He tries to slam on Ron Paul for changing his "party" when in reality Libertarians are paleo-conservatives therefore he really didn't change his party. The neocons have corrupted/perverted/defamated the Republican party and what it used to stand for.

Also, ever notice that there is always a clear audible laugh from someone (usually Giuliani) whenever the host takes a stab at Ron Paul?

if he could've had any impact on the insular politics here, while staying a Libertarian, he would've.

they should be thanking Ron Paul, for being the only true fiscal conservative and choosing the Reps over the Dems.
at least the Dems don't claim to be fiscally conservative, and then mask their expenditures by taking out massive international loans, to avoid raising taxes.

it's like a guy going to the loan sharks to pay for a bigscreen TV, because his wife says they can't afford it.

As a foreigner, I confess to being fascinated with U.S. politics. I did note with dismay Rudys cheap shots at Ron Paul in earlier debates. To me Paul seems to have a deeper understanding of foreign policy issues than any of the other candidates for his party nomination. They just reel off simplistic soundbites "They hate us cos of our freedom" etc. So it was with some pleasure I noticed that Ron Paul got something like 7% more than Rudy in Iowa.

I express no preference for who I think would be best, not my place to say, but I do think Rudy would be worst. The man seems like a classic slimy politician, at least to me. Ok now I have gone too far. Apologies Rudy fans!

(I watched the TV movie where James Woods played Rudy and thought "Wow, Guiliani is a swell guy". Shows what I know! )

Ghouliani is swell guy, moodonia, his fellow Annunaki brethren hold him in high esteem.

In my 34 years on the planet, Clinton has been the only 'fiscal conservative' in the oval office, and the Republican mantra of 'smaller government, fiscal responsibility and personal responsibility' has been nothing more than hollow propaganda.

It is a testament to the skill of Republican propagandists that the phrase 'fiscal conservative' even exists, because it's mythology. It's kind of like Howard Stern calling himself the King of All Media, or Michael Jackson calling himself the King of Pop; it isn't true, but if you say it enough times people will start to believe it. Go ahead and see how many Republicans you can list that actually live up to the rhetoric. Ron Paul is the only Republican on my list.

Same goes for 'smaller government'. Establishment Republicans are only interested in reducing the parts of the government that serve the public, such as education, social security, health, welfare, etc. When is the last time you heard a Republican say "Maybe we don't need another gazillion dollar stealth bomber, we already own more than we know what to do with. Our schools are understaffed and falling apart, maybe the money would be better spent there."? Answer: Never, that would be way too fiscally responsible.

Same goes for personal responsibility. It always cracks me up to see Republicans talk about personal responsibility as they vote themselves another raise. They don't believe in public health care, yet have the most generous publicly funded health care benefits on the planet.

Personal responsibility for the working class only! = Personal responsibility.

Establishment Republicans are afraid of Ron Paul precisely because he actually intends to put these hollow slogans into action, which is a delicious irony.

Establishment Democrats had a similar fear of Howard Dean, who has since infiltrated that establishment, and is now working to change it from the inside. Maybe Ron Paul can do the same.

Imagine what we could accomplish if Democrats and Republicans worked together. We both face an enemy far more dangerous that Osama bin Laden, and that enemy are the corporatist/neo-conservative/neo-liberal carpetbaggers who have corrupted every level of our publicly elected government. Let's take it back.

I have noticed that CP, in fact there was a debate recently where I noticed when Paul was speaking there was almost always laughter from the other candidates. Its quite annoying.

I want to see Ron Paul as President but only if Charles Gibson is his wingman...

So what was the point of his comments? Was it leading to something else or a question?

Real title of this sift should be: Drive-by media stooge makes his displeasure known via straw men.

That's not a strawman. A strawman would be comparing them or their views to someone else (usually Hitler or Stalin) and then bashing that person without talking about the actual candidate.

Also, does anybody have any idea as to why this reporter was bringing all this up? I'd like the context.

Here's a piece of the transcript that sets up the clip

From http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/us/politics/05text-rdebate.html:

MR. GIBSON: I'm going to move on to domestic policy, and I'm going to violate a promise that I made to all of your campaigns. I promised that we wouldn't do any questions on videotape -- questions from somebody outside this room -- but I'm going to violate it with a question from the president of the United States, who posed a question that I think is important about all of you -- posed a question at his last news conference about what he thought candidates ought to be as they ran. Take a look.

PRESIDENT BUSH: (From videotape.) You can't be the president unless you have a firm set of principles to guide you as you sort through all the problems the world faces. And I would be very hesitant to support somebody who relied upon opinion polls and focus groups to define a way forward for a president. It is -- and so my question to -- if I were asking questions to people running for office, I'd say: What are the principles that will stand on in good times and bad times? What would be the underpinning of -- of -- of your decisions?

MR. GIBSON: What are the principles, and are they constant? You all have been questioning -- as I've watched you campaign, you've all been questioning your opponents. And I'm going to ask Senator McCain, you and Governor Romney, because you two have been going at each other in interviews and in ads about this, of the constancy of your principles, or whether or not you look to opinion polls and focus groups to make up your minds.

[From here, McCain, Romney and then Giuliani dish forth the usual canned response to things like this, and it's all a set-up to the eventual smack down that Gibson delivers--they're ALL career politicians, they've ALL flip-flopped. It's all an attempt to see if one or more will either 1) admit to the flip-flop or 2) call Bush the Lesser a fool.]

Ron Paul long ago bowed to the power of the two party system. Being called out on it was by far the weakest of all the scoldings in this clip.

I saw it as more of a tip of the hat to Ron Paul than a bash for changing parties, especially since he said something along the lines of "...respect to you, i don't know that you've changed much..." Romney and Giuliani got the worst of it, Romney by far.

Good transcript posting BTW. Ron Pual, mentioned something about the current way our government spends, cutting taxes, going to war, and borrowing from other countries (mainly china). Which I think is the crux of our economic woes right now. The republicans have been trying to have their cake and eat it too. I'd like to know in what dimension or fairy tale land you can drastically reduce your income while increasing your outgoing by massive proportions all the while borrowing barrels full of money and have everything be A-okay. And what did Fred Thompson say in response? He laughed and derisively ridiculed Paul for suggesting all of that has some how lead to our economic problems. While I think RP's economic strategy swings the pendulum too far in the other direction, something that would cause another kind of economic disaster, to have him laughed at for saying what he did just shows how idiotic and self-serving most of them are.

The way "flip-flop" is tossed around is really irritating; as if it's a flaw to change your mind. I don't mean that someone who takes whatever stance they think will get them the most support should be admired or respected, but take the following example.

Imagine there's a candidate who had a strong anti-homosexual stance 15 years ago. Today, having been exposed to other views and increased information, he's a strong believer in gay rights. This is not a flip-flopper. This is someone who has learned from their mistakes.

I'm sure all of us have known someone with a drug problem, even if it's something as small as alcoholism. If someone struggles for years with such a problem, whether it be wine or heroin or anything in between, and finally manages to get themselves clean, nobody accuses them of flip-flopping.

I'm not saying flip-flop is misused in this video; it just brought up a little rant that's been brewing in me for quite a while. On Mitt Romney being a flip-flopper; I don't give a crap about Mitt Romney, so I don't know what he may have "flip-flopped" on. If he is a flip-flopper then he's flopped in the wrong direction as I haven't heard anything come out of his mouth that I can support.

This video is over-edited. I'd have liked to hear some responses or something to give it some substance. This is just a video of some guy calling politicians names.

Charles Gibson owns.

If you want to learn more about being fiscally conservative, here is a nice graph of the US debt and which presidents caused it.
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

btw - Ron Paul has been a registered Republican almost his entire political life. The only time he wasn't was for the one year (1988) that he was the Libertarian nominee for President. As Gibson pointed out this did not require him to change or adjust his political views to conform to the Libertarian platform. The rest of the candidates on stage have been all over the mat depending on what office they are running for and what group of people they are talking to. RP is the only one that is consistent no matter what office he is running for or what group of people he is addressing.

straw man: a person whose importance or function is only nominal, as to cover another's activities; front.

Yeah, I got it backwards. GIBSON the drive-by media stooge is the straw man; they're really his accusations but using others' similar comments rather than his own.

qm, They aren't "really his accusations" they are the accusations that the GOP candidates have been making about each other....they are accusations that they were making even on the course of that debate. So I fail to see what is "drive-by" about saying...lets put it all out on the table here..this is what you guys are saying about each other.

Of course all they could do is sit there with stupid grins on their faces because it was all true.

Woulda been nice to hear the responses...

Would have been nice...but stupid grins was about all they could muster up.

If you look here at the 9:30 mark is what is said after these comments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMYJ_vmwRDc
and continues here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08HyUz_AHmQ

You will see that the comments made by Gibson are pretty much ignored and not addressed because except for RP they are all guilty of adjusting their stand on certain issues to fall more in line with the current GOP platform.

I don't understand why there is such a negative attitude towards changing policies. As long as they don't run on a particular issue and go back on it during their time in office, it doesn't bother me. If they change opinions and policies over a 10 year period, who cares? I've changed mine. Lots of voters even change parties. Big deal!

I thought being progressive was a good thing.

deedub81, the negative attitude is not so much when someone has an honest changing of opinion on an issue. It's when that change of opinion suspiciously happens at the same time that they are running for a certain office or addressing a certain group of people and that change of opinion just happens to be what is seen as something that will help them get elected.

The real question is, How can a vapid talking head, shame anyone?....the profession the moderator is in is a shame unto itself, the process farcical, and attention paid to it, an insult to reason and righteousness.....

Because truth spoken even by a "vapid talking head" is still truth.

I thought almost every politician did that.

deedub81 wrote:

I thought almost every politician did that.

I think what were missing about "flip flopping" is that its ok to flip. That is, change your mind. Then to flop, change your mind again and revert to previous beliefs, is a sign that they change their mid all to often. You can change your mind once. But to flip flop implies that you do it all the time.