http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/13/7743500-paul-and-santorum-spar-over-foreign-policy
"
At the CNN-Tea Party Express debate last night, the Tea Party crowd that gathered in Tampa, FL booed Texas Congressman Ron Paul after describing what he believed was the motive behind al Qaeda's attacks on 9/11. Paul also was challenged by former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum over a blog post written on 9/11 by his campaign blogger.
In response to a question moderator Wolf Blitzer read from Twitter -- "Do you plan to decrease defense spending to balance spending? Or do you believe high spending is essential to security?” –- Paul (only one of two military veterans on the stage) tried to explain the difference between military spending and defense spending.
“There's a lot of room to cut on the military, but not on the defense. You can slash the military spending,” Paul explained, “We don't need to be building airplanes that were used in World War II -- we're always fighting the last war.”"
Dr. paul, if they throw you another pointless 9/11 question, ignore it and start talking about the federal reserve. There's nothing the moderator can do to stop you.
How about this? When the question about the Federal Reserve came up, out of the eight candidates on the stage, five were asked for their opinion on the auditing of the Fed. One of the three who were not asked was none other than Ron Paul. It has been Paul's political crusade to put this subject into the national consciousness. You have the guy that penned the legislation for the auditing of the Fed and he isn't asked to put his two cents into the discussion? That is absolutely preposterous, and I don't believe I say that solely as a Ron Paul fanboy or anything.
However, more germane to your topic post, the people that booed Ron Paul are kind of a bunch of morons. Do these people have first or second-hand knowledge of the motivations of the Islamist terrorists? No, they have a knee-jerk, presupposed notion of what these people are like that has been spoonfed to them by those would love to take advantage of nationalist fervor. Not only that, but why would anybody boo a person for trying to report factual information? Paul was listing this stuff in a value-neutral fashion; he was not, in this instance anyway, saying that they were being defensive or had a right to attack America nor did he say the American population was deserving of getting attacked. All Paul discussed what the terrorists claimed their motivation was.
So when the Tea Partiers booed them, they either a) think that an uninformed opinion about what a mass of people's motivations are count as knowledge about what their motivations are without taking into consideration their stated grievances or b) have a general disdain for facts or c) think that stating facts somehow endorses the motives that they may have had. Could it be all three?
Eric080:How about this? When the question about the Federal Reserve came up, out of the eight candidates on the stage, five were asked for their opinion on the auditing of the Fed. One of the three who were not asked was none other than Ron Paul.
That was the most laughable part of the whole night. Probably the most ironic thing I've seen all year. The man who is essentially the single-most reason that that question was even a question in a debate, was skipped over for a response to it. Gotta love politics.
Ron Paul's performance lately has been sub-par. He's done a lot over the years (first time there has been multiple candidates that oppose the wars in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, all because of him), but it's time for him to stand down. Unfortunately, there isn't another person available that can articulate a coherent message of non-interventionism (economic and military).
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Esuric:Ron Paul's performance lately has been horrible. He's done a lot over the years (first time there has been multiple candidates that oppose the wars in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, all because of him), but it's time for him to stand down. Unfortunately, there isn't another person available that can articulate a coherent message of non-interventionism (economic and military).
I completely disagree. I think he had a much better performance in this debate than the last one, despite having even less time. (breakdown from last time). His responses were much more effective and easier to grab good nuggets from. I'm actually really surprised he got booed. I think it was a combination of the way he slowed down his speaking plus probably a controlled (i.e. at least semi-stacked) crowd. I wouldn't be surprised if after that Fox debate that got featured in Jon Stewart's "where's Ron Paul" piece, the networks all said "that ain't happening again."
If you recall, when he and Santorum-the-jingoist got into it the last time, when Santorum a voice in the audience can be clearly heard shouting back "because we're over there!". And there were plenty of cheers every time Paul made an anti-war comment. One might argue that the difference in location has something to do with it...but I doubt it. The more likely explanation is that audience entry is much more closely "monitored" shall we say.
I definitely agree that Ron Paul performed better in this debate than he did in the last one, but he's missing crucial opportunities to educate the masses and crush his opponents. The commentators are asking soft-ball questions that Ron Paul should absolutely crush, though I realize he has very limited time.
For example, in this most recent debate, the panel was asked about Bernanke and the appropriate role of the FED. This would have been a wonderful opportunity to explain to the public that the FED is essentially a centrally planned, communist institution that engages in perpetual price fixing of the most important price in the economy, namely the interest rate. Furthermore, he could have mentioned that supporting such an institution is inherently and entirely incompatible with free market ideology; it is literally supporting monetary socialism. Next, he should have brought up that Bernanke has engaged in the most expansionary monetary policy in all of U.S. history (more then tripled the supply of base money), has kept interest rates at 0% for 4 years, has created torrential moral hazard, prevented smaller and better banks from expanding, etc, in order to artificially save zombie and bankrupt banks.
Another quick example: in the first debate the panel was asked, "What does the republican party have to offer the poor?" This is a question that Ron Paul, a student of Mises, should have ripped apart.
I think that it is, in fact, impossible for someone like Ron Paul to get elected to the Presidency. As Hoppe notes, democracy is competition in the production of bads and only the very best liars, the very best cheats, the very best thugs can hope to have a chance of making it into the upper stratosphere of democratic politics. It is my view that the political and Establishment elites are, to a man, sociopathic misanthropes. They never could have otherwise made it to where they are today.
Just watch Rachel Maddow rake Rand Paul over the coals here.
Rand is indefatigable and much more polished and nuanced than his father but even with the obviously great deal of preparation he had done for this issue, Maddow manages to break him down and force him to pause for several seconds at one point in the segment after she had asked whether he agrees that private businesses should be permitted to discriminate on the basis of race.
Clayton -
Esuric:For example, in this most recent debate, the panel was asked about Bernanke and the appropriate role of the FED. This would have been a wonderful opportunity to explain to the public that the FED is essentially a centrally planned, communist institution that engages in perpetual price fixing of the most important price in the economy, namely the interest rate.
You would think so, wouldn't you. That does sound exactly like something he would say. What did he talk about instead? Oh wait. That's right...
I agree with Eusiric though, I want more Ron Paul vs. Heroin moments where the philosophy of liberty is put out on full display rather than just saying he wants to cut the wars to save the money, which I believe he has done at least ten times in these debates. I also wish he would name-drop the Austrian school a little more, and I believe he has only done this two or three times in the debates (and I know he used that in his closing statement Monday night).
I think he made much more of a splash in the 2007 debates by saying the same things he is now because he was such a gadfly and an outsider. Now everybody knows who he is and gives him a modicum of respect so his ideas seem a little less radical in a presidential primary. Nobody wants to directly attack Paul in these debates other than Santorum since that would make Paul look like a force to be reckoned with; you won't see Perry or Romney attack Paul on foreign policy because instead of scoring points for them, it would do the exact opposite--It would make Paul look legitimate. Santorum is the only person with anything to gain by engaging Paul since he plays to the "compassionate conservativsm" and Moral Majority crowd.
Santorum should just quit. Who does he think he is? At this point it seems like he's a plant put there to argue with Paul over foreign policy that acts as a red herring to distract from Romney and Perry's statism and crony capitalism.
Santorum is just trying to get exposure and inflate his public image so he can keep being a "relevant" commentator on Fox, and possibly position himself for future runs for Senate or govenor. He's a blow-hard career politician. The media is obviously trying to establish a "side narrative" between Santorum and Paul to isolate the "main show" of Perry vs. Romney. Paul should keep hammering on Perry though, and I think his campaign knows that. Really the media bias is so blatant, everyone with half a brain is begining to see it.
Santorum is the anti-Paul. As I said in my last post, has Perry or Romney criticized Paul's "outlandish" views on foreign policy? No, as a matter of fact, the only time Romney or Perry has even acknowledged Ron Paul's existence is when Ron Paul has directly attacked Perry. They would never refute or have an addendum to a point Paul made of their own volition. I think Paul should call the two out a little bit more often, and I think he'll get the opportunity as the wheat gets separated from the chaff. Paul has the wherewithal to hang in the race because, as he did in 2008, even when there is no chance he'll come out on top he still gets a national audience and more time to speak.
In the early Winter for next year, the only people who will be invited to the debates who won't run out of money or have such a lack of support that they quit will be Perry, Romney, Paul, and probably one other who wants to keep their name in the public spotlight like a Bachmann.
In the likely situation that he does not get the nomination, I'm really hoping he'll run as an independent, if only to sink the campaign of Perry. Honestly, if some kind of collapse or crisis does come, I'd rather it be Obama in power than Perry. The idea of some kind of martial law situation under him terrifies me. It doesn't help that the man is even more of a corporate shill than our current President. We'd probably end up with a retrenched corporatism that people would misunderstand and blame, once again, as "the failure of the free market". The man strikes me as a tyrant in the making.
I hope for Paul to win so we have a soft landing. If Paul doesn't win, I hope Obama stays in so the free market doesn't get framed again.
Oh, I would venture a guess and say that the market will get blamed regardless. "Well sure Obama is sympathetic to Euro-socialism, but golly, the failure occurred where the government hadn't already regulated the market enough! If the banksters did it, their actions are automatically linked with the free market because the for-profit corporations and government are in binary opposition to each other!" Seriously, this fallacy is probably the largest one influencing our culture right now.
But yes, I would love for Ron Paul to run again as a libertarian and he certainly would get a significant write-in vote if the LP wasn't able to get him on the ballot in all 50 states. I think it would be a great move for the Libertarian Party because of the potential fundraising and for the fact that this party has never had the opportunity of getting 8% of a national vote in its history (and I think odds are many anti-war leftists would join the movement and that number could very well be higher than 8% nationally). However, with the Kochs and with the Beltaway aficionados, I wouldn't be surprised if they were stuck up and said, "we prefer the more cost-benefit-analysis approach provided by Gary Johnson" (it's been rumored that he is reaching out to the LP). Sure, go for it guys and get .8% like you always do. The LP has always struck me as a colossally inept organization, but I digress.
Paul has said he isn't very interested in running as a third party, but I really wish he did. And I agree with you about Perry, the man is frighteningly obtuse.
He said he wasn't interested in a 2012 run either at one point. It would be terrible if he came outright and said "i'm going to run third party if I lose the nomination". The establishment would paint him as a traitor to the Republican party, which, after all, is a bad thing in some (deluded) people's eyes. Furthermore, the mere mention of a third party run would alienate him further from the media's "left vs right" narrative.
I think if he ran independent (not necessarily LP), he would have a good chance of polling in the double digits. I know many progressives who would vote for him over Obama, because of the war, drug, and coroporatism issues.
everyone with half a brain is begining to see it.
Too bad that people with even that much are rare.
I was thinking of starting a thread on the 2012 general election and whether Obama should win if Ron Paul doesn't obtain the nomination.
I don't think Paul would get a national 8%, because people would think "he has no way of winning anyway" and there are not enough principled people to vote just to make a point.
Wheylous, that's why I think it's a decent number. Paul is consistently polling in the 10-14% range in the Republican polls. If you add all the non-Republican support he'd get from independents/libertarians who aren't registered Republicans plus support from the left minus the naysayers who think, "a vote for Paul is a vote for Obama!", I think 8% is a solid number
People both on the right and the left wouldn't risk the other's candidate winning.
I bet the far-left may. They think Obama is a colossal failure and corporate shill. I think there's a significant amount of anti-war leftists who would prefer staying at home to voting for Obama and if Ron Paul were on the ticket, it may be enough of a motivation to go ahead and go to the voting booth.
They think Obama is a colossal failure and corporate shill
Nope. I live in a very liberal state, and this is not how things are. Perhaps the "intellectual" leftists want to distance themselves from his actions and thus try to validate their own false beliefs, but 1) they still prefer Obama, fear Perry, and truly hope that giving Obama a second chance will help him do what he promised in '08. 2) The masses don't know that Obama has failed them. The masses know little to nothing about politics:
Watch the whole thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odKBE22yaPA&feature=related
lol "They hate us because we're free". Its so hard for me to believe that anyone can say that with a straight face. "They" can mean pretty much everyone under the sun- and the freedom that they hate is pretty obscure. "They" hate our freedom to do what exactly?
To pay taxes and earn income as opposed to getting money from the nationalized oil industries?
auctionguy10:lol "They hate us because we're free". Its so hard for me to believe that anyone can say that with a straight face. "They" can mean pretty much everyone under the sun- and the freedom that they hate is pretty obscure. "They" hate our freedom to do what exactly?
That was a large part of what this video was about...