If you get busy, like me, you may have stopped following Ron Paul’s progress after the Primary results came in. It’s not that I lost interest in Ron Paul’s politics, but rather that I lost interest in modern U.S. presidential politics.
What are we left with as viable candidates? There is Obama, Hillary, and McCain.
Obama
Obama started out as a promising candidate. He became an overnight sensation due to his age, and skin color. Partially as a linguistic remnant of our racist past, Obama is referred to as black, despite the fact that his genetic make-up is better described as multi-racial. Yet, Obama’s legitimate newness in the realm of politics does not appear to transfer in policy.
Obama fills a void. He offers Rorschach-ink-blot-style symbolism. A candidate who fulfills your every political desire, even if you change your mind tomorrow. For all the empty buzz about Obama, there are a few things that stand out in his policy-making. Obama does offer the voter an exit from Iraq. When? Soon. Maybe. He also offers neoconservatives hope that we may invade Pakistan someday under his “leadership”.
We get a sense of justice from a theoretical Obama presidency. Finally, a “member” of a much maligned “race” in recent history, especially in the United States, gets a chance to hold one of the most powerful political positions in the world.
There is not a single enlightened person in the world who does not feel good about this possibility. In today’s racially-tense urban areas, particularly well-depicted by the movie Crash, such an event resolves a deep cognitive dissonance shared at many levels by “white” people who are constantly labeled “oppressors” - ironically oppressed occasionally by policies enacted with benevolent intent, such as affirmative action.
And Obama’s policies do not deviate from this pattern of humanitarianism. He wants to pursue more affirmative action, create programs that encourage students to fill 50 hours of community service, and enable civil unions for gay and lesbian couples.
As a matter of political savvy, or perhaps hypocrisy, Obama stands against actual marriage for gay and lesbian couples. Though incremental steps are always wise, one must wonder why Obama has chosen to hide his intentions, if he indeed favors gay marriage. Some theorize it has to do with appealing to the Christian vote. After 8 years of incompetence, Obama is a welcome sight, but in terms of “new”, the only thing he offers is his background.
Hillary
There’s little to say about Hillary, whose policies mirror those of Obama’s. The only contrast between Hillary and Obama is a heightened sense of fakery and disingenuity, from her fake laughs to her unlikely emotional outbursts during televised events.
Well, Hillary does offer more to neoconservative-leaning folk. She is ambiguous about Iraq, but less ambiguous about pursuing conflict with Iran. And she is definitely not ambiguous about protecting Israel at all costs simply because Israel is an ally. One wonders if the defense industry chose to fund her for her interest in Israel, or if she developed an interest for Israel as a result of the funding.
McCain
Where Obama’s background appeals and Hillary’s repels, McCain’s background also offers the voter a chance to sympathize. A former prisoner of war who refused to use his familial connections to escape Vietnam without his fellow soldiers, McCain appears deserving of sympathy.
One would expect such an experience to change a person for the better. Why, then, does McCain insist on provoking Iran with an attempt to get them kicked off the Soccer World Cup? Why, if he so despises torture, does McCain insist on resolving conflict through war? Is this a case of “to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail”?
Perhaps McCain could conduct a war more responsibly than his predecessor. Perhaps anybody could. But is he wise enough to ask himself why we need war in the first place?
Ron Paul
Ron Paul is not without his shortcomings. But in the areas that are relevant to the presidency, Ron Paul shines. Foreign Policy and Economics. Ron Paul’s presidential bid offered hope to the families of soldiers deployed in Iraq. It also offered a platform that differed from most others. The difference? Substance.
While most candidates were out distorting facts to fit their platform and appealing to emotion, Ron Paul stuck to the facts. Factcheck.org released some criticism on Ron Paul’s claims that the Iraq War was costing the United States 1 trillion dollars a year. They claimed they had not criticized Ron Paul because of his visibility (lack thereof), which may be true. However, their insinuation that Ron Paul was exaggerating is misleading at best.
The central question
What happened to Ron Paul is at one level, very simple: Ron Paul’s policies are counter-intuitive. Fighting racism by dissolving affirmative action? Enabling gay rights by leaving the government out of marriage? Fighting drug-related violence by legalizing drugs?
Ron Paul is not without blame. When faced with questions regarding a newsletter published under his name, Ron Paul should have gone as far as to produce the name of the ghostwriter(s). His counter-intuitive (but intelligent) libertarian-leaning solutions were too consistent, whether by chance or by design, with some of the ideas expressed in the infamous politically-incorrect newsletters.
Had the writings been his own, an admission with contextual explanation would have sufficed. Everyone who has heard Ron Paul speak knows that he has either never uttered such non-sense, or it no longer represents his informed views. Then, again, giving a false rumor undue attention would have also backfired.
Ron Paul’s misplaced emphasis on NAFTA and the hypothetical North American Union and his association with unsavory individuals or organizations, whether mutual or not, fueled perceptions that Ron Paul was a “kook”.
The mainstream media ultimately earns the blame for Ron Paul’s mostly disappointing official poll numbers. Not just because they distorted the results on occasion, or asked him irrelevant or loaded questions at the debates; The media deserves the majority of the blame because they censored him every chance they had. This is not a “conspiracy theory” in the modern sense of the word. The censorship and misrepresentation is well-documented, on occasion by the offenders themselves, when it suited ratings.
A Ron Paul presidency was a long-shot. Especially from the beginning. However as Ron Paul’s supporters organized massive one day donations, the media began to take notice and Ron Paul’s numbers in the polls improved dramatically. After all, you can be featured in a debate, asked irrelevant questions and still get little coverage on the news. As an avid Ron Paul supporter I might watch every debate he is featured in, but what about the average uninformed or uninterested voter who sees the Ron Paul-less highlights on CNN or FOX News? This is why Ron Paul could give the most intelligent answers, and generally outperform the other candidates at the debates, and still be relatively unknown.
Add to the general media blackout the typical misrepresentation, and you have voters believing Ron Paul has “no chance” even before the official results come in. Had Ron Paul been given an equal amount of fair airtime on the news as Obama, or Giuliani, when Ron Paul announced his candidacy, the results would be dramatically different. There is no delusion here - Ron Paul would have still had to work hard at better explaining his ideas, and his ideology would not appeal to all who were accurately exposed to it. Nevertheless, the mainstream media didn’t do Ron Paul any favors. Not in the way they gave Obama and Giuliani a free pass.
Ironically, the premature labels of “non-factor” and “he has no chance” would have been better suited for Giuliani, whose only source of viability was a fake expertise on terrorism, and a willingness by the mainstream media to monetize a symbolic figure of IX.XI.
Do you want substance in your elected leaders? You may need to move to the 14th Congressional district.
[l]ibertarianism has experienced a resurgence likely to resonate in politics for quite some time. I did not agree with Ron Paul on some issues, and I don’t think strict libertarianism is the answer to everything. But at a time when liberties are threatened by irrational fears, a little reasonable freedom couldn’t hurt. We can all thank Ron Paul for bringing this to the global stage.
The next 8 years could be very long. Fortunately, Giuliani’s authoritarianism will not be a factor. Now we only have to worry about a 100-year war, and/or more deficit spending in the name of equality with a dash of dogmatic authoritarianism.
In the pursuit of responsibility and peace of mind, I may vote against a 100-year war for the alternative 5-6 years of war and limited interference abroad. Nevertheless, I’d much rather abstain from that “choice” and write-in Dr. Ron Paul as a statement of disapproval.
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.
Many of you have wanted to help Ron Paul in one way or another, but you are not allowed to donate to Ron Paul’s campaign, or you may have maxed out your allowable contribution. Well, here is an easy way to help, which may benefit you in more than one way: Sell all your NWS stock.
Teach FOX News a lesson. Make them bleed green until they put Ron Paul back into the debates.
Probably coincidental, but it need not be if people start selling now. Even if people are skeptical that it has anything to do with Ron Paul supporters, it would be smart to sell your NWS stock just to be safe.
Rarely has a more ignorant proposal been advanced – and it is made even worse by the fact that this is Ron Paul we’re talking about.
To begin with, it is odd, indeed, for a libertarian to be invoking the concept of collective guilt: is every citizen of these unnamed “terrorist nations” to be declared persona non grata on account of the actions of a minuscule number of their countrymen?
Secondly, just which nations is Rep. Paul talking about? Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia: two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was Egyptian and another one hailed from Lebanon. Is Paul seriously saying that we should deport the thousands from these countries studying in the US? And why stop there? Why allow anyone from these so-called “terrorist nations” entry into the US for any reason whatsoever – just to be on the safe side?
This is pandering to the worst, Tom Tancredo-esque paranoia and outright ignorance (or do I repeat myself?) and is not worthy of Dr. Paul. I have the utmost respect for the candidate, but in using this unfortunate term, “terrorist nations,” the Good Doctor undermines his non-interventionist foreign policy stance.
I have received a lot of criticism for not remaining quiet on the issue, but I’m not going to play to the “sheep” stereotype that some Ron Paul supporters are fomenting.
If Ron Paul wants to run ads that contradict his rhetoric, he better be prepared to be criticized by supporters like myself who have been campaigning for him since he tore Giuliani into shreds on the very topic of terrorism.
Due to the inaccessibility to English speakers of the Univision debate in Spanish, there are a lot of lies, half-truths, and misreporting about what actually went on there.
I translated the debate to clear up any confusion. As you will see, Ron Paul was cheered loudly for the most part especially regarding his opposition to a mandatory ID card, his opposition to the war, and when he spoke about the importance of the U.S. Constitution. Strangely, he was booed when he advocated normalizing trade and foreign relations with Cuba and Venezuela. As I soon found out, this is because there is a strong hatred among Cuban-Americans for Castro. However, as Ron Paul explained his position further, some began to clap. The rest of the candidates received polite applause after most responses, but none was cheered as loudly as Ron Paul.
Of course, Ron Paul’s advocacy for restoring trade and positive diplomatic relationships with Cuba and Venezuela was not well-received in Miami. In Los Angeles, or a different location, the response to Ron Paul’s argument would have been mostly positive because the logic would not have been clouded by personal anti-Castro resentment.
I can imagine Ron Paul regrets not mentioning that the point of restoring trade and positive relations is not to please Castro, but instead to stop punishing Americans who want to trade, and to stop punishing Cubans who want to trade for the actions of their dictator. Ron Paul did mention that we talked to Khrushchev and others during the Cold War. In an unrelated question Ron Paul even mentioned how we restored relations with Vietnam, to which everyone cheered. This inconsistency in the response of the audience (negative for improved relations with Cuba and positive for improved relations with Vietnam) is very telling; it shows that anti-Cuban sentiment is a rather automatic and deeply-ingrained emotional response, and that while restoring diplomatic relations with Vietnam instead of imposing sanctions is good, doing the same with Cuba (however logical) is unacceptable.
The other Republican candidates demonized Castro, and Giuliani took a shot at Ron Paul by implying he was weak (to which he received a mixed audience response). Although the moderators didn’t grant Ron Paul a rebuttal, Ron Paul comes out on top, and here is why: While Ron Paul is advocating trade and diplomacy, the other Republicans are advertising just how isolationist they are. Quite ironic, since they inaccurately like to call Ron Paul an isolationist.
Ron Paul is willing to talk and trade with all countries. If anyone is an isolationist, it is Giuliani, Romney, and the other Republicans AND Democrats who would not even talk to Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea. Most of the time they oppose trade with China, Syria, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Congo and Lebanon. Perhaps McCain can think twice before he ever calls Ron Paul an isolationist again - it is especially hypocritical of McCain since he tried to get Iran kicked off the FIFA World Cup in Germany (and failed).
Univision GOP Debate: Ron Paul Highlights with English translation (English Subtitles)
*Note: Subtitles are English translations of what the interpreters said in Spanish (that is, what the audience heard in Spanish, and not necessarily a verbatim transcript).
Here is a full transcript of the entire debate
**Youtube has removed the video due to possible copyright infringement issues. If there is enough demand, we may look for a work-around; however, we recommend visiting univision.com instead.
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
To defeat or make an embarrassment out of. A slang portmanteau of Ron (Paul) and Own and Pwn. Similar usage to Leetspeak own as in “Sean Hannity and Michael Steele just got r0wn3d by Ron Paul’s supporters”. Used to describe the act of metaphorically crushing an unreasonable opponent (likely a neoconservative or Patriot Trash), naysayer, after winning an argument or destroying the opposition by proving them dead wrong, via logic, or tangible results that contradict the opponents political position or argument.
Alternative spellings include R0wnd, Rwn3d, R0wn3d.
Etymology: Term originated on Nov 5th, 2007 on Ron Paul Day as portmanteau of Ron (Paul), own and pwn from English Leetspeak pwned or owned, from Middle English, to possess, own, owe, from Old English āgan; akin to Old High German eigun (1st & 3d plural present indicative) possess, Sanskrit īśe he possesses
It appears our military backs Ron Paul in the most important issue facing the United States: Terrorism and our foreign policy. For the second time in a row, Ron Paul receives more donations among Republicans. Data for Democrats is not yet available, but Ron Paul crushed Democrats in this statistic last quarter as well.
This data is sourced from FEC Reports for Q3 and was compiled here by jfletch and RP4.US
*This list uses donators who listed their employer as some variation of Air Force, Army, National Guard, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Retired Vet, Veteran, Civilian Military employee, or Military (no branch indicated). This is preliminary data and may contain insignificant errors.
