Michael, the current administration isn’t running, whether or not Obama gets elected. You are offering a false dichotomy.
Hillary is taking cheap shots at Obama
Since when is this a good reason to vote for someone? Maybe Obama deserves your sympathy. But your vote? I thought you opposed the war in Iraq. So why vote for Obama? He too wants to stay in Iraq permanently.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was an entertaining documentary. You took some cheap shots at some politicians, but that’s not a good reason for me to vote for those politicians, is it? in Fahrenheit 9/11 you criticized our occupation of Iraq, and yet, Obama intends to deploy permanent bases.
I do applaud you for seeing through Hillary’s warmongering neoconservative leanings, but the fact that Hillary doesn’t deserve a vote is a very weak argument for voting for Obama. A lot of people look up to you without thinking for themselves. You are asking Pennsylvania to oppose Hillary, a bad choice, for Obama, another nearly equivalent bad choice. If you dislike the Bush administration, and their policies, why mislead the people of Pennsylvania into voting for Obama, who intends to pursue the current agenda?
If you want to persuade people to vote for Obama, at least offer some persuasive reasons. “Hillary sucks” and “the current administration sucks” are not good reasons to vote for Obama.
I had wanted to speak to him about Ron Paul’s exclusion in the debates. Several Ron Paul supporters found and posted his direct office line so I called.
He was very polite. He thought I was calling about Duncan Hunter, then I said it was actually Ron Paul.
I told him I thought they should be concerned about excluding Ron Paul. He sort of cut me off and said, “You are concerned”. And I said, “yes, but I’m also concerned that FOX News is going to miss out because Ron Paul is pretty interesting guy”. He said that was subjective. I said that for example, Google makes a lot of money off Ron Paul.
He told me Google only makes money off advertising, but not Ron Paul. I corrected him and told him Ron Paul drives traffic to sites, and that in fact, people bid on keywords and that Ron Paul’s keywords are worth more than those of other candidates. He said that’s the case because a lot of his base is on the internet, to which I agreed.
He said a lot of people thought they were trying to exclude Ron Paul because of some special agenda, but he said that they had established a criteria about needing 10% in the national polls because the coming debate in NH would be very focused. But that there will be another debate on Thursday in South Carolina which Ron Paul will be in, and that in fact, Alan Keys will not, because he didn’t meet the criteria.
Sometime before the call ended, I also told him people were selling their NWS stock because of the exclusion, and he said, “Well, people have the right to be angry at us and sell their shares. This happens from time to time.”
I thanked him, told him I didn’t want to waste too much of his time and that I’d tell other people not to call him about that. Then he said, “no, I’m actually taking time off to answer phone calls, so it’s quite alright.”
It was kind of surprising that he was so polite.
Be nice if you call, and try not to ask the same questions I asked, alright?
Afterword
How can I be mad at FOX News and John Moody now? I recommend you don’t call John Moody; he is too polite and reasonable. You might actually start to think FOX News is fair. Can you live with the cognitive dissonance?
You deserve praise for openly discussing Ron Paul on FOX News. I wonder if you had to take a pay a fine every time you said Ron Paul’s name, or for every second you discussed him. I know you will be getting a lot of positive emails from Ron Paul supporters.
Just one objection: You continue to assume Ron Paul will not win the nomination, which is an understandable assumption. But it is an assumption, and some of your colleagues have been very wrong on their assumptions. For example Michael Steele had said Ron Paul “[is] done” after the first debate in South Carolina almost 8 months ago.
In fact, you are perpetuating a self-fulfilling prophesy. Ron Paul doesn’t really need your debates more than he needs positive exposure and name-recognition. This is key in marketing. Some Ron Paul supporters sometimes give Ron Paul a bad name via their obsessive campaigning or their wide variety of views. Ron Paul appeals to many distinct groups because everyone wants liberty, including liberty from each other. But I digress slightly; the point is, you (the media) hardly discuss Ron Paul’s stances in depth. You barely touch the surface of Ron Paul’s stances, and at the surface, his stances look quite ‘kooky’. Sadly, Ron Paul doesn’t promote himself with cheap soundbites, so that doesn’t help make your job easier, but now that he has a solid 10% anchor in Iowa you have a justification for taking Ron Paul seriously and discussing his stances beyond the surface.
It’s not your job to make Ron Paul look good, but presumably, it’s not your job to make him look bad either. Do you want high ratings? Discuss Ron Paul in depth. Even people who disagree with him are intrigued by what he actually believes. His views are counter-intuitive. Not all of them are strictly pragmatic or even objectively correct. But they are certainly thought-provoking.
If Ron Paul has no chance, then what’s the harm in giving him even airtime? He is certainly more interesting than Britney Spears (though arguably not as good-looking). A common technique used by websites is to talk about Ron Paul. It increases viewer traffic so much that Google makes more money on bids for Ron Paul’s name as a keyword than any other candidate. FOX News is already revolutionary in marketing and propaganda (I mean this in a positive way); you can hold an audience’s attention like no other news network. Now add some substance (Ron Paul) and you’ll make a killing. CNN is beginning to take advantage of this insider knowledge, and now that Ron Paul has secured some credibility in Iowa there is no shame in taking Ron Paul seriously.
If you are looking for substance and higher ratings, give Ron Paul a call. Take a hint from Shepard Smith and Greta Van Susteren.
I know Ron Paul is trying to capture the attention of Tancredo’s former supporters, but labeling nations as “terrorist” goes against everything Ron Paul has said about foreign policy. Denying student visas for students from “terrorist nations” is intellectually dishonest. This is the same kind of propaganda the GOP uses to justify the war on terror.
The lack of exposure on Ron Paul’s amazing fund-raising yesterday is only compelling his vocal supporters to pick up the slack and do the media’s job for them.
“When this Paul campaign is over I think we should continue the meetup groups and use our influence to bury the main stream media!! Lets demonstrate outside their buildings, boycotts their programs, petitions against their staff and company, mail bomb their comments and feedback, trash and flood their online surveys and hound their reporters everywhere they go!!”
In psychology there is a phenomenon called selective perception. We perceive Iran as a terrorist regime. But how are we different? Tancredo would nuke Mecca. Bush initiated a “shock and awe” campaign, and gave Saddam a 48-hour ultimatum. Giuliani is politically illiterate. What do they have in common? Their political rhetoric sounds the same as Ahmadinejad’s.
A lot of the justification for attacking and provoking Iran is the premise that Iran is a terrorist regime; that Ahmadinejad a terrorist for threatening to “wipe Israel off the map”. Perhaps this view is accurate. However, if we view Iran as a terrorist regime, then we ought to take a closer look at our leaders and foreign policy.
ter·ror·ism [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
ter·ror·ist [ter-er-ist]
–noun
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3. (formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
–adjective
5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists: terrorist tactics.
Under that definition many of our presidential candidates are terrorists, especially Giuliani and Tancredo, who would gladly turn the Middle East, and in particular, Mecca, into glass.
If you compare the speeches of political leaders around the world, you’ll find that they all sound very similar. When Bush threatened Saddam by telling him he had 48 hours to leave Iraq, that is terrorism, too.
The “Shock and Awe” invasion of Iraq resembles terrorism as well. The point of shock and awe was to promote fear and terror.
If you look at psychological studies, you’ll notice that Bush sounds like a terrorist to them, just like Ahmadinejad sounds like a terrorist to some of us.
Let’s not forget we’ve have organized various coups d’état that could be characterized as acts of terrorism, around the world, including Iran.
This is why a war on terrorism is a double standard, and a play on vague words. Should we truly be concerned with terrorism around the world, we’d take a closer look at our foreign policy. The political rhetoric of our leaders sounds the same as that of the world leaders they demonize.
References:
terrorism. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved November 24, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism
terrorist. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved November 24, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorist
CNN - “Ron Paul is here to stay and will become a huge problem for the leading-tier candidates with his anti-war position. He was the libertarian nominee for president in 1988 and has a network of supporters helping him with his campaign. As you travel around the country, you can see Ron Paul supporters everywhere.” -Paraphrased comments by Alex King, correspondent to Wolf Blitzer.
“…does the party want to follow George Bush off a cliff or do they want to follow Ron Paul?” -Paul Beggala
“RP is more anti-war than Clinton, Obama, etc” -CNN commentator.
Cafferty Letter: How can Republicans turn it around?
“Stop marginalizing the smartest among them, that is, Ron Paul.” -CNN viewer.
MSNBC has historically been positive about Ron Paul: Tucker, Chris Matthews and Pat Buchanan like him a lot. They will likely cover him today based on his 5 million for Q3. However, the breaking news coverage on the 5 million incorrectly called him an isolationist.
Any positive coverage by neoconservative FOX News is unlikely to be seen tonight.
And a comment for MSNBC on their breaking news: Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist. He is a non-interventionist, and there is a big difference. Nevertheless, I want to commend MSNBC on their generally fair coverage of Ron Paul.
As for ABC, CNN and FOX News… study ethical journalism and get back to us.
By the way, our prediction that Ron Paul would reach 1.2 million last week held true
As the 3rd financial quarter draws to a close, Ron Paul and John Edwards have set campaign goals to raise a million in the last 7* and 10 days of Q3. Ron Paul started with a humble goal of raising $500,000, but when contribution money continued pouring in at a faster rate than expected, the campaign extended the goal to one million dollars. As of yesterday at 11pm John Edwards’ site indicates $878,000 raised so far; Ron Paul is not far behind at $800,000.
Current projections will place both candidates at 1.2 million by the end of the quarter. Although these numbers reflect only the last 10 days of the quarter, it raises very interesting questions about Ron Paul’s financial standing this third quarter. If John Edwards pulled in 9 million last quarter, will we see Ron Paul triple last quarter’s numbers?
With straw polls placing Ron Paul in first place among Republican contenders, and the GOP recognizing Ron Paul as a de facto 1st tier candidate, any financial reporting over 5 million is bound to cement his position. Let’s not forget Ron Paul surprised everyone by taking in more military contributions than ALL the Republican and Democratic candidates in Q2, and amassing more cash-on-hand than Sen. John McCain.
If you want to see Ron Paul out-raise John Edwards in the 10-day boost that ends this Sunday, donate now: https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/
Update*: It was brought to my attention that Ron Paul started his boost last Monday, meaning Ron Paul is out-pacing Edwards, who has a 3-day advantage.
Hillary is a pro-war Republican. And not far behind, Obama. According to Gravel at yesterday’s MSNBC Democratic debate, Hillary voted yes on a bill put forth by Joe Lieberman, which among other things, will designate the Iranian Revolutionary National Guard a terrorist organization. The amendment, in effect, grants president Bush a justification for starting a war with Iran. Obama didn’t even show up to vote for said vote.
Also at the debate, none of the so-called top-tier candidates promised to end the war by the end of their first term. In essence, Edwards, Obama, and Hillary are towing the neoconservative line.
The only senators running for president who voted against this bill were Biden and Dodd.
(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;
(2) that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi’a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;
(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;
(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;
(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and
(6) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.
As usual, when confronted by a tough question, or in this case, a relevant accusation, Hillary resorted to pausing, laughing maniacally and then dancing around the question.
Then she refused to answer relevant hypothetical questions. If she doesn’t want to answer questions, they should revoke her time and give it to another candidate who will answer the questions asked.