I wonder if this is on the CD.

New Hampshire asks: Do you believe that publicly revealing the identity of a covert CIA agent by government officials or journalists is permissible under any circumstances?

Paul Campaign: 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.

Thank you Sen. Church...er I mean Congressman Paul.

I'm sure thats real comforting for clandestine operatives the world over putting their lives on the line.

Or how about his plan to withdrawal all bases on foreign soil?

I guess we'll just launch all of our air sorties from aircraft carriers or US bases.

Or how about his opposition to the Iraq war based of his analysis that they were not an "imminent threat"

I suppose were just supposed to wait until an enemy becomes an "imminent threat" according to Ron Paul.

Boy, that could really be bad in a world where shadow terrorist organizations can get there hands on yellow cake uranium. But hey its your family right, I mean after all, if elected President, he'll have secret service protection for life.

And lets forget about the fact that Saddam was firing at US warbirds patrolling the agreed upon no-fly zone. Yeah, American honor, and commitment to stand by its fighting men isn't a reason to go to war.

Ron Paul's foreign policy, good for 1808...not so good for the realities of 2008.

VOTE FRED THOMPSON

A sound foreign policy to match a conservative/libertarian domestic policy.

Amen, Nick!!! Except that Thompson doesn't have enough energy to get out of Bed!

Wow Aaron, for someone who pays attention to political races as much as you, I would expect a more informed comment.

Fred has been picking up a great deal of steam in Iowa and South Carolina.

The argument against Fred has largely been a subjective one about his "passion" to be prez.

Its ridiculous. Its also why I wrote my first, "shame on the CRA piece".

A piece, I might add which never received a legitimate reply from those who supported their decision.

So lets exercise a little intellectual honesty here. Fred is not the campaigner that Romney and Rudy are. He has a different style and lacks the amount of campaigning experience that Rudy and Mitt do. SINCE when has this been our primary concern in a presidential campaign.

Fred is bad on the campaign trail, he simply hasn't been as active as the other two. And that is changing.

So look, by all means settle for a candidate who just decided yesterday that abortion, gun control are bad ideas.

Pick a guy who will continue the "compassionate conservative" mantra of bigger government with tax cuts.

Like Ive said before, I'm not willing to settle just yet. I'm sorry that the CRA was, despite the protests of Tom MC Clintock and others.

Ron Paul's foreign policy, good for 1808...not so good for the realities of 2008.

I love it! Well said.

Except that Thompson doesn't have enough energy to get out of Bed!

...and Reagan slept through meetings...and Bush is stupid...yaadahh yaadah!

Here's a Paul quote from the AP today:

"I've never voted for an earmark in my life," the Texas congressman said under questioning on NBC's "Meet the Press" about reports that he has requested hundreds of millions of dollars for special projects in his home district.

"I put them in because I represent people who are asking for some of their money back," said Paul, who likened it to taking a tax credit. "I'm against the tax system, but I take all my tax credits. I want to get their money back for the people."

"Fred is bad on the campaign trail, he simply hasn't been as active as the other two. And that is changing."

Sorry, that was supposed to read Fred ISN'T bad on the campaign trail...