NH Asks, and Ron Answers

I read Ron Paul's questions and absolutely loved his responses: full 10's !!! However, I do not think that this is a fair questionnaire to the rest of the candidates. Ron Paul's question sheet appears to be the only one that doesn't contain questions that start with a "You said..." or "You believe..." type of questions. Ron Paul's questions are very straight-forward, what-would-you-do type; the questions of the other candidates are of a more presumptuous, you-did-this nature. While I think that it is valid to make candidates accountable for their past actions and statements in light of their current campaign stances, it is not reasonable to expect a reply when the questions seem accusatory towards other candidates.

I absolutely love Ron Paul, and think that he is the most honest, principled, and direct politician I have ever known. He has proven his ability to turn biased, loaded questions to his favor in the past, and in this case I certainly think that he was given fair, objective questions. However, I think the questions of other candidates were much more leading.

That's my opinion; I'd still love to see Rudy or Hickabee to respond to the questions. Paul has certainly had to deflate and respond to his share of spin tactic attacks.

These questions are not fair. They require straight forward truthful answers. The allegedly popular candidates can not answer them without revealing themselves to be the political equivalent of gum stuck on the bottom of your shoe.
Ron Paul is the only candidate that CAN answer these types of questions. He is the only MAN that IS answering these types of questions.

Go Ron Paul!

I am part of Rep Dr Paul's choir, so i understand his answer. Taken at superficial face value, which MSM and Joe Blow always do, the Q 5 answer is unnecessarily venturing onto dangerous ground. A typical knee jerk reaction to this issue invokes the Plame Wilson outing, like it or not.

There is no need to stray off the freedom, liberty, foreign policy strengths prominently displayed on RonPaul2008.com's issues pages. Rep Paul's official campaign site should remain the definitive source for answers The topic of outing CIA staff is not found on any of those pages, so i conclude it is a non issue.

My hope is that the campaign Keeps it that way.

Not every question posed by sheep herders deserves the dignity of a response, especially when it is posed by an obscure, low traffic site that no other candidate is participating in.

There are plenty of other safe positive Ron Paul articles out there that could easily be referenced.

Certainly we as a nation need to have good intelligence, but I don't think that is what Dr. Paul is referring to. As a free nation, we cannot allow agents of our government to commit illegal acts, and conceal these acts under the banner of "national security".

In a free society, the actions of political servants, whether elected or hired, can't be hidden from the people. Do you trust our politicians when they speak of "our national interests"? I don't. Our politicians work for us. They are in no position to decide what is best for us, and then to conceal the facts be declaring them "national security".

The American people are paying the price today for the actions of some of these people. We need open government. Political assassination of foreign leaders in peacetime is a criminal act.

During a declared war, I think it is proper to target foreign leaders. But in peacetime it is criminal. And criminals need to be punished, especially criminals who violate the rights of American citizens.

Ron Pauls Answer to Question5-"I believe that covert CIA operations flout the Constitution and want to diminish government secrecy wherever possible, making the government fully accountable for its actions to we, the people.

Therefore, I do believe it is legally permissible for journalists and government officials to publicly reveal the identities of covert CIA agents, especially when engaged in extraconstitutional affairs."

I am of the opinion that Dr. Paul is absolutely correct in his answer. If you read any revelations by former CIA operatives you will find that not only has the law been ingored, but many of the principles upon which this country was founded. In many cases, the CIA or their proxies, have operated with impunity, and in a way that almost functions as a government in and of itself. The excuse, of course, is always "national security" and behind that cloak of secrecy all manner of crimes have been committed that should not only cause us to be alarmed, but to wonder the extent of such criminal activities.

A movie is about to come out called "Charlie Wilson's War" which is based upon an incredible book by the same title. It, along with numerous other books on the subject, explore and expose a frightening world of covert activities, and a blatant disregard for Constitutional law and principles that it should alarm any freedom-loving Patriot. Unless such actions are drastically curtailed and the rule of law restored, then we will see, as we already are, an increase of such covert activities, not only abroad, but here at home. There is a very serious threat from such covert activities, not only from potential blowback, as we have witnessed over the years, but from the real potential that many of the same tactics used overseas will also be used domestically...especially against those who seek to uphold Constitutional order.

Remember, those of us who hold dissent as Patriotic, who seek to restore the Constitutional Republic are viewed as a fringe group and potentially dangerous to The State.

yes, I was surprised by RPs answer to Q5 too!

But since he does not believe the CIA spying is constitutionally-backed, his answer would make sense.

I really think he needs to expand on this, especially now that the case has had some important revelations in past few days.

I'd like to know if he would qualify his answer, that given that the CIA does exist (whether constitutional or not), that someone works for the CIA as a "federal" agent and is (allegedly?) aiding the security of America, would that not entitle them to federal protection? Editing to clarify - or that the agent would be protected from the federal government revealing her identity, ESP because it was revenge

We need clarification on this issue, as I expect someone who is not an RP supporter may ask about it!

Please tell me the answer to Q 5 is a misprint. Line staff, field agents and desk jockies at Cia should be protected. Out their bosses instead. I implore you to pull down this post. Or get Paul managers to delete it. If the MSM gets a hold of this, it's all she wrote for our hero.

IMHO every candidate should have been asked the same set of questions.

I hope everyone rated his answers to these questions.

Ron Paul slaughtered those questions. Ron Paul gives straight and clear answers that are logical and informative. This kind of behaviour is nearly unprecedented in modern politics!