Solidarity!

When I got to my first hotel in New Hampshire the front page of the complimentary Union Leaders hyped the Fox News debate purge of Ron Paul. Tonight, stopping by the Paul offices to get a flavor of the mounting GOTV effort, I saw a press release from New Hampshire GOP chairman Fergus Cullen that, when I checked my e-mail, had just been sent out:

“The first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary serves a national purpose by giving all candidates an equal opportunity on a level playing field. Only in New Hampshire do lesser known, lesser funded underdogs have a fighting chance to establish themselves as national figures. Consistent with that tradition, we believe all recognized major candidates should have an equal opportunity to participate in pre-primary debates and forums.

“This principle applies to tonight’s debates on ABC as well as Sunday’s planned forum on FOX. The New Hampshire Republican Party believes Congressmen Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter should be included in the FOX forum on Sunday evening. Our mutual efforts to resolve this difference have failed.”

“While we understand that FOX News continues to move forward it is with regret, the New Hampshire Republican Party hereby withdraws as a partner in this forum.”

The feeling among some (not all) Paul people is that the anti-Fox backlash has been better for them, in the long run, than 6 or 7 minutes of Paul talking on a thinly-viewed Sunday forum. More people might hear about the Paul exclusion in their newspapers than would have watched the thing. I'm not 100 percent sure: It can't be good when you're sharing nut grafs with Duncan Hunter.

Meanwhile, unless it's an outlier, this Rasmussen poll makes the exclusion look even siller. It clocks Paul at 14 percent for third place, primed to defeat Rudy Giuliani again. The average of all the tracking polls shows Paul closer to high single digits, but everyone's expecting a boost from angry, little-polled rural voters in the northern part of the state.

Comments

Jim Anderson | January 5, 2008, 11:56pm | #

Unty! Accrd! Consenss!

HA | January 6, 2008, 12:05am | #

SOLIDARITY!

dfw | January 6, 2008, 12:16am | #

Go Ron Paul.

Brian Courts | January 6, 2008, 12:18am | #

Ah so David Weigel is back. Any truth the the rumor joe was spreading about you in the previous thread regarding your sudden disappearance? :)

Ten bucks says a female libertarian began talking to Weigel at 9:46.

freemindsin08 | January 6, 2008, 12:21am | #

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.

Paul | January 6, 2008, 12:23am | #

Excellent. I hope Fox is really embarrassed by this.

Fox is a big government conservative organization that focuses on religious and military conservatives. They are only in favor of small government conservatism and freedom as an afterthought, if at all, and the exclusion of Paul proves it.

Luke | January 6, 2008, 12:30am | #

FAUX News' pro-Giuliani, anti-Ron Paul bias is obvious now that Paul has beaten Il Duce in the first actual poll that matters, and is poised to finish well ahead of him in New Hampshire.

I agree that FAUX's exclusion of Paul will be a bigger story than the actual pro-war circle-jerk. New Hampshire is a place known for its love of perceived mavericks and underdogs. This story will have lots of people who never would have watched the FAUX forum asking, "Why are they so scared of a mild-mannered doctor who talks about liberty and the Constitution?"

Heh heh... can they really believe this will HURT Ron?


Oh, almost forgot: DONDEROOOOOOOOOOO!

Pig Mannix | January 6, 2008, 1:00am | #

If Weigel is still posting at this hour, I guess it means he didn't get lucky with the libertarian chick, after all...

Pig Mannix | January 6, 2008, 1:09am | #

The average of all the tracking polls shows Paul closer to high single digits, but everyone's expecting a boost from angry, little-polled rural voters in the northern part of the state.

I've been hearing this business about unpolled constituencies providing an upset for outlier candidates since Howard Dean. I ain't seen it happen yet. Historically, those candidates have done worse in actual elections than they do in polls. Paul's performance in Iowa was an exception, and not really that big of an exception.

I'll believe in these "silent surges" when I actually see one materialize. Which hasn't happened yet.

bryanD | January 6, 2008, 1:16am | #

Like Rudolph saving Christmas in 1939,
Faux Nooze's Paul-phobia...

*Will go down in Histooooreeee!*

CAUTION: Don't tune in either, in case of pre-installed Nielson doo-hickey installed on TV set at behest of Rupert's Chinese wife via Hutchison Wampoa longshoremen-san!

"Lockdown: Holman" on MSNBC instead. Word!

mw | January 6, 2008, 1:19am | #

"Rasmussen poll ...clocks Paul at 14 percent for third place, primed to defeat Rudy Giuliani again. The average of all the tracking polls shows Paul closer to high single digits, but everyone's expecting a boost from angry, little-polled rural voters in the northern part of the state. - dw

Dave, Dave, Dave,
Lesson from Iowa (and life in general):

If expectations are managed low, and you exceed them, you win and are a big story.

If expectations are set high, and actual results fall short, you lose or are not a story,

Paul did great in Iowa, but fell short of expectations.

KJ | January 6, 2008, 1:24am | #

SOLIDARITY! DEMOCRACY!

Derrick | January 6, 2008, 1:26am | #

I'm so confused. How did we suddenly go from having the support of 0.0000000000117856% of the population, to national news coverage and throngs of teenage girls baring their breasts for Ron Paul while burning Federal Reserve Notes? I knew we'd have an actual political movement on our hands someday, but this is all a bit more sudden than I expected, and I don't quite know what to make of it.

mw | January 6, 2008, 1:29am | #

um Derrick... where are these pictures of the RP supporters, um... burning Fed Reserve notes?

Andy | January 6, 2008, 1:55am | #

Run, Ron, Run! Or Do Run, Ron, da do run run!

Edward | January 6, 2008, 2:03am | #

Technicolor dreams:

It [some poll] clocks Paul at 14 percent for third place

Reality:

RON PAUL WILL COME FIFTH!

Joe S. | January 6, 2008, 2:15am | #

The Ron Paul commercials haven't been very good. I'm not saying I want my $20 million back, but I expected better from the 'official' campaign.

Nonetheless, I sense a disturbance in the Force . . . .

imp | January 6, 2008, 2:19am | #

Edward, your gloating indicates that for you this is a personal vendetta rather than a discussion of the issues. It saddens me that your upbringing taught you to view the world in terms of Us vs. Them. Libertarianism is about respecting everyone's rights, and it will be unfortunate if the most libertarian candidate doesn't do as well as hoped.

miche | January 6, 2008, 2:20am | #

Weigel,
Any news confirming a Paul campaign purchase of an hour of TV time tomorrow night?

Jacob | January 6, 2008, 3:05am | #

Dave,

You should stop by the main beach house tonight. I'm sure half the people are Reason readers and would love to see you.

prolefeed | January 6, 2008, 6:04am | #

From the link to Miche's website ladyliberty.com :

Congressman Kucinich has rightly filed a complaint with the FCC against the network

Umm, "rightly"? How libertarian is it to say that one should use the power of an unconstitutional federal agency to try to force a private company to change their private criteria to force them to include a candidate in a private "debate" (that will not feature any actual, you know, DEBATING)?

ladylibertywhenitsinourfavor.com?

Eric Dondero | January 6, 2008, 7:45am | #

I wonder if the Reason-oids will be as anxious to defend Duncan Hunter's exclusion from the debates as they will be for Ron Paul?

Wyoming - yesterday, Duncan Hunter won a Delegate. Ron Paul got zero.

Eric Dondero | January 6, 2008, 7:49am | #

Yes-sirree, Fox is "big government" alright. So much so, that Rodney Balko, who is a former Contributing Editor for Reason Magazine is on the Fox Website with his columns at least once a week.

And other "big government" types like Dennis Miller, Judge Napolitano and Nick Gillespie appear regularly on Fox, even on top-rated O'Reilly.

tarran | January 6, 2008, 8:14am | #

Oh god, just when I think the moron can't say anything more stupid he comes out with this gem. Rodney Balko, former contributing editor?

That explains how Radley got his job. Must be nepotism.

ROFL

M | January 6, 2008, 8:26am | #

Socrates "lost" too. So did Jesus. As a result, of course, the ideas of neither have had any historical influence.

Vlad Drac | January 6, 2008, 8:38am | #

Yes-sirree, Fox is "big government" alright. So much so, that Rodney Balko, who is a former Contributing Editor for Reason Magazine is on the Fox Website with his columns at least once a week.

And other "big government" types like Dennis Miller, Judge Napolitano and Nick Gillespie appear regularly on Fox, even on top-rated O'Reilly.

Balko, Napolitano: Tokens.

Miller: Yet another Bill Maher "libertarian".

Gillespie: Not as cool as Fonzie.

Fox is like Apple. They're just as much control freaks as the bigger gangs. But they're also experts at spinning their image to make themselves look like hip free thinkers who are being put down by the man.

And tools like you swallow it whole.

Peter K. | January 6, 2008, 9:10am | #

The tracking poll in question was Friday night, almost a whole day before Ron Paul's abysmal debate performance.

I had hoped Fox would relent after a good performance on ABC triggers better poll numbers, but it appears not to be.

Tom | January 6, 2008, 9:59am | #

The tracking poll in question was Friday night, almost a whole day before Ron Paul's abysmal debate performance.

Is this the conventional wisdom? I scanned the 300-comment-plus debate thread, but couldn't really get a sense of it there. Why was the performance abysmal? I haven't seen it.

joe | January 6, 2008, 10:30am | #

This isn't about solidarity, but independence. New Hampshire Republicans don't like to be pushed around, and they don't like anyone telling them who the candidates are.

The New Hampshire GOP is not going to march lockstep with the national party and its media organ, Fox, to the detriment of their own power to determine who the candidates are, and who their voters will be allowed to consider.

Eric Dondero | January 6, 2008, 10:31am | #

Again, my question to the assembled Reason-oids here, Will you defend Duncan Hunter's right to be in the Fox Debate as strongly as you are defending Ron Paul?

We are talking about a 20-year United States Congressman who represents the 8th largest city in the United States: San Diego, California.

He has a son fighting in Iraq right now.

Duncan Hunter earned a delegate in yeterday's Wyoming Caucuses, Ron Paul got zero.

Hunter won the Texas Straw Poll at the GOP Convention last August. Ron Paul is a homeboy Texas Congressman and only placed 3rd in that poll.

If Ron Paul deserves to be included in the Fox debates, certainly Duncan Hunter does, as well.

James | January 6, 2008, 10:33am | #

FoxNews is like Pravda minus intelligent people. Of course they excluded Paul from the debate, they hate anybody who will challenge the U.S. militaristic policy.

x,y | January 6, 2008, 10:37am | #

Again, my question to the assembled Reason-oids here, Will you defend Duncan Hunter's right to be in the Fox Debate as strongly as you are defending Ron Paul?

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "right" (aside: evidently you don't know what that word means), but yes, I would like FOX to include Paul and Hunter.

severin | January 6, 2008, 10:39am | #

But but don't you understand Fox just doesn't have space for Ron Paul to sit in the studio.

Lamest excuse ever!

severin | January 6, 2008, 10:44am | #

Again, my question to the assembled Reason-oids here, Will you defend Duncan Hunter's right to be in the Fox Debate as strongly as you are defending Ron Paul?

No. First of all it is not a right, and really they can chose to have whomever they want in their debates. However, we have a duty to our candidate to encourage Fox to include him. Duncan Hunter is not a candidate most Reason readers would support. His fans can encourage Fox to let him participate if they want.

Dondero's Dingleberry | January 6, 2008, 10:53am | #

No, Hunter should absolutely not be included in the debate. Reason-oids are only interested in Ron Paul and we are only capable of seeing things from our point of view.

Go comb your sweet mustache.

Seer | January 6, 2008, 11:07am | #

What does Hunter poll in New Hampshire?

miche | January 6, 2008, 11:12am | #

Prolefeed,
Private companies should do as they wish and their internal benchmarks wouldn't be a problem if we were playing in a truly free market. When you limit contributions for most of the country and then allow one of the very few news networks give what is essentially a massive donation to candidates of their choosing, you limit public discourse.

Kucinich rightly used the system as it's set up to file a complaint.

(My head is still swimming in last night's scotch and I'm packing for a trip- I'll try to be back on before my flight if you want to have this conversation.)

Ali | January 6, 2008, 11:13am | #

A great new Rudy Ad. Enjoy Eric.

Ali | January 6, 2008, 11:14am | #

In case you were curious about my last comment. Here.

Ali | January 6, 2008, 11:15am | #

Miche-

Kucinich rightly used the system as it's set up to file a complaint.

Yep.

(P.S. Thanks for the message ;-) )

James | January 6, 2008, 11:29am | #

Rudy for fearmongerer-in-Chief!

R. F. Randall | January 6, 2008, 11:35am | #

Wake up, Libertarians, if Ron Paul is all that you got you might as well fold your magazine and turn out the lights. He's a nerd and he comes across as a little nerd. The other Republicans were smiling every time he talked, knowning he wasn't persuading anybody with his incomprehensible quacking about the Federal Reserve. He doesn't have the persona or the communication skills to present the libertarian message. He's a nerdy little guy who unintentionally injects humor, but little light, into what is supposed to be a serious forum on the issues facing American voters.

Haha | January 6, 2008, 11:39am | #

Yes, Quartermaster Robert Randall, candidate Ron Paul is a nerd. So are a lot of people here. Thing is, most of us are young. You're old. We're younger than you are, and we'll always have that on you. For these last few years that you're actually around, at least.

Ali | January 6, 2008, 11:43am | #

Wake up, Libertarians, if Ron Paul is all that you got you might as well fold your magazine and turn out the lights. He's a nerd and he comes across as a little nerd. The other Republicans were smiling every time he talked, knowning he wasn't persuading anybody with his incomprehensible quacking about the Federal Reserve. He doesn't have the persona or the communication skills to present the libertarian message. He's a nerdy little guy who unintentionally injects humor, but little light, into what is supposed to be a serious forum on the issues facing American voters.

LOL!

ColbyCo | January 6, 2008, 11:44am | #

RF Randall, ever wondered why you find Ron Paul's views on the Fed incomprehensible? Try reading something sometime. Or maybe you just like your politics put through a blender so you can suck it up through a straw.

joe | January 6, 2008, 11:47am | #

Randall, I am a liberal Democrat who wouldn't vote for the, ahem, racial traditionalist Ron Paul if you put a gun to my head, and might not even vote for him if you replaced the gun with Hillary Clinton.

Nonetheless, Ron Paul has done more to advance libertarianism's appeal and familiarity among the American public than any other person in my lifetime. And that will remain true even if he doesn't win a single delegate.

Ali | January 6, 2008, 11:50am | #

RF Randall-

Ron Paul talks to those who read or are interested in actually learning anything about the economy, for relations, etc.

Now, since you do not belong to that group, here is what may work for you ( and your simple minded friends):

Rom Paul is a veteran.
Ron Paul is a Doctor.
He has delivered 4,000 babies.
He has been married to the same woman over 50 years.
High School Sweetheart.
Lots of kids and grandkids.

Convinced?

Ali | January 6, 2008, 11:51am | #

"for relations"--> "foreign relations"

Mr. X | January 6, 2008, 11:54am | #

Paul did great in Iowa, but fell short of expectations.

O RLY?

Pre-caucus polling had him at 7%, he won 10% of the votes in the caucus. How does this fall short?

You know who fell short of expectations? Another candidate who was polling 7% prior to the caucus, but only eked out a 3% sixth-place finish. I think he's the guy that Dondero fellow likes to talk about so much...

Tom | January 6, 2008, 11:57am | #

Of course he's not convinced. R.F. Randall wants CHARISMA! And big glossy SMILES! And COMMUNICATION SKILLS!

R.F. Randall wants a politician, not ideas. He wants A Real Leader™, because conceiving of America as a place where citizens need to be "led" is completely intuitive to him.

For R.F. Randall, like so many of his fellow countrymen, politics is a lively daily soap opera, a world of personalities and drama and plot twists -- rather than merely a cumbersome exercise that must be endured for the task of keeping individual liberty intact.

Edward | January 6, 2008, 12:06pm | #

Joe

I think you overestimate Ron Paul's contribution to spreading the libertarian message. He's anti-gay, anti-immigrant, and anti-abortion. He doesn't believe in evolution and thinks the Founding Fathers envisioned a "robust Christian nation." He casts himself as strict constitutionalist but has written such outrageous drivel about the Constitution--it's replete with references to God, for example--that you have to wonder whether he has ever read it. His campaign hasn't produced a single high-quality ad with all that money, and he comes across as a toothless crank. He languishes in all the polls and couldn't even win a delegate in Wyoming. So how is he advancing libertarianism again?

Warty | January 6, 2008, 12:11pm | #

Nut grafts? Ow.

Ali | January 6, 2008, 12:13pm | #

Tom- Excellent!

joe | January 6, 2008, 12:19pm | #

Edward,

He's anti-gay, anti-immigrant, and anti-abortion...He casts himself as strict constitutionalist but has written such outrageous drivel about the Constitution--it's replete with references to God, for example

You mean, he's a Republican?

Every single candidate on the stage fits those criteria (except Rudy), so none of that matters. What defines Paul, and the political philosophy he espouses, is where he differs from the rest of the crowd - the war, foreign policy in general, small government, etc.

And while he's not winning the primary campaign, he is doing far better than any libertarian has ever done, speaking to more people, gaining more support, and making it clear that, in a year when conservatives are unhappy with all of their realistic choices, there is another path.

joe | January 6, 2008, 12:22pm | #

Also, Edward, while he is not in the top tier, he is not down in joke/sideshow candidacy territory like Lyndon LaRouche or Morrey Taylor.

Just elevating right-libertarianism to the status of a "real candidate" has been a considerable accomplishment. The frontrunners can smirk all they want, they hear those cheers and boos from the audience and meet the normal, reliable Republican voters saying they are considering Ron Paul along with other candidates.

ColbyCo | January 6, 2008, 12:39pm | #

And Fred Thompson only made himself look like an idiot last night when he made his Huh? remark after Ron Paul spoke about the link between monetary policy and medical costs.

Peter K. | January 6, 2008, 12:45pm | #

Ron Paul's shortcomings as a communicator of libertarian thought were on full display last night.

But I will vote for him anyway.

I just wish Harry Browne had attracted this level of contributions and media attention.

Edward | January 6, 2008, 12:46pm | #

Joe,

You mean all the Republican candidates have lied about the Constitution? Do you have sources?

joe | January 6, 2008, 12:53pm | #

I suppose I could look up a bunch of quotes from the Republican contenders proclaiming their fealty to the Constitution and their belief that it was intended to establish a Christian government for Edward, but I'm not going to bother.

I'll just refer you to Mitt Romney's speech from last week, and give you a big Thhhpppptttt!!!! for playing dumb. That's always the last refuge of the pwned.

Edward | January 6, 2008, 1:11pm | #

Joe,

I think of libertarianism--the appealing parts--as pro-immigrant, leaving gays alone, and being rationalist and secular. Ron Paul fails on all those accounts, so for me he's not a very good representative of libertarianism. He has probably drawn as much support from very unlibertarian groups and individuals as from actual libertarians (mostly of the true-believer variety you encounter here). I think he just confuses people.

Stormy Dragon | January 6, 2008, 1:17pm | #

>He has a son fighting in Iraq right now.

What does this have to do with whether he should be included in the debates?

Graphite | January 6, 2008, 1:32pm | #

Randall, I am a liberal Democrat who wouldn't vote for the, ahem, racial traditionalist Ron Paul if you put a gun to my head ...

As a liberal Democrat, isn't it rather important to your worldview that people do exactly what they're told when you put guns to their heads? I call hypocrisy! :)

x,y | January 6, 2008, 1:33pm | #

I think of libertarianism--the appealing parts--as pro-immigrant, leaving gays alone, and being rationalist and secular.

Edward, do you mean the government's position on these issues?

ColbyCo | January 6, 2008, 1:33pm | #

Edward

Ron Paul has said that in a free market America there would be more immigrants than present and it wouldn't even be an issue. He said that immigrants have become the whipping boy of politics because of the consequences of economic intervention. His rationalist outlook is evident from every word he speaks on the economy. As far as secularism, he's even spoken about how uncomfortable he feels when people try to make an issue out of Romney's faith.

x,y | January 6, 2008, 1:39pm | #

>He has a son fighting in Iraq right now.

What does this have to do with whether he should be included in the debates?

I read it as a joke. Rationally, it has nothing to do with whether he should be included. But Fox and an overwhelming majority of voters care more about how a candidate speaks, looks, and presents his life story than on the issues.

crimethink | January 6, 2008, 2:48pm | #

I know several young straight people who wish straight marriage was illegal, just so they could get their parents off their backs about it.

Sam Grove | January 6, 2008, 3:54pm | #

as pro-immigrant, leaving gays alone, and being rationalist and secular

Ron Paul specifically opposes illegal immigration and wants to reduce the burden of government thus improving the economy and alleviating populist fears of legal immigrants. As we know, most anti-immigrant fervor is racist in nature and if there is one thing Ron Paul is not, he's not racist. See his Moyers interviews.

He would leave gays alone, he just opposes group rights, has spoken against government regulation of marriage, and, IAC, marriage is not a federal issue.

Ron Paul's endorsement of the constitution would effect a secular government.

Sam Grove | January 6, 2008, 3:55pm | #

Rationalist: compare him to the others regarding foreign policy and economics.

joe | January 6, 2008, 4:24pm | #

Edward,

I think of libertarianism--the appealing parts--as pro-immigrant, leaving gays alone, and being rationalist and secular.

You get all of that from the liberals and Democrats. The unique contributions libertarianism makes, or could potentially make, to our political discourse are isolatinism/non-interventionism in foreign policy, fiscal conservatism, and anti-prohibitionism. Paul does just fine with those.

joe | January 6, 2008, 4:27pm | #

I thought it was interesting how Paul brought up "the economics of immigration" - ie, the Milton Friedman argument about welfare - and Mitt Romney immediately leapt up to assure the viewers that "everyone on this stage" just absolutely cherishes legal immigration.

He had that nervous look conservatives get when they can't tell if they've said something racist.

Edward | January 6, 2008, 5:31pm | #

Ron Paul on immigration in his own words instead of ColbyCo's

Birthright citizenship similarly rewards lawbreaking, and must be stopped. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the perverse incentive to sneak into this country remains strong. Citizenship involves more than the mere location of one’s birth. True citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States. Americans are happy to welcome those who wish to come here and build a better life for themselves, but we rightfully expect immigrants to show loyalty and attempt to assimilate themselves culturally. Birthright citizenship sometimes confers the benefits of being American on people who do not truly embrace America.

We need to allocate far more resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase. Ron Paul "The Immigration Question"

kwais | January 6, 2008, 5:35pm | #

Joe et al,
Really, you think you are debating Edward?

Edward | January 6, 2008, 5:36pm | #

"The unique contributions libertarianism makes, or could potentially make, to our political discourse are isolatinism/non-interventionism in foreign policy, fiscal conservatism, and anti-prohibitionism." --Joe

Isolationism and fiscal conservatism are hardly uniquely libertarian positions. Lots of nativists and Christian identity types embrace isolationism. Fiscal conservatives run the gamut of right-wing parties. Ron Paul's distinctly unlibertarian positions stand out, or would if anybody started pointing them out.

Edward | January 6, 2008, 5:41pm | #

Sam

Ron Paul voted to ban gay abortions in DC.

Edward | January 6, 2008, 5:43pm | #

Sam

Foreign policy and economics are always debatable. Evolution vs creationism isn't. Ron Paul is a creationist. Pretty rational, huh?

Vermont Gun Owner | January 6, 2008, 5:57pm | #

Sam

Ron Paul voted to ban gay abortions in DC.

WRONG! Paul voted to ban federal funding for gay adoptions (gay abortions would not need a ban anyway) in DC. That is the correct libertarian position.

Ron (not Paul) | January 6, 2008, 6:01pm | #

Noticed a couple misconceptions in some of the comments. Since I'm not a regular here, forgive me if I'm feeding the trolls.

Disclaimer: Not a Ron Paul supporter.

If you send an email to the campaign asking for Paul's official stance on evolution, this is the response you get...

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Re: Didn't see his hand
Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 16:15:06 -0400
From: Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee
To: Ron Shank

Ron,

Ron Paul did not raise his hand during that question, it was Tancredo, Huckabee & Brownback who raised their hands. Dr. Paul is physician and believes in evolution.

Go ahead and send your own email if you don't believe me. Related.

Likewise, every time Paul has been asked about a border fence or wall, he has clearly stated that he does not support a fence or wall and then goes on to explain why he voted for the piece of legislation that contained a provision for a fence.

Moderator: Is it even practical to try to send 12 million illegal immigrants all home?

Paul: I would not sign a bill like [comprehensive immigration reform], because it would be amnesty. I also think that it's pretty impractical to get an army in this country to round up 12 or maybe 20 million. But I do believe that we have to stick to our guns on obeying the law, and anybody who comes in here illegally shouldn't be rewarded. And that would be the case.

I see the immigration problem as a consequence of our welfare state. We encourage people not to work here, but the welfare we offer the people who come--they get free medical care. They get free education. They bankrupt our hospitals. Our hospitals are closing. And it shouldn't be rewarded. That means you don't give them citizenship. You can't solve this problem until you get rid of the welfare state, because in a healthy economy, immigrants wouldn't be a threat to us.

Moderator: You voted to support that 700-mile fence along the border with Mexico. Is there a need for a similar fence along the border with Canada?

Paul: No. The fence was my weakest reason for voting for that, but enforcing the law was important, and border security is important. And we've talked about amnesty, which I'm positively opposed to.

If you subsidize something, you get more of it. We subsidize illegal immigration, we reward it by easy citizenship, either birthright or amnesty. But we force our states and our local communities to pay for the health care and pay for the education. Why wouldn't they bring their families? And because of our economic conditions, we do need workers. But if we had a truly free market economy, the illegal immigrants would not be the scapegoat. We would probably need them and they would be acceptable.

Lastly, if you base your opinion of candidates on the misleading bullet points from ontheissues.org, please don't vote.

Sam Grove | January 6, 2008, 6:38pm | #

Stossel: You want a 700-mile fence between our border and Mexico?

Ron Paul: Not really. There was an immigration bill that had a fence (requirement) in it, but it was to attack amnesty. I don't like amnesty. So I voted for that bill, but I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive.

Nick Bradley, (lewrockwell.com blogger): It was the last word, offensive, that has caused conservatives to claim that he is "soft" on the issue of illegal immigration. But had they bothered to read the next sentence in the conversation, they would have realized that Paul was more concerned with attacking the primary cause of illegal immigration: the welfare state.

Stossel: What should we do?

Paul: Get rid of the subsidies. (If) you subsidize illegal immigration, you get more of it.

Stossel: Get rid of welfare?

Paul: All the welfare benefits.

Stossel: Including government-paid health care?

Paul: Absolutely.

Stossel: So what should a hospital do if an illegal immigrant shows up for treatment?

Paul: Be charitable, but have no mandates by the federal government. Catholics want to help a lot of these people. I'm not for (punishing anyone who wants to help voluntarily). But we wouldn't have so many (illegals) if they didn't know they were going to get amnesty. If you promise them amnesty -- medical care, free education, automatic citizenship, food stamps, and Social Security -- you're going to get more (illegal immigration). I think we could be much more generous with our immigration. (But) we don't need to reward people who get in front of the line.

Edward | January 6, 2008, 6:54pm | #

On evolution, Ron Paul talks out of both sides of his mouth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw

Edward | January 6, 2008, 6:57pm | #

Right, Ron Paul wants to make America so unattractive, no one will want to come here. Good plan.

Ron (not Paul) | January 6, 2008, 7:02pm | #

Edward, I've already linked to that video in the post above. However, I provided the link to an unedited version of the clip. Were you trying to save everyone the extra 25 seconds or unaware of it's existence?

joe | January 6, 2008, 7:55pm | #

Edward,

Isolationism and fiscal conservatism are hardly uniquely libertarian positions.

In 2007, with George Bush and Dick Cheney in the White House, and John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudi Guiliani, and Mike Huckabee as the leading Republican candidates, those are uniquely libertarian positions.

Edward | January 6, 2008, 8:25pm | #

Ron (not Paul)

In the unedited clip, he just doesn't believe evolution is a deciding issue. So what? With science in our schools under attack by creationists, I think it's important that we have a president who undertsands science, whether he thinks it's important or not. Ron Paul is a fundamentalist who plays his fundamentalism down. Honesty counts too.

Edward | January 6, 2008, 8:27pm | #

Joe,

The Republican leadership notwithstanding, there are plenty of Republican fiscal conservatives and isolationists who wouldn't know libertarianism from a ham sandwich. Many of them support Ron Paul.

Guy Montag | January 6, 2008, 8:30pm | #

Sorry if this was suggested before, but I was thinking about it on the way home from watching football.

How about Dr. Paul, when excluded from a debate, go online and answer the questions the debaters get at the same time that they are answering?

Something like a live alternative debate, where people who would rather listen to the good Doctor give nice, long, detailed answers to the questions posed to his opponents.

Edward | January 6, 2008, 8:45pm | #

Guy,

Since on key issues Ron Paul tows the party line, how about giving Ron Paul answers and have him furnish the questions? That would really be neat.

A. Freedom
Ron Paul: What can only the market ensure?

A. A puppy dog
Ron Paul: What can free-market competition provide the best veterinarian care for?

A. Evil
Ron Paul: What is the Israel lobby?

A. Nazi money
Ron Paul: What's green and buys advertizing?

joe | January 6, 2008, 9:01pm | #

Edward,

The Republican leadership notwithstanding, there are plenty of Republican fiscal conservatives and isolationists who wouldn't know libertarianism from a ham sandwich.

Exactly. You make my point for me.

There are people who consider themselves conservatives who are deeply at odds with the conservative movement as it currently exists, and Ron Paul is showing them a different way.

Edward | January 6, 2008, 9:10pm | #

But, Joe, that doesn't mean he's turning them into libertarians. Some will love his isolationism but would no more agree to legalize drugs than to dine on dog shit sandwiches. Conspiracy nuts are drawn to him not because of his arcane monetary views, but because they think government is spying on us through the eye on the dollar bill. In other words, he's not marshalling people for libertarianism; he's appealing to kooks and loonies from from across the kook-loony spectrum. Alas, for him, there just aren't that many of them.

Edward | January 6, 2008, 9:15pm | #

Toes--toes the party line

beetlejuice | January 6, 2008, 9:39pm | #

joe, Edward,

Isolationism and non-interventionism are not the same thing. Isolationism means being totally cut off from the outside world (like Japan before a certain naval armada forced it to open up). Non-interventionism simply means not interfering in other nations internal affairs. You can still interact with them in other ways (trade, cultural exchanges, etc.)

Ron Paul is definitely not an isolationist.

beetlejuice | January 6, 2008, 9:49pm | #

As far as kooks supporting Ron Paul, I think it is more a function of the other candidates having absolutely no appeal to them, not anything Paul has done specifically to attract them.

joe | January 6, 2008, 9:58pm | #

beetlejuice,

When I saw the ad with Ron Paul proposing that we cease granting visas to "students from terrorist nations," I saw that as crossing the line from non-intervention into isolationism.

Edward, you've just devolved into insulting Ron Paul voters. Too bad, for a while there, you were expressing thoughts and everything, just like a real boy.

Edward | January 6, 2008, 10:05pm | #

I don't know, bettlejuice. He delivered a eulogy at Aaron Russo's funeral. Russo (RIP) was the king of kooks.

Lots of Ron Paul supporters probably aren't sophisticated enough to distinuish between isolationism and non-interventionism. They also have his anti-immigrant writing to draw on: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html

Nativist anti-immigrant sentiment is a kissing cousin of isolationism. It also explains his appeal to Nazis, although he clealry isn't one.

beetlejuice | January 6, 2008, 10:06pm | #

joe,

Issuing visas is just one aspect of one nation dealing with another. Plus, he said "terrorist nations", not "all nations".

As far as Edward goes, I agree. I was shocked that he was actually capable of a decent argument. Then he had to go and spoil it.

Edward | January 6, 2008, 10:08pm | #

joe,

If you find Ron Paul as creepy as I do, it's hard not to insult his supporters. I'll try.

Your "nice boy" remark is insulting, by the way.

beetlejuice | January 6, 2008, 10:12pm | #

Whoa, Paul is against illegal immigration, not immigration in general. I'm glad youv'e calmed down a bit. To be honest, I wasn't expecting a serious reply. And I do appreciate the concession that Paul is not a Nazi.

Edward | January 6, 2008, 10:15pm | #

beetlejuice,

If you're in a position of appreciating a concession that your candidate isn't a Nazi, you candidate is in deep trouble. Ron Paul will come in fifth in NH.

beetlejuice | January 6, 2008, 10:16pm | #

Edward,
Just what is it that you find creepy about him? I'll admit that it is highly unusual to have a candidate on the scene that is not about the same old crap as the others. People seem to be quite shocked, in some cases.

beetlejuice | January 6, 2008, 10:20pm | #

Edward, I simply like not having my (or any other candidate), smeared with false allegations. I, and a lot of other people, are tired of politics as usual, which this sort of thing is representative of.

beetlejuice | January 6, 2008, 10:23pm | #

P.S.

I think that Paul will do better than you expect. NH'ers are independent minded, and don't appreciate being told who the "proper" candidates are, by such as Faux News, or anybody else.

joe | January 6, 2008, 10:23pm | #

beetlejuice,

Issuing visas is just one aspect of one nation dealing with another. Some politicians use it that way, yes. In Ron Paul's case, he is proposing to use visas - or rather, the lack of visas, or to put it another way, sending federal law enforcement to arrest and deport people - to cut off the exchange of persons and ideas that occurs when foreign students come here to study. That is isolationism.

Plus, he said "terrorist nations", not "all nations". Yes, he did, and his implication that "nations" rather than "individuals" are terrorist, and that we should therefore punish individuals from those nations with imprisonment and deportation if they attempt to come here and study, even if they are completely innocent of any terrorist ties, seemed designed to appeal to those who wish to isolate us from "them people."

Edward | January 6, 2008, 10:26pm | #

Creepy about Ron Paul?

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.—Ron Paul “The War on religion”

Birthright citizenship similarly rewards lawbreaking, and must be stopped. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the perverse incentive to sneak into this country remains strong. Citizenship involves more than the mere location of one’s birth. True citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States. Americans are happy to welcome those who wish to come here and build a better life for themselves, but we rightfully expect immigrants to show loyalty and attempt to assimilate themselves culturally. Birthright citizenship sometimes confers the benefits of being American on people who do not truly embrace America.--Ron Paul "The immigration Question"

Ron Paul on Evolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw

His asociation with 9/11 truthers is suspect. I see him as basically a right-wing nativist fanatic with some libertarian economic views

beetlejuice | January 6, 2008, 10:34pm | #

Edward, thank you.

I believe the first issue "both replete with references to God", was a simple rhetorical misstep. And yes, I do admit to being conflicted about the whole statement. But no one ever agrees with their candidate 100%.

As far as the second statement goes, I am in complete agreement. The solution: ending the welfare state, coupled with restoring the right to free association amongst private individuals. An immigrant would have to assimilate in order to survive here.

Sounds creepy, huh?

beetlejuice | January 6, 2008, 10:46pm | #

joe,

Maybe it does appear to be "designed" that way, but when dealing with a state that is sponsoring terrorism, we should be very very careful about who we let in from such a nation.
Regrettably, that does impact those who might wish to come here to just study. They might do well to change their own nations support of terrorism. I'm all for interacting with other nations, but not when the risks don't justify it.

Besides, you can't imprison and deport someone who wasn't allowed into the nation to start with.

And yes, I do see how such a policy might appeal to a few folks on the fringes. But that doesn't make the policy a bad one. Guilt by association.

Edward | January 6, 2008, 11:07pm | #

beetlejuice

If you apply the principle of free association, Hispanics can band together and communicate in Spanish. This already happens in Florida and California. Smart business people accomadate them by providing services in Spanish. Only the government can enforce assimilation. What kind of a libertarian are you?

rho | January 6, 2008, 11:31pm | #

Edward's mom likes it when you poop on her back.

No shit, I thought she was just kidding, but she wanted me to lay a fat steamer down her spine.

Go figure.

Edward wants to drink Ron Paul's sperm. Look at him! He's obsessed. Glug, glug, glug, yummy in the tummy.

kwais | January 7, 2008, 7:38am | #

""A. Nazi money
Ron Paul: What's green and buys advertizing?

That was actually pretty funny Edward

joe | January 7, 2008, 9:38am | #

beetlejuice,

It is you, and Ron Pau, who are engaging in guilt by association when you take the reasonable statement we should be very very careful about who we let in from such a nation. and extend it to no visas for students from terrorist nations. Can't you see that?

And don't even try that dodge about "you can't imprison them if they aren't allowed to come in." "Not allowed to come in" means their behavior is being modified by the threat of arrest and imprisonment.

Edward | January 7, 2008, 12:21pm | #

Thanks, kwais. I am of the Hit and Miss school of humor. I have a lot of misses per hit.

beetlejuice | January 7, 2008, 9:46pm | #

Why am I getting a blank screen when I try to make a post sometimes? These tend to be somewhat lengthy ones, but I have seen much larger posts on here. Let's see if this post makes it on.

beetlejuice | January 7, 2008, 9:50pm | #

Edward,

I am a Libertarian who does NOT want the government to enforce assimilation, through the violation of the right of association (which inherently includes the opposite). It can be handled quite nicely in a private fashion. Besides, some cultures may have features we would do well to emulate. Just don't shove someone elses' culture down my throat, a la multiculturalism.

Joe, I wasn't dodging at all.I was pointing out how illogical your statement was :-) You said "punish individuals from those nations with imprisonment and deportation if they attempt to come here and study". Do you see the word "attempt" in there? If they have not succeeded in their attempt to travel to our shores, how can they possibly be deported? Back to their home when they are there already?
I don't think Ron Paul said any such thing.

Also, read what poster George Dance said here:

"I see nothing wrong with the concept of a “terrorist nation”, as a sanction that could be used against a country whose nationals commit acts of aggression against the U.S. to be lifted when the terrorists are delivered up for justice. For instance, after 9/11 a Paul administration could (if authorized by Congress)have designated both Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia as terrorist nations, those sanctions to stay in place until UBL and/or the rest of Al Qaeda were turned over to American justice."

I found his statement at http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2634
Sorry, haven't learned how to use tags yet (don't want to break the intertubes:-)

Let the citizens of the "terrorist nations" take care of their terrorists, and we'll consider letting some in on visas. And still be very, very careful about it.

And I think he means nations either sponsoring or tolerating terrorism, not that each and every citizen of such a nation is a terrorist.
I do wish he would clarify that though, since it can so easily be misinterpreted.

beetlejuice | January 7, 2008, 9:51pm | #

Ahh, finally got it to post. Thank God I could go back and cut-n-paste.

beetlejuice | January 7, 2008, 10:04pm | #

Obviously, I meant letting "citizens", not "terrorists", in on visas. Ooopsie.