A Ron Paul Revolution?
If America didn’t know who Texas Congressman Ron Paul was a week ago, they certainly know who he is now, due in great part to the exchange between him and Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani during the Republican Presidential Debate that took place last Tuesday.
Essentially, when one of the Fox News moderators questioned whether Ron Paul’s non-interventionist stance was appropriate in the wake of 9/11, the congressman argued that our government’s interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East was “a major contributing factor” as to why we were attacked on 9/11. As evidence, he cited the fact that our government had bombed Iraq for more than ten years and that Osama Bin Laden had cited our government’s interventions in the Middle East as a primary reason for his declaring war against the United States.
Rudy Giuliani responded abruptly and indignantly by invoking 9/11 and then distorting Ron Paul’s words–claiming that the congressman had said that the United States had “invited” the attack on 9/11 and then brushing off the congressman’s argument as “absurd” despite not offering any evidence whatsoever to contradict Ron Paul’s argument. After being loudly applauded by the Fox News audience, Giuliani demanded that Ron Paul retract his remarks, but the congressman did not back down, and instead lectured Giuliani on the phenomenon of “blowback”, citing the CIA and the 9/11 Commission as evidence for his argument. At that point, Giuliani and the remaining candidates asked to respond, but the Fox News moderators–caught unprepared by Ron Paul’s remarks–decided to abruptly end debate on this subject and move on to the most crucial of issues–the flying of the Confederate flag over the South Carolina state Capitol.
Immediately after the debate, Fox News correspondents couldn’y help themselves in distorting the exchange between Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani, with Karl Cameron accusing the congressman of asserting that the U.S. “effectively asked for the 9/11 attacks.” Shortly afterward, Ron Paul was interviewed by Fox New’s Hannity & Colmes and went head-to-head with a visibly annoyed Sean Hannity on the issue of the Iraq War.
Since then, news of the exchange between Ron and Giuliani spread throughout the mainstream media and the blogosphere like wildfire, with anti-war libertarians, liberals, and conservatives generally applauding Ron Paul and pro-war Republicans generally denouncing (and outright distorting) the Texas Congressman’s remarks. Ron made two appearance appearances on CNN–once on Wolf Blitzer’s show and once on Sunday’s Late Edition with John King, and he was praised on both HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher and ABC’s The View.
Last Saturday, a rally was held for Ron Paul in Austin Texas. Apparently several hundred people attended-including Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. In the speech he gave to his audience, Mr. Paul talked about bringing libertarians, conservatives, and liberals together under an anti-war, pro-individual liberty banner. Here’s a partial transcript of his speech (the first eight minutes of which can be heard on the YouTube clip above):
Thank you. Thank you very much. This is a bit overwhelming–believe me. This is wonderful. You know, a few months ago–a matter of fact–somebody this evening told me last summer–he suggested I do this, and I was very, very reluctant, and I hinted in no way that I was planning to do it, nor did I really want to do it. And a few months after that–then others came to me, and they kept talking about it. And the truth is that I have been very, very reluctant. And I–it wasn’t that I was reluctant about our message because I think our message is powerful.
(LOUD APPLAUSE)
But I really wasn’t sure whether I was the right person to do it, and eventually I said, “Yes, I will see and we’ll find out if there’s anybody out there. I think of the people who believe in true freedom in the way I think of the remnant. And evidently–you know–they say that the remnant was out there, and nobody could count them, and they didn’t know where they were, and you can’t find them, but the remnant will find you and find us. So it looks to me that the remnant is large and growing!
(LOUD APPLAUSE)
You know, isn’t it strange? Let’s, for a minute, assume–which shouldn’t be too great of an assumption–that I defend the Constitution moreso than the rest of the [sic] candidates.
(LOUD APPLAUSE)
But isn’t it interesting also, that the Establishment figures the one that most defends the Constitution has to be eliminated from the debates. What’s going on in this country?!
(LOUD BOOS)
You know, I’m not going to ask, but I do know that there are a few people in here who are not traditional Republicans. Some call themselve Independent. Some call themselves Libertarian. Some call themselves even Democrats. There may be some Democrats here.
(LOUD APPLAUSE)
Now the art of politics is to bring people together–it’s not to be divisive. When you’re running for an office, if you’re overly pure in the sense of–you know, you have to greet A, B, C, D–you say you have to bring coalitions together. There’s no doubt about it. And there are several groups of people who make up an electoral that I think are important this time. I think at the top of the list are the people who are looking for leadership in this country today are dealing with the complications from a very, very flawed foreign policy.
(LOUD APPLAUSE)
And if we look at what happened in the election last year, I think the message was loud and strong–that they’re sick and tired of the consequences of the foreign policy that we have, and they’re looking for something new and different. And quite frankly, although the Democrats have politically benefited from that disenchantment with the Republican leadership on foreign policy, quite frankly, I don’t see anybody on the Democratic side that really has answered the call to come around and have a different foreign policy, because it looks to me like it’s more of the same thing.
(LOUD APPLAUSE)
I think that issue brings a lot of people together. All the various political factions will come together. And right now it looks like probably about seventy percent of the country is looking for a different policy–especially in the Middle East–and readjust that.
On economic policy–it is something that if you ask almost a hundred percent of the Americans if they believe in the free enterprise system–you know what? Most Americans believe in the free enterprise system. Too often, though–too often–what happens is– “Yes I believe in free enterprise for myself, but I like–I mean–for everybody else, but I like special privileges for myself.” But to really believe in free enterprise you have to believe in market competition for everybody, and nobody gets subsidies.
(LOUD APPLAUSE)
A lot of time, they think that subsidies and welfare goes to poor people. Yeah, there’s some welfare that goes to poor people, but sometimes I think they’re crumbs. The real big welfare in the system we have goes to the military industrial complex and the big banks. That’s where it goes!
(LOUD APPLAUSE)
But the market economy should bring people together–especially when it’s realized that the system we have today is ripping off the middle class and the poor. They’re the ones who suffer from the inflation and the regulations and all the government interference. So that, to me, is an issue that brings people together.
One person once told me not to long ago–I think it was said on television–they said, “Well, you ought to run as a Democrat.” And I said, “Why should I run as a Democrat? I’m the most conservative member of the congress.”
(LOUD APPLAUSE)
So they get twisted up. They don’t know how to label those of us who believe in liberty because liberty is really pervasive. It’s beneficial to everybody! It’s not beneficial to special groups so if–so you can vote for–you know–less money. Now there’s some very well known liberal individuals in this country who are coming and supporting our campaign, which is very interesting. You would say, “Well, liberals don’t like–they like big spending and all. But why would they be coming out and endorsing our campaign now?”
Quite frankly, because of foreign policy and attacking special interests for the rich and the benefits. This is a tremendously powerful message. And there’s another element that should bring people together, and that is the concept of personal, individual liberty.
(LOUD APPLAUSE)
Personal liberty is not a special interest. It’s the only interest that really counts. See, I don’t like to think of rights being group rights. Not to offend anybody, but I don’t see things like women’s rights and minority rights and all this. I just don’t think that’s possible. Rights are given to individuals–I personally have a belief that they come from our Creator.
(LOUD APPLAUSE)
Which means, then, that your life is your own–that you have your own responsibility. I mean, you have a responsibility of what’s going to happen for eternity’s sake, so you ought to have responsibility of what you’re going to do here on earth as well.
(LOUD APPLAUSE)
(NOTE: This post was cross-posted at The Coming Realignment).
opinions powered by SendLove.to
12 Responses to “A Ron Paul Revolution?”
Nic quoted Ron Paul:
“A lot of time, they think that subsidies and welfare goes to poor people. Yeah, there’s some welfare that goes to poor people, but sometimes I think they’re crumbs. The real big welfare in the system we have goes to the military industrial complex and the big banks. That’s where it goes!”
Actually, where it goes is to middle-class entitlements. Defense spending is large, but is not the growing monster among spending categories. Mandatory programmatic spending is the killer.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/sheets/hist08z1.xls
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/sheets/hist08z3.xls
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/sheets/hist08z4.xls
* This is before the Baby Boom retires.
* This is before any expansion of Medicare, or of Social Security (increasing the income replacement ratio from the current approximate 40 per cent level).
Let’s hope Paul’s momentum continues to build. America needs someone to say these things and get the semblance of a debate going again. Not holding my breath for a victory, tho.
Apparently, Dr. Paul also has some unorthodox views on domestic issues. READ THIS.
Well, all of the candidates have a skeleton or two in their closets. I think he adds liveliness to the debate, and is not a cookie-cutter Republican. He also makes valid points about our involvement in Iraq and the money we are throwing at defense contractors for systems that either don’t work, won’t be ready in time, aren’t suited for a war of counterinsurgency or could be produced cheaper overseas. We already spend more on defense than all of the rest of the countries in the world put together. What do we have to show for it?
G. Weightman,
David Schraub pointed out this issue in a post that he wrote a couple of days ago, and it generated quite a bit of debate. The “anti-Semitic” label has been used time and time again by numerous supporters of the war to label anti-libertarians and anyone else who has the temerity to criticize AIPAC. The idea that AIPAC is a powerful lobbying organization that sometimes conflates criticism of their policies with anti-Semitism is hardly new.
The remarks about African-Americans, however, is much more disturbing. Others have attempted to put their own spin on what they think Ron Paul meant, but it’s not all that convincing. Having never spoken to Ron Paul or anyone on his campaign, all I can do is direct you to a libertarian-friendly link that cites Ron Paul as saying that the remarks made in his newsletter (The Ron Paul Political Report) in 1992 were not authorized by him. Is that believable? I’ll let you be the judge.
Oops. When I wrote anti-libertarians, I meant, of course, anti-war libertarians. Given their strong support for free market capitalism, anti-war libertarians can’t easily be denounced as leftists, but that hasn’t stopped avid supporters of the war from coming up with much more imaginative labels for them (i.e. “isolationists”, “the Blame America crowd”, “apologists”, “anti-Semites”).
DLS – What did Eisenhower have to say about MIC. When they are looking at stealth destroyers, I think the Rummy hi-tech wing is going nuts. Our vast technological advantage isn’t doing the trick in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Vive La Ron Paul Revolution
RON PAUL is the ONLY candidate with any REAL hope or chance for change and plus he is probably the ONLY candidate that is not owned by special interest groups, the coming globalists and New World Order / Illuminati and / or Secret Societies.
Ron Paul is the last hope mankind has in turning the tide against the massive impending evil and the North American Union that Bush has already secretly signed into place. Did you know the NAU will be the unification of Mexico Canada and the US into one country and we will also have a new currency called the Amero Dollar.
Why do you think are borders aren’t protected? Hmmmmmmm
Why are 2 our of best Border Patrol Agents Nacho Ramos and Jose Compean are in jail for stopping a drug running smuggler who our Gov. eg. Bush & our US Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez have decided to protect and side with – instead of our good Agents who are supposed to protect us. Hmmmmmm Wonder why? hmmmm Maybe I’ll ask the tooth fairy….
RON PAUL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEJJ1GHteLM
If any of these topics are over your head (which I’m sure they are) I strongly suggest you dig deep and do some “major” research as well as actually READ the SPP documents (partnership agreement for North American Union aka Prosperity Partnership of North America ) and check out DR. Jerome R. Corsi (The man who brought us the Swift Boat campaign that sunk Kerry).
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50618
http://www.spp.gov
ALL of these things are being done without Congress (no authorization from Congress) or letting the American People Vote on this!! This is HIGH TREASON!!!!
Washington & Franklin are doing Cirque du Soleil flips in their graves. Really & seriously our Founding Fathers should rise from the grave.
RE: The NAU / SPP – I know Sean Hannity & Rush will immediately dismiss all of this as they are paid to dismiss these items. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that will ADDRESS THESE ISSUES. I can’t believe we actually have some real change on our doorstep. Thank God!!
God Bless Ron Paul!!!
It’s time for the Profane to wake up and quickly become initiated into the Truth!!!!
[...] the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. ©Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, All Rights Reserved. Be sure to read THIS EARLIER POST about Paul that also contains an interesting You Tube [...]
Hopes that Dr. Paul will open up a second front for the Democrats are destined to be dashed. The good doctor is firmly ensconced in the peanut gallery of American political eccentrics alongside Father Coughlin, Lyndon LaRouche et al. Pace Mr. Order From Chaos above, conservatives are persuaded by appeals to human and economic capital, not CAPITAL LETTERS!!!
War does strange things to people………
I don’t doubt there aren’t a few true libertarians in Ron Paul’s corner, but when most every blogger/columnist highlights Ron Paul these days, they devote a couple of sentences to his domestic policy and “general” foreign policy views and then write 18 paragraphs about his opposition to the Iraq war.
Unless and until these very latter-day Paul supporters come out and announce they agree to cut the HHS budget by the same amount they would cut the DoD budget, they do not support govt-funded healthcare nor a progressive income tax nor open borders, I am calling them out as insincere opportunists in their use of Ron Paul as a false proxy to their anti-Iraq point of view.
casualobserver,
Who exactly are the “insincere opportunists”? Is anyone who praises Ron Paul for his anti-war remarks despite disagreeing with him on domestic policy an “insincere opportunist”?
This isn’t about a bunch of people suddenly supporting Ron Paul’s campaign. I doubt that many of the liberals and moderates who have praised Ron Paul for his anti-war remarks would vote for him in the general election given his extremely conservative views on fiscal policy.
This is about fundamentally altering the framing of the foreign policy debate in this country. For the last five years, politicians and pundits have characterized the anti-war position as “liberal” and the pro-war position as “conservative.” Anti-war conservatives have been marginalized by supporters of the war, and libertarians have been ignored altogether.
Ron Paul reminds us that a non-interventionist (not to be confused with pacifist) foreign policy was once a mainstream position within the Republican Party. He also reminds us that as recently as seven years ago, a significant portion of the Republican Party (including our current president) opposed nation-building and policing the world.
Ron Paul is an annoyance to the Establishment, which would prefer that our foreign policy remain framed entirely along a left-versus-right. It reveals how war has totally eclipsed all other issues. George W. Bush has received widespread support from conservative Republicans despite his decided unconservative record on fiscal issues. Rudy Giuliani is leading the Republican field despite his pro-choice position on abortion and past support for gun control.
Yet Ron Paul, who is the most pro-smaller government politician in Congress is vilified by much of the party because he refuses to support the party’s interventionist foreign policy. Moreover, he puts a good number of Democrats to shame in that he has consistently spoken out against the war–unlike those Democrats who supported the war when it was popular and turned against it once it became unpopular (i.e. Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden).