Trunkline 2012: Monday Tidbits From The Republican Presidential Race – 9/12/11

The Truth About Rick Perry’s “Assault” of Ron Paul

Bookmark and Share    As Ron Pauliacs try to smear all those who might dare to disagree with their messiah, and continue to perpetuate rumors about Texas Governor Rick Perry assaulting Dr. Paul during the most recent Republican presidential debate, Congressman Paul himself finally divulges the ugly details of the traumatic experience conjured up by his supporters.

According to Rep. Paul, [as seen in the video below] he didn’t remember the exact moments that the pictures were taken in, but he confirms the two …..”didn’t have any cross words”.

Kudo’s to Ron Paul for setting the record straight.

While I am not a fan of Congressman Paul’s interpretation of several policies, I happen to like the man himself.  But as made evident by his kool aid swilling fanatics in the false allegations associated with three misleading photos, Ron Paul’s supporters do him more harm than good.  Few of them help Dr. Paul or his cause.  Just as Congressman Paul suffers from his own inability to take his arguments and communicate them in a way that expands his base, his most ardent supporters do little to help persuade people to support Ron Paul.  In fact they do just the opposite.  They turn people off with their obnoxious allegations, name calling, shouts,  and characterizations of others who disagree with them or their messiah.

In this case what is most funny and quite hypocritical of Pauliacs is that despite their attempts to claim a deeper appreciation for the United States Constitution than all others, they conveniently ignored one of the basic judicial precepts of American law………that one is innocent until proven guilty.  Thankfully Dr. Paul has not forgotten that.  Perhaps his supporters should remember that as well?

Bookmark and Share

Did Rick Perry Threaten Ron Paul During the Presidential Debate?

Bookmark and Share  While most of the on air sparring in last night’s Republican presidential debate took place between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, apparently there was a little brouhaha during one of the station breaks. 

As captured in the photo shown here, it was during one of these breaks that Governor Perry strode up to Ron Paul, grabbed Paul’s wrist and raised his other hand to point a finger in Paul’s face in an attempt to make a point to the Congressman.

According to RonPaul.com, here’s how it went down:

“During a commercial break at Wednesday’s Republican debate, Rick Perry and Ron Paul continued their spirited exchange on stage. Suddenly, Perry grabbed Ron Paul’s forearm while aggressively pointing his index finger towards the Congressman’s face. Alerted by Perry’s menacing gestures, Ron Paul’s bodyguard (front left) was standing by, ready to protect the Congressman.”

What exactly was said is unknown but that won’t prevent Pauliacs from trying to use the image against their feeble three time presidential candidate.  So far they are on a campaign to try and claim that Perry was threatening and intimidating Paul. 

If the photo is capturing a truly heated exchange you can rest assured that Governor  Perry most likely urged Ron Paul  to stop the blatant lies Paul’s campaign has been promulgating about Perry, including the one about Perry having been a national chairman for Al Gore.

In past debates, live streams allowed internet users to catch glimpses of the candidates and how they were interacting during commercial breaks but MSNBC’s live stream of last night’s debate did not offer such an opportunity as they simply cut the  feed during commercials.  Had they not, we might have at  least seen the Perry-Paul exchange.

So far, there is no official comment from either Paul or Perry regarding what the exchange consisted of, but that has not stopped Ron Paul fanatics from trying to lift their messiah ever higher by alleging Rick Perry assaulted their guy. 

Until it is known exactly what was said, drawing conclusions is futile, but in the end, it my be in the best interest of Ron Paul that Rick Perry’s words remain unknown because if I know Rick Perry, his words probably did not provide for the type of praise that Ron Paul  would want to duplicate in an ad promoting his candidacy. And it will probably make many Paulbots look truly stupid for their exaggerations and lies.

Bookmark and Share

Update:  The truth comes out and the Ron Paul crowd does indeed look stupid.  See the conclusion here.

A Two Horse Race

Bookmark and ShareWith the 3rd major Republican primary debate in the books there are 2 candidates whom have begun to distance themselves from the pack. Mitt Romney looked and sounded presidential as he took shots from and at the man who has unseated him as the early polling frontrunner, Texas governor Rick Perry. Perry was the self described ‘pinata’ as he wore the target as the newest candidate and he did not disappoint, handling well the shots coming at him as well as throwing some shots towards his main opponent.

There were other candidates on the stage but the debate quickly became the Romney/Perry show.

Rick Santorum didn’t do anything to hurt himself but certainly didn’t help himself either. He looked as if he were either miffed that the debate was becoming about the 2 top candidates or that he had just sucked on a lemon. Newt, always the smartest guy in the room, had some good answers but again went after the record of the media instead of the records of his opponents. Michelle Bachmann didn’t have the opportunity that she did in the first two debates to showcase her TEA party credentials and didn’t do anything to stand out. She has simply been overshadowed by the entrance of Perry. Herman Cain stuck to his buisness leader guns but is quickly fading away as he fails to have the power or ability to shine above the other candidates. Jon Huntsman was doing a good job until he got led into his global warming stance which is a quick turn off for most GOP primary voters. Ron Paul did something he normally shy’s away from and took some shots at fellow Texan Perry but again fell prey to his lack of communication skills and undoubtedly hurt the small amount of momentum he gained in Iowa.

In my opinion Romney looked more presidential, whatever that means, and remained calm and well spoken. Romney deserves the win in the 1st head to head showdown between himself and Rick Perry. Perry handled the expected barrage of shots across his bow from his opponents and came out strong in the beginning. As the debate went on Perry seemed to fade and Romney still stood out. Perry also made some bulletin board comments that his opponents, and especially liberals, will pin up and go after every time he speaks. For that he gets the 2nd place finish. The polls in the next week will be interesting. Will Perry hold onto his entering momentum….or will Romney have gained back the spot he has held since the beginning?

It would be hard pressed for any conservative who is voting Republican to deny that after this debate there are 2 candidates that distanced themselves from the rest. Mitt Romney and Rick Perry.

Bookmark and Share

Pawlenty Pummels Romney With “Obamneycare” in Republican Debate Preview

Bookmark and Share    As previously pointed out in detail by WH12, Mitt Romney is the biggest target that will be on the stage in tonight’s Republican presidential debate. The most recent evidence of that fact comes from former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty who is so eager to hit the bull’s-eye that he has already begun taking some early practice shots at Governor Romney.

As seen in the video below, during an interview on Fox News Sunday with host Chris Wallace, Pawlenty launched what is for Romney, a MOAB (Mother of All Bombs), a memorable hit on Romney’s Achilles heal……Romneycare. In describing Governor Romney’s Massachusetts healthcare plan as the model for President Obama’s national healthcare plan, commonly referred to as  Obamacare, Pawlenty called it Obamneycare. Pawlenty’s ability to coin a one word phrase that negatively links Mitt Romney to President Obama in such a memorable way, is a stroke of political genius that will prove to be a particularly potent strategic weapon as the Republican race for President moves forward.

Not only does the word help to move Romney’s thinking closer to President Obama’s thinking in the eyes of voters, it also provides Pawlenty with a perfect short and snappy soundbite that requires no explanation and continues to put Mitt Romney on the defensive and in the awkward position of having to spend valuable time trying to explain away. While Pawlenty need only to say the word “Obamneycare” to make his point, Romney has to exhaust time and spend money on using many words to defend himself against Obamneycare. While Tim Pawlenty’s campaign could now make money selling anti-Romney shirts emblazoned with the word “ObamneyCare” on them, Mitt Romney has to spend money on ads and mailings to explain Obamneycare away.

During the rest of the interview, host Chris Wallace afforded Pawlenty many opportunities to take more shots at Mitt Romney on an array of issues. But Governor Pawlenty resisted and instead maintained his focus on Obamneycare, adding,

“President Obama said that he designed Obamacare after Romneycare and basically made it Obamneycare… What I don’t understand is that they both continue to defend it.”

The one thing I do find questionable here though is Tim Pawlenty’s strategic decision to release his useful verbal weapon a day before tonight’s CNN/WMUR-TV/ Manchester Union Leader debate in New Hampshire. The newly created word was certainly laid on the desks of Mitt Romney’s talented team of experienced strategists, consultants, media mavens, and assorted opinion makers. This gives them more than 24 hours to come up with a creative response to any use of Pawlenty’s new verbal assault weapon during the debate. The question is, is Romney and his team talented and creative enough to come up with a rebuttal to “Obamneycare” that takes 15 seconds or less to articulate and sting Pawlenty with to boot?

No matter how Romney prepares to address Pawlenty’s new tool in an old line of attack against Romney, the seat that Mitt is in is only going to get hotter when the five other candidates on the stage tonight, follow Pawlenty’s lead and go for Romney’s jugular.

Bookmark and Share

Can the Libyan No-Fly Zone Tear the G.O.P. Apart?

Bookmark and Share The recent decision by President Obama to have the United States intervene in the civil war taking place in Libya has the potential to unleash a bruising and divisive debate within the G.O.P. that may very well play itself out in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. For many Republicans, nearly a decade of simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have begun to divide the Party almost as much as they divided the nation years after they began. The question of America’s role in the world has always inspired sharp opinions. In 2000 it was Governor and presidential candidate George W. Bush who himself famously stated his desire to make sure that the United States was not in the business of nation building. But then, after 9/11, it was President George W. Bush who created a Bush Doctrine that settled on a policy of preemption.

The circumstances that surrounded Afghanistan and Iraq were unique and there was no question that the leaderless wasteland of Afghanistan was a breeding ground for the terrorist attacks that brought the United States in to a dangerous new reality. Iraq was more complicated. While Saddam Hussein did not directly have any fingerprints on 9/11, whether you want to discount it or not, evidence demonstrated indirect involvement through Hussein’s support of terrorism and the entry in and out of Iraq by known Al Qaeda operatives. Furthermore, despite the lack of a discovery of a hard discovery of WMD’s in Iraq, evidence did in fact make it clear that Saddam had used, was developing and did at least at one point have WMD’s and was willing to use them. There is even evidence that before Operation Iraqi Freedom hit the ground and after a devastating earthquake in neighboring Syria, Saddam shipped his WMD’s out of Iraq under the auspices of shipments of humanitarian aid to Syria. Imagine that..Saddam Hussein and humanitarian assistance.

But no matter where you personally stand on the merits of our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, the two wars have given rise to a level of war weariness that transcends Party affiliation. Within the G.O.P. itself, many Republicans have been attracted to Congressman Ron Paul, who touts what is essentially an isolationist position that would have the United States close its eyes and place its hands over ears while yelling “Im not hearing you.” To a degree Ron Paul is right. But only to a degree. 9/11 should have proved to us that the United States cannot ignore events that take place elsewhere. Today’s world is far too small to think that a ripple someone else will not eventually find its way to our own shores. But over overreaction can be just as bad as too little action.

And that is where the debate within the Republican Party begins.

We are already beginning to see the emerging field of Republican presidential candidates go to their respective corners of the political boxing ring on the issue. Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, John Bolton and Rick Santorum have jumped on the President for too much inaction in Libya. After the French took the lead in support of rebels opposing Moammar Gadaffi, Mitt Romney has attacked President Obama for relinquishing America’s leadership role in the world to the French. Romnney also recently said I support military action in Libya. I support out troops there in the mission they’ve been given. But let me also note that thus far the President has been unable to construct a foreign policy, any foreign policy,” . Romne added “He [President Obama] calls for the removal of Moammar Gadaffi but then conditions our action on the directions we get from the Arab League and the United Nations.”

But Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, has seemingly broken ranks with his potential Republican opponents. On the involvement of the United States in military action to create and enforce a no-fly zone over the skies of Libya, Barbour said “I think we need to be cautious about being quick on the trigger,”. But Barbour has gone even further by suggesting that we must reevaluate our commitment in Afghanistan. According to him “What is our mission? … Is that a 100,000-man army mission?”.

Barbour connects his lack of interest in military intervention to fiscal responsibility, an argument that will have plenty of legs with a national electorate that has come to realize that our national debt is itself becoming a major risk to our national security. But while Barbour is framing American military and foreign policy on economic grounds, potential candidates like Sarah Palin suggests that we have a responsibility to promote freedom and the benefits that come to all from it, when she poignantly tells “We should not be afraid of freedom.”

At the moment, most of the developing G.O.P. presidential field is content with supporting the United States involvement in the creation of a Libyan no-fly zone, and to criticize the President for both, not acting on it quicker and not having a clearly defined end goal after its creation. But as Haley Barbour shows, that view is not unanimous and as Americans become increasingly weary of deficit spending, “nation building”, and policing the world, Barbour’s unwillingness to get on the no-fly zone bandwagon may distinguish himself from a field of potential candidates whom the electorate may see as leading us into foreign entanglements that cost more than they are worth.

The debate has the potential to divide the G.O.P’s predominantly fiscal conservative base into unbridgeable factions of neo-cons and libertarian Republicans. Such a division already exists, with one side led by Ron Paul and the other largely led by the Republican establishment. But should this emotional divide grow further apart, it could mean the difference between winning and losing the presidency in 2012. Haley Barbour could be positioning himself as the catalyst for compromise that could at least temporarily unite the two sides. And such a compromise over this existing division will be necessary. And not just for the political victory of the Party, but for the strength and security of the United States.

The future of freedom and our nation relies on our nation’s ability to effect positive change in the world that we live in instead of it being effected by the negative influences of the forces opposed to freedom. But as President Benjamin Harrison said; “We Americans have no commission from God to police the world.” While those words are quite true, can we take them to the extremes that Ron Paul does? Ron Paul believes we caused 9/11 and brought it upon ourselves. Such thinking cost him more votes than it got him and it suggests that America has no role to play in defending freedom or even the allies of freedom.

But is it possible for a Republican to rise to the occasion of true leadership by carefully articulating when it is necessary for American use of force in the world?

Until such time as such a Republican rises, the debate that was largely marked by the 2008 exchange between Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani that is seen below, has the ability toput the Party asunder.

Bookmark and Share

And while we are on the topic be sure to click here and take this week’s White House 2012 which asks whether it is wise or not for a potential Republican candidate to support American involvment in the creation of a No-Fly Zone over Libya

Gay Republican Fred Karger Fights for His Voice to be Heard In Presidential Forum

Bookmark and Share Although he isstill an undeclared candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, Fred Kargers aggressive exploratory committee has left no doubts about his serious consideration to enter the race. However; some are not so willing to accept his candidacy.

In Iowa, the Faith and Freedom Coalition , and one of its leaders, Steve Scheffler, is refusing to invite Karger to a March 7th forum of potential Republican candidates for President. The forum is widely viewed as one of the first, albeit unofficial, debates of the 2012 Republican presidential contest. For the record, Scheffler has stated that he will invite anyone who has expressed the “slightest interest” in the 2012 Republican nomination. But anyone apparently does not include Fred Karger.

Karger is an openly gay Republican and as such, Scheffler refuses to acknowledge Fred Karger as a legitimate candidate.

In light of these events, Fred Kargers exploratory committee has issued a press release (see below) announcing his plans to petition Steve Sheffler and the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition to allow Fred to participate in the March 7th forum.

The incident is an early sign of the problem that Kargers candidacy will create for Republicans if they try to shut him out. In the case of this forum, Steve Scheffler and the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition do have a right to deny Fred Karger a place on their stage. It is a private event. But in doing so, this Christian organization can not put itself forward as one that is providing an open forum for the free discussion of beliefs, opinions and ideas. It is clear that Scheffler only wants to here those opinions which he agrees with. That is fine for Scheffler and his coalition, but how long can the Republican Party accept denying Fred Karger a place at the table of debate? How long can they refuse to allow his views to be heard in the race for the Republican presidential nomination?

For his part, Karger has a campaign that will be many times harder than any of his potential opponents. Not only must he campaign hard to make his case, he musteven fight hard for the right to make his case. In addition to that, he must prove himself to be more than just the gay Republican in the race. He must break through stereotypes and prove that he is not a one issue candidate. He must also demonstrate that gays are respectful of differences of opinion and different beliefs, but ask for the same in return. Kargerthen needs to demonstrate to the Party of the right, that equality and the defense of rights is a cherished conservative value that should be a perfect fit for the Party of Lincoln.

And just as Karger has a lot of work to do, the Republican Party has a lot of tough questions to answer. First they must ask themselves if they wish to disenfranchise entire segments of society because of who they are? Then they must ask themselves how they can politically reconcile their catering to the extremes of the religious right, with their need to protect the constitutional rights of all people, including homosexuals? That is a debate that would be worth the Partys while to have now, rather than later, when they go head to head with President Obama.

It is also a debate that Fred Karger could help the Party get through. If they let him .

But it is up to the GOP to demonstrate that it is at least willing to have a family discussion about the issue during their candidate selection process. And while pondering that, the Party would be wise to remember that Fred Karger is not alone. In addition to simply being fellow Americans who are worthy of being heard, many gays are also Republicans.

Stars01.gif picture by kempite

Karger’s petition reads as follows:

I am deeply disappointed to read that the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition has refused to invite potential presidential candidate Fred Karger to a planned March 2011 candidate forum in Waukee, Iowa. According to the Des Moines Register, you said that Karger can’t be considered a legitimate candidate.

That simply isn’t true. Karger has visited Iowa five times, has released a television commercial introducing himself to voters, has an official exploratory committee, and has met hundreds upon hundreds of Iowa voters. He is engaged in this campaign much more than some of the names on your invite list.

It sounds to me that the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition either doesn’t want to acknowledge Karger because he’s a gay Republican, or you’re afraid of his candidacy. But shouldn’t Iowa voters be the ones who decide whether or not Karger is a serious candidate?

I urge you to reconsider your decision to bar Karger from this event, and offer Karger an invite. If you think he’s the wrong Republican for the job, you should have the courage to confront him in a candidate forum, and allow Iowa voters to make up their own minds.

Thank you for your time.

Stars01.gif picture by kempite

If you wish to help insure that all the issues are debated openly and honestly, below you will find a link to Karger’s petition for you to sign.

But in addition to that I also suggest that you take a moment to send the leadership of the Republican National Committee a message and tell them that they have a responsibility to make sure that Fred Karger and all voices in the Partyareheard and that all the issues should be open to discussion.

Email your message to

info@GOP.com

Photobucket

Bookmark and Share
%d bloggers like this: