2 things I hate about Ron Paul

[woowoowoo22]

http://www.freecentury.com/2007/06/18/2-things-i-hate-about-ron-paul/

[angrydragon]

Is that all?

What does the person hate about the other candidates? Does the person know?

[AlexAmore]

So weak....

[mdh]

I wouldn't say it's weak, a lot of left-libertarians feel the same way. I was always against the grain in the LP in that I wasn't a fan of open borders. :)
Not really big disagreements, but what's written there are relatively common sentiments amongst those coming to this campaign from the LP side of the house.

[Seamaiden]

I will say that, while I won't say I 'hate' both of these positions of Dr. Paul's, I do disagree with his position, especially on the issue of abortion.

[NewEnd]

me too.

I disagree with both his abortion stance and closing borders, but I certainly see the merits of the his views.

[Mani]

I understand his position on abortion. He delivered babies for a living, it makes sense he would be against abortion.

More importantly, he would never attempt to make a federal ban, even as President.

[mdh]

I will say that, while I won't say I 'hate' both of these positions of Dr. Paul's, I do disagree with his position, especially on the issue of abortion.

And you said that you were from LP roots... so see, I'm right! :p


Personally, I'm wishy-washy about abortion. I'm a scientific kinda guy, not a religious kinda guy, but really we don't have enough scientific data about when "life" begins for me to speak authoritatively about abortion. In general, I'd say that I feel taking a life should be treated equally, unborn or otherwise, and that the right to self-defense must be preserved regardless, etc. Not a popular position, I've found, but it's the only one that seems fair to me.

[chandlerLBT]

i'm a libertarian and i think that the pro-choice issue shouldn't even conflict in the party, but it has split many people. i think that as people who defend liberty, they should have a pro-life stance, because the unborn child deserves the right to live as any other human being does. i think that the only time a woman should be able to choose if their child lives or dies is if having a kid could kill the pregnant woman. otherwise, adoption is out their for people who can't have a child for financial or personal reasons. to me calling for a "war on abortion" is stupid, because then finding murderers would be called the "war on murder."

the immigration issue i'm iffy on. ron paul's position and the open border with no financial benefits both seem acceptable, but i haven't really found an immigration issue i would back 100%. but the fact of the matter is that the people who come illegally hurt those people who want to come and be a naturalized citizen. there has to be some kind of punishment, so i would never be able to support amnesty.

[angrydragon]

This is why it's better for the states to have those abortion laws. If you don't like one state and it's government, you move to another state. This is how the founders saw it.

[mikelovesgod]

Angry, you are exactly right. The federalist idea of gov't is baloney.

How can you hate Ron Paul for those things? I would hate him if he killed old ladies or robbed little children...

Oh that's right, that's what the gov't is doing now with their policies...

[tsoldrin]

Since I don't have a uterus, I don't really feel it's my place to even have a position on abortion. On the other hand, I think if all the time, money and energy spent on the pro-life movement were instead channeled into preventative and educational measures, the entire issue would nearly disappear.

As for open borders, I find that most people advocating open borders and amnesty usually live pretty damn far from the borders and have never had to deal with illegal aliens running through their back yard carrying a satchel of drugs or any of the other myriad of other problems that come with these issues. Everyone should probably have to deal with that for a period of time before voicing an opinion.

[jd603]

..and this is why Ron Paul is not a libertarian any more.

I'm sure he supports LEGAL immigration completely. The illegal immigration is currently being used as a tool to integrate this country with Mexico and also Canada, Bush has already signed agreements with the leaders of those two countries without congressional approval.

all these "rumors" you hear about a NAFTA superhighway and the like are not rumors, they are facts with hard evidence and signed documents to back it up.

Ron Paul helped me understand the CFR and how our government has been hijacked and it probably will not end well for us.. I am usually uninterested in politics, Ron Paul changed that.... I'm just hoping other people see the light.

[angrydragon]

I definitely don't want the NAU or the amero currency.

[woowoowoo22]

Since I don't have a uterus, I don't really feel it's my place to even have a position on abortion. On the other hand, I think if all the time, money and energy spent on the pro-life movement were instead channeled into preventative and educational measures, the entire issue would nearly disappear.

As for open borders, I find that most people advocating open borders and amnesty usually live pretty damn far from the borders and have never had to deal with illegal aliens running through their back yard carrying a satchel of drugs or any of the other myriad of other problems that come with these issues. Everyone should probably have to deal with that for a period of time before voicing an opinion.

I lived about in Orange County CA.....possibly the illegal immigrant capital of the world.....and I am for open borders.

[Silverback]

Since I don't have a uterus, I don't really feel it's my place to even have a position on abortion. On the other hand, I think if all the time, money and energy spent on the pro-life movement were instead channeled into preventative and educational measures, the entire issue would nearly disappear.

As for open borders, I find that most people advocating open borders and amnesty usually live pretty damn far from the borders and have never had to deal with illegal aliens running through their back yard carrying a satchel of drugs or any of the other myriad of other problems that come with these issues. Everyone should probably have to deal with that for a period of time before voicing an opinion.

I don't know, the last thing I want to do is start an abortion debate, I'm about as moderate on the subject as you can be (part of the problem with the issue is that there's little middle ground, the unborn are either people and have rights or they're not and have none) But the "I/you don't have a uterus, I/you don't have a right to an opinion" line makes me angry every time I hear it, especially lately.

I'm expecting my first child, and if anyone including her mother decided to kill/abort my unborn daughter I think I'd have a right to an opinion and then some.

Paul is better on both these issues than ANY other candidate. Usually when I find myself in disagreement with Dr. Paul I find I didn't understand the issue as completely as I thought, and reading his reasoning on the subject changes my mind.

That's why he's been my favorite congressman for a decade, why I was an RLC member, and why I support him for president.

He's the only politician I've ever thought was more qualified for the job than I.

[mdh]

I'm expecting my first child, and if anyone including her mother decided to kill/abort my unborn daughter I think I'd have a right to an opinion and then some.

Totally agree. If it takes two to make a baby, and men are expected to carry a financial burden after the child is born, they're sure as hell better get some say on this side of things, too.

[Chris Sinnard]

The only thing I don't like is the racism crap he is affiliated with. I know the story, but aide or not it was a stupid move on Paul's part.

[tsoldrin]

I lived about in Orange County CA.....possibly the illegal immigrant capital of the world.....and I am for open borders.

I grew up in San Diego... I love Mexicans, Mexican food, Mexican culture, etc... my spanish is a bit rusty but still usable... still, I can't see why anyone would want to turn the United States into the same third world country that Mexico is.

At it's simplest, Mexico is far richer in nearly every natural resource and look what's come of it. That's exactly what America would become with open borders. It's likely it'll happen anyway with the poorly implemented immigration policy, just more slowly.

[Chris Sinnard]

Bill the Butcher called. The Irish are coming.

[MBA2008]

--Men can't have an opinion about abortion because they don't have a uterus.---

Ok, so women are not allowed to circumcise their sons. Also, women should not have an opinion about erectile dysfunction. If you don't have a penis, I don't want to hear your thoughts about premature ejaculation. Because as a woman, you don't have a right to opinion about that.

Ridiculous!

[CJLauderdale4]

These 2 issues, to me, are 2 of only a few that put ron in the republican camp...

[Galactic Lord Xenu]

And you said that you were from LP roots... so see, I'm right! :p


Personally, I'm wishy-washy about abortion. I'm a scientific kinda guy, not a religious kinda guy, but really we don't have enough scientific data about when "life" begins for me to speak authoritatively about abortion. In general, I'd say that I feel taking a life should be treated equally, unborn or otherwise, and that the right to self-defense must be preserved regardless, etc. Not a popular position, I've found, but it's the only one that seems fair to me.

The problem isn't scientific information, the problem is is that there *is* no single second you can snap your fingers and say that the fetus is essentially a person.

The moment after conception it sure ain't a person, but the moment before birth it sure ain't a blob of meat either.

I don't agree with Paul's position on abortion but I certainly understand it and respect if more than the "pro-choice" crowd that only talks about a "woman's right to choose" when the actual issue is that of whether the fetus is an actual person or not.

I also don't agree with his position on immigration as much, either, but I think the argument "government doesn't work" is pretty weak and is more anarchistic than anything. Government -can- work (just look at tax collection!) it just usually doesn't work as well as a free market (and in this case law enforcement is the government's job).

[Galactic Lord Xenu]

--Men can't have an opinion about abortion because they don't have a uterus.---

Ok, so women are not allowed to circumcise their sons. Also, women should not have an opinion about erectile dysfunction. If you don't have a penis, I don't want to hear your thoughts about premature ejaculation. Because as a woman, you don't have a right to opinion about that.

Ridiculous!

It really is. To the "pro-lifer" you might as well say "Well, I'm the mother and I can do whatever I want with my son, it's a woman right to choose" to excuse neglect or child abuse or even murder.

I'm pro-abortion but I never call myself pro-choice because frankly much of the so-called "pro-choice" arguments are disgusting.

[Seamaiden]

Interesting, I fought my ex-husband very hard on the circumcision issue, I feel it's a barbaric and inhumane procedure with absolutely no redeeming or health value. I lost the debate. I have also had to fight my ex very hard to contribute both financially and in giving "Dad time" to the kids we both created. All of you must know that this is not at all uncommon. As such, my children have spent far more time with their mother than their father (who, interestingly enough, has for years used Jesus as a reason to not spend time with his boys, "I would, but I have to go to church.") Now that they are adults he will begin paying the real price. My oldest son, almost 21, has two entries in his cel phone for his parents. His father's entry is his father's first name (and he never answers his calls or returns his messages), I am "Mom". Yes, I know it works both ways, too.

I find it amusing to read that some of you are inferring that it is women who prompt men to do something about whatever penile dysfunctions they may have, very amusing. As if it even comes close to being an apt comparison. I would also never dare tell a man what to do with his penis unless he was using it on or against me (for instance, please don't show me your pecker when I haven't asked to see it, and don't touch me with it unless I've indicated I want you to).

So, since the majority of you have never actually physically been pregnant, I am wondering, what would you do if you lost many jobs due to very bad pregnancy-related nausea and other issues? Have you lost a job simply because you were pregnant? Ever been told to go on welfare by the Labor Board because you were fired specifically for being pregnant and couldn't find someone to hire you through your last trimester? How about the puking? Ever end up in the emergency room because you couldn't stop throwing up? This is specifically directed at the men (I don't seem to be able to pick out very many women participating here).

Very much as a woman, I do think I should have a right to choose, and I don't think that I should be forced to move away from my home in order to exercise that right. I also think that it is not unreasonable to draw a line, as you so aptly point out, at the moment of conception we are talking about a zygote, a blob of cells, and immediately before birth we are hardly talking about a blob of meat. That is why I feel that the usual 12 week cut off limit is usually reasonable. I do not think that it is a wasted exercise to consider still all the children who will wait their whole lives to be adopted, only to be turned out by the state system at the age of 18.

However, those are my personal views and those do not, in my mind, take away from the larger message and greater possibilities we are presented with by a man such as Ron Paul.


I love Mexicans, Mexican food, Mexican culture, etc... my spanish is a bit rusty but still usable... still, I can't see why anyone would want to turn the United States into the same third world country that Mexico is.

I don't think anyone does. And, if it were the same, do you think Central Americans (it's not just Mexicans who jump the border folks!), South Americans, people from Caribbean and African nations, and poor Asian countries would be clamoring to get here if it were?


At it's simplest, Mexico is far richer in nearly every natural resource and look what's come of it. That's exactly what America would become with open borders. It's likely it'll happen anyway with the poorly implemented immigration policy, just more slowly.

You know, we've accepted poor, illiterate immigrants with few to no job skills in the past, and it didn't cripple us. Why is it suddenly the case now? Of course, living in California and learning as much about our history as I have, I also understand that we already were Mexico. ;)

I'm not saying that we don't have a problem, I don't want the U.S. to be the receiving grounds for misfits and criminals. However, coming from a family who sponsors many Mexicans who may or may not have initially arrived illegally to get their greencards and citizenship, I know that many, many of them go on to be very productive members of our society. And really, that's what I want to see; come one come all (not too many at a time, please), but become American and contribute to us as a whole.

[mdh]

Interesting, I fought my ex-husband very hard on the circumcision issue

Sorry, but... I lol'd.

[Broadlighter]

As a man, I will never get pregnant and never have to make the decision to end a pregnancy that I didn't want. That said, I don't know what goes on for a woman when she gets pregnant and contemplates what to do about it if the prospective birth is not wanted by the mother.

I don't believe women have abortions because they have murderous, bloodlust for killing the unborn and anyone who thinks of it in those terms is not being realistic.

I think most rational people on both sides of the debate would like to live in a world where that decision would never be necessary. Science got us into this mess and I believe science will ultimately get us out of it.

The debate will never be solved by argument, nor by law. Roe v. Wade did not end the argument. Overturning it won't either.

Taking away the protection for women to choose their reproductive destiny puts us closer to the situation they have had in China where families are allowed only a certain number of children.

I think Ron Paul is correct in taking the government out of equation. I think government at all levels should be taken out of that decision, so it is kept between the woman, her family and doctor.

Under a Ron Paul presidency, I would expect and hope the reforms, eliminating the Income tax, Inflation tax, Foreign Interventions, separating government from corporate entanglements, would affect social conditions in such a positive way that abortion would become an afterthought without any changes to existing laws.

[LibertyCzar]

I will stand by my position that if government is involved in the issue of abortion, it needs to be at the state level, not the federal level. Furthermore, it needs be approached as a crime, in that it is the taking of a life. However, if abortions are to be legal, the specific medical procedures need to be approved and regulated, at the state level.

I agree with Ron Paul's immigration position. It defies the definition of national sovereignty to have open borders. This is one of the few examples of something that belongs to the federal government to enforce. A fence or wall will not work, however. Instead of being scattered across the globe, our national guard should supplement the border guards, and the navy should assist the coast guard.

[axiomata]

It's quite easy to see where Paul is coming from in these issues ... being that he is a ob-gyn from Texas.

I agree with his abortion position but am more flexible on the immigration issue.

And no matter how you feel on these two issues one thing is for sure, 'hate' is such a strong word.

[Nathan Hale]

Here's a great libertarian pro-life argument that doesn't involve religious preaching of any kind:

Thoughts on Abortion
by S. Michael Moore

I was reading an article by Cathy Young in the Boston Globe, entitled "An ugly new chapter in the religious wars," which tangentially discusses abortion. It got me to thinking about my position on this topic.

Within the libertarian community, there is much disagreement on this issue. In my experience, most come down on the "pro-choice" side of the issue, with the main argument for such being that it is an issue of self-ownership. A woman owns her body and should be able to do with it as she pleases including, as many put it, protecting herself from a "parasitic entity" living in her body against her will.

At least I can say that coming from libertarians this idea and belief is actually honestly felt. I take no issue with them making this argument or working to promote it. However, when I hear Democrats and other leftists make the argument I find it laughable. These people hold no actual aversion to controlling the body or mind of another. They advocate such control on a daily basis as they push for increased government control on myriad issues.

Take for example the current situation in North Carolina. Those on the left are arguing against the move to protect pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control and the "morning-after" pill on a moral basis. The argument they use, however, is basically that a pharmacist is no better than a vending machine and must blindly follow what is written on the script pad. My position on such a proposal is simple. Pharmacists who own their own stores should be free to dispense or not dispense any medicine that they choose for any reason that they choose. If they work for someone else, they should follow the dispensing guideline of their employer who they work for of their own free will.

The above is just a single instance where those on the left show that they have no real concern for controlling someone else's body. As I said there are countless other positions that could be demonstrated to be in direct contradiction to the left's supposed belief in right to self. However, I digress. Back to the issue at hand, my position on abortion.

For me, it is an issue of self-responsibility. People must be held accountable for the actions they take against others (people should be free to do unto themselves as they see fit). Sex has one biological purpose, the creation of new members of the species. If you engage in heterosexual intercourse, it is always a possibility that the woman will become impregnated. As a responsible person, you must accept this as fact and either take what actions you see as necessary to prevent the impregnation or take responsibility when the impregnation occurs.

At this stage, I don't think you would find much difference in my opinion and most other libertarians. Where we part company is in what constitutes "responsibility" after the impregnation. The argument that the fetus is some parasite with no claim to the mother's body is, to me, specious. It is not as if this fetus was some bacteria or leech hanging out freely in nature waiting for you to wander by so that it could make use of the resources of your body against your will. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The fetus does not exist without the direct action of the mother and father.

I therefore argue that the mother's right to self becomes subservient to the right to self of the fetus, who exists only due to the direct action of the mother. The mother may not want the child, but for me, she and the father made a de facto agreement that the fetus has the right to exist and therefore, right to self, when they willingly engaged in a biological act with no other function than the creation of life. This is not changed by the fact that they chose to use some type of contraception, none of which are 100% effective in the prevention of pregnancy.

Of course, the question arises of when is a fetus to be considered an independent life, separate from that of the mother. When does a fetus have right to self? For me personally, that right exists immediately upon conception. Reasonable people could certainly argue otherwise. After all, there is certainly a stage in the development during which the fetus has no independent consciousness and for all intents is not much different than any other tumor growing in someone's body. The difference for me is that no matter how much the tumor develops it will never become a sentient being, whereas the fetus will.

As you probably noticed, I used the term "direct action" as it relates to the parents, especially the mother. Another situation altogether arises when there was not direct action by both parents, such as rape or forceful incest (which is in itself rape). In these cases, the mother did not willfully enter into the "de facto" agreement of which I wrote earlier and the fetus therefore holds no claim to the mother.

The quandary for me arises when it is time to put abortion in terms of legality. Though I personally believe abortion of the fetus of two people who had consensual sex to be the equivalent of murder, I understand that others have different views of when right to self attaches to the fetus. Therefore, I do not personally take a position on the legality of early term abortion. Late term abortions are appalling and should not be legal.

The amazing thing (at least to those on the left, and even some libertarians) about my position is that it was derived with a complete absence of religious guidance or belief. I am an Atheist. Contrary to what they would have you believe, not everyone that opposes abortion is a religious fanatic out to institute some sort of Christian sharia.

[Revolution9]

The problem isn't scientific information, the problem is is that there *is* no single second you can snap your fingers and say that the fetus is essentially a person.
.

Actually on the 49th day, the seventh day of the seventh week, the pineal gland is activated with a large dose of DMT. This triggers a brain change in the fetus as well as determines the sex. If the pineal gland is the seat of the soul then it may be appropraite to link this powerful psychoenergetic neurochemical charge of the pineal gland with the instilling of the spark of the soul into the fetus making it a baby human. The conclusion from a US goverment funded program for studying DMT, the most primitive and powerful all the bodies natural psychedelics.

http://rickstrassman.com/dmt/

Best
Randy

[MBA2008]

I think my point was missed. I wasn't arguing for or against abortion. I was just saying that the argument that someone doesn't have a uterus (i.e. is not a woman), and therfore is not allowed to have an opinion or say on this matter is ridiculous.

Men are sons of women, husbands, brothers, & fathers of women. When women close us to us face that choice, it affects us too, and we have every right to contribute to this discussion. I will not take seriously any arguments that are based on the principle of no womb, no voice.

As far illegal immigration is concerned, very few of us are not immigrants or decendants of immigrants. However, comparing today's situation to that of a century ago is way too simplistic. It's true, we didn't have a problem a century ago with open immigration because we didn't have a monstrous welfare state for the new arrivals to burden. Back in those days, benefits were earned by hard work and sacrifice, not by being present and poor.

Why can people not understand?: WE ARE TIRED OF PAYING FOR ALL OF EVERYBODY'S STUFF!!! People in this country are sick of shelling out 50% to 70% of their real gross incomes to support newcomers who haven't put anything in to the system; to people a half a world away who use our generosity to buy weapons to kill our soldiers; to welfare programs that fall way short of meeting their goals (except for the goal of advancing the career of or enriching a Congressperson/President); to subsidizing huge corporations that prolong our dependence on foreign energy; to a world government that would end our Constitutionally guaranteed liberties. Shall I continue?

The American Revolution was essentially sparked by taxes. People got tired of George (how appropriate) taxing them to support his wars. (Eery isn't it?) Let me tell you something folks, in real terms, they were taxed far less than we are today, and they didn't wait very long to start the revolution.

I'm all for the "warm, fuzzy, let's all hold hands, sing and the world will be one" stuff. But someone's got to pay for the heat, the clothes, and the music lessons. Reality must set in at some point. Goverment welfare is not the answer. Wealth redistribution is not the answer. Socialized anything is not the answer. How many times does this stuff have to fail before we get the clue? Capitalism is far from perfect folks, but given human nature, it's the best thing we got.

Ok, that's it for now. That was my one emotional rant. Now that it is out of my system, all future posts will be calm, calculated, and logically laid out.

Regards and no disrespect.

[Nathan Hale]

The American Revolution was essentially sparked by taxes. People got tired of George (how appropriate) taxing them to support his wars. (Eery isn't it?) Let me tell you something folks, in real terms, they were taxed far less than we are today, and they didn't wait very long to start the revolution.


Here's an interesting factoid. You're correct in that much of the discontent arose from British measures to make the colonies pay war, namely the French and Indian War, which the British fought on behalf of the colonies and which later spread to Europe under the moniker The Seven Years War. But here's the good part.

The French and Indian War was started by a singularity. One day, in the Ohio Valley, the war was started when a small British and Indian party ambushed a French detachment and won a decisive, messy, and not-to-flattering victory that caused great resentment from the French, who weren't looking for a fight. But regardless, the English officer gave the order to attack, an attack (the Battle of Jumonville Glen) that led to the Battle of Fort Necessity, which led outright war.

Some of you probably already know this factoid.

The British officer that gave the order to attack was George Washington.

So, great irony aside, George Washington started the war that caused the British to levy the taxes and regulations that caused the colonies to rebel against them.

[quickmike]

I agree with alot of you when you say you dont agree with RP about closing the borders to "illegal" immigrants, but consider this point of view............currently the government gives free handouts to anyone who comes here and wants them, including US citizens. I think Ron would be for open borders if we didnt have the current welfare state that we have now. I believe that until we get rid of the free handouts, we need to control who comes here to get them unless we want to bankrupt ourselves into oblivion, which were already well on our way to doing. Now if we could get rid of the welfare state, and the easy handouts it brings with it, sure, I would be all for letting anyone into the country that wants to come in. But until that time, we need to stop the great american giveaway. Anyone agree with me here?

[MBA2008]

Interesting indeed.

[NewEnd]

I agree with alot of you when you say you dont agree with RP about closing the borders to "illegal" immigrants, but consider this point of view............currently the government gives free handouts to anyone who comes here and wants them, including US citizens. I think Ron would be for open borders if we didnt have the current welfare state that we have now. I believe that until we get rid of the free handouts, we need to control who comes here to get them unless we want to bankrupt ourselves into oblivion, which were already well on our way to doing. Now if we could get rid of the welfare state, and the easy handouts it brings with it, sure, I would be all for letting anyone into the country that wants to come in. But until that time, we need to stop the great american giveaway. Anyone agree with me here?

Absolutely.

I am kind of for open immigration, but against any welfare for immigrants, citizen or not. If they haven't been paying taxes since age 18, they really should not be reaping the benefits of our welfare society.. msotly because we can't afford it, but the principle too.

[krott5333]

he's not a lib, hes a constitutionalist

[quickmike]

Absolutely.

I am kind of for open immigration, but against any welfare for immigrants, citizen or not. If they haven't been paying taxes since age 18, they really should not be reaping the benefits of our welfare society.. msotly because we can't afford it, but the principle too.

Exactly, so what im saying is that unfortunately, we need to close the borders temporarily until we get this whole welfare mess straightened out. If we dont, and we continue to allow them to come in and get the freebees, we will surely bankrupt the system. Fix the welfare first, then allow open immigration after that.

[OS@M@]

The only thing I don't like is the racism crap he is affiliated with. I know the story, but aide or not it was a stupid move on Paul's part.

I will fight Chris Sinnard - he has a bad attitude!

[MozoVote]

Border patrol is actually a form of prohibition - and Ron Paul has stated plenty of times about his preference for free markets and trade. After all, enforcing the border does nothing to stop the DEMAND for cheap labor. If anything, it increases it (raising wages) and may even increase the willingness of foreigners to attempt to come here.

I also suspect Ron's stance against illegal immigrants, is rooted more in his distaste for the Welfare state that they can currently get aid from.

[axiomata]

“It’s just obvious you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state.” - Milton Friedman

[sandersondavis]

http://www.freecentury.com/2007/06/18/2-things-i-hate-about-ron-paul/

Good article, thanks for the link. That guy is solidly in the RP camp.

Heck, now that I think about it, the title was brilliant. Think of all the Rudy Supporters who are going to be drawn to this article after a goggle search. They get tricked into reading the article. :)

Hell. I'd send him a taink you letter for supporting the campaign if I knew his email.