Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Nation Rah-Rahs Ron Paul
Perhaps of some relevance to the passionate comment thread here on whether Ron Paul's rise says something about whether Democrat or Republican, right or left, is where libertarians ought to turn for viable political allies, John Nichols of The Nation says this about Paul today:
When is the Washington press corps going to start treating Ron Paul as seriously as it does Fred Thompson?
The likely answer is "not soon." And that's the most frustrating thing about the way in which the GOP race is being covered by major media. After all, Ron Paul has more to say -- and says it better -- than any of the other Republicans. With a fair shake from the media, he'd be rising even faster in New Hampshire and elsewhere.
Of course, one of the reasons Paul's on the rise now is the fact that he is not the kind of contender who tailors his message or his campaign to meet media expectations.
The Nation's Nichols was interviewed by me for this December 2006 essay on whether or not the Dems could be relied on to end the war in Iraq.
ed|11.20.07 @ 2:02PM|#
the most frustrating thing about the way in which the GOP
race is being covered by major media
It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the majority of
journalists identify themselves as Democrats, would it? Not even a
little?
|11.20.07 @ 2:06PM|#
It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the
majority of journalists identify themselves as Democrats, would it?
Not even a little?
I don't buy that. The "liberal media" is the one that's constantly
slobbering over "maverick" John McCain (or at least before his
campaign got torpedoes), kicked the Jesus out of Clinton over the
Lewinsky scandal and cheerleaded Bush right into a war with
Iraq.
I think reporters just don't see Paul as having much of a shot.
Episiarch|11.20.07 @ 2:09PM|#
I think reporters just don't see Paul as having much of a
shot.
Agreed. Ron is, in their playbook, the kooky Nader/Kucinich-style
weirdo. He can't win, but he can fuck up a close election
for somebody. Any journalist who takes him too seriously risks
getting ripped on at the next journalist shindig.
Edward|11.20.07 @ 2:09PM|#
Right. Once journalists start to give Ron Paul and even break, Americans will learn that he wants to abolish most federal departments and thinks the Founding Fathers envisioned a "robust Christian nation." Then Americans, especially Americans on the left, will flock to him. I wonder what John Nichols has been smoking.
ed|11.20.07 @ 2:09PM|#
The "liberal media" is the one that's constantly slobbering
over "maverick" John McCain...kicked the Jesus out of Clinton over
the Lewinsky scandal and cheerleaded Bush right into a war with
Iraq.
I didn't say they weren't craven hypocrites.
iih|11.20.07 @ 2:11PM|#
Perhaps of some relevance to the passionate comment thread
here on whether Ron Paul's rise says something about whether
Democrat or Republican, right or left, is where libertarians ought
to turn for viable political allies
It was actually most about Dondero convincing all of us how
libertarian Guiliani is and all and how bad Ron Paul is, yada yada
yada...
carrick|11.20.07 @ 2:11PM|#
It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the
majority of journalists identify themselves as Democrats, would it?
Not even a little?
Not really.
The "viewpoint" of any "news" product (paper or electronic) is set
by the editorial staff which gets its marching directions (to some
degree or other) from the owners.
The absolute primary purpose of generating any news product is to
generate revenue, which is accomplished by capturing an audience.
The easiest way to get a big audience is to cater to the mass
market.
The interest of the mass market can only be sustained by providing
a steady stream of titilating "facts" about some collection of well
known people. For politics, this degenerates to coverage about
personalities and calling the horse race.
|11.20.07 @ 2:11PM|#
ed, I think your cries of liberal bias would be more plausible if the media were falling all over themselves in praising Kucinich.
|11.20.07 @ 2:14PM|#
It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the
majority of journalists identify themselves as Democrats, would it?
Not even a little?
Why would it? If I were a Democrat and in control of the media, I
would play up Paul and his zanier ideas, like that the Civil War
was a mistake. And try to tie him as tightly to the GOP as I
could.
|11.20.07 @ 2:23PM|#
What Jamie wrote,"oh God, edward, go take a shit on your own
face. Just ... go away.
What Edward heard,"You're a God, Edward, ...blah ...blah
...blah"
Marcvs|11.20.07 @ 2:25PM|#
That little Greasemonkey script works nicely for being able to
ignore irritating commentors.
Anyway, I think Ron Paul doesn't get much coverage because he is
too idealistic. Politicians can talk all they want about
"principle", but when it comes down to brass tacks, "principle"
scares the shit out of them. The media just assumes that anyone who
actually believes in the principles that he endorses must be crazy,
stupid, or both.
shecky|11.20.07 @ 2:25PM|#
,i>oh God, edward, go take a shit on your own face.
Again?
The identity of tubgirl is finally revealed!
|11.20.07 @ 2:31PM|#
Right. Once journalists start to give Ron Paul and even
break, Americans will learn that he wants to abolish most federal
departments and thinks the Founding Fathers envisioned a "robust
Christian nation." Then Americans, especially Americans on the
left, will flock to him. I wonder what John Nichols has been
smoking.
How DARE you point out what he said! Ron Paul is the savior, and he
will deliever us from evil!
Ryo|11.20.07 @ 2:36PM|#
carrick sez:
The interest of the mass market can only be sustained by providing a steady stream of titilating "facts" about some collection of well known people. For politics, this degenerates to coverage about personalities and calling the horse race.
That's basically it. If you're not well known before you
start campaigning, you'll be lucky if you get any MSM coverage.
Luckier still if any of the coverage you do get isn't simply about
how you're not well known or a fringe candidate or a joke. Romney
might be an exception to this rule.
ed|11.20.07 @ 2:38PM|#
Well then, do you think Paul would get better coverage if there were more libertarian than Democrat journalists? I do.
|11.20.07 @ 2:44PM|#
Well then, do you think Paul would get better coverage if
there were more libertarian than Democrat journalists? I
do.
A journalist's political credentials aren't important. Mr. Boss Man
assigns the stories that he thinks are important to the
readers/viewers, and Paul ain't getting much love from the public.
In other words, a Paul story just isn't going to sell ads. Sounds
cynical, but hey, what would I know? I'm just a journalist.
This also explains why Paul is so popular on the i-Tubes. No love
in mainstream media = lots o'love online.
|11.20.07 @ 2:45PM|#
The only reason The Nation likes Ron Paul is because
he's useful; he's a Republican opposed to "Bush's War".
The problem would lie in when The Nation called on
President Paul to "do something" about Darfur, or Myanmar, and was
promptly spurned. Then he'd be a heartless righty again.
|11.20.07 @ 2:47PM|#
Gimme Back My Dog,
The civil war was a mistake. And it wasn't about slavery -- four
slave states fought on the Union side, after all. Just heading off
the "crimethink is a racist" meme before it comes out to play
again.
Fluffy|11.20.07 @ 2:48PM|#
Ed -
I think that it's impossible to have more libertarian journalists
than Democrat journalists, in ways that are structural and go
beyond the fact that libertarians are a despised minority
generally.
Political journalism is pretty closely wedded to wonkery. You get
into the field because you like to haggle about the details of
scores of interrelated policies. Libertarianism is a philosophy of
largely settled issues, most of which forestall new policies and
therefore make discussion of those policies a little pointless.
It's just more fun to be a political journalist if there are broad
new policy initiatives to pick apart every day, and to do horserace
articles on.
With regard to this specific, I'm not willing to "call out" anybody
on Thompson yet, but WTF is up with coverage of McCain? McCain just
isn't far enough ahead of Paul to justify the disparity in their
coverage. Frankly, McCain should get less coverage than Huckabee.
But McCain is a "serious" candidate and the media fall all over
themselves to fawn over him and try to talk the electorate into
thinking that a McCain "comeback" is in the offing. The desperation
of some [I'm looking at YOU, NBC universe of stations!] to try to
resuscitate this guy's campaign is shameless.
|11.20.07 @ 2:48PM|#
Wouldn't the appearance of this story in the Freaking Nation,
complaining about the DC media and saying nice things about Ron
Paul, pretty much destroy the theory that the mainstream media is
ignoring Paul because of liberal bias?
The only media in this country that can be accurately described as
liberal is found in such places as the Nation, Daily Kos, and the
like. They have given Paul much more attention than the corporate
national and beltway media, have given him much more positive
attention, and have complained about how the mainstream media are
treating him.
|11.20.07 @ 2:49PM|#
Paul and Thompson are both being covered stupidly, and it is at
least partly because the media is full of Democrats. That's the
obvious origin of both the Naderite spoiler view of Paul and the
"'true' conservatives should vote Democrat" spin that's so often
put on it editorially.
Thompson's campaign was similarly declared media-dead before it
began, and when it's covered, which it barely is, it's spun as a
signal of the death of Reaganism, not as a sign of its popularity
among actual voting Republicans, even though he's fluctuating
upward in many primary polls. That view, too, serves Democrats, by
saving them from a potential landslide candidate. (Either Thompson
or Paul, presented honestly, could be that.)
That the results of herd-minded laziness in the media are
indistinguishable from pro-Democrat bias (not "liberal," or they
wouldn't be in the tank for Hillary) should answer Doherty's
question.
It won't.
|11.20.07 @ 2:50PM|#
It's also important to note that journalists and the media establishment in general just adore the machinations of government, whether the people controlling the levers are red or blue. So even a "conservative" journalist -- admittedly, there are few -- looks at a guy like Paul as being some sort of de facto freak, an outsider, a weirdo, whereas the real meat-and-potatoes political reporting is all concerned about personalities, popularity and minor differences in how the candidates would wield their power.
|11.20.07 @ 2:53PM|#
Perhaps of some relevance to the passionate comment thread
here on whether Ron Paul's rise says something about whether
Democrat or Republican, right or left, is where libertarians ought
to turn for viable political allies
Libertarians should follow their own principles when thinking about
wedding themselves to either side.
Permanent, entangling alliances are bad. Advancing your
self-interest through voluntary transactions is good.
Basically, libertarians should maintain their independence and
treat their interactions with the Big Two as transactional.
Let's face it - the "fusionist" Republican coalition got you
nothing. It would be a mistake to try it again, with either
side.
Edward|11.20.07 @ 2:54PM|#
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html
As of November 11--the Ron Paul donation link is still up and
active on Stormfront. No IP address has been blocked. Stormfront's
would-be stormtroopers are still encouraged to contribute to Paul's
campaign.
The white supremacists do more than raise funds. Blogger Adam
Holland reports:
"one of Rep. Paul's top internet organizers in Tennessee is a
neo-Nazi leader named Will Williams (aka 'White Will'). Williams
was the southern coordinator for William Pierce's National Alliance
Party, the largest neo-Nazi party in the U.S."
Pierce is author of the racist "Turner Diaries". When the Lone Star
Times exposed the $500 Don Black donation, Williams responded on
the national Ron Paul meetup site,
"Must Dr. Paul capitulate to our Jewish masters' demands?"
The mild responses to Williams' MeetUp post make a sharp contrast
to the hatred and invective with which Paul supporters respond to
Medved or any other writer questioning Paul's refusal to
disassociate himself from his racist supporters. Any other campaign
would presume Williams' expression of anti-Semitism was a dirty
trick by an opposing campaign. Williams would have been hurriedly
denounced and booted out of the campaign. Not Ron Paul.
|11.20.07 @ 2:58PM|#
Good point, joe.
OT: Someone yesterday mentioned that Huckabee's "money bomb" was to
be today. Anyone have an inkling on how that's going?
Fluffy|11.20.07 @ 3:00PM|#
The Meetups aren't part of the campaign.
Therefore, there is nothing to boot.
iih|11.20.07 @ 3:02PM|#
Just came across this:
"This is from Jonathan Bydlak, Fundraising Director, Ron Paul
2008:
During the first few days of October, we announced our fundraising
goal for the fourth quarter: $12 million raised by December
31.
But there's more: we must spend it by then, too.
If we were to raise the entire $12 million in the last week of
December, we would meet our fundraising goal for the quarter. But
Ron Paul would stand little chance of winning the Republican
nomination, because that money would have come in too late.
Time is of the essence. You see, we need to raise money well before
we plan to spend it. That's because most of the expenditures that
we make need to be paid for weeks in advance. For example, we need
to buy crucial airtime for the end of December right now."
|11.20.07 @ 3:06PM|#
Given how wedded the Big Two are to Big Government, I really
don't see libertarians gaining any traction in any form of
operations with them. We'll be used for our principled arguments to
advance Team Red or Blue, and promptly stabbed in the back when
it's politically convenient.
Libertarians shouldn't play in politics; we should be doing
grassroots philosophical education.
|11.20.07 @ 3:09PM|#
crimethink,
I almost put in a Libertarian Disclaimer that I also feel that the
CW was a mistake. But my opinion doesn't change the fact that for
most voters, a major Republican figure talking down the CW would
only reinforce their suspicion that the GOP is run by Racist Old
White Men.
|11.20.07 @ 3:19PM|#
sage --
I don't have a 12AM baseline, but since 10:30AM to right now
Huckabee's raised a whopping $62,000.
Marcvs|11.20.07 @ 3:21PM|#
I really don't think the lack of coverage of Ron Paul has anything to do with mainstream media being "too liberal" or "full of Democrats." (I'm not saying it is or isn't, I just don't think it applies here). Like others have said, this is simply a matter of everyone on both sides (even Republicans) do not see Paul as a "serious" candidate. What that means is that he's "too crazy" and "wants to abolish government" so he's "unelectable." I really think this is simply the usual problem that libertarian ideas just aren't that popular.
|11.20.07 @ 3:22PM|#
joe
I must confess, you are at your best when you are doing your
dispassionate analysis of a candidate in whose success you have no
particular interest.
Well done.
Episiarch|11.20.07 @ 3:24PM|#
joe
I must confess, you are at your best when you are doing your
dispassionate analysis of a candidate in whose success you have no
particular interest.
Well done.
Seconded. I fully agreed with joe's assessment of how libertarians
should align themselves.
|11.20.07 @ 3:26PM|#
Isaac,
Then I guess I'm going to spend 2008 writing some great
posts.
Rudy McRomneyson vs. Jonack Clinton. Hey, who knows, maybe we'll
see some Dodd-mentum!@
Yippee.
|11.20.07 @ 3:28PM|#
Yes, the afternoon cup o'joe is much better than that chickory crap this morning.
|11.20.07 @ 3:34PM|#
it has to do with the fact that the media is controlled by the
CFR.
same reason why nobody will pick up the story on sybil edmonds.
R C Dean|11.20.07 @ 3:41PM|#
The "viewpoint" of any "news" product (paper or electronic)
is set by the editorial staff which gets its marching directions
(to some degree or other) from the owners.
To some degree, sure. But the orientation, conscious or otherwise,
of the people who do the investigation (such as it is) and actual
writing (such as it is) colors how stories are selected and framed
to a great degree.
Wouldn't the appearance of this story in the Freaking Nation,
complaining about the DC media and saying nice things about Ron
Paul, pretty much destroy the theory that the mainstream media is
ignoring Paul because of liberal bias?
Only if you think the Nation is part of the mainstream media. I
don't.
The only media in this country that can be accurately described
as liberal is found in such places as the Nation, Daily Kos, and
the like.
Only if you define liberal as "hardcore left". I don't. Most
journalists self-identify as Democrats and what I
call squishy liberals.
|11.20.07 @ 3:43PM|#
I looks like the Paulites are trying to chase after the
Huckabeebs and steal their thunder.
hier
Don't forget, you can chip in too!
carrick|11.20.07 @ 3:45PM|#
To some degree, sure. But the orientation, conscious or
otherwise, of the people who do the investigation (such as it is)
and actual writing (such as it is) colors how stories are selected
and framed to a great degree.
refering to mr. kelly above -- the editorial staff determines which
stories are selected. So any journalistic biases of the reporting
staff won't show up, if the story is never assigned.
|11.20.07 @ 3:52PM|#
I agree with Fluffy - the media likes the the little
behind-the-scenes machinations too much (because it's a more
interesting way to frame a story than some Lockean philosophy,
anyway); also, the media loves Big Government and has no interest
in covering anyone who has a desire to rollback Government in any
serious way.
A lot of it, tragically, is because it appeals to the baser emotion
of "hero worship". McCain is covered seriously because he wants to
do "heroic" things with the government; Paul is ridiculed because
he doesn't believe heroes come from statism. Reflect on history,
note who is declared the greater Statesmen, and you'll understand
the drive to collectivize and hero-worship.
|11.20.07 @ 3:57PM|#
The civil war was a mistake. And it wasn't about slavery --
four slave states fought on the Union side, after all.
Indeed? And what did cause it? The legal election of a president by
constitutional means? Come now. The sections had their differences,
but only one really mattered.
The ACW *was* caused by slavery. Just read the "Declaration of
Causes" for any of the seceding states. You can find four of them
here, I'm sure other can be found with some digging:
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html
Just heading off the "crimethink is a racist" meme before it
comes out to play again.
I don't think you're racist, just mistaken.
|11.20.07 @ 3:57PM|#
I looks like the Paulites are trying to chase after the Huckabeebs and steal their thunder.
hier
Nanny Huckabee is GWB's "compassionate conservatism" on steroids!
He is one scary MoFo.
In the LA Times today, Jonah Goldberg says, "Ron
Paul isn't that scary"
|11.20.07 @ 3:58PM|#
Only if you think the Nation is part of the mainstream
media.
Wrong. If they are a liberal media organ, then the argument is just
as valid. And the Nation is demonstrably a liberal media
outlet.
I don't. Most journalists self-identify as Democrats and what I
call squishy liberals. So do most firefighters. This does not
make them "liberal firefighting companies." It makes them Democrats
who work for firefighting companies.
People who deny the possibility of doing one's job fairly and
professionally are telling us a lot more about themselves and their
own habits than those of professional journalists.
Geotpf|11.20.07 @ 3:58PM|#
Paul didn't get much coverage, until recently, because he wasn't
raising money and was just an asterix in the polls. Early on, he
got about as much coverage as, say, Duncan Hunter or Tom
Tancredo-all three of them are Republican House members (as opposed
to Senators or Governors, which garner more respect due to thier
proven ability to win statewide) with little initial support.
Recently, of course, things have changed-and, volia, he's getting
more coverage. Keep in mind, though, he's still somewhere between
fourth and sixth place (depending on the state), so he's still not
going to come anywhere near winning.
|11.20.07 @ 4:00PM|#
"Reflect on history, note who is declared the greater Statesmen,
and you'll understand the drive to collectivize and
hero-worship."
Who are the most famous and popular, statists like FDR and Lincoln
or those who believed in less government like Grover Cleveland and
Coolidge?
ed|11.20.07 @ 4:08PM|#
doing one's job fairly and professionally
Journalists have biases like most every other human. They are not
exempt, although they would like to be viewed as a holy priesthood
of objectivity. Nothing gets them more rankled than a suggestion
that they may have opinions that just might creep into their work
from time to time. I'm not talking about those obvious partisans
who play that role in their columns or on TV, but rank and file
scribes who do it almost anonymously. The very fact that they tend
to vote Democrat indicates that they have personal, political
opinions. Of course it influences how they cover a political
story.
|11.20.07 @ 4:09PM|#
The reason that Ron Paul doesn't get a fair shake from the
mainstream media has nothing to do with the fact that many
journalists happen to be Democrats. It is almost the
opposite.
Ron Paul is treated like Kucinich because both question U.S.
foriegn policy/militarism and empire. The reason that the media
supports people like Guliani,Clinton,Romney,Thompson,even Obama is
that they all support imperialism and large kleptocratic
anti-democratic corporations. People in the media may vote
Democratic but they are not democratic.
Reinmoose|11.20.07 @ 4:12PM|#
Huckabee definitely pushes that drive toward being "one" as a
country, where we all stand together, yadayadayada. That's the kind
of crap that people connect with.
Paul needs to rephrase some of his points if he's going to win over
those who are driven by their feelings. There's only so many times
that he can use the word "freedom" and "constitution" before it
gets a little corny. He's already won quite a block of voters, and
now it's time to go after the rest.
|11.20.07 @ 4:16PM|#
ed,
Of course they do. And professional journalists do their best to
set those aside and report the news fairly and accurately.
What I'm saying is, there is a difference between a real journalist
and those cable TV talking heads.
People who argue that a speck is the same as a log, generally want
to hit you with a log.
|11.20.07 @ 4:18PM|#
I think it is helpful to think of journalists in the establishment corporate media (ABC,NBC,CBS, Cable, NY Times, Washington Post) not in a left or right way, but rather as courtiers to the king.
|11.20.07 @ 4:20PM|#
The dirty secret in journalism is that the craft primarily
exists to feed off government at various levels, City Hall, Court
House, State House, Big House, White House, even the cop shops and
fire stations. Think of the percentage of your daily news intake
that originates with government.
Journos are always trying to suck their way into a government job.
I'm angling to jump from my weekly newspaper gig to a PI job with
the local school district at almost twice the salary and half the
workload.
Libertarians favor less government, therefore less opportunities
for us media whores to land jobs where we get the same holidays as
the Post Office.
|11.20.07 @ 4:24PM|#
The same studies that demonstrate that journalists are more
likely than the overall population to vote for Democrats also
demonstrate that they are more likely to support Free Trade
agreements and the privatization of Social Security.
There is definitely a bias in big media, but it has more to do with
class than politics.
|11.20.07 @ 4:27PM|#
"The same studies that demonstrate that journalists are more
likely than the overall population to vote for Democrats also
demonstrate that they are more likely to support Free Trade
agreements and the privatization of Social Security."
THANK YOU for bringing this study up because it is almost never
mentioned by people who think we have a left-wing media. I would
say that people in the media share the biases of those educated at
Ivy league schools and in the upper income brackets.
Reinmoose|11.20.07 @ 4:28PM|#
There is definitely a bias in big media, but it has more to
do with class than politics.
That's probably a better classification.
|11.20.07 @ 4:28PM|#
...to a PI job with the local school district at almost twice the salary and half the workload.
And an utterly dishy pension that kicks in about age fifty-five as
well, I'll bet.
|11.20.07 @ 4:30PM|#
"Journos are always trying to suck their way into a government
job"
I think it is usually the opposite because people almost always
make more in the private sector than they would in gov't. Usually
its politicians who get elected to serve the people and then sell
them out to get a cushy job at a large corporation.
|11.20.07 @ 4:37PM|#
"I think it is usually the opposite because people almost always
make more in the private sector than they would in gov't. Usually
its politicians who get elected to serve the people and then sell
them out to get a cushy job at a large corporation."
James,
Managing editors in my Texas newspaper group make between 32K and
42K. I'm in the upper middle range of that with 15 years
experience. The salary for the assistant director of public
information post at one local school district, requiring less than
ten years experience in the media biz, starts at $82K.
Regina Srout|11.20.07 @ 4:41PM|#
Fred Thompson is the only candidate that gets it. He makes
decisions based on principles. Principles don't change. You have to
stand for something and not change who you are based on the polls.
That is what Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani have done and all of the
Democrats do it. Give me a leader that will stand by his principles
anyday versus someone that stands for everything.
I know many, many Republicans that will stay home if Rudy Giuliani
is the candidate. He does not represent our values as
Conservatives, and never will. Mitt Romney is a RINO (though a very
nice man) that simply has everything else and nothing to do. "I
guess I'll just try to buy the presidency". Conservatives will
simply stay home and the Democrats will pick up additional seats in
the House and probably get the 60 seats in the Senate they need to
completely destroy our Country. Nice picture huh?
However, I think Fred can bring America back together, if that's
even possible. America needs a rebirth of patriotism and honor.
Republicans also need a rebirth. President Reagan was our last
rebirth and he can never be duplicated. Fred Thompson will bring
his own down-to-earth common sense to this Country and strength
back to our party. A little of the good old days of faith and
family would do well for this Country. If a Conservative runs as a
Conservative, he will win!
Think of it this way: Eight years of another sleazy Clinton White
House? Now if that is not a sufficient enough reason to pull
together as a party, as a Country, and fight this socialist liberal
takeover of our government, what is? It is not impossible to take
back the House and the Senate. We are winning in Iraq-they know it.
The best they can do now is stop our progress and choose defeat,
just like they did during Vietnam. We lost because Congress chose
defeat. History repeats itself when not learned from.
Folks, we are in for the fight of our lives, just as our young men
and women are fighting for our freedoms in Iraq and Afghanistan, we
must fight for our Country right here and now! I truly believe Fred
Thompson is the one man who can pull this party and nation back
together! Rudy Giuliani will just tear us apart as a party.
|11.20.07 @ 4:41PM|#
It probably depends on the field, most of the people in the upper crust of the mainstream media could not make comprable money in the gov't. Likewise most politicians can make a lot more in lobbying or working in private law.
Sean|11.20.07 @ 4:43PM|#
Just plunked down another $50 for Dr. Paul.
Got to see my name on the ticker again, YAY!
|11.20.07 @ 4:44PM|#
"However, I think Fred can bring America back together, if
that's even possible. America needs a rebirth of patriotism and
honor."
Um...No...we need a rebirth of critical thinking in this country
not Reaganite b.s. about how great we are. Reagan/Bush have given
us 'Patriotism for Dummies'.
|11.20.07 @ 4:45PM|#
"THANK YOU for bringing this study up because it is almost never
mentioned by people who think we have a left-wing media."
Are people such as Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, the late Peter Jennings,
Katy Couric not liberals? These are the ones who have the main
anchor positions on the MSM.
Keith Paxson|11.20.07 @ 4:47PM|#
They Said It: Thompson Social Security Plan Applauded as
'Courageous,' 'Honest,' and 'Substantive'
Courage & Honesty
Republican presidential contender Fred Thompson's plan to save
Social Security and protect seniors, which he introduced Friday
afternoon in a Washington, D.C., hotel, differs starkly from
standard election year pablum on the subject in one key way: He's
actually treating voters like adults. (ABC, 11/9)
Thompson...is seeking to show he is willing to take on tough issues
if elected in November 2008, telling a news conference in
Washington he was the only candidate to offer an extensive Social
Security plan. (Reuters, 11/10)
"You certainly have to admire his courage for putting this out,"
said Alan Viard with the American Enterprise Institute.
(Tennessean, 11/10)
Supporters contend that Thompson's willingness to take on the
so-called third rail of politics will impress voters. (Bloomberg,
11/10)
Conservative economic experts applauded Thompson for offering
specifics on an issue considered to be politically dangerous.
(Tennessean, 11/10)
"He's not afraid to be brutally honest with the American people
about the challenges that lie ahead," said Representative Zach
Wamp, a Tennessee Republican who is working to recruit supporters
for Thompson. "People can tell the difference between a strong
leader telling the truth and a weak leader talking politics."
(Bloomberg, 11/10)
Substance
[Thompson is] the first candidate of either party to offer a
detailed proposal to fix the nation's retirement system. (WP,
11/10)
The Republican candidate laid out a detailed, four-page proposal
(WSJ, 11/10)
Mr. Thompson's plan...was more specific than what the Bush White
House put on the table when it sought to overhaul the system. It
also varied substantially from the traditional conservative
approach of focusing primarily on personal investment accounts.
(NYT, 11/10)
Economist Jason Furman said Thompson deserves credit for offering a
detailed plan to address the projected Social Security
shortfall...(Bloomberg, 11/10)
In discussing policy, Thompson was in his element. (Politico,
11/9)
He'd prefer to talk about substance. (Politico, 11/9)
Thompson's plan draws on ideas favored by conservatives: a
reduction in benefits, rather than an increase in payroll taxes;
and a shift toward private accounts, rather than
government-provided payments. (WP, 11/10)
Rivals
[Thompson] ventured Friday into an area few rivals have tread:
advocacy of a fundamental overhaul of Social Security. (WSJ,
11/10)
Although all of the presidential candidates have spoken, when
asked, about the need to fix the Social Security system, none has
offered such a detailed plan nor talked so eagerly and often about
the issue. (WSJ, 11/10)
Among Republicans, former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani,
Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts governor Mitt
Romney have talked in general terms ... but none has offered a
specific plan. (WP, 11/10)
Mr. Thompson is the only one of the Republicans running for the
White House who has made Social Security a central theme of his
campaign. (NYT, 11/10)
He is the only presidential candidate so far to make Social
Security an anchor of his campaign. (WSJ, 11/10)
But with less than two months before the 2008 voting begins,
candidates have generally been reluctant to confront the Social
Security issue. (WP, 11/10)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saving and Protecting Social Security
A Plan to Ensure Retirement Security for All Americans
http://www.fred08.com/virtual/socialsecurity.aspx
Reinmoose|11.20.07 @ 4:48PM|#
Nice cut-and-paste job there Regina.
You do realize what website you're on, right?
R C Dean|11.20.07 @ 4:49PM|#
There is definitely a bias in big media, but it has more to
do with class than politics.
I'll half-agree. I think its both, but in a 50/50 country, I don't
think you can deny that journalists are disproporionately
sqhishy-liberal Democrats. Or that it affects how they do their
jobs.
|11.20.07 @ 4:53PM|#
"I don't think you can deny that journalists are
disproporionately sqhishy-liberal Democrats. Or that it affects how
they do their jobs."
I am a left-democrat(small d) and calling these people liberal I
think just doesn't describe them. Real liberals wouldn't cheer on
the War in Iraq or the hoped-for War in Iran. They would not push
this ridiculous trope about a social security crisis or be such a
fan of free trade etc...
VM|11.20.07 @ 4:54PM|#
Between Regina on this thread and Joel above, I just might
support RP... wow.
freakers!
|11.20.07 @ 4:59PM|#
RC,
Another word for "squishy liberals" is "not really liberals."
I've never met a liberal who thinks that the political preferences
evident in the mainstream media reflect his own beliefs.
|11.20.07 @ 5:00PM|#
Libertarians shouldn't play in politics; we should be doing
grassroots philosophical education.
Libertarians shouldn't vote for people who are trying to destroy
everything we stand for, but we should vote in every election, even
if that means handing in a blank ballot for every race. A ton of
blank ballots, larger than the difference between the winning and
losing candidate, sends a strong message: Those people not voting
could have changed the race, and their views should be taken into
account.
|11.20.07 @ 5:01PM|#
As my newspapers are located in Tom DeLay's old district, I used
to go to bat for him editorially, mainly to cheese off the local
Dems and generate letters to the editor.
Several of them were actually aghast that a newspaper editor could
(gulp!) defend a Republican, so that showed me that at least the
rank and file Democrats think that the media is on their side
(that's actually how one phrased it).
Now that I favor Ron Paul (but hey, as a matter of principle I
don't even register to vote), the local GOPs think I'm a turncoat
(one of our local city councilmen is running for Paul's house seat
as a mainline Republican).
|11.20.07 @ 5:02PM|#
I like the blank ballot idea...even though I am not a libertarian, but I would instead have a box on each ballot for each race marked "no confidence".
|11.20.07 @ 5:05PM|#
"Several of them were actually aghast that a newspaper editor
could (gulp!) defend a Republican, so that showed me that at least
the rank and file Democrats think that the media is on their side
(that's actually how one phrased it)."
If you defended DeLay just to piss of Democrats you sound like a
real Republican...but maybe people were just shocked you could
defend a criminal like DeLay...
|11.20.07 @ 5:09PM|#
The fact tha Democrats are in the media isn't why Paul doesn't get coverage. Look at the way Republicans treat him. I think if the media was full of Republicans, he'd get even less coverage. All of the Paul smears come from the right, not the left.
|11.20.07 @ 5:11PM|#
"If you defended DeLay just to piss of Democrats you sound like
a real Republican...but maybe people were just shocked you could
defend a criminal like DeLay..."
Actually, James, I liked the idea that a guy who specialized in
killing cockroaches could rise to such a high position in
goverment. Enough with the frikkin' lawyers!
And James, this is Texas. What y'all might see as criminality we
just consider government as usual. That's how the shit gets done.
Starts with Bubba gettin' a seat on the County Commission so my
road can get paved, and works its way up from there.
|11.20.07 @ 5:14PM|#
"And James, this is Texas. What y'all might see as criminality
we just consider government as usual."
I agree.
|11.20.07 @ 5:15PM|#
A closet libertarian I know told how he was turning in a blank ballot because no one on the ballot reflected his views, and a poll worker noticed this and was baffled that anyone would go to this trouble -- but not baffled that anyone would go to the trouble of voting in a race of clones with nearly identical positions, which was our mayor's race that election.
|11.20.07 @ 5:17PM|#
James,
As a younger man I tried to fight it. Then I realized that they all
stink, red or blue, from City Hall up to Washington. Now i just sit
back and laugh at it all.
Sean|11.20.07 @ 5:38PM|#
Statement by Fred Thompson on Adult Cell Research
Breakthrough
McLean, VA - Senator Fred Thompson issued the following statement
regarding today's scientific breakthrough in adult cell
research:
"There is exciting news for patients today. In yet another
breakthrough for adult cell research, scientists have made normal
human skin cells take on the relevant properties of embryonic stem
cells. That is in addition to 73 breakthroughs for adult and cord
blood research to date. There are still no embryonic stem cell
breakthroughs.
"For all who are concerned for patients and their families, the
effective, ethical, and compassionate answer is to put our money
where the breakthroughs are happening -- in adult research.
"Using adult cells negates the need for cloning embryos to harvest
their stem cells.
"We all want to find cures to help people with chronic illnesses.
Adult cells have provided breakthroughs for many illnesses
including ovarian and breast cancer, Juvenile Diabetes, Parkinson's
Disease, and Sickle Cell Anemia. Today's announcement is just one
more indication that our current policy in relying only on adult
cells is working."
|11.20.07 @ 5:41PM|#
Um, for those of you shilling for Fred Thompson, there's an
article over in CQ pointing out how many supposed Fred supporters
have been getting fed up with him.
Ol' gravel-voiced Fred ain't catching fire. He looks like he'd fall
asleep while taking the oath.
|11.20.07 @ 5:42PM|#
Tom, you're a man after my own heart.
Starts with Bubba gettin' a seat on the County Commission so my road can get paved, and works its way up from there.
That's about how it happens across the country. Just there's still
some folks think their locale and their guy/gal/s are purer than
the rest.
|11.20.07 @ 7:22PM|#
The Civil War was not about slavery. That the South had slaves,
and wanted to keep them, was merely incidental. The cause was the
North's designs to impoverish the South. It was urban manufacturing
states versus rural agricultural states.
Lincoln (and the Republicans) were statist mercantilists. They
instituted one of the highest tariffs in history. Since the US
imported manufactured goods and exported agricultural products,
this massive tariff benefited the North who didn't have to compete
anymore, and hurt the South who had its market slashed in half. The
South decided to stop collecting the tariff, but the North sent
down troops to force it. It was no accident that the spark that
started the war was an attack on a customs house.
And so they seceded. Slavery was involved only as an incidental, as
the South was agricultural. The North had not proposed
emancipation. In fact, Lincoln only freed the (southern) slaves as
a tactic. The idea that Lincoln marched troops to the south for the
express purpose of freeing slaves is preposterous, and gross
ignorance of history. If it really was about slavery, then Lincoln
would have freed the slaves BEFORE the war, instead of towards the
end.
But regardless of the causes, there was STILL no excuse for the
North to attack the South, and wage the bloodiest and costliest war
in our history.
Fluffy|11.20.07 @ 7:28PM|#
Piping up on a few topics:
It's an insult to Reagan to compare Thompson to Reagan. Reagan was
no Thomas Aquinas, but he was a political intellectual compared to
Thompson [and certainly compared to Bush].
Personally, I defended Delay - who I personally detested - because
the "crimes" he was accused of were crap. He was indicated
essentially for obeying campaign finance laws [that shouldn't
exist] and for explaining to potential donors how they too could
obey with campaign finance laws, but still accomplish what they
wanted to accomplish. That criminal!
|11.20.07 @ 8:07PM|#
For too long politics and political coverage in the US has
focused on party affiliation, opposition bashing, and political
gamesmanship than on principles, ideas, and the fundamental rights
of individuals.
RP draws supports from the left and the right and runs a campaign
focused on the message and not the messenger. He doesn't fit any of
the nice little boxes the media and the parties have carved out
together.
|11.20.07 @ 10:23PM|#
Brandybuck, there is special place reserved for idiot apologists like yourself, and its very very warm.
|11.20.07 @ 10:31PM|#
The South decided to stop collecting the tariff, but the
North sent down troops to force it. It was no accident that the
spark that started the war was an attack on a customs
house.
Uh, didn't all that go down during the Jackson administration, 25
years before Ft Sumter? The Nullification Crisis, IIRC. Also, I'm
not sure that California, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois,
Indiana, etc -- all of whom fought on the side of the Union --
could really be classified as industrial states. But I agree, the
motives of the federal govt were far from pure.
Anyway, I think we can all agree that there's a definitive
pro-Civil War bias in the MSM.
|11.20.07 @ 10:57PM|#
Lincoln Derangement Syndrome?
Given the trend in the GOP, it looks like we might have a similar
situation in about a year or so...
|11.21.07 @ 12:07AM|#
A journalist's political credentials aren't important. Mr.
Boss Man assigns the stories that he thinks are important to the
readers/viewers, and Paul ain't getting much love from the
public.
The Boss Man can assign the task, but has only partial control over
how it's done. And editors can file off blatantly biased
statements, but have limited ability to edit-in angles not covered,
leads not pursued, facts that aren't dug for, unless their lack is
really obvious.
Plus, the media doesn't like to do its homework. Forgot that
part.
Exactly -- and their bosses and editors can't do all their homework
for them. In other words, journalists do have some discretion as to
how hard they work on a story. They also work with limited time and
space, so they have to make choices about how completist they can
be. These are the areas where the bias can creep in.
Sounds cynical, but hey, what would I know? I'm just a
journalist.
Ah -- and that would explain why you don't see any liberal
bias, Jamie. :) You can't smell a stink you're used to.
I don't buy that. The "liberal media" is the one that's
constantly slobbering over "maverick" John McCain (or at least
before his campaign got torpedoes), kicked the Jesus out of Clinton
over the Lewinsky scandal and cheerleaded Bush right into a war
with Iraq.
Yes, just like "conservative" politicians and clergymen are
constantly fucking prostitutes and hitting on undercover police
officers. That doesn't mean they don't actually have a conservative
bias in their outlook and actions. It would appear some things are
too juicy to pass up, even if they go against a person's
principles. That doesn't mean they don't generally lean in one
direction most of the time.
People who deny the possibility of doing one's job fairly and
professionally are telling us a lot more about themselves and their
own habits than those of professional journalists.
The issue isn't whether it's possible for people to do their job
fairly and professionally -- it's whether they actually do. People
are often observed falling short of what is presumably possible for
them to do, and it's okay to call them on it when it
happens.
|11.21.07 @ 12:10AM|#
Son of a bitch -- let me fix that last part. (I did use
"Preview" but the server or browser seems to freeze up on me if I
take too long to compose, so I reacted by re-posting as hastily as
I could.)
I don't buy that. The "liberal media" is the one that's
constantly slobbering over "maverick" John McCain (or at least
before his campaign got torpedoes), kicked the Jesus out of Clinton
over the Lewinsky scandal and cheerleaded Bush right into a war
with Iraq.
Yes, just like "conservative" politicians and clergymen are
constantly fucking prostitutes and hitting on undercover police
officers. That doesn't mean they don't actually have a conservative
bias in their outlook and actions. It would appear some things are
too juicy to pass up, even if they go against a person's
principles. That doesn't mean they don't generally lean in one
direction most of the time.
People who deny the possibility of doing one's job fairly and
professionally are telling us a lot more about themselves and their
own habits than those of professional journalists.
The issue isn't whether it's possible for people to do
their job fairly and professionally -- it's whether they actually
do. People are often observed falling short of what is
presumably possible for them to do, and it's okay to call
them on it when it happens.
|11.21.07 @ 12:23AM|#
Journalists have biases like most every other human. They
are not exempt, although they would like to be viewed as a holy
priesthood of objectivity.
Idiots! They should know that physicists already own The Saint
slot, because they are the only truly objective human
beings, forever immune to bias and group think.
|11.21.07 @ 1:15AM|#
The fact that Democrats are in the media isn't why Paul doesn't get coverage. Look at the way Republicans treat him. I think if the media was full of Republicans, he'd get even less coverage. All of the Paul smears come from the right, not the left.
I know it has a different dynamic than the mainstream media, but in
left leaning sites I read regularly(Kevin Drum's, Matthew
Yglesias's, Ezra Klein's) have all posted uniformly negative things
on Paul. I believe that the more emphatic sites like feministing
and pandagon have been even more screechy (mainly because abortion
is the single most hot button issue on those sites). The right wing
sites have had some stuff against him due to disagreements on the
Iraq war, but its only the overtly Republican sites (as opposed to
just conservative sites) that have been aggressively anti-Paul
|11.21.07 @ 2:03AM|#
Yes Jammer, you're right. Lincoln freed the slaves and THEN the South seceded. Before the war started, not at the end. How could I have been so silly?
|11.21.07 @ 9:27AM|#
Arguing that the North was not primarily motivated by the slave
issue does not demonstrate that the South was not primarily
motivated by the slave iddue.
In political disagreements, it rarely works out that the two sides
are motivated by mirror images of each other's political
ideals.
The North was primarily motivated by the desire to preserve the
Union, and slavery was only a concern because the South made it
one. The South was primarily motivated by the desire to preserve
slavery, and only moved to dissolve the union to accomplish that
end.
Right-libertarians have no difficulty with this concept when the
subject is Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act.
They are the first to point out that, just because he was on the
other side from people dedicated to the elimination of segregation,
that doesn't mean he was a segregationist. Yet for some segment of
them, this understanding goes right out the window when the subject
is the Civil War.
|11.21.07 @ 9:47AM|#
Stevo Darkly,
I agree with you - but your argument is not the only one being
made.
|11.21.07 @ 10:19AM|#
Ah, Brandybuck, you are either a good troll or really deluded.
Can you tell me about all the tariffs Lincoln passed *before* he
took office? 'Cause that's when the first states seceded. Ever read
their reasons why?
Joe has it pretty much right on this one.
|11.21.07 @ 10:23AM|#
Remember when the Confederates adopted a policy of executing any
customs agents found fighting with the United States Army?
No, me neither.
R C Dean|11.21.07 @ 10:35AM|#
Stevo Darkly,
I agree with you - but your argument is not the only one being
made.
Me, too. But that doesn't mean I agree with joe!
|11.21.07 @ 10:48AM|#
"The South was primarily motivated by the desire to preserve
slavery, and only moved to dissolve the union to accomplish that
end."
The South was also opposed to the high tariffs they were having to
pay which didn't benefit them, but only the Northern states. In
fact, Lincoln had no intentions of ending slavery. He only opposed
extending it into the new territories. He only abolished slavery in
the rebel states after the war was in progress and that was for the
purpose of making slavery an issue to keep the British from
intervening on behalf of the South. He told the Southern states
that they were entitled to keep their slaves if they rejoined the
Union. Lincoln was only concerned about preserving the Union.
|11.21.07 @ 10:51AM|#
joe,
You're right about the South's motivation in the war. But the "we"
in the question "should we have fought the Civil War?" is usually
presumed to refer to the Union. So the South's motivations for
secession are irrelevant to the question; what is relevant is the
North's reasons for going to war.
Now, if someone said that the South was right to secede upon
Lincoln's election, then it could be argued that that person
favored slavery.
|11.21.07 @ 10:55AM|#
For example, if someone asks "Should we have invaded Iraq," is Saddam's motivation for starting his WMD program and refusing to give evidence that it had ended relevant?
|11.21.07 @ 10:57AM|#
Remember when the Confederates adopted a policy of executing any customs agents found fighting with the United States Army?
No, me neither.
I don't remember the Confederates doing anything.
|11.21.07 @ 11:23AM|#
Rattlesnake Jake,
Did you intend to repeat what I wrote back to me as if it was a
retort? Because I wrote - as a matter of fact, it was the central
point I made - that Lincoln and the North were primarly concerned
with preserving the Union.
As for the tarriffs - they didn't secede when they were adopted,
only when a passionate anti-slavery politician was elected. And
yes, the unacceptable anti-slavery position he held, which
motivated the Confederate states to secede, was opposition to its
expansion into the west, rather than abolition where it already
existed.
|11.21.07 @ 11:48AM|#
joe,
When the South seceded that pretty much guaranteed slavery wouldn't
expand into the West (since the North was then in full control of
what happened in the territories), so I don't think they seceded
over that issue. They clearly feared that slavery was going to be
abolished throughout the nation.
|11.21.07 @ 12:30PM|#
"They clearly feared that slavery was going to be abolished
throughout the nation."
Even though Lincoln said he had no intention of abolishing
slavery?
|11.21.07 @ 12:41PM|#
crimethink,
The federal government was every bit as "in control of what
happened" at Ft. Sumpter as in the western territories, and I don't
recall the Confederates being terribly deferential to that
jurisdictional claim.
The Confederates expected to add territory in the west to their
country, just like the United States did.
But I agree with the second part - the Confederates were concerned
about the eventual, total abolition of slavery, and seceded when
Lincoln was elected because they saw his position against the
expansion of slavery as a step in that direction.
|11.21.07 @ 1:46PM|#
When the South seceded that pretty much guaranteed slavery wouldn't expand into the West...
No, it's almost certain that the CSA would have tried to expand
slavery to the west, and even the north west of the Mississippi, in
exactly the same way they planned to expand it into Mexico. By
conquest.
Lincoln may have erred in not letting the CSA go, but noone should
have any illussions that given the southern states absolutely
intransigent position on slavery and its expansion that a
war on this issue would not have eventually happened.
The civil war was a mistake. And it wasn't about slavery -- four slave states fought on the Union side,...
Ummm,...not exactly. Federal troops moved into Missouri and
overthrew the Legislature that was preparing to vote articles of
secession. The state was hugely divided and over half of those
citizens of the state who fought fought for the south.
While KY and MD officially did not secede whole regiments were
raised in those states to fight for the south. And it was done with
the approval and encouragement and funding of local governments and
some state officials.
Delaware alone is the one slave state that did not openly express
southern sympathies. This is likely because by 1860 there were no
longer that many slaves held in the state. Nevertheless several
hundred of its young men volunteered to fight for the southern
cause. However, they did so with no official sanction from any
public officials.
Look, I'm as willing as anyone to say that grand historical events
have complex explanations. But, for the most part, one is pretty
safe in saying "NO SLAVERY, NO WAR."
|11.21.07 @ 3:32PM|#
The South was also opposed to the high tariffs they were having to pay which didn't benefit them, but only the Northern states.
Again, this is arrant nonsense. There were many states in the south
that benefited from expenditures on federal programs. And these
were not just limited to the military. There were huge federal
expenditure on internal improvements in the south.
And also, while it appears as though the tariff was
disproportianately collected in the south, the reason for that is,
that for the most part, ports of entry, were in the south. Once the
goods were shipped up the Mississippi, or otherwise inland, the
distribution of who was saddled with the tariff changed.
|11.21.07 @ 4:14PM|#
"There were huge federal expenditure on internal improvements in
the south."
Not to the extent as the railroad and canal building in the North
or the protectionism of the manufacturing plants in the North.
|11.21.07 @ 7:23PM|#
Rattlesnake Jake
I think you need to study the histories of Georgia, Florida and
Alabama.
It might surprise you.
Remember,"NO SLAVERY, NO WAR."
You will always get full marks for that answer.
|11.21.07 @ 7:31PM|#
Mind you, since my Uncle Billy called upon Americans to respect the rights of Indians, to eradicate slavery, and to live up to the best in themselves, I am somewhat biased in this matter.
|11.21.07 @ 7:38PM|#
I agree with you - but your argument is not the only one
being made.
Agree with me ---! joe, I got no comeback for that, you
sneaky confounded liberal!
|11.21.07 @ 7:43PM|#
Also, Rattlesnake Jake, remember, as I noted above, tariffs are
collected at the port of entry. While much of the goods that did so
entered through southern ports, the fact is that after
transshipment they did not end up in southern destinations.
The southern cry about tariffs rings false however one listens to
it.
Oh, and not to mention that the 3/5 rule plus the Senate gave the
South a huge advantage over the north. It was virtually impossible
for the north to pass anti-southern legislation or to prevent the
passage of pro-southern legislation (witness the fugitive slave
act).
From the Keystrokes of John Q.|11.21.07 @ 8:56PM|#
American Civil War? I am unware of a war inwhich any political
group attempted to overthrow the regime for control of the
centralized government. I have heard of a war between the States,
to prevent southern independence.
American Revolution was fought on a taxes of 3%.
The Federal Government was receiving most of its income through
tariffs. The south was exporting 3/4 of its agriculture. It was
protectionist mercantilism, infant industry policies. 3 congressmen
and 2 senators from the south voted for the 1824 tariff. Northern
states voted overwhelming in favor. Henry Clay led the way to raise
it again by 50% in 1828, "The Tariff of Abominations." South
Carolina,in a petition stated it was "A system of robbery and
plunder. So that corrupt politicians could buy partisans and
power." VA,NC, AL joined SC in opposing the tariff. MA, Oh, RH,IN
NY issued resolutions in favor of the tariff. Essentially the south
was paying more on the tax and it was hurting the economies of
their trading partners which in turned hurt their income a second
way.Meanwhile the manufacturing economy of the north was
profiting.1832 SC issued an Ordinance of Notification. Perfectly
legal prior to 1865 I might add. (OH Nullified the Bank of the
United States) SC Nullification Ordinance:Authorized seizure of
property from tariff collectors to importers, duties repaid w/
interest. Tax collectors were thrown in jail. No jail could be used
to inprison anyone for failing to pay the tax. State allocated
200,000.00 for firearms incase they were needed to combat the tax
collectors.The tariff was eventually lowered from themid 1830s at
its lowest until 1857.
Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis highlighted the Tariff Issue in
both their inaugural addresses. By 1860 the voting population of
the North was 3 times the size of the voting population of the
South. The Republican Party made political gains in 1857-1858 by
pushing for protectionist legislation. The Morrill Tariff in the
1859-60 house of representatives.1 southern representative voted
for it, out of 105 from TN. Lincoln,a lifelong Mercantilist and
Henry Clay Fan,campaigned on Protectionism for the Republican
Nomination.("Battle Ground" State of PA,heart of steel industry,
campaigned on protectionism.)Giant billboards and campaign posters
for Lincoln/Hamlin read "Protection for Home Industry."
Lincoln prior to inaguaration in 1861 stated in Pittsburg Penn that
nothing was more important to Congressional Representatives than
the Morrill Tariff which hadn't become law yet. Lincoln stated:"
Anything that can be grown or Manufactured here in the United
States should have zero competition from abroad." Lincoln
statements over and over in the inaugural address make it clear he
has no qualms with slavery. That to interfere with slavery would be
unconstitutional. He supported a constitutional amendment to
prohibit the federal government from interfere with slavery by
using Seward to get it through the committee of 13 in the senate.
He also got through that would have nullified the Northern States
Nullification on the slave fugitive law. This was all within the
couple weeks of his administration. He was accommodating 100%, even
to the constitutional level. However on the Tariff Lincoln said,
"In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and
there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national
authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy,
and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and
to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary
for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force
against or among the people anywhere."(He's talking about the
Morrill Tariff which had just passed which doubled the tariff in
1860.)
Why The Southern Confederacy would pay Tariffs to a foreign
government is beyond me. Two weeks after Fort Sumter,a blockade was
placed on southern ports. He did so, without declaring war. So much
for the Federalist Papers #28, "The state governments will, in all
possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions
of the liberty by the national authority."
I personally would like to defer to honest Abe on this one. "Any
people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the
right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a
new one that suits them better. This is the most valuable, a most
sacred right- a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the
world. Nor is the right confined to cases in which the whole people
of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion
of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of
so much territory as they inhabit." Abraham Lincoln 1848.(aww I
like to imagine this is before the insanity set in from the decades
of Syphilis effecting his mind.)
What about John Quincey Adams on the 50th Anniversary of the
Constitution?
"The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several
states of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the right
but in the heart. If the day should ever come, may heaven avert it,
when the affections of the people of these States shall be
alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give way
to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into
hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold
together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of
conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it
be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship
from each other, than to be held by constraint."
Ulysses S Grant, Union General: "If I thought this war was to
abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to
the other side." He was a slaveholder until after the 13th
amendment was ratified.... after the war.
Lincoln was a racist, you can read your speeches for himself. The
"Whiteman's Priviso" of the Whig and later Republican Party made it
clear why they were against expanding slavery. The man unilaterally
suspended habeas corpus. Ordered the military to shut down specific
northern newspapers. Arrested thousands of political opponents and
declared criticisms of his policies treason. Hired a secret police
force, created an incentivized program for informants if
convictions were obtained. Had no regard for civilians or
pows.Confiscated firearms in the border states. Censored telegraph
communications.
All to preserve the union geographically, while violently
destroying the union in every philosophical way possible. Like
rape, or domestic violence, might clearly equals right. Enter the
American Empire.
Gotta Love it! Tariffs, Tyrant, Emancipator! Why choose???
This is America Baybee!!! You can have it all haha.
P.S. I am not white, southern or a racist.
mnuez|11.22.07 @ 12:44AM|#
Nice comment thread, as usual.
I'm pausing halfway through however to publicly share my pride in
mnuez for knowing that the long-ass comment by Regina Srout was a
fake from elsewhere. I'm sure the rest of 'all figured it out too
(and hopefully gave her/him/it hell for it in comments I'm about to
come to) but I just wanna show off how awesome my bullshit detector
is. At the very first sentence I audibly said, "huh?" and I stopped
reading entirely during the second sentence of the second paragraph
when I exclaimed, "it's a fake comment!" and promptly did a search
for it
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22I+know+many,+many+Republicans+that+will+stay+home+if+Rudy+Giuliani+is+the+candidate.%22&num=100&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=we4&filter=0
.
So even when I was in no way LOOKING OUT for anything suspicious I
still new it for a fact just a few seconds in.
Boy, I sooo rule. :-)
mnuez
|11.22.07 @ 3:32PM|#
To be a real RonPauler you must refer to him as Dr Paul. Yes, a
ob/gun is The Man To Save America
Then you must ignore every neonazi and 9/11 truther contribrution
to "dr paul". Finally you MUST lose any connection to reality. Now
you are a RonPaulian idiot!!!!
|11.26.07 @ 1:39PM|#
The absolute primary purpose of generating any news product
is to generate revenue, which is accomplished by capturing an
audience. The easiest way to get a big audience is to cater to the
mass market.
I think you're overlooking the utility of the media as a propaganda
tool for government intervention.
Suppose, for example, you're a billionaire who depends on the
Federal Reserve to pump up the real estate market, and you also own
a big media outlet. You could let your media outlet run with a
popular story about how the Fed is robbing the public blind, in
which case the popular sentiment would cause pressure on the Fed to
change policies and thus your real estate enterprises would go
bust. Or, you could use the big media outlet as a propagandizing
cheerleader for the Fed, in which case the Fed continues to prop up
your investments until you're ready to get out of the real estate
market and leave the public holding the bag.
Perhaps this more cynical alternative explains why an idiot like
Jim "Mad Money" Cramer is on TV, and why he poses as a populist but
always acts in the interests of Wall Street investors.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245