pulled out his verbal M16 automatic weapon at the Republican Presidential Debate in South Carolina Monday night when he shot down the many misunderstandings on his foreign policy stance, cleared up why sometimes attack ads are necessary and just down right showed some fire! It was by far the most entertaining Republican debates I've witnessed this year.
When Kelly Evans of The Wall Street Journal asked if attack ads should be abandoned, Paul said, "Well they should be abandoned if you're not telling the truth--but if you're exposing a voting record, I think it's quite proper."
As he started giving an example he began to chuckle remembering his frustration, "There was one ad that we used against Senator Santorum, and I only had one problem is I couldn't get in all the things I wanted to say in one minute."
The roar that broke out from the audience sounded like a laugh track erupting right on cue. He then began to list the things in the ad, and some he regretted not fitting in.
The thing you can't wrap your brain around is how can a 76-year old great grandfather be so sharp and on his toes? He is the only candidate that presented numbers, figures, examples that clearly showed he knew what he was talking about in every subject addressed. Why shouldn't he? He's been saying the same things since the 1970s.
Next, Dr. Paul cranked it up, when Gerald Seib of The Wall Street Journal appeared as if he was trying to set him up. "You want to make major cuts in military spending, several hundred billion dollars in the coming years that would cost South Carolina jobs. What do you say to the people of this state who worry that your military plans would hurt the national security and cost South Carolina jobs?"
In classic Ron Paul style, "I would say you're very confused about my position."
Once again the crowd cheered, so much so that he had to wait for it to quiet down to continue, "I want to cut money. Overseas money, that's what I want to do. I want to cut military money. I don't want to cut defense money. I want to bring the troops home. I probably would have more bases here at home. We were closing them down in the 1990's and building them overseas, that's how we got into trouble. So we would save a lot more money and have a stronger national defense, and that's what we should do."
Any student of the Texas congressman would have been beaming with pride as he went on: "But to say that we would be weaker is absolutely wrong, because another important thing you should consider is the military's behind me more than the others. I get twice as much money from the active military duties than all the other candidates put together. So their saying that I'm on the right track. They're sick and tired of those wars. They're sick and tired of the nation building and the policing activity. But to say that we would have less money for defense, we'd actually have more money."
After another misunderstanding Ron Paul said, "You see you still don't understand, there's a difference between military spending and defense spending. Just 'cause you spend a billion dollars on an embassy in Baghdad, bigger than the Vatican, you consider that defense spending, I consider that waste!"
The excitement of yelling broke out in the crowd again. "We don't get strength by diluting ourselves in 900 bases, 130 countries. But you need to understand there's a big difference in military spending and defense spending."
Rick Perry,, and have stood in Ron Paul's economic classroom before, and the funny thing is, am I the only one who has noticed this? With each and every debate, these guys are starting to sound more and more like Professor Paul. Less government, less taxes--it's funny to watch. His class is not full of a bunch of dummies, they see the American people respond to Dr. Paul, so in their flip-flopping and serial hypocrisy they are comin' around.
Follow Stephanie Ealy on Twitter @stephealy
Lots more of Stephanie Ealy's News here.