Hats off to Ron Paul for another great performance in the Republican presidential debate in South Carolina last night.
For almost six years, politicians have acted as if it is federal crime to speak bluntly about 9/11. On the day of the attacks, George Bush proclaimed that the hijackers attacked because they hate America for its freedom. This has been treated as a revealed truth ever since. (When I saw Bush on TV that day, I was perplexed how the US government could know the motive before it knew the identity of the hijackers).
Ron Paul has never kowtowed to this dogma, and last night he deftly debunked the 9/11 catechism. From the transcript:
MR. GOLER: Congressman Paul, I believe you are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq, who would bring the troops home as quickly as — almost immediately, sir. Are you out of step with your party? Is your party out of step with the rest of the world? If either of those is the case, why are you seeking its nomination?
REP. PAUL: Well, I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy. Senator Robert Taft didn’t even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy — no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There’s a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them.
Just think of the tremendous improvement — relationships with Vietnam. We lost 60,000 men. We came home in defeat. Now we go over there and invest in Vietnam.
So there’s a lot of merit to the advice of the Founders and following the Constitution.
And my argument is that we shouldn’t go to war so carelessly. (Bell rings.) When we do, the wars don’t end.
MR. GOLER: Congressman, you don’t think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?
REP. PAUL: What changed?
MR. GOLER: The non-interventionist policies.
REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East — I think Reagan was right.
We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we’re building an embassy in Iraq that’s bigger than the Vatican. We’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us.
MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?
REP. PAUL: I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we’re over there because Osama bin Laden has said, “I am glad you’re over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.” They have already now since that time — (bell rings) — have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don’t think it was necessary.
MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That’s really an extraordinary statement. That’s an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the
attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.) And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that. (Applause.)
MR. GOLER: Congressman?
REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.
They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free. They come and they attack us because we’re over there. I mean, what would we think if we were — if other foreign countries were doing that to us?
Giuliani’s snort is the best answer the Republican establishment can offer for the hard facts that Paul presents.
But such snorts will not be enough to perpetuate Republican control over the American people.
Ron Paul is the type of candidate that the Founding Fathers envisioned – someone who cherishes the Constitution and understands why it leashed politicians in perpetuity.
Ron Paul may not have carisma in a conventional political sense, but last night he was a lion. This man won’t cave to bullys.
It is a shame when someone speaks the truth and a short non-argument type of reply is what gets the largest applause.
Rudy did not need to present another explanation for the attacks in order for the crowd to start hooting and hollering. He even came out and said that he had “never heard [Ron Paul’s] explanation before”, when it is the same explanation given by bin Laden, numerous Middle East experts and members of our own CIA.
Then, Giuliani’s most ridiculous statement came after the debate on “Hannity and Colmes”, when he asserted that we were attacked because we are free and “women have rights”.
I’d love to see Giuliani’s evidence to back up that claim. For now, I’d simply have to label him as “clueless”.
I remain impressed at how gently and humbly Dr. Paul spoke the brutal truth
and how he remained that way despite the harsh ridiculing he took from Rudy, Hannity, Mike Steele, etc. Kudos to Alan Colmes for defending Dr. Paul. I’m not a liberal, but Alan has always struck me as the superior host on that show. God bless, Ron Paul.
Giuliani is not clueless. He is getting rave support from some quarters because of his willingness to embrace and flaunt the biggest lies of our era.
Giuliani’s record for the gross abuse of power goes back at least to the 1980s. And yet many Republicans don’t give a damn. They are confident that he would be their liar, and would abuse power to serve their ends.
Ron Paul is an American patriot, a hero if you ask me. Standing up to all those people and not backing down. He knows he has many many many people who support him though.
That’s right. Dollar Bill Bennett has been trashing Paul this morning. Of course he took him out of context by not fully quoting him.
Bennett is a dispecable pig of the lowest order. Guiliani sucks as well.
“MR. GOLER: Congressman Paul, I believe you are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq, who would bring the troops home as quickly as — almost immediately, sir. Are you out of step with your party? Is your party out of step with the rest of the world? If either of those is the case, why are you seeking its nomination?”
This is one veteran who is thoroughly fed up with internationalism. Paul may only do as well as Buchanan did in 2000, but I’ll still vote for him.
With what lttle time Ron Paul was alloted (especially in comparison to the huge chunks of time the Big 3 got) he nailed the war mongers with whom he shared the stage. I do wonder though – considering all the cheers and applause in response to Giuliani’s mindless attack against Paul – are South Carolina Republicans that dense or did the establishment powers that be stack the audience? If Paul does not get the nomination I would prefer a Dem to a Repub candidate. Every other Repub up there will have the US in endless war now that they have latched onto the ideal enemy – one that cannot be identified, with no specific locale and has been deemed to live only for the destruction of the US. The welfare/warfare military industrialist state elite must be having wet dreams at the prospect of the never ending war with Islamic terrorists.
Blowback is a very real thing….no doubt
Steve, most people, SC Republicans included, really are that dense. They swallow the most incredible lies and propaganda and believe it is all true. How else can one explain the wars of the last 100 years?
My congratulations to Dr. Ron Paul for his inspiring and courageous performance in last night’s Republican debate. In listening to a few of the radio and television commentators afterwards, they all assume that the votes cast for Ron Paul were somehow tainted and thus ought to be ignored. I loved hearing Paul expound on the subjects of war and peace from his pro-peace and principled viewpoint. Next year in a free and peaceful America!
At last there is an American politician that talks straight with the views of the founding fathers and the Constitution in his hand. There might be some hope for the United States and the rest of the world. If only the American people stop shopping for a while and wake up to the terrible dangers they and the world are now enduring.
Jim, even this anarchist non-voter has been watching the Ron Paul phenomenon with some interest – and even a bit of hope. What I’m wondering is how much of mainstream America sees through the mainstream media’s efforts to trivialize, marginalize, and distort Ron Paul’s candidacy and/or ideas. I doubt that you can answer that (or that anyone can, until the primaries start), but I’d appreciate your sharing your thoughts all the same.
my support and my money are for ron paul. a clear voice of truth. the rest of them are posturing ass kissers.
Well, unfortunately, Paul will not win the nomination, and so the only hope to end the Iraq fiasco is for the Dems to win the general election. As repugnant to me as the leading Dem candidates are, I’m afraid that’s our best long-term hope for the future. The only way the Republican establishment will come to its senses is to spend a few terms in political exile. Still, it would be nice to think Paul has a chance. Since I’m not a registered Republican I won’t have an opportunity to vote for him unless he runs as an independent in the general election (which I think he won’t do).
Sunni, my latest national survey shows that between 6 and 7 percent of the public sees through the mainstream media’s effort to marginalize Paul.
Actually, I think that Paul’s candidacy is profoundly dangerous to both the political establishment and their partners in the media.
If Paul catches fire like Jerry Brown’s one-horse candidacy did in 1976, the Friends of Leviathan are in a heap of trouble.
I found it odd that ALL the Fox reporters took shots at Dr. Paul immediately following the debate, and the commentators said Paul was definitely out of the race after his comments. But then the poll numbers started rolling in and had Dr. Paul in FIRST place, followed by Romney and Giuliani. They brushed it off at first, but then he held his position – so they start making excuses and finally bent over backwards to discredit THEIR OWN POLL. A poll conducted by Fox of Fox viewers, no less. (For those who missed it, the polls ended with Romney in 1st with 27%, Paul is 2nd with 26%, & Giuliani in 3rd with 18%.)
Paul is far from out and he is far from washed up. He just became the rock star of the debates. The question is, with the media hating him worse than any other candidate, will he even be invited to the next debate?
If you check GOPAC’s (Michael Steele, CEO) website, it indicates priority tickets and seating for GOPAC charter members. This might account for the sudden applause to Guliani’s disrespectful outburst. GOPAC is located inside the beltway Washington and was Gingrich’s fund raising tool in the 90s. Of course, there is that old relationship between Gingrich and Goebbels, …er Hannity. Steele said it’s time to winnow out the the second tier candidates (using Paul’s name as an example) based on his own perception of their answers (rather than the very unreliable text messaging responses of Paul’s highly sophisticated supporters). By the way, why did Fox News sponsor the text messaging poll? Did it fail to get the response they thought they would get? I believe we are watching the decline and fall of the old Republican party and, maybe with it, Fox News. A newer, truer conservative party is needed. On Giuliani’s website, he states that abortion is “a deeply personal moral dilemma that people of good conscience can disagree respectfully”. Does he exclude war as a moral dilemma? Isn’t Paul a multi-term congressman from a respected district and an Air Force vet (did Rudy serve)? What is Giuliani’s standard for people of “good conscience’? Wasn’t this a “debate”? Do you ask people to retract statements of conscience in a debate? Giuliani is the genuine item – a genuine hypocrite!
You’re absolutely right, Jim, about his candidacy being “profoundly dangerous to them”—which is precisely why they’re working overtime to discredit him. I hope it’s enough for more people to see through the charade …
Can someone please explain what Paul meant by this statement:
“We’ve been in the Middle East — I think Reagan was right. We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics.”
Did Reagan describe Mid East politics as “irrational”, or did Paul make that up on his own? Is this just another way of saying “crazy A-rabs”? I really hope that’s not what he means.
Please enlighten me.
“Of course, there is that old relationship between Gingrich and Goebbels, …er Hannity.”
Don’t insult Dr. Goebbels in this manner. He actually has a brain and is capable of intelligent thought. Hannity, on the other hand, truly deserves to be known as the “Parsons of (neocon)talk radio.” And by Parsons, I mean the one of George Orwell’s “1984” fame. This person is an embarassment to mankind, such as his stupidity. Only Hugh Hewitt can approach him.
Apologies – my numbers regarding Fox’s poll were inaccurate. Real numbers are:
Mitt Romney: 29%
Ron Paul: 25%
Rudy Giuliani: 19%
Mike Huckabee: 8%
Duncan Hunter: 5%
John McCain: 4%
Tom Tancredo: 3%
all others: 0%
Mike – Ron Paul was following up on a comment he made earlier in the debate.
Reagan was exasperated with all parties the U.S. dealt with in the Middle East. The U.S. went into Lebanon as a result of the Israeli invasion of that country – something which Reagan vigorously criticized in 1982.
I dealt with this at length in Terrorism & Tyranny (2003) and in this article: http://www.lewrockwell.com/bovard/bovard31.html
Here is the text of Paul’s first comment on this issue:
MR. WALLACE: Congressman Paul, you’re one of six House Republicans who back in
2002 voted against authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq.
REP. PAUL: Right.
MR. WALLACE: Now you say we should pull our troops out. A recent poll found that
77 percent of Republicans disapprove of the idea of setting a timetable for
withdrawal. Are you running for the nomination of the wrong party? (Scattered
REP. PAUL: But you have to realize that the base of the Republican Party shrunk
last year because of the war issue. So that percentage represents less people.
If you look at 65 to 70 percent of the American people, they want us out of
there. They want the war over.
In 19- — 2002, I offerer an amendment to International Relations to declare
war, up or down, and it was — nobody voted for the war. And my argument there was, if we want to go to war, and if we should go to war, the Congress should declare it. We don’t go to war like we did in Vietnam and Korea, because the wars never end. And I argued the case and made the point that it would be a quagmire if we go in.
Ronald Reagan in 1983 sent Marines into Lebanon, and he said he would never turn tail and run. A few months later, the Marines were killed, 241 were killed, and the Marines were taken out. And Reagan addressed this subject in his memoirs.
And he says, “I said I would never turn tail and run.” He says, “But I never
realized the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics,” and he changed his
We need the courage of a Ronald Reagan.”
Jim, Thank you for addressing my questions. However, if Ron Paul thinks that what we need right now is Reagan’s mythical “courage”, then he has lost my support. Reagan was a violent interventionist, not a courageous patriot. Just ask the Nicaraguans all about that (there are quite a few others you could also ask). I advise Ron Paul to forge his own legacy and not buy into myths of Dear Leaders past.
Giuliani’s a bald fascist goon and a racist police state thug whose face is even uglier than his Nazi politics.
Mike, I agree that Reagan’s legacy often obscures his record.
But I will cut Ron Paul slack on this – he is dishing out vastly more truth than any Republican presidential candidate in at least a generation.
“Wonkette-guy” – I’d like to put out for the record that there is no scientific link between baldness & fascist tendencies.
…Truth and Politics. In a phrase? That’s jest about as Radical a mixture as you can get. That and if truth’s the first casualty in war? It presupposes the fact that it’s more instantaneous in the Devil’s Workshop of Politics where pretexts are contrived for the former. In other words, I’m afraid Mr. Paul is a goner.
Ron Paul will leave his own legacy. The specious questions of the debate limited his responses. He is going to shut down the Federal Reserve! Now that is something RR couldn’t do! Onto the next debate…
The Neo-Con Facists, such as the likes of Hannaty and Guilliani, have loused this Country up long enough. Time to take this Country back. Even if Ron Paul doesn’t win, he’ll send a strong message that the status quo Republicans will have to listen. That may be all we can hope for, but it’s a start. A vote for Ron Paul will not be a wasted vote.
More on Paul and Mike Gravel
Stay strong, Dr. Paul and Dennis Kucinich…and Jim Bovard.
…Yeah it is that, a good start. Remember The LP is The 3rd largest in The Nation and growing.
Steve – thanks for the encouragement!
I enjoy the chance to cheer on Paul – and I hope the Democratic antiwar candidates prosper. It is fun to watch the political Establishment sweat bullets as their core lies threaten to unravel.
It appears that a lot of Ron Paul’s support comes from websites with user generated content and social networking websites like Digg, reddit, youtube, and myspace. That is how a lot of Paul’s supporters organize. The MSM tries to claim that there is some magic group of clever campaigners manipulating polls when in reality the people who use those sites are generally technologically savy people. I support Paul but I do wonder how many of those votes were cast by people trying to skew the poll (like MoveOn.org people). Another “conspiracy”, except of course this one is “true” because Fox said so. More of the same lies, a cobra backed into a corner.
IMO one of the obvious goals of this debate was to marginalize the “second and third tier” candidates, especially Paul. Paul caught the establishment off guard during the first debate, and it appears that last night they attempted to set a trap to marginalize him. I saw those little earpieces in the moderator’s ear. The ear pieces, coupled with the way they kept harping Paul on Iraq, makes me think that they realized in the debate that they could paint Paul as another “Blame the US” America Hater (which seems to be a popular tactic), and set him up accordingly.
It is OBVIOUS that the elites are scrambling to marginalize and discredit Paul. I believe the text poll was a direct attempt to discredit Paul’s Internet popularity. They HAVE to know that he would win any net poll on their site and that he has huge net support. I imagine the establishment felt so smug and smart suggesting a text poll. After all, they can’t spam a text poll, right!! I mean, the telephone polls show Paul as a nobody, so obviously a telephone text poll would show the same results!! When their plan backfired they discredit the entire thing, unbelievable how they believe what they want to believe and make up conspiracies whenever there are anomalies in the system. On a side not Colmes seemed to be LOVING it, bringing up the results with a smirk every chance he got, lol.
The establishment is fighting back and myspace has already moved to censor Paul’s campaign by limiting (deleting) bulletins and email’s regarding the Paul campaign (there are videos of the deletions on youtube). That is the real story of this election, the rise of social networking and user generated news/blogs affecting mainstream politics. Of course the establishment fears this rise, as well as media elites who have become entrenched and rely on the system. The establishment will do whatever it can to keep the status quo and it appears as if they view Paul as a potential outlier (black swan) that could upset the control matrix.
I appreciate your comments on an issue that has arisen on the internet. Do you believe that the media is censuring supporters of Ron Paul? MSNBC, ABC, and now FOX show lots of support for Paul when he gets a chance to speak. Am I just paranoid or is there a concerted effort to downplay Ron Paul as significant factor?
Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation has an excellent essay providing historical facts on the Paul-Giuliani clash.
Scott – just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean that the media is not out to downplay Ron Paul.
There are decent folks in the mainstream media who give him fair treatment.
But most of the Establishment media has been government-fed since long before 9/11. And Ron Paul is the anti-Leviathan candidate.
Chris’s analysis above is excellent.
I’m interested in hear other examples of how the media is trying to slant the playing field against Ron Paul.
Ron Paul may well catch the better instints of many conservative Christians just as just as Pat Buchanan did in the ’92 primary buy beating Bush41. After that he was destroyed. Not by liberals, gays, feminists etc., but by Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, and the “Christian” Coalition. Buchannan, you see was a anti-semite, and a neo-nazi. I fear the same treatment Mr. Paul should become a threat to the establishment canidates.
Appreciate your link to Jacob Hornberger’s piece on the differences between Ron Paul and Rudy “I am the Don” Giuliani. I also agree with Chris’s take on things. I have seen the video on youtube showing deletion of comments for Ron Paul on myspace. I have also went to the MSNBC link for the online poll and could not post a comment for Ron Paul. Anyone else have any examples of this going on? And what do we do to counter it? Any suggestions?
Mike Ross – Ron Paul has been vilified before, and the better he does in the polls, the more vilified he will be in the future.
But this has not stopped him before. He can take the heat.
I read with interest and some sad amusement at those hoping a Dem for pres to stop the war. Two words: FAT CHANCE. They love this war as much as the neo-wackos. There is not one single Dem candidate who is actually anti-war. NONE of them has said this war is a mistake and it’s wrong, illegal, immoral and criminal. Not one has said anything like that. Not one single candidate other than Paul. No one other than Ron Paul has demonstrated the actual qualities of leadership called for in these times. God help us after Bush is gone ’cause it ain’t lookin’ a whole lot better with the next bunch.
I am not a big fan of Ron Paul, but I do admire him for standing up to those bullies. Even so he needs to have an actual campaign. He could be picking up 10-15% of the votes if the independents thought of paying attention to the Republican side. Instead their attention swings Democratic right now. He could be polling better in New Hampshire which has mostly independents if I remember.
Here is a video of a myspace user having his account locked for “supposed phishing” after posting a Ron Paul bulletin (a bulleting that was deleted, as the video shows). This was attempted multiple times and has been replicated quite a few times:
Here are some digg stories with links to the ABC/Yahoo! censorship debacle:
As you can see, he has MASSIVE support on Digg, with a lot of his stories netting between three thousand and six thousand individual diggs per story.
I think a big problem for Paul is that a lot of his support comes from people not registered Republican. I for example am registered Democrat, but am about to change my registration. In a closed primary state you can’t vote for Paul if you’re not a Republican, and changing your party is very simple. you can always change it back afterwards.
Ron Paul is the first candidate I have heard speak the truth so far. He has my vote. The sestablishment doesn’t like him because they don’t own him. He hasn’t been paid for like some ofthe others who will deliver more of the same to the hogs of war.
I caught the Paul-Giuliani part of that debate. Theres a theme among Republican candidates this year that they think the Republican voters are total morons. At least Giuliani is clumsy whereas Romney is so smooth.
I agree that Ron Paul is danger to the establishment.
I don’t hope for a Dem victory. Absent Paul on the Repub ticket I’d vote Libertarian or not bother voting – which is marginally insignificant anyway. But the Dems have Gravel – who is outspoken against the war. Yes, the other Dems are duplicitous opportunists on the War (as in everything else). But that is their strong point. They’ll support the War until the polls tell them otherwise. But those Repugs are simply insane. Polls be damned. Full steam ahead for a “civilizational” war against Islam. Look at that madman Hunter. I think he’d like to bathe in blood. But for Paul the others would destroy America and the world for the sake of empire. Rome took a tumble following such a path. The US isn’t far behind.
“However, if Ron Paul thinks that what we need right now is Reagan’s mythical “courage”, then he has lost my support. Reagan was a violent interventionist, not a courageous patriot. Just ask the Nicaraguans all about that (there are quite a few others you could also ask). I advise Ron Paul to forge his own legacy and not buy into myths of Dear Leaders past.”
True, though consider what Paul is trying to do. He is trying to convince frustrated Republican voters that the party has gotten off-track and that there are lots of precedents in Republican history for more libertarian policies. He has mentioned Taft, the Founders, Eisenhower etc. as supportive. Let’s face it; he has to take what he can work with to make this argument. Sure, Reagan was terrible in certain respects, but he at least in this case he woke up and realized that it was folly to intervene in the Middle East. If this story helps convince Republicans that their party has in fact gotten off-track, then that is a good thing as far as I am concerned.
Ron Paul has my full support, and he has my vote for President even if I have to write him in.
I left the GOP last year after 34 years and resigned as local Republican committee woman because the Republican Party is no longer recognizable to true conservatives.
Ron Paul is a true conservative. He has got a strong dose of Middle America old fashioned common sense and goodness know this country needs that right now.
GOP pinheads are scared of Ron Paul…and so they should be. He’s the real deal – they are not.
I took the time to call his office yesterday to let him know.
How many phone calls are other Republicans getting from farm wives without a TV or radio?
Ron Paul’s campaign needs money so goto his website and donate. Every dollar could help.
I’m impressed he has gotten this much attention. He will do good things for libertarians and for America.
We are all familiar with the response he got from Judy Juliani – it’s the same one we get (ourselves) when we critize our oversized bullying government – the one everyone else worships and cheers.
If you people vote or even wish democratic then I lose my gun rights – I live in a dictatorship already. Sorry, I don’t care about war or abortion (anymore) only my gun rights. No shame here (dam liberals.)
@The Impeder: “Then, Giuliani’s most ridiculous statement came after the debate on ‘Hannity and Colmes’, when he asserted that we were attacked because we are free and ‘women have rights’.”
I’ve lost track of the times I’ve heard this second assertion go absolutely unchallenged: Despotic regime that Hussein ran, it was also secular, and women had the same rights as men and held the same professional positions: doctors, professors &c.
The people who hold that “women are now able to go about showing their ankles sometimes” are either just ignorant or cynically exploiting the woeful ignorance of the American people. With this crowd it could easily be other.
Ron Paul is still the best candidate by far. His position on the issues is accurate, truthful and America needs him. McCain, Romney and Guliani all represent more of the same of what we already have. They are political opportunists, controlled by special interests and in the case of Guliani and McCain, have personal lives rivaling the Clintons. These guys are losers!!
And as far as Hannity and Fox News is concerned, they should just as well change their logo to the Swastika. What a bunch of illiterate, war-mongering Nazis promoting their clueless mainstream candidates.
… I mean, With this crowd it could easily be either.
I don’t think of Hannity & the Fox News types as Nazis. They are illiterate on history and they are pro-war, as long as it is other people are bleeding & dying.
Rather than Nazis, they are simply garden variety authoritarians.
When I first heard Dr. Paul speak I was a little bit apprehensive about his anti-free market position on immigration possibly bringing down the freedom movement among people of color. However, I have gotten to the point where I would certainly vote for him if he got the nomination. Just seeing people like Sean Hannity squirm at their own poll results makes me think Ron is a positive force after all. Perhaps consistent libertarians can influence him to take a more pro-free market position on immigration. He is certainly the ONLY major party candidate with a clue on foreign policy.
You’re right that Hannity and Friends aren’t Nazis, but thats only because they don’t live in 1930s Germany. They are the type that would buy into the Nazi propaganda, at least until Hitler drafted them into the army to go die in Russia.
Maybe they’re not Nazis, but their bullying tactics sure do remind me of brownshirt thugs attacking people in the streets. They clearly put more value on testosterone-drive machismo than they do on reasoned debate.
Given their reasoning power, it is no wonder they shirk honest debates.
And as long as they control the microphone, they can proclaim themselves the winners.
Your defense of Hannity/Fox is somewhat funny. Illiterate, pro-war, authoritarians (with a hint of cowardice thrown in). If you were defending these guys in traffic court, they would probably give them The Chair.
Last nights debate made me very angry. I watched as the Republin machine tried to destroy the only true conservative on the panel, in real time.
This country needs Ron Paul, desperately.
Neither Paul nor Kucinich nor Gravel stand a chance of securing the nomination of their respective parties. Their strategy should be as follows:
1) All three make their best effort to actually secure the nomination of their party. They need to keep speaking honestly to the only issues that really matter: militarism, imperialism and Constitutional rights. As long as candidates and office holders talk, it forces the media to give them at least some coverage. This in turn will raise the consiousness of the electorate.
2) Meanwhile, there needs to be a parallel effort to get third parties to commit to a potential Paul-Kucinich or Paul-Gravel ticket.
3) When none of the three gets nominated, Paul and the stronger of the other two need to come to a Tony Blair-Gordon Brown understanding. They should agree ahead of time that whoever runs as President (eg, Paul) will resign after 2 years and one day in office, allowing the other to serve out the remainder of the first term. The other would then run for President with Paul Vice President, resigning after 2 years and a day. I believe a careful reading of the 22nd Amendment would indicate Paul could still run for the 3rd term and the other for the 4th. This deal needs to be very public in order to win over the support of the peaceniks on both left and right.
4) Paul and the other would then accept the nominations of various 3rd parties in whatever states they have ballot access — Libertarian in some states, Green or Reform in others.
5) Various peace candidates challenge war party candidates for Congress and Senate. These could be primary challenges, 3rd party challenges on the ticket led by Paul-Kucinich or Paul-Gravel, or both. Prime candidates for challenge would be the 59 House and 22 Senate Democrats who have in the past two weeks voted to continue the slaughter.
6) All peace candidates from Paul and Kucinich/Gravel on down should pledge to abstain, when possible, on other divisive issues such as health care, regulation vs deregulation, abortion etc. These issues need to be put on the shelf until the Republic is restored.
I don’t know if the above strategy can be made to work or not, but I think it’s about the only hope of reining in the military-industrial complex and the imperial Presiduncey.
Did anyone notice how everyone, including Ron Paul, was talking about noninterventionism instead of interventionism.
It was sort of like somebody shit in the punch bowl and everybody got flustered. Giuliani and Hannity were fit to be tied over Dr. Paul’s statements. Great stuff.
I’ve got some more stuff about this craziness at: http://www.pnar.org/rudy.htm
Folks should click on to Tom’s analysis of the debate – as always, he does fine stuff.
If only there were more such Virginians left…
God Bless THE HONORABLE RON PAUL. He’s a man of the people. Rudi is a fraud that runs around the county making a profit out of the deaths of 9/11. He’s no leader. Keep it up Ron. You’ve hit a raw core! A voice of the people!
Are southerners stupid or just plain evil? I can think of no alternative that explains their love of war and the domestic shift toward fascism. No wonder these culpable Celts would be willing to make a cathedral of ice to welcome Giulani–they lack any trace of conservatism, patriotism, historical knowledge, and an ability to think on their own. They’d crucify George Washington in a moment if he came back with his Farewell Address.
I’m one’em stupid, plain evil, culpable Southern Celts. My Mother’s family dug coal in Harlan and made Whiskey on the side. My Daddy’s was Ozark Horse theifs. But even if guns are part and parcel with our culture, so is the experience of defeat, tragedy, and the tyranny of occupation. 3 of many excellent reasons why I can shoot the aise off a gnat dawg drunk, but prefer the Web-Log to the Smith & Wesson…Indeed, by reading them 6 lines you wrote? I get the feeling that you might even know jest who I am, and are tryin’ to bait me…In which case? You done succeeded—By God let’s us up and cross keyboards. Let’s find out who’s smart, and who jest thinks he is.
Tom Blanton’s proposal re the alignment of Paul/Gravel/Kucinich is marvelous. Please, let’s talk the three of them into this proposal, for our salvation. An anti-corruption campaign, par excellence, and they could very, very well win, and continue to win. Please, may it happen.
Marko et al…
I may be the closest thing to A dem here. I can certify that Kucinich has been opposed to this war from day one and was confronting the establishment from the start. You may not like it, but thats fact.
At the debate a few weeks back he directly confronted Biden, edwards and Clinton, pointing out that he DID read the faulty intelligence and voted against it.
It is great that Kucinich taunted the other members of Congress for not reading the durn intelligence report. Very few members of Congress even bothered to go read that report (it was kept in a special room on Capitol Hill and only members of Congress were permitted to read it.)
The Bush administration brazenly lied to Congress before the vote to authorize something-or-other against Iraq. But if congressmen had been paying attention, far more of them would have smelled a rat.
…and thats my point. i have shifted away somewhat in my personal preferences for big govt guys like Kucinich, but you cant say all of the dems were in favor of the war. Kucinich, is in fact, the blue version of Dr. Paul. Both principled guys who deserve credit- not derision for their stands…even if they are opposites.
and i will add the same can be said for Gravel, who I find personally irritating.
…Tell ‘at sumbitch calls hiself Ross to come on out. We’ll see whose ass is the blackest.
What I want to know is when the fair & balanced media crew at Fox is going to bring up some embarassing skeletons in the marital lives of Benito Guliani and McCainiac. After all, they were so very righteous in their pursuit of Bubba Clinton.
I will answer my own question: When hell freezes over.
Thanks for the kind words Jim.
I’ve enjoyed the reactions to the Giuliani/Paul debate incident from left to right. I came by to share a link to a petition to the RNC to keep Ron Paul in future debates:
Maybe someone should set up a petition to remove Giuliani from future debates because of his delusions and irrational behavior.
I think Chris may be right about the debate being a setup. Next time (if there is a next time), they may dredge up Dr. Paul’s position on drug prohibition from his 1988 campaign.
Pat nails it:
While the Paul/Kucinich/Gravel proposals are interesting, I think we should wait to see what happens with the nominations. We shouldn’t accept the idea that Paul and the others have “no chance”. They’re longshots, sure, but no one really knows the future and if we keep battling, the unexpected might happen. If we quit because we think it’s a lost cause, it most certainly will be.
Another HUGE issue that Ron Paul supports that hardly any of the other candidates supports is School Choice. I recommend everyone to see the documentary by 20/20 called Stupin in America. It’s posted on Youtube,just search for it. It defines why the American School system is one of the worst in the world and how School Choice would improve it by attaching education funds to the Student rather than than the school so that he can choose his own school, thus making schools compete and have a reason to improve their techniques to teach every child. Ron Paul supports this and will be a huge issue for him in his campaign to discuss. Learn what School Choice is and how important it is!
1) As someone nominally involved in the online aspects of the Paul campaign, I can assure you that that campaign is about as diffusely organized (and centrally unorganized) as any active election campaign could ever be. There’s no mastermind telling Paul supporters to vote in those straw polls. The very notion is laughable to anyone who’s been observing even half-way from the inside.
The Paul candidacy is naturally blessed with many enthusiastic, tech-savvy, computer-loving men and women. It’s that simple.
Perform this thought experiment: Suppose there was no Paul candidacy. As now, all the Republican candidates profess to oppose any tax increases (whether they’re sincere or not is beside the point here). Except one, who loudly calls for big tax increases.
Now suppose that tax increase proponent, though very low in the scientific polls, was easily winning most of the straw polls. Then you’d have a very different story. The MSM (except maybe FOX, unless this candidate was earmarking the increased tax revenue for warmaking) would be celebrating this candidate to high heaven, insisting that it means Americans are determined to be “realistic,” “humane,” or whatever about taxes.
Not so with Paul, of course. He doesn’t have the right message. Not only is he against the occupation of Iraq, but, far worse, he’s against foreign interventionism in principle, the very lifeblood of the Democrat Establishment as well as the Republican one.
2) Giuliani’s boastful demagoguery is just the sort of thing we’ve all learned to expect of professional politicians:
“That’s an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th.”
How does being in NYC on 9/11 make him an authority on the causes of the attacks on the WTC? Would a survivor of Hiroshima automatically qualify as an expert on the origins of WWII? Would a survivor of the Oklahoma City bombing have to qualify as an expert on the Waco massacre?
In any case, Giuliani surely had heard of the various explanations for 9/11. No, he simply (and probably accurately) assumed that most of the people in the room were too ignorant and/or too prejudiced to take anything into account but the dopey speeches of Bush, Cheney, and their various henchmen.
You know, I’d come to sympathize to a considerable extent with the South, especially after what was done to it during and after the so-called Civil War. But seeing how easily a buffoon like Bush can get the good ol’ boys down south all riled up and ready to kill people who’ve never threatened America, seeing how heavily southern our armed forces are, and noting their adamantine skulls impervious to fact and logic, I think southern resistance in the Civil War was more a love of fighting than a love of liberty.
As far as Mace’s bragging of his forebears’ suffering, big deal. My grandfather and great-grandfather homesteaded their first winter up here in a converted chicken coop, in weather most southerners would shrivel up and die in. My ancestors didn’t raise a bunch of warmongers either.
Come check us out. http://www.myspace.com/bands4ronpaul
we are building a musical peace movement seeking to spread knowledge of Ron Paul for Leadership, and show young people
a man worth their long lost votes. Please come take a look.
We need Radical thinkers/Punks/Musicians/Artists!