GOP Can Learn from Ron Paul

[Cynthia]

I disagree, XO. Not all Christians who are true believers with dedicated  faith in and the desire to do good works in the name of Jesus Christ, set up tents and march to the drummer of the Christians we see on the Tube or read about all over the place. There are so many Christians in the world who do not do that.

Perhaps only he can answer this query, but before putting him into the tent with all the other missionaries, my thought is to keep an open mind in terms of such a personal judgement.

[Universe Prince]

but what about the ongoing newsletter with the racist slurs.

I don't know because I haven't found anything about it other than some out of context quotes. But then the newsletter is no longer published as best I can figure out, and I'd be voting for the man as he is now, not as he was then. The reports about the newsletter are troubling, but I have a tendency not to judge who someone is now based on actions taken 20+ years ago. When Arnold Schwarzenegger was first running for governor of California, and the reports about his poor treatment of women some 30 years ago came out, I gave him the benefit of the doubt too rather than jump on the "Schwarzenegger is a pig" bandwagon.

I see no need to defend Romney or Rudy, as the subject is Paul.

I don't recall suggesting that you to defend them in this thread specifically. In any case, I have not seen you mount a reasoned defense of Romney or Giuliani and their changing political positions. You do seem intent on being critical of Ron Paul. Discussing Ron Paul in relation to the other candidates seems perfectly reasonable to me since we are supposed to choose from among the candidates. Pay no attention to Romney and Giuliani, because the subject is Ron Paul, you seem to be saying. You may seek to shrug this off, but I find it significant and relevant to the discussion. Is your goal to discuss or to denigrate Ron Paul? Is the point to discuss his ability to be a good President or to take a swing at Ron Paul because you're annoyed that people would speak so highly of him and so critically of the position changing "pragmatism" for which you seem to favor the other candidates?

I doubt a Piggly Wiggly manager would allow a store clerk to disrespect a customer like Paul's staffer did, so yes i think the manager would fire the clerk on the first offense.

That all depends on how much the store manager might get in trouble for having his photograph taken with a stripper. Seems to me a good manager might understand the thinking of the clerk even if he didn't necessarily agree with the clerk.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Hey, I am not trying to tell Christians what to do. I just was pointing out that evangelism has always been a major feature of Christianity, if not since the crucifixion, certainly since St. Paul. All the major sects of Christianity send missionaries. Ron Paul, like perhaps many Christiand does not do this personally, but if we compare him with Huckabee, who was an active Baptist preacher, and Mitt Romney, whi spent the usual two years as a Mormon missionary, he is less fervent at his evangelism than either of those.

Paul may be a sincere man and a good man, but that does not mean he would make a good president. Maybe he is a good Christian, perhaps he isn't, that is nnot all that important to me.The idea of shrinking the government into something puny does not seem like too clever an idea in an age when transnational conglomerates, who have destroyed unions and crushed governemnts of smaller nations are growing more and more powerful.

I think he is less fascist than Giulani, less wacky than evolution-denying Huckabee, less opportunist than Romney, less bellicose and less militarist than McCain, but Republicans in general have always seeed like a bad idea to me. Of course all the GOP candidates have Juniorbush beat, and Cheney is worst of all.

[BT]

I don't know because I haven't found anything about it other than some out of context quotes. But then the newsletter is no longer published as best I can figure out, and I'd be voting for the man as he is now, not as he was then. The reports about the newsletter are troubling, but I have a tendency not to judge who someone is now based on actions taken 20+ years ago.

Morris ran numerous attacks, including publicizing issues of the Ron Paul Survival Report (published by Paul since 1985) that included derogatory comments concerning race and other politicians.[53][54] Alluding to a 1992 study finding that "of black men in Washington ... about 85 percent are arrested at some point in their lives",[55][56] the newsletter proposed assuming that "95% of the black males in Washington DC are semi-criminal or entirely criminal", and stated that "the criminals who terrorize our cities ... largely are" young black males, who commit crimes "all out of proportion to their numbers".[57][58]

In 2001, Paul took "moral responsibility" for the comments printed in his newsletter under his name, telling Texas Monthly magazine that the comments were written by an unnamed ghostwriter and did not represent his views. He said newsletter remarks referring to U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan (calling her a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist") were "the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."[59] The magazine defended Paul's decision to protect the writer's confidence in 1996, concluding, "In four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."[34] In 2007, with the quotes resurfacing, New York Times Magazine writer Christopher Caldwell concurred that Paul denied the allegations "quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own,"[9] but added that Paul's "response to the accusations was not transparent."[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#1996_campaign_controversy

[Universe Prince]

Yes, BT, I've read that before. Yes, I noticed you put "In 2001" in bold, but that is when he talked to Texas Monthly about it, not a date of publication for the newsletter. For the most part the Wikipedia entry lends credence to my position on the matter. The controversial views expressed were not his and even the mostly liberal New York Times apparently "concurred that Paul denied the allegations 'quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own'". So I have no reason to hold the statements against him. You still find fault, and I doubt I could dissuade you. I guess I'll just have to try to live with that. I'm sure I will, somehow.

[BT]

The NYT also said that the mea culpa was not transparent. Who wrote the newsletter and held such explicit trust that Paul or another trusted party didn't even proof it. Paul never felt the need to reveal that tidbit. How convenient.

[Universe Prince]

The NYT also said that the mea culpa was not transparent. Who wrote the newsletter and held such explicit trust that Paul or another trusted party didn't even proof it. Paul never felt the need to reveal that tidbit. How convenient.

Yes, and...? So Ron Paul isn't a rat. He didn't scapegoat someone for his own benefit. I happen to like that. Apparently, you would prefer someone with more "pragmatic" values. Too bad.

[BT]

If someone put out racist remarks on my letterhead i certainly wouldn't coverup for them while at the same time gaining plausible deniability for myself especially since the remarks did not represent his own thoughts on the matter. I'd be pissed.

And i certainly would want the author to explain themselves.

Then again he might not have wanted the author to talk at all.

Funny how that worked out.

 

[Universe Prince]

Oh, I see. So you'd rat the guy out and make him your scapegoat. How convenient that would be.

Ron Paul handled things differently than you would so therefore he must be hiding something. Pooh yi. Who said Ron Paul was not angry? From what I can dig up on the matter he was quite angry when he found out.

Apparently this conversation is less about discussing Ron Paul's fitness for office than it is about you making sure he gets badmouthed.

[BT]

How could the ghostwriter be a scapegoat if he wrote things Paul didn't authorize.

Paul said he didn't write the newsletter. So who did? Why was Paul so intent on hiding his identity?

And yes the discussion is about Paul's fitness for office. You are the one who keeps want to bring in Rudy and Mitt and the rest.

Your guy shy of the spotlight or something?

[Religious Dick]

http://www.reason.com
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124152.html
Reason Magazine
Could Ron Beat Rudy Twice?

Radley Balko | January 1, 2008, 11:02am

Whodda' thunk that after all the hullabaloo following the debate exchange below from seven months ago that Ron Paul would be in a position to beat Rudy Giuliani in both Iowa and New Hampshire?

Today's Des Moines Register poll, which Slate says other pollsters consider "by far the most reliable," has Paul nearly doublng Giuliani in Iowa. Meanwhile, conventional wisdom says Paul's cadre of cell phone-toting college students and new voters will enable him to finish well above where he's polling at the moment in New Hampshire. The latest New Hampshire poll shows Paul just two points behind Giuliani. And that's an ARG poll, which thus far into the campaign has tended to show the least amount of support for Paul.

Looks like third place in Iowa, New Hampshire, or both isn't at all out of the question. Neither is beating Giuliani in one or both. Pretty remarkable, really. The anti-war candidate mocked and chuckled at in the debate below may well knock off the war-supporting 9/11 superhero?in the Republican primaries.

[Universe Prince]

How could the ghostwriter be a scapegoat if he wrote things Paul didn't authorize.

Paul said he didn't write the newsletter. So who did? Why was Paul so intent on hiding his identity?

Maybe that isn't Ron Paul's intent. Maybe he simply feels responsible since his name was on the newsletter and therefore isn't going to slough off the blame to someone else. That seems to be the case, as best I can determine. It has to do with some things called integrity and honor. But I guess you don't think such are important qualities in someone seeing the position of Chief Executive.

And yes the discussion is about Paul's fitness for office. You are the one who keeps want to bring in Rudy and Mitt and the rest.

As I said before, discussing Ron Paul in relation to the other candidates seems perfectly reasonable to me since we are supposed to choose from among the candidates. You're the one who keeps trying to claim we oughtn't talk about the other candidates. You're bringing up problems with Paul, and I think the problems with the other candidates are worse, but you keep saying we can't talk about that because the subject is Paul, as if somehow Paul and his campaign exist separately from all the others. It seems as if you're trying to get people to ignore Romney and Giuliani and focus on Paul. Why? I don't know. You seem intent on building Paul up as some sort of horrible incompetent while we look the other way regarding the other candidates. You get to compare Paul to Hillary Clinton apparently, but object to comparing Paul to Romney or Giuliani. If the discussion is about Paul's fitness for office, I don't know why comparing him to other candidates would be off limits. Why we're supposed to berate Ron Paul and never consider whether he is the best of the available candidates is something you have yet to explain.

Your guy shy of the spotlight or something?

If he were, he probably wouldn't be running for President. But I do get the impression that he is not a glory hog, unlike some other candidates I could mention.

[BT]

It has to do with some things called integrity and honor.

A man with integrity and honor would not only take responsibility for the newsletter but also give an explanation as to why it was allowed to go on for so long.

And a man of integrity would not furnish a newsletter bearing his name if he didn't practice oversight of the product. That would border on fraudulent marketing.

[BT]

 TV cuts candidates from debates, angering Paul backers

   
NEW YORK (AP) -- ABC and Fox News Channel are narrowing the field of presidential candidates invited to debates this weekend just before the New Hampshire primary, in Fox's case infuriating supporters of Republican Rep. Ron Paul.
art.paul.gi.jpg

Fox News says it has limited space in its studio, which leaves Rep. Ron Paul out of a weekend debate.

The roster of participants for ABC's back-to-back, prime-time Republican and Democratic debates Saturday in New Hampshire will be determined after results of Thursday's Iowa caucus become clear.

Fox, meanwhile, has invited five GOP candidates to a forum with Chris Wallace scheduled for its mobile studio in New Hampshire on Sunday. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee received invites, leaving Paul of Texas and Rep. Duncan Hunter of California on the sidelines.

The network said it had limited space in its studio -- a souped-up bus -- and that it invited candidates who had received double-digit support in recent polls.

In a nationwide poll conducted December 14-20 by The Associated Press and Yahoo, Thompson had the support of 11 percent of GOP voters and Paul was at 3 percent. Paul's support is at 6 percent in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll conducted in early December.

Paul was tied with Thompson for fifth in New Hampshire in the most recent Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, each with the support of 4 percent of likely voters. Among all New Hampshire voters, Paul led Thompson 6 percent to 4 percent, but that was within the poll's margin of error.

Jesse Benton, Paul's spokesman, said it was a "big mistake" not to include Paul, especially given Paul's recent success in fundraising. He said the campaign has been trying to reach Fox News to get an explanation for the decision, but its calls had not been returned.

"There very well might be some bias," Benton said. "Ron brings up some topics that aren't very popular with Fox News, as in fiscal responsibility and withdrawing from the war in Iraq ... that does leave us scratching our heads a little bit about whether it was deliberate. Based on metrics, I don't see how you can possibly exclude Dr. Paul."

Some livid Paul supporters are distributing e-mails calling for a boycott of Fox advertisers.

A Fox representative did not immediately return calls for comment about the complaints.

Paul has been invited to a GOP forum that Fox News is sponsoring in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, on January 10, Benton said.

To participate in ABC's Saturday night debate, Republican and Democratic candidates must meet at least one of three benchmarks: place first through fourth in Iowa, poll 5 percent or higher in one of the last four major New Hampshire surveys, or poll 5 percent or higher in one of the last four major national surveys.

ABC News anchor Charles Gibson said the criteria were actually quite inclusive. He defended the network taking the initiative in effectively narrowing the field at a point when no actual voters had cast a ballot, except for Iowa caucus-goers.

"You will have had a year's politicking," he said. "You will have had, I think by count, about 641 debates. You will have had national polls and state polls and one state's vote. I think that's pretty indicative."

Gibson said ABC explained the rules for participation in a conference call with all the campaigns and "nobody said, "How dare you!' "

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/31/debate.limits.ap/index.html

[Religious Dick]

Print ThisGo BackGo to CBSNews.com Home
Getting Stingy With Debate Invitations
Jan 1, 2008(Political Animal) GETTING STINGY WITH DEBATE INVITATIONS....After having watched every major debate for both parties' presidential candidates, I can certainly understand the temptation on the part of organizers to limit participants. The more candidates on the stage, the greater the need for shorter answers and fewer questions.

Having said that, this just isn't kosher.

    Republican Rep. Ron Paul and his supporters are targeting the Fox News network today after an Internet discussion spread during the weekend that the cable network wasn't giving the Texas lawmaker a seat at the table for a New Hampshire forum scheduled two days before the state's Jan. 8 primary. [...]This morning, Washington Wire received a mass email from an independent Paul supporter calling on his considerable online organization to write to Fox employees and protest the decision. The email listed the addresses of about 60 Fox employees, from press contacts to hosts Bill O'Reilly, Shepard Smith, Neil Cavuto and Brit Hume.

    "Has Fox News Excluded Ron Paul From the Pre NH Primary Forum?" the email said, "Fox News cannot just stifle public opinion. debate and impact a primary election by excluding Ron Paul just because they don't like his message of freedom and liberty," the email said (typos included).



Fox News and the New Hampshire Republican Party will host a forum at St. Anselm College, featuring Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson. Given that Paul has about twice as much support in New Hampshire than Thompson, he's likely to finish ahead of Giuliani in Iowa, and he's raised more money in the fourth quarter than any of them, it's hard to understand how the Republican network can justify excluding Paul. (Fox News has not announced its criteria for participation.)

What's more, the state GOP has said it wants Paul on the stage, meaning that it's Fox News specifically that's decided to exclude the Texas Republican from the event.

Josh Marshall added, "Paul's out because he's not a Fox News Bush-clone. Say whatever you want about the guy, Fox News shouldn't be able to silence him because they don't like his views."

I'm not even close to a Ron Paul fan, but I'm certainly willing to concede that Fox News shouldn't stack the deck like this.



Copyright 2008
Feedback   Terms of Service   Privacy Statement

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/01/politics/animal/main3663961.shtml


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date: December 31, 2007
From: Fergus Cullen, Chairman, New Hampshire Republican Party

NH REPUBLICANS: DON?T LIMIT DEBATE PARTICIPANTS

CONCORD ? New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen releases the following statement regarding primary weekend debates:

?Limiting the number of candidates who are invited to participate in debates is not consistent with the tradition of the first in the nation primary. The level playing field requires that all serious candidates be given an equal opportunity to participate ? not just a select few determined by the media prior to any votes being cast.?

?Therefore, the New Hampshire Republican Party calls upon all media organizations planning pre-primary debates or forums for both parties to include all recognized major candidates in their events.?

?The New Hampshire Republican Party has notified FOX News of our position, and we are in ongoing discussions with FOX News about having as many candidates as possible participate in the forum scheduled for January 6.?

Fergus Cullen
Chairman, New Hampshire Republican Party