GOP to Ron Paul: Drop Dead

You're still worried about online polls? Hah! The head of Michigan's GOP wants to bar Ron Paul from future debates.

Michigan party chairman Saul Anuzis said he will circulate a petition among Republican National Committee members to ban Paul from more debates. At a GOP candidates’ debate Tuesday night, Paul drew attacks from all sides, most forcefully from former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, when he linked the terror attacks to U.S. bombings.

..."I think he would have felt much more comfortable on the stage with the Democrats in what he said last night. And I think that he is a distraction in the Republican primary and he does not represent the base and he does not represent the party,” Anuzis said during an RNC state leadership meeting.

“Given what he said last night it was just so off the wall and out of whack that I think it was more detrimental than helpful.”

Anuzis said his petition would go to debate sponsors and broadcasters to discourage inviting Paul.

Is there any previous example of a party banning a candidate because he offended members of the party? Did Alan Keyes get blocked for those reasons from any debates in 1996 or 2000? Perhaps Anuzis can issue an Index of Forbidden Ideas to clarify who does and doesn't deserve to be counted in the GOP.

UPDATE: Says an e-mailer to Jonah Goldberg:

Isn't it obvious why Saul Anuzis (Michigan GOP chair) wants Ron Paul barred from the debates? It's not about ideological purity. Anuzis is a McCain guy, and having Paul in the debates is a big advantage for Giuliani. All the candidates disagree strongly with Ron Paul about 9/11, but Giuliani (for obvious reasons) can get much more mileage from fighting him on the issue than anyone else. It's to McCain's advantage to have him barred.

Jonah's skeptical; I'm not. McCain put in a solid performance at the debate, absolutely nailing the questions on torture, and who won the headlines? Anuzis is a big Romney fan, and his guy was placing a firm first or second in the debate, but who won the headlies? Giuliani, Paul, and sissy-boy John Edwards. 

Comments

underdog | May 17, 2007, 4:52pm | #

They want Ron Paul barred from future debates? Good! Let him run for President of Al Qaeda or Hamas as he is nothing but a terrorist sympathizing traitor. It was good Rudy smacked him down on that one.

Pro Libertate | May 17, 2007, 4:52pm | #

Wrong thinking is punished; right thinking is just as swiftly rewarded. You'll find it an effective combination.

stephen the goldberger | May 17, 2007, 4:54pm | #

Hey I guess he's right, as a Ron Paul supporter I now clearly see that I am not a member of the Republican base.

Brian24 | May 17, 2007, 4:54pm | #

In case there was any doubt that the Republicans have no interest in earning the allegiance of libertarians . . .

John | May 17, 2007, 4:55pm | #

http://www.debateronpaul.com/

tell Rudy to debate Ron paul

V-sign petition to keep Rom in the debates and not squash dissent.

http://www.petitiononline.com/RPRNC08/petition.html

Wild Pegasus | May 17, 2007, 4:58pm | #

I don't see the problem. No one but a nutjob like Eric Dondero would let Giuliani represent the Libertarian Party or be part of their debates. Why would the Police State & War War War Party want a libertarian yapping at theirs?

- Josh

lunchstealer | May 17, 2007, 4:58pm | #

Wrong thinking is punished; right thinking is just as swiftly rewarded. You'll find it an effective combination.

You will co-operate with the state, for the good of the state and your own survival. You will confess to the crimes of which you have been accused. You will be released and returned to the society a productive citizen if you co-operate. Resistance will be punished, co-operation will be rewarded.

Lamar | May 17, 2007, 4:59pm | #

Ron Paul threatens the unthinking orthodoxy of the party. Honestly, getting rid of Ron Paul won't make the GOP better or worse. It has been at least a decade since the GOP was anything but a spendthrift bastion for idealistic and naive hawks as well as creationist theocrats.

Gene Trosper | May 17, 2007, 4:59pm | #

Wow, underdog. I'm sure you have a mountain of evidence to prove Ron Paul is a terrorist sympathizer. So far, no one has been able to prove that assertion. Maybe you can?

Doubtful.

Chuck | May 17, 2007, 5:01pm | #

He's not representing the Republican party...yet. He is one person who *wants* to represent the Republican party in the election. Whether he ultimately is or not is the basic purpose of primaries and nominating conventions, or so I thought. Maybe Anuzis thinks that the whole primary/nominating system is a distraction as well.

Grotius | May 17, 2007, 5:02pm | #

underdog,

Would you say that Ron Paul's face?

R.Totale | May 17, 2007, 5:02pm | #

A man pointing out that our interventionist foreign policy will sometimes have negative consequences is considered "off the wall". What a country!

Jill | May 17, 2007, 5:04pm | #

I will stay registered Republican in order to vote in the primaries, but if Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination, the Republicans can count another long time ALWAYS VOTING member off their rolls forever. Doesn't seem to matter anyway, no one will ever convince me again there is any difference in the parties.

Further, for all those Giuliani lovers out there, I sure hope you like Hillary for 8 years because that's exactly what we're going to get. Don't even THINK about lecturing me for loyalty either, I am loyal to my country, NOT a party that no longer follows the ideals it pretends to represent! Keep those rose colored glasses on if you like Giuliani will NEVER beat Hillary in the general election.

I'm tired of being lied to, how about you?

Warren | May 17, 2007, 5:05pm | #

Daddy, tell us a story.

OK which one would you like to hear?

Tell us the one about the libertarian wing of the Republican party. That's my favorite.

brotherben | May 17, 2007, 5:05pm | #

Barkeep:
Another round of kool-aid for all please.

NoStar | May 17, 2007, 5:05pm | #

Any word of rebuttal from those suck up lap dogs calling themselves the RNC Liberty Caucus who periodically tell libertarians we would be better off working from within the GOP?

Pro Libertate | May 17, 2007, 5:08pm | #

Paul's not even a pacifist or isolationist, yet he still gets tarred and feathered for even suggesting that we might have other options besides mucking around in the Middle East to no useful end. I feel sorry for the few die hards in the RLC who get to hear this kind of stuff. It just gets worse and worse.

I do think that the national GOP is at variance with a good percentage of the Republican voters. Just as is the case with the Democrats. Is this why seemingly moderate candidates do so much better in the elections, because we out here have dramatically different views than the people operating out of the Beltway?

juris imprudent | May 17, 2007, 5:12pm | #

Is there any previous example of a party banning a candidate because he offended members of the party?

Would Bob Casey not being allowed to speak at the Democratic convention count?

Of course Paul shouldn't be allowed to wander off the plantation! The Republican gift for self destruction has almost reached full bloom. I can already hear the post-election wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Pro Libertate | May 17, 2007, 5:12pm | #

Warren,

Less wing, more a feather. I'm actually a member. It's interesting, because the e-mails I see are a mix of straight GOP-backing and stuff that differs little from what the LP puts out. There most assuredly are libertarians in the GOP, but they are being actively purged for the first time in my memory.

Andrew | May 17, 2007, 5:13pm | #

All this whole sordid ordeal does is make me even more terrified of a Giuliani presidency. I'd rather have Bush for another term than Mayor Nine Eleven.

Rick Barton | May 17, 2007, 5:16pm | #

Paul is the most pro free enterprise, pro limited government candidate in the debates. Tossing Paul is tossing everything that makes the GOP worth voting for.

Come to your senses, Saul Anuzis. If Ron Paul gets bared from the debates, myself and hundreds of thousands of other Republicans are going to be furious and a lot less enthusiastic about the GOP.

Check out haw strong Paul was in the post debate FOX text message poll. Folks who paticipate in those FOX polls tend to be Republicans. Paul also won the MSNBC online poll by a wide margin.

The GOP got crushed in the last election cuz of the war. It’s just plain stupid to toss the only straight up anti Iraq war candidate (Tancredo opposes the "Surge").

Ken Hagler | May 17, 2007, 5:19pm | #

That Rittberg character who showed up a few threads ago is the "RNC Liberty Caucus."

db | May 17, 2007, 5:19pm | #

I think that the GOP should send a letter to every registered Republican telling them not to bother voting voting GOP if they have even the slightest doubt in the ability of W to win the war on turrur.

Dear Sir or Madam,

We would like to take this opportunity to stress that we are the Party of the War on Terror. We do not believe that our party has room for opinions that conflict with the idea that the U.S. is under imminent, chronic existential threat and that the GOP is uniquely and soley suited to protecting the country. Further, there is no place for the near-blasphemous idea that there is any other way to win the War on Terror than to exercise the military power of the U.S. in any way that a Republican President may feel is appropriate, at any time, anywhere in the world.

In light of this the Party respectfully requests that you complete the questionnaire below and return it:

Please answer the following questions "ja" oder "nein""yes" or "no":

1. I believe that the US is in terrible danger at all times from outsiders.

2. I believe that the only reasonable course of action in prosecuting the war on terror was to invade Iraq.

3. I believe that it is near-treasonous to suggest that the Iraq war is not going well or that other options should be explored.

4. I strongly believe that we should fight in Iraq until either the insurgents are defeated or we run out of money or fighting forces.

5. I believe that even to listen to other points of view is inconsistent with membership in the GOP.

Please tally your "yes" and "no" answers. Please be advised that any "no" answers will result in your dismissal from the Republican Party. You will no longer be eligible to vote in any Republican Primary elections, as we simply cannot have dissent. The safety of the USA depends on it.

Sincerely,

The GOP.

Akira MacKenzie | May 17, 2007, 5:20pm | #

Lunchstealer.

Great Babylon 5 reference... bravo.

While we are on the topic of anti-totalitarianism on sci-fi TV series:

THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS

P.S. Don't eat the corn beef.

Adamo | May 17, 2007, 5:20pm | #

Weird how Paul's foreign policy stance is seen as such an affront to the GOP base, but Rudy's favoring of public funded abortions is not?

Grotius | May 17, 2007, 5:20pm | #

db wins the thread.

M | May 17, 2007, 5:22pm | #

It's not my party, but I'll cry if I want to.

Ken | May 17, 2007, 5:23pm | #

"Ron Paul threatens the unthinking orthodoxy of the party. Honestly, getting rid of Ron Paul won't make the GOP better or worse. It has been at least a decade since the GOP was anything but a spendthrift bastion for idealistic and naive hawks as well as creationist theocrats."
Well said Lamar. John Dean recently wrote a book tarring the GOP as an authoritarian party. The book was amazingly poorly written, but I think his hypothesis was spot on. The GOP stands for group think over principles. The Dems have their problems (they remind me of the English teacher from Beavis and Butthead, shudder) but the GOP is full of straight out fascists.

David | May 17, 2007, 5:25pm | #

Why even have debates if they're just going to be circle jerk of only slightly varying opinions? What these people really want is something akin to an audition for a high school play.

Pro Libertate | May 17, 2007, 5:25pm | #

Ken Hagler,

Not exactly. He was heavily involved a while back, but I think he's gone his own direction. The RLC people I know are pretty libertarian and don't much care for the anti-Paul, overly pro-war stuff.

I'm not very active, having little faith that the GOP can be "saved" (redirected entirely is probably the more accurate phrase), but there's at least something left of libertarianism in the ranks.

What's sad is that the time is ripe for a true third party (or replacement party), but it won't happen.

Rick Barton | May 17, 2007, 5:26pm | #

What John at 4:55 pm. To reiterate in part:

-sign petition to keep Rom in the debates and not squash dissent.

http://www.petitiononline.com/RPRNC08/petition.html

Kudos, John!

Fluffy | May 17, 2007, 5:29pm | #

The Republican party has shrunk to a two-issue party: Bush's war, and torture. The competition to get the nomination is a competition to see who can most forcefully support the war and who is most willing to torture people at the drop of a hat. Nothing else matters.

That pro-free enterprise stuff doesn't matter, Mr. Barton. They're finally admitting that now.

Ken Shultz | May 17, 2007, 5:29pm | #

Strategically, nothing* could be better for Ron Paul than being banned for one debate.

...if it wasn't for the "let's close our eyes and plug our ears" contingent in the GOP, Ron Paul wouldn't even have a chance. His campaign needs something like this.

*Well, okay, maybe if he saved Oprah from a burning battleship.

jdd | May 17, 2007, 5:29pm | #

The GOP is a disaster. I voted, gave money, etc, for the GOP for 20 years. I no longer recognize the party.

The GOP has become a minority party made up of ignorant, religious fundamentalists who support big government in all of its incarnations.

The GOP is pushing out the intellectuals and Westerners who created the ideas that led to the 1994 takeover. I'm surprised Newt still feels at home in the party.

It really is sad. I still get all sorts of solicitations. They deserved to lose the senate and house. They managed to do it to a party that is avowedly Socialist and is living in the 1930s, mentally.

I think we are witnessing the "blowback" of the "Southern Strategy." It is not easy to remain in a party run by faith healers and assorted other morons.

Cesar | May 17, 2007, 5:30pm | #

I also want to thank John for that petition, and I'd love to see a one-on-one debate between Giuliani and Paul.

Sean Hanity | May 17, 2007, 5:34pm | #

Bar him! Bar him! Bar him! He is not a Great American!!!!

Andrew | May 17, 2007, 5:36pm | #

Curiously, the Michigan GOP has disabled the contact form on their website. Can't imagine why!

Fluffy | May 17, 2007, 5:37pm | #

The other thing that is funny is this:

Holding which of the following two ideas is enough to disqualify you from running for President of the United States as the nominee of the Republican Party:

1. US intervention in the politics of the Middle East makes it more likely that Middle Eastern terrorists will attack our interests.

2. The Earth is 6000 years old.

R.Totale | May 17, 2007, 5:38pm | #

Great point, Fluffy. Sometimes I feel like I'm in a Twilight Zone episode.

Fluffy | May 17, 2007, 5:39pm | #

Actually, for Paul's sake, it might be better if he was pushed out now.

I've seen rumblings that people are going through old goldbug newsletters to see what kind of rhetoric was put out under Paul's masthead, and that could get ugly real fast.

Stevo Darkly | May 17, 2007, 5:40pm | #

I didn't get to see the last debate, but I read a transcript. Maybe the transcript somehow is missing something critical, but I didn't see anything that Ron Paul said that was groan-inducing or out of line.

Now, when Giuliani accused Paul of saying that America "invited" the attacks of 9-11 and asked him to withdraw his comments, I wish Paul could have said something like this:

"I appreciate the opportunity to respond. As for saying that America 'invited,' quote-unquote, the attacks of 9-11, or that they were in any way justified ... I'm glad that I don't have to withdraw any such comment because that's not what I said. I said there was a reason we got attacked, just as there's a reason water flows downhill, and a smart person would want to know the real reason such an awful thing happened.

"Look. Suppose you went into the toughest neighborhood of your city. And you started walking all over people's property there, going into their homes, offering them advice on how they should live, and got involved in their neighborhood feuds. Suppose someone eventually punched you in the face. Or even stuck a knife in you. Did you 'invite' being stabbed? Is that how people should treat each other? Was the stabbing justified? I would say no, of course not. But was there a reason you were attacked? And would a smarter person have taken different steps, to avoid such an attack? Or at least learn from it to avoid attacks in the future? Obviously yes. All I'm saying is, we have to be smarter in our foreign policy, especially when it comes to such a dangerous neighborhood as the Middle East."

But anyway.

To be offended by the things Paul said, you have to deliberately misunderstand and misstate them. In that debate, I didn't see anything Paul said that was embarrassing or that a reasonable person would consider beyond the pale.

What I did learn from that debate is that Rudy Giuliani is a dishonest, grandstanding, demogagueing son of a whore.

jf | May 17, 2007, 5:41pm | #

Ron Paul would look good as the vice-presidential candidate on the Unity08 ticket.

zbillster | May 17, 2007, 5:42pm | #

Notice how the Battle Creek Enquirer source article doesn't even mention Paul's name in the headline. He's referred to as "presidential candidate." Hell, they don't even want to risk Ron getting any free publicity or name recognition out of this! Talk about sweeping him under the rug.

The free market encourages innovation, diversity and continual improvement. Democratic electorial systems discourage it in favor of the least common bland denominator in order to obtain the majority of votes. Guess which system I want providing protective services?

David T | May 17, 2007, 5:42pm | #

I think one of Jonah Goldberg's e-mailers got it right: Saul Anuzis is a McCain backer. He wants to get Paul out of the debates because he thinks that otherwise Giuliani will keep scoring points with the GOP "base" by clashing with Paul over 9/11. (Of course the other Republican candidates will attack Paul on that issue, too, but they obviously can't get the same applause doing so that America's Mayor gets.)

We might as well face it: those people who wildly applauded Giuliani *were* representative of most of what remains of the Republican Party. Today's Rasmussen Reports poll has Bush at 35 percent--tied for the lowest of his presidency--but still over 70 percent among Republicans! And probably even some of the less-than-30 percent of the Republicans who disapprove of Bush do so because of immigration, not the Iraq war--or even if they don't approve of his handling of the war, think that the problem is solely that he wasn't competent enough in carrying out a good idea.

The Iraq hawks will by Novemeber 2008 be a hopeless minority in a general election but in the GOP primaries they will rule.

VM | May 17, 2007, 5:44pm | #

ProGLib - Menagerie. Wonderful.

"Please answer the following questions "ja" oder "nein""yes" or "no":"

ha :)

Gnarls Snarkly | May 17, 2007, 5:45pm | #

Amen, David. The following is how Ron Paul responded to Giuliani in my dreams:

Mr. Giuliani, first, I was as close to the Pentagon on September 11th as you were to the world trade center, so I have as much right to speak as someone who "lived through" the 9/11 attacks as you do.

Second, if you're going to masturbate to your grand heroism, have the decency to do it in the bathroom like everyone else, not here on stage. The cleaning crew doesn't deserve that, sir.

Third, I couldn't help but notice that your penis is amazingly large. A truly spectacular specimen. After the debate, would you mind if I stroked it for a while? I know that there will probably be a line, but I'm willing to take a number.

Fluffy | May 17, 2007, 5:46pm | #

Another interesting question -

Saying one of the following will get you attacked by Rudy Giuliani, and saying the other will get you blown by Rudy Giuliani. Which is which?

1. US intervention in the politics of the Middle East makes it more likely that Middle Eastern terrorists will attack our interests.

2. The pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them [caused 9/11].

Andy | May 17, 2007, 5:46pm | #

Here are two blogs that pretty much say it all about Ron Paul and the active smear campaign underway against him:

From Accuracy in Media

http://www.aim.org/aim_column/5461_0_3_0_C/

From The Nation: (!)

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=195576

Unless the GOP nominates Ron Paul, the Republicans will lose in the biggest landslide loss in Presidential history. Michael Steele at GOPAC and the other losers "leading" the Republican Party should be fired.

Sean Hannity and the other yellow journalists at Fox News have lost any credibility they had left to speak for true conservatism.

GO RON PAUL 2008!

Pro Libertate | May 17, 2007, 5:48pm | #

Stevo,

I cited this in another thread, but I read a good Propect article questioning why we waste any effort at all intervening in the Middle East. I highly recommend it, and I also highly suspect any candidate who won't acknowledge that it at least presents a worthwhile argument. Paul's position isn't far from what's stated in the article, I'd say.

As far as Giuliani goes, he's a doofus. But be sure to pause for applause when 9/11 is mentioned. What did he do, kill some terrorists barehanded? I'm trying to remember what he did besides make some speeches or pose for some smoky photo-ops. I certainly was never inspired by anything he said or did, and even if I had been, it wouldn't make him a presidential candidate in my eyes. He blew a campaign against a First Lady, for God's sake. Loser!

Incidentally, your Ward Gracen question was answered :)

jf | May 17, 2007, 5:49pm | #

Speaking of National Review, there's a pretty interesting back-and-forth between pork-defender Rammesh Ponnuru and Tom Coburn today. Ponnuru is more concerned with getting our troops killed in Iraq than cutting government waste.

Pro Libertate | May 17, 2007, 5:50pm | #

Maybe an overreaction and public dismissal of Paul's libertarian ideas would wake some people up. To do what, I'm not sure.

Honestly, I think neither party is as extreme as its rhetoric, so I don't much care for these blanket statements about Democrats all being Marxists or Republicans all being religious war lovers. Probably the greatest flaw in either party is that they are defined as not being the extreme elements of the opposition party more than they are defined by actually being for anything.

Fluffy,

No kidding. Does anyone really believe that any of the candidates are Creationists? What cowards. You can be religious without being a dumb ass.

Mad Max | May 17, 2007, 5:51pm | #

"I've seen rumblings that people are going through old goldbug newsletters to see what kind of rhetoric was put out under Paul's masthead, and that could get ugly real fast."

Ooh, how scary! It's almost as bad as someone going through old George W. Bush speeches to find him talking about a "humble foreign policy" and how major combat operations in Iraq were over in 2003. Or Hillary Clinton's promise that the Bill Clinton administration would be the most ethical administration in history. Or Teddy Kennedy repudiated his anti-abortion speeches in the late 1960s and 1970s.

jf | May 17, 2007, 5:52pm | #

Andy,

I read that Nation piece yesterday. Great stuff.

Fluffy | May 17, 2007, 5:52pm | #

Rudy kept his head on 9/11 when a lot of people weren't.

Seeing him on television keeping his head made a lot of people feel better.

It was also one of the few days in his political life where he made every effort to have each and every word he said be the truth, as far as he knew it and could speak it. People were shocked by that and connected with it.

The problem is that since then, he has become too acutely aware of the fact that his place in the national political consciousness is linked to that 9/11 identity and persona, so now he tries to "force it". He has turned into the Peter Brady of American politics, and he doesn't realize that hearing about how he pushed the kid out from under that bookcase is growing immensely tiresome.

Mad Max | May 17, 2007, 5:53pm | #

Or McCain's speeches explaining how come he intervened for those failng S&Ls shortly after getting money from them. Or Rudy doing that campaign commercial with Donna Hanover about their happy marriage.

Robert | May 17, 2007, 5:55pm | #

"Well, okay, maybe if he saved Oprah from a burning battleship."

Oprah is a burning battleship.

Pro Libertate | May 17, 2007, 5:56pm | #

Giuliani is a bull dyke. I saw a picture. Pictures don't lie.

Anonymo the Anonymous | May 17, 2007, 5:59pm | #

I've seen rumblings that people are going through old goldbug newsletters to see what kind of rhetoric was put out under Paul's masthead, and that could get ugly real fast.

Hours after the first R debate a few weeks ago, a blog post at LewRockwell.com, I think, maybe outside chance it was here, was linking to "mainstream" blogs and their mentions of Ron Paul's performance. One such link went to a DailyKos, IIRC, thread, that got about 400 comments deep, a fair amount of which mentioned Paul. Some of it was relatively positive, "For a Repug he sounds kinda sane on foreign policy", but every time someone praised him in the slightest, a few minutes later, this one commentor posted the same link to some alleged racist statements Paul had made years ago. The link went to the still-extant web page of a failed Democratic campaign against his seat several elections ago. The statements were from a radio appearance(s) by Paul, I think, and while they weren't the worst thing I've ever heard by any means, they did not look good. Three specific quotes, one was along the lines of "Young black guys can run really fast after they snatch your purse." No idea what the context was (not that I can really imagine any context in which a modern American politican should say that).

Not trying to start some kinda Imus-type scandal, and in the grand scheme of things Paul is by far the least immoral candidate running even if every word of that is true. I hate the racebaiters like Sharpton as much as anyone, but the alleged remarks are firmly in the knid of territory I do not want to be associated with. It would be really nice if someone had evidence that Paul did not say those things, it was all a campaign smear, or at least he's renounced those views and apologized.

jf | May 17, 2007, 5:59pm | #

My favorite Giuliani factoid is that his first marriage was to his second cousin.

Bhh | May 17, 2007, 6:06pm | #

I bought the idea just a few years ago that the Republicans were going to be the majority party for a generation. But the unmistakable funk of Jonestown Flavorade is rising and I think we're witnessing its crackup into a rump dixie/fundy party. You can't base a national party on torture and Perpetual War.

Not looking forward to years of one-party democrat rule. I kind of liked the capital gains tax cut.

Nate | May 17, 2007, 6:09pm | #

To anyone bashing Ron Paul, I dare you to look at his record. You will not find one person alive in the United States today who has defended our Constitution, your right to bear arms, your freedom of speech, more than this man. He is the closest living person we have as a leader to the founding founders, and because of your uneducated attacks, you should be ashamed. Please read some history, or at least look at how Congress votes, and who is really standing up for you before you attack them and simply feed upon the table scraps fed to you by the one-liner news clips.

tarran | May 17, 2007, 6:09pm | #

Anonymo, it was in a news-letter, the staffer who authored it was fired, and apparently this "scandal" was put to bed a long time ago:

When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, “I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren’t really written by me. It wasn’t my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.” Paul says that item ended up there because “we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything.”

His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: “They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn’t come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that’s too confusing. ‘It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.’” It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.

Nate | May 17, 2007, 6:09pm | #

founding fathers*

Anonymo the Anonymous | May 17, 2007, 6:17pm | #

Anonymo, it was in a news-letter, the staffer who authored it was fired, and apparently this "scandal" was put to bed a long time ago:

Cool, thanks, that's what I was looking for. Had never heard anything else like that ever attributed to Paul, and if he was a real David Duke-style racist there'd probably be a lot more documentation in the Age of Youtube. Just wanted to have an explanation for that if I was ever advocating for Paul and someone threw that at me. Figured if anyone knew, they'd be around here.

Au standard | May 17, 2007, 6:30pm | #

but the alleged remarks are firmly in the knid of territory I do not want to be associated with......

you are exactly right...Paul is way to close the Lew Rockwell circle....expand that circle a little and suddenly you are at the League of the South types....that something like that quote has come up is not at all a surprise....I brought up this point on another blog in relation to the lack of attention Paul was getting (i think from that Sullivan comment)....i said be careful what you wish for...if the media really looked at Paul they would have a field day, and libertarianism would really be tarnished

grumpy realist | May 17, 2007, 6:31pm | #

Thanks for the info. I'll be making sure it gets linked to during discussions on progessive blogs.

Yeah, I'm a bit of a liberal. So why do I want to help get the straight dope out on Ron Paul? Because he's the only one I see running on the right who even thinks about civil liberty and checks and balances. All the others are far too willing to tear down any sort of protection of the individual against the government. Go Paul!

When did the Republican party decide to turn into the Politiburo?

Nikita | May 17, 2007, 6:45pm | #

Politiburo

I tuhld you vee vood berry you!

tarran | May 17, 2007, 6:46pm | #

Ron Paul has written a large number of essays which are posted on the Internet.

Here are some on racism:

What Really Divides Us?
Government and Racism
The Trouble With Forced Integration

There are over 300 essays on lewrockwell.com alone.

I believe that he wrote these himself, so they represent his true views.

ain't nobody | May 17, 2007, 6:48pm | #

The article from Paul's newsletter is really appalling. And I find it hard to swallow that something so extreme didn't represent his views at all.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/28549w

NoStar | May 17, 2007, 6:52pm | #

My favorite Giuliani factoid is that his first marriage was to his second cousin.

That definately casts Rudy as presidential in a Franklin Delano Roosevelt kind of mold.

ObjectiveView | May 17, 2007, 6:55pm | #

Ron Paul is the only hope for republican. I vote for him regardless what party he represents.

NoStar | May 17, 2007, 6:55pm | #

One day I will definitely learn to spell definitely

Pig Mannix | May 17, 2007, 6:58pm | #

And I think that he is a distraction in the Republican primary and he does not represent the base and he does not represent the party,” Anuzis said during an RNC state leadership meeting.

I'll keep that in mind the next time the RNC solicits me for a donation. Why should I subsidize a party that doesn't represent my views?

mediageek | May 17, 2007, 7:00pm | #

"Rudy kept his head on 9/11 when a lot of people weren't.

Seeing him on television keeping his head made a lot of people feel better."

Which is, no doubt, why he's been Running for President of 9/11

Edward | May 17, 2007, 7:08pm | #

"Sissy-boy John Edwards"? What kind of macho shit is that?

jf | May 17, 2007, 7:16pm | #

FDR and Eleanor were 4th or 5th cousins, which apparently was quite acceptable to keep the money in the family and keep the blood blue.

NoStar | May 17, 2007, 7:27pm | #

What was it that Jeff Foxworthy said?

If you go to family reunions to pick up chicks... You might be presidential material.

It was something like that.

Bazil | May 17, 2007, 7:43pm | #

If Ron Paul actually gets alienated for expressing an uncomfortable truth, that will cement the Republican party as the a gang of idiots forever.

Then again after all this, I'm voting for Ron Paul even if there's only 12 people doing so. I'm tired of voting for the "lesser of the two evils" approved by the same populace that couldn't locate their asses on a map.

If you want documentation on why they hate us read "All the Shah's Men" you'll see how Ron Paul is actually accurately understanding what can win the "war on terror" and Rudy Romney and the rest will drag the conflict to about 5 or six generations.

I'd rather be right than agreed with, Ron Paul is right.

Thrall | May 17, 2007, 7:58pm | #

I am starting to hate "true libertarians". I am a libertarian, but you guys actually think Paul is giving Rudy more traction?

That's UNBAFUCKINGLIEVABLE, Ron Paul was right, and JUST BECAUSE a bunch of nationalists in the audience loved his fear mongering doesn't make the rest of the USA agree with Rudy.

Most US Citizens want less government, not more. And I am speaking about regular people, not the idiotic internet socialists.

miche | May 17, 2007, 8:18pm | #

I got an interesting comment on my blog about the this issue.

Of course Republicans want to keep Ron Paul away from further debate. He makes them look bad…real bad.

I left the GOP last year after 34 years and resigned as local Republican committee woman because the Republican Party is no longer recognizable to most conservatives. What passes for the GOP these days is pitiful.

Ron Paul is a true conservative and he has my full support.
He also has my vote for President and I’ll write him in if I have to.
Not only that I’m sending him a check. It’s the first time I will have ever contributed money to a Presidential Candidate. It’s part of this week’s grocery money.

I took the time to call his Washington, D.C. office yesterday to let him know that he has my support.
How many support phone calls are the other Republicans Presidential Candidates getting from farm wives without a Newspaper, TV or Radio?
Much less their grocery money.

grannymiller said this on May 17th, 2007 at 2:42 pm

DannyK | May 17, 2007, 8:19pm | #

It's too late, guys. The cannons have been wheeled round and brought to bear on Dr. Paul. By this time next week he'll be covered in slime a foot deep. He'll be Swift-Boated from here to Charleston. They have to, pour encourager les autres.

pgt | May 17, 2007, 8:24pm | #

"I'll keep that in mind the next time the RNC solicits me for a donation."

For a few years I have been throwing out all the fundraiser appeals the RNC sends me, unopened. That changes now. I’ll start stuffing their propaganda into their postage paid envelopes and mailing it back to them.

underdog | May 17, 2007, 8:26pm | #

Here's what David Frum as to say about Congressman Ron Paul:

"Ron Paul. People mock Ron Paul as a nut. The truth is worse, as his friend Tom Tancredo hinted during the debate:

And although my dear friend Ron here — I dearly love and really respect, but I'll tell you, I just have to disagree with you, Ron, about the issue of whether or not that — whether Israel existed or didn't, whether or not we were in the Iraq war or not, they would be trying to kill us because it's a dictate of their religion, at least a part of it, and we have to defend ourselves.

Paul hails from the Lindberghian primordial ooze, from a mental universe in which the United States is plunged into wars by the sinister machinations of bankers and ... the you know whos. Most of the time, Paul manages to keep a grip on himself, although he did let it slip during the South Carolina debate that he regreted the US entry into NATO! Good thing nobody asked him about the US entry into World War II. For Ron Paul to cite Ronald Reagan as his model is an act of ... well, chutzpah is clearly the wrong word ... let's say effrontery. Doesn't Lenora Fulani have a ballot line available to her somewhere? Paul should use that.

On the plus side, I am enjoying the spectacle of Andrew Sullivan's sudden enthusiasm for the isolationist old coot. One begins as a would-be Orwell; one finishes as Gore Vidal. "

I hope his friend can talk some sense into Dr. Paul

E. Money | May 17, 2007, 8:31pm | #

off topic:

can you guys recommend libertarian books, past classics and contemporary? i have a long summer of good reading to look forward to, i'd like to read a bit more of the most influential books on liberty (e.g. anyone from js mill to goldwater, etc.).
gracias.

ain't nobody | May 17, 2007, 8:35pm | #

"For a few years I have been throwing out all the fundraiser appeals the RNC sends me, unopened. That changes now. I’ll start stuffing their propaganda into their postage paid envelopes and mailing it back to them."

Try this instead -- a nice trick that a friend of my pulled before the last election -- he wrapped a brick in packaging paper and taped the envelope to it.

They only say "post paid." They don't specify a weight.

I choose to believe they received the brick. They stopped soliciting the guy, anyway.

Kwix | May 17, 2007, 8:36pm | #

Thrall,
Regarding Paul giving Guiliani more traction, I don't buy it. Rudy's comments about being "tough on Iraq" are nothing new to his supporters. Indeed, the only thing Paul it doing by stating his anti-war stance is that he, and he alone, is different than the other candidates. I say good on him as any voice that is not the party line is a voice that people need to hear.

Regarding the average citizen wanting smaller government, don't count on it. To hear "universal healthcare", "education funding", "homeland security", "drug task force" and the like spout forth from Dems and Repubs alike it sounds like people are willing to sell their liberty to the government that pretends to give them the most stuff whether it be "security" or "benefits".

juris imprudent | May 17, 2007, 8:47pm | #

underdog and the Repub cheerleading team can't seem to find enough bad things to say about RP.

Hmm, maybe they really do have something to worry about.

Kwix | May 17, 2007, 8:47pm | #

Underdog,
I hate responding to trolls, but I just have to ask. What the fuck are you talking about?

Tom Tancredo's statement was in direct response to Paul's assertion that the United States' close ties to Israel are one of the driving factors behind Al Qaeda, a fact backed by Bin Laden's "Letter to America". To quote the letter:
"(g) You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their eternal capital, and agreed to move your embassy there."

Of course, this letter is probably new to you and your reading/comprehension skills seem to be lacking so I will give you a day or two to read it.

In conclusion, quit acting like a six year old and start participating in discussions like a grown-up or we will seat you at the kid's table.

miche | May 17, 2007, 8:50pm | #

There is a poll at http://bconservatives.blogspot.com/. It is set up this way:

MCD Poll
Do you support Michigan Republican Chair Saul Anuzis' efforts to bar Congressman Ron Paul from future debates?
Yes--His Comments crossed the line
No--He has the right to say what he wants

mw | May 17, 2007, 8:54pm | #

I voted straight Dem in '06 in support of divided government. There is no way for the dems to lose either house in '08, so I am committed to voting Republican for president to avoid single party Democratic control. But cripes, the Republicans are making this tough. This may be hardest vote I ever cast. Save us Chuck Hagel. Save the GOP.

M | May 17, 2007, 9:03pm | #

Question to MCD Poll: Which line is that?

BakedPenguin | May 17, 2007, 9:12pm | #

They want Ron Paul barred from future debates? Good!

How very Ernst Roehm of you, Underdog...

Mike Espinoza | May 17, 2007, 10:14pm | #

Hmmm. David Frum is mocking Ron Paul, huh?

How often has David Frum been right on anything?

Pig Mannix | May 17, 2007, 10:32pm | #

For a few years I have been throwing out all the fundraiser appeals the RNC sends me, unopened. That changes now. I’ll start stuffing their propaganda into their postage paid envelopes and mailing it back to them.

Better still, stuff them with Ron Paul campaign literature.

Try this instead -- a nice trick that a friend of my pulled before the last election -- he wrapped a brick in packaging paper and taped the envelope to it.

They only say "post paid." They don't specify a weight.

I choose to believe they received the brick.

I used to work at Time Inc., and the guys who worked in the mail room used to tell me people would glue the pre-paid subscription cards from the magazines to bricks (and even more unsavory things) and toss them in the mailbox. They got 'em all right. No doubt the RNC got your friend's brick as well.

Jennifer Schulz | May 17, 2007, 10:38pm | #

Anyone who thinks Americans want more government is mistaken. I don't think they would say they did if they were really aware of the consequences. Unfortunately, the media and mainstream politicians have buried them in a lot of crap that they can't see the light.

thoreau | May 17, 2007, 10:50pm | #

Brilliant, Warren.

Ken Shultz | May 17, 2007, 10:58pm | #

"Paul hails from the Lindberghian primordial ooze, from a mental universe in which the United States is plunged into wars by the sinister machinations of bankers and ... the you know whos."

Never mind the question of whether our support of Israel contributes to anti-Americanism in the Muslim world...

To your ear, is it possible to ascribe some of the support terrorists enjoy in the Muslim world to our support of the state of Israel without sounding anti-Semitic?

Bonus Question: To your ear, is it possible to criticize the foreign policy of the United States without sounding anti-American?

Nolan | May 17, 2007, 11:22pm | #

as a member of the "fightin 14th" district, I signed the petition, as well as emailed RP about it. Hopefully it'll make a difference.

usually online petitions don't...

AlmightyJB | May 17, 2007, 11:26pm | #

Hey E.Money,
I just finished Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" not long ago. I highly recommend it if you haven't read. I would call it the anti-communist manifesto. Ayn Rand's "Virtue of Selfishness" is a quick read. She's somewhat dogmatic but has some interesting things to say. I just started on Popper's "Open Society and it's Enemy's". Can't give you much of a review but it's starting out pretty interesting. I have Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" waiting in the wings. Looks interesting but very academic. probably not a light read. They advertise Doherty's book all over this site. Looks interesting. 768 pages worth. I really like Walter Williams a lot as well. He's considered somewhat a conservative but certainly has a Libertarian streak. His "More Liberty means Less Government" is a book of short essays. Good for when your feeling a little a.d.d. Hope that helps.

R. Totale | May 17, 2007, 11:34pm | #

can you guys recommend libertarian books, past classics and contemporary?

Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson"
Milton Friedman "Free to Choose"
David Friedman "Machinery of Freedom"

win | May 17, 2007, 11:35pm | #

'Conservatives' are so confused by years of reform that most don't even recognize the roots of their party anymore.

Ron Paul is restating the party fundamentals and the twisted can't stand the truth.

Less government, less taxes, more freedom. 911 was an inside job.

AlmightyJB | May 17, 2007, 11:39pm | #

Paul did not handle the 9-11 thing well at all. He left himself wide open to the accusation of "justifying" the attacks against us even though that's not what he meant. He can't do that. He also sounds very defensive in all of his answers. I understand that's at least partially due to a hostile media but he needs to be able to rise above that. He really needs some coaching I think. I think the best we can hope for is that he pushes the GOP conversation towards the proper constitutional role of the federal government. Shortly after Paul talked about slashing three departments out of the government, Tancredo finished one of his answers with "Follow the Constitution and you'll know what is...what's necessary. And that's the defense of the country. That's it for the federal government." I'm not sure if Paul influenced that comment or not, but I do get the impression that he is influencing the other candidates at least a little bit. They know his non-interventionist and small-government ideas resonate with conservatives and libertarians and his presence makes it harder for them to ignore that.

Randolph Carter | May 17, 2007, 11:44pm | #

Unrelated to this, but what is the deal with that 2001 Space Baby ad?

miche | May 17, 2007, 11:44pm | #

AlmightyJB

If you can get through "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" please email me your synopsis. I've borrowed it three times and put it down after just pages.

RonPaul PeoplePower | May 17, 2007, 11:46pm | #

This is response to this garbage!
(underdog | May 17, 2007, 4:52pm | #
They want Ron Paul barred from future debates? Good! Let him run for President of Al Qaeda or Hamas as he is nothing but a terrorist sympathizing traitor. It was good Rudy smacked him down on that one.)

We will see who gets barred, The Michigan Republican Chairman will be the one who goes.........just watch!!!

AlmightyJB | May 17, 2007, 11:47pm | #

Hey Miche,
Will do. That was my original impression as well which is why I started with Popper instead:)

Troy-Colorado | May 17, 2007, 11:53pm | #

Ron Paul is speaking the Truth, guiliani hasn't even read the 911 commission's report! how can you stand up for someone who let terrorists (despite WARNINGS????)hit his city, and then not follow up on what made it possible for them to hit? Did you also know that guiliani is directly involved in NAFTA? the superhighway? How do you feel about becoming a citizen of CANAMEX? I dread that thought!

RonPaul PeoplePower | May 17, 2007, 11:56pm | #

Be careful, this is a trick question, look at how it is worded!!!!!

There is a poll at http://bconservatives.blogspot.com/. It is set up this way:

MCD Poll


Do you support Michigan Republican Chair Saul Anuzis' efforts to bar Congressman Ron Paul from future debates?

Yes--His Comments crossed the line
No--He has the right to say what he wants

Troy-Colorado | May 17, 2007, 11:56pm | #

BTW, the GOP is scared because they now that the Ron Paul Revolution can beat Hillary and Obama, (Ron WILL get Republican, Democrat, and Independent votes) NO other candidate can do that. Soon, all non-believers will be forced to see the World that has been pulled over their eyes.

zeiner the lurker | May 18, 2007, 12:06am | #

can you guys recommend libertarian books, past classics and contemporary?

Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman

The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek

highnumber | May 18, 2007, 12:07am | #

Wow! Great show, everyone! Regulars, occasionals, infrequents, first timers, everybody, except the Repub nutters. Good job. For a bunch of "Ernst Roehm wannabes," you all rock!
(aside to underzog: Did you find your dominant semitic top yet? Good luck. Your true love is waiting. I know he is.)

E Money,

I can't believe no one said Radicals for Capitalism, Brian Doherty's book!

Full disclosure: I have not read yet it myself. I am hoping against hope that Doherty comes to Chicago to hawk it. He won't, so I'll break down sooner or later and force my library to buy it. ;)

jw | May 18, 2007, 12:16am | #

can you guys recommend libertarian books, past classics and contemporary?

Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal, by Ayn Rand; Libertarianism, by John Hospers

jw | May 18, 2007, 12:20am | #

How could I forget: Human Action by Ludvig Von Mises

The Wine Commonsewer | May 18, 2007, 12:24am | #

Hi, just got an autographed copy of it today myself. Nanny, Nanny, Goat!

pgt | May 18, 2007, 12:26am | #

ain't nobody and Pig Mannix:
Thanks for the excellent suggestions; I'll remember them when I want to escalate. But sending Ron Paul literature to the apparatchiks -- there is a Biblical parallel about casting seen grain on ground of widely varying fertility I am trying to recall. For now I might look for concurrent Rep. and Dem. appeals, and cross return them. Neither would understand anything more subtle.

The Wine Commonsewer | May 18, 2007, 12:36am | #

Although I tend toward non-interventionist foreign policy I do not believe blowback is the only factor at work here.

It starts with the Koran which says, and I quote....

There is evil in every berry of the grape

Where, I ask, does that leave me?

It leaves me on a sled to Hell with greased runners. And the entire Middle East wants to help lovingly speed that process along.

Even though Rudy was a jerk (and put a couple of words in RP's mouth), RP would have done well to leave it at, ask CONgress to declare war, fight the war, win the war, go home rather than to get into something that sounded uncomfortably like Jerry Falwell (espc so close to the grave dancing).

The Wine Commonsewer | May 18, 2007, 12:38am | #

Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal, by Ayn Rand

One of her best. Maybe the best.

The Wine Commonsewer | May 18, 2007, 12:39am | #

Take Two:

Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal, by Ayn Rand

One of her best. Maybe the best. Certainly more succinct than Atlas or Fountainhead.

Mad Max | May 18, 2007, 1:00am | #

I happened to like Rothbard's *For a New Liberty,* although it's fairly strong stuff.

Grand Chalupa | May 18, 2007, 1:01am | #

Ron Paul is restating the party fundamentals and the twisted can't stand the truth.

Less government,

Cheers!

less taxes,

Yeah!

more freedom.

Preach it, brother!

911 was an inside job.

Um.......

Mad max | May 18, 2007, 1:02am | #

Also, *In defense of Freedom: A Conservative Credo* by Frank Meyer (1962).

Au standard | May 18, 2007, 1:23am | #

Tom Tancredo's statement was in direct response to Paul's assertion that the United States' close ties to Israel are one of the driving factors behind Al Qaeda, a fact backed by Bin Laden's "Letter to America". To quote the letter:
"(g) You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their eternal capital, and agreed to move your embassy there."

Of course, this letter is probably new to you and your reading/comprehension skills seem to be lacking so I will give you a day or two to read it.

Jarrett | May 18, 2007, 1:24am | #

Not sure where this lumping Ron Paul in with the 9/11 "truth" movement is coming from. I haven't seen anything that would indicate he believes that. I would welcome any evidence to the contrary.

Now for something amusing - according to Students for Paul (admittedly a somewhat biased source)
"they decided to stop answering the phones for the rest of the day because right when they hung up with one Ron Paul supporter the phone started to ring with the next. They couldn't get any work done". And "Saul has turned off his blackberry because he couldn't handle the overload".
-Pretty funny, there is more in the link.

Trying to lump Paul in with racists and the 9/11 truth movement is pretty low. If i can see some real evidence to the contrary I will change my opinion of him but it seems like a lot of mud slinging at this point.

Au standard | May 18, 2007, 1:34am | #

try again...

Tom Tancredo's statement was in direct response to Paul's assertion that the United States' close ties to Israel are one of the driving factors behind Al Qaeda, a fact backed by Bin Laden's "Letter to America". To quote the letter:
"(g) You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their eternal capital, and agreed to move your embassy there."

Of course, this letter is probably new to you and your reading/comprehension skills seem to be lacking so I will give you a day or two to read it.



I believe your ability to read beyond the lines is a little lacking and drawing the simple a leads to a conclusion is pretty weak......do you really believe that UBL was prompted by that issue?...up to that letter and 9/11 he paid little attention to the Israel/Palestine issue..actually it was way, way down his list....after 9/11 he was smart enough to use it as PR for himself in the arab world....if you really believe his letter then you really would have believed Hitler's argument after annexing Austria...thats really all I want ..really!...no really..come on guys!....deep down you know you have to know that he could care less about the Palestinians....
his word is worthless...

does our history in the region make things difficult for us yes...in alot of ways ..but does Israel really drive ol'UBL..highly doubt it

Derrick | May 18, 2007, 1:43am | #

I have to admit that I was a little frustrated, but not because I really disagree with Ron Paul. Rather, I felt he could have worded his statements more effectively, and responded to Giuliani much more aggressively.

Of course, if Paul was any good at crafting soundbites for mass appeal, he'd probably come across as a slimeball like the rest of the candidates.

Equality 7-2521 | May 18, 2007, 1:44am | #

I agree with Mad max.

Frank Meyer basically convinced me I was a libertarian - even though he was a conserative.

I then picked up a book debating Meyer's "fusionist" idea of libertarians and conservatives being friends called "Virtue or Liberty?" or something along those lines.

One essay argued, persuasively, that Meyer was just a libertarian. The author was Murray Rothbard - a name I didn't know well at the time.

Anyway, read Rose Wilder Lane's "The Discovery of Freedom." Its got some problems, but its poetic genius. Also "Atlas Shrugged," though long, is worth anyone's time - Rand is, if anything, provocative.

Edward | May 18, 2007, 1:49am | #

As Libertarian candidate, Ron Paul got a whopping .045 percent of the vote. Is the Republican party crazy?

Equality 7-2521 | May 18, 2007, 1:59am | #

Also, I sent Mr. Saul an email yesterday. As registered MI Republican, I let him know the party would be recieving no funds from me.

I instead donated to Paul.

miche | May 18, 2007, 2:10am | #

From TWC

There is evil in every berry of the grape.

Where, I ask, does that leave me?

Seeing that your constitution is grapes, you are utterly f'd.

Joe | May 18, 2007, 2:18am | #

I live in Idaho...love my country....love my freedoms.. ...I hope you'll consider signing the petiition. Ron Paul brings true conservative philosophy to the debate, the rest just seem fake to me.


-sign petition to keep Rom in the debates and not squash dissent.

http://www.petitiononline.com/RPRNC08/petition.html

John C. Randolph | May 18, 2007, 2:21am | #

Ron Paul is basically the Republican party's Harry Truman. They hate him, but if he gets the nomination and beats Hillary, they'll pretend they loved him all along.

-jcr

John C. Randolph | May 18, 2007, 2:23am | #

Jarret,

The truthers are backing Ron Paul just because they're generally anti-government. I wish they'd fuck off and vote for sharpton or rosie o'donnel or something.

-jcr

Bee | May 18, 2007, 2:38am | #

I recently read that Rose Wilder Lane was the daughter of Laura Ingalls Wilder, author of the Little House on the Prairie books.

I thought that was pretty interesting. I loved the Little House books. The women of that family had some grit, for sure.

bob | May 18, 2007, 2:44am | #

Does anyone else find it a little odd that someone who claims to have been "studying terrorism" since the 1970s has never heard of blowback?

miche | May 18, 2007, 2:50am | #

Bee,
Are you reading Radicals for Capitalism?

TrickyVic | May 18, 2007, 2:56am | #

I think the problem with politics today is that people want someone who will justify their belief, or to say, make them feel good about their belief. A lot of people, a lot of Republicans think our problem with terror is that they "hate" us, as Rudy so said. It's a far more simple answer than really discussing possible consequences of our "global" actions. Simple people want simple answers. Anyone worth their salt should realize, based from Rudy's comment, he doesn't have a clue.


Au Standard, I don't know if it was the same letter, but OBL did claim "the great betrayal" as a reason to wage war against us. His claim was we betrayed them by pulling our support after they defeated Russian in Afghanistan. They felt "used" by the US, so he said. Working the Ron Paul angle, Maybe we should have let Russia kick OBLs and Mujahadeen's ass. Things may have turned out different.

TrickyVic | May 18, 2007, 3:06am | #

Rudy supports are engaged in the fallacy that being a victim of terror gives you the knowledge to fight terror.

TrickyVic | May 18, 2007, 3:17am | #

Sorry that should say, Rudy supporters...

miche | May 18, 2007, 3:22am | #

The Onion's February article, Giuliani To Run For President Of 9/11 seems even funnier today, doesn't it?

Jon C Jackson 3 | May 18, 2007, 3:37am | #

Rudy isn't a victim of 9/11. He's enjoyed it.

Isaac Bartram | May 18, 2007, 4:11am | #

I tend to the opinion that Ron Paul could have made the statement more diplomatically. A lot of people seem to have interpreted it as "America deserved to be attacked.

On the other hand saying what he did has gotten everyone's attention. I heard my first mention of Ron Paul in his own right on NPR because of it. He had been almost completely ignored up till now.

Derrick | May 18, 2007, 4:56am | #

A lot of people seem to have interpreted it as "America deserved to be attacked.

Yes, that is my frustration as well. I also wish he would have corrected Giuliani by saying something like "don't put words in my mouth."

Not sayin' I could do any better. I'm just sayin'.

Terrorific | May 18, 2007, 5:52am | #

A lot of people seem to have interpreted it as "America deserved to be attacked."

Yeah, but that has more to do with the fact that a lot of people are pretty dumb and simply let Sean Hannity interpret it for them.

Of course, it's necessary to explain things simply so that the average American can "get it", but I thought he did a good job at that. He didn't stoop to their level of grandstanding and fake outrage, and his reluctance to pounce on people actually makes him stand out.

Anyway, can anyone really say that Giuliani's dickhead move in the debate was actually a BAD thing? Had he not said anything we wouldn't still be talking about this now.

Underdog | May 18, 2007, 7:46am | #

To Au Standard,

Hey Dude! Isn't is a little strange to respond to Muslims murdering us by trying to destroy a country of Jews the size of New Jersey? I think it is. If the Muslims are killing us, it's best to concentrate our attention on them and not kissing their derriere in a cowardly, appeasing fashion.

Do you remember those Fort Dix 6 (actually ten but four could not be brought to trial)? Do you remember that they were ethnic Albanians like the ones in Kosovo? We conducted a terror air campaign against Christian Serbia for them and now they repay us by trying to blow up Fort Dix, Dover airforce base, and a coast guard facility.

Suppose we lob some nuclear bombs at the Jewish state or maybe conduct a terror airraid like Clinton did with Serbia. What makes you think the Muslims will appreciate it and leave us alone? It didn't work with our idiotic meddling in the Serbian Kosovo area.

Try to think instead of just anticipating satisfaction of sadistic impulses by indulging in the oldest and most long lasting of ugly hatreds (anti-Semitism). And see if you can pass that sage advice on to Congressman Paul, too.

kwais | May 18, 2007, 8:09am | #

Underdog,
I think that the Arabs are semites. So I am not sure if them disliking that some jews took some of their land can be called antisemitism.

Even when they generalize that anger to involve jews who didn't take their land.

miche | May 18, 2007, 8:10am | #

Is Underdog Dondero??

underdog | May 18, 2007, 8:20am | #

Kwai: "Underdog,
I think that the Arabs are semites."

This is the type of ignorance I am lumbered with on this board. It helps to explain the nonsense I hear from both Congressman Paul and the Libertarians here.

I am too tired to go into the story of Wilhem Marr and his coining of the term, antisemitism.

M | May 18, 2007, 8:20am | #

A few more reflections here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/

rdkraus | May 18, 2007, 8:22am | #

The more Paul talks, the more I like him.

I might even send money.

Fluffy | May 18, 2007, 8:32am | #

Underdog, you're an idiot.

The United States was by far the most popular western nation in the Arab world prior to 1948.

We don't have to attack the Israelis or bomb them, we just have to stop handing them a new stick every time they break one over the head of an Arab.

Israel needs no aid from us. They are a NUCLEAR POWER. What the hell are we providing aid to a nuclear power for? To enhance their security? Nothing can enhance their security any more than their nuclear arsenal. Let Israel grow up and take care of itself.

Simply stepping back from the Palestine dispute, combined with no longer assisting Middle Eastern governments in repressing and abusing their Islamist parties, would almost instantly change the outlook of the Arab street towards the US. It's possible that in one or two states [Algeria?] an Islamist party would come to power, but so what? Such a party would fail at governance and be on the way out the door itself in due time, just the way Iran's government would be if we didn't play the straight man to the mullahs' paranoia at every opportunity.

Andrew | May 18, 2007, 9:08am | #

One of the things that really bothers me about certain members of my religion (seeing that I'm Jewish) is the need to cry "anti-semitism" at every turn. I'm not even sure how one can stretch what Dr. Paul said into anti-semitism.

Fluffy is right. Israel doesn't need our help militarily. They're fine on their own. They took care of their own business in 1948 without a problem, and since then the quality of their own army has gone up significantly more than the quality of the surrounding armies.

And also, underdog, not for nothing, but you took a nice leap from "go in with AK47s" to "blow up". Just saying.

Seamus | May 18, 2007, 9:30am | #

Underdog:

Where did au standard say anything that could be interpreted as support for "lob[bing] some nuclear bombs at the Jewish state or maybe conduct[ing] a terror airraid like Clinton did with Serbia"? You know, the alternative to leaning toward one side in a dispute isn't necessarily leaning toward the other side; there's always the option of staying out of the fight altogether.

True Patriot | May 18, 2007, 9:58am | #

Will there ever be a conservative party again? Goldwater is spinning in his grave watching these idiots get in everybody's business, spending like drunken sailors and stripping the constitution.

Rattlesnake Jake | May 18, 2007, 10:10am | #

"Goldwater is spinning in his grave watching these idiots get in everybody's business, spending like drunken sailors and stripping the constitution."

Bob Taft even moreso.

Rattlesnake Jake | May 18, 2007, 10:14am | #

"They took care of their own business in 1948 without a problem"

And 1967.

kwais | May 18, 2007, 10:21am | #

and 1973

Dave W. | May 18, 2007, 10:26am | #

And 1967.

Well, there was a small hitch in that one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

tarran | May 18, 2007, 10:31am | #

Dave W, how was shooting up a foreign naval vessel and getting away with it a problem for the Israeli's?

I mean, it was a real black eye for the U.S. Navy, sure. But the Israelis didn't lose a single jet or the gravy train of U.S. military and economic assistance.

Rattlesnake Jake | May 18, 2007, 10:31am |