The GOP would-be-presidents took the stage tonight in an attempt to achieve several objectives. First they wanted to sell the notion that President Bush’s surge is working. Secondly, they wanted to insist that leaving Iraq would somehow dishonor the troops. Lastly, they wanted to turn on Ron Paul and try to torpedo his candidacy.
Facing daunting tasks of a news channel that is at the heart of the machine, Faux News, Paul had to deal with being virtually ignored in comparison to the anointed candidates such as Giuliani, McCain and Romney. Heck, he got one for every two questions to the other second tier candidates such as Huckabee and Brownback. Besides the stacked deck, Dr. Paul also faced the attacks of the Fox News staff, disguised as questions.
The first question posed to Dr. Paul was a purposeful misquote, where he was asked about an alleged quote where he said that people should be allowed to carry firearms on airplanes and that by doing so, maybe the terrorists on 911 would have thought twice. Of course this is not what Dr. Paul had said. He had stated that if the airlines had not been required to submit to the government they could have protected their own customers. The question was designed to give a question to Paul that he would have to correct instead of actually answering.
The second question though revealed the unbelievable bias of Fox News. In response to a question about Iraq and troops, Paul reiterated that we needed to pull the troops home, period. He has consistently said that we need to address the entire foreign policy and start protecting our own borders and our own country. In response to the false notion that there would be a “bloodbath” if we just pulled out, Paul quickly reminded everyone that the same people speculating that there would be a bloodbath are the same people who said Iraq would be a “cakewalk” and a “slam dunk.” He then correctly pointed out the faulty logic that says we need to stay for stability when it is widely reported that our presence on the Arabian Peninsula is what prompted the attacks of 911. The response from Chris Wallace was to pose his own follow up question which was, “So you are saying you would take your marching orders from al Qaeda?”
Are you kidding me? The inherent bias in the question was disgusting during a debate forum and Chris Wallace revealed himself as nothing but a whore for the machine and not a credible newsperson. Thankfully, Dr. Paul was up to the task by responding that he would take his marching orders from the Constitution. The other candidates of course tried to turn on Paul immediately, crying about that we “broke” Iraq, so we must fix it. What was far more egregious though was the notion that bringing home the troops would somehow dishonor their service. Can you imagine if any democrat had intimated that somehow a soldier’s effort could be dishonored? Facing the attacks, Paul responded that the American people didn’t break anything; the neocons did by hijacking our foreign policy and that if something is not working you do not continue to sacrifice American lives, you fix the problem.
The last question Paul faced, and that’s right America, three questions in an hour and a half from my count, was in response to another silly hypothetical posed by Fox News. This hypothetical was designed to generate responses about blowing Iran up. It had Iran on the verge of a nuclear weapon, refusing to cooperate with the world, and threatening Israel. Fox started the answers with Paul, conceivably to try and get his opinions ganged up on again. Paul again showed diplomacy and a respect for the constitution by saying he would have to go to the congress and would try and negotiate as opposed to finding scenarios where war is the only option.
The post-debate coverage started with Rudy on Hannity and Colmes where Giuliani mocked Ron Paul and suggested that he and Mike Gravel have their own debates. Dr. Paul’s great offense to King Rudy? He simply disagreed with the other candidates on the majority of issues, so therefore, he should be ridiculed. The phrase, “except for Ron Paul” was uttered countless times in post-debate coverage as the machine tried to sell you on the two sides theory. The notion that there are only two sides, republican and democrat and you must line up on one. People like Ron Paul keep messing that notion up. Please see my article from the other day for a more detailed account of this:
Ron Paul must really be scaring the machine candidates for this concerted effort to tank his candidacy. Whenever he was asked a question, it seemed that other microphones were elevated so the snickering could be heard. Yet after every response, the audience erupted in applause for the straight-talking Congressman from Texas. McCain seemed desperate to sell the notion that the surge is working. Giuliani could not answer a simple question about his tattered family values record. He went back to his great job as mayor of New York and ignored his three wives and hypocrisy during the Clinton debacle; as well as his ties to organized crime. Romney had a horrific debate and was not a standout.
Once again we had a platform full of people who think that killing more American kids brings them honor; as long as it was not their kids. That repulsive notion alone should give all Americans pause in considering any of these candidates. Only Ron Paul said that we should respect the constitution and protect this country first. In return he was ambushed by the network that hosted the debate and his challengers. He was mocked for suggesting that maybe we should listen to the American people who want the troops home. Even the words used by Fox and the candidates framed the debate. Whenever a withdrawal was spoken of, it was referred to as retreat or surrender. Whenever keeping troops in it was referred to as “victory.” The president’s surge was applauded and the groundwork was laid for continuing the war for untold years. The only sane voice once again was Ron Paul.
He faced unethical follow up questions from the moderators and was largely ignored. When he was paid attention, they tried to mock him. Through it all, he stuck to his principles because that is what guides him. When you believe in what you run on you do not need to write it down and read it off of cue cards. Ultimately Ron Paul might be too libertarian for my liking, but when placed in front of the other GOP hopefuls who are fighting over who can blow up the rest of the world most effectively, he is the only light left in a party that continues to fade into darkness.
Fox even tried to minimize the online outpouring of support for Paul in the post-debate: “who won the debate” question by refusing to allow online voting. Instead everything had to be texted in. The results at first glance were still 35% for Paul with only 17% for Rudy in second place. When they were being announced you heard Sean Hannity bemoaning “here we go again.” Yes Sean, here we go again, no matter how much you and machine try and turn on Ron Paul, his message is resonating with the people; you remember them, don’t you?
Anthony Wade, a contributing writer to opednews.com, is dedicated to educating the populace to the lies and abuses of the government. He is a 40-year-old independent writer from New York with political commentary articles seen on multiple websites. A Christian progressive and professional Rehabilitation Counselor working with the poor and disabled, Mr. Wade believes that you can have faith and hold elected officials accountable for lies and excess.
I congratulate you on a lucid, poignant article that drives at the heart of what ails America. It is true, we are being force-fed either the "blue or red pill" as the treatment for what afflicts America today.
I don't agree with everything Ron Paul stands for, but he speaks the real truth, not the revisionist, neoconservative misinformation that "America is the anointed country", but simply another citizen on the world's stage that has become the ugly bully on the block.
In watching the debate, I believe that Ron Paul was the only genuine representative that spoke for America, Americans and the rule of law. Every other candidate on that stage was a shill for any number of competing ideologies, special interest groups or the utter inane idea that bombing everyone the government disapproves of is the America way. It is not. It is exclusively, quite perversely, un-American.
-Frank J Ranelli
Associate Editor
by
Frank J. Ranelli (59 articles, 141 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 322 comments)
on Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 1:49:54 AM
The whole debate was an attack on Ron Paul. When he ended in a valid point they changed subjects by taking questions from someone directed towards the candidates.
The marching orders from al Qaeda was marching orders from the NWO. Attack Paul at all cost, even if it's a jab from a host.
What about the post show when Fox showed how the audience responded with their excitement knobs. They showed a graph that showed approval. The thing spiked for both conservatives and moderates during the Paul Huckabee exchange... but they depicted it in such a way that it appeared approval of Paul was at the bottom of the screan and approval of Huckabee was at the top.
The system was set up to guage audience approval of one candidate, not to judge who was "Winning" in a one on one simultaneous debate. All they really showed was that the audience approved, not who they approved of in a head to head match. But clearly Ron Paul was "the loser".
I heard Fox News is going to start hosting professional wrestling...
by
Americas Last Patriots (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 3:06:17 AM
Although I like Ron Paul and agree with him on the Iraq war and Constitutional issues
, I would not vote for a libertarian. He's still basically a conservative once you get beyond the Iraq War Issue. Having said that however, he's the only Republican candidate I can even come close to stomaching.
by
Ginger Walters (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 5:48:39 AM
This debate was deplorable. Ron Paul was terrific though. He never backed down once. I loved it when he pointed his finger at Chris Wallace. That man needs some emails, some phone calls and a good firing. Despicable. How dare he? Are you saying you take your marching orders from Al Qaeda? What a load of work that unmitigated tool is.
Shame of Fox news. Shame on the other candidates for showing no respect at all. This is how they conduct themselves? As children? Snickering at Ron Paul every chance they could. Meanwhile, Mitt is busy copying everything Ron says so he can say it later.
Ron Paul ruled the evening. Best motto of the night: How many Americans have to die before the U.S. Government can save face?
by
Janet Gifford (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments)
on Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 6:14:33 AM
Ron Paul shines amidst the abysmal Republican choices. His intellect and diplomacy carries him and also shields us from the awful truths of his political beliefs, sadly.
Do you wish an ending of all government assistance programs for the poor, the children, the homeless, the single parents, college fundings et al? Are you comfortable with the privatisation of Social Security, and almost all governmental services? Do you want what is basically a continuation of the politics of Reagan and Bush, but with a more competent and polished hand?
Think carefully on what Paul stands for and less about how good he sounds.....
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 6:32:51 AM
It seems obvious, to me, that that you are not fully aware of what Ron Paul stands for. Yes, Ron Paul would like to do away with FEDERAL welfare and FEDERAL social programs. He believes that, per the constitution, states and local governments should handle such things.
I do not agree with everything Ron Paul believes in, however, I believe he is the right person for the job.
Another note on social programs - I have been on disability for several years. Believe this - If a person is in need they are better off being taken care of by anyone other than the federal government. When I went on disability I was told that I was eligible for food stamps - $10.00 per month. That has now been raised to $22.00 a month. Yes food stamps are provided by the states, but ARE controlled by federal regulations.
I am thankful that I am able to go back to work now and to continue my education this fall, however, I must pay cash for my education because I was unable to make payments on my FEDERAL student loan while I was ill and am ineligible for a student loan until I get that straightened out.
Namaste,
Rev. Mark
by
Reverend Mark J. Seydel (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 9 comments)
on Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 7:17:51 AM
but because you were unsatisfied with the amounts doled out to you by the government you now wish to support a candidate who will do away with the entirety of federal assistance programs...can you say sour grapes?
Paul does not wish to leave assistance to the state and local governments he wishes to place them in the hands of churches and private organisations, please note that state and local govts get their funds primarily from the federal government.
We , you and I , see governments role in quite different lights. You see it as a hinderence and have bought into the (not quite a) myth of federal incompetence. I note that Medicare is quite efficient , operates with a 3% overhead unmatched anywhere public or private, and is the very best option for universal health care. If there are inefficiencies in our bureaucracies then fix them do not throw them out.
Privatisation of all services has a longish track record of failure, incompetence, thievery and usury, one you should really research before espousing the libertarian platform, it is simply a trick to maximise profit an minimise service delivery. This is not what any good American should want for her nation.
I cannot help but feel that Libertarianism is the choice of selfish and spoiled children who havent a clue as to the obligation all of us have to our neighbors.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Saturday, September 8, 2007 at 8:04:28 AM
He's independent, doesn't toe the party line, doesn't accept the assumptions and talking points the right wing has worked hard and spent billions promoting. What else would you expect ? He will be attacked, villified, unfairly portrayed with the clear intent by the media of destroying his chances of winning.
He's too conservative to me, but if there were only republican candidates to vote for, he'd be the one I'd be supporting. He is a man of honesty and integrity, who does not pander to the extremist fundamentalist religious right.
It's interesting to play with different matchups. If it were , for example, Ron Paul running against Hillary, he might pull a lot of votes from people who see him as more likely to stand up to corporate interests.
Bottom line, he's an interesting guy, a good man and deserves to be treated as a serious contender, just as is true for Dennis Kucinich, who is, of course also treated unfairly by the lamestream media.
by
Rob Kall (721 articles, 3749 quicklinks, 304 diaries, 1485 comments)
on Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 9:06:43 AM
also, did you watch the debate? Every time Paul got asked a question there was an audible increase in others microphones so you could hear snickering. It was disgusting. I just loved that he still won the text in poll they set up for who won the debate by a landslide.
by
Anthony Wade (134 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 433 comments)
on Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 9:10:25 AM
1) As i stated, when you view Paul against the rest of his party, yes he is quite appealing. Ardee, would you rather have social programs and be invading Iran? Where does it end?
2) The true Libertarian stance is as outlined that the federal government should not be the ones running our lives, but rather the states should tend to their poor etc, as outlined in the constitution. One of the great lies is that the government needs our taxes to pay for crucial services. Watch Freedom to Facism and learn that the federal taxes you are illegally forced to pay actually go to pay down the debt, which is produced because of the federal reserve system, another illegality Paul would seek to do away with.
3) I would love to see Paul make it through and debate a big government dem, even a Kucinich. I would very interested to hear two people who truly believe in their stances duke it out for my vote. I do not want Bush and Bush Lite, arguing over when our troops can stop dying.
Thannks for the comments.
by
Anthony Wade (134 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 433 comments)
on Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 9:08:04 AM
"1) As i stated, when you view Paul against the rest of his party, yes he is quite appealing. Ardee, would you rather have social programs and be invading Iran? Where does it end?"
What does a Libertarian candidacy have to with invasion of Iran? What does an invasion have to do with social programs being privatised? Paul shines only because the others are simply wretched. What Ron Paul would do to this country is little different from what Reagan did, what Bush 41 and 43 did, what Clinton did, in part, as well.
What this really comes down to can be noted in two parts:
part 1. Most of those here who espouse the candidacy of Ron Paul are either Libertarian or havent a clue as to the dangers in that selfish, arrogant and despicable political platform, and
part 2. We have such a grave crisis of leadership in this nation as to make palatable a man who would hasten the course of this nation to third world status, with privatisation benefitting an increasingly small number of folks and ending what is left of the middle class, making us indistinguishable from the rest of the have not nations...great choice folks......
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Sunday, September 9, 2007 at 9:24:39 AM
I truly am mystified when I read comments like "I would still never vote for a Libertarian.." I really do not know which candidate someone like this is interested in voting for, but if the choice is a republican, a democrat, or Ron Paul, why, IN THE WORLD, would anyone vote for the republican or democrat?
Having seen the debates... (I cringe at the memory) I have seen every single candidate (with the exception of Ron Paul) tell bold faced lies, or change positions 180 degrees depending on who happened to be the target audience! With Ron Paul, everyone knows where he/she stands. With a republican or democrat, everyone has proof that the republican or democrat will say exactly what people want to hear, so that he/she will be elected..
Ron Paul Speaks the TRUTH, and he does not LIE about his positions. He believes in the US Constitution, which is more than I can say for any of the other candidates who have SWORN to protect it...
So if you don't vote for the only honest person in the race, what, exactly, are you expecting from the other candidates?
Ciao, CZ
by
steve scheetz (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 406 comments)
on Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 10:44:28 AM
He made some good anti war statements despite the hammering he got from Chris Wallace; who in typical FOX/GOP propaganda machine fashion made pointed politically biased statements couched in the form of questions.
It was,.... entertaining.
Also, there appears to be some kind of collusion between FOX, GOP leadership and ABC News, ....because the exchange between Wallace and Paul was quite a significant moment and judging by the response that the audience showed that more than half were on Ron Paul's side. The fact that ABC totallly omitted mention of this or of Ron Paul at all... opting instead to focus on Fred Thompson's absence just shows how rigged and corrupt the lamestream media really is. They've done the same thing to Dennis Kucinich which is no less appalling.
But is there any reason I would vote for Ron Paul? ..... No, not really.
This country needs to tighten the regulations on industry that 6 years of the Bush administration has loosened at the behest of big business. Ron Paul would do away with them altogether. The country needs more gov't assistance to help those lives that have been negatively impacted by years of GOP selfishness. This country needs less religious influence on the gov't not more. This gov't should not pull out of the UN and become isolationist in all matters of foreign policy.
Ron Paul is still a very rightwing conservative ...besides, the last thing we need is another republican administration. And while applaud Ron Paul's statements regarding the war and the very marvelous manner in which he stood up to the bullying the debate moderators were trying to hand him I'm still far from having respect for the kind of anti immigrant anti foreigner and at times anti minority resentment that he fosters.
The country needs more gov't assistance to help those lives that have been negatively impacted by years of GOP selfishness.
Please point to one example where someone's life was negatively impacted because the budget was cut... See, you really CAN'T, because under Bush, the money going to federal programs continued to increase, at an even larger rate than under Clinton...
Let's take a look at the DOE, for example.. money going to the DOE has gone from $300 in the 50's to nearly $8,000 PER CHILD... what is different between then and now? test scores have gone down as the amount of money has gone up.
the DOE has proven itself to be a total FAILURE....
your response is that we need MORE failed government policy?
Ciao, CZ
by
steve scheetz (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 406 comments)
on Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 8:55:30 PM
If you cannot find numerous examples of the negative impact of budgetary cuts on American citizens then you have simply NOT been paying attention.
We once had State Universities wherein kids could attend school without incurring tens of thousands of dollars in debt, but Ronnie fixed that you betcha. Now many kids who would love to go on to college simply cannot. That is a negative budget cut.
Bridges fall down because budget cuts do not afford regular maintenance or even inspections. Being on a bridge that tumbles might be considered a hardship by some folks, dontcha think?
The folks in New Orleans whose homes were destroyed because the Army Corps of Engineers hadnt the funding to do necesary repairs and strengthening of those levees........the list goes on and your attention span appears to go off.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Sunday, September 9, 2007 at 5:18:05 PM
If you cannot find numerous examples of the negative impact of budgetary cuts on American citizens then you have simply NOT been paying attention.
Budgetary cuts? Now who is kidding who? The Shrub NEVER met a spending proposal he did not love/sign... or are you suggesting that all of those spending bills never happened?
by
steve scheetz (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 406 comments)
on Tuesday, September 11, 2007 at 8:01:54 AM
What chris wallace did to Ron Paul used to be called Yellow Journalism.
Since when do debate hosts break into the debate to chide and even openly laugh at a contestant? That was just ugly and unprofessional. Fox news should be embarrassed.
Of course, Paul turned the tables on wallace, I mean who doesn't know Ron Paul takes his orders from the Constitution. He put wallace in his place.
And, oh yeah, I don't think anyone wonders who wallace and fox news take their marching orders from!
The laugh of the night though was rudy giggling like a school boy touching himself behind the podium.....or was that hannity back there....
by
Bob Brown (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 12:35:05 PM
I'm more of a 'socialist', 'anarchist', 'liberal' 'conservative.... depends on the issue. But, unless you restore the constitution and the rights of Americans NO other issue will be even relevant. Because you will have no rights. The fascist state will be complete.
So vote to restore the Republic and sort the other crap out democratically after that. There is NO other course.
If you think there is, I certainly would love to hear it.
by
richard (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 644 comments)
on Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 4:58:00 PM
The point is not whether Ron Paul is or is not the best candidate. He is above all else a courageous and smart man. The point is whether a despicable Murdoch excuse for a "news service debate moderator" should be allowed to actually attack a candidate with such blatantly biased remarks as Chris Wallace did. Chris Wallace is obviously NOT a journalist. He is a talentless toady. And Sean Hannity is a ridiculously laughable parody of an analyst with the Murdock approved nerve to, right in front of the nation, manipulate and twist the results of the debate polls which were opinions expressed BY THE PEOPLE. We should be fighting mad. Are we?
As a nation we should rise up and flood the emails, the phone lines of every show aired on Fox News. It is not good enough just to turn them off. They need to be told what news is and told we no longer tolerate their twisted, discredited neocon agenda that mascarades as news. And ANY journalist who would work for Fox News should be summarily drummed out of the career field. He/she should NEVER be listened to again.
I am not and never will be a Libertarian. But, I am ready to march to war against Fox on Ron Paul's behalf. Indeed on the behalf of the every citizen of this nation who deserves and needs credible information and not blatant propaganda from its news services so that we can run our democracy.
by
Sheila Jackson (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 137 comments)
on Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 6:54:50 PM
