Ron Paul is off his nut. He has a great view of the Constitution, but even religiously devotees can be crazy, and Paul is. His policy on Iran is not just dangerous, it’s criminal, and should be, of itself, automatically disqualifying.
Hardcore Paul supporters are also almost religious in their devotion to him, and their booing of the other candidates who challenge Paul is classless and does not reflect well on him.
Probably Thomas, if I had to choose one, but I love, love, love Scalia, as well as Alito and Roberts. Hard to choose. It’s like asking “which is your favorite finger.” Well, I need them all!
“I’ve done that.”
Romney doesn’t believe we should have Congress overseeing the justices. But that’s precisely how the Constitution is set up. Can somebody get every one of these candidates a copy of the Federalist Papers?
He’s right, the courts have gotten too dictatorial. But the Constitution has processes inherent in it that allow for checking that power, and re-balancing the federalism. Bachmann is addressing that. Take back the Constitution!
Newt wants to abolish courts. I’d rather see the legislature take steps to impeach egregiously errant judges. Ron Paul just suggested that, and he’s right. Newt’s way could make the courts more of a political football than they already are.
Romney: the free market will decide what sectors will grow in the next 10 years, not the government. I like that answer (because, of course, it’s right).
“This president thinks America is in decline. It is if he’s president.” HA!
Ron Paul has three answers to every question—(1) too much spending, (2) retreat from the rest of the world, (3) it’s not in the constitution. That’s pretty much it.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Newt is extremely vulnerable on this, and it causes me great concern. He sure seems to be more “big government” than I am comfortable with.
Ron Paul misunderstood Newt’s answer. Newt said that when he was consulting with Freddie Mac, he was in private enterprise. Paul misunderstood that to mean that Freddie Mac is a private enterprise. Newt needs to correct that, and repudiate taxpayer money going to these quasi-governmental sinkholes.
Chris Wallace is giving every other candidate a chance to have a whack at Gingrich, and this is probably a good thing. If Newt can’t defend himself in this, he won’t be able to defend himself against Obama. Also, it’s a chance for him to put our fears to rest. So far he has not done that for me. His answer, as with so many allegations against him, is “that’s simply not true.” I’m not convinced.
Bachmann is making the excellent point that influence peddling is not necessarily the same as lobbying.
Newt is still not making the defense I’d like to hear.
Romney just said that Obama has not lived in the real world. I agree. Romney would make a great debater. Not as good as Gingrich, but great nonetheless.
has two answers to every question: (1) too much spending, (2) retreat from the rest of the world. That’s pretty much it.