I would watch a Paul / Newt only debate. Both would do fine.

I may be the only one, but I'm enjoying the competitive primary. I'm still puzzled by the hand-wringing over it.

I like Rick. I like Mitt. I both like the conservative Newt and worry about the progressive Newt that rears his head unpredictably. And, I could live with Ron Paul - who is more properly a libertarian than a conservative.

Let's hash it out, and eventually pick a nominee.

They are all 4 a way better choice than John McCain was. What a mistake he was. He was only the candidate because of the states that allow Democrats and Independents to vote in the GOP primary. I wish they would fix that mistake some day.

The debates have fallen into a miasma of sameness...

That's because they are all moderated from the same pool of hack Democrat network moderators. Enough with Wolf Blitzer and Dianne Sawyer asking Democrat-slanted questions of our candidates and playing defense for Obama. Let Sean Hannity ask the questions and you would get out of the miasma of sameness.

Sidenote: Props to your mention of Everett McKinley Dirksen - who is buried about 5 minutes drive from where I'm sitting. Good man.

I love this analysis, Roger, especially Newt, the "me" candidate.

Governor Buddy Roemer is in fact still running for the GOP nomination. He hasn't been allowed in various debates for a slew of ever changing reasons, although he's relentlessly on message on the need for financial reform.

Would have loved to see him face off with the other grandstanders and cowards.

I love that Newt uses the same slogan as Pedro from "Napolean Dynamite". I used to have "Vote for Pedro" repeating constantly as my ringtone.

I didn't know Buddy Roemer is still (formally) in the running. He was my choice right after Huntsman.

A Huntsman/Roemer ticket is one I'd get out and stump for.

Good insightful post. I agree that it was a missed opportunity. People need to hear more unscripted debates. This would have been one of them. Ron Paul's ideas need to be heard. It's true that some of his ideas are terrifying--but much of that has to do with them reflecting a terrifying economic reality.

In a politically sane country, Gary Johnson, Buddy Roemer, and Ron Paul would be the top contenders for the GOP nomination.

Are the corporate empty-suit and the frothy gospel-peddler the best this party can do?

I admire your fair and honest assessment of Ron Paul, Roger. If it weren't for these debates, he'd have a lot harder time getting his message out - a message with some ideas even liberals can admire, and that desperately need to be taken more seriously.

I agree with Randy Masters about letting Hannity moderate a debate. We have already seen Republican crowds boo a gay war hero and cheer the death of coma victims, but there are still some who cling to the myth that the modern day Republican party is still a reasonable and rational alternative to the Democrats. A Sean Hannity moderated debate would go a long way to putting that delusion to rest once and for all and hopefully get the Republican party and their supporters onto the much needed path of self-examination and reform, so they can once again take their place as a critical alternative voice and choice in a democracy that after all has only 2 parties.

Nice article, Roger. I do hope you are not one of these--shall we say--myopics who believe Ron Paul is truly racist. IMO, he is the best Republican candidate in years. Mitt Romney is a middle American's dream, but he is a bully, has poor policies, doesn't care about people (IE, I think he's, actually, quite a nasty human being), and, generally, doesn't speak very well on panel. Although, it appears you are against Ron Paul's policies, at least, you have given him a positive light. The media (and, therefore, a large percentage of the American people) tend to miss those bits, so thanks.

Gingrich/Paul would indeed be quite the matchup. In terms of boxing, it would be Paul's technique VS Gingrich's raw power. Oh Paul will run circles around Newt to be certain, but all it takes is that one comment...that one mix of controversy, rage, and fact, right on Paul's jaw. Even if it doesn't win the crowd, it'll win the morning press shows the next day. Its the Mayweather/Pacquiao of the 2012 GOP.

Someone needs to ask Santorum "Why are you so concerned with everyone else's sex life, and why is it any of your business in the first place?"

Small point:

Are you sure that Ron Paul is underfunded?

He plainly doesn't have Romney or Obama money, but I believe that he's been awfully solid in funding.

He has a much stronger network of "grass-roots" supporters than the other candidates, and generally has a much more affluent constituency than any of the other candidates. He's a darling on college campuses, and has lots and lots of fiscally conservative, affluent, non-Bible-thumping supporters, as well as a surprising number of dedicated anti-war activists. Many committed anti-war folks will swallow some of Paul's positions because of his unapologetic, unabashed denunciation of militarism and abject criticism of the two current wars.

Big Point:

Do you think Ron Paul would have asked Newt if there were ANY topic upon which Newt bloviated that wasn't profound, and over which Newt would not effect a fundamental change?

I would love to vote Libertarian. I think it’s probably the closest political philosophy to the original founders in Philadelphia. If there’s one thing that America is based on, it’s the right to be left alone. I want my government to provide for our common defense, build us a few roads and bridges and then stand back. But, and here it comes, I have a qualm about complete laissez faire in today’s world. To give two small examples, what about antitrust and the environment? If we don’t have these regulated, every supplier market could end up monopolized, our water will be undrinkable and our air will be unbreatheable. (Not sure how much difference this makes to people who’ve been fracked out of their water and Gary, Indiana-ed out of their air). How do Libertarians propose to provide essential government? Where do they draw the line? How are the lines decided? Is there a John Stuart Mill for Libertarians?

"Let Sean Hannity ask the questions..."

Sure. Why not?

The circus lacks a ring-master. Might as well use a clown.

I would caution against rooting for an open convention...that's just the kind of unpredictable environment where a really dangerous character can sieze the nomination...didn't you read Philliip Roth's "The Plot Against America?"

There is a not unreasonable line of thinking that if the economy is not moving forward come election time (perhaps because of world events beyond any American's control) that whoever the Republican nominee is will become the next President of the United States.

Are we really hoping for an open Republican convention, a big delgate fight on the floor, and the last minute coronation of some lucky fool, who would now find herself/himself on a path to the Presidency?

Crazy is still crazy...

Did you just quote your screenplay of Beyond The Valley of the Dolls in a political blog post? Am I the only one who noticed?

Ebert: Not deliberately. What caught your eye?

In conservative circles, people actually often accuse Ron Paul of not being a "true conservative," on the basis that modern conservatism and libertarianism are not identical, and that Paul leans more to the latter than the former.

Not endorsing this view, or either of the two positions it discusses, but it is certainly not an unusual thing to hear among self-described conservatives, at least in my neck of the woods.

I love people like randy masters.......republicans. It's so typical of them to blame democrates for the miasma of sameness in the republican debates. Do you folks ever do anything on your own?

http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2011-2012-primary-debate-schedule/

I count 7 debates sponsored by those hippies at Fox News Randy...

Randy:

That's hack Democratic moderators, if you don't mind.
(*or even if you do*)
Also, only one 'n' in Diane Sawyer.
And as long as I'm on the subject -
- when used as a possessive, its does not take an apostrophe.
Pay attention. There'll be a pop quiz at the end of the term.

"Let Sean Hannity ask the questions ..."
... and it's not a debate - it's batting practice.
Home Run Derby For The Homer! Any Republican Can Win!
The best way to build up a false sense of confidence.
Even more than only addressing crowds that already agree with you.

The problem with all the Republican debates so far:
They weren't "debates" at all.
What we've been watching is the elimination rounds of Republican Idol.
And it's been going on so long that it's turned into its own satire.
And we haven't even gotten into Spring yet.
To say nothing of the long Summer to come, and the conventions where everything has already been decided, and the long Fall (in several senses of that word), and finally, after we're all totally worn out - The Vote.
If there's anyone left who cares.
You think we got miasma now?
You ain't seen nothin' yet.

Maybe those other countries in the world have the right idea, concentrating the whole election process into about a month's time.
To all those of you who believe that our current way of doing elections is "fun",or even "exciting" ...
I'll just assume that you are all younger than I am.
I count myself fortunate that i caught on to the hype at a fairly early age.
I am not a "political junkie".
Those of you who claim this title for yourselves ...
... think about what that term 'junkie" really means.

Rick Perry had a bimbo eruption? How did I miss that? I thought I was paying attention. I thought he was just a bad speaker. So who's the alleged bimbo?

Ebert: Ebert: My error. I meant to write "Newt Gingrich." The strange thing about copy-reading your own prose is that your mistakes become invisible.

The debates seem like a sham, with the networks having already picked the front-runners before the voters did. In virtually all the debates, Romney, Gingrich, and Perry, when he was running, were given the majority of the questions. I'm not conservative by any stretch of the imagination (how could I be? I work for a living), but I find it sad when capable men with consistent principles and well-developed ideas like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson can barely get a moment's notice, even when one of them (Ron Paul) leads the majority of the others in polls.

Mkay, what I want to say is that the conjunction time for politics ought not to leave too much room for masturbation to occur. And I believe our fore fathers would have agreed with me and I'm sure that profits for priests would agree with me, and I'm sure the Institute for Peace would agree with me, if only at the evidence of a marginal study of course.
Does talking in dense sentences make me a political junkie? It sure doesn't make me an academic genius.
I did not say no time for masturbation mind you, it of course plays a key role in reproduction and so connot be squeezed out of the schedule.. Just that there has to be limits. It has to be like a job interview. The issues have to be predetermined so that the candidates don't have to go on and on about things they have to pay people to know about and do nothing about.

Roger, you wrote:

"Was it only yesterday that Rick Perry had the momentum? Herman Cain? Both suffered bimbo eruptions. As a general rule, if you're planning to run for office, it's best to keep your genitals in the corral."

You are suggesting that Rick Perry had some sort of sexual scandal that ruined his candidacy. I haven't been following the race that closely, but I thought that Perry was forced to drop out due to his horrible debate performances. If you have evidence, please provide it. Otherwise, you probably should edit that section of the post.

Ebert: My error. I meant to write "Newt Gingrich." The strange thing about copy-reading your own prose is that your mistakes become invisible.

Yesterday word came from Wasilla that Sarah Palin considers herself "available." No doubt she will be found in a hotel suite in late August in Tampa Bay, still conspicuously available.

That's like Adam West saying he's "available" for the next Batman Dark Knight movie. ;)

(That's why it's so hard to find a VP running-mate, even up until the last weeks before the convention:
Unlike the Democrats, each of the candidates are so vanity-focused on the nomination going to Them personally, they can't step aside and be they-who-serve for the good of the party's interests--And the ticket is ultimately left with happy and inexperienced unknowns who think it's a really cool promotion, like Dan Quayle and, well, Sarah Palin.
Does anyone believe, if Romney gets the nomination, Gingrich, Santorum or Paul will happily step up and take the running-mate job?)

Why are Republicans defending Newt Gingrich? Let's set aside the comments about his "false conservatism," which is the only criticism that comes from his base. Can they really not admit, or identify, that he is a villain--a complete ethical bankrupt? Are Republicans really that oblivious to what is apparent to Democrats, moderates, independents, centrists, and foreigners?

I can hurl insults at other candidates about being misled, insane, zealots, unobservant, flip-floppers and other things. I don't think there's anything more dangerous for the U.S. than Santorum and his incessant voyeuristic prodding into the personal lives of citizens. I believe he is unaware of his hypocrisy and bigotry in most of his statements, blinded by self-righteousness. Gingrich, on the other hand, is well-aware of right and wrong and ignores it anyway. He always has. HE'S A BAD GUY. We should at least be able to agree on that.

P.S. Rick Perry had a sex scandal?

Ron Paul ideas frighten people because we are a country in deep denial. Rather than face facts, we instead literally "paper" over the problem by doing just that, printing more money Weimar style to produce the illusion that something is being done. All the politicians are doing is producing a greater agony down the road once the whole thing collapses. No one wants to aknowledge we are broke and that deep fundamental change will be needed that will shatter the preconceived foudations of both parties. Instead, people just say, "give us more and more free benefits and let's now invade Iran and Syria." The hyper-centralized, European craddle to grave Welfare State is dying as is the American Empire of guns and butter, in both cases run on massive amounts of debt. The scary thing is, Obama is doubling down on Bush's dismantling of our civil liberties with the passage of such draconian bills as the NDAA and SOPA, as well as executive assasinations of Americans without due process, because I think some in the government know the whole thing is coming down and martial law may be needed. Ron, whatever you think of many of his ideas, is our generations Cato asking us to remember the Republic as people cry for a Caesar to save them from themselves. He is no doubt that strange, little old man warning people to change they're ways, but then again, aren't all prophets? First they laughed at him, in some cases he is hated, but if he is not listened to, people will rue the day. That's why I believe the young flock to him. They know the system is screwed and they will inherit the mess.

I suppose we could cast a debate. Run a program that looks like a debate, but actors play all the roles.

I'd start with Patrick Stewart, who has done "Dickens" a few times since leaving "Star Trek: The Next Generation." He could call Mitt "Number One" and Santorum "Number Two" and Ron Paul "Number Three" and get away with it.

Woody Harrelson, of course, representing the Legalize Marijuana Party.

Tom Hanks, representing every adult male in America.

George Clooney, because we want ratings.

Tina Fey alternating between Palin and Bachmann. "When I'm holding my gun THIS way, I'm Sarah Palin. And when I'm holding my gun this OTHER way..."

Denzel Washington because he's got to get into politics eventually.

Aaron Sorkin can write it.

Roger, would you care to expand on what specifically "terrifies" you regarding some of Paul's positions? Regular readers of your blog will of course recognize that your political leanings are not libertarian (such as your previous post entitled 'sign the social contract', which generated a fierce debate among commenters) and I think many readers might be interested to know which of Paul's positions you take such strong exception to. I am genuinely curious because it would illuminate in a big way why Americans are not ready for a libertarian experiment in general to replace the 100 year old welfare state experiment that seems to be collapsing under its own weight. If look at the democrats these days, they are the true 'conservatives', because their main objective is to protect the institutions of the modern welfare state as it now stands, rather than fighting to expand it further as they have in the past. It is more than clear that the current 2 party system is a spectacular failure due to a myriad of obvious reasons, but nevertheless, the general public seems entirely unwilling to try something radical in experimenting with a new direction under the guise of Ron Paul, despite his being one of the few politicians in American history whose integrity, sincerity, candor, and genuine interest in reforming the status quo are not in doubt. I think your views on why you personally feel "terrified" about some of Paul's positions would be of great interest because you have the ability to intelligently phrase why America has such trepidations in turning to a libertarian solution to address the failing status quo. Thank you.

Roger,

As a Ron Paul supporter and someone who has worked with his presidential campaign, I can tell you that we've actually discussed your objective analysis of Ron Paul through your columns and tweets, and we greatly appreciate it. Now, we're just waiting for you to come out and support the one man who predicted the economic housing collapse 5 years before it happened, voted against the Iraq War and wants to protect your civil liberties. You know you want to. =)

Fortunately for me, I'm Canadian. I don't have to pay attention to the interminable primaries process if I don't want to. So I dive into and out of the process from time to time and see who the arch-conservative candidate du jour is.

But what really gripes me is that politicians and their handlers - the pollsters, the spin doctors, the campaign advisers, etc., etc., ad nauseum, and their useful idiots in the media - have convinced everyone else that everything is about politics.

Not about policies. Politics.

It's as if baseball were taken over by the sabermetricians. Pitiful.

If I were advising the GOP candidates on tonight's CNN debate or any future debates, I would say:

Refuse to answer any question on a topic other than war or the economy.

I'd vote for the first of the four to say "Did you really just ask me a question about gay marriage before you asked me about the economy? Do you not at your network understand that we are $15 Trillion dollars in debt, with a trillion dollar deficit this year alone, and are headed off a cliff right behind Greece if we don't have sudden and relentless reform of our spending?"

Do that all night long.

Instead, they stand there and let Democrat moderators ask them why they hate women and old people. It's foolish.

joe: i missed the debate

jim: aww. sorry.

joe: what did they say?

jim: reagan, reagan, reagan, obama, reagan, reagan, reagan, war on religion, reagan, reagan, reagan, doesn't care about the poor, reagan, reagan, reagan, reagan, healthcare, reagan, reagan, redistribution of wealth, reagan, reagan, reagan, taxes, reagan, reagan, reagan...

Ron Paul is the only honest candidate out of the whole GOP mess. I might not completely agree with him, but he has held the same platform for 30 years and says what he thinks. If anyone watched Colbert interview Maurice Sendak a couple weeks ago they would have heard my opinion of Newt Gingrich voiced by that great children's writer. "There is something so hopelessly gross and vile about him that it is hard to take him seriously, so let's not take him seriously." Still, it would have been a great debate.

the plot against america should be required reading in school. it's a brilliant book. let's stop reading worthless tripe like gatsby.

;]

Running a two-man debate when you have still have 4 men in the race would be like a polygamist showing up to a square dance with only one of his wives.

. . . if there's anything I can't stand, it's vagueness.

Such as "Hope"?

/b If you're planning to run for office, it's best to keep your genitals in the corral. /b

Then how do you explain Bill Clinton? Or is it somewhat forgivable for a Democrat?

Please tell me exactly how Rick Perry suffered a "bimbo eruption"? Isn't that a libelous accusation?

Ebert: Stupid error. I meant Newt Gingrich.

Santorum might be riding a good wave right now (probably due to the Republicans' growing distrust in Romney). But I think in the long run he's destined to be remembered as the real person who was too conservative to be nominated. His fierce stances on the social issues are against the mainstream trend and it will cost him some badly needed independent votes.

My first reaction to Randy Masters' suggestion that Sean Hannity moderate a debate was incredulity. However, I now think that a Hannity led debate would be far more revealing to the general public on exactly how polarizing the modern conservative movement has become. While a Hannity moderated debate would appeal to and probably be a favorite among diehard conservatives, remember that the debates are also being watched by democrats, independents, and even many moderate republicans who identify Hannity as a far-right political commentator.

I don't watch the Republican debates or campaign and try to limit my exposure to whatever pops through on "The Daily Show." I'm just exhausted by it all. As a liberal Democrat I'd like to see an open and honest conversation between both parties, but all I see is an equivocating left lacking the courage of any convictions and a hysterical right convinced that their opponents will bring about hell on earth (and that's only a slight exaggeration of the things they actually say). Meanwhile, our elections and laws are decided by unlimited corporate contributions, so what does it matter anyway since they're all more or less subsidiaries of the same holding companies.

Sigh. That's the most cynical paragraph I've written in a while. Wake me when it's time to vote for Obama, who hasn't been ideal as president (for the left or the right), but is certainly better than the alternative. Republicans, are you seriously considering Rick Santorum? Has it come to that? It's time for a long, hard look in the mirror, folks.

How is anyone taking the Republican primary seriously this year?

What bimbo eruptions are you attributing to Rick Perry?

Ebert: My error. I meant to write "Newt Gingrich." The strange thing about copy-reading your own prose is that your mistakes become invisible.

I agree that it was pretty awful of them to cancel the debate. If politicians are too busy to show up for free publicity, that's their own problem. If I was running for president, and my opponent refused to show up to a debate, I'd want the debate to still happen.

I think the ultimate problem is that we're dealing with a party which has drifted so far to the right it is impossible to have a meaningful discussion with them. If you listen to them, they are all espousing very similar positions save Ron Paul, but I doubt very much that Mitt Romney believes in the positions he claims to espouse - and honestly, I suspect that had Mitt NOT run so hard to the right he might actually be doing better than he is now, as he's now trying to out-conservative the conservatives, and to what end? The extreme right wing cannot give you the presidency.

The net result of all this is going to be the Republicans putting forward an unelectable candidate. Things need to change; the Republicans have gone so far they are no longer even close to the American mainstream, as evinced by numerous polls. We need to have a center-right, old school business party pop up that isn't insane - the party of Nixon and Eisenhower, not McCarthy and Santorum, a party of never-ending tax cuts and soundbites. It would help the Democrats as well, as right now there are many people in that party who are only there because, fundamentally, the Republicans have gone nuts. The Democrats might actually be able to get something done if they were less of a "everyone else" and more of a "we're FOR something" party. But the truth is that the way things are right now, you'd need a major third party candidate to split things open.

While Bill Clinton was a great president, it might have ultimately been better for the country had Ross Perot run the presidency, not because he had great policies but because it might have destroyed the power of the fundamentalist Christians, whose extremism is doing us all no favors.

Whenever I read Randy Masters' posts on your blog, Roger, I'm reminded of Stephen Colbert's line: "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

Roger, I am no fan of Rick Perry (his ad calling for reinstating DADT was offensive to say the least), but exactly how was his candidacy done in by a "bimbo eruption"? Certainly Herman Cain succumbed to charges of infidelity, but Perry had no such rumors swirling around him. Instead, Perry collapsed due to his poor debating skills, bizarre stump speeches, and.... now what was that third reason?

Ebert: My error. I meant to write "Newt Gingrich." The strange thing about copy-reading your own prose is that your mistakes become invisible.

Most importantly,
The Greatest American novel is The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

There are definitely questionable things about Ron Paul that could make him squirm, starting with his very real ties to Neoconfedrates like Lew Rockwell.

Paul has written and said some very disturbing things in the past. There is a youtube.com video out there of him speaking in fron of a Confederate flag.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/1229/Racist-newsletter-timeline-What-Ron-Paul-has-said

What is wrong with voters to make them even consider Romney or Santorum? Time tells us Romney "looks like a President." He looks shifty and empty.

Santorum distinguishes himself from the pack by wearing a sweater vest. By his own admission, you can only tell who's who by their clothes.

I write this stuff down and think it's funny, but I can't laugh about it. My own country is the stupidest place I've been in many years and my own people are shamefully boastful of their own chosen ignorance.

A few days ago a man told me that I would be responsible for 1/4 of a bill. The bill each month would be for $40. He said my portion of it would be about $16. He said this while looking for his calculator to do the math.

Maybe I really should emigrate. Canada or Australia, or Scotland or Ireland or Wales. It's very hard to be proud of being an American anymore. I've looked for the qualities of America in the hearts of my countrymen, and they do not exist there. Once they've disappeared, all we're left with is real estate, and that's not enough for me.

I never thought I would write those words or feel those sentiments.

Who they really need to let into the debate is Fred Karger. A gay Jewish moderate Republican who is more socially liberal than Obama? I'd vote for him. He qualified for the first debate. And because some people (probably Romney, possibly FOX News) didn't want him on the stage, they changed the qualification rules at the last minute to disqualify him. And every other debate hasn't let him in, while some of them let RIck Perry in even though he technically didn't qualify for some of them, so nobody's heard of him. Which is a shame, because I feel awkward voting for Obama after all his disappointments, I can't vote for the 4 crazies we're seeing in the debates (Paul's the best of them, but he's too extreme to consider voting for), and I'd have really loved to vote for Fred.

Roger, the Lincoln-Douglas debates were anything but the way you described them in your blog. I recently read an article by Lincoln historian, Harold Holzer, in the Washington Post, titled "The Lincoln-Douglas debates weren’t as great as Gingrich thinks". Could be worth a read...Here is the link if you are interested:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-lincoln-douglas-debates-werent-as-great-as-gingrich-thinks/2012/01/25/gIQABwX1VQ_story.html

I think you mean the debate in Georgia on March 1 just before Super Tuesday, not Florida.

From usatoday.com
CNN scraps plans for pre-Super Tuesday debate

CNN has canceled plans for a GOP presidential debate on March 1, after Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum indicated they would skip the event.

"Without full participation of all four candidates, CNN will not move forward with the Super Tuesday debate," CNN said in a statement.

The event in Georgia was the only debate that was scheduled right before the Super Tuesday primaries and caucuses on March 6.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/02/romney-santorum-debate-georgia-super-tuesday-/1#.T0aZj_W2ZyI

Ebert: I credited you in a correction. Oddly, the rest of the blog applies.

Great post, Roger. I have to differ with you on one point, though. Many Republicans (including Santorum) do accuse Ron Paul of not being conservative enough. As you know he is a Libertarian, which means he is economically conservative but socially liberal. His stances in favor of drug reform and the right of gay people to marry place him outside of the Conservative mainstream, which is why he can never be elected.

Imagine a Gingrich-Paul presidency: Plenty of jaw-jutting, but the trains wouldn't run, let alone on time--but I'd be willing to put up with it if the movie version starred Paul Giamatti and Harry Dean Stanton.

I agree with you, Roger; this would have been great television. I respect Ron Paul more than the other Republican candidates, but I don't believe he could realistically move any of his radical legislation through Congress. The Republicans seem to be where they were in 1996 (also where the Democrats were in 2004): without an appealing candidate.

Ron Paul wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve and go back to the gold standard. Our navy would be limited to submarines patrolling our coasts, and the army and air force would have similar border protection missions. Most domestic federal agencies, such as FEMA, Social Security Administration, and NIH would be eliminated. The free market can be depended upon to keep our water clean and airplanes safe.

Ron Paul is the complete triumph of theory over experience.

I like to imagine him campaigning to be head of the physics department at MIT on a platform of getting rid of relativity and quantum mechanics and going back to safe, solid, predictable Newtonian physics, where time is the same for everyone and anyone can travel as fast as he/she pleases.

I'm puzzled by your claim that Rick Perry had a "bimbo eruption" in the traditional Gary Hart/Herman Cain sense of the term, as I don't recall hearing about any such thing. His campaign imploded because of his atrocious performance in debates, not due to any sexual indiscretions. Certainly, Gov. Perry erupted, and certainly, he's a bimbo, but as far as I know, he keeps his mouse in its house.

Ebert: My error. I meant to write "Newt Gingrich." The strange thing about copy-reading your own prose is that your mistakes become invisible.

I would love to see a debate between Ron Paul and Newt! They are the only two who who really want to make serious changes that would get government from our personal lives and back into the roll for which it was established. Roger, you should start a petition to encourage CNN to host the debate rather than letting Santorum and Romney pull that kind of manipulative stunt!

When you wrote "Ricky Perry," you probably meant "Newt Gingrich." I've found that the strange thing about copy-reading your own prose is that your mistakes become invisible.

Ron Paul would've had my vote until he said something to the effect of "Killing Bin Laden was immoral, illegal, etc, blah, blah".

But... as has been pointed out repeatedly on here... the man stands firm in his convictions and never waivers. Not one bit. His stance today is the same as it was 30 years ago.

It sure would be nice to find that quality in all politicians, Republicans and Democrats alike.

Skankopotamus grazings. Santorum insider. One Christie Kreme coming up.

One more thought about Libertarianism. Can it somehow make sure there are no starving children or homeless old people in America? I don’t know enough about it to understand how it’s not completely heartless.

Actually it was Ron Paul that rejected that debate first and then Romney followed, Santorum didn't even respond before CNN canceled the debate.

I think debate like this won't serve any purpose as Ron Paul's biggest threat is Santorum who the over religious people follow and Romney who has wider support over the mediums.

Newt doesn't really fit in anyone's mold because he has not adopted any specific rhetoric.

So to say that debates favor Ron Paul most is untrue, because Ron Paul can't articulate himself within 1 minute as he is now an older man, and doesn't have earned talking points, but give him unlimited amount of time to talk and he excels.

My understanding from the campain iteself, Doug Wead, was that Dr. Paul withdrew so he could campain as did Mitt. Leaving Rick and Newt, so it was canceled. Not a big deal, just saying that is what Doug said in an interview I saw and that is what I read in several places as well.

This is to your reveiws... After I watch any movie, I always read your reviews. I don't always agree, but I find your analysis to be insightful and often humorous.

In regards to your article, the complaint made by many is that Paul is too radical. This may be true. Yet, at the same time, he is often ignored in these debates. With Paul, you can at least be assured that he will speak his mind regardless of the opinions of the the audience and the media. He is willing to stand by his ideology and that should be celebrated. Thanks for the insightful article on Paulitics.

santorum will fight for your right to own an assualt weapon, its only purpose to kill as many humans as quickly as possible.

but he'll fight against your right to have sex without having a baby.

i guess that's how he plans to replace all the people who might be taken out by the assault weapons.

they don't want the government to infringe on your personal freedoms, provided of course that your personal freedoms are clearly stated in their bibles.

I wonder what Roger Ebert will think of Dr. Paul's campaign stop in inner city Detroit this Monday.

Wow, Roger, pleasantly surprised to hear the kind words about Paul. 

I'm 28 and didn't vote in 2008. I was always apathetic/disgusted by politics until discovering Paul's 2008 debate performances last year. Now I'm crazy about the guy. 

You hit exactly on his appeal: 1) he holds and communicates precise political and economic beliefs which 2) he consistently applies. He's not a phony. You could watch the debates on mute and still pick up on that. 

The media wonders why younger people like myself are drawn to Paul. I think it's also because we still have a bit of the unrelenting why?-why?-why? five-year-old in us. Paul's beliefs aren't patched and jumbled together - they're clean and logical if you accept his basic precepts. And even after a barrage of why's, there doesn't seem to be an arbitrary "because I said so" supporting his positions. My inner five-year-old appreciates that. 

The danger in featuring Gingrich and Paul in a two-man show is that it would cause voters to notice how much they resemble Laurel and Hardy

I would love to see Ron Paul force Newt to explain how he can justify building a moon base in this time of record budget deficits. It's great seeing fakes/phonies exposed - e.g. Santorum in Wednesday's debate.

Define "unprecented 20 debates" . . .

By this February 26, 2008, the Democrats had held 24 debates, with more to follow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_debates,_2008

The debate I'd like to see would involve candidates directly questioning one another with a moderator serving as the role of moderator, not inquisitor.

For the record, in my opinion, the best debate in the last 25 years has to be the 2000 Vice Presidential debate . . . Cheney and Lieberman . . . two statesmen of the highest order.

As much as I value the privilege of casting a vote, the entire campaign process is simply an excruciatingly cruel and unusual punishment for the masses. My only solace is knowing that the absurdity of a Canadian election lasts a couple of months at the most. You, my beleaguered cousins to the south, must suffer the indignities of an 18-month Bataan death march to your polling station. By the time you make it through the initial wrangling of potential candidates, the primaries, the debates, the attack ads, the robocalls, the Super PACs, the conventions, and the final showdown between the 2 presidential hopefuls, you’re so exhausted that you can’t even poke a hole all the way through your ballot and it ends up being invalidated.

Nobody said democracy was going to be easy.

Still, this seemingly endless audition process to select a Republican candidate is nothing if not simultaneously engaging and appalling. The majority of Canadian elections tend to be kind of boring and lack any real fervor or angst. Sure we might see a little mud being slung, maybe some poorly chosen phraseology, but you folks have a level of aggressive enthusiasm for your political process that could only be surpassed by lions joyfully ripping apart a gazelle in a National Geographic documentary.

The gazelle probably had it coming. I’m told he wasn’t wearing a flag pin on his lapel.

Gotta say though, the idea of a Newt Gingrich vs Ron Paul debate does intrigue me. Neither of them has that filter most politicians develop to keep everything from spilling out of their heads and into the public domain. These two guys just can’t contain all their crazy. Even when one of them composes a salient point that sounds plausible and well thought out, he always makes the mistake of adding that extra bit of wacky at the end. Here’s a tip - if you want to speak passionately about space exploration during an economic downturn, it’s probably best not to bring up the part where you want to spend $100 bizillion re-purposing the moon into a suburb of Mother earth.

And you thought your commute was bad.

(Note: Colonization of the moon would open up fantastic possibilities for new reality shows: ‘The Real Housewives of the Dark Side’; ‘Extreme Makeover: Lunar Edition’; ‘So You think You Can Dance in Zero Gravity’; ‘Kim and Khloe: In Space, No One Can Hear You Scream’)

Regardless of their eccentricities, you have to give Gingrich and Paul credit for having made the libretto a little less rote. Mitt Romney brings to the stage all the sparkling personality of a Sears menswear catalog model and Rick Santorum always looks like he’s thinking, “Damn, I knew I should’ve peed before I came out here”.

By all appearances, none of these fellas are leaving before rehearsals for the second act, so the debate process could use a few madcap hi-jinxs and some snappy repartee to keep things moving at a brisk pace up to the convention. What it certainly won’t need at that point is Sarah Palin waiting in the wings like Eve Harrington hoping to step into the role of Vice-President. That’s a encore performance no one should have to endure.

Even with 6 more grueling months of this electoral extravaganza to go before the big opening night, the critics have already been quite brutal. Scathing reviews from both sides of the aisle. After a revolving door of leading men, backers throwing more money into the production and enough script changes to make Tennessee Williams cry, there’s still no way to tell if it’ll be a hit in Tampa by August. But the show must go on! Unless, of course, it closes out of town.

Anyone interested in watching the best news analysis I've come across in a very long time should check out this link:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june12/shieldsbrooks_02-24.html

Shields, Brooks, and Woodruff of The Newshour commented on the Republican debates, among other things, and I think they are spot on--they hit the ball out of the park.

@ Roger Ebert

I am a huge fan of yours. Whenever I try to decide if a movie is worth seeing in theaters, I look to see what you thought of it. I agree with you 99 percent of the time, and have become very reliant on your reviews.

I was thrilled when you put the Tweet about Ron Paul, and I know that you feel he is the most articulate, only one that makes sense, etc. I also know you said that was "putting politics aside". I am very supportive of many of his positions(though not all). Mainly the belief that we should fight only defensive wars(not offensive), and his view of smaller, limited Government, and protection of the Constitution and our Civil Liberties.

You've heard his views, and have made it known that you "Like" him so to speak....do you see yourself making an official endorsement?

Thanks for your time in reading, and hopefully responding, and thanks again for your phenomenal critiques.

-Kristopher Schermerhorn

@Steve, the reason the environment is polluted NOW is because we don't respect the free market... and we don't enforce the rule of private property. It certainly has nothing to do with the lack of regulations. We're the most regulated country on the planet. The "regulations" we have now are made to ALLOW the corporations to pollute the environment. As long as they pollute "within acceptable levels" you have no recourse. Some of these companies even get SUBSIDIZED to pollute our environment.

With true respect for private property, instead of corporations bribing to get the regulations passed in their favor, pollution wouldn't be allowed and would be prosecuted with a heavy fine or imprisonment just as any other damage to someone's property does.

The more aspects of the private economy the government gets involved in, the easier it is for that sector to become corrupted. The government shouldn't be in the role of passing laws to inhibit us, but rather their should be "no prior restraint" and the government should have the role of punishing those who abuse such freedom.

The best "debate" i have seen this season was held about December 12, 2011 at St. Anselm College between Gingrich and Huntsman titled "Foreign Policy & National Security Debate." It was a refreshingly intelligent, in-depth and informative discussion without the quips, sound-bites, jabs and theatrics that have comprised all the other circuses. The St. Anselm discussion was taped by C-Span and can be found in their online archives.

Wonderful article Roger.

Oh how I'd love to see a debate between Rude Gingrich and Ron Paul.

Hell I'd love to see Ron Paul debate any of these guys 1 on 1.

I bet Newt is the next candidate to drop out followed by Santorum possibly.

This really is a two man race between Paul and Romney.

That 1 on 1 debate is coming down the line for sure.

Looking back on the race, these candidates will see themselves as at least somewhat idiotic for allowing CNN and other mainstream media outlets to characterize this race as a circus of errors. How many hours have I wasted watching CNN (the supposedly unbiased of the three major 24-hour news networks) as they watch and listen carefully for every little misstep and misstatement and, when these things inevitably occur, seize on them and report them to the people with an implied "See, these guys are not on Obama's level. Not even Romney, with his wealth and all these outrageous things spewing out of his mouth, not even he is worthy of taking Obama's place in the White House."

If CNN didn't focus on verbal gaffes and the horse race and instead examined the candidates' accomplishments, personal histories, philosophies, and concrete plans for the nation, we might see a very different political scene. That is the way I, a voter, whose task it is to serve on a very large committee hiring a person for a very important job, have looked at the Republican contest and at the last 38 months of Mr. Obama's administration.

I'm certain that what is front and center in my vision is something quite different from what CNN's intended audience is to see: I see a president who has presented himself in a most dignified manner, though often aloof and very much outside of the process of actually governing the land; a president who has made sometimes shrewd and sometimes befuddling decisions and statements; a president who has faced terrifying odds and emerged a resilient candidate seeking another term while, despite facing those odds, and in light of the state our republic and society are presently in, not altogether deserving an extension of his contract. What I suspect most people in the moveable middle realm of the voting populace see is, simply, a better option than those other guys.

I might suggest another look at Romney. While I have made statements praising Sarah Palin in Roger's blogs, I have been disappointed with her cheerleading this disaster of a nominating contest on the right. The only main-stage political figure who is looking better and better all the time is Chris Christie, who judged himself to be underqualified and unready to be president. Don't we wish that four years ago others had made this cautious recommendation for themselves? Perhaps there will be a brokered convention and Gov. Christie will be pushed into the pool. If nothing else, this might force a needed change in the political conversation.

Still I fear Christie may be right about himself. He may quickly prove to be a better option than what we currently have (in the Republican race and in the White House), but if he truly does not want to do it he will have a hard time succeeding.

Romney, on the other hand, really wants to be president. In the same way that he apparently wanted to do everything else that he has so completely and excellently done in his life: Being a boy, being a man, being a student (obtaining his law degree and MBA at the same time, from Harvard), being a missionary and a church elder, being a husband, being a father, being a businessman, being in charge of the Winter Olympics, being a governor, being a conservative. He is one of these people that I have always admired: They set their sights on something and they seize it. It is not always pretty; all does not always go according to their plans. But they eventually touch that which most of us faint looking at.

I think that many people, even in his own party, are so skeptical of Romney because he appears not to be something we tend to select for president: A screw-up. He is an achiever. He is, it seems, his very best at coming in and turning things around.

Is that possibly something that we need?

The reason people like Ron Paul is because of his stance on war and drugs (or perhaps the whole social libertarian aspect) and how he's the only conservative that doesn't seem to be in the Fox News bubble when it comes to those things, with the whole "you've committed treason by being against this war that was never declared as such". I think people want to be together on this issue and see him as the hope that we can be together on this issue, because it's not "libertarian" to be against those two. Maybe people are starting to see how tribal all this war-mongering is that seems to be a rite of passage in becoming President.

This Fox News stuff has become mainstream and it's permeated into the culture as well because it's big business to the point where the cynical part of me thinks that a lot of elements we see in it is coming from a place to pander to that base; on the big-budget side, I can't help but think that remaking "Footloose" with country line-dancing or "Country Strong" (or maybe these war movies, such as the recent Navy Seals one or whatever), or on the low-end of the spectrum, with celebrities whose fame has been waning, is a sort pandering to this base for money on some level, which seems okay, but when you go down even lower than that there's a kind of promotion of the bigoted notions of taking ideas like misogyny, racism, etc. to appeal to the lowest common denominator to the point where they have a SPECIFIC lowest common denominator in mind.

For me, at least, I'd like to go back to where when I see the lowest common denominator being pandered to I think "lowest common denominator" and not "Fox News version of lowest common denominator."

I mean it seems to be everywhere; they've even started a new "movement" with the "tea party" which they claim is a "homage" to the Boston Tea Party about being against tyranny and such...but then they go and call Obama a communist and a tyrant (yeah, some "homage" you got going there).

So, it seems to me that if you want to have the end of this war-mongering and have more social libertarianism, we have to stop worshiping these promises of easy answers of brainwashing based on money.

People don't realize that what is REALLY being talked about is the shutting off of brain. And all that needs to be done is make it to where you throw that idea up in the air as logical...and once one engages in that idea as logical then the logical part of the brain gets to work on shutting off brain. For instance, with our candidates singing...what that is REALLY saying is "turning on your brains in the form my spreading ideas? No, let's worship easy-answers and just sing so that you shut off your brains. Yes, sing-along, it's easy...there's no need to think....just worship the easy answers...take the bait...engage in THIS as logic, not logic as logic...come on."

And that's basically what is being said all the time and it seems to me that as a consequence of that, that idea of shutting off brain to worship easy answers, comes with it a tendency to want to scapegoat others...because thinking about things about yourself that you don't want to think about...is not your worshiping of easy answers from which people can profit based on money. We recently had Rick Santorum talking about "the devil" but the devil is just our unconscious, but he like everybody else in this brainwashed zone, is going to use it to be against other people. I mean, all of the candidates (even Obama) are saying "I just choose not to fight....unlike those other guys"...which itself IS a form of fighting, or more specifically scapegoating, all part of this worshiping of easy-answers being put on the table from which it can be profited.

It seems that that's who are picking as President, Scapegoater-in-Chief, or he who makes worship easy answers even with scapegoating; there's that fine line that needs to be walked where you have to scapegoat just enough to where your brain doesn't notice.

This is why Fox News candidates and such have such problems, by going down to that lowest common denominator of bigotry, they are making people's scapegoating noticeable to themselves and that isn't good protocol for a mind whose been brainwashed to worship easy answers. That's going off into the edge to those are born vicious and from those who are just vicious so they can worship easy answers; one of those is easier to change because they aren't violent by nature. Not yet has the brainwashing come to that, but maybe Fox News just hasn't had boxing matches yet on Hannity...just football tosses for now...but maybe the viciousness of the brainwashing will sink down into the violence of the truly vicious because violence won't be seen as being too hard to not worship easily; maybe we'll start with football tosses and going at each other with boxing matches on CNN and FOX...maybe at least then some real emotions might come out, which I suppose was what this blog was about; maybe we're going to have to go backward to the beginning of evolution from which through anger a real emotion might accidentally come out. Or more probably, someone will try to cash in on it before we notice we had a real emotion. This reminds me of Jerry Springer when they started turning the camera away from the fights on stage. No, no, you might see a real emotion on stage by accident.

Roger, you don't need to repeat over and over again about your typo meaning that Newt Gingrich, not Rick Perry, suffered from a "bimbo eruption" in your readers' comments! Just recorrect that typo in your blog and replace Rick's name with Newt's instead! You also misspelled "flounder" in the seventh paragraph!

Ebert: Some people search for their own comment, and it was such a stupid error I didn't want anyone to miss it.

The republican mode of thinking reminds me of when the Mob retained the services of the Joker in The Dark Knight. Republicans are so anti-Obama, the only thing they care about at this point is finding the absolute most extreme candidate they can. I literally fear for the U.S. if *any* of the repub possibles get in the White House. Obama's been pushing them into a corner, and in their desperation, they're turning to a candidate they don't fully understand (lol). What was it Romney said? "Let's not forget what this election is really about: defeating Obama." It's *not* about the American people, it's *not* about improving our status on the public stage, it's *not* about doing anything to help the environment, it's *not* about trying to fix the economy, it's *not* about helping our great country progress.

On the contrary, the only things all of the republican candidates care about is regression: reversing all of the progress the Obama administration has made in the last 3 and 1/2 years, giving corporations and rich people as many tax breaks as they can, raising taxes on the poor and middle class as high as they can, abolishing the EPA so those same corporations are free to wreck the environment with no accountability whatsoever, reversing the new restrictions Wall Street has to abide by so they're free to screw over the American public with no accountability whatsoever, abolish the DoE because a stupid population is an easily controlled one, outlawing abortion and reinstating DADT in their ongoing effort to try and legislate their antiquated biblical morality and force the entire country into their version of christianity, and because they supposedly believe in a smaller government except when it comes to what we can and can't do in our own bedrooms.

With the exception of Ron Paul, the only thing any of the current candidates are good at is lying through their teeth, and coming up with horrible policies. I say except for Ron Paul because he, at least, is clear about where he stands, even if he is just as batsh*t crazy as the rest of them, and his policies are just as bad.

Just as bad...as if there's any discernible difference between *any* of the candidates except for how extreme they're going. One says he'll reinstate DADT, another responds by saying he'll reinstate laws that allow employers to fire gay folks at will for no reason, another responds saying he'll make a law deporting all gay folks.

I really, really hope the American public can see that none of the republican candidates care about them in the least, and in fact, every single one of them, if elected, will make it his mission to actively screw over as many of the common folks in the U.S. as they can. It truly boggles my mind how they can say some of the things they do while keeping straight faces.

The more I watch American politics, the more I'm convinced that you should just let Britain take the reins again. The oh-so-holy "Founding Fathers" were wrong. Gridlock is no way to run a government; it just encourages back-room influence-peddling in order to overcome all the hurdles thrown up by the design of the system.

It's a classic case of the cure being worse than the disease, but no American will question it because their constitution is like Scripture to them, and their interpretations of it are like theology.

I'm liking Newt this week. Which is why I like the long primary season. I haven't liked him every week. The candidate that wins will have to excel for a long time, in public. It will ultimately make our candidate sharper. Palin is right: a long contested primary is best.

Newt is right to take on Obama's apology to Afghanistan this week. Enough with the apologies already.

And if the left is going to keep pressing the contraceptive issue that Team Obama created, and go back to 2008 to drag out the Santorum "Satan" clip, then Newt is right to remind America about Barack Obama's support of infanticide in Illinois with his sustained opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA). Go Newt! I was paying attention while Obama was an Illinois Senator and I knew about his egregious action on BAIPA real time. He couldn't be bothered to vote about much - voting "Present" much of the time - but he sure was there to shore up the Planned Parenthood lobby and oppose BAIPA. Really people, how can you vote for a man who put so much energy into defeating BAIPA? It was outrageous then, and still outrages me.

I like Rick. I like Newt. I like Mitt. I can live with Ron Paul. Despite the handwringing, we have a good field with plenty of experience. Much more experience than Obama had in 2008. A Governor, two long serving House members, a Speaker of the House, a Senator, and a successful businessman.

I like the field, as is. I am optimistic. Obama is beatable.

And again, you guys are underestimating the excitement factor that VP choice Marco Rubio is going to bring to the GOP ticket.

A debate between Gingrich and Paul would be fascinating. At this point, a true debate of any kind between the candidates would be indescribably more entertaining than the endless platforming which we now endure. Does anyone else sense that Americans are starving for a genuine exchange of ideas? (At least Judge Judy gives us a convincing portrayal of verbal combat.)

If only we could come close to having debates like Lincoln and Douglas had.

Read them all when I was working on my BA in history at the U of I. We will never get there again in the climate we are in. Most candidates or their handlers would never allow it.

I watched Kennedy and Nixon debate even though the voting age in the State of Illinois at the time was 21. For an 18 year old, at the time it was gripping.

My wife and I will be back in the States in September for several months just in time for the presidential candidate debates and the election. Have been getting mostly the European perspective these days.

Mike

Amaliada, Greece

Ron Paul says what he thinks and thinks what he says and believes in freedom and is free of beliefs and doesn't change his positions and positions himself despite change and blah blah blah ...

The problem is that he's clueless--imagining that the U.S. is a uniculture that simply needs an open arena in which to solve our problems hand-to-hand and let the most meritorious one win--just one more Malthusian social Darwinist who really believes that "survival of the fittest" is about the strongest, not those best able to fit within/adapt to the complex conditions of life in the U.S., a society so multi-everything (the lasting image for me is that at one end we're polar bears and at other, alligators) that his simple narrative explains little.

Its much easier for a Congressman from Texas to maintain a quixotic "no" stance on everything than it would be to actually govern from the bully pulpit.
I don't apply the label "racist" freely, but Paul has said and done things that have made my eyebrows raise.

Ron Paul's positions are revealing examples of how the right wing has co-opted what had been a pretty independent Libertarian Party, which in the past had embraced Presidential hopefuls like Frank Zappa. Real Libertarian positions are often as liberal as they are conservative, e.g., the intelligent assertion that US government, proscribed from religion, should not be in the marriage business (civil unions for any couple that wants one would be it; marriage would be the purlieu of religions). Wingnuts found a few points on which they and Libertarians agreed, then jumped in and hijacked the party. Paul is not so much a Libertarian as an exploiter thereof.

"Newt Gingrich, a war wimp in Viet Nam who supported W's trumped-up invasion of Iraq, had the gall to tell an audience at Oral Roberts U. that defeating Obama - the most dangerous president in modern history - was 'a duty of security' because 'he is incapable of defending the United States' and because 'he wants to unilaterally weaken the United States.' WHO KILLED OSAMA AGAIN?" (caps mine)

I love Maureen Dowd.

Roger,
I am aware you have a house in our neighborhood. How the hell do we get off the "don't poll me anymore" list?!

The polls can't possibly be close anymore, because I've been consistent every time I've answered: Yes, I'm voting in the Republican Primary. Yes, I'm voting for Santorum. Yes, I'm aware he espouses anachronistic views that would make my grandmother cringe. Yes, I know Romney has a better chance of beating Obama.*

I made the mistake of telling some pollster a few years ago I was an independent who voted in the primaries. These people will not leave me alone!!

*The last one's why I'm voting for Santorum in our primary, btw.

The Oscars? And we're still talkin' politics.
Election season is a long one. Too bad we couldn't take a break.

I'm curious how many of the people here opining about Ron Paul have read either his book "End the Fed" (which I've read and have in my desk at work) or his book "Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues that Affect Our Freedom" (which I have in my hand and am partially through)?

I'm guessing not many.

They are powerful reads.

I also recommend Rand Paul's book The Tea Party Goes to Washington.

Finally, the unassuming David Brooks sees the GOP for the nihilistic proto-fascists they've become:

"Leaders of a party are supposed to educate the party, to police against its worst indulgences, to guard against insular information loops. They’re supposed to define a creed and establish boundaries. Republican leaders haven’t done that. Now the old pious cliché applies:

First they went after the Rockefeller Republicans, but I was not a Rockefeller Republican. Then they went after the compassionate conservatives, but I was not a compassionate conservative. Then they went after the mainstream conservatives, and there was no one left to speak for me."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/opinion/brooks-the-possum-republicans.html?_r=1

I got thinking about what a monumental disappointment heaven is going to be for Fundamentalists/Conservatives. Islamists are going to be pissed off that there aren't any infidels to kill. Both the Islamofascists and their Christian counterparts are going to be extremely disgruntled that they can no longer pretend they are speaking for God, seeing as He will be the one running things. Ann Coulter and Vlad the Impaler—no doubt hanging out together—will be bitching about how few people there are in hell. Fallwell is going to be mega-pissed that there aren't any homosexuals to denounce—poor thing's going to have to live in a place where there aren't any "sexuals" at all. Nor will there be any furiners to complain about.

Not that I think any of this will prevent them from complaining. I imagine people rioting in the streets over the Communist system that their "Beloved Leader" has in His celestial dictatorship. No cast system, no one to look down upon, and there won't be a concentration of wealth, where the 99% of them can grovel on behalf of the elite 1%.

Hopefully, I'll be in hell, hanging out with Christopher Hitchens, Salmon Rushdie, and Richard Dawkins. I'm looking forward to it. I really don't think heaven is going to be a very happy place, even for the Lord Himself.

An Addendum and a Retraction

First, the retraction: "At least Stanek had the decency to include Mr Obama's reason for opposing the bill." I take back the word "decency" because she quotes Obama. But then she calls him a liar.

Gary in Phoenix
LIAR. That was the four letter word, right? : )

Second, the add-on: I stated "Not one word is out of the context of Ms Stanek's article. . ."

I can't say that with total conviction, because it would require me to understand Stanek's convoluted logic. I can't say that I follow it.

If Roger OR ANYONE can figure it out, I'd like to know the answer to this riddle.

First, there was no such amendment.

Second, both definitions of “born alive” were always identical.
The concluding paragraph changed in the federal version.

The definitions might have been "identical," but the "concluding paragraph" wasn't. She's splitting hairs.

She completely undermines her "argument" by stating, "At any rate, so what if stopping hospitals and abortion clinics from aborting babies alive and leaving them to die did theoretically “encroach on Roe v. Wade”?"

~~~~~

So there you have it: A blatant admission of her guilt and culpability in allowing this practice to continue, when it could have been done away with.

~~~~~
Here's a salient portion of Stanek's statement:

And the No. 1 reason Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was:

1. Introducing Born Alive was a ploy to overturn Roe v. Wade.
During a debate against Keyes in October 2004, Obama stated:
Now, the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of getting around Roe vs. Wade. … At the federal level, there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe vs. Wade. I would have voted for that bill.

This was a lie on two points. [according to her convoluted logic]

First, there was no such amendment. [asks us to take her word for it, as well as dismissing the evidence she provides below that there WAS a difference, legal terminology aside]

Second, both definitions of “born alive” were always identical. The concluding paragraph changed in the federal version. But Obama, as chairman of the committee that vetted Illinois’ version in 2003, refused to allow an amendment rendering both concluding paragraphs identical. He also refused to call the bill and killed it. [another instance where we are expected to believe this deceiver]

The federal paragraph (c) actually weakened the pro-abortion position by opening the possibility of giving legal status to preborn children, the opposite of Obama’s contention:
Illinois’ paragraph (c): A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.

Federal paragraph (c): Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
At any rate, so what if stopping hospitals and abortion clinics from aborting babies alive and leaving them to die did theoretically “encroach on Roe v. Wade”?

Obama was admitting he supported infanticide if that were true.

[no, what it shows is the depths that people like Stanek will sink to to use an important issue for political reasons, without any moral shame. all so that she and her ilk can use the term "infanticide"]

Do they know any shame, at all?

~~~

And that's about it for me. I'm not an investigative reporter, nor am I getting paid to do this. In fact, quite the opposite. But it is important enough to call these people on their deliberate distortions and their attempts at manipulating public discourse, with inflammatory rhetoric.

I remain convinced that these losers (The topic of this blog entry) are willing and indeed hoping that they will get their way through the bullet, if not the ballet. And that is a direct threat to freedom. Many of these losers have been hoping the president will be assassinated. That's not an overstatement: it's on video tape from the last campaign. It's clear to me that they still have that intent. Why else use terms like infanticide and baby killers? Especially when the very people who claim to be so outraged are the ones responsible for the continuation of the practice?

" ... the best GOP candidate with the right mix of character/skills/experience didn't run due to hateful and scurrilous press coverage ..."

Let me take a wild guess that Randy Masters is referring here to Sarah Palin.

If the reason Randy's giving here is indeed the reason Sarah's not running -

- and if, as he seems to be implying, it's the only reason she's not running -

- and if, as his grudging tone indicates, his support for those who remain in the Republican field is as best lukewarm -

- and if, as he never fails to emphasize, his sole interest in this election is the defeat of Barack Obama by any means necessary -

- Where am I going with this?

If Randy really believes that Sarah Palin is just playing rope-a-dope with the other candidates, and that once they've worn each other out that she'll come riding to the rescue, and not only the GOP but all of America will realize that She's The ONE!!!

.... boy howdy, what was I saying before about wishful thinking?

Rog, I've chided you for this before, first when I read your review of The Great Gatsby: It's "So we beat on,...," not "And so we beat on,...!"

Roger, a question about HBO's movie "Game Change"

Are you going to take that movie, and the movie's assertions at face value?

I ask, because I don't believe the scenes in the trailer for a minute. It's clear that they are the perspective of an untrustworthy source - Steve Schmidt.

I watched the McCain / Palin and it's inside baseball, as you might imagine, closely. I was distressed real time at how the campaign was mismanaged, especially the handling of Palin. She was assigned handlers from the McCain staff - establishment professionals who did not get her and misused her talents. It was painful while it was happening. It was painful after the election when Schmidt and Wallace were sniping at Palin to blame someone for their loss with McCain.

Schmidt is clearly the source for Game Change. Are you going to a professional establishment Republican campaign manager's version, because of your dislike of Palin? I don't buy it.

Palin got McCain votes. That's the bottom line for me.

Roger, excuse me for asking, but is there any particular reason you don't get involved in taking sides on your own blog? (I mean you could make a comment related to the discussion from time to time, as in this case.) If not now, when? You live in Chicago, Illinois, right?

I don't think it's altogether unfair to point out that you commissioned a graph where you placed yourself right smack in the middle of it. For goodness' sake, go out on a limb and take sides--stake out a position. I've been lead to believe that you are smarter than me. Help me out here. I honestly cannot decipher Stanek's statement.

It seems to me that President Obama is a good and decent man. I don't believe he is in favor of killing infants. If that's the case, he would not be a good and decent man. Honestly, how can you not address something like this? You're giving Randy a forum to spread what I consider to be horrific lies. Maybe I'm wrong, but they sure seem like lies to me.

You might be a nice guy in your core, Randy—but if I thought like you, I would honestly have to end it all. Through your eyes, everything seems to be shit. At least the world that I live in would be. I like the President, and I like Hillary. I think it's nice to have people you can feel good about. Certainly they are human beings, and therefore not perfect. But I see people doing the best they can, while you see nothing but pure evil. My God, how can you stand it? I'm serious.

EricJ mentioned on this blog that losing the presidential election was the best thing that ever happened to Mrs Clinton. I agree. It's nice to see people grow intellectually and spiritually, which is what she's been doing. I saw that same trait in Christopher Hitchens. As he faced death, he grew as a man in depth and in stature.
2 Corinthians ". . . though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day."

By the way, at his father's funeral, Hitchens read this passage from the bible. It's one of my favorite passages, also. I suppose it's entirely lost on Believers. But I get it. Perhaps you have to have the twisted mind of a Leftie to really appreciate it.

Saint Paul: "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."

Ebert: I have been debating Randy for years. He never budges.

Well, this is really one hell of a mess.

I searched Google. 85 sites were listed before I saw one that seemed to have some actual facts. It was this one—

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/01/from-the-archiv.html

BY ERIC ZORN
The bottom of the page reads—

(2007 note -- the entire dialogue has not survived several Web redesigns at chicagotribune.com, but if anyone archived or cached the exchange I'd be glad to reprint it here)

Just where are the "liberal media" and their propaganda machine? 84 sites, with 85-90% of them accusing Obama of "infanticide." The other 10-15% seem to have statistics, but no reporting.

~~~~~

The 89th site's title "Killing Babies Should Be OK — GraniteGrok"
20 hours ago ... We didn't start out at live-birth abortion. ... the same politically motivated progressives in America who favor live birth abortion–and could just as ...
http://granitegrok.com/blog/2012/03/killing-babies-should-be-ok

~~~~

I thought I might have hit upon something on the 94th site, "Politico," but it refers to the same botched report that Zorn did, as mentioned above.

~~~~

I'm a full 108 sites into the search, and I've just now come across the specter of the "Liberal media."

Can anyone help me with information regarding "live birth abortion ...

(partial birth abortion is another bs emotionally loaded term from the reichwingnuts) and is only used in rare ... If you have a live birth, you cannot have an abortion of the same event. .... Click here to send us a message.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7029654

NOPE Got Nowhere

I did come across this (which seems to echo the sentiment of most people in the "Liberal Media"

Dflprincess

8. I think, in this case, they might be referring to the rare occurance where a fetus might survive whatever procedure was used to terminate the pregnancy.

When Obama was in the Illinois legislature he voted "present" on a bill that would have required doctors to do everything possible to save a fetus that survived an attempt to abort it. Obama voted this way at the behest of Planned Parenthood because amendments were made to the bill that made it absolutely horrible (but I'll be damned if I can remember what and I'm too lazy to look it up). Anyway, it's this vote that seems to have the wingnuts screaming "infantcide".

It's bogus.

~~~~~

106 sites into my search. Still nothing.

DEACON FOR LIFE: Don't Forget: Obama and Live Birth Abortion
Feb 12, 2012 ... Don't Forget: Obama and Live Birth Abortion ... If America goes the way of Sodom and Gomorrah, we'll know that quite a few of us had it coming ...
http://deaconforlife.blogspot.com/2012/02/don-forget-obama-and-live-birth.html

~~~~~

Does anyone at the Chicago Sun Times now what the heck is going on?

Another error in your post, Roger. You said:
"But imagine Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich sharing the stage. Paul has already thrown down the gauntlet by accusing Mitt of not being a 'true conservative.'"

I think you meant to say that Paul accused Newt of not being a true conservative. Otherwise it makes no sense.

Ebert: Corrected.

A humble reply to Randy Masters's latest anthology of Right-wing platitudes:

First off, congratulations on the greatest display of broken-field running since the NFL heyday of Elroy "Crazylegs" Hirsch.

You sure can run - but you can't hide ... your intense desire for Sarah Palin to be the GOP nominee.

Anybody else gets the nod, and you're stuck with voting against Obama, rather than voting for someone (which you no doubt would prefer).

It does remind me a bit of the Democratic Party situation in 1972.
That was when the farLeft of the party was determined to drive out the old-timers whom they felt were holding the Party back.
Just get rid of the DINOs and let the Newbies run things, and you'll see a newly energized Democratic Party, Progressive and invincible, and yada yada yada ...
Came the Convention, and they did just that. Out went Big Labor, out went the Big City Machines, out went the Fiscal Moderates ...
... not only that, but the Nixon Administration had a fancy-dress, full-blown scandal breaking all around them.
"How Can We Possibly Lose?"
... except they did, and by a bigger margin than anyone ever had, before or since.

George McGovern was anything but a radical - he was a bona-fide war hero, a Marine pilot who served beside Ted Williams and John Glenn.
The whole running-mate business was a foul-up, but Sargent Shriver was hardly radical himself. He was rich, to be sure, but people weren't so uptight about that then.
... well, at least some weren't. Those of you who are At Least My Age, who find the "Rich Romney" jokes familiar, possibly remember when they were used on Shriver in '72.
But then, as now, perception is everything.
McGovern had all those long-haired freaks supporting him, so he had to be one himself, didn't he?
Ultimately, the New Guard had to go back to the Old Guard, hat in hand, and ask for their help in at least making a showing against a sitting President who wasn't personally likable, and had an ongoing scandal to boot.
The AFofL&CIO gave their (clearly reluctant) endorsement, and Mayor Daley I threw the traditional Election-eve torchlight parade in the Loop (with several conspicuous absences in the front lines), but by then the game was clearly out of reach, and many longtime Democrats cast their first-ever votes for a Republican Prersidential candidate - one they'd openly mocked not many years before.

The preceding history lesson is offered to one and all with the friendly reminder that
History Is Not What You Thought.
It Is What You Can Remember.
All Other History Defeats Itself.
- W.C. Sellar and R. J. Yeatman, from their book 1066 And All That.

Oh, and one other thing, Randy -

" I watched the McCain-Palin and it is inside baseball, as you might imagine, closely."

That's what you wrote, Randy.
And as you can see, it doesn't make sense.
Unless -
You meant to write its, which as a possessive does not take an apostrophe.
I learned this in grade school.
I sincerely hope that It's (it is) not too late for you.

Have a nice weekend.

Yes sir, the Fleaster is back. Got an early release. Am starting back slow, but soon will be cranking out 5 to 10 political comments daily. Randy is still the best here. He should have correspondent status.

Newt is all charisma, a walking sex magnet for the chicks, but weak on foreign policy. Paul is a political genius, but a little too old. Santorum is our best bet for President. I so admired him back when he brought his dead baby home from the morgue to hang out with the family . Shame the little guy couldn't have stayed longer than a day. Maybe they could have all caught a movie, or gone to the circus. But that damn rigor mortis sure does hamper a dead kid's play time. Rick could be our next great conservative President, maybe even a modern day Warren G. Harding. At least he's a Christian, born in the good ole USA. Hint. Hint.

So great to be back. Those two years in stir were tough, but I can party hearty now. Hoorah. Hi to all my old pals. Much, much more later.

I had never heard that quote before, so I looked it up on YouTube.
"Change will not come if we wait for some other person. Or if we wait for some other time. We are the ones we have been waiting for."

Oh, yeah. Right straight out of Mien Kampf.

A comment below the video was typical of the propaganda the Theocrats have been using. While they've completely ignored their own unthinking and unreasoned support for the most dangerous president in US history—a man so deluded that he told Pat Robertson on the eve of his unnecessary war that we wouldn't have any casualties. Yet these same people cast that same stone at their enemies.

Here's the quote from the propagandist on YouTube:
When you fall for someone to the extent that Obama’s followers have fallen for him, you surrender your reason and individuality to him willingly. When millions of people surrender their hearts and their minds to one person the result can be catastrophic. This is what happened in Germany with Hitler, in China with Mao, in the Soviet Union with Stalin, in Cuba with Castro, in Iran with Khomeini, and so on and so forth.

~~~~~

Randy, we aren't as slow on the uptake as you people seem to believe we are.

~~~~~

Delusion and an unwillingness to accept any beliefs that don't conform completely to your own are the hallmark of the Theocrats' approach. You yourself cherry pick points, fabricate scenarios, and spread misinformation. Stop doing it.

You never did address the point I made about your group's willingness to have the abhorrent practice of Partial Birth Abortion continue so that it can be used as a political propaganda tool.

We human beings are also animals, and until the Theocrats are willing to allow women to cast of the shackles of their animal reproductive cycle, the modern world will never make the kind of progress that it could. The tribal belief that they should "be fruitful and multiply" was given during a time when the world had less than a million people on it. The Ones you worship and adore, are truly dangerous and have no place in the modern world. There isn't even an exemption against contraception for times of famine or war. It's mindless and heartless, and it enslaves women to the whims of men, unduly. Millions died from HIV/AIDS, most of the victims innocent women and children. This was due in large part because the adherents of an ancient belief were as uncompromising as their Theocratic counterparts in the Republican Party are in delaying our economic recovery. I don't need to repeat all the points I've made and you've ignored because they're right here on this page.

One last point: I DO have the right to like the President of the United States. Or at least I still do, so I'm going to enjoy it while it lasts.

Actually, Newt Gingrich has already had at least two one-on-one Lincoln-Douglas style debates in this campaign, one with Herman Cain and one with Jon Huntsman. The videos of both should be online. In both cases, the general consensus was that Newt came on top, but that might tell you more about his opponents than about him.

I enjoy your photography.

Thank you, Donald.

As i've said about the brainwashed, "everything is non-sequiturs"; all is a distraction so that one consumes mindlessly out of habit.

And maybe in this consumerism there is a totalitarian aspect, as they are all competing against each other, even though all aligned in your being for your mindlessness.

As John Berger said about most cruelty, is that it begins with the distinction between us and them...that which differentiates us rather than what we have in common.

Yet, you read Stanek's 1st person accounts and "have her number". People of "her ilk" are to be discounted. Theocrats must be opposed. And I'm a liar.

It's depressing indeed.

~~~~~

Okay, Randy. If you think you're not saying these things for some dishonest reason, I'll take your personal word for it. (Not the word of the group you are aligned with, but your word.)

So, I take back calling you, personally, a liar.

On a pro-life note, I want to say that I will no longer discuss politics with you. I find it far too upsetting. I'd rather think about the good things in life—those things that are life-affirming. I don't know how you can stand dwelling on the other stuff. Life has some good things in it—literature, art, learning. And movies and photography!! *Sigh of relief*

I'll gladly discuss things related to those the Apostle Paul recommends; as for the other stuff, I don't know how you can stand it, but I can't. Life's just too damn short to let certain groups take all the joy from it. I've done my duty and said everything I believe to be true and just. I've said those things more than once, so enough is enough, for me.

I just got through watching Jon Huntsman on the Charlie Rose show. 1/2 hour long conversation. I never heard of the guy, but I took an immediate liking to him. An honest, straightforward, articulate, and sensible guy. He explains why he didn't last long in the primary.

Laws and sausages are very pretty compared to primaries.

Breitbart, We Hardly Knew Ye.

Thank you for describing the Super Bowl dinner served to you by “sociopath” Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn:
“It’s intoxicating to be in (those) type of environment, …”

(Intoxicating)
1. (of alcoholic drink or a drug) Cause (someone) to lose control of their faculties or behavior.
2. Poison.
…Ya think???
Hyde Park hemlock.

You wrote:

"No doubt she will be found in a hotel suite in late August in Tampa Bay, still conspicuously available."

Are you saying she'll be in a houseboat? Or in an underwater hotel??? Not sure if I follow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_Bay

Ebert: Hmmm.

Best thing about living in a post apocalyptic wasteland:

"No more Republican debates"

Thanks Dave.

I'm definitely a Ron Paul supporter and one of my favorite things about him is that he actually has a comprehensive political philosophy that can be applied to anything rather than being vaguely conservative. I feel like the other candidates have positions on a few key issues, but they make up the rest as they go. Try asking Santorum about government regulation of raw milk.

Taking a tip from your New Yorker caption #330, I am tempted to find Gingrich's vehicle and sneak a bumper sticker onto it that says, "They'll get my candidacy when they pry it from my cold dead fingers."

Wondering if you have heard about Ron Paul's new strategy to challenge at the convention: win more delegates. Delegates are elected to the national convention, and like the electoral college, are not tied to the popular vote.

I thought the story out of Maine was entertaining.
http://www.pressherald.com/news/Delegate-fight-Snowe-LePage-today-at-convention.html