It's time to call BS on the decision by FOX News to exclude Ron Paul from its GOP presidential roundtable tonight. Political junkies will already know that Fox producers decided arbitrarily to limit participation in the forum to candidates that possessed high enough poll numbers.
Of course the real reason is that FOX and its on-air personalities dislike Paul and want to see him out of the presidential race.
FOX News is slimy and should be slammed for its cowardly and clumsy handling of this situation. More importantly this is more provocation which can needlessly shove the former Libertarian presidential candidate and his supporters out of the "Big Tent" party and on the road to an independent presidential run.
The network's decision has drawn the ire of the New Hampshire Republican Party which has officially withdrawn its endorsement of the event. The state chairman cited New Hampshire's role as a forum for underdog candidates. You won't find news about this on FOX either.
A good way to pick up points by any of the remaining candidates who'll appear tonight would be to briefly criticize the handling by FOX producers of this issue. Nothing to dramatic. Just a comment about stifling free speech, even speech you disagree with, being wrong. Hopefully it's Huckabee.
Paul supporters no doubt have a list of grievances about why FOX, Republicans and the world in general are out to get them; most are imagined but some are quite real. Case in point: During the Iowa Caucus coverage on FOX not once during the three hours (that I watched) did any of the talking heads care to mention Paul's numbers. The news crawl throughout the night conveniently only listed the top four finishers. CNN and MSNBC flashed the final tallies of all candidates, top to bottom, every two minutes.
It's bothersome when a news station excludes legitimate information from its viewers in order to shape their opinion. There are dozens of reasons why I loathe cable news in general and FOX in particular.
This is yet one more.
I stopped going out of my way to deliberately antagonize and belittle the Paul campaign a couple months ago. It was mainly because he ran and is running a real race. The guy raised $20 million in a quarter. Despite not spending a nickel he got 10 percent of the vote in Iowa - more than Giuliani - and with how flakey the voters are in the Granite State odds are good he'll do even better in New Hampshire.
Like it or not the guy is a real candidate. This isn't Dennis Kucinich or Tom Tancredo who couldn't get attention if they were holding the last ham sandwich in hungry town. Paul has name recognition. The way things are looking, he will probably be in the race longer than Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson. Although there's probably no scenario where Paul can win the nomination it is nowhere out of the realm of possibility that he will control a significant block of delegates which could be a factor should this race be decided at the convention.
The Paulites are playing by all the rules and doing everything you can ask in order to be a valuable part of the nomination process. Right now as you read this there are dewy-eyed Paul supporters signing up to be PCOs and precinct captains laying down the foundation of a good grassroots base. They're doing it across the country. They're doing it in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties.
Here in Washington, Democrats are choosing all of their delegates in the caucus while half the Republican delegates are coming from the primary; the open primary. It wouldn't be surprising if Paul came in second or even wins our state's GOP primary.
You see the signs along the road, you read the blog comments and you watch the YouTube videos. In terms of generating excitement the "Paultards" have been kicking the ass every candidate in both parties with the exception of Barack Obama
On several occasions, when asked directly, the good doctor promised that he won't run as a third party candidate. You can believe him or not. A politician going back on their word is not exactly unheard of.
Is there any need to hasten the process? Does the Republican Party really need a situation like it had in 1992 (Buchanan) when the party elite tried to stifle the divergent viewpoints?
And don't get me wrong. I am no Paul supporter. You'll find no backwards R"EVOL"UTION slogan tattooed on my carcass. Some of the Texas congressman's domestic policies are intriguing but he's dead wrong on foreign policy. Relying on letters of marque and two oceans the nation's interests here and abroad ceased to be a viable national strategy before the War of 1812.
But is Paul anymore wrong than McCain on illegal immigration, Huckabee on smoking, Romney on the Second Amendment or Giuliani on social issues?
Well...yes. But prove his policies wrong on air and find common ground with the ideas that you share.
Posted by DonWard at January 06, 2008 07:48 AM | Email ThisHe didn't actually promise not to run. He said he was 99.9% sure he wasn't going to run. He said he had no intention of doing so, but didn't want to rule it out completely in case the situation changed.
Thats how honest this man is.
Posted by: Anthony on January 6, 2008 09:24 AMPosted by: John on January 6, 2008 09:26 AM
Paul still supports a strong national defense and you can bet that if any nation attacks us, they'll be dealt with harshly instead of this ridiculous going to the UN or "international community." It's time to get out of the Middle East and let these heathens go back to killing each other. Stop subsidizing dictators who'll spend our foreign aid on weapons. Get out of these trade agreements that infringe on our sovereignty.
Ron Paul is the best candidate running for President. Please, everyone reading this, make a generous donation to his campaign.
Posted by: Brian on January 6, 2008 09:32 AMIf you don't like the 2nd ammendment, then change the ammendment. As Ron Paul educated Tim Russert, there is a process for changing the Constitution.
I'm glad to see more Americans seeing Fox News for the propaganda machine they have become.
Posted by: John on January 6, 2008 09:36 AMTHE MILITARY DONATES MORE TO HIM THAN ANY OTHER CANDIDATE... makes you think they want to come home too...
Posted by: Devils.advocate on January 6, 2008 09:36 AMSome of Ron Paul's ideas my be fringe, but he doesn't appear to be as much a fringe candidate as Kucinich or Keyes.
And you hit the NAIL ON THE HEAD when you said that the isolationist strategy ceased to be viable since before the War of 1812. *DING DING DING* History is your best friend, Ron Paul.
Posted by: Cydney on January 6, 2008 09:57 AMAnd I don't generally agree with Ron Paul's positions, especially on foreign policy because they are unworkable, and they are misguided. Fanatical Islam needs to own its problem of the daily preaching of hatred and jihad. This is a well financed operation that goes to the top level of every Middle Eastern theocracy and dictatorship. It's clear that the Western world has a stake in helping Fanatical Islam get the Golden Rule figured out. Staying home is not going to make this go away.
That said, we live in a free market of ideas and products. Ron Paul should be allowed to voice his opinions and ideas, and may the best man win. It's a free country. Even if that means a temporary diversion down the road of socialism as proposed by Hillary, eventually the free market will bring us back to square, because it is free.
Like another poster said, it doesn't matter if he's right or wrong cause we're broke. We can have fancy dreams of saving America on someone else's soil, in someone Else's country, but it costs a ton of money that we don't have.
We borrow from China. Honestly, the GOP needs to get their heads out of their ass. The dems have had their head in their ass longer than I know, but this isn't acceptable for the GOP.
We're going down in sorry miserable flames in the general election, and it's all cause we've decided to fix everyone.
Have any of you ever tried to fix a broken person? It's impossible to do it by force. They must WANT it, because in the end, you can't change someone.
This is the same with the world. We can't change them by force, they must WANT it. Right now, they don't. They hate us for it.
There would be no jihad if there were no infidel on their Holy Land. This is a case where the symptom is terrorism, not the problem. We're the problem. If you can't handle that statement, move to China. Our money is anyway.
I love America. I've voted in every election. I've also woken up to the fact that not only do we not owe the world a favor, we can't afford it and they never asked.
By the logic of the author of this post, following to conclusion, we should have invaded England in 1811 and occupied her no matter the cost because she later invaded America and lost.
Hell, I could accept that a ton more than we needed to invade and occupy Iraq. (then Iran then Pakistan) At least 19th century England was a threat. All the places you guys want to invade could NEVER invade us in return. Maybe in a million years, who knows.
The GOP is dead if stays close to Bush like that. America and the world hate Bush. A very few Americans who are party loyalists (similar people to nazi party or red party loyalists)
Posted by: Rhys on January 6, 2008 10:02 AMRon Paul, candidate of the intelligent.
The strength of the dislike expressed for Paul's anti-empire platform has amazed me. It is not uncommon to hear words like loony, nutty, fringe, and cult-like to describe those who have heard his message about the long term debasement of the currency and his annoyance at deficit spending.
I also do not agree with Dr. Paul on many issues (I am, for example, pro-choice for the first two-trimesters). But I would have thought that there would be such strong common ground on issues such as deficit spending, pro-second amendment, pro-liberty stances. I would have thought that his message to secure the border for the common defense would have resonated. And it does... for some.
When I heard Fred Barnes espousing the message that big-government Republicans were here to stay (while listening to the Mike Rosen show in Denver) I turned away in sadness. I thought they had accepted big-government because they saw no alternative. But their vitriol against Paul suggests to me that they simply like Big-Government. They just want to be the ones running it.
Posted by: Dan Hansen on January 6, 2008 10:05 AMFox News is a major Republican supporter. They don't want a Republican to win, they want THEIR Republican to win. I imagine they'll pile onto Huckabee next. Romney is their chosen heir.
For me the difference between Ron Paul and all the other candidates Republicans and Democrats is he is the only candidate that speaks to cutting run-away federal spending.
The Republican candidates other than Paul speak about cutting taxes. What about cutting spending?
The Democrats speak to more federal control solutions, more spending and more taxes.
Posted by: George on January 6, 2008 10:17 AM1) He is the only candidate that wants to end the war NOW
2) He realizes inflation and our debt are tied together AND understands the role that Federal Reserve Bank is/was/does/continues to play in that process and seeks to get rid of them. This issue in my opinion is the single greatest threat to our national security and Dr. Paul is the only person talking about it. All the other candidates say nothing about our ghastly national debt.
3) He wants to close our overseas bases and bring the 516,000 soldiers in 130 different countries and money (about 500 billion a year) back to this country where they belong.
4) He is honest. His positions have been his positions for over 20 years. I don't believe any of the other candidates, I feel that they say what ever is politically expedient. That is when they even say anything of substance, mostly they speak in platitudes and sound bites.
The two party system is failing us, every election cycle we are offered people whom we hold our noses and vote for. There needs to be a change to this, there needs to be real political discussion about real issues.
Your article was well written. I have a lot of respect for someone with enough intellectual integrity to call a spade a spade, even if is the spade in question isn't your chosen flavor.
Posted by: CHIG on January 6, 2008 10:19 AMYes, Bush's ideas of cowing to "the religion of peace" and "spreading democracy" are foolish. But so are Paul's ideas of isolationism.
The solution is the principled application of Western Might combined with principled rhetoric from a strong US leader. We need to define why we are right, and why Fanatical Islam is wrong. Paul's supporters think that it's because we are there that they hate us. But that's demonstrably false, and is such rhetoric was espoused by an American President, it would never be tolerated by the American people.
We are everywhere, and you don't see the Japanese waging Jihad on Americans. Being a world wide presence is a side effect of being the world's largest economic engine. This is something to be proud of, and for smart countries to enjoy in commerce. But that does not justify the religious declaration of force against the US. And this is something that is tolerated and financed by the official voices of both Islam, and the Middle Eastern political entities.
What Paul's supporters need to envision is not how we would feel if they came here, but how we would feel if all of our priests and ministers started preaching Jihad every Sunday. That's the key difference. We don't practice religion that calls for the death of other people we disagree with, and we certainly would never allow our government to actively finance and sponsor such religion in this country. Yet that's what happens every day in the Middle East.
If anyone thinks that staying home will suddenly bring Jihad to a close, they only need look at all of the other countries that are not the US, but where Fanatical Islam has still struck out in violence anyway.
I agree that our defense policy is expensive and needs rework, but Ron Paul's isolationism is not the answer.
Just curious, how much research have you completed on Paul? What do you know about his other positions other than ending the war now?
How much do you know about the world off of Bainbridge Island? Just curious.
If you all listen to the Kan Nal - Dreamwalker album it will sync to the energy in the air now, and you will be amazed. My favorite rip on this cd is called TIME. or there is the one called "Change"...Peace - Go Ron Paul!
Posted by: Kirk Roberts on January 6, 2008 10:31 AMYet like his Foreign Policy Isolationism, his aggressive Domestic economic proposals lack a realistic path from here to there. We could probably realistically slash spending overnight. But there is no way to suddenly abolish the Federal Reserve without drastic and fatal implications to our economy.
Ron Paul speaks matter-of-factly in a friendly and populist tone about topics that would be nice to change. It's like when you hear a misguided hippy talk about World Peace. Yeah, that would be nice, but it's not something that can happen at the flick of a switch. More than anything else, Ron Paul fails to provide a workable plan for his proposed ideas.
I believe this is why Ron Paul is popular. We all want to hear about how things could be better. We want to believe it is possible to make huge changes for the better. And we don't hear anything about change in the right direction from our typical Republican and especially not our Democrat candidates. Yet implementation still matters. Reality is always with us. Solutions must be workable.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 6, 2008 10:37 AMThanks.
Posted by: Doug on January 6, 2008 10:39 AMThe combined weight of the Western World... what a joke. That sounds like Hitler speak goeing after the poor jews.
Ron Paul is not isolationist, and if you think he is, you watch too much TV. If you watch too much TV, you're stupid. If you think you're smart because you watch too much CNN, you're even more stupid because you could have been smart if you chose better information.
How in the world can anything think it's a bad idea to be friendly to people in the world? Do you honestly think we can kill enough muslims to make terrorists stop killing us? No way! The only way to end terrorism is to stop giving people a reason to be a terrorist.
I hate our leaders and I'm an American... just think of what Average Joe Iraqi thinks.
If you want to kill muslims, do it yourself. Don't ask the world to form a global government by which there's no place to hide, to do your killing for you.
Listen.... pretend like Bush has been arresting Democrats, censoring free speech, and using our nukes on Iran. Now, China comes in and "saves us from Bush" and replaces Washington with a puppet government with the purpose of instilling Communism. They have a HUGE base in California.
You still hate Bush, but now you hate the Chinese too.
Don't be dumb. I am right. More accurately, Ron Paul and the CIA and everyone else who's actually real about this, is right.
It is NOT isolation to be friendly.
It's the difference between the open, popular kid and the sulking, lonely bully.
Posted by: RHys on January 6, 2008 10:39 AMBut I'll enjoy the debate more without him there.
I agree with a lot of what he's saying.
But the experience of watching him say anything is about the same as fingernails on a chalkboard.
These other candidates love have him there because he makes people who share his views look like idiots.
If your position is the right one, it shouldn't be difficult to convince people that Ron Paul is wrong without resorting to cheating and silencing Ron Paul.
At any rate, this is NO defense for excluding Ron Paul.
It's THAT simple. Let the man speak. Debate him. Convince his supporters that they are wrong. Convince the rest of the nation that he is wrong.
Instead, what is happening is that you elitists see that his message IS resonating and now seek to completely silence him instead of bothering to debate him.
This isn't Nazi Germany, people. The entire point of a debate is to have opposing viewpoints. The debates have been boring because none of the other candidates even HAVE opposing viewpoints.
The one that does on so many important issues, is simply excluded. Nice move.
And the 75% of things you like about Ron Paul? Well, none of the other candidates are even REMOTELY credible about them. So, the other candidates only agree with you 25%. How stupid can you possibly be.... based off your "opinion" that Ron Paul is wrong.
Posted by: Scott M. on January 6, 2008 10:46 AMThat is ZERO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Norm on January 6, 2008 10:47 AMYou need to study
a.) Austrian Economics
b.) GAO US Fiscal Projections
c.) Ron Paul's real policies (not the ones you think you know.) ronpaullibrary.com
d.) Inflationary properties of Federal Reserve policy
e.) fractional reserve banking
The rest of the field doesn't have a plan. Ron Paul's is based on Free Market Economics, made most notable by economists Ludwig Von Misses and Fredrick Hayek.
Your high school econ class is not sufficient to form an economic opinion. Luckily, one doesn't need to be a genius to understand free markets. Read Hayek's "Road to Serfdom."
Anyone who trusts that we just need better leaders better start learning how to genetically engineer some or else we're screwed.
Posted by: Rhys on January 6, 2008 10:48 AM1) More than some less than others. I lived in Europe for a couple of years, I travel internationally two to four weeks a year for pleasure and often for business. My business is international in scope and I feel personal financial repercussions in fluctuations in the world economy so I try to stay fairly attuned to international issues.
2) I know a great deal about his stance on other issues, and many of them I do not like, for example I am Pro-Choice.
That said, to me the questions you pose should be reframed a bit. It really isn't a single "issue" conversation for me. It is the basics of his logic, the consistent theme to his positions that I find the more interesting question.
His basic stance on domestic issues is that the Federal Government has no business in our day to day life. If that is the underpinning logic to policy positions then it is a logic that I can align with. The Fed has proven time and time again its inability to deliver on much of anything in an effective way. Private enterprise is far more efficient than is government.
His basic logic for international issues are in essence "if it isn't an imminent risk to national security then it is not our issue to deal with".
It is the constitutional stance. I see how far the country has moved away from the original framers and I worry about the outcome. Dr. Paul is often times derided and trash talked about this. I too, at first, thought he was a loon. It was only when I began to really research his positions that I begin to see the beauty of the logic.
Have you done much research into his positions and his underlying logic? If so have you juxtaposed it against other candidates and conventional wisdow in an intellectually honest way?
Posted by: CHIG on January 6, 2008 10:49 AMWhat I've come to see is that while the corners have been snipped on that document by most of the historical factions of American politics, only the Bushwackos seem consciously bent on crumpling it up into a ball and tossing it into the dustbin.
I personally embrace this defacto, if unspoken, coalition.
I would love for there to be heated debate on the floor of Congress over the pros or cons of, say, social security or education or healthcare funding, if at least once again the contending parties shared a common loyalty to the Constitution and historical core principles of the American government.
I learned something interesting last night during the course of the Democrats' discussions. To my surprise, apparently Senator Obama voted for an incarnation of the PATRIOT Act. That surprised and dsiappointed me.
I took a vow some time ago that I would never vote for anyone who voted for the illegal PATRIOT Act and now I find Senator Obama has foreclosed himself from consideration if the GOP fails to nominate Ron Paul.
Like Ross Perot, the more the lesser known people define themselves, the more support they lose as people encounter real deal-breakers.
I have some policy differences with Ron Paul, too, but they are not over such egregious violations of liberty. My biggest concern is how deftly and gently he will manage the transitions when reversing Bush policies early in his Administration.
Paul's supporters have reasons to cry foul, here.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on January 6, 2008 10:53 AMI lived in Massachusetts for most of my life. The governor has no real power to appoint judges. He can only appoint the people the Governor's Council gives to him, and the people on the Council are all liberal Democrats.
In the matter of judge selection, the governor of Massachusetts is a mere figurehead.
Posted by: pudge on January 6, 2008 10:55 AMGreat post! It makes me happy to see cogent fact based arguments rather than name calling. It is the way our democracy was designed to work!
Posted by: CHIG on January 6, 2008 10:58 AMThis is demonstrably false. The assumption is that terrorists are lone operative bad guys like Bin-Laden, living in caves, going in to otherwise fun-loving countries like Iraq, and making a mess. But the reality is that without complicit support from Middle Eastern Theocracies, the Governments and the organized religious leaders, there would be no way for the bad guys to get to Iraq, and spread their "terrorism." The problem is that it's not just a radical bunch, it is an infectious ideology that has gripped the power structures of the Middle East. Schools, mosques, politicians, leaders, are under the ideology of radical Islam. The proof is everywhere and undeniable.
That's why it can't simply be dismissed, and why it is a real problem for Western Governments. Rhys is right that much of Western rhetoric has trivialized the awful philosophical roots of Islam with phrases like "War on Terror." But that does not change the underlying problem which is that Muslims whether peaceful or not at an individual level, are spoken for by their religious and political leaders. And those leaders clearly aide, finance and ideologically support terrorism. Iraq is fast becoming the one place where that's less true because of the US presence there. Individuals Muslims can now expose terrorists, because government and religious support for terrorism in Iraq is waning.
Are the less expensive ways to do the job than what we've done in Iraq? Yes of course. Do we need to nuke Iran? No, there is a very strong pro-Western sentiment in their populace. A populace tired of the Sharia imposition on their personal freedom. But being "a popular friendly kid" is not the answer to dealing with a gang problem. And we are not a sulking lonely bully either.
There is a middle ground between Bush and Ron Paul. That's where we need to be. And it's nowhere that we ever get with Hillary, Obama or Edwards either.
None of that means anything in this context.
All that matters is that a lot of people -- especially, and most importantly, in New Hampshire -- support Ron Paul, and he should therefore be on the stage. Period, end of story.
The NHGOP was right to withdraw endorsement, because this debate is not for the voters of New Hampshire. But that is not totally crazy: Fox is using the occasion of the NH primary to have a debate, but that doesn't mean the debate can't be for all voters, and have a national criteria. But they are saying their reason is "space." They can't squeeze one more candidate in? So a lack of room for ONE SEAT is justification for spitting on the millions of citizens who might support Paul for President?
Insanity.
Posted by: pudge on January 6, 2008 11:01 AMWe don't need to prop up Europe militarily. We don't need to base troops in Japan. These resources would be better employed guarding our southern borders.
In Iraq we have done what we set out to do - Smack down the most virulent of the jihaddists. With Petreaus now re-aligning the Bathists as an ally to counter to the Iranians we are almost ready to leave that place. We certainly don't want to stay there for 10 or 20 or 60 years like in Europe or Japan.
As for small government, Paul is the only candidate who seems to really understand the issue.
My big problem with Ron Paul is not his ideas - its his electability.
Fox is wrong to exclude him from the debate.
Posted by: deadwood on January 6, 2008 11:01 AMHowever, as to small government ... Fred Thompson and John McCain both have excellent records on small government. (Don't be fooled by McCain's vote against the tax cuts: he only did it -- as he stated at the time -- because he was trying to force the Congress to cut SPENDING too.)
Posted by: pudge on January 6, 2008 11:06 AMThanks for the response. Yes, I have done a bit of research on Paul. What concerns me are:
a. His stands on fiscal issues
b. I think his international policy is unrealistic
c. I posted a link to the David Duke site in the thread below, so his associations with Duke and others concern me.
Regarding the knowledge about areas other the BI, the Seattle Weekly ran an article about Bainbridge Island and Bremerton this past week. Just wondering how accurate those impressions were.
The only way I would actively campaign for some one like Hillary is if Paul were the nominee, so I guess I will be actively campaigning against your choice.
Thanks for the response.
Thompson maybe, but McCain? Nah, don't agree with that!
Posted by: deadwood on January 6, 2008 11:12 AM
That Paul and most of his supporters are nutters is hard to dispute. That who FOX puts on or doesn't is up to them is even harder to dispute. That Paulistinians moan and whine like NO ONE I've ever seen, that they're so politically inept and self-delusional (How's that "second place behind Huckabee" thing working for you, Bruce?) is an absolute, rock hard fact.
If you don't like what FOX does or does not do, then don't watch their network. But to presume that they are under some other obligation to run their coverage the way YOU want them to is, well, while not the most bizarre assertion I've seen yet by a Paulbearer, it's got to be in the top three.
/P>
And that you people whine and bitch like cut cats is just one of the many turn offs this clown is causing... besides his neo-nazi links, that is.
That the NHGOP withdrew sponsorship means..... what, exactly? Do you believe that anyone out there watches, or fails to watch these worthless torture sessions because of the sponsorship of these events? Please.
Posted by: Hinton on January 6, 2008 11:16 AMRhys said: Ron Paul is not isolationist, and if you think he is, you watch too much TV. If you watch too much TV, you're stupid. If you think you're smart because you watch too much CNN, you're even more stupid because you could have been smart if you chose better information.
A bunch of assumptions and insults, not arguments.
With CHIG and Rhys, it's Ron Paul's way or no way. It doesn't occur to them that Ron Paul might be right on some things, and wrong on others. Or that his policies are practically impossible to implement. I've noticed this tends to be the way of the Ron Paul commenters. They have a chip on their shoulder because they don't like the two party system, and they see the good possibilities of many of Ron Paul's ideas. But shoutdowns and insults are the province of angry Nutrooters, and that has not served them well either.
There may come a time where more of Ron Paul's ideas make it to the mainstream. But it's going to take better packaging than that of the blog commenters everywhere that rush to Paul's defense and see only his ways.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 6, 2008 11:19 AMPaul's foreign policy is the same as his domestic policy. Do not force yourself on others. Treat them as you would have them treat you. What's your policy?
Posted by: John Howard on January 6, 2008 11:35 AMHowever, what's REALLY slimy is CNN.
Drudge is reporting "CNN has decided to air an encore presentation of last night's ABCWMURFACEBOOK debates - at the same time FOXNEWS is airing its live Republican debate!"
Why is it I believe that if it were the cowardly Dems blabbering on Fox this wouldn't be happening?
Talk about slimy: slimy business tactics AND even more slimy politics from the ever-biased CNN.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 6, 2008 11:40 AMThis isn't a government issue, it's Fox's choice, and they have chosen not to waste my time. I appreciate that.
Posted by: cliff on January 6, 2008 11:47 AMWhile we can disagree on the foreign policy issue, the cost and devastation that may result of it is undeniable. You are right, however, to see that this is where he is out of step with the GOP leadership and a large segment of the party, yet no different than the other candidates breaking with the party on other issues. This needs to be debated in front of the public because 100% of the GOP is not in agreement and we need to select a candidate that represents us all.
Most Republicans I have spoken to love Dr. Paul on the domestic issues and are either skeptical or disagree with him on foreign policy. People know he would revive the Taft-Goldwater-Reagan desire to diminish federal control in our lives and that the rest are big(ger) government Republicans, and they like that.
It is unfortunate, however, that Fox thinks it deserves the right and power to decide which types of challenges to hegemony are acceptable, when in fact the people are the ones who make this decision, at least the last time I checked.
Lakewood, WA
Posted by: PC on January 6, 2008 11:50 AMQuite frankly, I don't care whether RP is there or not. I don't.
HOWEVER, this group Paulbearer tantrum is very reminiscent of Michael Newdow tactics or the few whiners who are offended by Christmas trees and force their removal so no one enjoys them
Should he be on the debates? Yes, probably.
Should a private enterprise be FORCED or even coercer by whiners, to do anything against their will, against their own business decision?... slippery slope.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 6, 2008 12:02 PMThat being said, with some of the other comments that were made re: the supporters of Ron Paul being 'nutters'-- from what I've seen on the blogs, Paulunteers (or Paultards) have been noticeably LESS in your face slash rude slash obnoxious than most of the supporters of Giuliani, Thompson, McCain and Romney. Just go to townhall dot com and read the comments left on virtually ANY article-- those guys are spewing vile, hateful comments all the time.
Granted, some of the Paul supporters are immature assholes, but they are vastly outnumbered by the rest of US who are calm and reasoned in our posting style.
We are supposed to be reasonable people bound by reason and not afraid to discuss any, I repeat, not any issue that is deemed unpopular. Excluding RP from any debate when he is a viable candidate smacks of totalitarian manipulation. It only gives credence to those who believe that star chamber manipulation is in play.
If you or anyone believes that RP's platform is misguided then it should be openly and fairly debated for all to see. Fox's treatment of RP only serves to erode the Republican base proving the claims of "foul play". Surely, they (Republicans) will reap what they sow.
Posted by: Joseph on January 6, 2008 12:35 PMI thought the title of pudge's adjacent post was an appropriate comment for this thread.
Desperation Breeds Delusion
Although I like "SOME" of what RP had to say, you couldn't find a more flawed example of a Libertarian.
I find it incredibly interesting how much support he gets from Troofers and Neo Nazi's. It's not his fault they are attracted to him but they in fact are.
RP doesn't have a chance in hell of being elected dog catcher let alone President. Fox did the right thing. Kucinich has a better chance of being the Democrat nominee then RP does of being the Republican nominee.
Posted by: swassociates on January 6, 2008 01:03 PMPeople are disgusted with politics as usual and want someone with honesty, integrity, and authenticity. For a great satire on the president, the mainstream media, and the war on terror, see this YouTube music video from the international award-winning zombie musical feature film, "Song of the Dead." It' stars horror movie veteran Reggie Bannister (Phantasm, Wishmaster, Bubba Ho-tep) as the president of the U.S. The filmmaker, Chip Gubera, is giving a share of his profits from DVD sales to the Ron Paul campaign. Go to:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qQmkkoxSKYw
But all of this does show one of the big social changes that the internet has brought to our society. That is the opportunity for our society's lunatic fringe to find each other and join together. It is a continuation of the process started by the car.
When people had to walk or ride to get anywhere they HAD to form social communities with their physical neighbors. It was difficult for people who tended to believe in unrealistic ideas to have a voice. If you had a party you pretty much had to invite everyone, even if you didn't like them. While there would be social cliques, it was still difficult for radical ideas to grow. Groups of folks with radical ideas who DID find each other would have to break off and found a new neighborhood if they wanted to promote those ideas.
When folks became more mobile, they had greater ability to seek out and associate with people who were like them. There are relatively few neighborhoods left that have serious block parties. Ask yourself, at the last 3 dinner parties you attended how many people at that party lived within easy walking distance of your house. The answer for most of us is probably 0.
This really started a societal balkanization. It has probably led to a lot of the polarization we have seen in politics. It is much tougher for moderates and consensus builders when the strongest activists are able to exclude associations with people who have alternate opinions. In elections it is relatively easy for moderates to win. In caucuses a small cadre of dedicated extremists can nominate fringe candidates. Hence WA's simultaneous primary nomination of Pat Robertson and Jesse Jackson a few cycles back.
As an aside that was why IA was Ron Paul's best chance to show up as more than a blip on the national radar. 5th place didn't get the job done.
But now we have the internet age. Folks with a natural susceptibility to extreme ideas, mystical concepts, and conspiracy theories can really reach out and find each other. Can't find another 911 truther on your block? No problem, drive to a conspiracy theory book store. Don't have enough support in town? No problem, just log on. You will find lots of like minded friends. Echo chambers are now MUCH easier to build.
A few years back I read that psychiatrists were having more trouble treating paranoid schizophrenics who liked wearing tin foil helmets. Turns out these wackos had found each other on the internet, and were exchanging designs for maximum effectiveness. They were also reinforcing each other's delusions about aliens and/or the government beaming thoughts into their heads. It is tough for a therapist to convince a loon that the aliens don't exist when the loon can log in to second life and talk to a hundred other losers who share a commonplace delusion.
This trend will continue as social networking scoring becomes a part of our lives. We will soon be able to rank each other's opinions and personalities. It will become easier and easier to only associate with people we like and with whom we agree. Some ideas ARE better than others, but as social networking continues to expand there will be growing social pressure to say that all ideas have equal social merit. Hence todays calls to allow Ron Paul's radical, unelectable positions into the mainstream of public discourse.
The crazies are on the march. They are finding each other online. It will be one of society's greatest challenges and opportunities. I'm just glad that Fox took the opportunity to limit their debate to the grown ups.
Hairy
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on January 6, 2008 01:15 PMRon Paul 2008.
Posted by: madzebra on January 6, 2008 01:33 PMReminds me of the great patriot Thomas Paine who is probably cheering in his grave for Ron Paul!
Posted by: Sara DiNicola on January 6, 2008 01:33 PMRELAX everybody... Last I checked, we still have a nuclear arsenal capable of obliterating the entire planet, not to mention the finest military ever assembled. What are you afraid of?
The main argument I hear in favor of the pre-emptive war theory being shoved down our throat concerns a radical individual or group(i.e. terrorists) getting hold of a nuke or bio-weapon, infiltrating our country, and detonating it somewhere inside our borders. Is this possible? The answer of course is yes.
However, in a post-9/11 world, the retaliation from the U.S. and MOST OTHER FREE NATIONS would be so swift, so devastating, that it would likely entail a conversion of sand to glass across the entire middle east. They (terrorists) KNOW this to be a very real, likely possibility. This is one reason why the radical-islamic movement stands absolutely zero chance of picking up any steam, especially if America changes her position to one of promoting peace through diplomacy and trade.
Let's not be so arrogant to think our meddling and disruption over the years in the affairs of sovereign nations hasn't caused some resentment around the world, particularily in the gulf region. For those who cling to the belief that America always has, and continues to be, a benevolent force for the spreading of "democracy" and "freedom", do some real historical research. People don't hate in a vaccum.
The simple fact is, our policy of foreign adventurism and authoritarianism has been annoying the world for decades. I would make the argument that the seeds of the Jihadist movement against the United States were planted in Iran circa 1953. Do some research on this topic and you will begin to uncover a greater understanding of modern radical Islam and its origins.
Guess how many radical Islamic terrorist attacks occured against the United States prior to that time:
Zero.
Wake up people. It's about time our citizens educated themselves in the history of our highly inneffective, ill-advised, and, most importantly, dangerous foreign policy of the modern era.
Posted by: Jeff on January 6, 2008 01:37 PMIf the Republican Party has a problem with how Fox is holding the debates then the Republican Party can tell all of it's candidates to boycott them. I just don't see where it is the responsibility of Fox to give a million dollars of free publicity to someone who has just barely spent that much money from his campaign so far. Seems pretty unfair to have a 100% matching contribution while people like Romney or McCain only have a 3% matching contribution.
Posted by: Doug on January 6, 2008 01:41 PMAnd for those that say Fox has no obligation to include Paul because he has no chance, then they should be able to set up guidelines as to why he is not invited. But it is an arbitrary decision they are making and that is why it is wrong.
Posted by: Jacob on January 6, 2008 02:22 PMBut none of us are doing that.
What we ARE doing is pointing out the hypocrisy of Fox News. They claim to be "fair and balanced" but are clearly trying to quash dissenting views on the war, the mismanagement of our monetary system, etc.
We are taking advantage of the fact that this action makes Fox News look bad. We are publicizing their actions, boycotting their shows and their advertisers, and raising a general stink in a peaceful way. This is how a free country should work.
Any news show that behaves in this way should lose market share to news organizations that are more objective. A news organization relies on the trust of viewers in the truth of what they are presenting. If Fox News viewers thought that news executives were attempting to manipulate the political process, or to decide FOR US which candidates we should hear, then they would watch and trust Fox News less.
A few years ago, I was running for US Senate in Washington as a Libertarian. KING 5 tried to exclude me from the debate with Cantwell and McGavick. I found a way to get in to the debates, by meeting an obscure section of their own debate rules. But Green Candidate Aaron Dixon was excluded, because he could not take advantage of the same rule. An independent candidate was also excluded.
What Fox and KING 5 have the gall to do is to try to say that they can decide which candidates we should consider, and that the people are not capable of making this decision for themselves. Instead of being the presenters of information, they are setting themselves up as influencers in the debate itself. This position is elitist and paternalistic, and makes KING 5 and Fox News look bad, as well it should. It undercuts their perception of objectivity and their brand. It is not in their own interests.
Three cheers for the NH GOP for realizing that being associated with this forum was going to make them look bad as well.
The American people are wise enough to consider for themselves the merits of Ron Paul's views and of his candidacy. This trust in the people is fundamental to our Constitution. The framers seemed to know about "the wisdom of crowds" even back in 1780, even as they were aware of the limitations of democracy.
And, by the way, it is our Constitution that needs to be defended in America today. If the people continue to let the government run rough-shod over it, we will lose our precious liberty, and our prosperity and security as well. I believe that Ron Paul is the solution for the true American patriot.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 6, 2008 02:22 PMYou are right to point out that radical dictators finance terrorism, but we in turn finance those dictators.
The world is not blind to our misdeeds. Americans have a very short memory, but the world has a very long memory.
A foreign exchange student laughed at my grandfather for showing her an "old" building from the 1800's. She said "in the rest of the world, we don't start counting till 500."
We know very little about what America's been up to in the last 50-100 years. The rest of the world knows everything. It's not a secret, we just never cared.
Posted by: Rhys on January 6, 2008 02:46 PMWhat the hell does that even mean?
A foreign exchange student laughed at my grandfather for showing her an "old" building from the 1800's. She said "in the rest of the world, we don't start counting till 500."
And I hope Grandpa reminded the rude little snot that our HISTORY only began shortly before that date.
Word now is that the international elitist bankers are bankrolling both the U.S. and the insurgents who never set foot in Iraq until Hussein was murdered by Bush. And, of course, the insurgents were/are trained by America's very own CIA.
If you get the impression that the Iraq "war" is a controlled conflict intended to produce certain outcomes of which you are being kept in the dark, you've got it.
Our young men and women are fighting and dying in Iraq not in the name of freedom, not in the name of liberty, not in the name of stopping terrorism; but rather
1) to fill the pockets of the military industrial complex in cahoots with GW Bush and his criminal daddy, GHW Bush, ex-CIA;
2) to establish a U.S. presence in the Middle East (thus the largest embassy compound in the world being built in Baghdad and projections of occuption of Iraq reaching out as far as 2017); and
3) to secure the Iraqi oil fields for international oil congomerates such as British Petroleum (owned by the British Royal Family) at the expense of the Iraqi people and Iraq nation.
Despite the rhetoric of the Nazi-fascist Bush Administration (Prescott Bush helped bankroll Hitler and was a full-fledged supporter of Hitler), Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism or the freedom of the American people.
Nor does it have to do with 19 Arabs with box cutters who supposedly hi-jacked airplanes on 9/11 and flew them as no highly experienced pilots could fly them without buying the farm far short of their destinations.
Get a clue, Americans, your government is your worst enemy. Bush and bin Laden have a long and friendly history. The house of Saud and the Bush's are of the same cloth. The Bush/Clinton Dynasty is one of the murder, rape and pillage of America. Be careful about the Arkansas flu; it's a real killer!
Vote Ron Paul 2008 for constitutional government!!!
Posted by: LetFreedomRing on January 6, 2008 04:09 PMAn awful lot of this group of loonies is in the RP bandwagon. As I recall RP hinted at some belief in this nonsense in a debate about a month ago.
Belief in the unbelievable seems to be such a big part of the human psyche. From Astrology, to the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, to Charismatic Christianity, to this stuff it is always amazing to me how many people fall into this kind of cult like thinking. And the web is making it worse.
One of the more dangerous aspects of this syndrome is the fluency you see in so many true believers. They RESEARCH their delusions, and can spout off scads of exaggerated, mis-interpreted, or just plain incorrect "facts". It makes them sound like reasonable who deserve an opportunity to make their point. In fact it is just another loser looking for a mystical explanation to justify why the universe is against them.
Hairy
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on January 6, 2008 04:37 PMThe vast majority of us are not conspiracy theorists. To judge us by the few 9/11 wackos or racists among us is a form of guilt by association. It also ignores the actual things that Ron Paul is saying. THAT's how Ron Paul should be judged, not by how a few of his supporters act. There are wackos who support every candidate.
The mainstream of Ron Paul supporters tend to be:
Young
Technologically active and literate
Supporters of the Constitution and fans of the US Founders
Educated
Employed
Opposed to the US taxpayer being forced to pay for the US to be the world's policeman
It is only a slim minority of Ron Paul supporters who are 9/11 truthers, illuminati conspiracy theorists, racists and the like.
Let's stick to debating the issues, instead of setting up straw men so you can dismiss us before our views are even considered or responded to.
In a debate, if you can beat the strongest version of your opponent's views, your opponent is soundly beaten. But if you knock down a weak version of his arguments, or if you associate his views with wackos and then use ad hominem arguments, you do not defeat him at all. You just make yourself look bad.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 6, 2008 04:53 PMMcCain has an excellent record on small government. One of the best. If you don't agree with that, then with respect, I'd say you don't know much about McCain. He has been one of the most consistent voices in my lifetime for voting against government waste, against pork, and for cutting spending.
Even Club For Growth's criticism of McCain is pretty weak. They -- rightly, in my judgment -- criticized him for his favor of increased regulation (esp. environmental and campaign regulation). But his support for Social Security taxes ... that's what Ronald Reagan did, in order to compromise with the Dems and keep Social Security solvent. If you want to criticize him for that, fine, but it is nothing new or exceptional, even for a small-government conservative.
But as to McCain's opposition to the Bush tax cuts, that was because the Congress wasn't also cutting spending. He was using his vote to try to force the Republicans to cut spending. If McCain had his way, we would have had a tax cut AND spending cuts, and we would undoubtedly be far better off today, with lower taxes and a smaller budget.
In other words, the biggest hit against McCain by conservatives is that McCain was standing up for economic conservatism.
But even Club for Growth says this:
Despite his poor record on tax cuts, Senator McCain's zealous effort against wasteful spending deserves praise. Over his twenty years in the Senate, he has been at the forefront of the battle to eliminate wasteful projects and inject greater discipline and transparency into the appropriations process, often by introducing a slew of cost-cutting amendments. While many of these measures did not pass, they served an important role in shining a glaring light on congressional profligacy.
No matter how you slice it, cutting spending is more important than cutting taxes, when it comes to small government -- as we have seen under Bush, where taxes were cut and the government got bigger -- so even if you think McCain stinks at cutting taxes, it is undeniable that McCain has been one of the most important and strongest proponents of small government over the last 20 years.
Can we assume that you are a US Citizen and haven't broken any laws by contibuting to a US political campaign? Oh, you haven't been to any Chinese restaurants with a guy named Hua while entering the help Hillary pick a theme song contest, have you?
Posted by: WVH on January 6, 2008 06:53 PMThis means either he hasn't tried, or no one in Congress pays any attention to him. This is the heart of the problem. Someone with great ideas who can't convince anyone is of no use in the political process. Let him buy a debate with all the millions he has raised, and he can demonstrate his true libertarianism.
Posted by: janet s on January 6, 2008 07:13 PMFor those intersted in seeing how crazy this man really is goto
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxldrCsVByA
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VQcpmfT0f4
You can hear crazy theories such as 'you can not keep printing money without out backing it up with gold' or 'we should try to get out of iraq soon rather than in 100 years.'
Posted by: Travis on January 6, 2008 09:18 PMThe debate was important because Paul is running a campaign that is more than the just the internet. He is running to win and even though youtube is on its way up and cable news has already peaked, cable news is still way bigger than youtube.
Posted by: Travis on January 6, 2008 09:46 PMFrom what I understand the debate tonight was held in a converted bus. The candidates were seated around the same table as was Chris Wallace today during Fox News Sunday. There was limited room for the candidates, only five, so someone had to go.
It very well may have been an issue of not enough room, and only five candidates could fit around the table.
So if they only had room for five, Rep Paul has no possiblity to capture the R's nomination. Sorry Paulbearers, he has great domestic ideas, and he is very consistent in his beliefs, but he has no chance of capturing the nomination.
So if one candidate has to go, it's Dr. Paul.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on January 6, 2008 09:49 PM1. I think that Obi-Wan is obi right.
2. Let's throw out the following theory:
Paul is 72 years of age and the same age as Mc Cain, I believe. I disagree with you. Paul doesn't want to win, he wants to leave a legacy. I doubt that he will spend all his dough on this campaign, so that leaves quite a bit in campaign coffers. That money will be used to build up an office and supporting other campaigns and issues that fit his ideology. You asked me on another thread why the Nazis, Duke types and others support Paul other than they find a kindred spirit. Well, its politics 101, follow the money. So, after he loses, who gets the money in campaign contributions? I believe for Paul, its not about winning this election, its about legacy and being the founder of some type of movement for the history books.
Posted by: WVH on January 6, 2008 10:01 PMSo, Fox is doing the party a major disservice gagging Paul. As Obama says directly, he is betting on Independents and disgruntled Republicans (e.g., those that support Ron Paul) voting for him. And, if this keeps up, he may just win that bet.
Posted by: bananaland on January 6, 2008 11:01 PMJust guessing, and it's just a guess, Fox had to make a decision. One can make all the arguments one wants about Paul's viability, and he did do fairly well in Iowa.
If I had to guess, Fox made the decision on national polling. I'm not trying to defend their decision, I like many of Dr. Paul's domestic policies. I'm just trying to offer a reason, not defend it.
Luntz Exposed!
Posted by: NH on January 7, 2008 04:09 AMYou wrote:
"Nothing to dramatic."
This link on grammar might be helpful:
http://www.yvcc.edu/owl/tooto.html
Posted by: pbj on January 7, 2008 04:56 AMI'll make sure to clack the "o" button twice the next time when I'm clattering along at 35 wpm.
You get the light-blue correction pen of the day award. Good for you.
However, when are we going to let the final two or three get down and dirty? My word, last night, Thompson, McCain and Huckabee all looked out of their league with Rudy and Romney in the audience.
It was really the first time, we got questions and answers without audience catcalls.
Fox was also a loser in this debate for baiting the candidates and spending too much time analyzing ads. If you wanted ad analysis go to media matters or some other such group.
And McCain looked so childish during the Saturday debate, which luckily for him, occurred during close football games. For those that saw it, does Beavis and Butthead chuckles sound like the noise posing as laughter/childness/snicker coming out of McCain. I can still go for McCain over any Democrat, but he is so childish.
Posted by: swatter on January 7, 2008 06:53 AMYou're just as crazy as the candidate that you are trying to support.
Finally, anyone that calls Fox News "slimy" should be a contributor to Horsesass instead of Sound Politics.
DonWard, you're on the wrong blog!
Posted by: jaybo on January 7, 2008 07:44 AMAren't you as sick as I am of all the GretaAlerts on a missing person or one of O'Rielly's pompous and arrogant tirades? And I am just tired of Hannity and Colmes- there isn't a whole lot of debate anymore. And when they get to the news, it seems they neutered their coverage to be PC. Oh, don't forget the unforgettable Jerry Rivers, either.
Posted by: swatter on January 7, 2008 08:07 AMBrit Hume said before the debate began that each of the 5 candidates invited registered in the double digits in NATIONAL polls. As I said before, I think they should have included Ron Paul, but I did enjoy the forum better without him.
I thought 4 out of the 5 did well in the debate. Huckabee blew it with his non-answers on taxes. McCain was much better than he was Saturday night when he made himself look childish with his jabs at Romney. However, the Tax-cut and Immigration discussion did not help McCain at all.
I think Romney helped himself in both debates and I think, with help from Obama* (and to a smaller extent, from Ron Paul) he will beat McCain and win the NH primary. Overall--Obama wins big (by double digits) and Romney eeks by McCain by less than 5%.
*McCain needs a big chunk of independents to win NH. I think Obama and Paul will take enough of the independents to throw the win to Romney.
Posted by: Bill H on January 7, 2008 08:59 AMno, that would be mike huckabee, who believes that humans have only existed since adam and eve and doesn't believe in evolution.
(i wonder if he still believes in santa?)
Posted by: dinesh on January 7, 2008 02:55 PM1) He failed to pick up a single delegate in the one election that's chosen delegates despite doing quite a bit of campaigning there. Duncan Hunter deserved a place on the stage more than Paul.
2) Despite doing more personal campaigning than either McCain or Thompson, he finished behind both of them by more than just a teeny amount.
Other notes:
[134] - It's not wise for a Ron Paul fan to make fun of politicians who don't believe in evolution.
[122, 123] - How do you feel about the 400 million dollars worth of pork that Ron Paul brought home this year? Careful not to step in the hypocrisy or to be slippery in your explanation.
Is your first name "Jane?"
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on January 7, 2008 06:17 PMEarkmarks are not about the size of government. The money has already been allocated, so it does not increase anything. I see nothing wrong with Paul looking at a bill he tried to defeat, that passed anyway, and then saying "well, I'll do what I can to bring some of this money back to my district: since I wasn't able to keep Congress from spending it, they might as well spend it on my constituents."
Now, if he were putting pork, instead of earmarks, into a bill, which increases the amount being spent, that's another story.
Posted by: pudge on January 7, 2008 06:34 PMWould you like a Link Exchange with THE INTERNET RADIO NETWORK? At the IRN you can listen for free to over 50 of America’s top Talk Shows via Free Streaming Audio! In addition you can email the President, VP, First Lady and Congressional Leaders…
http://netradionetwork.com
Why exclude Paul:
1) He failed to pick up a single delegate in the one election that's chosen delegates despite doing quite a bit of campaigning there. Duncan Hunter deserved a place on the stage more than Paul.
Actually he picked up 2 delagates. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#IA
Perhaps you are confusing him guiliani. Guiliani failed to pick up a delagate in Iowa despite spending more time there than Paul in the last 4 months. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018233.html
2) Despite doing more personal campaigning than either McCain or Thompson, he finished behind both of them by more than just a teeny amount.
Actually both McCain and Thompson spent much more personal campaigning time in Iowa than Paul. According the data from the NY times that was compiled at lew Rockwell http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018233.html
Romney - 109 Appearances, 29,405 votes
Huckabee - 86 Appearances, 39,814 votes
Thompson - 75 Appearances, 15,521 votes
McCain - 38 Appearances, 15,248 votes
Giuliani - 35 Appearances, 4,013 votes
Paul - 27 Appearances, 11,598 votes
IN fact you can see that Paul spent less time than all those above him and even less than Guiliani who tries to pretend he did no campaigning there.
March 7, 2006
Lobbyists, Earmarks, and Congressional Reform
by Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D.
WebMemo #1008
Because of the regrettable actions of a few, Congress is now considering significant reforms that would curb the influence of lobbyists and discourage the use of wasteful earmarks.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm1008.cfm
Did Paul support any legislation to reduce or eliminate the practice? Just curious.
Posted by: WVH on January 7, 2008 11:43 PMI feel bad for you guys, since I agree with some of your positions, smaller government, less taxes, but Paul was never the guy.
I am sure someone else probably has already posted this and it is on Drudge, but I thought I would chime in.
I have been called a liar, bonehead, old maid and threatened, so I post this feeling vindicated:
"James Kirchick of the New Republic has a devastating piece on Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) online today on the TNR website. Kirchick provides a meticulously detailed history of the "Ron Paul Political Report," a newsletter Paul had circulated to a network of some 7,000 subscribers from the late 80s and early 90s.
As Kirchick reports--whether describing post-apartheid South Africa as a "destruction of civilization," alleging that Martin Luther King "seduced underage girls and boys," warning of "tens of thousands of well-placed friends of Israel in all countries who are willing to wok [sic] for the Mossad in their area of expertise," or urging white readers to arm themselves after "the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s,"--virtually every historic trope of racism, anti-Semitism, anti-gay bigotry, or conspiracy theorizing featured in the "Ron Paul Political Report" in one way or another. For his part, Paul has alternately acknowledged writing some of the material that went out under his name, only to deny authorship when confronted with the most disturbing details. In any case, Paul has taken "moral responsibility" for the contents of the "Ron Paul Political Report." What