Ron Paul goes on the attack, steps back into the spotlight at debate

thehill.com...

I like to see RP using the slightly more aggressive tactics, albeit the time could be deicated to more important issues. Go get em!

"Paul, who has called Santorum a "liberal" because of his record on voting for government spending, was asked if he stood by an ad from his campaign calling Santorum "corrupt."
He responded by calling Santorum one of the "top corrupt individuals because he took so much money from the lobbyists."
"Ron Paul returned to the spotlight Saturday night by attacking his rivals for the Republican nomination.

The Texas congressman launched ferocious attacks against Rick Santorum, who has surged in the polls recently, and Newt Gingrich.

Those two snapped back, leading to one of the most testy exchanges in the debate, and all frontrunner Mitt Romney had to do was sit back and watch his rivals tear each other down.

Paul, who is second in New Hampshire polls, got plenty of air time to make his attacks and all of the candidates involved in the exchanges found themselves playing defense against each other.

Paul has pounded Santorum since the former senator has surged in the polls, and he kept it up during Saturday night's debate.

Paul, who has called Santorum a "liberal" because of his record on voting for government spending, was asked if he stood by an ad from his campaign calling Santorum "corrupt."
He responded by calling Santorum one of the "top corrupt individuals because he took so much money from the lobbyists."

But his argument was interrupted by feedback from his microphone, causing Santorum to quip: "They caught you not telling the truth, Ron."

While that remark was funny, the former senator also gave a former response, attacking Paul's record for supporting earmarks.

"As a senator from Pennsylvania that I had a responsibility to go out there and represent the interests of my state. And that's what I did to make sure that Pennsylvania was able, in formulas and other things, to get its fair share of money back. I don't apologize for that any more than you did when you earmarked things and did things when you were a congressman in Texas," he said.

Paul wouldn't back down: "You're a big-government conservative. And you don't vote for, you know, right to work and these very important things. And that's what weakens the economy. So to say you're a conservative, I think, is a stretch. But you've convinced a lot of people of it, so somebody has to point out your record."

Santorum snapped back: "I think I have an opportunity to respond here. I've convinced a lot of people of it because my record is actually pretty darn good. … You vote against everything. I don't vote against everything. I do vote for some spending. I do think government has a role to play."

Texas Gov. Rick Perry used that exchange to note: "You've just seen a great example of why I got in this race, because I happen to think that I'm the only outsider, with the possible exception of Jon Huntsman, who has not been part of the problem in Washington, D.C., the insiders in Washington, D.C."

He also accused Paul of being a hypocrite: "Here's what frustrates me, is that you go get the earmarks and then you vote against the bill? Now, I don't know what they call that in other places, but, Congressman Paul, in Texas, we call that hypocrisy."

Paul was quick to answer: "Well, I call it being a constitutionalist, because I believe we should earmark, or designate, every penny."

Gingrich was also critical of Paul. When asked about Paul calling him a "chickenhawk" because he didn't serve in the military, the former speaker said: "Dr. Paul makes a lot of comments. It's part of his style."

Paul wouldn't back down. "I think people who don't serve when they could and they get three or four or even five deferments, they have no right to send our kids off to war," he said. "I'm trying to stop the wars, but

at least, you know, I went when they called me up."

Gingrich looked angry and said he resented Paul's remarks.

"Dr. Paul has a long history of saying things that are inaccurate and false. The fact is, I never asked for deferment. I was married with a child. It was never a question. My father was, in fact, serving in Vietnam in the Mekong Delta at the time he's referring to. I think I have a pretty good idea of what it's like as a family to worry about your father getting killed. And I personally resent the kind of comments and aspersions he routinely makes without accurate information and then just slurs people with," he said.

Paul injected: "When I was drafted, I was married and had two kids, and I went."

The audience strongly applauded that statement and over the noise Gingrich said, "I wasn't eligible for the draft. I wasn't eligible for the draft."

Was Romney not there?
Does Paul support Romney?
Is he afraid of Romney?
I have to ask because it seems odd to highlight him as going on the attack only to point out that the person he needs to "attack" the most was apparently just out of sight?

Originally posted by Kafternin
Was Romney not there?
Does Paul support Romney?
Is he afraid of Romney?
I have to ask because it seems odd to highlight him as going on the attack only to point out that the person he needs to "attack" the most was apparently just out of sight?

Romney and Paul are playing a politicians game.

Paul knows he can take on Romney mono e mono and play it as the conservative and the moderate, and Romney knows this too, thats why Paul is attacking everyone but Romney. Paul feels that if the distractions are done away with then he can take on Romney, and Romney thinks the same. It makes sense, and it puts Romney in a comfortable position, all he has to do is enjoy his lead.

I watched the first fifteen minutes and of course precious drone Romney gets a nicely squared headshot and speaks first and is praised by two other bafoons on stage saying how mitt would "approve" of their business experience..I can't take it! Then of course Ron Paul's mic gets major feedback the camera angles are a joke, and Romney sits between the two so he's the centerpiece of every shot. Why don't they just say Romney is going to be the next president...

reply to post by knightsofcydonia


he did good

damn good



www.youtube.com...


i watch that and think why the hell vote for anyone else?

reply to post by knightsofcydonia


Santorum is NOT a liberal!

He's bigoted, racist and anyone who votes for him should have their citizenship revoked on the spot.

It was clear that the media has been endorsing Romney from the get-go. It was also clear in the first couple debates they didn't want Paul to get any airtime. It was mostly given to Romney and Perry. Looking two mold the audience so they believe Romney and Perry were the two front runners.

What has happened now though... The media has acknowledged Paul finally. They know he cannot be dismissed now. Recent coverage would suggest that the influence behind the next GOP ticket, were hoping to get Romney as the Pres candidate and Gingrich as Vice-President.

Because of Paul's support, and the noise he has made the plan seems to have shifted. What it looks like now is they want him to put his foot in his mouth. He is given more time to express himself and answer direct questions. Whether or not they will get the outcome they desire, is up for debate (so to say).

This is my impression, anyhow..