Rudy, Is it Pride or Arrogance?

I agree that he does not handle those things well either. Chaning talking points is one things. When you make a mistake admit it and move one.

You are right about the NRA. I am not a "moral" conservative. I am a fiscal conservative.

I agree, when you make a mistake admit it and move one.

Library-

I am a Thompson supporter because he is the only one that understands federalism.

Personally, I do not care what you do in your bedroom or in your private life for that matter. That is why we are here in America for Freedom it is sad that the moral majority hijacked the right.

I have a soft spot for JEB. I was lucky enough to be around when he was Governor and I truly believe if he was the Bush in charge we would not be having all these problems.

What if those were the statistics when he had colon cancer, and that's why they used them? I mean, insn't that possible? I don't know. -snicker-

Steve I agree with returning to Individualism and such. Ron Paul though is not the answer. He has a lot of good ideas but he a crazy man. He does not have enough composure to win a national election.

I just read a transcript a few days ago of a speech Rudy gave not long after 9/11. Basically the gist of his speech was that "freedom" is defined as "submission to authority." Not sure if he suffers more from pride or arrogance, but I can say for certain that his attitude and personality have Benito Mussolini written all over him.

You say Fred Thompson "understands Federalism," I think he only pretends to. Or perhaps he understands Federalism the same way most Americans understand it; which is not at all. To me he is just another planner, in a long row of planners. I am sick of planners. I think the sooner the rest of America realizes that central planning doesn't work, that socialism isn't just a thing of the so-called "left," and decides not to elect any more planners; the sooner we can return to the way it was supposed to be; Individualism and freedom, not collectivism and servitude, subject to the arbitrary of power of politicians and bureaucrats. Ron Paul is our only hope right now, possibly our last hope to restore the republic peacably.

You hit this spot-on, Publius! Not a good sign for Rudy at all. Personally, I think it's arrogance, brought on by his popularity spike after 9/11.

It's about time that the US sees what New Yorkers have known all along - Giuliani is a liar. It's no wonder the likes of Hillary was beating him like a rented mule before he pulled out of the NY Senate race. He's not a good candidate.

When you call a statesman with the integrity and wisdom of Ron Paul a "crazy man," you should at least back that up with some explanation.

You should also know that by doing so, you are by definition calling men such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington "crazy" men, because Ron Paul's position on every issue is adherence to the principles that those men embodied, and to the document that they wrote.

Every single one of the Stepford candidates from both parties, whether they are conscious of it or not, embraces and advocates the status quo of the last century, which is the doctrine of Collectivism.

And before you go on about Ron Paul being an "isolationist," please see my recent article about Dr. Paul and the difference between "non-interventionism" and "isolationism." Or go to Dr. Paul's official site at www.house/paul.gov and go to his weekly column link, and read his column titled "The Real Isolationists."

Steve-

I have met Ron Paul and have seen him in person at debates. The guy can not keep his cool. I agree with most of his positions as I stated earlier. He would not be able to stand up to the rigors of a general election as I dont think he is handling the primary so well.

The fact is each cantidate is different. I firmly believe that Mitt Romney and Rudy would say anything to get elected. We know that is true of Hillary. I beleive some of the other cantidates are honest about what they want. I think we should shift our government back to what it is supposed to do in the constitution, but the reality of the situation is you cant score the touchdown on one play. It will take several steps to get there. The first step is making sure that Hillary or Rudy dont get in the White House.

Again, where is your justification for the claim that Ron Paul "can not keep his cool"? On the contrary, I think considering how the media-formerly-known-as-"mainstream" has persistently sought to poo-poo Paul's growing support and fundraising totals from actual REAL AMERICANS (as opposed to the army of interested rent-seekers whoi contribute to Hillary, Rudy, Mitt, etc. -- big government central planners tend to attract the attention of those who want to secure a beneficial place in the planning), not to mention the cool and calm manner in which he has handled Faux News' handling of him during the debates -- such as the laugh track they played during his answers in the New Hampshire debate, and the recently revealed fact that Faux News pollster/ideological operative Frank Lutz intentionally sought out anti-Paul participants in his "focus group," including one former Bush/chenmey campaign operative -- and especially the way he handled Rudy's ignorant-of-the-facts assinine remarks at the S.C. debate ("Thats an absurd statement, that we 'invited the attacks'") and then calmly and, most important, factually explained to Rudy Mussolini the concept of "blowback."

I think its not only off the mark and frankly, ridiculous, to assume that Ron Paul somehow couldn't handle the Presidency, but its also foolish to dismiss his candidacy on those artificial grounds, considering that he is the only candidate running who has any true understanding of not only the US Constitution and the timeless principles it embodies, but also hes the only one who understands the proper role of government, not to mention the very limited role of the office of President; which is not Commander-in-Chief of everyone, but rather CiC of the Armed Forces when they deployed by an act of the Congress in consultation with those who do the actual fighting, dying, and paying for the venture -- the American People. He understands that the proper term for a man who sends young Americans to fight and die in foreign lands without the explicit declaration of war by the People's representatives is not "President" or "Commander-in-Chief," it is "dictator" or "tyrant." He understands that a government that claims ownership of its citizens by presuming to own the fruits of their labor, and assuming the right to take a portion of a man's earnings by force and then redistributing them as they see fit, is not a government that protects individual rights and freedoms, but a tyranny; and there is a word to describe that form of government: Socialist.
Probably juwst as important, he understands that wealth cannot be created by printing paper money from out of thin air. He understands that the Federal Reserve System is just a banking cartel that robs the purchasing power of the American people and redistributes it to Washington DC and to Wall St. He understands that Article I, Sections 8 and 10 of the Constitution, forbid the creation of a banking cartel with monopoly power to counterfeit money; that it doesn't take force of state coercion to get people to accept and trade in honest, free market money; gold and silver.

I would like to awsk every other GOP candidate just one question: If you so strongly believe in the power ofr the free market -- as I do -- then why do you not object to a cartel monopoly over the single most important market commodity of any economy; its currency? Don't you believe that the free market could be just as beneficial in regulating money and banking as in anything else? And if not, then why not?

Steve- I said that he could not handle the General Election. He has broke at the last two debates at the CNBC one yelling. He came off at the Fox Debate in Orlando as a whining kid. The boos you heard there were actual and from most of the audience.

I agreed with his handling of Rudy in the SC debate. He did well in that debate. But, since he has gone down hill. He is raising money from a group of dedicated supporters. Most of his ideas are on point but cannot be accomplished overnight. Some of his supporters do not help his cause either. They act just like the anti-war left.

I understand you problems with the Central Bank, but its constituitionality is quite the debate that goes all the way back to the 1st Congress. Congress does have the power to regulate money and its value. We could debate the pros and cons of this system all night which I will refrain from doing.

You made the claim that Fred Thompson only claims to know about Federalism. I find that to be only without proof but directly opposite with a poltically expedient thing for him to do. He could easily win the Religious Right by pushing a gay marriage ammendment but he believes that is a state job. He refuses to push banning abortions on the federal level because that is a states right. He takes that position even when he hurts him. If he had not taken those positions he could very easily be the front runner now.

I'll believe that Fred Thompson understands Federalism and the proper role of government, when he comes out and bluntly states that he intends to dismantle the Federal Departments of Education and Agriculture, the FDA, IRS, FAA, FCC, and Federal Reserve Corporation, and to rescind the US participation in the FTAA, GATT, WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, and especially the UN.

Then I'll take Fred Thompson's so-called "conservative credentials" seriously.

Well you can start with his commitment of getting rid of one.

Education

What is your problem with NAFTA?