PDA

View Full Version : Misleading article claims Paul "favors" Obama.




jmdrake
05-06-2008, 01:59 PM
What the liars had to say:

h ttp://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=54444&sectionid=3510203
Republican congressman Ron Paul says he favors Democratic candidate Barack Obama over Republican John McCain because of his Iraq policy.

In an interview with CNN's The Situation Room, Paul said he is intrigued with the Obama approach to US foreign policy on matters of the Mideast as well as the Democrat's willingness to end the Iraq war, which he believes to be in complete contrast to that of Senator John McCain.

The 72-year-old veteran politician, who is unopposed for his eleventh House term, added that his liking for Obama does not mean 'an endorsement'.

Paul, whose policies often run counter to those of new-age Republicans, explained that endorsing Senator McCain 'would really confuse' his supporters.

McCain, who is a fierce Iraq-war enthusiast, has stated his willingness to spend federal dollars to support military operations in Iraq.

Ron Paul believes the Iraq war was launched in violation of the Constitution. The long shot presidential contender promises to put an end to the occupation and bring the troops home if elected president.

What Ron Paul actually said:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0805/02/sitroom.01.html
BLITZER: And joining us now, Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. He's the author of a brand-new book entitled "The Revolution: A manifesto," already a major bestseller.

Congressman, congratulations on the new book. Thanks very much for coming in.

PAUL: Thank you. Thank you for having me.

BLITZER: Why haven't you officially dropped out of this race yet?

PAUL: Well, I guess the race is still on. You know, I made a statement a few months ago that I would stay in the race as long as there's enthusiasm. Supporters are wanting to do things, and our numbers are growing, and there's money in the bank. And instead of us fading away with less and less, we seem to get more and more enthusiasm for what we've been doing.

BLITZER: The other Republican challengers have now endorsed John McCain, basically almost all of them. You're not ready to do that yesterday, are you?

PAUL: No, not quite, because I think our platform is a little bit different. And that would really confuse the supporters, because they know we have a precise program, and we have to defend that program.

BLITZER: But don't you want to see a Republican in the White House?

PAUL: Well, that's secondary to wanting the Constitution defended and wanting the country to go in the right direction, bringing peace around the world, having sound money and balanced budgets. All the things the Republicans, you know, traditionally have stood for. That's more important than just having a Republican. We have to know what we believe in.

BLITZER: What's your biggest problem with Senator McCain?

PAUL: I would say it was the issue that motivated me probably a year and a half ago to get involved. And that has to do with our foreign policy and the war in the Middle East, because I see it's so damaging to us around the world, as well as something we can't afford. And now we're facing a financial crisis.

And -- but I can't get that many allies in Washington. I mean, they are continuing to spend on war and welfare like there's no economic problem. I mean, any time a problem pops up, the Congress just appropriates more money and the Fed prints more money, and nobody seems to want to slow up.

BLITZER: It seems, Congressman -- excuse me for interrupting -- the two Democratic remaining presidential candidates, when it comes to the war in Iraq, are a lot closer to your stance than McCain.

PAUL: Yes, I would think so. But unless you look at the voting records, I mean, they really haven't voted that way. Even Obama has voted to support the war and the spending. And Hillary certainly has.

So I think their rhetoric is definitely better. And you have to give John McCain some credit. At least he's honest about it.

You know, he says, we're staying and we need to be there and we need to take on Iran if we have to, which is scary to me. But at least he's up front. The I think the Democrats are playing on some of the sympathies that I get that we ought to, you know, back away from some of these commitments.

BLITZER: If you had to pick one of those three right now, who would it be?

PAUL: It would be a tough choice, because I see them as all about the same. But I would think the one who would most likely keep us from expanding the war is probably Obama. But that doesn't mean that's an endorsement, because he'd spend the money somewhere else, and his voting record isn't all that great. But you asked me the question and I would say he would be slightly better on foreign policy.

BLITZER: So as long as McCain, I think I've heard you say in the past, supports continuing the war in Iraq, there's no way you could formally endorse him. Is that right?

PAUL: No, I think so. I think the war -- I want people to be talking about monetary policy and fiscal policy and all these things that are so important.

You know, I also believe in unity in the Republican Party. But unity is secondary to what we believe in. If we unify on something that's non-Republican, it doesn't have a whole lot of meaning. And that's what I'm afraid the Republicans are drifting into.

They're begging and pleading for unity, but we've got to know what we believe in. And I think that's where our problem is today.

BLITZER: All right. The book, "The Revolution," it's a huge bestseller. It's already out. Subtitled "A Manifesto."

I see the word "manifesto" and I'm sure a lot of our viewers see that word and it reminds them of another book that had the manifesto in the title, "The Communist Manifesto."

Tell me what the point is of "The Revolution: A Manifesto."

PAUL: Well, it's a declaration. But the manifesto has been used in other places less violently signed (ph). And than "The Communist Manifesto." It's just a statement of facts and beliefs. And it's an attention-getter.

So, this is the purpose, is to get the attention of the American people, what we need to do, what we need to believe in. And actually, it sounds revolutionary in the sense that it's brand new, but really what we're talking about is a peaceful revolution by just returning to the goodness of America, to our Constitution, and to free markets and personal liberties, and a noninterventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, it is revolutionary to talk about obeying the Constitution, but that in essence is what's going on right now.

BLITZER: A lot of your main ideas are certainly very popular with your base. And you've got thousands, millions of people out there who love your ideas. But none of them really have been translated into policy yet in terms of the establishment, the Democrats and the Republicans.

What's the problem?

PAUL: Well, we're competing with people who believe we can still live off other people and off the government. Today, you know, we're processing a bill in Washington where George Bush is asking for $100 billion for the war. Well, the Democrats are going to vote for it as long as they get $50 billion of more spending on there. And there's too many special interests still in control of Washington.

I believe the people are really with me on these issues and want to see us cut back and have a balanced budget and have more common sense in what we do. But the special interests are still very much in charge in Washington.

BLITZER: Congressman Paul, thanks for coming on.

PAUL: Thank you very much.


So Ron Paul sees all three media anointed candidates about the same, he says Obama has supported the Iraq war with his votes, but that Obama is "slightly better" on foreign policy and so that's the same as "favoring" Obama? What bull! The media sucks!

Regards,

John M. Drake

NaT805
05-06-2008, 02:32 PM
I don't see how its misleading.

Aratus
05-06-2008, 05:30 PM
if obama is slightly less likely than hillary clinton to invade iran,syria or north korea,
and possibly significantly less likely than mccain, who in turn is more cautious than
george w. bush, then obama's stance is not identical to ron paul's! the Q begs others!

NH4RonPaul
05-06-2008, 05:33 PM
The objection is that some reports are saying he ENDORSES him.

This really ticks me off! :mad::mad::mad::mad:

jmdrake
05-07-2008, 09:14 AM
I don't see how its misleading.

Nowhere did Ron Paul say he "favors" Obama nor did he ever call Obama's foreign policy "intriguing". Quite to the contrary Dr. Paul say Obama's rhetoric was "better" but that Obama's voting record didn't match it and that you had to at least give McCain credit for "being honest". So if saying "I like what this politician says better but his actions say differently" is the same as "favoring" that candidate.......

Regards,

John M. Drake

klamath
05-07-2008, 09:28 AM
Yeaw the "intriguing" part is a lie. An attempt to get Paul supporter to vote Obama in these close elections.

Aratus
05-07-2008, 10:24 AM
are you now thinking the obama people now don't need us? i feel the race is narrowing...

acptulsa
05-07-2008, 10:35 AM
Yeaw the "intriguing" part is a lie. An attempt to get Paul supporter to vote Obama in these close elections.

...or an attempt to prevent us from winning over more disaffected conservatives.

Mongoose470
05-10-2008, 04:53 PM
"PAUL: Well, we're competing with people who believe we can still live off other people and off the government. Today, you know, we're processing a bill in Washington where George Bush is asking for $100 billion for the war. Well, the Democrats are going to vote for it as long as they get $50 billion of more spending on there. And there's too many special interests still in control of Washington."

Talk about a sock in the gut. It's hard to get elected if you refuse to buy votes with the public treasury.

Addendum: My sincerest apologies for the very misleading statement above. It's nearly impossible to get elected without bribing the american public with their own tax dollars.