LA Times - Ron Paul Hypocritical?

[TruthAtLast]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ticket18-2008may18,0,1117716.story?track=ntothtml

I don't know if this was submitted yet but I just saw this and wanted to get everyone else's input. I don't know if the facts here are true or what RP's response would be.




By DON FREDERICK AND ANDREW MALCOLM, TOP OF THE TICKET
May 18, 2008
Rep. Ron Paul of Texas is proud of what he sees as his truly conservative credentials. He's for smaller government. He's for foreign trade but not foreign military involvement. He wants to spend that money wasted on empire-building right back here in these United States of America.

His followers -- who reverently call him Dr. Paul -- see a gentle humility in the weathered hands of the 72-year-old ob-gyn. But there seems to be another side to Paul. A side that sees millions of humans, Burmese afflicted by a devastating cyclone, and couldn't care less.

Last week, when a congressional resolution merely offering "condolences and sympathy" to the people of Myanmar, also known as Burma, came up for a vote, Paul was the only member of the entire House of Representatives to vote "No." The resolution was the kind of publicity trick that elected legislators waste countless hours on each session.

So in that sense Paul's symbolic stand looks good.

But then along come the sharp-eyed folks over at Radar, who find out that Paul is not quite so principled when the silliness is closer to home.

Come to find out, Paul has voted in favor of similar empty resolutions to congratulate the University of Kansas football team for winning the 2008 FedEx Orange Bowl, as well as the Louisiana State football team for winning the 2008 Bowl Championship Series. And he celebrated the New York Giants' come-from-behind victory in Super Bowl XLII.

Seriously, what Texas congressman wouldn't want to get on the official congressional record wishing all the best to every one of the good folks up in New York City?

Wait till the Houston Texans find out about that one.

[specialkornflake]

From what I've gathered this past year, he does sometimes vote for meaningless domestic resolutions carrying no legislative weight. However, meaningless foreign resolutions cause unintended foreign consequences and overstep our authority, so he always votes no on them.

[josephadel_3]

What a horribly written article. It just ends abruptly without summarizing the author's point. I get what he or she is saying (kind of), but the author did not make clear what his or her opinion was. I did get the impression, however, he or she was a smug little troll just begging for hate mail.

The principle of voting no was not symbolic in the sense that it "wasted time." It was the principle of not spending money the treasury doesn't have. Any other nation with as much debt as America would not give financial aid. Congratulating the Giants for winning the Superbowl is frivilous and costs nothing, and thus a "yes" vote is irrelevant to any hypocrisy Ron Paul may have.

The cyclone was a tragedy, yes. Where was Japan, or Sweden, or the Netherlands when hurricane Katrina happened? Was either one of those nations the unanimous majority supplier of aid? No, none of the aforementioned nations was. Why should America be the biggest supplier of aid? Yes, our citizens have a largely higher standard of living than most other citizens of other nations, and that is exactly where the aid should come from. Americans are relatively wealthy. Giving aid from the government's pocketbook only furthers the financial burden on American taxpayers, and thus limits the generosity of Americans. When the economy is in the crapper, it is counter-intuitive for the nation to spend more of its non-existent funds.

When I don't have a lot of money to put in the Church collection basket, I don't donate my live savings. American Congressman and Congresswomen should practice the same principle.

Edit: Ok, I see the resolution was just for "condolences and sympathy." Nevertheless, what I wrote is relevant.

[Libertarian Ideals]

The Official Media Guide to Attacking Ron Paul

Liberty Maven has uncovered a letter from the office of the “Main Stream Media Czar”. Unfortunately, the letter was not signed by name, only title. We didn’t even know there was such a thing as a “Main Stream Media Czar” prior to discovering this letter. My only reaction to this letter was, “it all makes so much sense now.” Here is the letter itself, transcribed word for word.

We in the main stream media all know that Ron Paul cannot win the presidency because of his extremist views. Given this fact, it is important we don’t allow him the same media coverage as our preferred candidates. It is true that we must give him some coverage, but it is also true that we must adhere to the “Mass Media Ron Paul Rule” when giving him coverage during this campaign season. Generally, the “Mass Media Ron Paul Rule” can be summed up in two words:

Marginalize him.

Here are some wonderful tactics to utilize when applying the “Mass Media Ron Paul Rule:

Continually label him as a long shot candidate. This is the most important of all the tactics so we list it first. Sure, it is true that Ron Paul has won or placed high in many straw polls across the country but we must never mention it. Instead, in every article or television news story copy we should use one or more of the terms “dark horse”, “long shot”, “barely registering in the polls”, “quixotic”, or “gadfly”. If we can do this consistently, our job is complete.

Attack his supporters. Ron Paul has a stellar personal record with his marriage of over 50 years, 5 children, and 18 grandchildren. His political record is also exemplary with him never voting to raise taxes and always voting in accordance with the Constitution. Because of this, attacking him on his record is a daunting task. The best method to marginalize him is to attack his supporters. This can be accomplished by calling his supporters names like “kooky”, “crazy”, “conspiracy nutjobs”, “paultards”, and the like. This is classic “guilt by association” and works well on the apathetic electorate.

Call him “Libertarian” as much as possible. Continually giving him the libertarian label is a great covert method of Ron Paul marginalization. This reinforces that he’s not really a Republican even though he has held office as a Republican for 10 terms. We find that if you are in radio or television you may even say the word “libertarian” using a negative tone during questions. This perpetuates the extremism inherent in Ron Paul’s policies even though the word libertarian simply means: one who believes in liberty.

Continually ask him if he’s planning on running as a third party candidate. This tactic should be used often. It accomplishes two things. First, it suggests that he is not a serious candidate for the Republican party. Second, it will get him on record as saying he won’t run for a third party. If he should happen to run third party at a later date he can be attacked for changing his position.

Ask him if he would support the GOP nominee if he doesn’t win. Ron Paul is against the Iraq war and wishes to bring the troops home from overseas in order to help stem the tide of government overspending. This makes him different than all of the other Republican candidates who support keeping our troops overseas indefinitely. As media we must make all attempts to not only marginalize his candidacy, but also marginalize his steadfast message of linking the cost of the war on terror to our economic woes here at home.

Focus on his campaign strategy rather than his message. Ron Paul’s message of freedom, prosperity, and peace should be overshadowed by talk of his successful grassroots campaign. The more we focus on how he raises money and the types of supporters he has, the less time he has to talk about his message that is sure to resonate with most Americans. We must make all attempts to block or cloud that message. If it were to get out, it could spell doom for our chosen candidates.

Attack him for not returning donations from fringe supporters. White supremacists and prostitutes have donated money to Ron Paul and that is bad. We can use our political correctness and superior morality as a weapon and ask him why does he not return that donation money. After all a white supremacist would do more good with having an extra $500 in his pocket than a doctor who has delivered over 4000 babies while preaching peace and equal rights for everyone.

Abolishing the IRS is crazy. Attacking his stance on abolishing the IRS and replacing it with nothing is also effective. After all most Americans don’t know that we could do without the income tax if we just went back to the same level of government spending that we had in the 1990’s. A great method is to reply to his answer with an incredulous “replace it with NOTHING? How can the government function?” comment. This tactic will scare people into believing in how the government always has our best interests at heart. It will help people ignore the fact that Ron Paul also wants to cut government spending drastically in order to balance the budget.

Label him an isolationist for his foreign policy views. Since he wants to bring our troops home from not just Iraq, but all of the 130 other occupied countries he should be deemed an isolationist. It doesn’t matter that Ron Paul wants free trade and travel with other countries and thus is not truly an isolationist. The people will believe what we tell them to believe.

This directive gives us several tactics to be used in the fight against Ron Paul’s candidacy for president. We should use them all and use them often. After all Ron Paul’s message of freedom, prosperity, and peace is antiquated and has no place in our authoritarian world.

Sincerely,

The Main Stream Media Czar

[Akus]

Whenever there is a bash piece on Ron Paul, I choose not to read it. I am 99% certain that some vital piece of information is omitted and (important) Ron Paul is never allowed to defend himself in any of these full of phony righteous wrath cheap shot articles.

[spacehabitats]

The MSM and CFR are really chomping at the bit to get into the Union of Myanmar
(formerly known as Burma).
It is that perfect setup with military dictators with contempt for their own population and any decent sense of human rights. They also have not given any indication that they care one whit for their international reputation.

So it is hard for bleeding hearts to sit back and "let" the people of Myanmar suffer under these jerks, BUT......

It is none of our business.

I don't mean that the American people should not want to help the victims of the cyclone or even to sympathize with their political plight.

But the federal government needs to get out of the habit of feeling like they need to comment on or meddle in the affairs of other nations.

I think resolutions like this are not simple expressions of sympathy; after all, who doesn't sympathize with the victims of natural disasters?

Whenever I hear of "meaningless" resolutions like this, I always start listening for the other shoe to drop.

It makes me especially nervous when it is concerning a nation and a situation which has prompted speculation (in the press) about whether the U.S. military should use force to bring aid to the victims if the military dictators won't let us in peaceably.

Yikes!:eek:

As far as the hypocrisy charge, since when has anybody threatened to send in the U.S. military if the University of Kansas didn't change their ways?

[wgadget]

Ron Paul hypocritical?

No, Ron Paul PRINCIPLED.

[homah]

The difference is that the Giants resolution simply congratulated the team on its success, whereas the other bill didn't simply offer sympathy to the people of Myanmar. It also instructed their government on how to conduct itself, which is none of our business. It also might have appropriated money, but I'm not sure about that.

[TruthAtLast]

Whenever there is a bash piece on Ron Paul, I choose not to read it. I am 99% certain that some vital piece of information is omitted and (important) Ron Paul is never allowed to defend himself in any of these full of phony righteous wrath cheap shot articles.

The author really didn't do much to cite or verify specific facts, but just as I am critical of all candidates, it actually WOULD be hypocritical if Ron Paul wasn't held to the same standard and examination.

I'm not saying I agree with the article and I am a steadfast Liberty supporter, but even friends of mine who I have "mostly" convinced to support Ron Paul bring up this one side of him that they never really know how to respond to.

When many other attack methods have failed, critics will pull at the heart strings of voters and make Ron Paul seem heartless and cold. He needs to be able to respond effectively to these attacks.

I'm not sure if this vote was just a sending of "condolences" or whether is also included financial aid.

[TruthAtLast]

The difference is that the Giants resolution simply congratulated the team on its success, whereas the other bill didn't simply offer sympathy to the people of Myanmar. It also instructed their government on how to conduct itself, which is none of our business. It also might have appropriated money, but I'm not sure about that.

Thanks for the clarification. That makes sense.

[Jeremy]

Yes, the things involving other countries involve other governments and other issues that are not worth any vote. The sports things are about things here in the U.S.... personally, I wouldn't vote yes for those either, but whatever.

[Conza88]

The US government / Congress, criticizing Myanmar government is fcken laughable. THERE is the hypocrisy.

It meddled with other countries affairs.. Humanitarian intervention is attrocious.

What you need to ask the people who support it is.. well, do you support migration? Say allow 100,000 burmese people into the country as refugees? What happens if the US govt intervenes and the burmese junta, who have a military - and airforce etc. (small airforce).. What will happen if it escalates? WHAT IS THE EXIT STRATERGY?

Anyway, Congratulating the teams DOESN'T COST THE TAXPAYERS ANYTHING. If it was a medallion for them.. ie. like the Rosa Parks etc deal.. RP would have said no, or offered to pay for it himself with everyone chipping in.

NO COMPROMISE ON PRINCIPLES.. Taxpayers remained the same before the vote, and the same after it.

[angelatc]

The difference is that the Giants resolution simply congratulated the team on its success, whereas the other bill didn't simply offer sympathy to the people of Myanmar. It also instructed their government on how to conduct itself, which is none of our business. It also might have appropriated money, but I'm not sure about that.


There's no money. The Hot Air-heads had a discussion on it, http://snurl.com/29its, and I have to admit that they brought up some interesting points about a couple of other resolutions that he did vote for. Resolutions that suggested a certain course of action to other governments. But I agree with the rare posters that insisted that the tone of the verbage makes a difference. Suggesting vs demanding, for example.

[forsmant]

The Giants win was a miracle. Everyone should congratulate the Giants, including Burma.

[Rangeley]

I wrote an entry on this (emphasis added):

After voting against a resolution in Congress that was touted as one which would “express sympathies with the people of Myanmar” in the wake of Cyclone Nargis, Ron Paul has received a lot of flak from bloggers - and all along similar lines. Not only is Ron Paul heartless for not extending sympathies, but even if you want to justify his vote as one against “meaningless gestures,” he has been inconsistent in this regard, voting to congratulate sports teams for winning various national championships. But there is a problem in this criticism - not only was the resolution not one which merely extended sympathies, but Ron Paul gave a reason as to why he voted against, and it was not because it was a meaningless gesture.

Along with including measures which express sympathies, HR 1181 included language criticizing an upcoming referendum on a constitution, declaring it a “sham,” and then going further in including the following point:

(6) demands that the referendum to entrench military rule be called off, allowing all resources to be focused on disaster relief to ease the pain and suffering of the Burmese people.

This is a specific demand being made against Myanmar, and this is the stated reason, by Ron Paul’s spokesperson, why he voted against the resolution - it is an example of foreign interventionism. The resolutions congratulating sports teams did not include sections demanding they resign the same players next year to bring back a winning formula - and if they did, I don’t doubt he would have voted against them, too. But people love to play the game where voting against a bill that contains multiple things means that the person rejects everything in the bill. Its a form of condescending politics, and its nothing new.

http://strictconstruct.com/2008/05/17/condescending-politics/

It did not include appropriations of money, but it most certainly was not "only expressing condolences." The people who are parroting this line are either intentionally lying, or have never read the bill, in which case they also lose their credibility. And as I said in comments elsewhere, even if you disagree on whether foreign intervention is good, you should understand that someone who fundamentally opposed it would not vote for a bill that included it. Just as someone who opposed abortion would not vote for a resolution demanding Myanmar legalize it, even if that bill also expressed sympathies.

[pepperpete1]

I wrote an entry on this (emphasis added):

http://strictconstruct.com/2008/05/17/condescending-politics/

It did not include appropriations of money, but it most certainly was not "only expressing condolences." The people who are parroting this line are either intentionally lying, or have never read the bill, in which case they also lose their credibility. And as I said in comments elsewhere, even if you disagree on whether foreign intervention is good, you should understand that someone who fundamentally opposed it would not vote for a bill that included it. Just as someone who opposed abortion would not vote for a resolution demanding Myanmar legalize it, even if that bill also expressed sympathies.

Ron Paul has been getting some positive coverage these last couple of weeks. They have to find something to use as damage control. They will put their spin on any little thing that they think will be marginalizing his message and image.

I chose to ignore it.

I love the letter from the media czar. It summarizes very succinctly how the media has done their hachet job on Ron Paul.

[qh4dotcom]

Bump

[tonyr1988]

I wrote an entry on this (emphasis added):

http://strictconstruct.com/2008/05/17/condescending-politics/

It did not include appropriations of money, but it most certainly was not "only expressing condolences." The people who are parroting this line are either intentionally lying, or have never read the bill, in which case they also lose their credibility. And as I said in comments elsewhere, even if you disagree on whether foreign intervention is good, you should understand that someone who fundamentally opposed it would not vote for a bill that included it. Just as someone who opposed abortion would not vote for a resolution demanding Myanmar legalize it, even if that bill also expressed sympathies.

Agreed. Also, it has this little ditty in the resolution:


(2) vows its full support of and solidarity with the people of Burma;

"full support" usually means money when the government is involved.

[Grandson of Liberty]

I guess that's what passes as "journalism" these days. :cool: