Ron Paul on Meet the Press: Liveblogging

David Weigel | December 23, 2007

10:32: Russert points out that the income tax repeal would cost $1 trillion. Paul: “That’s good.”

10:33: How much would we save if we pull our troops out of every overseas post? The first of many gotchas, but Paul is ready: More than a trillion dollars.

10:34: More Russerting: “How many troops do we have overseas right now?” Paul doesn’t know the exact.

10:35: Russert keeps asking Paul for specific foreign policy answers, and Paul keeps saying the same thing: Cut off aid. The president can't declare war, Congress can't. What about North Korea?

10:36: Paul would cut off all foreign aid to Israel "and the Arabs." "They would take much better care of themselves, they'd have their national soverignty back."

10:38: "Is al Qaeda the problem or is America

10:39: "Is there an ideological struggle where Islamic fascists [pronounced faashists] want to take over the world"? Paul says no, there's a group of terrorists and then there's the rest of Islam.

10:41: Eric Dondero! Russert quotes Hit and Run's #1 superstar and asks if his claim about Paul's surrender-monkeyism after 9/11 is true. "I'm surprised you'd quote somebody like that. He's a disgruntled former employee."

10:43: Russert quotes Paul from 1988 talking about scrapping the CIA and the Department of Education. "That's not part of my platform," regarding the CIA: We should ban torture but collect intelligence for defense purposes.

10:44: Russert: "You don't want to get rid of public schools?" Paul: "That's a misquote. I'd like to
know where that came from." He wants to abolish the Department of Education. "We [Republicans] used to campaign on that!"

10:46: Ah, Paul is getting hit with four articles about his stated opposition to government disaster bailouts and earmarks and his own earmarking.

10:47: Paul waves his hands and scoffs: "You've got it wrong!" Russert compares him to John Kerry and "I voted for it before I voted against it." "Awww, come on!" Paul argues that putting earmarks for his district into spending bills is playing the system, making sure his constituents will get money that would be wasted otherwise.

10:49: Huh, we're talking about term limits? Paul is a hypocrite because he "supported" them but he's been in Congress for a while. He argues that he never personally pledged to limit his service.

10:50: Paul gets a quote from 1987 where he supports open borders: Paul counters by pointing out he "got in trouble" for saying "There may well be a time where immigration is like an invasion." Only Ron would counter a controversial statement with an even more controversial statement.

10:52: Paul's October 1988 Reason column on the drug war gets quoted: Does Paul want to legalize drugs? "I'm defending the Constitution on this issue. I think drugs are horrible. Prescription drugs are worse than illegal drugs."

10:54: Paul criticized the Civil Rights Act... he points out that Barry Goldwater was against it, which is a truly unconvincing rationale for a number of reasons. Would Paul vote against it today? He hedges! "I get more support from black people than any other Republican candidate, according to some statistics."

10:55: This must be the first time we've seen a debate about the legitimacy of the Civil War on Meet the Press. Why does Paul think Lincoln didn't need to declare war? "Oh, come on, Tim." We would have gotten rid of slavery eventually.

10:58: Paul gets a bunch of Reagan and Bush (both of them)-bashing quotes tossed back at him. "I represent what the Republican Party used to stand for: Individual liberty" etc.

10:59: Will Paul run as a third party candidate. "I have no intention of doing that." Russert burrows in. "I deserve one weasel now and then, Tim!" [UPDATE: According to the transcript Paul said he deserves a "wiggle," which sounds better.] He has a good response: "How many of the other candidates have you asked about that? Did you ask John McCain if he'd run as an independent?" Paul's obviously pleased but Russert has the right counterpunch: "They don't have a history of running in third parties." Paul's a little chastened. "Well... ask them that question next time."

11:01: Russert closes, rather surprisingly, on why Paul said Mike Huckabee's ad reminded him of the old chestnut about "fascism arriving in America carrying a cross and waving a flag." Paul cops a plea: "They gave that to me cold, I'd never seen it." Asked again: "No, but I think this country in the last 100 years is moving toward fascism."

My take: It was a good, tough, fair interview. No asking to counter smears, just prying into decades of Paul's statements that the average, non-Reason-subscribing voter would blanche at, and that he's not often asked to explain again. Apart from foreign policy and earmark issues I think Paul acquitted himself well. But on those issues... as usual, Paul talks coldly and theoretically about terrorism, an issue where politicians are expected to bit their lips and hum "Have You Forgotten?" On earmarks, he just didn't bring together Fact A and Fact B in a convincing manner, and he lucked out in Russert's frenzy to move to the next question. His answers on the Civil Rights Act and Lincoln were rough, but those are the sorts of things you can be esoteric about.

UPDATE: Here's the transcript. I definitely missed some stuff during the broadcast (blame either on my deep, burning anti-liberty bias or the dog jumping on my lap) so this can fill in the gaps.

Comments

Nutter|12.23.07 @ 10:41AM|#

Dondero dissed!

Bill Cooke|12.23.07 @ 10:42AM|#

His comments about this first reaction to 9/11 were a bit troubling. His first reaction should have been sympathy for the people killed and hatred for the killers. I support Ron, but I think his comments there are killing him.

|12.23.07 @ 10:44AM|#

I've had the discussion about Israel and Ron Paul on several occasions, and it's very clear to me that Israel would probably be far better off if we 1) quit interfering with their defense policy, and 2) cut off the money to everyone in the middle east.

Israel is an industrialized country. They can certainly afford to do without our tax money. The Arab dictatorships around them however, are quite a different story. If we quite trying to bribe them to behave, they'll suddenly have to take a good hard look at opening up trade with the strongest economy in their region. Jordan's been doing very well indeed by trading with Israel.

-jcr

Ash|12.23.07 @ 10:52AM|#

The toughest questions he had were about the Civil Rights Act and slavery. Basically Tim tried to pin him into a quarter by asking him about his opposition to the Civil Rights Act and whether he would vote against it if it were brought to vote in Congress today. Ron answered that it wasn't a race relations issue--but that he didn't like the overstepping of the federal government into private conduct through the Commerce Clause and 14th Amendment. He said he would vote against it if it included language that violated individual liberty.

Tim then asked him about whether the Civil War was a mistake and whether Lincoln was wrong for fighting a war to end slavery. Ron answered that he believed it was a mistake since 600,000 Americans died and that there were alternative means to ending slavery (which many other slave-owning countries such as Britain employed). He argued that the federal government could have simply bought all the slaves and then freed them.

These were tough questions and it will be interesting to see how the main-stream media plays his answers and whether or not it will hurt him.

SIV|12.23.07 @ 10:56AM|#

Not exactly "liveblogging" here.

SIV|12.23.07 @ 11:00AM|#

I support Ron, but I think his comments there are killing him.

Killing any remote chance at the GOP nomination at least.He could do a much better job at articulating his determination to defend the United States.

|12.23.07 @ 11:05AM|#

Was it me or did Ron call Tim Russert "Jim" once or twice? And perhaps even "Dave"?

I didn't think he handled the earmarks question as good as he could have.

Anonymo the Anonymous|12.23.07 @ 11:10AM|#

Eric Dondero! Russert quotes Hit and Run's #1 superstar and asks if his claim about Paul's surrender-monkeyism after 9/11 is true.

Worst MSM moment ever?

|12.23.07 @ 11:11AM|#

Not a very good appearance, I'm afraid. I've seen him do much better.

Even if you don't like the sections of the Civil Rights Act that banned discrimination in places of public accommodation, you need to acknowledge that adopting racial equality as the law of the land was a great step forward for freedom and justice.

bryan|12.23.07 @ 11:14AM|#

Tim was tough on him. What I finds heartening, though, is that there were no "horserace" questions. Nothing about where he is polling, or even on the source of one of his donations. I think it shows that the campaign is being taken seriously that he got the tough questions that most other candidates get.

|12.23.07 @ 11:15AM|#

I continue to think RP is doing very, very well at explaining.
Here's his dilemma though: The US is like the Titanic at 90 degrees to the surface of the water and seconds from going completely under.
Russert is only willing to admit the Titanic has just been brushed by a big ice cube.
How can they not talk past each other?
And which is the bigger fool?
Russert for not grasping the dire situation, or Paul for not already having abandoned ship?

|12.23.07 @ 11:17AM|#

well, sure, joe, but it was already the law of the land before '64. the only things that the cra brought to the table (so to speak) was the redefinition of privately-owned and operated businesses as "public," and the idea of mandated discrimination. hubert hunphrey did not, as far as i'm aware, live up to his promise regarding consumption of the bill...

there are good reasons to oppose that particular piece of legislation if one believes that individual rights trump group rights.

dpotts|12.23.07 @ 11:20AM|#

the earmarks answer was just ugly...

|12.23.07 @ 11:20AM|#

joe,
Put the CRA in the context of the creeping fascism RP did a very good job of pointing out.

|12.23.07 @ 11:21AM|#

No, edna, it was not. All sorts of institutionalized policies intended to maintain segregation and the racial caste system were in place before the 1964 Act.

The idea that the horriffic oppression of ending lunch-counter segregation was the ONLY effect of the Civil Rights Act is absurd.

mikeden|12.23.07 @ 11:23AM|#

Couldn't RP have said in response to the CRA question his earlier statement - people get their rights not as blacks, or women, or homosexuals, but rather because they are individuals who deserve those rights?

I think this was RP's opportunity to make his stand known to the people, not to answer the question literally and directly. Every question should have been answered with "here's how I see it, and hence here's what I think about it". It is disheartening to see that he missed out of conveying the core ideas that he stands for.

Paragon|12.23.07 @ 11:23AM|#

Anyone but me laugh at the Boeing commercial after RP's appearance?

|12.23.07 @ 11:25AM|#

As usual, Russert was all about the Gotcha, and couldn't care less about the candidates' ideas.

Timmeh didn't want a discussion of how the Civil Rights Act fits in with Ron Paul's theory of governance; he wanted to make him squirm.

And the worst part is, he actually thinks he's doing the country a service with this shtick.

|12.23.07 @ 11:27AM|#

Joe - nail on the head with that last comment.

|12.23.07 @ 11:28AM|#

I think in the eyes of the average voter he got hammered by Russert. The nice thing is that Russert did not play kid gloves with him the way he did Nader or Harry Brown back in the day.
The good thing is that I cant see how his negatives could get any bigger in the GOP.

|12.23.07 @ 11:29AM|#

It's times like this that I'm unhappy that The Daily Show is off the air. Of course, since it doesn'y involve a "front-runner" it won't get noticed anyway.

|12.23.07 @ 11:32AM|#

mikeden,

You must be new to this whole Ron Paul business. Smoothness, charisma, and rhetorical jousting just aren't in his playbook.

That being said, he was the only libertarian with significant government experience in position to run for President when the timing is perfect. Go Ron, go!

|12.23.07 @ 11:33AM|#

bryan,

Timmeh didn't ask Paul any horserace questions because he doesn't consider him to be part of the horse race.

|12.23.07 @ 11:34AM|#

I think Ron Paul could withstand the scrutiny of his views if he were to remind the undecide voter that he is running for president, not dictator, and he must enact a debate with congress to create change.

Nutter|12.23.07 @ 11:44AM|#

RP footnote: On McLaughlin Group's year end show Clarence Page gave the Doctor his "Most Charismatic" nod, unfortunately ending it with "expecially among internet geeks".

Bryan|12.23.07 @ 11:44AM|#

The dismissive question would be, "you are only polling at 8%, how do you really expect that you are going to win?" It's what every other outlet has been asking after the Tea Party money bomb. I think Paul has a great answer, but I find the entire question a little condescending. Both for Paul and for us, the voters. I want to figure out whether to vote for someone based on the issues and the person -- not the likelihood that they might or might not win. Russert asked questions that, to me, are more legitimate when weighing whether to vote for a candidate.

|12.23.07 @ 11:51AM|#

from what i saw, there was obvious bias with Ron Paul's line of question by russert compared to the other candidates. i mean he fired rapid fire to unhinged him and i believed he did remarkedly well. can any of us do any better? i wish russert applied the same treatment to all the other candidates....i mean common, the majority of them were softball games compared to the one with Ron Paul.

this is just another attempt of corporate media to do character assassination of their percieved threat to their power base. I hope one day that russert would look in the mirror and face himself for selling 30 pieces of silver in trying to undermine democracy.

greenish|12.23.07 @ 11:53AM|#

His comments about this first reaction to 9/11 were a bit troubling. His first reaction should have been sympathy for the people killed and hatred for the killers

My first reaction to reading this: Thoughtcrime!?

A person's initial thoughts in an extraordinary event are not predictable, and you can't judge a person on thoughts that bubble up in any circumstance - it's the thoughts that become actions which are important. Also, Paul may well have felt both of those things without explicitly saying to himself "Man, I feel sorry for those people, and man, I hate people who kill people". From my experience, at least, it was kind of a given.

|12.23.07 @ 11:59AM|#

David E. Gallagher,

Actual fascists encouraged business owners to close their shops to unpopular minorities. The CRA did the opposite.

Ron Paul discussed "creeping facsism" very well - in terms of corporatism ("big business running things"), in terms of an expanding security-state, and in terms of opposition to the ruling party being called unpatriotic.

None of this had anything to do with the Civil Rights Act.

dpotts|12.23.07 @ 12:00PM|#

His comments about this first reaction to 9/11 were a bit troubling. His first reaction should have been sympathy for the people killed and hatred for the killers

I give kudos to Paul for not giving in to the temptation to put on a show of teary-eyed sentimentality. I know more than a few people whose initial reactions included similar thoughts to RP's.

Bryan|12.23.07 @ 12:01PM|#

I disagree Marcus. I think these questions were pretty par for the course for Russert. I think the difference is, this time we were rooting for good answers. The truth is, it wasn't Paul's finest hour. But its not the end of the world or the end of the campaign. We just have to make sure that we spread a positive and accurate explaination of the lib platform and continue to support the Paul campaign.

|12.23.07 @ 12:02PM|#

If, among the best gotchas they can muster up, they trot out a verifiable douchebag like Donderoooooooo, then they don't have much ammunition.

Paul will have to run the gauntlet just like everyone else. I don't think he came off too well, but a lot of people will respond positively to many of the things he said here. I think it was one step forward, one step back.

|12.23.07 @ 12:04PM|#

Paul didn't handle the immigration question very well, either.

The difference between his stance in 1988 - we should let everybody in - and his position now - we need to limit immigration - is that we have a large welfare state now? We have a more generous welfare state for immigrants in 2007 than in 1988? Uh, no, not really.

|12.23.07 @ 12:05PM|#

Great interview. Lincoln discussion was spot on. All other nations ended slavery peacefully.

I think this will help him. He's not some crazed lunatic like the NeoCons have tried to paint him

|12.23.07 @ 12:09PM|#

They brought up alot of quotes from 1988 -which was fun for every one.
Ron Paul may have slighlty modified his positions or stances (in this ever changing world) in the past 20 years, but at least he wasn't skipping work and doing coke 20 years ago.

|12.23.07 @ 12:10PM|#

Paul's demeanor wasn't as great as I've seen him in other contexts. Sometimes he looks like Ladies and Gentlemen The President of the United States, and sometimes he looks like an old crank.

He was a little more towards the old crank end of things this morning.

|12.23.07 @ 12:11PM|#

joe,
If I can spell your name, seems as though you ought to be able to spell "Gallaher."

The CRA was a battle between the fascists and the racists. I'll take racists, thank you.

|12.23.07 @ 12:13PM|#

If I were the subject of Russert's fevered grilling about things I did and said decades ago and what I have recently said, I would have been reduced to incoherent babbling within minutes. But it is not Paul who has changed,rather public attitudes have changed. He is consistent. The attitudinal change has nothing to do with either the truth or the logic of his honest responses. In a TV world up to its eyeballs in trivia and spectacle I have to admire Paul's responses to the myriad of "gotcha" questions. He's alright.

|12.23.07 @ 12:13PM|#

The idea that the horriffic oppression of ending lunch-counter segregation was the ONLY effect of the Civil Rights Act is absurd.

straw men are fire hazards. you ought to be more careful.

unfortunately, the social effects of that legislation and its spawn were devastating. and moreso to blacks than anyone else, though i am not unsympathetic to the negative effects that mandated discrimination had on asians.

|12.23.07 @ 12:13PM|#

The fascists were the racists, glgr, and you lost.

squarooticus|12.23.07 @ 12:15PM|#

He answered the question about earmarks incorrectly. He almost got it right when he started talking about SS, but didn't follow through. The way I explain my support for my company's federal contracting to other people who know I hate government is: "While I'd rather the feds not spend any money at all, I've already paid $X in taxes, so I'm going to do everything I can to get it back." IMO, the stance appears hypocritical until you explain it like that.

|12.23.07 @ 12:16PM|#

straw men are fire hazards. you ought to be more careful.

Yes, they are, edna, but I thought your comment warranted a response anyway.

unfortunately, the social effects of that legislation and its spawn were devastating. Yeah, think of all those white people who didn't get to have their own water fountains and schools.

Perhaps the feelings of white supremacits shouldnl't be the paramount consideration here. Speaking of white supremacits, there are a hell of a lot fewer of them now than there were in 1963.

|12.23.07 @ 12:16PM|#

I think Ron handled himself well. Compared to the Giuliani & Romney interviews, RP nailed it.

He's getting a nice spike in donations too...
http://ronpaulgraphs.com/yesterday_vs_today_donors_line.html

Ali|12.23.07 @ 12:19PM|#

The whole interview is here. I just watched 2 of the 4 parts, and so far this has been going very well.

|12.23.07 @ 12:19PM|#

Fascists are those who run to government to solicit it to help them oppress their neighbors. That may describe most big corporations, but it doen't generally describe racists.

|12.23.07 @ 12:23PM|#

Paragon: Yes, you caught the irony of the Boeing commercial! Ahaha, good stuff.

I think Paul did a fantastic job spreading his ideology and his message, and a very poor job of pandering for votes. Which is fine by me. The earmarks question was rough--his reasoning was fantastic, but his delivery was defensive. I completey agree with him "tax deduction" anology though. His foreign policy arguments were solid, as was Social Security answer (although I wish he had spent more time on it, like I have seen him do elsewhere). And he handled the Huckabee/fascist question very well, although it's not what a lot of people want to hear, and therefore might be used against him in the future.

That's the price of saying potentially unpopular things that need to be said. Good for him, I wish more politicians had that integrity.

Potter|12.23.07 @ 12:26PM|#

Glhr, I suppose you think that Jim Crow laws don't count as government help to racists?

|12.23.07 @ 12:29PM|#

Joe: Paul's change on immigration is based on the fact that it, when combined with our nanny-statism, is have a very bad effect on our economy, and Paul is all about the economy (and the economy's ties to personal liberty). He also mentioned how 9/11 somewhat adjusts the framework through which we view border securty. But for Paul is mostly comes back to the economic situation. Very valid IMO.

|12.23.07 @ 12:29PM|#

Dave Gallaher,

The racists who objected to black people sitting at lunch counters most certainly did solicit the government to help them oppress their neighbors. They supported all sorts of oppressive laws at the state and federal level, which the CRA repealed.

And you just can't get away from the fact that every fascist government in history has been avowedly racist, and that the actual fascists that were active around the time of the Civil Rights Act - from the Klan to the neo-Nazis to the nice, polite fascist-admirers like Pat Buchanan and G. Gordon Liddy - were passionately opposed to the Civil Rights Act.

|12.23.07 @ 12:30PM|#

Li,

That's not what Paul said. He singled out the welfare state as the reason for his change, which doesn't make any sense at all.

|12.23.07 @ 12:31PM|#

Although the point about 9/11 and border security is a fair one.

I wish he had made the libertarian point that legalizing more immigrants make border security easier.

|12.23.07 @ 12:32PM|#

This was not Dr Paul's best performance but I don't think it will hurt him because the rest of the "mainstream" isn't going to give it any more coverage. He stayed on the defensive because Russert stayed offensive. The Russert camp dug up a bunch of things from his campaign 20 years ago. Well, alot has changed in the past 20 years, it's not the same world anymore so how can one expect his positions to be exactly the same?

I didn't expect any softballs but Russert was zinging multiple fastballs, curveballs and even balls that were invisible at him. A couple times he hit the batter but there were also plenty of line drives and base hits, just no homeruns. Overall, I think it was neutral meaning it probably won't help much and probably won't hurt much so no ground was really lost or gained.

|12.23.07 @ 12:34PM|#

Potter,
I knew someone would bring up the Jim Crow laws.
My point is I don't run to government to get it to do something, and neither does RP.
And owners of restaurants ought to have the right to serve whom they care to serve.
Huck and Romney right now seem to be running to government to get it to confirm that religion and state should not be separate.
That's the kind of fascism RP is speaking of.

|12.23.07 @ 12:34PM|#

I think Paul did okay, not great. He allowed Russert to divert him with rapid-fire questions instead of fully explaining his positions. Also, since has been in the libertarian movement so long he maybe has forgotten what the average person has been taught and thinks about things like the CSA and the Civil War, and may be better off softening his responses. I think a better response would be to say that while the CSA and Civil War had positives, here are the negatives, and how some of the positives could have been achieved differently.

Ali|12.23.07 @ 12:38PM|#

max- after watching the whole thing (see my comment at 12:19) I think he handled the interview very well. Not the best possible way, but very well indeed.

I think the airtime is worth much more than the actual intricacies of the arguments. Ron also came across as very likable, in command, knowledgeable (i.e., not the crazy person that he has been portrayed to be), and confident of his positions.

|12.23.07 @ 12:39PM|#

Overall, I think Ron Paul did pretty darned good. The questions where rapid fire and tough. Many people would have folded, but Ron didn't back down. Just for that alone, I am impressed.

Neu Mejican|12.23.07 @ 12:41PM|#

Fascists are those who run to government to solicit it to help them oppress their neighbors. That may describe most big corporations, but it doen't generally describe racists.

That is an amazingly uninformed statement.

Look at the history of Illinois politics for a nice example in our country.

|12.23.07 @ 12:42PM|#

I think a better response would be to say that while the CSA and Civil War had positives, here are the negatives, and how some of the positives could have been achieved differently.

Unfortunately, on the Civil Rights Act, I don't think this is a problem with his delivery.

Bingo|12.23.07 @ 12:43PM|#

Hahahaha good job Dondero

|12.23.07 @ 12:44PM|#

"Overall, I think it was neutral meaning it probably won't help much and probably won't hurt much so no ground was really lost or gained."

This graph shows otherwise. He gained from this appearance. New donors, more money, more support = win.
http://ronpaulgraphs.com/yesterday_vs_today_donors_line.html

|12.23.07 @ 12:46PM|#

Perhaps the feelings of white supremacits shouldnl't be the paramount consideration here. Speaking of white supremacits, there are a hell of a lot fewer of them now than there were in 1963.

wow, non sequitur and post hoc, all in consecutive order. well done, well done indeed!

Louis Nardozi|12.23.07 @ 12:46PM|#

Well, you kind of have to expect that type of hatchet job. I did my OWN little fact checking expedition and found the advertisers for this little shindig.

GE lists 824 items regarding defense contracts on their website for 2007. http://www.ge.com/search/index.jsp

Boeing lists 72,200 items regarding defense.
http://tinyurl.com/2nm5y8

Fidelity Investments - tax and 401k services, need I say more?

Hummer - child company of AM General the company that makes all the HMMWV's for the Army

UBS - Another banking company, certainly they have nothing to fear from Dr. Paul, right?

Toyota - makes cars which are CURRENTLY cheaper to make in Japan (and then assemble here).

Aleve - you think Bayer Pharmaceuticals has a reason to fear Ron Paul - who wants to allow yound adults to opt out of SS and Medicare and is vehemently opposed to socialized medicine?

ABE - (shill for coal companies) do they have nothing to fear from Ron Paul's desire to deregulate nuclear power so we have safe, clean unlimited power?

CVS - A Pharmacy whose bread and butter is insurance and Medicare. Dr. Paul wants to remove the incentives for hospitals to overbill us.

Xerox - another defense contractor. Here's a link to their defense contracts of 2006.
http://tinyurl.com/2wjzbb

MasterCard - Huge banking coop.

Why didn't Mr. Russert let us know that he had a HUGE conflict of interest BEFORE THIS SEGMENT AIRED? When half of your advertisers are in defense, the other half split between banking and Big Pharma doesn't that constitute NEWS? I mean, Mr. Russert dug back 20 years or more on Dr. Paul to try to find "dirt". Why not look in your own mirror? I find the FACT the Mr. Russert did NOT disclose this relationship highly disturbing.

Ali|12.23.07 @ 12:47PM|#

Question: I am new to much of this stuff, but what is Russert? Is he conservative, liberal, dem, republican, what?

|12.23.07 @ 12:48PM|#

10:32: Russert points out that the income tax repeal would cost $1 trillion. Paul: "That's good." -- OK, care to eloborate on what else he said?

10:33: How much would we save if we pull our troops out of every overseas post? The first of many gotchas, but Paul is ready: More than a trillion dollars.

10:34: More Russerting: "How many troops do we have overseas right now?" Paul doesn't know the exact. -Ok fair enough

10:35: Russert keeps asking Paul for specific foreign policy answers, and Paul keeps saying the same thing: Cut off aid. The president can't declare war, Congress can't. What about North Korea? -- Yeah it was a little more extensive than that why not make a generalization in his favor in stead of making him look a quarter as intelligent in his responses?

10:36: Paul would cut off all foreign aid to Israel "and the Arabs." "They would take much better care of themselves, they'd have their national soverignty back." -- Yes and how much more do we give to the Arabs ? He said it like that, really? prick.

10:38: "Is al Qaeda the problem or is America - Yeah how about the lebanon reference and the major differances between blowback and what neocons believe, what an interesting thing to not eloborate on, again, prick.

10:39: "Is there an ideological struggle where Islamic fascists [pronounced faashists] want to take over the world"? Paul says no, there's a group of terrorists and then there's the rest of Islam. -Ok fair enough.

10:41: Eric Dondero! Russert quotes Hit and Run's #1 superstar and asks if his claim about Paul's surrender-monkeyism after 9/11 is true. "I'm surprised you'd quote somebody like that. He's a disgruntled former employee." - Then he went on to saaaaaaaaaaaaaaay..

10:43: Russert quotes Paul from 1988 talking about scrapping the CIA and the Department of Education. "That's not part of my platform," regarding the CIA: We should ban torture but collect intelligence for defense purposes. - good, fine, wow an actual accurate representation A +. was it that hard?

10:44: Russert: "You don't want to get rid of public schools?" Paul: "That's a misquote. I'd like to
know where that came from." He wants to abolish the Department of Education. "We [Republicans] used to campaign on that!" -- Wooow, you live in mud dont you. Youre no better than Russert, I respect him for putting the slam but letting him finish you cherrypick bs to make it look comical when this was the most hardcore interview of the race which an elderly man in a frail form and loads of passion handeled better than you probably could in your best day.

10:46: Ah, Paul is getting hit with four articles about his stated opposition to government disaster bailouts and earmarks and his own earmarking. --BIG issue, basically he was against the mismanagment on fema, but they didnt get into that, the earmarks Im not an expert on to comment.

10:47: Paul waves his hands and scoffs: "You've got it wrong!" Russert compares him to John Kerry and "I voted for it before I voted against it." "Awww, come on!" Paul argues that putting earmarks for his district into spending bills is playing the system, making sure his constituents will get money that would be wasted otherwise. _LOL, a little bit more than that again why do you quote him like he's being so casual and not descriptive, why do you suck so hard?

10:49: Huh, we're talking about term limits? Paul is a hypocrite because he "supported" them but he's been in Congress for a while. He argues that he never personally pledged to limit his service. -- No mention of the differances between voluntary term limits? hmm, ok. suck more.

10:50: Paul gets a quote from 1987 where he supports open borders: Paul counters by pointing out he "got in trouble" for saying "There may well be a time where immigration is like an invasion." Only Ron would counter a controversial statement with an even more controversial statement. --pretty controversial, I mean it's only getting better day by day, right?

10:52: Paul's October 1988 Reason column on the drug war gets quoted: Does Paul want to legalize drugs? "I'm defending the Constitution on this issue. I think drugs are horrible. Prescription drugs are worse than illegal drugs." -accurate

10:54: Paul criticized the Civil Rights Act... he points out that Barry Goldwater was against it, which is a truly unconvincing rationale for a number of reasons. Would Paul vote against it today? He hedges! "I get more support from black people than any other Republican candidate, according to some statistics." Unconvincing if youre not into conservatism, but this is where you outdo yourself as being a true bastard. He voted against the private property rights issue HE SAID IT WASNT ABOUT RASCISM WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU NOT QUOTE THAT THEN END IT WITH WHAT YOU USED YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE DISTORTIONIST....ugh.

10:55: This must be the first time we've seen a debate about the legitimacy of the Civil War on Meet the Press. Why does Paul think Lincoln didn't need to declare war? "Oh, come on, Tim." We would have gotten rid of slavery eventually. How about instead of that, I mean I know you dont like the guy, but why not actually quote him on OH how europe did it without a civil war, or any other reasoned argument he mentioned on why it could have been avoided, or why he responded to oh come on tim, it wasnt after being asked but when tim said rascism would still exist LMAO. Dude why are you such a little prick tell me????

10:58: Paul gets a bunch of Reagan and Bush (both of them)-bashing quotes tossed back at him. "I represent what the Republican Party used to stand for: Individual liberty" etc. yeah etc, the one guy thats different etc, you dont like any pubs etc etc etc booooring

10:59: Will Paul run as a third party candidate. "I have no intention of doing that." Russert burrows in. "I deserve one weasel now and then, Tim!" He has a good response: "How many of the other candidates have you asked about that? Did you ask John McCain if he'd run as an independent?" Paul's obviously pleased but Russert has the right counterpunch: "They don't have a history of running in third parties." Paul's a little chastened. "Well... ask them that question next time." LOL yeah that was the big one to describe in detail.

11:01: Russert closes, rather surprisingly, on why Paul said Mike Huckabee's ad reminded him of the old chestnut about "fascism arriving in America carrying a cross and waving a flag." Paul cops a plea: "They gave that to me cold, I'd never seen it." Asked again: "No, but I think this country in the last 100 years is moving toward fascism." YOU ARE A PIECE OF DISTORTIONIST CRAP. WHY NOT MENTION WHAT TERM OF FASCISM HE IS TALKING ABOUT instead of leaving it in the open you asshole fucking prick??????????? we're not talking hitler here but hey lets leave it like that cause it makes him look bad right, even though what he said makes perfect sense in the corporate sense and loss of individual rights but youre not interested in that you asshole.

My take: It was a good, tough, fair interview. --- TOUGH???? IT WAS THE MOST RELENTLESS HARDCORE INTERVIEW ANY CANDIDATE HAS FACED IN 08, PROVE ME WRONG, TELL ME ONE THATS MORE HARD THAN THAT. Fair?? In the sense that Ron Paul pulled through sure it only shows his determination and insight under any conditions. Hillary would have broken into sobs, or whatever dem youre willing to distort this shit for. No asking to counter smears, just prying into decades of Paul's statements that the average, non- Reason-subscribing voter would blanche at, and that he's not often asked to explain again--I didnt know those quotes of course but overall they were fair questions why not get it all out there. . Apart from foreign policy and earmark issues I think Paul acquitted himself well--thats not the impression someone would get from how you wrote it asshole.. But on those issues... as usual, Paul talks coldly and theoretically about terrorism, an issue where politicians are expected to bit their lips and hum "Have You Forgotten?" On earmarks, he just didn't bring together Fact A and Fact B in a convincing manner, and he lucked out in Russert's frenzy to move to the next question----UM the problem is other politicians don't blame blowback and the reality of terrorism but they hate us for our freedom. Russert might have wanted to move on because he was making too much sense. His answers on the Civil Rights Act and Lincoln were rough, but those are the sorts of things you can be esoteric about. yeah private property rights clause but nothing about rascism, pretty rough. Study the civil war, rough stuff if you think about how it could have been avoided like every other nation practically managed.



Dont be such a spineless prick.

|12.23.07 @ 12:50PM|#

Joe: he said "subsidizing" immigration. As in, our econimic and social policies promote an a dis-proportional amount of immigration to what our economy (in a free market) would garner, thereby disturbing proper immigration. In fact, he used, when quoting his previous run in '88, the word "invasion" if I remember right.

His point is that our poor economic situation (go back and watch the interview...he cites our econimic situation directly), when combined with how our subsidizing of immigration (via nanny-statism) creates an immigration situation that needs to be handled. I agree with him, both in his reasoning and his conclusion (although I support a path to legalization for many of them).

We cannot afford to subsidize immigration, and it compounds the negative economic effects of an already incredibly expensive social policy.

|12.23.07 @ 12:50PM|#

"Unfortunately, on the Civil Rights Act, I don't think this is a problem with his delivery."

What do you mean?

Franklin Harris|12.23.07 @ 12:52PM|#

Question: I am new to much of this stuff, but what is Russert? Is he conservative, liberal, dem, republican, what?

He's an ex-Democratic Party politico, having worked in the campaigns of Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and the sanctimonious Gov. Mario Cuomo.

Eric Dondero|12.23.07 @ 12:53PM|#

Well, David, could you give me the exact quote? I'm a little stunned. Not so much about me being mentioned on Meet the Press. More so that you described me as "Hit & Run's #1 Superstar." That's a much greater honor.

Nick|12.23.07 @ 12:56PM|#

Heeey it's everyone's favorite lowlife loser who managed to get fired from one of the most cordial politicians around, dondero the desperado mud slinger

|12.23.07 @ 12:58PM|#

edna
You don't think a result of passing the Civil Rights Act is less racists around? It strikes me that this is not a spurious correlation (that culture often comes around to legal incentives is held by institutional economics and is kinda common sense).

The CRA has had amazing and obvious benefits to nearly ever minority group. I oppose affirmative action, btw. I think it is a moral wrong to take someone's slot or position because they are the "wrong" race, whether that race be black or white. And perhaps aa has had a negative effect on blacks (creating a culture of entitlement and victimization) but surely the positive effects of CRA dwarf that.

I think one can argue that property rights and association rights trump the positive effects of the CRA for many Americans (I wouldn't btw), but it's nuts to deny the positive effects.

|12.23.07 @ 12:59PM|#

Ali,

Russert is a beltway media type, a Broderist.

max,

I mean that when Ron Paul thinks about the Civil Rights Act, he doesn't think "it did a lot of good things, but I disagree with the point about places of public accomodation."

Ali|12.23.07 @ 1:01PM|#

Franklin, joe, Thanks!

LOL|12.23.07 @ 1:02PM|#

Mainstreamlibertarian.com doesnt have ron paul on their famous people that are libertarians list

|12.23.07 @ 1:03PM|#

LOL, LoL!

Ali|12.23.07 @ 1:03PM|#

Eric,

Ron Paul called you "disgruntled former employee". Why are you disgruntled?

|12.23.07 @ 1:05PM|#

Mr. Nice Guy,
With this comment, I'm ending my wasting of space here about the Civil War and the CRA, but I will continue to believe Wars and "Acts/laws" slow the positive progress of society rather than hastening it.

Dave Weigel|12.23.07 @ 1:06PM|#

Shorter WTF:

Your instantaneous reaction to the broadcast was often at odds with my own! FUCK YOU ASSHOLE.

LOL8707|12.23.07 @ 1:06PM|#

Joe--

I think the government should force everybody to have puppies. That way, everybody would love dogs. Currently tons of puppies are slaughtered because the government hasn't stepped in and done something to make people love puppies. Oh, everybody could be as right in their hearts as you and me if only the government would step in and save the puppies!

signed,

your biggest fan

Ali|12.23.07 @ 1:08PM|#

Finally, googling Ron Paul news returns much better stuff now than a week ago. Money (and freedom) talks baby!

|12.23.07 @ 1:09PM|#

Hi Eric,
I'll bet you're sorry you jumped ship now. All those years of fighting for freedom and now Ron Paul has brought the constitution and freedom to the forefront and you end up supporting a candidate that, in his own words, says he wants to "SLOW SPENDING GROWTH."
Your entire adult life wasted because you got in a pissing match with RP.

What a waste.


Tom Lundy
Orlando

|12.23.07 @ 1:11PM|#

Any drawbacks to Dr. Paul's performance can be chalked up to the tactic of piling on charges and not allowing time for a response. All of the issues raised have been explained at length in a convincing fashion. The tactic is to raise doubts and prevent the logical answer from getting through in hopes of swaying voters who are only newspaper deep into any issue. Anyone care to count up the number of times Russert interrupted Dr. Paul?

One thing that stood out for me was my own initial reaction on 9/11. It was, "this is going to be very, very bad for freedom, all over the world". And I said it for the same reasons Dr. Paul said what he said. I was only vaguely aware at that time that there was a move afoot to abridge our rights, but I was damned sure that the event would be used to bring them to fruition.

It was a happy surprise to hear Dr. Paul mention the movie, "Freedom To Fascism". For most apathetic non-voters, viewing that movie is a life-altering experience.

|12.23.07 @ 1:15PM|#

LOL8707,

FEEEEEEEELIIIIIIINNNNGGGS!
Nothing more than feeeeee-lings!

It astounds me that there are still people who think that the central issue surrounding race in this country is to make sure white people who might be inclined towards racism aren't made unhappy.

Put the asses in the seats and the bodies in the jobs, and as has always happened whenever institutional segregation is overturned, the rest will follow.

|12.23.07 @ 1:15PM|#

"I mean that when Ron Paul thinks about the Civil Rights Act, he doesn't think "it did a lot of good things, but I disagree with the point about places of public accomodation.""

Oh. That might be true. He may be more concerned with property rights and the FG usurping power which may prove to be the correct position in the long run for advancing liberty rather than a temporary window that has helped minorities.

Ali|12.23.07 @ 1:17PM|#

The Canadian National Post roots for Ron Paul:

"Looking on the Republican race as Canadian outsiders, we're rooting him on -- if not to win (which he won't), then to at least grab his party's bloated, big-spending Bush-ite establishment by the lapels and slap it around a little."

My views on the Post as fascist has modified a bit!

|12.23.07 @ 1:18PM|#

max,

Has the fact that there aren't more than a sliver of 1% of African Americans who agree with you ever caused to question that assumption?

|12.23.07 @ 1:18PM|#

The first 10 minutes were excellent. He waffles through the rest, consisting of mostly weird or hostile questions. Overall, I give the performance a B. Pretty good.

|12.23.07 @ 1:20PM|#

You don't think a result of passing the Civil Rights Act is less racists around?

in a word, no.

since thomas sowell and walter williams have written so extensively and persuasively about this, i won't rehash their arguments here.

Bingo|12.23.07 @ 1:21PM|#

Tom Lundy:

Dondero's not the only one. A lot of political hacks and pundits have really damaged their ideological credibility this election.

|12.23.07 @ 1:22PM|#

Video: Ron Paul on Meet the Press

Edward|12.23.07 @ 1:23PM|#

Wow, I've never seen somebody actually try to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear before. Thanks, Mr. Weigel. How are you at putting lipsyick on a pig?

brian|12.23.07 @ 1:25PM|#

i think the earmark pressure was a bit lame. paul's job as congressman is to be able to allocate money and represent his constituency. the way congress has been operating allows no other way of representing and getting the money to your people. paul is trying to change the system, but in the meantime he has to work for and support those he represents. it's funny that he's being attacked for doing his job, shows how little there is to use against him.

|12.23.07 @ 1:25PM|#

There seems to be a misconception that because Russert is perceived as being "equally tough on all the candidates", etc., that this means he is conducting a genuinely open and free dialogue. His ''fairness" and "toughness" is presented only within a very narrow spectrum of preconceived ideas -- anything that conflicts with these preset parameters is either excluded or marginalized.

That Russert is operating on a very low intellectual wattage was comically evident when he exclaimed (apparently genuinely!) "But we'd still have slavery!", in response to Dr. Paul's remarks about slavery historically having been abolished in all other civilised nations without a major civil war.

Eric Dondero|12.23.07 @ 1:25PM|#

Hi Tom,

Would it have made more sense for me to bite my lip, shut my mouth, and toe the Ron Paul line on foreign policy just so that I could pick up a nice paycheck every month?

Sorry if I put principle above money. Yeah, I haven't made quite as much $$$ as when I was on the Ron Paul payroll, but I sleep better at night.

Scott|12.23.07 @ 1:30PM|#

Being a black libertarian I had to spend some time thinking about and articulating my support
of Ron Paul in light of his comments on the civil rights act and voting rights act.


In the comments of this post on my blog.
Is what I hope everyone takes away.
http://tswe.blogspot.com/2007/12/ron-paul-real-republican.html


And please note: Unlike most of his supporters
I am Pro the war in Iraq.

But here is my summary of his civil rights stands.

"Just like in the war in Iraq he is wrong but for the right reason. The commerces clause was not designed to allow this amount of intrusion.

And he is not totally wrong that every black person has received blow back from affirmative action etc.

Given the fact that studies have shown that the Americans with disabilities act has reduced employment of the disabled
http://www.mises.org/story/1772
the same affect might have happened with black people.

Now I don't know what in his heart, it is doubtful that any white Texan who was 22 in 1957 doesn't have some racist tendency. But that I can't know. I do know his voting record and what he stands for.

The fact is pre 1964 the major harm from racism came from our government not individuals. Even to day black wealth and success is lagging because of the government redlining for black neighborhoods.

The Davis Bacon act (still enforced today) made it a crime to hire black people at a lower wage than white unionized workers thus driving up unemployment.
http://www.fee.org/Publications/the-Freeman/article.asp?aid=2465


And look how gun control has made the inner city gun free zones of safety.

More Freedom Less government is a good thing."

The fact is racism is not sustainable in free market. Only government support of racism with Davis Bacon act, Jim Crow laws allowed racism
to exist as long as it has. A perfect example
in ultra liberal NYC is that rent control regulations allow white people to continue to benefit from institutionalized racism from 50 years ago.

Supply and demand. By the government redlining
mortgages in black neighborhoods they decreased the amount of buyers and this the demand and property value.

Our government is the leading cause of racism
in America, and having it be responsible for
fixing racism in everyone's head is having the
fox guard the hen house.

Freedom is what we all need.

We need it now.

Bingo|12.23.07 @ 1:32PM|#

So Eric, you are essentially saying that a candidate's foreign policy stance is the most important issue to you and any sort of domestic agenda is either secondary or not applicable?

Eric Dondero|12.23.07 @ 1:32PM|#

BTW, I located the Videos in of all places Lew Rockwell's Blog. Thanks Lew.

Okay, as for my reaction:

Firstly, I found it interesting that both Russert and Paul seemed to stumble over their words. Russert mis-pronounced some things, and Ron Paul mumbled some unintelligible stuff. Amazing that Meet the Press is considered such a high brow respected program.

That said, I found it amusing that Russert would actually use a photo and pull-out quote screen on me. Yes, that was rather nice for the ego, I'll admit.

Noticed that Ron Paul did not respond when Russert challenged him on my resigning. He just went on to another topic, as he often does when confronted on very direct foreign policy questions.

And for the record, what Russert said I said is completely 100% accurate. As a matter of fact, I was not the only staffer at the time who was stunned by Ron Paul's statement. Jackie Gloor, Dianna Gilbert, all the District staffers were disbelieving and befuddled by it.

It was a rather callous thing to say.

Thanks Tim Russert for accurately quoting me.

Eric Dondero|12.23.07 @ 1:34PM|#

Bingo, yes, I would say that.

Opposing Islamo-Fascism is my Number One issue.

Actually, it might be a toss-up with the whole Property Rights/Eminent Domain issue. That's a real tough call. I mean, if we defeat Islamo-Fascism, and lose our Property Rights, or vice versa, it's all for naught, right?

|12.23.07 @ 1:36PM|#

You said @ 10:55: This must be the first time we've seen a debate about the legitimacy of the Civil War on Meet the Press. Why does Paul think Lincoln didn't need to declare war? "Oh, come on, Tim." We would have gotten rid of slavery eventually.
This isn't what he said at all he said how come England and other countries were able to end slaverly without a civil war. You had many other misquotes as well. Did you have a problem with your hearing because you did it all over the place. You should look at the transcript or watch it again and Just present the facts as stated not misquotes littered with your opinion or personal view

|12.23.07 @ 1:37PM|#

Eric,

It's not the Ron Paul line, it the Constitutional line.
The person that wavered from priciple was you, not the good Dr.

Ron Paul, always has and always will, support the constitution.

Use all this attention you will be getting in the next few days to get back on the side of freedom.
Put your personal feelings and emotions aside for what, I know, you want to do.
You've been fighting for it your entire life. Get back on board.

It's all about freedom and liberty. It's not about Ron Paul or you.


Tom Lundy
Orlando

|12.23.07 @ 1:37PM|#

"Has the fact that there aren't more than a sliver of 1% of African Americans who agree with you ever caused to question that assumption?"

No. I don't expect people who have benefited from the CRA and have such emotional investment in the cause to agree with me.
Although, maybe if Afr. Americans step back and look at what the drug war has done to their male population, they might realize that the FG giveth and taketh away.

|12.23.07 @ 1:39PM|#

Eric,

I'm so glad you and Bush sleep good at night. There are a lot of soldiers and Iraqis who don't sleep at all anymore, but it's all worth it in our glorious battle against al Qaeda.

Unfortunately Intelligence reports indicate that al Queda is back up to pre-9/11 power, that bin Laden is still alive, and that foreign terrorist attacks are just as likely. And they report we have possibly driven terrorism recruits even higher, and that blowback is very real. Another words: there are consequences to foolish foreign policy action.

You keep sleeping well at night; my rotation is almost back up and I'll be sleeping in Iraq again. Which is NOT sleeping well.

|12.23.07 @ 1:40PM|#

Good post, Scott.

Interesting point about NYC's rent control ordinance.

And Davis-Bacon: one could make the point about "the law forbids the rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges" - Davis-Bacon forbids the hiring of white people for less than they prevailing wage among black union workers, too. But of course, that would be immensely silly. In the real world, there are established patterns of wealth, power, and economic relations, and it's dishonest to look at the law without making an effort to understand the context around it.

I use the metaphor of wheel ruts. If the carts have been steered down a hill in the same route for long enough, there are going to be ruts worn into the earth. Even if you send a cart down the hill with no driver, it will stay in the ruts, if they're deep enough.

Sometimes it takes a shove to get the carts out of the ruts.

Eric Dondero|12.23.07 @ 1:41PM|#

Tom, another point.

In my entire political career if someone were to ask me what is it that I'm most proud of, my service to Ron Paul would be way down on the list, if on the list at all.

First and foremost, and I'm surprised that you wouldn't recognize this, is my Founding the Republican Liberty Caucus.

I can say that I am extremely proud of that accomplishment. Look at where we are at today, mostly all because of the RLC.

This is incredibly ironic, being that you're form Orlando, but there's breaking news today:

The Orange County Libertarians just endorsed a Republican for Mayor of Orlando!

That would have been unthinkable 5 to 10 years ago. The RLC has managed to pull the Libertarian Party kicking and screaming into the real world of politics.

Additionally, the RLC has been succesful at helping to elect hundreds of libertarian-leaning Republicans to public office nationwide.

That's what I wish to be remembered for at my funeral and on my gravestone: The Republican Liberty Caucus. Not Ron Paul, thank you.

Eric Dondero|12.23.07 @ 1:44PM|#

Li, tell me. Since you're in the Army or Marines, would you have rather spent your 4-year enlistment stateside at some boring-ass Army base like Ft. Sill or Ft. Bragg or 29 Palms?

Don't know about you, but I joined the Navy for Adventure! I joined the Navy to see the world, and to have kick-ass experiences including dangerous ones.

The last thing I would have wanted during my 4-year stint would have been to be stuck at some Base stateside and not seeing any action at all.

Urgh!

As a fellow Military guy, tell me with a straight face, that you would have rather had the boring 4-year tour doing nothing but training and cleaning your guns, rather than spend time in the Middle East?

|12.23.07 @ 1:45PM|#

Two views of Paul's performance one positive, one not so much.

Not having seen it myself, I can't give an opinion.

Eric Dondero|12.23.07 @ 1:48PM|#

Ali, I wouldn't call myself "disgruntled." I'd call myself mad and extremely angry.

I'm angry cause of Ron Paul's idiotic, over-the-top, almost treasonous statement in that debate back in May, blaming 9/11 on us Americans rather than Radical Muslims.

I'm also angry that Paul continues to make utterly offensive statements like "the Vietnamese government are now our friends..." And apologizing for Castro and Hugo Chavez at that debate in Florida a couple weeks ago, where he was booed 3 times.

Ron Paul hates Human Rights. It's as simple as that. Whether its Israelis, Southeast Asians, Hispanics, he could care less. He's the Anti-Human Rights candidate.

|12.23.07 @ 1:49PM|#

Don't know about you, but I joined the Navy for Adventure! I joined the Navy to see the world, and to have kick-ass experiences including dangerous ones.

Do us all a favor, and do your adventuring on your own dime, rather than the taxpayers. Since We the Peasants are footing the bill, I think most of us would like to keep military service as cheap and boring as possible, thankyouverymuch.

Fluffy|12.23.07 @ 1:50PM|#

Joe,

Just so I can be sure I understand you, are you saying that without the public accomodations sections of the CRA, African Americans would still be held in thrall throughout society the way they were prior to, say, 1960?

Jerry|12.23.07 @ 1:50PM|#

Opposing Islamofascism? And then they say that Paul is the conspiracy kook. BTW, anyone noticed the bestseller list at Foreign Affairs: #1 Naomi Klein's Disaster Capitalism, #2 Norman Podhoretz' World War IV and #3 The Israel Lobby by Mearsheimer and Walt. Scary world, ain't it.

Ali|12.23.07 @ 1:52PM|#

Eric,

But in an earlier post (yesterday) you said that Paul is pro-Palestinian (I have never heard Paul say that explicitly before), but wouldn't that be pro human rights for the Palestinians? Your quote: "Anti-War/Pro-Palestinian Ron Paul".

Eric Dondero|12.23.07 @ 1:52PM|#

So, in other words you just want to abolish the Military 'eh there Pib Mannix?

That's called Anarchism. You're on a libertarian website here. That's spelled:

L-I-B-E-R-T-A-R-I-A-N, as in liber-tarian.

There are plenty of sites out there for Anarchists like you. Why hang out here if you hate the Military so much, and don't believe in defending America?

Bingo|12.23.07 @ 1:54PM|#

Well see I agree with that and that's why I'm a little befuddled with your stance. I certainly don't agree with or support a society that is so disparaging towards women and enforces strict religious laws on its citizens. Not only that, but the society is openly hostile towards us, that is true too. But it sure seems to me that we've sacrificed way too many of our rights to fuel the war on Islamic terror.

I'm happy that the people in Iraq don't have a terrible dictator in charge, and hopefully they will find a way to form a free and civil society from the wreckage that we've left them. And it probably feels pretty good to think that we are promoting freedom around the world and changing peoples lives for the better. I just don't think its worth losing our rights and liberties and expanding the government to do so. That is what war does.

Our government sees nothing wrong with invading another sovereign nation and overthrowing its leader without any declared hostilities for the good of the people. Are you really surprised that the same government also sees nothing wrong with going into private citizens lives and taking their property for the good of the people?

Eminent Domain is the Bush doctrine applied to domestic property rights.

Eric Dondero|12.23.07 @ 1:54PM|#

Ali, I'm not sure if I would say he's Pro-Human Rights for Palestinians as much as I'd say, he's just Anti-Israel.

With Ron Paul there's a pretty easy equation: If an American Jew is in favor of something, you can bet Ron Paul will be opposed to it.

Eric Dondero|12.23.07 @ 1:56PM|#

Bingo, would you perfectly happy living in the world where 179 out of the total 180 Nations on earth were all run by Totalitarian Dictators, and the United States was the only free Democratic government?

Even Canada and Mexico. Would you be comfortable with that sort of set up?

|12.23.07 @ 1:56PM|#

"So, in other words you just want to abolish the Military 'eh there Pib Mannix? "

Don't believe that was the intent at all. You may be on the wrong site.

Eric Dondero|12.23.07 @ 1:58PM|#

You know I just looked at the clip again on Russert. I am now exceedingly happy, cause I notice on the screen with me on there, it says in big bold letters LIBERTARIAN REPUBLICAN.

Bet that's the first time ever in 40 to 50 years that the term "Libertarian Republican" has been used on Meet the Press.

So, success! This has made my day, and is a very, very nice Christmas present.

Thanks Tim Russert, and thanks even to Ron Paul.

|12.23.07 @ 1:58PM|#

It seems to me, and I can clearly be wrong, that Ron Paul and his supporters believe that many of these programs passed over the past half century that they wish to either eliminate or scale back were somehow foisted upon the American people against their will.

For good or bad (and I think mostly bad), most Americans support and want most of these programs. Anyone eliminating them will have to persuade the public as to why it's necessary. And will have to do so incrementally and not overnight. Because, unfortunately, many Americans have become dependent on them.

If Paul were somehow to get the Republican nomination, he wouldn't win more than 30% of the vote.

He may have many right ideas, but it's not the right time for them.

Bingo|12.23.07 @ 2:01PM|#

Eric: Sure, as long as we engaged in free trade with them and had a strong defensive military. Also, I don't see how that scenario is any different than the reality of foreign policy in the early 19th century.

|12.23.07 @ 2:02PM|#

>First and foremost, and I'm surprised that you wouldn't recognize this, is my Founding the Republican Liberty Caucus.

My memory must be failing me. I remember a phone conversation we had, shortly after you taking over the RLC, where you said someone else founded the RLC but you revived it a few years later. Big difference.

Jerry|12.23.07 @ 2:04PM|#

With Ron Paul there's a pretty easy equation: If an American Jew is in favor of something, you can bet Ron Paul will be opposed to it.

Paul must have missed the message to burn Murray Rothbard's The Case Against the Fed.

Ali|12.23.07 @ 2:11PM|#

With Ron Paul there's a pretty easy equation: If an American Jew is in favor of something, you can bet Ron Paul will be opposed to it.

Paul must have missed the message to burn Murray Rothbard's The Case Against the Fed.

Or Israel Kirzner's or Walter Block's stuff!

Eric, you should read this on Paul and the Jews.

And this if you are a hard core, nuke'm all hawk.

|12.23.07 @ 2:13PM|#

Anti-israel how? sorry I thought that Dr. Paul was for preventing the government from sending tax dollars to any country, not just Israel.

|12.23.07 @ 2:16PM|#

Paul should just point out that the equality of people of all races before the law was on the books for about 100 years before the Civil Rights Act. I'm not saying that law had no effect, but civil rights are about a lot more than the federal government decreeing that people are equal.

|12.23.07 @ 2:17PM|#

That sounds pro-american to me. He was accurate on his comments about the situation in Lebanon in the early 80s. His comments about relations in Korea and the current state of affairs in Vietnam were also accurate. I think that Paul is anti-big government and part of that is sending our tax dollars all around the world to countries that can take care of themselves.

Ali|12.23.07 @ 2:21PM|#

I think that Paul is anti-big government and part of that is sending our tax dollars all around the world to countries that can take care of themselves.

And that can't take care of themselves as long as the US governments keeps sending them aid.

Tracker|12.23.07 @ 2:23PM|#

Too bad he didn't get to talk about monetary policy. That seems to be what's driving this whole mess we're in (and it will probably be the government's undoing fairly soon).

|12.23.07 @ 2:23PM|#

I agree with Paragon; watching the Boeing commercial, with its heavy military themes, within seconds of RP talking about creeping corporate fascism was surreal. I'm not familiar with the conflict regarding Mr.Dondero and RP, but I respect Mr. Dondero for acting on what he really believes. Finally, RP is a man fallible like all of us. I am supporting him not for his personal characteristics, or even for specific policy proposals, but because we are, in my opinion, in a very dangerous place as a country. It seems to me we need less U.S. overseas military activity, a change in the ratio of federal vs. state action for a variety of issues, a radical change in U.S. debt structure, and a repudiation of the weakening of the rule of law. How we go about those things exactly is, of course, debatable. But which candidate, that anyone believes, will try harder than RP to change the direction we're on as a federal entity?

|12.23.07 @ 2:29PM|#

There are plenty of sites out there for Anarchists like you. Why hang out here if you hate the Military so much, and don't believe in defending America?

I do believe in defending America. And the day Israel applies for statehood, I'll have no problem with subsidizing their defense. Until then, I fail to see what that has to do with defending America.

|12.23.07 @ 2:30PM|#

Ron Paul has my vote. Hey TWC, I want to stop over to your winery. When's a good time for a lib splash? That'd be cool to have some RP supporters get together at your place.
BTW, I'll be botteling my apple wine this week.

Fred in Oswego, NY. Where the weather is always beautiful. (I'm a shill for Big Oswego County Junior Chamber of Commerce.)

|12.23.07 @ 2:30PM|#

Scott, I agree with you totally. I have considered myself a Republican for years but, until now I have never had any of the candidates really speak to the issues the way Paul does. Reviewing his record proves only that these ideas aren't something he came up with last week or year but are simply what he has always believed. Strange to find that quality in a man running for President.

|12.23.07 @ 2:31PM|#

Bingo, would you perfectly happy living in the world where 179 out of the total 180 Nations on earth were all run by Totalitarian Dictators, and the United States was the only free Democratic government?

Even Canada and Mexico. Would you be comfortable with that sort of set up?

Remember kids, them fuckin' savages in Yoorup an' Ayeesia need an old-fashioned All-American ass-kickin' every now and then to keep 'em free. Ooo-rah!

Jimmie|12.23.07 @ 2:31PM|#

Of course he didn't handle the earmkark question well. He has no good defense on why he sucked up taxpayer money while railing against people who suck up taxpayer money.

It's always really hard to come up with a slick political answer to defend one's hypocrisy.

Eric Dondero|12.23.07 @ 2:31PM|#

The transcripts read that I was "put out" by Ron Paul. I had originally thought he had said, "pushed out," but apparently he said, "put out."

Damn! That's a lot worse. Sounds like he put out a Mafia hit on me or something.

Eric Dondero|12.23.07 @ 2:34PM|#

Sorry Ali, Walter Block is a flaming leftist Anarchist America-hating asshole. I wouldn't use anything written by him for toilet paper to wipe my ass with, let alone read it.

|12.23.07 @ 2:35PM|#

Wow! Is this the real Eric Dondero? The one they were talking about on the show?

|12.23.07 @ 2:37PM|#

Eric Dondero said:

"As a fellow Military guy, tell me with a straight face, that you would have rather had the boring 4-year tour doing nothing but training and cleaning your guns, rather than spend time in the Middle East?"

You should be strung from your tiny balls upside down for all to look at and ridicule. You're a disgrace to the military, to the uniform and to the principles of this country. I'd take any decent Arab as a citizen here than a scumbag such as yourself. Taking joy in occupying other people's land and killing innocent people is un-American. Treating your service as one glorified video game is abhorrent and sick.

|12.23.07 @ 2:37PM|#

"The fact is racism is not sustainable in free market."
This is to answer fluffy's question (to joe though) as well as the above quote.
Nonsense. Racism and discrimination can do just fine in a market.
Say you live in a town where 60% of the town are strong racists (a not uncommon thing in the South pre-CRA btw). These people will walk out of a store serving or employing blacks. Any competitive advantae you gain by employing a better worker who happens to be black, or allowing the 10% of the town that is black to shop there, will be counteracted by the competitive disadvantage of the bad will of the community.

As Kerry Howley pointed out not to long ago businesses can do all kind of things that may abstratcly put them at a competitive disadvantage (she used the example of spending profits on something like a wood paneled office because the boss likes wood paneling), as long as any advantages they do have have a larger effect. People do not have to be, and are not, relentless maximizers (do YOU work 100 hours a week for example? Well why aren't you maximizing your income like that?).

I've read Sowell and Williams on this. Their point is that trend data shows disparities lessening even before the CRA. This of course does not mean that they CRA would not have been necessary to get what was left of those trends down (out of the ruts to take joe's expression). We would not have gottent there as fast, or maybe not that far, without something like the CRA. And of course their trends usually start in eras of lots of government help (such as the New Deal) which of course trickled down to minorities as well.

One has to admit that before the CRA racism was very, very common place, as was discrimination. Now both are very, very rare.

Eric Dondero|12.23.07 @ 2:38PM|#

Tom, the Republican Liberty Caucus was founded in my living room on Willow Bend Way in Tallahssee, Florida in May of 1990, after we broke off from Justin Raimondo's LROC. Danny McDaniel and 6 other people were there including the local Libertarian Party Chairman John Otto.

As a matter of fact, Danny has been looking into getting the City of Tallahassee to pass a resolution commending the RLC for founding the group in Tally, just like the City of Westminster, CO did for the Libertarian Party a few years back.

Didn't know that did ya? The LP was actually founded in the Denver suburb of Westminster by David Nolan, NOT Denver itself.

|12.23.07 @ 2:38PM|#

Eric, if it is you, thank you so much for being a part of this blog. Your vulgar language and attitude towards the other bloggers reveals you to be a fool of sorts and not one worthy of quoting on a show as distinguished as Meet the Press.

|12.23.07 @ 2:40PM|#

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out why there is so little discrimination and racism since laws like the CRA were passed: it's now very, very costly to hold such views and engage in such actions. You guys are supposed to be the economics worshippers: it's called incentives guys...

Eric Dondero|12.23.07 @ 2:40PM|#

Carlos do you say that as a Military Veteran or Active Duty, or do you say that as an asswipe coward little pussy boy who didn't want to serve his country.

If it is the former, my sincerest apologies and gratitude for your service. And feel free to diss me all you want and call me every nasty name in the book.

If it's the latter, well, you get the picture. A big fuck you is really not sufficient for my reaction, if you are a non-Vet.

|12.23.07 @ 2:41PM|#

Russert should ask every candidate about the Civil War, since it is so clearly a pressing issue of our time.

Bingo|12.23.07 @ 2:41PM|#

Also Eric the military exists to defend the Constitution. Volunteering for service means you are willing to kill people and possibly sacrifice your own life in the defense of this nation.

If you want to see the world, join a tour group.

Eric Dondero|12.23.07 @ 2:42PM|#

Michael, I only have that attitude for little sissy boys who never served in the Uniform.

I'm a Veteran, so I can speak any damn way I please, thank you. I did my 4 years.

Did you?

jesse jackson|12.23.07 @ 2:42PM|#

max,

Has the fact that there aren't more than a sliver of 1% of African Americans who agree with you ever caused to question that assumption?


It is time that I step down as the spokesman fo all African-Americans to make way for the new generation. Brothers and Sisters, I give you a new leader, joepboyle, he will tell you and White America what we think and how we feel.

Keep! Hope ! Alive! joe !

|12.23.07 @ 2:42PM|#

First 10 minutes were GREAT, btw.

|12.23.07 @ 2:42PM|#

You could be the tour guide Eric.

|12.23.07 @ 2:43PM|#

Just watching this now Dondero, grats on getting your picture on Meet the Press. Thats big time.

|12.23.07 @ 2:43PM|#

By totalitarian dictatorship, do you mean the kind of government that suspends habeas corpus, inflicts torture, and attacks non-aggressor nations without a constitutional declaration of war?

Eric Dondero|12.23.07 @ 2:44PM|#

Bingo, bring it on. I was fully prepared to sacrifice my life for my country. Greatest honor any young man could possible have.

BTW, that possibility was very distinct. Cause I served on the Guided Missile Destroyer USS Luce out of Mayport, Florida.

Our sister ship was the Frigate USS Stark. You may remember the Stark. It was the ship that was hit by an Iraqi Missile in 1986 killing 37 of my shipmates.

|12.23.07 @ 2:45PM|#

Oh you can talk any way you please but a person who does as you are doing usually has the least to say. Did you curse out Paul when you quit/got fired?

Eric Dondero|12.23.07 @ 2:46PM|#

Sine, thanks. But I was actually in the NY Times and USA Today for the exact same thing back in June of this year.

And back in 1996 I was the subject of a half hour show by John McGlaughlin of the McGlaughlin Group on the "Rise of the Republican Liberty Caucus," and the "new libertarian wing of the GOP in Congress."

Now that was a thrill.

|12.23.07 @ 2:46PM|#

A big fuck you is really not sufficient for my reaction, if you are a non-Vet.

I'm not a vet, and I didn't even put a yellow ribbon sticker on my car. That said, you're an asshole and I wish an antibiotic-immune strain of syphilis on you.

|12.23.07 @ 2:48PM|#

To answer your question Eric, my father and grandfather were in the Navy. I signed up to be in the Army but was discharged for personal reasons, it was not a dishonorable discharge and I am married (not in Massachusetts either). Your service to the nation is something that I admire but your actions and language reflect badly on that institution.

Eric Dondero|12.23.07 @ 2:48PM|#

Okay, gotta sign off for the day here. Housework and stuff. It's been jolly. I'll be back soon.

Let me take this opportunity to put in a shameless plug for both my website and blog and my radio show to all my "fans" here:

www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

www.libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com

www.blogtalkradio.com/libertarian

Cheers y'all!

|12.23.07 @ 2:52PM|#

Fellow Ron Paul supporters may I ask a quick question? How many people did you tell today?

Bingo|12.23.07 @ 2:53PM|#

Eric: When you get back please explain the logic of "being against foreign adventurism and nation building is the same thing as hating the US military".

I think you owe Pig Mannix an explanation for that since you just called him an anarchist and never really elaborated.

|12.23.07 @ 2:53PM|#

I told one today and look forward to spreading the word by mouth to others tonight, this week, and for weeks and months to come.

|12.23.07 @ 2:54PM|#

Wow, what the fuck Tim Russert? "You are a strict constructionist but you believe the constitution can be a amended?"

Guy Montag|12.23.07 @ 2:54PM|#

Ash,

Sorry, stopped at your post and Dr. Paul makes a good point:
He argued that the federal government could have simply bought all the slaves and then freed them.

Have not seen the transcript yet either, but in 1862 the Congress and the President freed the slaves of the District of Columbia with this method. Lookup DC Emancipation Day.

Gotta scoot. This is the best discussion I have seen on Dr. Paul yet, but I have not read much of it either :(

|12.23.07 @ 2:55PM|#

Back to the interview. Paul did fine. In fact, Russert's real-time Instant Earphone Fact Check Correction gambit, timed to be unanswerable within the milliseconds left to Paul before curtain close, was emblematic of Ron Paul's sure-footedness and Russert striking out. To wit:

MR. RUSSERT: For the record, the Sinclair Lewis Society said that Mr. Lewis never uttered that quote.

REP. PAUL: But others refuted that and put them down and said that--and they found the exact quote where it came from.

MR. RUSSERT: To be continued. Dr. Ron Paul, be safe on the campaign trail. Thanks for sharing your views.

LOL!
Just replace Tim's "to be continued" with "G*DAMMIT TO HELL!!! F*CKING *sputter* INTERNS EMBARRASSING ME ON MY OWN SHOW!!!...G'AHHH!!!"

|12.23.07 @ 2:56PM|#

Yeah sine I thought that was a weird question. Do you think that Russert didn't know it was constitutional to amend the Constitution?

Edward|12.23.07 @ 2:56PM|#

Ron Paul, always has and always will, support the constitution. --Tom Lundy

Yes, Tom, and he'll get to the bottom of who took all those references to God out. Some secular atheist trying to make a liar of him probably. PUT THOSE REFERENCES TO GODD BACK IN THE CONSTITUION!

|12.23.07 @ 2:56PM|#

Oh, for people that may be interested, the full video is here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/10005061#10005061

It even has a Boeing ad as a lead in! (At least it did for me.)

|12.23.07 @ 2:59PM|#

Shorter Eric Dondero...

I pissed my pants after 19 brown guys with box cutters pulled a trifecta.

I'm still a libertarian, but now mostly from under my bed.

Fucking coward is afraid of the elastic in his underwear. And his principles are about as fluid as his current bowel movements.

Neu Mejican|12.23.07 @ 3:04PM|#

My impression.

Ron Paul would have a better shot at the Democratic nomination than the Republican nomination...but he wouldn't even beat Richardson.

This will hurt his chances with non-libertarians, and the republican base.

|12.23.07 @ 3:05PM|#

Belay my last.

I didn't realize that Eric was actually Laurie Mylroie dressed in drag.

Carry on.

thoreau|12.23.07 @ 3:07PM|#

Eric Dondero! Russert quotes Hit and Run's #1 superstar

So you wanna be a blog superstar,
And live large,
Big mouse,
Five trolls,
You're in charge,
Coming up in the blogosphere
Don't trust nobody
Gotta look over your keyboard constantly

|12.23.07 @ 3:13PM|#

After watching the whole thing, I don't think he did that well. He didn't elaborate on some of his points as much as he needed too, considering that most of his positions are more complicated than the "I support X, more spending on X" stuff other candidates spout. Of course, Russert's attempt to get in one gotcha moment every 30 seconds made for a downright terrible format.

If you didn't already know a lot about Paul and you saw this interview, I don't think it would come off too well.


I never watch Russert, but is he always this bad? I mean, Ron Paul has a ton of positions that are controversial now, but lets put all of the focus on some random controversial things he said in 1988. Why not talk about things that are actually interesting?

Bingo|12.23.07 @ 3:14PM|#

thoreau wins

JIVEWIRE|12.23.07 @ 3:15PM|#

Eric Dondero's mug on Meet The Press must of been a shocker for America- he could pass for a son of Huckabee, lookin' all redeneck like and bloated!

Just sayin'!

SIV|12.23.07 @ 3:16PM|#

Ron Paul would have a better shot at the Democratic nomination than the Republican nomination...but he wouldn't even beat Richardson.

Dem Primary voters wouldn't agree with Paul on anything except maybe the War- and then for very different reasons..

Who can't beat Richardson?

|12.23.07 @ 3:21PM|#

I think Dr Paul was great in this interview. I didn't see any inconsistencies. He stopped every bomb by Russert. Clear, concise, consistent. Dr Paul was also very congenial.

Fluffy|12.23.07 @ 3:24PM|#

I wonder if Tim Russert would have presented Dondero as a credible critic if he knew that Eric has advocated genocide here at Hit and Run and has pushed a theory saying that Saddam Hussein was behind the Oklahoma City bombing.

|12.23.07 @ 3:25PM|#

Well, I actually agree with SIV here. Among both parties I don't think candidates worry so much about winning individual people as much as winning certain interest groups who then influence the individuals in their membership to vote for the candidate. If you are running for the GOP nomination you just cannot piss off the NRA or religious right/pro-life groups (this is why Rudy has such an uphill battle). I would include the "right wing noise machine" as a group (the consciously conservative and very coordinated media apparatus made up of magazines like NR, think tanks like AEI, talk shows like Limbaugh, newspapers like the Washington Times and networks like Fox) which seems to have the war as their litmus test. Paul has them against him, but the NRA and pro-life groups have litle complaint against him.

In the Democratic Party unions, teachers groups and racial groups rule the roost. And they would not buy what Paul is selling.

Neu Mejican|12.23.07 @ 3:26PM|#

Regarding Sinclair Lewis quote:

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=11621

I am gonna say that Ron Paul's "no really, it's true...the internet says so" response is less authoritative than the Sinclair Lewis Society who has actively attempted to accurately attribute the quote to Sinclair Lewis and failed.


SIV,

Who can't beat Richardson?

All those people polling well below him.

He is currently at 8%, in 4th place.
Doing better than Paul is with the republicans.

Paul's appeal to the democratic far left "corporatism is fascism" "anti-war" "anti-intervention" "America is a bully..."

He sounded like he was pulling his sound-bites from Counterpunch and Moveon.org.

|12.23.07 @ 3:26PM|#

thoreau wins

No. A reference to that shitty song results in not a win, but an EPIC FAIL.

|12.23.07 @ 3:28PM|#

NM
Do you see Richardson getting a VP slot from either Hillary or Obama? I thought about this when he kind of deflected some criticism of Hillary at a recent debate...I think it would be a good move on either's part.

|12.23.07 @ 3:29PM|#

Dondero's mugshot looks seriously crazy.

Neu Mejican|12.23.07 @ 3:30PM|#

When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carry a cross.

-Sinclair Lewis (1885-1951). Lewis was the first American writer to be awarded a Nobel Prize for Literature (in 1930). It would be nice to say just when Lewis wrote or said the line above, but it may not actually be his line. Huey Long (1893-1935) is said to have said "If fascism ever comes to America, it will come wrapped in an American flag." A poster named Bonnie in a thread on Snopes.com [94] documents an editorial published in a number of newspapers, including The Iowa City Press-Citizen on 1938-11-11, titled If Fascism Comes.... The editorial suggests that this was a popular theme at the time. Nevertheless, you can get the phrase on bumperstickers and t-shirts attributed to Lewis.

http://arch.reubrik.net:8080/

|12.23.07 @ 3:30PM|#

Paul's appeal to the democratic far left "corporatism is fascism" "anti-war" "anti-intervention" "America is a bully..."

I agree NM that this stuff the left would eat up with a spoon. But the various interest groups that dominate the Democratic Party would do their homework and figure that Paul's policies would be disasterous for them and the country (in their opinion), and would keep any backing of him by the rank and file marginal.

dpotts|12.23.07 @ 3:31PM|#

Dondero:
If it's the latter, well, you get the picture. A big fuck you is really not sufficient for my reaction, if you are a non-Vet.

So now only veterans are allowed to question the role of our military, or criticize the attitude of those in the service? I have respect for servicemen and the difficult job they take on, but to be honest, they do so of their own free will, and there hasn't been a time since WWII that our freedom has been even remotely threatened here in the states. But instead of discussing the issue, Dondero would rather call people names and sling vulgarities. I really wish that he'd just admit he's a neocon and get over it.

Neu Mejican|12.23.07 @ 3:32PM|#

MNG,

I would not be surprised if Richardson ended up as a VP pick... I think it would be a smart choice...I recently heard that Clinton was thinking Joe Biden, but who knows.

Neu Mejican|12.23.07 @ 3:33PM|#

MNG,

I didn't say Paul would get the Democratic Nomination...I said he would do better than he is doing with the republican base.

He would be a solid 5th behind Richardson...for all the reasons cited.

|12.23.07 @ 3:37PM|#

Paul's appeal to the democratic far left "corporatism is fascism" "anti-war" "anti-intervention" "America is a bully..."

Yes, this is the view that concerns me.

It's one thing to say that America should be less involved in the world because doing so corrupts us. It entails a larger military, a national security state and requires the US to align itself with unsavory nations.

In other words, the world corrupts us.

It's another thing to say that the US - qua US - is the corrupting force in the world. That our very involvement is the cause of the problems.

Those on the Left who embrace Paul's semi-isolationism (for want of a better term) view America as the chief cause of problems in the world.

Those on the Right view America as being corrupted by the world.

The truth, as in most issues, is somewhere near the middle.

Unfortunately, a withdrawal from the world by the US will not go un-noticed by those powers - global or regional - who will take advantage of the vacuum to improve their own situations.

If the US isn't the dominant power in the world, some other country (or countries) will replace us. Will that be good for us?

As the world's largest trading power, I'm not sure that would be better for us than the current situation, as problematic as it is.

|12.23.07 @ 3:37PM|#

ok, spot poll . . . where do you think Ron Paul will place in the New Hampshire primary?

|12.23.07 @ 3:43PM|#

"So now only veterans are allowed to question the role of our military, or criticize the attitude of those in the service?"

People like Dondero love to play that card because it works. In my opinion there is nothing in our culture that is wrapped in more reverent mythology than the military, the people who join and the reason why they join.

|12.23.07 @ 3:44PM|#

In my opinion there is nothing in our culture that is wrapped in more reverent mythology than the military, the people who join and the reason why they join.

Compare to what other nation?

It's neither unique nor new to our country.

|12.23.07 @ 3:49PM|#

I think that Ron Paul did a good job of advocating libertarianism on "Meet the Press". It's too bad that just two days before Christmas that, other than Ron Paul supporters, very few people probably watched it.

As far as the War of of Northern Aggression being a mistake - as my favorite bumper sticker that I saw states:

Yankees 1
Rebels 0
(Halftime)

8-)

|12.23.07 @ 3:49PM|#

"It's neither unique nor new to our country."

Wasn't claiming it was. I'm sure it's universal.

Neu Mejican|12.23.07 @ 3:52PM|#

A memorable moment from my past.

My roommate, a Vietnam Vet and I are at a party.

Another vet is mouthing off much like Dunderhead above.

My roommate engages him, challenges him on all the honor bullshit, never once letting on that he was a vet(infantry).

Turns out the guy had never seen any actual combat...but knew people who had.

People who put themselves in harms way for others deserve respect. That respect, however, needs to be earned by strength of character...you get a default pass, but lose respect when you act disrespectful to others.

Ali|12.23.07 @ 3:56PM|#

Eirc, Walter Block is a leftist? Huh?

|12.23.07 @ 3:56PM|#

Yeah, I definitely would have preferred to miss the action if a few more families would have their fathers/husbands/children back.

This is especially true seeing as how we accomplished very little for our country to date (although there is still a chance that we accomplished something for Iraq, which in turn will hopefully help our country...it won't have been worth the lives and the money, but I hope it happens). I would much rather be serving somewhere served the actual security needs of our country more directly (or even, depending on how it turns out, at all).

|12.23.07 @ 3:56PM|#

but lose respect when you act disrespectful to others.

Hmm, it depends on whether the people being "disrespected" deserve it.

One merits disrespect just as much as they merit respect.

|12.23.07 @ 4:02PM|#

It occurs to me that perhaps Paul seemed more kooky and less presidential on MTP than I expected because I'm used to seeing him in the Republican debates, surrounded by even crazier people like Rudy Guiliani, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, and Mitt Rommey (who isn't actually crazy, but can fake it pretty convincingly).

So, you want to go back on the gold standard. Does this involve torturing anybody? Are we going to have to invade other countries in order to secure our gold supplies? Just how large a prison camp would we need to back on the gold standard? Would we allow warrantless eavesdropping on people who trade in silver?

No? Thank goodness there's a sane person in this room!

rho|12.23.07 @ 4:06PM|#

Eric Dondero always makes me laugh. He believes this stuff he says, folks. That's some funny shit.

The Civil Rights Amendment had some bad stuff in it. The current smoking ban in NYC is a direct descendent of such lawmaking. There's a long and complicated argument there regarding the role of the government and the long-term damage such well-intentioned bills inflict, but Tim Russert hasn't the inclination nor the brains to explore it.

It's too bad that Ron Paul hasn't memorized a litany of sound-bites to all of these questions, but then if he had I probably wouldn't support him so strongly.

Condoleeza Rice|12.23.07 @ 4:07PM|#

****Eric Dondero sez:
Bingo, bring it on. I was fully prepared to sacrifice my life for my country. Greatest honor any young man could possible have.

BTW, that possibility was very distinct. Cause I served on the Guided Missile Destroyer USS Luce out of Mayport, Florida.

Our sister ship was the Frigate USS Stark. You may remember the Stark. It was the ship that was hit by an Iraqi Missile in 1986 killing 37 of my shipmates.
******



Ah, yes, we all see. May the poor souls that lost their life on the Stark (not a piece of action you were party to, I'm afraid) rest in peace. May their poor, hapless, deck ape souls make their way out of Purgatory one of these days, and if you're lucky they'll forgive you in The Afterlife in Heaven for trying to ride the coattails of their utterly banal "sacrifice" for "the country".

What I have personally learned from this passage is that your so-called public service follows in the heroic tradition of sitting on a boat and consuming tax dollars, possibly pushing a few buttons to launch million-dollar projectiles from the relative safety of the sea. You were never in the shit, just sitting there on a Navy boat like the blubbering hawkish vagina that you are. Sad part is you delude yourself into thinking that your decision to join the Navy in that era was anything close to a genuine threat to life. Any highway commuter is at more risk of death and bodily injury than your typical contemporary toughguy sailor is to enemy attack.

You are just another mouth-breathing, chest-puffing, hawkish Reagan-era limpwrist douche that couldn't figure out what to do with his life after high school, so you masquerade as some kind of hero and savior of the nation. And now you're afraid of half-starved religious zealots with box-cutters.

|12.23.07 @ 4:12PM|#

Fluffy,

Fluffy | December 23, 2007, 1:50pm | #

Joe,

Just so I can be sure I understand you, are you saying that without the public accomodations sections of the CRA, African Americans would still be held in thrall throughout society the way they were prior to, say, 1960?

Define "throughout society."

Taking that bit out, I'd answer, not in exactly the same way, no. They would still be considerably disadvantaged in economically, socially, politically, and otherwise - considerably moreso even than today.

|12.23.07 @ 4:15PM|#

Wow, was that really Condoleeza Rice? Awesome!

Dr. Rice, I've always wanted to ask you something:

What's Lawrence Eagleburger really like?

|12.23.07 @ 4:17PM|#

"You are just another mouth-breathing, chest-puffing, hawkish Reagan-era limpwrist douche that couldn't figure out what to do with his life after high school, so you masquerade as some kind of hero and savior of the nation. And now you're afraid of half-starved religious zealots with box-cutters."

Too funny!

|12.23.07 @ 4:45PM|#

I am very disappointed by Ron Paul because he was once associated with Eric Dondero.

If he can be conned into thinking Dondero somehow values liberty, than he can be conned by anyone once he becomes a president.

Jerry|12.23.07 @ 4:48PM|#

Paul Suggests He Might Run as Independent

He did?

Bryan|12.23.07 @ 4:50PM|#

Listen, I am a Ron Paul fan. I have donated to his campaign, and was pretty excited to see him on Meet the Press this morning. Still, I have seen a few people on this thread that misunderstand the purpose of MTP. MTP is not intended to ask softball questions or even questions for which there are easy answers. Its intended to ask hard questions. Questions that the public is likely to think about if they are actively considering a candidate. In that way, it gives the candidates a chance to give a good answer, if they have one. Some questions are simply impossible and have no easy answers. For those, the candidate answers the best that they can.

There has been an argument that Russert asks questions within a limited ideological scope. Maybe. But unfortunately that narrow ideologocial scope generally matches the publics. The point of these appearances is to see if a POV outside that scope can intelligently answer the questions. Don't blame Russert for the job he did. My only complaint is that he didn't always give RPaul the time necessary to answer. He cut him off a lot. But the questions were fair.

Jim OSullivan|12.23.07 @ 5:02PM|#

That was "wiggle," not "weasel."

|12.23.07 @ 5:05PM|#

Ron Paul's position on Israel hasn't changed in 30 years.

Eric Dondero, why did you work for someone who is "anti-Israel" for all those years?

Scott|12.23.07 @ 5:37PM|#

in reply to Mr. Nice Guy's post saying

"One has to admit that before the CRA racism was very, very common place, as was discrimination. Now both are very, very rare."

You are so so wrong. Discrimination is not now very very rare. Or did you miss the 2000 election which was won by legally disenfranchising black folks in Florida.

Have you not looked at any states take New York racist funding formula for public schools.

Racism is alive and well today. Is it the life in death sentence of my grand father's day. No.
Is it like having an extra 20% tax on everything you earn and own.

Yes.

MSM wants you to think that racism isn't a problem and Jessie and pals are just media whores making a living talking about the
trivial.


Here are a few links about it

http://www.umich.edu/~lawrace/consequences.htm

http://tswe.blogspot.com/2007/07/race-power-of-illusion-for-teachers-pbs.html

http://tswe.blogspot.com/2005/08/on-writing-and-reading.html

http://tswe.blogspot.com/2005/06/conservative-for-reparations-part-1.html

http://tswe.blogspot.com/2005/06/conservative-for-reparations-part-2.html

http://tswe.blogspot.com/2005/02/bribes-vouchers-black-bush-supporters.html

http://tswe.blogspot.com/2004/12/one-book-to-change-your-life.html

http://blacksforbush.blogspot.com/2004/10/understanding-institutional.html

http://blacksforbush.blogspot.com/2004/07/racism-still-exist-understand-it-and.html

As you can see from the months years between posts about racism that I don't harp on it. But
to say racism is very very rare is just wrong.

|12.23.07 @ 5:44PM|#

If I start making fun of Dondero, he won't come to my house or anything, right?

Eric Dondero|12.23.07 @ 5:46PM|#

It's just starting to come out that Ron Paul lied bigtime on Tim Russert.

He said very explicitly that he was a member of the Libertarian Party for "only 1 year."

Actually he was a member for 10 years, 1985 to 1995.

Ali|12.23.07 @ 5:53PM|#

Eric,

OK so he lied, did millions die?

Ali|12.23.07 @ 5:54PM|#

OH, and non of the others ever lied or flip-flopped. None.

Dedalus|12.23.07 @ 5:55PM|#

"If I were the subject of Russert's fevered grilling about things I did and said decades ago and what I have recently said, I would have been reduced to incoherent babbling within minutes."

Correct. It's easy to judge because we were not in the hot seat.

If people are looking for a uber-polished, focus-group tested candidate I would suggest Romney or Rudy.

Bryan|12.23.07 @ 5:57PM|#

I think he said that he was out of the Republican party for one year. Not that he was a lib for only one year.

Its becoming more and more clear that Eric lies.

|12.23.07 @ 5:59PM|#

RON PAUL GOT HIS ASS KICKED BY RUSSERT!!! CAN YOU SAY EARMARKS??? CIVIL RIGHTS???? HILARIOUS.. RON PAUL CAME OFF LIKE THE COOKS THAT HIS FOLLOWERS REFLECT!!!!

The man some of the HIGHEST EARMARKS AND TALKS ABOUT GOVERNMENT WASTE!!! WHAT A HYPCORITE!!

RONALD REAGAN WAS A FAILURE?? THE MOST POPULAR REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICA IS CALLED A FAILURE BY RON PAUL!!!! LMAO!!!

Seriously... you paulites can call it quits...Ron Paul is NOT ready for prime time... the guy would shrivel in a washington press conference.... He's done...

What Ron Said:|12.23.07 @ 6:02PM|#

Eric,

Why do you lie?

"So I stand for the ideals of the Republican Party. I've been elected 10 times as Republican. I've been a Republican all my life except for that one year that I ran as a Libertarian. But, no, I represent the Republican ideals, I think, much more so that the individuals running for the party right now."

Huh???|12.23.07 @ 6:06PM|#

Dear Ron Paul Got Owned,

The question is, what interest do you represent? Are you on welfare? Do you like the fact that the government might be listening to your phone conversations. Do you work for the government and are worried about you job? Maybe Haliberton. Otherwise, why the hate for Ron Paul? I don't get it. What is your angle that make you at all a ligitimate voice?

Dedalus|12.23.07 @ 6:12PM|#

"RON PAUL CAME OFF LIKE THE COOKS"

Which cooks did he come off like? I didn't know Russert was a cooking show.

|12.23.07 @ 6:14PM|#

Wow donderblast thinks Ted Nugent is a libertarian and Tammy Bruce, now thats just silly

|12.23.07 @ 6:15PM|#

I actually liked it when he called Bush 41 a bum

|12.23.07 @ 6:15PM|#

Ron Paul did very well in this interview. Russert asked tough questions as always, but Paul was always quick to respond with a rationale and honest answer. He is different in this respect because he does not have an arsenal of rehearsed, pre-packaged answers to recite. He comes across as an authentic, genuine person who believes strongly in his positions. This is what attracts people to him. People have waited a long time for someone with this kind of integrity.

Edward|12.23.07 @ 6:16PM|#

I'll say one thing for Ron Paul: He's probably a lot smarter than the nutjobs who are sending him money.

|12.23.07 @ 6:19PM|#

"RON PAUL CAME OFF LIKE THE COOKS"

Which cooks did he come off like? I didn't know Russert was a cooking show.

I think he means that he has seen Ron Paul reflected in the stainless steel cookware of his followers.

|12.23.07 @ 6:27PM|#

I thought Ron Paul handled Russert extremely well. The earmarks issue, the term limits issue, the income tax issue (one trillion cut....sounds good!).....forcing Russert to go back to ancient history in a vain attempt to get a gotcha.

I'm new to Ron Paul.....really introduced to him by my college senior son....but I think he was great on Russert.....the main stream media is completely discombobulated by a person of principal like Paul....this thing could really take off.

Happy Jack|12.23.07 @ 6:32PM|#

I joined the Navy to see the world, and to have kick-ass experiences including dangerous ones.

I thought you handed out toilet paper. Isn't that the definition of a storekeeper?

Ali|12.23.07 @ 6:39PM|#

Chenango:

He did great, but those of us who been following him closely for months now know that he could have done better, especially on the CRA.

After so much time following Ron Paul, I can say that he has been doing better and better on TV and in interviews.

ace|12.23.07 @ 6:43PM|#

DONDEROOOOO said: "The last thing I would have wanted during my 4-year stint would have been to be stuck at some Base stateside and not seeing any action at all.
As a fellow Military guy, tell me with a straight face, that you would have rather had the boring 4-year tour doing nothing but training and cleaning your guns, rather than spend time in the Middle East?"

wow. shockingly repugnant and idiotic. and then attacking a commenter for not being military. there are enough novel vitriolic responses from previous commenters, but I just had to join the chorus of anger and disgust at this idiocy.

|12.23.07 @ 6:52PM|#

"Ali, I wouldn't call myself "disgruntled." I'd call myself mad and extremely angry. "

Gee, I'd call you nuts.

When you toss off nonsense like "Ron Paul hates Human Rights", the only thing I can suggest is that you seek competent professional help.

-jcr

|12.23.07 @ 6:54PM|#

" asswipe coward little pussy boy "

Well, you sure know how to win friends and influence people, don't you?


Why don't you do all us libertarians a favor and join the Reds?

-jcr

|12.23.07 @ 6:57PM|#

"With Ron Paul there's a pretty easy equation: If an American Jew is in favor of something, you can bet Ron Paul will be opposed to it."

Well, speaking as an American Jew who's on the same page with Ron Paul on most issues, I'd have to say you'd lose that bet.

-jcr

SIV|12.23.07 @ 7:00PM|#

Or did you miss the 2000 election which was won by legally disenfranchising black folks in Florida.

If the disenfranchisement was legal then they had no right to vote. The Civil Rights Commission
could not producer a single individual who was illegally denied the right to cast a ballot in FL during the 2000 election.

Dedalus|12.23.07 @ 7:06PM|#

"I think he means that he has seen Ron Paul reflected in the stainless steel cookware of his followers."

Whoa, that's metaphysical, dude...

|12.23.07 @ 7:19PM|#

"I was fully prepared to sacrifice my life for my country."

Oh, if only... That way, people would remember you as a fine young man, instead of the jerk you've turned out to be. Wouldn't that be wonderful?

Look, your fond fantasies of glory in battle really have nothing to do with your failures in real life. Try to work it out in therapy.

-jcr

|12.23.07 @ 7:28PM|#

"If he can be conned into thinking Dondero somehow values liberty, than he can be conned by anyone once he becomes a president."

Well, hold on there... Good people are easier to deceive, because they start out believing that other people are good until they prove otherwise. I wouldn't knock anyone for that.

-jcr

Dedalus|12.23.07 @ 8:35PM|#

"Ron Paul hates Human Rights. It's as simple as that. Whether its Israelis, Southeast Asians, Hispanics, he could care less. He's the Anti-Human Rights candidate."

OK, I'm not a regular here. Can someone explain this to me? This dickhead wants the government to take more of my money to force his ideas of "human rights" on peoples overseas at the barrel of a gun and he calls himself libertarian?

Am I high?

Bill Cooke|12.23.07 @ 8:47PM|#

I don't know if any of you realize this or not, but Paul is running for President. The people want to see that the President is a human being. If your first reaction to the deaths of nearly 3,000 people is 'gee, how will this effect liberty,' you aren't going to win many votes. Paul needs someone to explain this to him if he hopes to have a chance. And if you can't take some constructive criticism then that is not my problem. I want Paul to do well. But B.S. statements like that aren't helping him.

Tacos mmm...|12.23.07 @ 8:54PM|#

OK, I'm not a regular here. Can someone explain this to me? This dickhead wants the government to take more of my money to force his ideas of "human rights" on peoples overseas at the barrel of a gun and he calls himself libertarian?

Eric Dondero that the most important issue facing the US currently is the "war" with "islamic fascism" (and yes, I believe both of those words belong in quotations, being in essence misnomers). He is pretty much willing to give any other libertarian impulses a back seat to this conflict.

Tacos mmm...|12.23.07 @ 8:56PM|#

Oops. Please insert the word "believes" after "Eric Dondero" in my previous comment.

|12.23.07 @ 8:57PM|#

YOU'RE ALL JUST A BUNCH OF COOK-REFLECTORS!

|12.23.07 @ 9:00PM|#

If the disenfranchisement was legal then they had no right to vote.

Wow.

I don't think SIV gets that whole "inalienable rights" thing.

|12.23.07 @ 9:12PM|#

Their point is that trend data shows disparities lessening even before the CRA.

mng, worse than that, their trend data shows that the narrowing of the gap significantly slowed and in some cases reverted following the cra and other pieces of extraconstitutional legislation passed with the good intentions of our betters. and it's the intentions that matter, not the results.

in "losing ground," charles murray not only made the same case, but he was honest enough to include the raw data as an appendix for anyone else to recast if they disagreed with his analysis.

raza|12.23.07 @ 9:16PM|#

Seems pretty strange that if Eric's relatively recent quibble with RP is his reaction to 9/11 and subsequent positions, he would atleast be supportive of the positions RP had before 9/11. I see a litany of things though that hes railing against that were consistently RP positions before Eric was fired and before 9/11.. from financial support of Israel, to citing Vietnam as an argument for non-interventionism.

Since you find those arguments ridiculous and anti-human rights now, do you feel it was wrong of you to promote his views and take money from him till not too long ago?

Sam Grove|12.23.07 @ 9:21PM|#

Prepare to WOW.
March for Ron Paul.

robc|12.23.07 @ 9:49PM|#

Scott,

As a 22 year old in 1957 had Ron Paul ever sat foot in the state of Texas?

Pennsylvania != Texas, I realize some people get them confused and all, but really, they arent the same place.

|12.23.07 @ 9:59PM|#

As a fellow Military guy, tell me with a straight face, that you would have rather had the boring 4-year tour doing nothing but training and cleaning your guns, rather than spend time in the Middle East?

Dondero, look...I'm a military guy. I'm finishing college to go back into the AF as a medical officer. I am, in fact, a veteran of the Iraq War. If you seriously think going over there and doing that stuff is a sort of fun adventure, like maybe a sort of Boy Scout camp experience for grown-ups involving machine guns, you need to go see a therapist.

I am serious.

Any fighting man with a soul, from the lowliest grunt to the most elite Navy SEAL officer, must be a man of peace if he's to keep his sanity.

And Eric, your few years in the Navy (what were you- a supply clerk, third class?) don't make you a minister of death, okay?

Late to the thread as usual but I hope Eric Dondero reads my comment.

SIV|12.23.07 @ 10:24PM|#

I don't think SIV gets that whole "inalienable rights" thing.


An "inalienable right" to vote? Whose Constitution are you reading?


Back to civics class ya damn Yankee!

|12.23.07 @ 10:52PM|#

I love Eric Dondero threads. It's like reading an ar15.com thread, except I don't actually have to go there.

|12.23.07 @ 11:28PM|#

I am SO going to www.ar15.com.

Oh yeah.

Guy Montag|12.24.07 @ 12:24AM|#

When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carry a cross.

Do tell!

Bingo|12.24.07 @ 12:36AM|#

Bill Cooke:

Uh I don't know about you but my first thoughts were "who would do this" followed immediately by "I hope class is cancelled I really want to get drunk"

People react to tragedy in different ways and I think that being immediately worried about the freedoms and liberties of Americans in the wake of such an event was very appropriate and necessary.

|12.24.07 @ 1:01AM|#

Tough interview, and Ron Paul stumbled quite a bit, but it's a case of "Welcome to the big leagues." If Ron Paul ever gets to double digits, expect more of this, so he needs to sit down with his staff and work on debate prep, become more polished at handling hard questions fired at top speed.

IMO, he couldn't help but stumble on the earmark question, because he's flat out on the wrong side of that.

joe -- as usual, on the Civil Rights Act, you're focusing on what the intent was, and how people feel about it, rather than on the long-term effects of giving the government the power to meddle. Using your heart, not your head.

Vote Quimby|12.24.07 @ 1:17AM|#

Anyone else think Dondero had a little beat-fest while watching his little blurb on repeat? Way to go, man. Getting used on MTP to bash a political candidate that the establishment hates. You've really made it and should be oh so proud.

greenish|12.24.07 @ 1:18AM|#

Mr. Nice Guy said:
"The fact is racism is not sustainable in free market." This is to answer fluffy's question (to joe though) as well as the above quote. Nonsense. Racism and discrimination can do just fine in a market. Say you live in a town where 60% of the town are strong racists (a not uncommon thing in the South pre-CRA btw). These people will walk out of a store serving or employing blacks.


1) If 60% of a town is strongly racist, then the town is fucked no matter what. Better move.

2) What - they would even walk out of a black store when the goods are cheaper and money is tight? For years? That's not just strong; that's supernaturally powerful racism.


Any competitive advantage you gain by employing a better worker who happens to be black, or allowing the 10% of the town that is black to shop there, will be counteracted by the competitive disadvantage of the bad will of the community.


Even then there would be work to be done away from view. Also, the minority could still trade and work for each other, except, of course, that such a racist town will not have a free market anyway.

Mad for Ron Paul|12.24.07 @ 1:28AM|#

THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA WON'T IGNORE RON PAUL! WHAT WILL OUR EXCUSE BE WHEN HE LOSES? WE NEED A CONSPIRACY THEORY, AND WE NEED IT NOW. FORGET PLAUSIBLE, JUST GET A THEORY!

|12.24.07 @ 1:44AM|#

"As a fellow Military guy, tell me with a straight face, that you would have rather had the boring 4-year tour doing nothing but training and cleaning your guns, rather than spend time in the Middle East?"

I was in the Army 1979-1986 and I thank God every day that I didn't see combat.

/82C Field Artillery Surveyor
Howizer Battery 3/3 ACR Fort Bliss
HHQ Battery 2/43 ADA Hanau FRG

|12.24.07 @ 1:46AM|#

Greenish -- if 40% of the town are people who despise racists, a business owner would do very well employing and serving black people. Yeah, she'd have the hatred of the 60% of residents who were racists, but 40% market share and good profits, until other competitors realized this missed opportunity and jumped in to serve this segment of the community.

In fact, most towns have profitable businesses specializing in serving tiny, often reviled segments of the population. Honolulu, for example, has several businesses specializing in catering to strippers and prostitutes (plus the occasional kinky non-sex-service-professional), such as Backseat Bettys.

Neu Mejican|12.24.07 @ 2:03AM|#

prolefeed,

That sounds nice and all, but I am pretty sure the lunch counter protests were staged for a reason...something to do with the way a minority segment of the population was treated in the market.

Business sold to blacks, but they did not treat them equally.

"Get you lunch a go boy..."

Neu Mejican|12.24.07 @ 2:04AM|#

Wow that was some bad typing...

"get your lunch and go boy..."

Bingo|12.24.07 @ 2:26AM|#

I'm seriously shocked to see that Eric is such a dumbass as to imply that serving in the military is some sort of game or adventure. That sort of view is so juvenile and misinformed that its dangerous. Hey Eric, how about next time you leave defending our Constitution to the big kids and go play with your board games.

Guy Montag|12.24.07 @ 2:34AM|#

Honolulu, for example, has several businesses specializing in catering to strippers and prostitutes (plus the occasional kinky non-sex-service-professional), such as Backseat Bettys.

Press-on nails and makeup are "specialties" now?

Harry Love|12.24.07 @ 3:15AM|#

It is great that Ron Paul is doing so well running in the Republican primary. Unfortunately, his sleeping with the enemy in D.C. for many years loads him with a certain amount of baggage, which gets him flustered in interviews. It would have been helpful if Harry Browne got this kind of publicity in 1996 and 2000. He was much more articulate. After all, he literally wrote the books explaining "Why Government Doesn't Work" and "The Great Libertarian Offer".

|12.24.07 @ 3:35AM|#

Neu Mejican -- That sounds nice and all, but suppose for a moment that you're a black person running a lunch counter, and a guy sporting neo-Nazi tattoos comes up to your counter and calls you "boy" and the n-word, and demands you make him some fried chicken and watermelon, even though that's not on the menu, and calls your black waitress some racially-charged names.

Are you OK with forcing the black business owner to serve this arsehole?

Brian Ewart|12.24.07 @ 4:20AM|#

Scott, in regards to: "Now I don't know what in his heart, it is doubtful that any white Texan who was 22 in 1957 doesn't have some racist tendency."

Ron Paul was born and raised in Pennsylvania, not Texas. He went to College in Gettysburgh, PA, and did Med School at Duke, he didn't move to Texas until much later, after spending some time in the Air Force.

Ron Paul made a career in rural Texas, but he is actually a northerner.

|12.24.07 @ 4:24AM|#

Dondero:

"Noticed that Ron Paul did not respond when Russert challenged him on my resigning."

Dude, he doesn't talk shit about anyone. Please just be thankful that he doesn't go into detail over why you were fired. It's amazing that Dr. Paul is able to treat you with courtesy even when you attack him. Kudos to Dr. Paul.

Dondero is A Fascist|12.24.07 @ 4:27AM|#

Seriously.

|12.24.07 @ 4:35AM|#

Apparently Paul acquitted himself satisfactorily on Meet the Press. I notice he's accrued around another $500k in donations since then. Somebody liked what they heard....

BakedPenguin|12.24.07 @ 7:37AM|#

Harry Love - the paradox is, that Ron Paul is getting the coverage simply because he has been "sleeping with the enemy". I agree with you on Browne, though.

dhex|12.24.07 @ 10:02AM|#

MSM wants you to think that racism isn't a problem and Jessie and pals are just media whores making a living talking about the
trivial.

one can think racism is a problem and still think jesse and pals are media whores.

just fyi.

Sam Grove|12.24.07 @ 11:21AM|#

On Dondero:

While declaring some affinity to libertarian sentiment, some of his statements indicate a sociopathology of the type found in power seekers, (many politicians, policemen).

His enthusiasm for the opportunity to go to other countries and kill under the auspices of 'police actions' is further indication of such a tendency. One wonders that he didn't re-enlist. More on that later.

His support for the invasion of Iraq puts him in league with other so-called 'libertarian' war mongers who, in complete opposition for libertarian values, gives no thought to the necessity of taxing citizens to pay for such action nor any thought to the unavoidable killing of innocent civilians.

His demeanor also shows that he doesn't function at a high enough level to get along with others, even with his fellow sociopaths, which has left him out of the mainstream path to political power. Perhaps this may explain his seeking to attain power in the smaller pond of the libertarian movement.

Why then does he hang around here and plague us?

Because that's the best he can do. He prefers to think he's besting those he considers as losers than to confront daily the realization that his aspiration exceeds his talent.

But after his mention on MTP, perhaps he'll get a job offer in the 'smear Ron Paul' campaign.

|12.24.07 @ 11:32AM|#

I watched the rerun last evening and found Paul refreshing. A person running for public office actually answering tough questions without much dancing. Interesting that Russert's questions were for the most part based on old material.
As far as Dondero being used, I don't know what is more troubling, Dr. Paul having a use for his work, or MTP not doing any research into into Dondero's vulgarly espoused beliefs.

Guy Montag|12.24.07 @ 11:44AM|#

BE & Scott,

Scott, in regards to: "Now I don't know what in his heart, it is doubtful that any white Texan who was 22 in 1957 doesn't have some racist tendency."

Ron Paul was born and raised in Pennsylvania, not Texas. He went to College in Gettysburgh, PA, and did Med School at Duke, he didn't move to Texas until much later, after spending some time in the Air Force.

Ron Paul made a career in rural Texas, but he is actually a northerner.

What a cute exchange! Both of you are under the impression that racism has a monopoly in just one part of the country! Pennsylvania, such a prefect example of color blindness, especially during the MOVE episodes in the 1970s, reaction to forced integration of schools before that, current activity, etc. Also, much of PA is pretty darn rural and "tou know what they say about that."

Now, if someone thinks that Dr. Paul is an actual racist, please produce some overt racism on his part. An act, a letter, just produce something besides an address that "proves" racism.

Also,. please, when defending someone from racism, the address defense is nothing but the same load of shit in a different box. Try something else, like asking for some proof.

Neu Mejican|12.24.07 @ 12:02PM|#

Prolefeed,

you're a black person running a lunch counter, and a guy sporting neo-Nazi tattoos comes up to your counter and calls you "boy" and the n-word, and demands you make him some fried chicken and watermelon, even though that's not on the menu, and calls your black waitress some racially-charged names.

Are you OK with forcing the black business owner to serve this arsehole?

This is an inapt analogy.
There is nothing wrong with discriminating against an individual for how he behaves...it is discriminating because of who he is that matters.

So, the tattoos shouldn't be enough to get the guy kicked out, but behvaing like an "arsehole" should.

See the difference?

|12.24.07 @ 12:38PM|#

I thought the questions were fairly good, but it was almost as if Russert had a hard time trying to come up with anything negative about this candidate; resorting to delve into the late 80's to find misquotes in a desperate attempt to throttle down Paul's momentum. The "race card" Russert pulled out of his hat was both disgusting and pathetic. I was, however, just a bit disappointed in Ron for the way he handled the earmarks question...he needs to be on his toes a bit better than that...I don't at all slam him for earmarking the bills and trying to get some of the people's money he represents back to them. All to often we American's don't realize that it is OUR money and we are owed it back. Unfortunately I don't think he explained himself well; but the man has my vote! He's the best candidate out there and I have read FAR worse things about the others. If Russerts goal was to change my mind about this candidate, he has failed miserably.

|12.24.07 @ 1:08PM|#

Also,. please, when defending someone from racism, the address defense is nothing but the same load of shit in a different box. Try something else, like asking for some proof.

Guy hits it on the head. The North was pretty racist too. Here in Boston, we had race riots in the 1980's when public housing was integrated.

In fact, I've heard from several sources that racists from the North were often shocked at the degree of interaction between blacks and whites in the south, something that was largely absent in the North.

In fact, northern support for the Gray Davis act - the legislation that makes unionization very easy and forces businesses to deal with unions was supported in the North because it would help keep black workers out of the workforce, and thus give them less incentive to migrate out of the South.

The meme that the North was not racist and the South was is I think more the product of propaganda than reality. People living everywhere were racist.
My father (Racist!)
My sister (Racist!)
My uncle and my cousin and her best friend (Racists Racists Racists!)
The gays and the straights
And the whites and the spades

Everyone is a racist!
My grandma and my dog 'ol blue (Racists Racists Racists!)
The pope is one and so are you (Racists Racists Racists!)
C'mon everybody we got quilting to do (Racists Racists Racists!)
We gotta break down these baricades, everyone is a racist!

pdog|12.24.07 @ 1:20PM|#

Somewhere up there, Harry Browne is smiling down on Ron Paul for all he has done in this campaign to advanced liberty.

Eric Dondero|12.24.07 @ 1:23PM|#

Aww shucks. This is not something the Ron Paul-bots are going to want to see.

LA Times Blog reports today that "Ron Paul's poll numbers plummeting..."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/12/ron-paulites-do.html

Eric Dondero|12.24.07 @ 1:25PM|#

And somewhere up there Roger MacBride is puking his guts out to see the guy he dreaded, the Pro-Lifer, Gay unfriendly Ron Paul being labeled as a "libertarian."

Dedalus|12.24.07 @ 1:35PM|#

"IMO, he couldn't help but stumble on the earmark question, because he's flat out on the wrong side of that."

Incorrect. Do you know how earmarking works? The budget levels are pre-set -- were there not a single earmark the spending level would be the same. Not a dime would be saved. Earmarks are simply a way for the legislative branch to assert their constitutional authority over how the money is spent. Absent that, the money is spent by executive agencies as they see fit.

The problem is in the level of spending; much less so in how it is spent.

Guy Montag|12.24.07 @ 1:56PM|#

Dedalus,

For some reason, this "earmarks" word has 'evolved' since the last Congressional election.

Back in my day, what you described was called "fencing", i.e., the money was "fenced off" so it could not be spent on other activities or the thing that was to be produced was specific. Frequently, it did not quite matter where it was done as long as it was done.

Earmarks tended to be requirements that funds were spent in certain locations for certain things, like a Congressman's district.

|12.24.07 @ 2:15PM|#

"Russert avoided the Fed and the dropping dollar and the economic crisis, as well as Iraq--subjects the elites don't want Ron raising. Still, Russert was not as vicious-despite all the misquotes and distortions and ancient history-and here's why. It turns that Russert's son, like the children of many of the elite, and far more of the middle and working classes-is a Ron Paul Revolutionary."

So we have Scarborough's son, and now Russert's. Sweet. lol

Sam Grove|12.24.07 @ 2:23PM|#

Give it up Dondero, we know you crave power over us. We're not buying.

|12.24.07 @ 2:24PM|#

Eric,

That LA Times article was comedy gold. According to it, they found six fewer Ron Paul supporters this time around, then last time around.

Once again, you've made me laugh.

Keep it up SKSN... Keep it up.

|12.24.07 @ 2:26PM|#

Crap! than the!

Preview is my friend. Preview is my friend.

Mr. Chartreuse|12.24.07 @ 2:57PM|#

Ron Paul's poll numbers are falling like a rock....if rocks fell upward. From 4% to 10% in Iowa:

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

smartass sob|12.24.07 @ 3:09PM|#

@ Sam Grove

Prepare to WOW.
March for Ron Paul.

That video would make an excellent television ad for Dr. Paul - especially with the part in it about not seeing it on the MSM.

|12.24.07 @ 4:07PM|#

Eric Dondero:

Would it have made more sense for me to bite my lip, shut my mouth, and toe the Ron Paul line on foreign policy Yeah, I haven't made quite as much $$$ as when I was on the Ron Paul payroll, but I sleep better at night.

Right, advocating an unconsttutional interventionist foreign policy that motivates attacks on American civilians is just like Sominex.

|12.24.07 @ 4:10PM|#

...Sorry about the spelling. I didn't mean to hit the "Submit" button yet.

pdog|12.24.07 @ 4:31PM|#

Somewhere up there, Harry Browne is giving Eric Dondero the middle finger.

|12.24.07 @ 4:38PM|#

Just wanted to point out an interesting observation about the nation polls. If you look at a graph of the national polls over the last 9 to 12 months, Dr. Paul's numbers are the only ones on a steady continual raise.

The "first tier" candidates' numbers rise and fall erratically dependent upon the MSM coverage. Their followers seem to be as wishy-washy as the candidates they support.

Ron Paul's steady increase shows a growing support among the populace not based upon the MSM's image of the man but upon the believe his messages are the best hope for America.

What might this mean? Ron Paul's continual rise in popularity which will not be affected by the MSM reporting, which will not be undercut by the newest craze, and which will continue to grow, from all parties.

It would be interesting to have a mathematician determine the amount of growth over time Ron Paul's support has grown then extrapolate a projection of total support Ron Paul would achieve after 12 more months.

Guy Montag|12.24.07 @ 4:39PM|#

Russert was being pretty "out there" on this point: And yet, this: "Paul's current district, which includes Galveston and reaches into" the "Brazoria County, draws a substantial amount of federal flood insurance payments." For your own congressional district.

Federal flood insurance payments are a pretty stupid thing to toss at a Congressman, unless the Congressman has been completly against the program but took the insurance any way. Or, maybe if he voted for the program. The amount of payments is a result of the people who signed up for it and then got payments from it.

However, that was just before the point where I stopped reading. Dr. Paul comes across as a total loone. Lumping every ally we have into the same lump as if we had "invaded" them? Blaming the USA for being attacked because some nutty bunch of Islamic fundies had their feeling hurt because the government of Saudi Arabia invited the USA to have a base there? And all the rest.

Nope, Dr. Paul is still the Dennis Kucinich of the Republican party. Looking forward to the UFO stories.

B. Didler|12.24.07 @ 4:44PM|#

As a Paul supporter, I wondered if the contentiousness of the interview meant a setback to the campaign or whether not much was gained or lost. Curiosity about what others are thinking led me to google, and to this "neutral" message board. (Many funny and insightful posts made me glad I landed here.) Russert was more contentious and prosecutorial than his usual - there was no let-up and low blows were in order. Why so?
1. An establishment junky like Russert doesn't want to believe that anybody as upsetting to his milieu as Ron Paul is can be right.
2. Last week I was reading on the Ron Paul websites that Meet the Press wasn't going to have Paul on. Letters to MTP were urged. Then within a short time Ron Paul was announced as the upcoming guest. An egomaniac like Tim Russert wouldn't like Ron Paul upstarts telling him who to put on the air, but if he wants to appear fair and put Dr. Paul on, he will feel no such compulsion towards fairness as he tries to best his nemesis in the interview.
3. Is it true Russert's son is for Paul? Egomaniac dads don't like to be dumber than their sons.

I thought Rep. Paul did very well with some answers while others might have gone in a different direction. If he did as poorly as Tim Russert had hoped, new donations would not have rolled in after the show. Even though Dr. Paul was his quick and affable self, the sheer contentiousness of the so-called interview might have been a drag. I think more people will see Ron Paul as having the superior personality as opposed to having the superior ideas, even though he has both. It will be the personality part that could propel him towards the presidency -- whether he can overcome the likes of Russert and the mainline media will soon be determined.
Anyway, good board - even the appearance of Dunderhead of the ADL was worth it for the laughs it inspired.

|12.24.07 @ 9:33PM|#

"2) What - they would even walk out of a black store when the goods are cheaper and money is tight? For years? That's not just strong; that's supernaturally powerful racism."

I'm happy you have not run into much racism. There are, and more importantly were, many racists who would do that. Racism doesn't seem to come in very moderate forms. I once knew a guy who would refuse to eat in any resteraunt that had Ms. Butterworth syrup because Ms. Butterworth is black... But don't take my word for it, go look at the footage of those white folks in Little Rock and Boston in the heady 1950's. The government did not require those folks to be out there threatening school children. One county (at least) closed their ENTIRE school system for years rather than integrate it. That's racism. It was ugly before that CRA, eh?

As to "let them move" I must say "thanks" because you admit that we have coercion here (the minority can stay and starve and not be served or move). So we can either coerce employers not to discriminate or allow minorities to be coerced out of town because of their skin color. I know which I think maximizes liberty...

"40% of the town are people who despise racists, a business owner would do very well employing and serving black people. Yeah, she'd have the hatred of the 60% of residents who were racists, but 40% market share and good profits, until other competitors realized this missed opportunity and jumped in to serve this segment of the community."
prolfeed, you're wrong. In many small towns in the 1960's and today there are a handful of businesses. Let's say you are the one mechanic in the town. He can 1. either service and employee blacks and lose 60% of the market or 2. refuse blacks service and lose 10% (the black population) at least and 40% (the "non-racist" population, but here you assume that the non-racist will boycott the racist mechanic, I bet most, especially when it is inconveinent, would not).

The fact that someone COULD open up a business that caters only to the 10% does not mean someone WOULD. It might just be the only four or five people with the capital and motivation to start a business in that area are also racists. Actually, that happened all the time pre-CRA et al.

There are still lots of places where only a handful of employers exist, and where the nearest other town, with its usual handful of employers (who very likely share the same value/norms of the town you're fleeing) is 30 minutes or more away.

Neu Mejican does my job for me with his post about the behavior/race distinction. What in the world makes you think the law does not allow to show someone acting like that the door of your establishment? Because you can. The laws do prohibit you from showing him the door because of the color of his skin (or his religion or nationality, and if it were up to me his sexual orientation).

|12.25.07 @ 12:16AM|#

However, that was just before the point where I stopped reading. Dr. Paul comes across as a total loon. Lumping every ally we have into the same lump as if we had "invaded" them? Blaming the USA for being attacked because some nutty bunch of Islamic "fundies" had their feeling hurt because the government of Saudi Arabia invited the USA to have a base there? And all the rest.

Guy, what would you feel if Germany, France and Great Britain had each a military base in the US as part of their "commitment" with NATO? The problem is that you are assuming the people of Saudi Arabia are represented by their government. The fact that such government "invited" the US to place a base in Muslim holy land does not mean ipso facto Muslims wanted a US base there. The same feeling permeates the Koreans, the Japanese... just because no radical movement has sprout in those countries people are more accepting of their country being occupied by foreign troops. Ron Paul is perfectly correct in his assessment. Besides, intentions are irrelevant: your own Constitution (that "quaint" document, remember?) does not give authorization to the federal government to place such troops. The framers of the Constitution advised against such projections of power. Where they loons??

Guy Montag|12.25.07 @ 1:30AM|#

Guy, what would you feel if Germany, France and Great Britain had each a military base in the US as part of their "commitment" with NATO?

All of those countries have troops here. After the Berlin Wall fell, the Germans had nuclear surveilance flights over the USA, from Dulles International Airport, because of an old treaty with the Soviets and it was supposed to be East Germans flying it.

After 9/11, British (and German? not sure on them) AWACS crews flew the skies of the USA under the NATO flag.

If we invited them to have proper bases here I would not have the slightest problem. Are you confusing me with one of those Burchites?

S3eems you have some projection issues, or something. Pointing out nations that invited us to base there and then accusing me of having a problem if we asked the same thing here. Just what is your problem with that?

|12.25.07 @ 1:43AM|#

"This is an inapt analogy.
There is nothing wrong with discriminating against an individual for how he behaves...it is discriminating because of who he is that matters.

So, the tattoos shouldn't be enough to get the guy kicked out, but behvaing like an "arsehole" should.

See the difference?"

Neu Mejican -- This wasn't intended as an analogy -- I was asking if you're OK with an actual black person excluding an actual white racist from their place of business. You said it was OK if the black person thought the white person was being an arsehole. Now, imagine that the business owner is a white person, and imagines that ANY black person who is not painfully cringing or subservient is an arsehole, or for that matter thinks all black people are arseholes regardless of how they behave. Still OK with letting the business owner exclude people they don't like? How do you reconcile your support of laws dictating that people serve others of a different skin, yet also support allowing business owners to boot customers out due to perceived or alleged attitudes? Do you see how those two laws are mutually exclusive?

Or do you only support allowing black business owners to exclude people they don't like, but not white business owners?

Sam Grove|12.25.07 @ 1:47AM|#

Guy, what would you feel if Germany, France and Great Britain had each a military base in the US as part of their "commitment" with NATO

That doesn't quite make the case. The question is : How do you think you and/or your fellow citizens would feel if you were a native of a country apparently occupied by the the greatest military power in the world. A power that may have overthrown you democratically elected government, or subsidizes your obviously corrupt leaders, helping them stay in power against the popular sentiment of the people. A power that does not offer the same repect for your rights that it must accord to its own citizens.

Walk a mile in someone else's shoes.

|12.25.07 @ 1:56AM|#

MNG and Neu Mejican -- Don't get me wrong, I would like everyone to be indifferent to race. What I am trying to point out to you is that the practical effect of your preferred policies is an ever-growing and more coercive set of laws forcing business owners to put up with more and more unacceptable behaviors from whatever special interest group happens to hold political power at the moment.

Guy Montag|12.25.07 @ 2:01AM|#

SG,

That doesn't quite make the case. The question is : How do you think you and/or your fellow citizens would feel if you were a native of a country apparently occupied by the the greatest military power in the world. A power that may have overthrown you democratically elected government, or subsidizes your obviously corrupt leaders, helping them stay in power against the popular sentiment of the people. A power that does not offer the same repect for your rights that it must accord to its own citizens.

Yea, that is so what we have been doing in England since 1941, Germany since their surrender, Norway, Greenland, Korea or Saudi Arabia until we left the latter and Bin Ladin began attacking them.

Dr. Paul sounds like he scores all of the above the same: occupation.

|12.25.07 @ 6:56AM|#

I think paul haven't quite realized that he's moving out of Fringe zone, its one thing to be principally for small government, getting rid of income tax and all that when he's running for the sake of principles, but now since he's making some headway to the "top-tier" he needs to have answers, for how he's going to manage without the money thats going to come in, he needs to have figures, and a realistic idea of what he's talking about i dont think "i'll replace it with nothing" quite cut it.

I think paul has a decent chance, still very much outside, but it wouldn't be snow on sahara if he does.

But really he needs to at least play the "transitional" policy card which he plays for social security.. instead of saying, im going to replace it with nothing. which he cant do obviously..

Eric Dondero|12.25.07 @ 8:35AM|#

Yes, Harry Browne is giving me the middle finger.

But Barry Goldwater is giving me a big thumb's up!

Fiscal conservatism, Social tolerance and Strong on Defense! That's the consistent libertarian position, and the original libertarian position, as well.

Eric Dondero|12.25.07 @ 8:39AM|#

The "establishment hates Ron Paul." Are you nuts!!

The love him. He bashes Bush and opposes the War in Iraq, all within the dreaded Republican Party primary. What could be better. He's the darling of the liberal media.

Doubt this? Ask yourself this question.

Why is it when Ron Paul first ran in 1996, as a standard Conservative Republican he was hammered by the Houston media, and absolutely brutalized by the Austin American-Statesman?

Now the Houston and Austin press write puff pieces on Paul, and how "committed his supporters are, blah, blah, blah..."

1996 - He's got Bush's backing, and the backing of the entire TX GOP establishment.

2007 - He's bashing Bush and criticizing the entire Republican Party, AND criticizing cherished Republican beliefs.

There's your answer.

Sam Grove|12.25.07 @ 3:17PM|#

Dr. Paul sounds like he scores all of the above the same: occupation.

Actually, he scores them all as EXPENSIVE and unconstitutional.

Other than that, we aren't talking about England, etc. that benefited greatly from U.S. entry into WWII. The problems are in the various colonies that used to be occupied by Britain, France, or Spain. IOW, how do people react to perpetual occupation?

So stop avoiding the point.

Sam Grove|12.25.07 @ 3:22PM|#

Dondero, we're onto your power lust. You just can't hide it and we just won't buy it.

You move to the big pond...if you think you can cut it.

|12.25.07 @ 6:16PM|#

Fiscal conservatism, Social tolerance and Strong on Defense! That's the consistent libertarian position, and the original libertarian position, as well.

No wonder people don't want to vote for libertarians.....

KYJurisDoctor|12.25.07 @ 8:15PM|#

Ron Paul's comments on slaves and the Civil Rights Act bother me!

http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/12/ron-paul-on-meet-press-all-you-ever.html#links

|12.25.07 @ 9:52PM|#

There is Understanding of a Greater Scope in the words of Ron Paul.

He does not just think of subjects from only one vantage but considers the unintended consequences.

There is much Wisdom in this Honest And Principled Man.

Do Not Be Easily Led. Views Untested Are Worthless.

I Vote For Virtue; I Vote For Ron Paul !!!

|12.25.07 @ 10:40PM|#

Eric Dondero, Re: Ron Paul

"1996 - He's got Bush's backing, and the backing of the entire TX GOP establishment."

I KNEW that didn't sound right so I looked it up. Bushco supported the Democrat convert against Paul, it seems to say.

REAGAN expressed support for Paul, the Chimp and Dad fought AGAINST Paul (as they have, at LEAST since 1988).

You are the very first person (in dozens of snark battles) that I've considered calling a LYING SACK.

Here's the NYT link if it's not too long, or else type DONDEROOO's quote at top of this post replacing "Ron Paul" for "He's".

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F03E5DE1039F93BA35757C0A960958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

|12.25.07 @ 10:54PM|#

Yep. Too long. Here's some relevant parts from the 1996 NYT article. "Laughlin" is Paul's opponent in a 3-way GOP race. The 3rd candidate is "Deats":

"So has the state's popular Governor, George W. Bush, who arranged his father's endorsement of Mr. Laughlin...

"On Thursday the Governor came to West Columbia,
Governor Bush is making radio advertisements for Mr. Laughlin, and the National Republican Congressional Committee is helping with mailings. But the party establishment's most hotly debated involvement came with the national committee's hiring of an Austin company, Innovative Marketing Solutions, which did "push polling" against Mr. Laughlin's opponents.

"Jim Shearer, who heads the company, said on Friday that he thought it made telephone calls to 30,000 to 35,000 households before the March 12 primary. If respondents said they favored Mr. Deats, they were told he had lost four elections and had a debt of $200,000, which Mr. Deats denies. If they were backers of Dr. Paul, they were told he favored legalizing drugs, pornography and prostitution...." etc.

Dondero, Dondero, Dondero...

Thank you for lying on Christmas Day.

Eric Dondero|12.26.07 @ 7:10AM|#

Hey, dumbshit, of course Bush supported Laughlin in the primary. Virtually every Republican did. Then as soon as it was over and Ron Paul had won, took them a couple days, but like the floodgates opened, they all came on board.

Trivia question: Guess who the very first Republican was to call Ron Paul up and offer congratulations and to campaign for him was?

Kay Baily Hutchison.

After Kay, came Tom DeLay, Dick Armey, Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove on behalf of Gov. Bush.

Eric Dondero|12.26.07 @ 7:13AM|#

Bryan, for years in the Freeport District office, when someone walked in, the very first thing they saw was a photo on the wall of Ron Paul meeting with George W. Bush in the White House.

Ask any Ron Paul staffer. They'll confirm this. Ron warmed up to Bush big time in the late 1990s. He'd even defend him on occasion. And he'd most certainly brag about his "two visits to the White House" to visit with Bush on policy matters at campaign events and GOP events in the District.

|12.26.07 @ 9:52AM|#

joe -- as usual, on the Civil Rights Act, you're focusing on what the intent was, and how people feel about it, rather than on the long-term effects of giving the government the power to meddle. Using your heart, not your head.

I'm sure you'd like to think so, but "put the asses in the chairs and workers in the jobs and the rest will work itself out" is not about intent or feelings, but about actual effects.

On the other hand, my opponents' arguments (laws don't change people's feeeeeeeee-lings) ARE about feelings and intent. As usual, you completely invert your logic and do yeoman's work misreading the arguments in order to get the result you want.

|12.26.07 @ 10:03AM|#

prolefeed,

Where you go wrong in your theorizing about how the economy functions under a segregated system is to ignore the fact that the oppressed minority is going to be economically subordinate and underprivileged. Losing that black business become even less important because the black people have much, much less money to spend, causing the market incentives on the businessowners to tip even further towards sustaining segregation.

Sam Grove|12.26.07 @ 12:36PM|#

On Dondero:

While declaring some affinity to libertarian sentiment, some of his statements indicate a sociopathology of the type found in power seekers, (many politicians, policemen).

His enthusiasm for the opportunity to go to other countries and kill under the auspices of 'police actions' is further indication of such a tendency. One wonders that he didn't re-enlist.

His support for the invasion of Iraq puts him in league with other so-called 'libertarian' war mongers who, in complete opposition to libertarian values, gives no thought to the necessity of taxing citizens to pay for such action nor any thought to the unavoidable killing of innocent civilians.

His demeanor also shows that he doesn't function at a high enough level to get along with others, even with his fellow sociopaths, which has left him out of the mainstream path to political power. Perhaps this may explain his seeking to attain power in the smaller pond of the libertarian movement.

Why then does he hang around here at Hit and Run?

Because that's the best he can do. He prefers to think he's besting those he considers as losers than to confront daily the realization that his aspiration exceeds his talent.

He can't even make it as a neocon. But he's trying.

|12.27.07 @ 11:40PM|#

I was very impressed with Paul's interview. The interview was harsh. Not that that is a bad thing but the other candidates are not treated entirely in the same.

If Paul is "off", then so was Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin. I'm afraid that's how far we've come. We all love our founding fathers unless a modern politician parrots their views for today. What men fear the most is liberty. For liberty requires individual responsibility.

George W Bush said that our nation has become addicted to fuel. I believe our nation has become addicted to government.

The Democratic Republican|12.28.07 @ 2:04AM|#

"WTF?" is the only poster who came even close to my own thoughts on little Timmy Russert who likes to write about his daddy.

The only thing left to discuss is who is more dickless and brainless: russert or dondero