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.
Ron Paul on Meet the Press: Liveblogging
Comments to "Ron Paul on Meet the Press: Liveblogging":
Nutter | December 23, 2007, 10:41am | #
Dondero dissed!Bill Cooke | December 23, 2007, 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.John C. Randolph | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 10:56am | #
Not exactly "liveblogging" here.SIV | December 23, 2007, 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.
Tom Walls | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 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?
joe | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 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.David E. Gallaher | December 23, 2007, 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?
edna | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 11:20am | #
the earmarks answer was just ugly...David E. Gallaher | December 23, 2007, 11:20am | #
joe,Put the CRA in the context of the creeping fascism RP did a very good job of pointing out.
joe | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 11:23am | #
Anyone but me laugh at the Boeing commercial after RP's appearance?joe | December 23, 2007, 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.
Mark D | December 23, 2007, 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.
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.
Jacob | December 23, 2007, 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!
joe | December 23, 2007, 11:33am | #
bryan,Timmeh didn't ask Paul any horserace questions because he doesn't consider him to be part of the horse race.
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 | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 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.marcus | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 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 killersMy 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.
joe | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 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 killersI 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 | December 23, 2007, 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.mk | December 23, 2007, 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.
joe | December 23, 2007, 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.
William R | December 23, 2007, 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
big jimmy | December 23, 2007, 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.
joe | December 23, 2007, 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.
David E. Gallaher | December 23, 2007, 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.
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.
edna | December 23, 2007, 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.
squarooticus | December 23, 2007, 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.joe | December 23, 2007, 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.
Rob D. | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 12:19pm | #
The whole interview is here. I just watched 2 of the 4 parts, and so far this has been going very well.David E. Gallaher | December 23, 2007, 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.Li | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 12:26pm | #
Glhr, I suppose you think that Jim Crow laws don't count as government help to racists?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.
joe | December 23, 2007, 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.
joe | December 23, 2007, 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.
joe | December 23, 2007, 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.
Pat | December 23, 2007, 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.
David E. Gallaher | December 23, 2007, 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.
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 | December 23, 2007, 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.
Gene Trosper | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 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.
joe | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 12:43pm | #
Hahahaha good job DonderoRob D. | December 23, 2007, 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
edna | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 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.
Question: I am new to much of this stuff, but what is Russert? Is he conservative, liberal, dem, republican, what?
WTF? | December 23, 2007, 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.
Li | December 23, 2007, 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.
max | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 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 slingerMr. Nice Guy | December 23, 2007, 12:58pm | #
ednaYou 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.
joe | December 23, 2007, 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."
LOL | December 23, 2007, 1:02pm | #
Mainstreamlibertarian.com doesnt have ron paul on their famous people that are libertarians listAli | December 23, 2007, 1:03pm | #
Eric,Ron Paul called you "disgruntled former employee". Why are you disgruntled?
David E. Gallaher | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 1:06pm | #
Shorter WTF:Your instantaneous reaction to the broadcast was often at odds with my own! FUCK YOU ASSHOLE.
LOL8707 | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 1:08pm | #
Finally, googling Ron Paul news returns much better stuff now than a week ago. Money (and freedom) talks baby!Tom Lundy | December 23, 2007, 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
John from Warren, MI | December 23, 2007, 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.
joe | December 23, 2007, 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.
max | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 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!
joe | December 23, 2007, 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?
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.
edna | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 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.
CharlesWT | December 23, 2007, 1:22pm | #
Video: Ron Paul on Meet the PressEdward | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 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.George | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 1:30pm | #
Being a black libertarian I had to spend some time thinking about and articulating my supportof 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 | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 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?
rg | December 23, 2007, 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
Tom Lundy | December 23, 2007, 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
max | December 23, 2007, 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.
Li | December 23, 2007, 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.
joe | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 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?
Pig Mannix | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 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.
Pig Mannix | December 23, 2007, 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 | 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?
Jerry | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 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?
max | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 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.
SteveMG | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 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.Tom Lundy | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 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 | December 23, 2007, 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.
Anti-israel how? sorry I thought that Dr. Paul was for preventing the government from sending tax dollars to any country, not just Israel.