. Ed Koch used to say, if you agree with me 75%, vote for me, if you agree with me 100%, you need a psychiatrist. So it goes with Dr. Paul. I believe he fails in two ways: One, his foreign policy principles and objectives are a little short sighted and naïve. The notion that somehow we had any complicity in the 9/11 attacks is insane. I also think he doesn't understand how to deal with real threats. It's not as if his positions offer some practical leeway in dealing with a panoply of situations, but rather they are subject to a set of principles that back him into a corner both philosophically and empirically. I really don't believe he has the depth to handle a situation that really would require some sort of legitimate use of military force, and I use the term legitimate in the context of what he believes.

By contrast we have Dr Newt, the ersatz narcissistic sociopathic professor that looks as if he's spent too much time at the Golden Corral while thinking it was the OK Corral. I don't think there are more polar opposites in this campaign than Drs Paul and Newt and CNN surely gave them both ample opportunity to prove it. Can we demonstrate even one area where they agree? Immigration? Gingrich promotes what is basically amnesty. Healthcare? No way. Earlier this year, Newt promulgated his own version of Obamacare.  I'd have to wonder what wonderful neocon scenarios Mr Gingrich would love to test out if he had the chance. He's a very bright guy, but I wouldn't trust him. I think there is a disconnect between what he believes, what he says and what he really wants to do. The problem with both of these gentlemen is that they do not have the polished people skills and amicability that would endear them to voters. I don't think most people like either of them. My wife tells me Dr Paul is more like Dr. Kevorkian and Newt is a cross between Professor Kingsfield and the Mucinex booger snot. No matter how good their ideas are, do people want to listen to them?

In the last few debates, there has been one candidate that has the ability to explain things more simply without being facile and has at least a more anodyne demeanor and that is Mitt Romney. I hate to admit it, as I have called him both a Sears and Nordstrom Mannequin in the past, but the man does his home work, tries to relate and explains things in a way most of us would understand without being patronizing or condescending. Is he the most ideologically grounded? No. Is he as avuncular as Herman Cain or Ronald Reagan? No. Would he do a good job? I think so and that is more than I can say about BO or most of the people on stage. I'll also add that Michelle Bachmann had a fantastic night at the debates and really showed some nuanced thinking in her analysis of our foreign policy issues.

So, in the battle of the Doctors, who won? You tell me, I'd like to hear what you have to say.

Thank you for reading this blog.

Bill Clinton Illustrates The Hypocrisy Of The Left

H/T to Tim at LCR

In an article in the New York Times from yesterday, Bill Clinton likens the Tea Party movement to Timothy McVey and the Oklahoma City Bombing. An except from the speech:

“There can be real consequences when what you say animates people who do things you would never do,” Mr. Clinton said in an interview, saying that Timothy McVeigh, who carried out the Oklahoma City bombing, and those who assisted him, “were profoundly alienated, disconnected people who bought into this militant antigovernment line.”


Really Bill? I bet you didn't feel that way about The Weather Underground, SDS, SNCC, The Black Panthers, etc. In fact, you were probably with your fellow proletariat in those movements. What hypocrisy.

I condemn what Timothy McVey did, but truth be told, we still don't know the whole story behind that as Nichols isn't talking and neither is our government. Tying what McVey did to the Tea Party is not a proven arguent. In fact, I would say it is an a priori argument that is political in nature to support the increasingly fabian nature of Obama's agenda. They know that they cannot roll over us with force like their compatriots Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, so they figure they better try guilt and shame first. Sorry Bill, we aren't buying it.

And while I am at it, Shame on Bill and the New York Times for printing such propaganda (said in the vernacular of Frank from Queens). At this point, it's obvious beyond a shadow of a doubt who and what the fourth branch of government is: The Main Stream Media. Josef Goebbels would be proud of how Obama has co-opted the press in the country, and he has done so without any threat to them at all. In fact, for the most part, the MSM is in total agreement. That makes everything so much easier.

Michelle Bachmann, the other beauty from the north, rebuts Mr. Clinton:

In her remarks Thursday, Ms. Bachmann made light of the suggestion that antigovernment activists were angry.

“You look happy to me, you don’t look angry,” she told the crowd. “That’s because you get it. You are smart enough to get off your couch and do something.”

The Article Continues:

Mr. Clinton said his intent was not to stifle debate or muzzle critics of the government but to encourage them to consider what repercussions could follow. He acknowledged that drawing the line between acceptable discourse and that which goes too far is difficult but that lawmakers and other officials should try.

“Have at it,” he said. “You can attack the politics. Criticize their policies. Don’t demonize them, and don’t say things that will encourage violent opposition.”


Mr. Clinton, who is carrying the gun here? Is it the Tea Party, or the government? So what measures should lawmakers try? Hate speech laws like Canada and Germany? Just try it.

Right now, the dems have driven themselves over the cliff and they are looking for someone to blame other than themselves. Note to Bill, The New York Times and the rest of the MSM:

Look in the mirror. Your ideas, agenda and propaganda are so out of touch with what the american people believe and it is that which put you where you are, going over a cliff. Take responsibility for your own bad ideas and bad actions. The Tea Party had nothing to do with your choices in life, but only illustrate how out of touch and utterly ridiculous you are.

November is coming and pay back is a bitch.

Thank you for reading this blog.