PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul Roundup (1-8-8)




RSDavis
01-08-2008, 01:35 PM
http://laceylibertarian.us/wp-images/rPaulRev.jpg

Ron Paul Roundup (1-8-8)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=345510960&Mytoken=8432727E-B329-40AD-B71EDA00321350D6125751346)


Hello Freedomphiles! So, last night, Ron Paul was on Jay Leno. Did you miss it? If so, I'm here for you, buddy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pxdmNzKNfU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpsvXdXKmHA

And it made the news, too. USAToday comments (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/01/huckabee-paul-t.html):

They talk at length about Paul's exclusion from Sunday's Fox News Channel GOP debate. "Maybe they're intimidated. Maybe they're frightened. Maybe they don't want to hear the truth," Paul says of the folks at Fox.

Paul also says one reason that some GOP contenders have been on the offensive against Mitt Romney might be Romney's religion. From the transcript:

Paul: "I guess they figured he was the frontrunner, but he's coming down now. But you know, one thing I'm a little bit afraid of is that they might be doing that for religious reasons, and I don't like that. I disagree with Romney on some of the issues, and he's gone after me on the stage, but that shouldn't be the reason that he doesn't do well."

Leno: "Do you think that's the reason?"

Paul: "I think subtly there is a little bit of that. And I don't think that's right."

If you want to read the transcript, click here (http://www.usatoday.com/news/pdf/RonPaulOnLeno-1-7-2008.pdf). The Los Angeles Times also wrote (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/01/ronpaulreigns.html) about the appearance:

Leno asks about Romney's slide in the polls and attacks by other GOP candidates. "I'm a little bit afraid that they might be doing that for religious reasons," says Paul. "And I don't like that. I disagree with Romney on some of the issues, and he's gone after me onstage, but that shouldn't be the reason that he doesn't do well."

Paul noted that "nobody's ever accused me" of saying different things to different crowds. "I say the same thing, no matter which ear it is and which crowd it is." Paul corrected Leno that he had not collected all that campaign money but that "we" had: his followers and their 1,400 meet-up groups nationwide.

Paul said after his earlier debate confrontation with Giuliani "when he was confused about what causes terrorism [Laughter] I sent him some books, And I said, 'Please read these books.' But so far it doesn't sound like he's read [them]. He hasn't done his homework." [Applause]

Paul, the only GOP candidate opposing the Iraq war, criticized the Bush administration. "The trillion dollars went to the war," Paul said. "It should be here taking care of our people here at home." [Applause] Paul also noted how all candidates now say they're for change but nothing changes. "To me," he added, "that means the only significant change we ought to have is get enough people in Washington that read the constitution, obey the constitution, do only the things that we're allowed to do." [Applause]

In other entertainment-oriented news, hilarious shock jock and First Amendment Hero (http://www.geocities.com/freedomphiles/archives/FCC.html) Howard Stern endorsed Ron Paul. World Net Daily reports (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59580):

Sirius satellite radio shock jock Howard Stern gave an enthusiastic thumbs-up to GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul on his program today, saying the maverick congressman is "fantastic."

"I've got to tell you about this guy Ron Paul," Stern said on his show. "This guy – he's a Republican – and he says listen, when I become president, I'm taking us out of Iraq, I'm taking us out of everywhere in the world. …

"What good has it done us being in these f---ing Middle Eastern countries?"

Still paraphrasing Paul, Stern said: "I'm not an isolationist. I'm not afraid to use the military where it's needed. But to sit in these extended f---ing wars, draining the economy – and if we stay or we leave, the same g--d--- thing happens: nothing! So let's leave."

Continued the radio host: "People love this guy when he talks. He makes sense."

That he does, Mr Stern. Here's the clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85CLizP8z3E

On the other side of things, some people are doing quite the opposite. The New Republic's Jamie Kirchick appeared on Tucker Carlson's show with a bag full of innuendo, slander, and dirty pool:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWpADkP4QqY

Reason's Matt Welch hits (http://reason.com/blog/show/124265.html) some highlights:

On Tucker Carlson's show 45 minutes ago, The New Republic's Jamie Kirchick alleged that Ron Paul called Martin Luther King a "gay pedophile," and stuffed 20 years' worth of "Ron Paul" newsletters full of "racist, anti-semitic, homophobic invective."

Kirchick, whose story for TNR (along with screen-shots of the newsletters themselves) are scheduled to go up at midnight EDT "tomorrow afternoon," said that Paul "called black people animals," and spoke at a "pro-secessionist conference." In teeing up the segment, Carlson, who was skeptical about some of Kirchick's claims, reported that the Paul campaign has apologized for the content of the newsletters to both Kirchick and Carlson.

And Third Party Watch also commented (http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/01/07/ron-paul-just-trashed-on-msnbc/):

Apparently, the New Republic is doing a hit piece on Paul scheduled to be published this Friday, but they needed to get this on national television in time to hurt Ron Paul in New Hampshire.

Kirchick alleged that Paul has a history and track record of making veiled comments that only neo-confederates can understand. He didn't mention any particular "wink-wink-nudge-nudge" or secret handshake which might accompany such statements. He indicated that Thomas DiLorenzo was involved and threw in a few secessionist jabs.

Tucker Carlson challenged Kirchick on a few issues, but obviously didn't have the background necessary to combat the allegations. No matter if accurate or not (or whether one supports Paul or not), the timing of these new allegations indicates an intent to hit Paul before he could have time for respond in time to undo any potential damage before the New Hampshire primary.

And I thought the "Ron Paul as a racist" smears had been so thoroughly debunked, we wouldn't see any more, except from the most peurile asshats pretending to be serious political thinkers. Oh yeah, guess I was right.

On The American Conservative, W James Antle III writes (http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_01_14/article3.html) about the smear machine:

Ron Paul isn't just running for president. The antiwar 10-term congressman from Texas hopes that as titular head of the Republican Party, he can nudge the Right in a less interventionist direction, both at home and abroad. In fact, reviving an older, less reflexively hawkish conservatism may even be a more important motivation for Paul's long-shot campaign than actually capturing the GOP nomination.

There's just one problem: the movement Paul is trying to lead, or at least influence, is filled with people who think he is some kind of crazed left-wing radical. The popular conservative website RedState.com has effectively banned Paul supporters from signing up as commenters and promoting their candidate, partly on the grounds that such people are liberal Democrats merely pretending to be Republicans. FreeRepublic.com founder Jim Robinson, whose website was once more open to constitutionalists than Republican boosters, asserted that "Paul equals Hillary on the War." National Review senior editor Richard Brookhiser has opined that Paul backers are "wicked idiots."

Syndicated columnist Mona Charen dubbed Paul a "kook," saying that although he shouldn't be president, "[h]e might make a dandy new leader for the Branch Davidians." Dean Barnett of The Weekly Standard devoted a similar piece to taunts along these lines, calling Paul the "crank-in-chief" and "undisputed owner of the "'Don't tase me bro' vote." Averring that "Crazy people love to have a cause," Barnett observes that "America's lunatics" have "taken such a shine to the formerly obscure Ron Paul"—since all Paul really wants is to "wear a powdered wig without being ridiculed in public."

When not dismissing Paul as too far to the Left, his conservative critics allege that he has ties to unsavory elements of the far Right. Political journalist Ryan Sager, who has described Paul's fundraising success and modest rise in the polls as a "crackpot revolution," told New York Sun readers, "it's also worth noting that [Paul is] pretty racist and also an anti-Semite." Ron Rosenbaum, writing on his blog for Pajamas Media, said that Paul might not be an anti-Semite, but "some of his followers exhibit some disturbing tendencies."

I expect these attacks from the welfare/warfare cronies to only get worse. Pastor Chuck Baldwin writes (http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin422.htm) a piece on News With Views speculating on why the Establishment is so afraid of Ron Paul:

Conservative Republican Ron Paul is loathed as much by members of his own party as he is by liberal Democrats . Even though he is the epitome of a Christian gentleman, Ron Paul is despised by Christians and pastors as much as he is by pagans--maybe more. The media despises him--especially Fox News. The so-called conservative Fox News celebrity Sean Hannity practically goes ballistic at the mere mention of Dr. Paul's name.

Ron Paul has been categorized with the Ku Klux Klan, brothel owners, and Skin Heads. He has been called practically every name in the book. Conservatives and liberals alike rail against Dr. Paul in a manner never seen before in modern politics. Again, why does the Establishment hate him so much? I'll tell you why.

The Establishment hates Ron Paul because his honesty and integrity expose the rest of them for the moral reprobates they are. Their own conscience cannot bear the sight of him. His very presence condemns them. Their personal greed and ambition cringe at the very thought of Ron Paul. If Dr. Paul became President, the Gig would be up! It would be Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday at Tombstone all over again. They know it, and they will fight like mad to keep their corrupt stranglehold on American politics.

(...)

Unfortunately, most of what we have in Washington, D.C., these days (in both parties) is a bunch of internationalists who cannot see past their own selfish interests. They are consumed with greed and power. They are slaves to Big Business and special interest groups. They are petty, shallow hirelings who care nothing for constitutional government, the principles of liberty, or the American people. To them, Ron Paul represents everything they hate: limited government, freedom, selflessness, humility, and integrity.

Thomas J DiLorenzo calls (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo137.html)Ron Paul the Jefferson of our time over at LewRockwell.com:

In reality, Grover Cleveland was the last American president who actually believed in Jeffersonian principles of government and was even moderately successful in implementing them (he vetoed literally hundreds of pieces of legislation). It's been almost 120 years since a genuine Jeffersonian has been a major candidate for the highest office in the land, but we finally have in our midst the genuine item – the real deal – in the person of Ron Paul.

Unlike all other candidates for the presidency, Ron Paul does not attempt to dupe the public into believing that he is in favor of fiscal responsibility, limited and decentralized government, and individual liberty. He has spent the past three decades demonstrating that he is single-mindedly devoted to these principles, and sincerely believes that he can succeed in returning them to the American polity.

When Ron Paul proposes abolishing the Federal Reserve Board and returning to the gold standard, he is taking Jefferson's position in his great debate with Hamilton over the propriety of a government-run bank. As explained in my forthcoming book, Hamilton's Curse, Hamilton wanted a big, expansive and intrusive central government that would centrally plan the economy and pursue "imperial glory" in foreign affairs. He wanted America to imitate the British empire. In order to achieve this, he knew that a government-run bank would be necessary. Jefferson, on the other hand, believed that the sole purpose of government was to protect the lives, liberty and property of the people, and that such a bank would be a danger to liberty. The two men debated the issue in long essays submitted to President George Washington, who eventually adopted the position of his fellow Federalist, Hamilton. (The Federalists in Congress played a role by passing legislation that enlarged the District of Columbia so that it would be adjacent to Washington's property on the Potomac River. They had blocked Washington's request for this until he signed the bank bill.)

And alert Freedomphile Evren sent me this nice piece (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-simon/fox-news-snub-of-paul-co_b_80138.html) from Matt Simon about the perils of fucking with Dr No:

Ron Paul is sort of like a porcupine; a porcupine looks cuddly and cute, but if you try to step on one you're liable to wind up with a few holes in your foot.

Rudy Giuliani was the first to step. It happened in the May 15 Fox debate, when Giuliani attempted to bully Paul into retracting his assertion that interventionist foreign policy causes terrorism. Paul responded by introducing a new, desperately needed term into the presidential primary marketplace of ideas: "Blowback."

Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire is the title of a 2000 book by Chalmers Johnson. In a chapter called "Stealth Imperialism," Johnson begins by asserting that "present American policy is seeding resentments that are bound to breed attempts at revenge." By now, most Americans have heard this argument many times and in many different forms, and it appears to be sinking in. But apparently nobody had ever had the guts to say anything like that with Giuliani in earshot.

"I don't think I've ever heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11," he fumed at Paul. Maybe he didn't know it at the time, but there were a few little holes in his foot. And six months after stepping on a porcupine, Giuliani netted a whopping 4% in Iowa...

...The decision to exclude Paul was so indefensible, following his record-breaking fundraising efforts and a double-digit result in Iowa, that the New Hampshire GOP withdrew as a partner in the forum.

Which brings us back to "Blowback."

It is a concept many Republicans refuse to understand, a concept many Democrats begin to understand, yet underestimate. But it's a message a growing number of American voters are ready for. Paul summed it up in the ABC debate Saturday: "We ought to treat others as we would want others to treat us, and we don't treat others so fairly... If they don't listen to us, we bomb them; if they listen to us, we give them money, and it's bankrupting this country because we don't live up to our principles."

Despite being snubbed, Paul was all smiles Sunday when he appeared at the New Hampshire Liberty Forum, an event sponsored by the Free State Project. Why?

If the rumors are true, there are an awful lot of porcupines floating around New Hampshire, and their momentum suggests that Tuesday might be a pretty tough day for the hawks.

Ron Paul may not have been at the Fox News debate, but he still responded (http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS183560+07-Jan-2008+BW20080107)to John McCain's statement that he'd be willing to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years, if neccessary:

"John McCain's statement in favor of keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years or longer puts him out of sync with the majority of Americans, who want our troops to come home. Further, his comments recklessly put America at risk as such a statement will likely serve as a recruiting tool for Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, who appeal to radicals and incite violence against Americans by claiming that the US desires to occupy the Middle East indefinitely.

"It is time to act in the true national security interest of the United States and begin withdrawal from Iraq and the rest of the Middle East immediately. Americans will be far safer under a pro- America foreign policy that seeks to end the dangerous idea that the US should be the policeman of the world.

"Further, the financial costs of keeping troops in Iraq for a century would be massive - in addition to the steep price in American lives. If John McCain really wants such a long term presence, he needs to level with the American people and tell them that his policy means we will not be able to fulfill our obligations here at home."

Newsday.com reports (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/politics/ny-usgop0108,0,1645393.story) that Ron Paul may be Rudy "Benito" Guiliani's worst enemy:

As New Hampshire voters go to the polls Tuesday to make their choices in the complicated, wide-open Republican presidential race, Rudy Giuliani is in danger of losing the first two major primary contests to none other than long-shot libertarian Ron Paul.

And finally, Mike Renzulli is reconsidering (http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=1111) Ron Paul:

It's entirely possible and is looking more like Paul is, in fact, not seeking to rule but to liberate the United States in a manner he believes is best within his frame work. While not consistently libertarian it is in that direction. I am glad that Paul has lived up to what Ms. Rand has outlined and to have learned that Paul has won the endorsement of Barry Goldwater, Jr. since it is because of Barry, Sr. that I became a Republican and later a Libertarian.

From my perspective, Paul would be better served to not call himself a libertarian due to the flaws in his logic that I pointed out in my previous essay. While he can call himself whatever he wants, a more appropriate label for him would be a free market conservative.

I understand many of the people supporting him see Ron Paul as the best chance to liberate the country and it looks like the vast majority of his supporters are people who oppose the Iraq war. However, to paraphrase the battle cry of the Scottish Freemen of Ambroath, for me, it is liberty alone that I fight and contend for.

Dismantling the warfare-welfare state is one piece of how to restore liberty in this country. In my view, it is only by electing a person that is not part of the Republican and Democrat duopoly as well as someone consistent in their libertarian beliefs that people can be won over to embrace freedom and not some watered-down version of it which I still somewhat believe Ron Paul is symbolic of.

http://www.brendangates.com/forumlogo.jpg

Molly1
01-08-2008, 02:05 PM
Thank you!

DRSANGLE
01-09-2008, 02:18 AM
The Howard Stern clip is not available on youtube because of copyright but thank you
so much for all this information.

DRSANGLE
01-09-2008, 02:34 AM
I agree with the comment that using the phrase libertarian is not productive.

I think there needs to be more recognition of just his name as a candidate and also
the fact of him laying out the positive and even the number of what he wants to do.

He is trying to get through all the NOISE we all have been dealing with for years and he
needs to start explaining not what he wants to do as much as what it will mean to each person and what they will benefit from by him doing it.

He basically needs "draw a picture" about the benefits of doing something different (or the way it used to be done), the benefits for everyone of jobs, a more secure, stronger defense because defense is not only about guns. We have all the guns and that is not what will take us down.

He needs to "paint a picture" of what will happen by him being president and following the law. He really at the next debate, another town hall meeting, sit relaxed on a stool and just take his time "painting the picture" of the benefits (name them, as many as he can so it starts people thinking a different way.

I want to thank anyone, everyone that have and will have helped.