I agree. However, every candidate's past will be used against him/her.

 

Secondly, before anyone starts yelling left-wing agenda I heard of this story yesterday while in the car listening to Sean Hannity. He was really ripping Paul.

 

I have no doubt about that...

 

How does a candidate's personal past affect your decision in who to vote for, if you don't mind my asking? For example, does it really bother you if a candidate has cheated on their wife? Are these factors as important as their political past?

Clyde listening to Hannity...was you bored?

 

I drive a lot for my job and was coming back from Knoxville. No satellite radio so I go with what I can find. I can only take so much inane sportstalk so that leaves Rush, Hannity, Beck, Dave Ramsey, and tradio. So, yes, I often do check in on these guys.

I have no doubt about that...

 

How does a candidate's personal past affect your decision in who to vote for, if you don't mind my asking? For example, does it really bother you if a candidate has cheated on their wife? Are these factors as important as their political past?

 

His/her past is definitely part of the equation. There's an expression that says "Your actions are so loud I can't hear what you're saying."

 

As to the importance of something like an affair I'd say it tells me something but it doesn't necessarily and by itself tell me his/her ability to be POTUS.

I agree. However, every candidate's past will be used against him/her.

 

Secondly, before anyone starts yelling left-wing agenda I heard of this story yesterday while in the car listening to Sean Hannity. He was really ripping Paul.

 

He always does. Of course Hannity is entitled to disagree with something he..disagrees with, but he mocks Paul bad, it's aggravating. A lot of people watch his show and listen to him.

What are Hannity's gripes with Paul?

What are Hannity's gripes with Paul?

 

I don't listen/watch much but I get the feeling he's strictly for Newt. Anyone?

I don't listen/watch much but I get the feeling he's strictly for Newt. Anyone?

 

I think he could support Romney.

What are Hannity's gripes with Paul?

 

Hannity says that he agrees with Paul 99% on fiscal issues but is non-internationalist policies is what gets him.

I don't like Hannity or Rush

In a new poll from a Democratic polling firm Newt has fallen to 3rd behind Mr. Paul and Gov Romney in Iowa.

In a new poll from a Democratic polling firm Newt has fallen to 3rd behind Mr. Paul and Gov Romney in Iowa.

 

Looks like my flavor of the month comment on Gingrich may be coming true. Gingrich just has too many warts. I think it is looking better and better for Romney to pull it off. There just isn't a right wing candidate strong enough to beat him, including Paul. That is good news IMO for the fall election. A Romney versus Obama race would be excellent.

More coming out about the newsletters. Not good for Mr. Paul.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/23/us-usa-campaign-paul-plots-idUSTRE7BM03320111223

More coming out about the newsletters. Not good for Mr. Paul.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/23/us-usa-campaign-paul-plots-idUSTRE7BM03320111223

 

I don't think the odious contents of those things have been in dispute. But Paul's defense has wilted as the scrutiny has increased. He was able to slide passed criticism in 2008 by saying he didn't write them, didn't know about them, and disavowed them (which was weak to begin with as they were published under his name). While he still says that, more has come out showing that this hasn't always been his defense. When the letters were first distributed he dismissed criticism of the writings by saying they were taken out of context and went on to defend the content. There are

from the 1990s of him discussing these newsletters as the way he keeps involved in politics during his break from Congress. If one does believe he didn't write them, the likely author, Lew Rockwell (as listed on the newsletters with Paul's name and who has voiced similar sentiments elsewhere), remains a trusted Paul adviser today. It's hard to say what the truth is, but Paul's inconsistency in accepting and defending these writings doesn't leave a lot of room for doubt about his complicity. And that's a shame, because I generally liked him and applauded his fierce defense of liberty against the status quo.

I don't think the odious contents of those things have been in dispute. But Paul's defense has wilted as the scrutiny has increased. He was able to slide passed criticism in 2008 by saying he didn't write them, didn't know about them, and disavowed them (which was weak to begin with as they were published under his name). While he still says that, more has come out showing that this hasn't always been his defense. When the letters were first distributed he dismissed criticism of the writings by saying they were taken out of context and went on to defend the content. There are

from the 1990s of him discussing these newsletters as the way he keeps involved in politics during his break from Congress. If one does believe he didn't write them, the likely author, Lew Rockwell (as listed on the newsletters with Paul's name and who has voiced similar sentiments elsewhere), remains a trusted Paul adviser today. It's hard to say what the truth is, but Paul's inconsistency in accepting and defending these writings doesn't leave a lot of room for doubt about his complicity. And that's a shame, because I generally liked him and applauded his fierce defense of liberty against the status quo.

 

Isn't there an expression dealing with the crime, the coverup, and a lie?

 

Just say it was 20 years ago. I was wrong. I don't feel that way any more. I'd have more sympathy than giving lame stories.