Posts tagged Huntsman

Which GOP Contender Can Relate?


Many, but not all of the GOP presidential contenders try to prove that they relate with We The People, despite their current lifestyles.  Below are two videos I found describing a reflection of how they might relate by comparing the homes of the candidates.  As most of us might assume, Romney lavish multiple dwellings are something maybe only Bill Gates and a few others can relate with.

Personally I already know the answer to the post title but wanted to share these videos.  The first video may have a bit more detail but the second has a happy ending :)

YouTube Preview Image

So, now you do you think can best elate to you and I?

Now more than every we need the Champion of the Constitution!

Please visit Ron Paul’s official campaign site by following the link below and donate today!

Ron Paul takes game to next level




Ron Paul takes game to next level, emerges as serious contender for GOP nomination

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, a Republican candidate for the presidency, mingles with supporters in San Francisco after speaking at an anti-war rally in September of 2010.PHOTO by The Punditty Project


“Well I won’t back down, no I won’t back down, you could stand me up at the Gates of Hell but I won’t back down…”– Tom Petty

After finishing a solid second in Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary, Texas Rep. Ron Paul made a short but important speech that sets the tone for the rest of his campaign, both in music and in words.

Taking the stage to greet supporters in Manchester Tuesday night with Tom Petty’s 1989 rock-and-roll anthem “I Won’t Back Down” playing in the auditorium, Paul left no doubt that he’s going to be pressing on in his quest for the 2012 Republican nomination and the right to represent the Grand Old Party in its effort to unseat incumbent President Barack Obama this November.

Interrupted frequently by supporters cheering and chanting things like “President Paul!” and “Ron Paul Revolution, Bring Us Back Our Constitution!,” Paul asserted that the Liberty movement he’s helped awaken is a danger to the status quo and a “danger to the Federal Reserve system.” He added that the Federal Reserve was established “to take care of the powerful interests, the military industrial complex, the banking system and deficit financing.” Paul went on to attack those who benefit financially from the wars, drawing a clear distinction between having a strong defense and “war profiteering.”

The rousing response of the crowd left no doubt that Paul will remain a contender for the Republican nomination all the way up to the party’s August convention in Tampa.

Paul’s message of personal liberty, sound money and ending foreign wars is something the Republican establishment and Neoconservative wing of the GOP has been at odds with since his 2008 presidential campaign, and Paul’s growing success in 2012 is not exactly welcome by Republican insiders like former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and the entrenched “1 percent” interests they represent. With Paul’s numbers already rising in South Carolina, the next primary state, he could well be on the verge of yet another significant quantum leap in support. If Paul finishes ahead of former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum in South Carolina, Santorum’s campaign could be all but over. Paul could knock out another challenger with a third-place finish, and given the polling trends since New Hampshire, that is a distinct possibility.

Paul campaign expects to win caucuses in February

Wisely, Paul is bypassing heavy campaigning in Florida’s winner-take-all primary to focus on the Feb. 4 Nevada caucuses. If results from South Carolina and Florida lead to Santorum, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman and Texas Gov. Rick Perry dropping out of the race – a plausible scenario – then it could be a three-man contest in Nevada.

After Nevada, several states west of the Mississippi River hold caucuses before the so-called “Super Tuesday” contests on March 6. Paul’s national campaign manager Jesse Benton was quoted recently in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch as saying Paul would win some of those caucuses.

If so, look for more Republicans to begin moving toward Paul both on ideological grounds and because they will begin to see him as the GOP’s best chance for unseating Obama.

Paul beginning to focus on electability

In his New Hampshire address, Paul signaled that ensuring Social Security recipients continue receiving benefits would take precedence over continued military ventures overseas as his administration enacted major spending cuts.

Although barely mentioned in the mainstream media, Paul’s favorable words for Social Security — the most popular and effective government program in the nation’s history — indicate that he is moving toward a kind of libertarian pragmatism coupled with an innate sense of compassion for and fairness toward retired and nearly retired workers. In short, Paul is beginning to hone his message toward one of electability – a strategy that will pay dividends in delegates as the nomination process moves forward. While Romney, Gingrich and Santorum pick at each other over trivialities and past pandering, Paul is already sending reassuring messages about how he will govern. Not only is Paul acting like the GOP frontrunner, he’s acting like a man who knows he’s going to be elected president.

In singling out Social Security, Paul sends an important message to Baby Boomers who, while supportive of Paul on such issues as legalizing medical marijuana, auditing the Federal Reserve and bringing American troops home from Afghanistan, have expressed concern that his small-government philosophy could deprive them of the retirement income they worked hard for and expect to be waiting for them upon leaving the work force. Look for him to repeat that theme as he rises in the polls and more people begin to see him as a viable alternative to Romney and the rest.

Paul will continue to shape GOP debate

As the campaign goes forward, look for Paul to pepper his familiar speeches on liberty, freedom and sound money with references to specific issues that have a lot of popular support but that the other GOP candidates won’t touch: medical marijuaan, for example. In addition, Paul’s quick defense of Romney’s role at Bain Capital in the 1980s has ensured that any criticisms he might level at Romney on other economic issues will be seen as criticisms with merit, not merely political opportunism.

The Republican Party has been a wounded “brand” since at least 2006, when Democrats swept to congressional control and sent President George W. Bush a message that we as a nation were tired of costly wars and infringements on personal freedom. Sen. John McCain, the 2008 GOP nominee, did not understand that, and he lost badly to Obama, who seemed to “get it” at the time but forgot it later. Tea Party enthusiasm for the 2010 midterms, coupled with many Democrats’ disappointment in Obama, made for big GOP gains that year. Today’s Republicans are fooling themselves, however, if they think voters are re-embracing the party of George W. Bush because they want more of what Bush gave us.

Only Paul, with his genuine convictions, authentic charisma and prescient courage, is capable of leading the GOP to victory this November. The reasons Romney or Gingrich cannot win should be obvious to anyone with the ability to objectively assess the political landscape. To summarize, Romney and Gingrich cannot beat Obama because they are both functionaries for the very system that is scamming and swindling the so-called “99 percent.”

Obama is a functionary as well, at least to some degree, but Paul is not. Paul is not beholden to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac or the richest of the Republican rich for funding his campaign or to Timothy Geithner for shaping U.S. monetary policy. Paul is a populist in the truest sense of the term, and as the race goes on, he’s going to work in so many populist themes that Romney, Gingrich and whoever else might be left in the race will have to chime in or else face being dismissed as dodgy, deceitful and duplicitous.

“I think the intellectual revolution that’s going on now to restore liberty in this country is well on its way,” Paul told supporters Tuesday night, “and there’s no way they’re going to stop the momentum that we have started.”

Reluctantly, Republican Party movers and shakers are waking up to that fact, but the full weight of Paul’s words may not dawn on them until he’s addressing the GOP convention in Tampa – either as the nominee or someone whose full and vocal support the nominee needs in order to have a chance at beating Obama in November.

[CIM Comment]

Now more than every we need the Champion of the Constitution!

Please visit Ron Paul’s official campaign site by following the link below and donate today!

Is Negative Huntsman Video Attributed to Paul Supporters a False Flag?



By Kurt Nimmo

A YouTube video posing as a political ad is the latest effort to chip away at candidate Ron Paul’s rising popularity. The video shows candidate John Huntsman talking Chinese to his adopted daughter and questions his patriotism.

Huntsman was U.S. ambassador to China before entering the GOP race. He has trailed in the race behind Paul, Romney and Santorum.

Ron Paul responded to criticism by stating that he had nothing to do with the video. “I couldn’t even hear it, haven’t looked at it, but people do that, and they do it in all campaigns,” Paul said on Friday.

While the establishment media makes it appear the video is the work of dangerous Ron Paul supporters – invariably characterized as kooks, libertarian fanatics, or truthers – research by The End Run website reveals that the video may be a false flag possibly created by the Huntsman campaign itself:

The video was uploaded by a user called “NHLiberty4Paul” on Wednesday, January 4. A quick look at the user’s channel page (archived here as a backup) shows that the account was created the exactly same day that the video was uploaded. This brand new, anonymous user has, of course, zero other uploads.

Furthermore, according to the publicly-viewable stats provided by YouTube, the very first place this video was posted was Jon Huntsman’s campaign website, This was done on November 4, the very day the video was uploaded to YouTube, and before the video had received any traffic from other sites. (Emphasis in original.)

Huntsman’s campaign immediately criticized the anonymous video and demanded that Ron Paul disavow it, which he did. “The ad is offensive and the Paul campaign and their supporters should condemn it,” Huntsman spokesman Tim Miller told The Salt Lake Tribune.

On Thursday, the Paul haters seized the video as evidence of the supposed vileness of Ron Paul’s supporters. Leon H. Wolf, a Red State blogger, steered the controversy back into the false right-left paradigm used to keep political discussion within parameters acceptable to the ruling elite.

“Providing us with yet more evidence that they are mostly liberal Democrats who are mad that Obama has governed too far to the right, Ron Paul supporters decided this was a good reason to produce a video putting Huntsman in a Mao hat and jacket, complete with what is I guess supposed to be a Chinese version of blackface,” Wolf writes.

The Washington Post – known as the crown jewel of Operation Mockingbird – also trawled the crazy Ron Paul supporter line in an effort to discredit Paul.

“One of the best arguments against Ron Paul? The people who support him.,” writes Alexandra Petri. She immediately connects the long ago debunked racist newsletters critics have doggedly attempted to attribute to Paul.

On the internet, she continues, “it is intensely easy to make an egregiously bad ad and get a great deal of attention very quickly, and no one need know who you are.” Of course, she fails to mention that it was Huntsman’s campaign and anti-Paul bloggers who drew attention to the suspicious video.

“Our experience with Ron Paul supporters makes it possible for us to believe that this is the work of a Ron Paul supporter. And when you’re the candidate of such fans, it’s a bad sign,” Petri writes.

The LA Times also insinuated that Ron Paul’s supporters had something to do with the video, as did the San Francisco Chronicle.

Both Fox News and CNN felt compelled to run the “ad” on national television. It also provided Huntsman’s family the opportunity to go on television and promote the candidate who has trailed in the polls for weeks.

“Meanwhile, this story has generated more positive press for Huntsman than money could buy. Endearing images of him with his adopted daughters are all over the media, along with quotes of him explaining how he heroically saved them from a bleak fate,” notes The End Run.

Despite the actual responsibly for the video, the controversy is strategically placed as the race heads into the New Hampshire primary. Arrayed anti-Paul forces are determined to take him down during the primary so Romney can sail into the South Carolina and Florida primaries without having to worry about Ron Paul and his talk about constitutionally limited government and ending the wars enthusiastically supported by the other candidates.


Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are in it for the long haul



By Conor Murphy

After the Iowa Caucus concluded early Wednesday morning, the dust settled to reveal three winners, but only two long-term candidates. Mitt Romney pulled off a less than stellar victory over Rick Santorum, while Ron Paul came in a strong third. None of the other candidates came close to matching the top three presidential hopefuls.

Soon after the caucus, Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry re-evaluated their campaigns with Bachmann dropping out and Perry vowing to stay in the race until the South Carolina primary on January 21st. While this race is far from over, it is beginning to take shape. With Bachmann gone and Perry almost irrelevant, there are five Republicans left looking to win the Republican presidential nomination.

Jon Huntsman has remained an invisible man since he entered the race for President. He has failed to gain any traction among the conservative electorate, and has raised very little money to fund his campaign. Although he might surprise a few people in New Hampshire on Tuesday, he does not have the money, organization, or support to make it to Super Tuesday and will likely drop out of the running if he does not perform well in the Granite state.

The candidacy of Newt Gingrich has been floundering since a few weeks before the Iowa caucus and is not going anywhere anytime soon. His fourth place finish on Tuesday hurt him badly, and his finances and campaign organization leave much to be desired. With his falling numbers, Gingrich would be lucky to win any state before Super Tuesday.

Probably one of the more surprising stories of the campaign season has been the sudden rise of Rick Santorum, whose peak came at just the right moment: He came within eight votes of winning the Iowa caucus. As impressive as Santorum’s near victory was, it will not reflect the voting trend in later states. According to a recent poll conducted by the Washington Times, Rick Santorum’s support only rose four percent in New Hampshire after his performance in the Iowa caucus. Even if the momentum of the caucus were moving more in Santorum’s direction, he has still shown himself to be a mediocre fundraiser. The former Pennsylvania Senator will not be able to sustain his campaign on a shoestring budget as he did in Iowa. A nationwide campaign requires a great deal of money, which he just does not have.

The only two candidates with the resources, money, and organization to run a national campaign are Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Mitt Romney has been the perceived front-runner since the beginning of the campaign, and has raised more money than any other candidate. Although he has the problem of being disliked by most Republicans, there are very few who believe that he has faced any serious challenge to his status as the Republican front-runner. The establishment is behind the former Massachusetts Governor and will see to it that he stays in the race until the very end.

Ron Paul has an interesting road ahead in the nomination process. Although his supporters may be disappointed with third place in Iowa, the close vote still helps him. Paul’s main goal should now be to win one of the early states, and place respectably in the rest of them. This will keep him in the race long enough for most of the other candidates to drop out leaving him and Romney (and perhaps a stubborn Newt Gingrich). If this happens, it will then be up to Dr. Paul to harness as much of the anti-Romney crowd as he can. That crowd is composed of several factions, including the Tea Party, evangelical voters, libertarians, and paleo-conservatives. Collectively this group makes up a large majority of the party, and it will need to work together to elect Paul.

This has been one of the most compelling and dramatic primary seasons in a very long time, and we’ve only just gotten through Iowa. Mitt Romney is still the frontrunner until somebody knocks him off the hill. Ron Paul is the only candidate with enough resources, money, organization, and staying power to pull it off. If Dr. Paul falls short, then he’ll retire from Congress as a libertarian icon, but his supporters will always wonder what could have been. If he manages to upset the establishment’s choice, then this country will truly see some of the “change” that was promised to us back in 2008.

[CIM Comment]

Now more than every we need the Champion of the Constitution!

Please visit Ron Paul’s official campaign site by following the link below and donate today!

GOP Debate: Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman Cemented As Foreign Policy Outliers



First Posted: 11/13/11 12:39 PM ET Updated: 11/13/11 12:40 PM ET

In a foreign policy debate dominated by the hawkish perspectives of the GOP frontrunners, two presidential candidates cemented their roles as party gadflies, particularly on the use of military force and the importance of protecting civil liberties.

Both former Utah governor Jon Huntsman and Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) have long distinguished themselves for their willingness to break from Republican party orthodoxy during the 2012 campaign; so far, both have been awarded with consistently low numbers in the polls.

But while the Huntsman and Paul have occasionally found common ground with their fellow conservatives on certain economic and social issues — Huntsman, for one, reiterated his support for the Tea Party backed Paul Ryan economic plan on Saturday — a discussion of foreign policy provided the clearest evidence yet of the growing rift between the two outliers and the rest of the field.

On the most controversial topic of the night, the use of waterboarding and other forms of “enhanced interrogation,” only Paul and Huntsman came out definitively against their use and stated categorically that waterboarding is torture.

“We diminish our standing in the world and the values that we project which include liberty, democracy, human rights, and open markets when we torture,” Huntsman said.

“We should not torture. Waterboarding is torture. We dilute ourselves down like a whole lot of other countries. And we lose that ability to project values that a lot of people in corners of this world are still relying on the United States to stand up for them.”

At one point, after Representative Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) had offered a firm defense of waterboarding — “I think it was very effective,” she said — National Journal’s Major Garrett, one of the debate moderators, looked at Paul and said, “My Spidey sense tells me we have a debate about to get launched here.”

“Yes, torture is illegal,” Paul responded. “Waterboarding is torture. And it’s illegal under international law and under our law. It’s also immoral.”

After adding that torture often produced unreliable information, Paul continued, “I think it’s uncivilized and has no practical advantages and is really un-American to accept on principal that we will torture people that we capture.”

On the subject of Iran, which a recent U.N. report indicated may be increasingly intent on pursuing a nuclear weapon, Paul in particular took a strong stance against the hawkish tone of the other candidates.

After both Romney and former Sen. Rick Santorum said they would back military strikes against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, Paul likened the talk to the war-mongering that preceded the invasion of Iraq.

“It isn’t worthwhile,” Paul said of the prospect of military action against Iran. “The only way you would do that is you would have to go through Congress. … I’m afraid what’s going on right now is similar to the war propaganda that went on against Iraq. And, you know, they didn’t have weapons of mass destruction. And it was orchestrated and it was, to me, a tragedy of what’s happened these last 10 years, the death and destruction, $4 trillion in debt. So no, it’s not worthwhile going to war.”

Herman Cain had also said that he would not support a military operation.

In the relatively limited time the Huntsman and Paul had to speak, they both seemed intent on demonstrating their unique credibility on world affairs — Paul as a sort of neo-isolationist who believes the U.S. should avoid meddling abroad as much as possible and Huntsman, a former Ambassador to China, as the sole candidate with substantial foreign policy experience.

Huntsman called for the troops to come home from Afghanistan, and later delivered a lengthy exposition on the difficult relationship the United States has with Pakistan. He went out of his way during those remarks to mention by name two top Pakistani officials, and he was one of the only candidates to cite a foreign leader by name all night.

Huntsman also took issue with the strong words of Romney and others about the rising power of China, and the suggestion that it may be manipulating currency markets.

“I’ve tried to figure this out for 30 years of my career. First of all, I don’t think, Mitt, you can take China to the W.T.O. on currency-related issues. Second, I don’t know that this country needs a trade war with China. Who does it hurt? Our small businesses in South Carolina, our exporters, our agriculture producers.”

He added, “The reality’s a little different, as it usually is, when you’re on the ground.”

Please visit Ron Paul’s official campaign site and donate today!

Jon Stewart Destroys Media for Ignoring Ron Paul




YouTube Preview Image

Stewart reviewed the Sunday morning talk show talking points, and found that, universally, Bachmann, Romney, and Perry were considered the “top tier.” “You’re not forgetting anyone?” Stewart asked, referring to Rep. Paul, who had come in second. Rep. Paul managed to be ignored over Rick Santorum– “he lost to the guy who lost so bad he dropped out of the race”– and Jon Huntsman, who got 69 votes. “If all of Jon Huntsman’s supporters met at the Ames, Iowa Quiznos, the fire marshal would say, ‘yeah, that’s fine, here are some more seats.’” Stewart found it bewildering that Rep. Paul had become “the 13th floor of a hotel,” culminating with a clip of a CNN anchor requesting a reporter leave out the Ron Paul reporting if they found any juicy Sarah Palin stuff– saying, in Stewart’s words, “I mean, f*ck that guy, right?”

[CIM Comment: Again, it is time to hit the MSM advertisers to voice our lack of support?  Remember that while there may be six super rich entities that control all the media we receive, each little entity, like FOX, must be self sufficient and are reviewed strictly on their P&L statement.  Time to add to the losses!]



Go to Top