Ron Paul Get 90 Seconds in 90 Minute Debate

There is an interesting controversy out of the Republican debates where Rep. Ron Paul was given just 90 seconds to speak during a 90 minute debate. I have never hidden my admiration for Paul for his courageous positions on issues like torture and his opposition to the various wars. What is particularly troubling is that Paul used his limited time (as did John Huntsman) to speak out against torture. We have previously discussed whether the mainstream media is actively marginalizing the candidate. On this occasion, however, it appears to have been an intentional decision by CBS in the South Carolina debates.

A study cited below by the University of Minnesota last month “confirmed that Ron Paul had been given the least speaking time out of all the Republican candidates during the debates, even less than the likes of John Huntsman and Rick Santorum, who have routinely been beaten by Paul in national polls.”

Supporters are also citing an email inadvertently sent to Michelle Bachmann’s campaign in which a CBS staffer referenced how Bachmann’s campaign had made representatives available for an after-debate webshow. In the email, CBS News political analyst John Dickerson responded by saying, “Okay let’s keep it loose though since she’s not going to get many questions and she’s nearly off the charts in the hopes that we can get someone else.”

Likewise, supporters are still smarting over an exchanged between Politico’s Roger Simon and CNN host Howard Kurtz after the Iowa straw poll where Paul basically tied for first with Bachmann. Simon dismissed Paul as relevant and said “we’re gonna ignore him.” Kurtz responded by saying “We are in the business of kicking candidates out of the race.”

Of course, at least Republican have debates and choices. These debates have proven highly useful for voters in sorting out candidates. Democrats will get no debate and no choice. Despite great opposition to Obama from civil libertarians and other groups, the Democratic National Committee and process is a lock for Obama and voters will be given no other options but to vote for him or choose a Republican or third-party candidate.

Source: InfoWars

133 thoughts on “Ron Paul Get 90 Seconds in 90 Minute Debate

  1. Paul loses potential supporters when he does things like call Elizabeth Warren a “socialist “as he did last week. For him to get the republican nomination. he would have to attract crossovers. That is not happening because of his other extreme positions.

  2. Not one of the republican candidates is pro-choice. Usually an incumbent does not debate. No incumbent of either party has debated in my lifetime.

  3. Ron Paul is the Dennis Kucinich of the Republican party. I think this sort of thing happens to candidates from both parties. I’d say that members of both parties have had their choices limited with the help of the media.

    There are other Republicans who are being excluded from the debates:

    The Two GOP Candidates Being Shut Out
    The Daily Beast
    Oct 29, 2011
    Two Republican candidates with solid political experience and poll numbers on par with Michele Bachmann can’t get a spot in the debates. Jill Lawrence on why they’re being excluded.
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/29/gop-s-gary-johnson-and-buddy-roemer-shut-out-of-2012-debates.html

    Excerpt:
    Johnson and former Louisiana governor Buddy Roemer, with his populist critiques of corporate influence and fellow politicians, are two of the most interesting people running for the Republican nomination. They have traditional résumés, the kind that often translate into attention and traction, and mainstream GOP ideas on taxes and the size of government. (Roemer says he released his flat-tax proposal three months ago.) Johnson built a business before winning two terms as governor; Roemer has been a banker and a congressman as well as a governor.

    The conventional wisdom is that governors have a leg up in presidential races. They have been deciders, after all, and they aren’t dragging around histories of controversial votes. This year, however, has been challenging for governors. Michele Bachmann, Donald Trump, and now Herman Cain have topped the polls and made numerous high-profile appearances on national TV. Meanwhile, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman can’t catch a break. Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty has already been driven from the race. Texas Gov. Rick Perry—who once led the field—is trying to recover from a collapse. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is having trouble closing the deal. And most of America doesn’t know that Johnson and Roemer are running. They can’t even get into the debates.

    True, they are decidedly offbeat, but how would one describe Ron Paul?

    Johnson was invited to two of eight debates so far. Roemer hasn’t been in any, and told me he’s quite proud of his low-single-digit standing in some polls, given his exclusion from the high-octane events. “I’d be embarrassed if I were some of these guys,” he said. “Some of them have been in seven debates, and they are at 3 percent.”

    Roemer has offered to appear in place of Perry if the Texan makes good on his hint that he may skip some of the dozen or so remaining debates after the next one, on Nov. 9. In the meantime Roemer will continue to tweet answers to debate questions before the candidates onstage respond. “I’ve watched every one of them. Is that sad?” he told me, laughing. “It might be this is an election where experience counts against you. Maybe that’s the answer. Maybe I have too much experience.”

  4. It took Ron Paul — whom every Good Progressive will tell you is Completely Crazy and Insane — to point out to the GOP the rather glaring inconsistency between, on the one hand, distrusting government authorities to run health care, but on the other, wanting to empower the President to kill whomever he wants with no transparency or due process. As Conor Friedersdorf wrote last year in Newsweek about who and what is “crazy”:

    Forced to name the “craziest” policy favored by American politicians, I’d say the multibillion-dollar war on drugs, which no one thinks is winnable. . . . If returning to the gold standard is unthinkable, is it not just as extreme that President Obama claims an unchecked power to assassinate, without due process, any American living abroad whom he designates as an enemy combatant?

    Crazy/Insane Ron Paul also objected to the killing under Obama not only of Awlaki, but, two weeks later, of Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, also a U.S. citizen, and his 17-year-old cousin. Think Progress forgot to include those dead teenagers on its list of Obama’s “foreign policy successes” — just as they forgot to include such smashing successes as this, this, this, this and this. But Ron Paul yet again showed how insane he is by pointing out that it’s a bad thing — both morally and prudentially — for the U.S. Government to run around continuously killing Muslim children from the sky. All Sane and Serious People know that the President has the right and the duty to keep killing Muslim teeangers such as Awlaki’s 16-year-old son; only crazies like Ron Paul object to such necessities.

    http://www.salon.com/2011/11/13/gop_and_tp_on_obamas_foreign_policy_successes/singleton/

  5. I do NOT agree with Ron Paul on abortion rights (he wants to outlaw abortion), on taxes, on the economy, on education, unemployment, the EPA or on any public service.

    That said, he is the only candidate I could vote for in 2012; I will not vote for Obama, Romney, Perry, Cain, or any of the other hypocritical corporate liars.

    At least I DO agree with Ron Paul on ending the wars, ending the bailouts, ending the war on drugs, and ending the Patriot Act and surveillance state and restoring our civil rights, all of which are things he could do something about as President.

    I contributed several hundred dollars to Obama’s campaign and voted for him in primary and general, but he has proven himself a liar and a corporate servant, and I won’t vote for him again.

  6. If you are a women you would be nuts to vote for Ron Paul. I agree with his view on torture, but that is about it. This is the same guy who said he does not believe in evolution! Why should we celebrate a candidate who is going to continue the Republican war on women?

  7. The problem with your thinking Tony is Paul will not be a choice. We are building toward a 2000 situation where a candidate that can’t win will grant victory to one who shouldn’t. As bad as Obama has been he is still a mixed bag with some pluses. The alternative, a Teaparty dominated government, will be an even worse disaster.

    Bachmanns people are playing CBS like a fiddle. Whining that the librule media denied ‘ol batshit her deserved attention during the debate. CBS divided time based on poll numbers – a stupid yardstick but not uncommon – but the campaign has decided to rouse the rabble by pretending it was a slight because she is a conservative . . . unlike every other clown in the car (exception made for Romney who has no known political philosophy he wouldn’t abandon when convenient)

  8. @Bdaman: It took Ron Paul — whom every Good Progressive will tell you is Completely Crazy and Insane

    Why ruin a good post by starting it with a lie? I personally know half a dozen “good progressive” college professors, Obama supporters and contributors, that do not think Ron Paul is either crazy or insane, and even MORE that agree with him strongly about the very things you write about in this post; the war on drugs, war in general, presidential assassination of US Citizens by declaration, the use of torture, the illegality of the surveillance state and the erosion of our rights to privacy and freedom from warrantless search. In fact I agree with you about those topics, and I think of myself as far more progressive than most people that claim to be progressives.

    Do you fail to understand that by starting out your post with a lie about Progressives, you alienate those progressives, and that makes them combative, and that makes them less likely to agree with anything you say, even if it actually has value?

    Ron Paul is not crazy for wanting small government or lower taxes, he is mistaken for believing that would increase freedom when it would decrease it.

    If it is your desire to promote Ron Paul, which I think would be a fine thing for you to do, concentrate on his positions that we can all agree with.

    The war on drugs, for example, is a waste of money, increases our police state, and wastes the lives of both cops and children. It destroys the lives and potential of 18-24 year olds that have not even reached full mental maturity and judgment, putting them in prison and turning them into hardened criminals over marijuana possession. Don’t you realize that a majority of Americans now think marijuana should be legalized? That means they agree with Ron Paul on that point, and actually probably 80% do not think it is a crazy position.

    What percentage of Americans think the President should be able to unilaterally order a US citizen killed, without any trial, evidence or proof of guilt? A huge majority agree with Ron Paul that the President should not have that power; in fact I think a larger percentage of progressives than conservatives side with Ron Paul on that point.

    What percentage of Americans think the government has the right to listen to your every phone call, read your every email, record every web page you ever visit, listen to you in your house or office without a warrant or any cause whatsoever? I think a greater majority of progressives than conservatives side with Ron Paul on that point.

    The same is true for ending the wars: It is Conservatives pushing for the wars and illegal torture and renditions, Ron Paul wants to end them!

    If all you want to do is express your irrational hatred of progressives, do it in a separate post and leave Ron Paul out of it. If you are sincerely promoting Ron Paul, concentrate on what he could actually do something about with his Presidential Veto, as Commander in Chief, as Chief Executive of all civil servants, and with the appointment of an Attorney General that agrees with him.

  9. It is clear that the media works hand and glove with the elites to get the election results of their choice. The quotes in JT’s post are a remarkable testament to the amount of manipulation of the public.

    Knowing that the media is full of manipulation means we have to work harder at really understanding who the candidates are and what their real positions are. That won’t be easy.

    This is a sad position for our nation to be in. There is little by way of real information available to voters. Most people are busy trying to survive in tough economic times. They really don’t have time to dig into things. We also have people who, although they may have time to understand the truth, have no interest in it. Thus propaganda aimed at both those who have no time, and those who have no interest in the truth, is extremely effective for both mainstream parties. That is exactly what is happening in our nation today.

    If we had a real press someone would be digging into who is giving the orders to time out some candidates, while in that and many other ways is picking and choosing our “choices” for us.

  10. Tony C:

    “Ron Paul is not crazy for wanting small government or lower taxes, he is mistaken for believing that would increase freedom when it would decrease it.”

    I’m genuinely curious..exactly how would smaller government and lower taxes result in less freedom?

  11. We miss the point getting into the merits of these excluded candidates. What strikes me is the blatant media admissions of how they limit viable candidates frm being able to deliver their message. What they have wrought by relying on the instability of polling numbers is turning political discourse into the dramatic narrative of a sporting event. From the MSM’s esthetic this creates entertainment value. From their rungs on their corporate ladders this helps them advance their careers as entertainers. From their overweening egos this gives them the power of choice by making a candidate “in” or “out”. That it has little to do with the issues of the day is irrelevant to the since the believe the public is too dumb to understand the complexities of the issues. This is to me the real story being revealed.

  12. @Frankly: As bad as Obama has been he is still a mixed bag with some pluses.

    The end of DADT is a plus. Hooray. Did he stop torture? Hold the banks to account? End the senseless wars? Close Guantanamo? Pass the Public Option he expressly, on video, promised would be in any health care bill he signed? End the surveillance state? Enforce habeas corpus and give Guantanamo prisoners fair trials in civilian court? Appoint actual liberals to the Supreme Court? Exclude lobbyists from his administration? Uphold the Constitution?

    This is not a mixed bag to me, even the health care bill gives away the farm for a handful of beans. This is not the man that ran, not the campaign I contributed to, and not the man for whom I voted. Not even remotely, and do not accuse me of extremism, of being pissed off because I did not get everything I wanted: I got 5% of what I was explicitly promised and 0% of the thing I wanted most: A president with principles that would not sell out to corporate overlords and the military complex, which is what he has done.

    @Frankly: The alternative, a Teaparty dominated government, will be an even worse disaster.

    First, Ron Paul would not be a “tea party” administration, it would be a libertarian administration.

    Second, an “even worse disaster” for how long? One administration? Anything they can do, liberals can undo. If you truly believe that it will be impossible to undo their damage, then I think you truly believe that the country as a whole would not want to undo their damage, and if that is true then it means you want to leave on the books laws even though the majority of the country disagrees with those laws. Why would you want that? If we are trying to hang onto a status quo because we do not believe we could ever get it back, isn’t that just as much a tyranny of a minority over the majority?

    I do not believe we are, I think if citizens feel the pain of losing anything they find valuable as a result of one election, it will come back even stronger and more bulletproof in two or four years, if not overturned sooner. People may get complacent, that doesn’t mean they do not have the strength to react and fight back when they get hit.

    Third, I disagree with “an even worse disaster,” I cannot stress enough the damage Obama has done to our constitutional civil rights, and I personally would throw just about everything else under the bus to protect those and restore the constitution in general. We are sacrificing our rights for sops and safety. Bush & Cheney began the erosion, and instead of ending it Obama took the baton and ran with it, and that made ignoring the Constitution mainstream: Both parties do it with impunity. It is a travesty.

  13. Off topic–but on the subject of voting:

    Anti-Voter Fraud Tea Party Group Hosts Author Who Thinks Poor Shouldn’t Vote
    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/anti-voter_fraud_tea_party_group_hosts_author_who_thinks_poor_shouldnt_vote.php?ref=fpb

    Excerpt:
    The King Street Patriots are a Texas Tea Party group with an anti-voter fraud spin off organization that is plotting a nationwide poll watching movement and advocates for voter ID laws. Matthew Vadum is a conservative columnist who thinks that registering poor people to vote is un-American and “like handing out burglary tools to criminals.” On Tuesday, the King Street Patriots will be hosting him for lunch in Houston.

  14. @Bdaman and the war on drugs. Agree.
    There is a drug problem in the jails, like “the tombs”.
    If the US cannot prevent a drug problem in an environment where they have a free hand, and all the people are locked behind bars, what are the odds that the “drug problem” will be solved anywhere else?

  15. @Tony C re the constitution. Agree.
    The only thing the president is made to swear to do in the oath of office is to preserve protect and defend the Constitution.
    Obama took the oath of office twice. Was that a foreshadow?
    Presidents seem to betray their number one promise – like a compassionate conservative who had compassion only for “his base”.

  16. @Catullus re “how would smaller government and [the corresponding] lower[ing of] taxes result in less freedom”

    Would removing the law against dumping waste in the streets increase or decrease freedom, do you think?

  17. @Catullus: I’m genuinely curious..exactly how would smaller government and lower taxes result in less freedom?

    To begin, I am not endorsing our particular American government in any way. With that said:

    Do you believe that the presence of cops and the courts and prisons make crime less prevalent?

    I believe they do, and in general, I believe the primary purpose of any government is to protect its citizens from predation, both predation from abroad (so we have armies) and predation from within (so we have laws against fraud, rape, theft, endangerment, and laws to enforce contracts, we have laws to prevent corporations from polluting, and employers from putting their employees in danger, and so on.)

    These laws need to be enforced, and the enforcement is necessarily a job of government if we want any chance of ensuring they are enforced with neutrality.

    I do not think that government should be big, or should be small, I think it should have the resources it needs to stop the predators. I think Ron Paul’s version of “small government” allows far more predation than I think is either fair or sensible. Primarily by corporations, exploiting employees and producing harm to the citizenry to increase profits, in ways for which (under Ron Paul’s vision) they could no longer be held accountable. That is why I think he is mistaken.

    I do not regard “freedom” as the condition to do whatever we want regardless of the consequences to others. I think people are free when they can make their own choices and set their own values and have the opportunity to achieve their potential, but without doing harm to others.

    I think it is the primary job of the government to prevent people, companies, countries, or any other group or entity from doing harm to others in the pursuit of profit, power, gratification or ideology. At least to the best of their ability and to the extent the populace demands such protection; since such “protection” can itself grow to the point of oppression.

    In that vein, in defense of our American government size, I will note that the vast majority of entitlements and laws on the books are there because citizens demanded them and applauded them. So do I, and although I think they could be enforced with about 1/2 the resources, I would guess 85% of the law made before 1998 or so is aimed at reducing the predation on citizens, and I think that increases our freedom.

  18. Bdaman,

    As I said, please mark quoted material in some way — it shouldn’t be the case that the reader has to figure it out. I read Greenwald regularly and noticed that you didn’t attribute the quote to him, though you provided the link, which isn’t enough.

    Please don’t put me between you and another commenter (Tony C., in this case.) Please use quotation marks and/or mark the excerpt as such…

  19. Wow, why are all you folks so afraid of Ron Paul? Because he believes in the Constitution? Because he wants to end illegal wars, restore a sound monetary system, end the illegal and immoral income tax, allow states to do what they will under the 9th and 10th amendments, end the federal leviathan that has oppressed us all?

    Do you really believe that America has been best served by the bunch of mediocrities that have been in the White House? Are we better off? No! We are no better than a third world banana republic with a petty dictator. Is this what you want?

    Well, I don’t – and millions of us are supporting Ron Paul. Underestimate him and us at your own risk – and get ready to rumble!! Ron Paul 2012.

  20. I applaud Paul on his anti-torture stance, but think he’s a real outlier on most other issues.

    As for his anti-abortion stance, I don’t understand why a libertarian would be against abortion. I thought libertarians were against governmental interference. I would think a ban on abortions would constitute an unwarranted governmental interference in a woman’s health care decisions. I personally stand by the original Roe v. Wade criteria-right to abortion unlimited during first trimester.

    How does Paul square his anti-abortion position with core libertarian beliefs?

    I hate to say it but I couldn’t vote for Obama in 2008, so I didn’t vote. I thought he was way too inexperienced. He didn’t have enough of a record for me. He never even finished one term as US senator. I thought, give him another 15 years in the senate. It’s really pretty shocking when you think of it: someone who vaults from Illinous legislator to president in a few years? I had nothing against him personally at the time. I never read his books about his father.

    I just finished a bio of his mother and read his father’s bio. Having read both books I can say someone should analyze why he glorified the man who was little more than a sperm donor, while giving his mother such short shrift. His mother was very hurt and rightly so. The end of her life was pretty horrible.. Working in NYC for pennies… Going on business trips when she should have been following her MD’s advice to undergo medical tests. (BTW the insurance problem she had at the end of her life concerned disability insurance, not medical insurance. What’s more the ins. Co. was justfied in denying her coverage-we are talking about chump change, not medical expenses. Her health insurer never denied coverage.) You get the feeling that something happened to him in college..it’s like he wanted to wipe out the half of him that was “white.”

  21. “Ron Paul is the Dennis Kucinich of the Republican party. I think this sort of thing happens to candidates from both parties. I’d say that members of both parties have had their choices limited with the help of the media.” (Elaine)

    I completely agree with that assertion.

    In my opinion, Paul and Kucinich are used as beards by their respective parties. “See we have independent, free-thinkers!” It’s a fund raising trick along the same lines as Bachmann/Perry who attract the teabagger set. The upper echelons of either party would never seriously consider handing any of them the sceptre. The media knows that and reacts accordingly.

    Getting angry about it is about as useful as sitting in the middle of Lake Erie trying to get a signal on your cell phone …

  22. “Well, I don’t – and millions of us are supporting Ron Paul. Underestimate him and us at your own risk – and get ready to rumble!! “(Belle)

    Oh great … be afraid ’cause we’re going to rumble … honestly? Paul’s in trouble.

  23. @Bathsheba: How does Paul square his anti-abortion position with core libertarian beliefs?

    Although I am pro-choice, I believe Paul defends his stance on the same grounds that libertarians believe murder should be illegal: He believes, and irrationally in my view, that a a fertilzed egg has a right to life.

    I think he is mistaken. I do not think that is an inherently hypocritical view. I do think that even with this view, it requires a balancing of rights between the mother and the egg or fetus, and I think that should come down on the side of the mother, so I think he is mistaken there as well, but Paul’s view is not necessarily hypocritical.

  24. Republican Gary Johnson is not the average presidential candidate:
    The former New Mexico governor, known nationally as ‘the marijuana guy,’ supports drug decriminalization, sympathizes with Occupy protesters and barnstorms on a bicycle.
    By Kate Linthicum
    Los Angeles Times
    11/13/11
    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gary-johnson-20111113,0,5763846.story

    Excerpt:
    Reporting from Los Angeles— As campaign stops for Republican presidential candidates go, the International Drug Policy Reform Conference in downtown Los Angeles seemed like a strange choice.

    There was reggae music booming from big speakers, lapel pins shaped like marijuana leaves and a speech by California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, the liberal former mayor of San Francisco who is famous for granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

    And yet there Gary Johnson stood this month, drawing cheers from a crowd of drug decriminalization activists.

    Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico, has promised that if he wins the Republican nomination and is elected president, he’ll issue a pardon for anyone serving prison time for a nonviolent marijuana crime. He has also pledged to overhaul the tax system and cut federal spending by 43%.

    What Johnson’s shoestring presidential campaign lacks in resources and media attention — which is a lot — it has made up for in eccentricities. Consider last month, when the candidate showed up to talk economics with protesters at Occupy Wall Street. Or his recent 458-mile barnstorming tour of New Hampshire — on a bicycle.

    In October, Johnson rented a house in Manchester and decided to focus his campaign efforts entirely on New Hampshire, where he hopes his candid style and libertarian leanings will appeal to Republican primary voters famous for their independent streak.

    “My entire career, everything has always been different,” said Johnson, a former building contractor and self-made millionaire who won the governorship in 1994 with no previous political experience. “And isn’t that what people want these days? Something different?”

    But seven months into his campaign, Johnson has yet to climb higher than 3% in polls of voters’ preference for Republican primary candidates. He has been left out of most of them, and he has been excluded from all but two of the televised Republican debates. That has made an imposing challenge out of fundraising and expanding his name recognition beyond his small but ardent core of supporters.

    “I’m basically a non-entity,” he said.

  25. @Blouise: Getting angry about it is about as useful as sitting in the middle of Lake Erie trying to get a signal on your cell phone …

    Ha! Not something I have tried, but I admit I might hold it up pretty high in the vain hope that I wouldn’t have to start paddling.

  26. Tony C.,

    The book, “First Break All The Rules”, arrived today and I’ve skimmed through it. I know the person I am giving it to will find it very useful. Thanks for the recommendation.

  27. “the only way the media is going to give ron paul air time is if herman cain starts swinging him around by his tail.” (pete)
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    pete,
    That’s not his tail . . . (Gene H)
    ———————————————————————
    lol

    That was good … really good … you two should consider taking it on the road.

  28. Mr. C’s evaluation of Obama, ” I got 5% of what I was explicitly promised and 0% of the thing I wanted most…”

    Now written in fact and history.

    Do Ron Paul skeptics object to 95% of his views? Given that some of his views affect such a visceral reaction, will all of his views actually be implemented should he become President?

    Because like Mr. C., my vote cannot find another home.

    Where will our current trajectory take us?

  29. Blouise/raff,

    Thanks, but I’ll have to say (in all seriousness and with admiration) that pete is one of the best setup men I’ve ever seen – a true natural comedian. So many of his jokes create fantastic segues into either another joke or a killer straight line. If I were going to go into team comedy, I could do a Helluva lot worse than teaming up with pete, but I’d be hard pressed to do better.

  30. Gene,

    Your assessment of pete’s talent is spot on … if we could team you, pete and HenMan together we could call you the Three (fill in the blank) of the Turley blog and put you smack dab in the middle of the D.C. entertainment scene … bet the Professor would be thrilled!

  31. @Blouise: No problem (on the book). I feel indebted to those author/scientists; it had to be difficult, as their analysis materialized, to throw away a half-century worth of managerial dogma in order to focus on what really works.

    Not that I knew that before reading it, but I had already been managing people for about 15 years, and although I had found a few of these recommendations on my own (okay, the top two) the others were a revelation to me, sometimes embarrassing, that reorganized my entire approach to management, with stellar results.

    Good luck to your friend. I would add only one thing, for a new manager: Never touch any employee, male or female. The exceptions are medical emergencies, preventing injury, and an occasional handshake.

    The book is about building professional human relationships with employees, not intimate ones.

  32. Ron Paul says the biggest problem facing America is abortion. He would allow states to force women to have their rapists’ babies.

    Needless to say, President Obama does not agree with that.

    I’m not sure what part of “vote strategically” you don’t understand, professor?

    Would you prefer we nominate Dennis Kucinich and then lose to Newt Gingrich in the general?

  33. @Supak: Would you prefer we nominate Dennis Kucinich and then lose to Newt Gingrich in the general?

    What’s the difference? “Winning?” What will you have “won,” a (D) by the name of a liar? What is the value of winning if it elects a man that does the opposite of virtually everything he campaigned on that really mattered?

    Winning at all costs includes the cost of electing lying, self-serving, corporate-loving, bank-loving, elitist corrupted shills that will destroy your country, your freedom of speech, your right to assembly, your right to a trial, your right to privacy, your health, and your economic future, not to mention your children in wars that they will ditch when injured.

    What you propose is a pyrrhic victory, Get a (D) next to the President’s name no matter what he actually does, even if he is a proven liar and hypocrite.

  34. Another great link Swarthmore Mom. It is interesting that the Republican candidates are big on pledges. They should be pledging to support the middle class and the poor instead of the wealthy and the far religious right.

  35. First, please tell me what overriding monumental role believing or not believing in the THEORY of Evolution plays in our Federal government, Swarthmore mom?

    Second, here’s the deal, in November 2012 Obama is going to run against a Republican. There IS a very real possibility that this Republican could win. Obama’s numbers are LOW, the economy is not doing well, unemployment is still very high! It is highly likely that Romney, Cain, Perry, Bachman, or Gingrich WILL BOMB IRAN if elected! This WILL be a MAJOR war, possibly a WORLD WAR 3! If democrats pre-register as Republican and play spoiler in the early states voting FOR Ron Paul, then no matter who wins in Nov. 2012, WWIII is likely averted! Republicans did just this, voting against Hillary in Ohio in the last election! Not only does this negate WWIII, but it WILL also turn the Republican party away from WARFARE, and TOWARD civil liberties, regardless if they win or lose! It WILL seriously throw a wrench into the plans of the Cheney/Rove types that predominate that party now. Democrats can sit back, roll the dice, and have a 50/50 chance of sending THEIR kids off into WWIII, or they can get out, vote for Paul in the PRIMARY, derail the NeoCon control of the Rep. party, and turn it toward civil liberties, and other concerns of the Democrats. This is a no-brainer! we NEED a concerned Democrat with a national platform to get on this plan NOW! Derail the NeoCons, avert WWIII, and if the economy is OK in Nov. 2012, Obama still wins! The Republican party will not know what hit them! Somebody run with this! Please!

  36. Many of the concerns here are without merit, nobody is going to just end abortion, all of this is just platitudes to the far right. It takes decades to move major issues in a country this size. No matter who is elected, they will not have the unilateral power to make all the changes they promote while running! Look at the huge issues that presidents CAN and do take unilateral action on, going to WAR, bombing brown people, civil liberties, these are the things that matter!

  37. Deer,

    Nice try, but I’m not buying. Paul possibly wouldn’t attack Iran. However, he will try to destroy Social Security, Medicare, freedom of choice and aid teaching of creationism in our schools. As far as not attacking Iran what he says now might well change once he gains power and needs to deal with the MI Complex. Finally, if you believe this world is only 6,000 years old, you are irrational whether you believe in evolution or not. Good try though at trying to sell a dog that won’t hunt.

  38. Well said Mike. Mr. Paul is as crazy as the rest of theRepublican field, with the exception of his stance on torture and war. As you stated, the war stance could change also once the Hawks get their claws into him. If you are a women, he will continue the war on women and health care. Evolution is a big deal because it tells you that if he doesn’t believe in that, he is either lying to get votes or just stupid. I think it is the former, not the latter.

  39. Deet Walters: “First, please tell me what overriding monumental role believing or not believing in the THEORY of Evolution plays in our Federal government, Swarthmore mom?”

    ___
    It shows the candidate knows what the word “theory” means and indicates a willingness to recognize a generally accepted, observable, testable reality.

  40. Yea, so your right, so what if we have a nuclear world war 3, so long as the president doesn’t believe in some irrelevant theory, that’s what will be most important when we’re all running around like radiated madmax zombies. I use to wonder what ever happened to the anti-war crowd, now I know, they just turned their attention to the more important things in the human timeline like which irrelevant antiquated theory politicians choose to ascribe to. Why did I ever waste my time worrying about civil liberties, continuous war, encroaching police state, runaway crony-capitalism, and raining death and destruction on innocent civilians all over the world? Evolution or creationism, that’s all it’s really about!

  41. Hey, wait a minute, didn’t Obama go to a Christian church? I seem to remember a Rev. Wright! OMG! I bet Obama is one of them! We MUST vote against Obama now? Damn, creationists! Maybe we should start a third party, with only one plank? Takers?

  42. LOL, You seem to be really twitched up! Chill out, have a Baileys and a cookie, it works for me :-)

    Deet, If the war is the most important issue on which to base a vote then vote for Paul or Kucinich, they both have about the same chance of winning at this point. I would lean toward Kucinich because he has a social platform I like. I voted for Obama in some major part because of his position on the war (and that “change” thing) – look how well that worked out for me.

  43. @Deet: Evolution or creationism, that’s all it’s really about!

    These are at least indicators of what it is all about; because what it is really all about is rationalism versus emotionalism in governance.

    It is irrational to be a creationist, people are creationists because they give in and let their emotions override their reason. They have “gut feelings” and act on them. They make policy decisions based on what they want to believe, and refuse to change their mind no matter how high the evidence piles up, because their gut, like their faith, is not about evidence. It is about how they feel.

    Emotionalism is satisfying and easy, that is why there are so many of you.

    Accepting the facts of evolution is much harder. Rationalists believe what the evidence shows: We are just smarter animals, there is no karmic justice or eternal life, the universe isn’t about us, there is no sky king looking out for people or guiding them or protecting them from harm.

    However, in return for giving up the emotional fantasy’s and facing reality, the rationalists are able to devise solutions to problems that really work, instead of wasting time, lives, and fortunes on schemes that only work in their wishful dreams.

    Evolution is proven science far beyond any reasonable doubt. For people in power I am much more inclined to trust the judgment of an evolutionist over a creationist, a person that can face reality over one that denies it. But we are often not given the choice of a rationalist, so it obviously cannot be the sole criterion we use to choose.

  44. “because what it is really all about is rationalism versus emotionalism in governance.” … “we are often not given the choice of a rationalist, so it obviously cannot be the sole criterion we use to choose.”

    I second both of those comments with a hearty “Hear, Hear!”

    May I add that, more often than not, the candidates between whom we must chose are not really Democrats or Republicans but belong to that huge no-named political organization I like to call the “Out Only For Myself” Party. A rational approach is of real benefit to the voter in identifying those parasitic candidates.

  45. Evolution is a theory–and so is gravity! Try jumping off a roof and see if you “fall up.”

    Just for laughs–from “The Onion”:

    Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New ‘Intelligent Falling’ Theory
    http://www.theonion.com/articles/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int,1778/

    Excerpt:
    KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held “theory of gravity” is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

    “Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, ‘God’ if you will, is pushing them down,” said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

    Burdett added: “Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, ‘I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.’ Of course, he is alluding to a higher power.”

  46. @Blouise: No problem. What I like to call the Sociopathic Party gains power precisely by appealing to emotionalism; I think I was taken in by Obama on that point: Soaring rhetoric he had no intent of ever fulfilling. I began to suspect when he promised to filibuster the Patriot Act and then when it came time to do that, he didn’t even put on a show of trying, he didn’t even just vote against it, he just voted FOR it. Events since prove that wasn’t some kind of eleven dimensional chess, the explanation is far simpler: His promises were an outright lie, and I fell for it. I won’t do it twice.

  47. Tony C,

    You’re in good company. For all the right reasons many hopeful people bought into his line of bull-shit. SwM and I didn’t.

    We found, through our later discussions, that we had shared a common experience in that neither of us were certain when we walked into the precinct in 2008 if we were actually going to touch the screen for Obama. We knew the guy was all talk and no real substance.

    I finally did touch for him and rationalized it to myself that he had chosen Biden (whom I liked) for VP and broadly hinted that Sen. Clinton (a hard-working woman) would be Secy. of State. So I voted for him but never felt good about it.

    When he held that ridiculous Beer Fest in the Rose Garden after having made a completely unnecessary mess of the Gates/Crowley incident, I knew we were all screwed. (I pay attention to the little things.) What a cesspool of emotional masturbation that was. It was embarrassing.

    This time around, who knows what I’ll do. I’m not a personality voter, I’m an issues voter. I honestly don’t care how good looking or well spoken a candidate is … give me a short, pudgy ugly person who speaks in a whispered monotone, if he or she is right on the issues that are important to me, I’ll vote for them.

    p.s. … I know site should be cite … I should do more than sight read before submitting ;)

  48. Blouise,

    I figured we were screwed when Obama picked people like Larry Summers and Geithner to work in his administration and when the DOJ decided not to prosecute war criminals in the previous administration.

    *****

    “What a cesspool of emotional masturbation that was.”

    My dear, you do have a way with words!

    ;)

  49. Blouise, When Paul signed that pledge, he limited his choices of appointments to people that only think a certain way. Whether he did it because he believes that or or to get the Bachmann vote, it does not matter. My state will go for any republican that manages to get nominated. Your state is the key state this time around.

  50. “Yea, so your right, so what if we have a nuclear world war 3, so long as the president doesn’t believe in some irrelevant theory”

    Deet,

    Thank you for reminding me about your WWIII scenario, which I didn’t address. What you somehow conflate is the real reason we shouldn’t go to war with Iran, with the pretended outcome of that war. The issue is Iran gaining nuclear capability and its’ threat to the world if it attains such and that is merely the propaganda being used to justify attacking Iran to gain control of its oil.

    Think about this the distance between Tel Aviv and Tehran is 955.43 miles. The distance between NYC and Tehran is 6,121.44 miles. To reach the US Iran would need ICBM’s, which it doesn’t have. To reach Israel would of course mean that Iran would need a much shorter range missile, but they don’t seem to have a missile program. However, not only does Israel have a nuclear program that is at least four decades old, but it also has a missile program and the best Air Force in the ME. Iran won’t attack Israel because it knows that it would be an attack of mutual destruction. The Irani’s may be fanatics, but they are not stupid fanatics. They like to use threat displays, but have shown little desire to carry out their threats.

    I’m not sure you understand the false logic underlying your WWIII scenario. The reasons that there is a ramping up of Iran scare stories is that the powers that be would like to control its oil. The nuclear capability is the “bogey man” used to create fear and justify an attack. The stupidity is that a war with Iran would mean a ground war and that would take years and have an uncertain outcome. The immorality is that we would be making war simply to get Iran’s oil. In any event it won’t cause WWIII if Paul isn’t elected, so the scary alternative you present is not only false, but false based on the premise being used to attack Iran in the first place

  51. Mike S.,
    Iran does have missiles that can reach Tel Aviv. The problem with this alleged evidence of a nuke program is that the UN agency accepted 3rd party evidence and the evidence they got is from the same guy who was pushing that Iraq had a nuclear program. We are on the warpath…again. The 1% needs to make some more money at our soldiers expense.

  52. “Why did I ever waste my time worrying about civil liberties”

    Deet,

    A woman’s freedom of choice is about an important civil liberty, especially to a woman who would be forced to give birth due to a rape and/or incest. That is a terrible price for an innocent female to pay just because of Mr. Paul’s and presumably your religious belief. Many religions are not anti-abortion. Why does your religion get to decide the law? My religion decrees that eating pork is an abomination before God. I have the choice to eat pork or not. Since spareribs and bacon are very tempting, perhaps the best way to remove the temptation for me to commit an abomination would be to ban pork in the US completely. This is exactly the position of the anti-choice people. If they don’t believe that abortion is acceptable, don’t have abortions, but since that has even failed among their own people they want to remove the choice to keep from being tempted.

    Now you might come back with the idea that abortion is murder, but from my and many people’s perspective that is not the case. Why should your religious beliefs have precedence over my religious beliefs. This would seem to me to be the antithesis of what being libertarian means. If Paul, the professed libertarian, is willing to compromise a basic premise of being a libertarian (The
    freedom to believe as you will) why should I trust that he will adhere to all proper civil liberties issues? In Mississippi just last week a bill was defeated that would have defined person-hood at conception, thereby making many birth control methods illegal. This no doubt reflects deeply personal religious beliefs on the part of some people and for all I know Paul may be among them and just not stating it for political reasons.

    Now, in the alternative perhaps Paul is only anti-choice and ant-evolution because he has to be in the district he is elected from. However, if that is the case then isn’t he just another pandering politician, saying what’s needed to get elected? As I said your arguments are clever, constructed to gain support from people who would not normally vote for supporter of markets unfettered by the control of government, but in the end they don’t fly with me. Perhaps though you can sell it elsewhere? I admire your cleverness though.

  53. I posted a comment with three links in it to science blogs that explore Paul’s position on evolution, as well as links to google books showing more of Paul’s position on evolution.’

    Unfortunately, that comment is in “moderation”.

    Could someone fish it out please and post it?

    I promise, except for the last link to penis pills, most of the rest of it is not spam.

  54. “Whether he did it because he believes that or or to get the Bachmann vote, it does not matter.” (SwM)

    You got that right! Issue voting R us.

  55. “Iran does have missiles that can reach Tel Aviv.”

    Raff,

    I have no doubt of that, but Israel has the same. The point is that Iran won’t attack with nuclear weapons first, knowing that they too would be destroyed and they Israeli’s won’t for the same reasons. Nuclear fallout is as dangerous as nuclear destruction and the distance involved in the ME are relatively small.
    Israel’s nuclear arsenal is one of the reasons that they are immune from a war that would overrun them, since they will destroy the entire ME if they face destruction. It’s an insane method in an insane world, but after the Shoah Jews will not let themselves be exterminated without exterminating their enemies. As much as I despise Netanyahu and his wrongful policies, he is not stupid enough to use nuclear weapons preemptively, but to be honest with you if it came down to Israel being destroyed by its enemies I then would be in favor of
    destroying that enemy rather then going down easily. It’s hard for non-Jews to understand the impression the Shoah made on the Jewish people. The images of being packed into cattle cars, dehumanized and then being gassed to death
    engenders the visceral certainty that we will never let it happen again. Is it tribal, yes of course it is, but I identify with my tribe.

    Now this doesn’t translate into supporting Netanyahu, or the fools at AIPAC. The only solution is a dismantling of the West Bank settlements and the creation of an independent Arab State on those lands. This would be most problematic for the Saudi’s and other ME despots though, because they need this conflict to distract their own people from the oppression they are laying upon them.

  56. rafflaw: “Mike S., Iran does have missiles that can reach Tel Aviv. The problem with this alleged evidence of a nuke program is that the UN agency accepted 3rd party evidence and the evidence they got is from the same guy who was pushing that Iraq had a nuclear program. We are on the warpath…again. The 1% needs to make some more money at our soldiers expense.
    —-

    And the administration shouldn’t allow it, shouldn’t buy in to the scam. You know though, I have seen this kind of exchange before; Israel begins threatening some country, the US does not want to become embroiled, and after much discussion and saber-rattling some amount of aid in arms or money or a political concession on a tangential issue is made and everything goes back to normal. I would not be surprised if that didn’t happen again.

  57. Anon, you can post two links, but three will automatically go to moderation. Probably part of WordPress’ spam filter system.

    You can repost, with two links max in a single comment and it will work fine.

  58. Anon,

    It’s not personal. I’ve been in moderation hell myself. It happens every time you use more than two links. I would advise reposting with two posts, one with two and the other with the third link.

  59. “Anon,

    It’s not personal. I’ve been in moderation hell myself. It happens every time you use more than two links. I would advise reposting with two posts, one with two and the other with the third link.”

    I know it’s not personal, but thank you, I guess I will leave out the penis pill link and repost.

  60. “I have seen this kind of exchange before; Israel begins threatening some country”

    LK,

    I’ve seen it too, it’s an old game. However, I do think in this instance the MI Complex is trying to create the bogey man for a war with Iran. That Israel is playing along shows what a tool Netanyahu is at heart. Politically he would fit in well with the Perry’s, Bachman’s, et. al. in the Republican debates.

  61. There were actually four links (seriously, not just making a Jean Luc joke)

    The Ron Paul Evolution video (from 2007) certainly seems devastating. I am pretty disappointed in his opinions stated in that video.

    Googling, a much more, still disappointed, nuanced, let’s see how he really feels about it, is over here at Chris Mooney’s blog (in a post by Jon Winsor): http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/08/29/ron-paul-doesnt-accept-evolution-as-a-theory/

    And Winsor writes a very interesting post saying amongst other things:

    “Update 2: Commenter Thomas J. Webb points me to Ron Paul’s latest book, (http://books.google.com/books?id=KGsAPgSJpIwC&lpg=PT69&vq=evolution&pg=PT69#v=onepage&q=evolution%20creation&f=false) where Paul lays out his current position on evolution–which differs from what he says below. Paul writes, “My personal view is that recognizing the validity of an evolutionary process does not support atheism, nor should it diminish one’s view about God and the universe.” (Earlier, I checked Paul’s website and could not find his position on evolution.) In his book, Paul still has doubts about science questions being relevant to the presidency (as he does in the video below)”

  62. And he writes: “Update: Two important things about this video: first, although it’s been making the rounds lately because it deals with evolution, it’s from the 2007 campaign. Second, it’s an excerpt from a longer answer Paul gave (the longer version is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5z1FLVBkc4). The unedited version contains what he said in the video above, but sounds more qualified”

    That whole blog post, and the comments, express my views pretty well. It’s very disappointing, and evolution, imho, DEFINITELY is an important theory for the President to understand, it will inform all sorts of funding decisions in education, science and healthcare.

    Paul seems to feel it only affects education, which he thinks should be a very local matter and not a national matter anyway, and so left up to you and your neighbors talking with the local school board. I disagree with that, and think that’s wrong for many reasons, if only because of the Texas Schoolboard’s purchasing power wrt textbook publishers.

    Regardless, Winsor’s entire post is worth reading to see the difference in Paul’s belief in the gold standard versus a disbelief in evolution.

    In 2009, here is Paul on Evolution at Reddit(http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-09-11/ron-paul-and-reddit-com/): You know it is a theory, nobody has concrete proof of any of this. But quite frankly I think it’s sort of irrelevant, that because we don’t know the exact details and we don’t have geologic support for evolutionary forms, it is a theory, even though it’s a pretty logical theory. But my concept of understanding of a creator is not related one bit to whether or not I or anybody has to believe in evolution or not believe in evolution.

    If you read the segment from his book, along with his answer from reddit, it seems that the 2007 answer was itself politically motivated, which is also disappointing, showing what we all know, all politicians are liars, even Ron Paul.

    All in all, very disappointing on many levels.

  63. Elaine,

    Usually I use the term “intellectual masturbation” but there was no intellect involved in all that penis-waving, macho bit of vaudeville.

    Now, if Obama had invited the woman the police told lies about claiming she’d identified Gates as a black man … which tapes proved she hadn’t … perhaps, it would have been less of a boys will be boys frat-splat.

    Gates showed some class by sending her flowers recognizing the unfair treatment the police had caused her to experience at the hands of the media and thanking her for the sincere attempt to protect his home.

    And speaking to the point you raised about the appointments of Summers and Geithner, here’s a piece by Glenn Greenwald entitled “The Geithner Mystery Solved” which you’ve read but could stand a reread: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/09/19-6

  64. Anon,

    thank you for adding to my knowledge of Paul. My own belief is that there is a possibility that the theory of evolution is incomplete, but the evidence of evolution in biological, botanical and geological terms is irrefutable. I can see a nuanced religious position that could somehow meld Genesis with scientific fact. My own belief is that Genesis was intended as a metaphorical
    explanation of life, but the original meaning was usurped by fundamentalist
    literalists, who found metaphors to complex. Just as the Greek pantheon of God’s was understood by them to be metaphors, so did the Jewish scribes who penned the Torah understand that trying to understand the ineffable requires metaphor to create a comprehensible model.

  65. As I grow older, my eyesight has weakened. Where I once saw humans clearly, now my eyes fool me into visions from the Planet of the Apes.

    At times it has helped me realize that I am not having a conversation with homo sapiens rationalensis but merely a silverback, orang, chimp or baboon.

    /bonobo

  66. That last post has nothing to do with you Mike… just trying to be whimsical.

    Kind of like the kid in the Sixth Sense, I see Apes (all around me)

  67. No offense taken Anon and anyway Bonobo’s are my heroes. They are the epitome of make love not war, which my generation was trying to foster.

  68. Elaine,

    Going to take a chance that you’ll check back in on this thread … what’s your opinion of the children’s book BUN BUN BUTTON
    by Patricia Polacco. (ages3-7)?

  69. Mike, for anyone on here to believe that a president can have any effect on the state of abortion is at the very least as “stupid” as you believe it is for some politician to believe in evolution. GWB was the biggest anti-abortion president ever, and look at the non-effect he had on your issue of supreme importance. This is just as silly as the right wing choosing someone that will start unprovoked, preemptive war because he is against gay marriage. I’ve not been here before, but think I have stumbled into Alice’s Wonderland. Lottakatz believes he can vote for someone named “Kucinich”, others have made a religion out of a scientific theory, some worship their irrelevant pet issue at the expense of humanity. At least I have a better understanding of why we have the problems we have today. They say an ignorant society deserves the leaders it gets, I’ll try to rationalize it that way when president Romney is parachuting our kids behind enemy lines in the Iranian ground war, and take solace that we are can still get abortions? BTW, I think Romney’s religion believes not in creationism, or evolution, but that martians planted us here, how’s that for irony!

  70. “Mike, for anyone on here to believe that a president can have any effect on the state of abortion is at the very least as “stupid” as you believe it is for some politician to believe in evolution.”

    Deet,

    Read the history of the Prohibition Amendnent and the history of how the anti-Evolution law was passed in Tennessee leading to the “Scopes Monkey Trial”. You will see how many “improbable” movements can actually come to fruition because none of the legislators involved wanted to take a stand and each pro-vote was on the premise that someone at a higher level would stop it. If a Republican wins the Presidency, there will be a Republican congress in both houses following on their coattails. They will be beholden to the anti-choice people and certainly would have a backer in Ron Paul. GWB had his wars and other distractions and besides despite what he said i don’t think he really felt it. Paul, as you seem to say is either a true believer, or political opportunist, which should we trust. As for stupidity to me that is defined by people who say things like such and such can never happen. I’ve lived too long not to realize you can never say never.

  71. @Deet: Presidents are not all powerful, by any means, and many campaign promises (like returning to a gold standard) are simply not within the power of the President and will never realistically be accomplished. Other campaign promises of Paul are eminently within Presidential power, like pardoning all non-violent marijuana posession offenders currently in prison: Whether a “blanket pardon” is Constitutional or nit, It is certainly within their power to apply, and within his power to sign.

    However, Presidents do have at least three forms of indirect power over abortion issues.

    1) They appoint Supreme Court judges, which could overturn Roe v. Wade.
    2) They have veto power over bills, which can be used as leverage to restrict language and provisions.
    3) The “Chief Executive” title is not some honorary B.S., the President is actively in charge of every federal civil service and relief office in the country and can give them orders they must follow, including as unreviewed “executive orders.”

    You haven’t stumbled into Alice’s Wonderland; you have stumbled into an arena where not all comments are emotional tirades.

    And Romney is a Mormon, not a Scientologist. Technically Mormons believe in the Bible supplemented by the scriptural writings of Joseph Smith, circa 1830, who they regard as a prophet that communicated directly with God and Angels. They do not believe in Martians; Scientologists are the ones that believe in alien creators.

  72. Blouise,

    I haven’t read Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland in decades. I never read it in class or to my daughter. Some of the chapter books that I used to enjoy reading aloud to my second graders included Winnie the Pooh, The House at Pooh Corner, The Wind in the Willows, and Charlotte’s Web. My students LOVED Beverly Cleary’s books about Ramona Quimby–even the boys. I also recommend The Penderwicks: A Summer Tale of Four Sisters, Two Rabbits, and a Very Interesting Boy by Jeanne Birdsall. It won a National Book Award. There are dozens and dozens more chapter books and picture books that I could recommend. You can email me anytime with book questions.

    I’ll be heading out to Chicago tomorrow for the annual convention of the National Council of Teachers of English. I won’t have a computer with me. I’ll miss the Turley Blawg. I wish I could find some time to do some sightseeing while I’m away–but I doubt it.

    P.S. If you’re looking for a humorous picture book to read aloud at Thanksgiving time, I recommend Turk and Runt: A Thanksgiving Comedy–written by Lisa Wheeler and illustrated by Frank Ansley. It’s a hoot.

    I have a review of Turk and Runt–as well as reviews of some other Thanksgiving picture books–at the following link:
    http://wildrosereader.blogspot.com/2011/11/celebrate-thanksgiving-holiday-with.html

  73. I am beginning to think most here mistake my position to be a Paul for president position, but my position is that Paul may be different enough to warrant a democratic hijack of the PRIMARY ONLY, since there is no D primary. If Democrats intervened in the Republican PRIMARY, and elected Paul as Obama’s challenger, it would; 1) Be a great way to “stick it to” the pro-war, anti-civil liberty, GWB/K.Rove hierarchy of the Republican party! (my favorite reason) 2) Have a chance of turning the R party toward a more sane foreign policy, and pro civil liberty position, after all even if Obama wins reelection, Reps will at some point in the future regain control. 3) Provide an anti-war, pro liberty “safety” in the event the economy turns South and Obama loses in 2012. 4) Give Obama the best chance to win since many Republicans seemed to be against Paul, they may not go to the polls as heavily.

    I AM NOT advocating that Paul is acceptable to Democrats, they WOULD vote for Obama in Nov. 2012!

    Since everyone seems to disagree with my position above, please tell me which Republican candidate would be best, from a democrats stand point, to run against Obama.

    1) Romney, who has the best chance to BEAT Obama, and is pro-war, pro-drug war, anti-abortion, and likely anti-evolution?

    2) Cain, Perry, Bachman, who are also likely anti-evolution, anti-abortion, pro-war, pro-drug war, and big time evangelicals to boot?

    3) Newt who may have an oratorical debate advantage over Obama, who is also pro-war, anti-abortion, not sure of his stance on evolution.

    If the any of the above 5 win the PRIMARY, the GWB/Karl Rove hierarchy is validated and they maintain control of the R party into the future. So, please tell me which candidate Democrats would prefer to be Obama’s challenger in Nov. 2012, and what advantage that candidate would give Obama, or how it might be beneficial to Democrats overall. Politics is a game of strategy. Thanks for your input

  74. @Deet: I cast my first vote for Jimmy Carter, and with the exception of a few Libertarian Judges, I have voted for Democrats in every election since then. I have considered myself a Liberal Democrat.

    That said, I would vote for Paul over Obama. That sounds crazy to people that know me: Paul is pro-life, I am pro-choice. Paul opposes a social safety net, I believe it needs to be stronger. Those are big negatives.

    But they are easily overcome by the positives; Paul believes in the Constitution, Obama does not. Paul believes in the rule of law, Obama does not. Paul opposes War and Torture, Obama has made them politically acceptable to both parties. Paul would end, or severely curtail, the War on Drugs and the anti-Constitutional property seizures associated with it, Obama, an admitted marijuana user, insists it is necessary to put people in jail for it. Paul believes habeas corpus and trials must be restored, he was one of 3 Republicans to vote against the Patriot Act and has spoken out against it several times since. Ron Paul condemned Obama for the Al-Awlaki assassination, and claims no President has the right to order the assassination any American citizen. Paul has condemned the War on Terror. Google Ron Paul and “signing statements”, he is vehemently opposed to them and claims they erode the Constitutional Balance and our rights. They are the equivalent of Monarchical Decrees, and they are being obeyed as if they were law. Paul opposes current airline security measures, illegal search and seizure, and on and on.

    Paul is flawed, but from what I can tell, he appears to be principled and believe in the Constitution.

    My “single issue” is saving the American system, which I think is on the verge of collapse. I thought that in 2008, and incorrectly voted for Obama. As such, I have to weigh the value of individual issues, like abortion rights or union rights or Social security or Medicare against the loss of the very system that gave us those rights, decades ago.

    Everyone talks about voting strategically, and nobody does it: “Strategy” is about picking and choosing your losses and sacrifices in order to win the bigger game. Nobody wins a chess game with all their pieces still on the board. If people aren’t talking about sacrifices, of issues they care about, in order to win a longer term good, then they aren’t being “strategic.”

    I think Paul might do damage to some of the social rights issues I care about. But so has Obama, and strategically it is worse coming from a Democrat: At least with Paul, because he is a “Republican” and Congress is appallingly shallow, we might count on Democrats in the Senate to filibuster and Democratic Representatives in the House to oppose any attempts by Paul to do harm to the social issues.

    Also to me, whatever harm is done could be undone in a subsequent administration, if Paul used his power to restore the rule of law and equality of citizens. What was done before could be done again.

    I admit I don’t know if Paul would be better, what I do know is that another four years of a wolf in sheep’s clothing will be very, very bad. I think it is time to stop focusing on nurturing individual trees and realize the entire forest is about to go up in flames.

  75. Thanks for your reply Tony C., not the angle I was looking for, but very interesting. I agree that everyone has their pet issue, but without the rule of law, we could slip into a dictatorship, and those pet issues wouldn’t amount to a hill of beans.

  76. @Deet: There is no answer to what you are looking for; every Republican you named is just as big a sociopathic, corporate-owned liar as Obama is. Every one of them has proven they will tell ANY lie in order to get elected; and I include Romney, Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann and Cain, at least.

  77. “we could slip into a dictatorship,”

    Deet,

    Between the multiple damages done to the Constitution by the Bush Administration, the PATRIOT Act and the Obama Administration aiding and abetting after the fact the crimes of the Bush Administration and then compound that insult with the injury of insisting the President has the right to order the execution of Americans citizens without Due Process and allowing the Office of Fatherland Security to oppress protestors?

    There is a strong argument that we are already in a dictatorship.

    An oligarchical, plutocratic, fascist dictatorship with serial dictators of limited term serving as simple figureheads for the corporatists who are stealing our rights, our government and our property.

  78. Tony C,

    I wish the Republicans would nominate Paul. I would never vote for him but he would hold Obama’s feet to the fire and the opportunity to do so would benefit the country over all.

    I don’t believe anyone presently contending for the Republican nomination has a chance in hell of actually beating Obama so why not run Paul and let him have at it.

    I felt the same way about Bush in 2004. No way anyone was going to beat the guy so why run an idiot like Kerry when Kucinch would have held Bush’s feet to the fire.

    I know why they Democrats didn’t do it in 2004 and it’s the same reason the Republicans won’t do it in 2012 but, lord love a duck, I wish they would.

  79. Blouise,
    I could not agree more. I think Paul would be a candidate that would insure Obama’s victory. Ron Paul has come out against Obamacare and does not believe in evolution and is anti-choice. How can any senior or soon to be senior citizen or family without health coverage vote for someone like Paul? How could any women vote for Ron Paul who would not allow women to decide what happens to their own bodies? I guess he is a Libertarian as long as those Libertarian priniciples only apply to men.

  80. @Rafflaw: How can anybody vote for Obama when Obama believes he has the right to order them killed without a shred of evidence or even so much as a hearing? And that isn’t just rhetoric, Obama has DONE it. Awlaki is dead.

    Voting for Ron Paul isn’t voting for a King that can do whatever he wants, and at least Ron Paul believes the Presidency has limited powers and is bound to uphold the law passed by the Supreme Court, including Roe v. Wade, no matter how wrongly he may believe it was decided.

    How could any woman or man vote for a person that claims the right to have them hunted down and murdered, in secret, without any charges, proof, hearings, or evidence?

  81. @Blouise: Well, I would vote for Paul over Obama. I would heavily discount the things you find problematic about him, I do that on the grounds that he cannot accomplish those things without the acquiescence of the Democratic Representatives and Senators. The President does not have the right to just set law as he sees fit, and the way the Supreme Court works, left-leaning justices retire with Democrats in charge and right-leaning justices retire with Republicans in charge, so barring a sudden death of a justice, any justices he appoints are not likely to change the landscape much.

    I don’t care what Obama says anymore, I care what he has done already, and will do with four more years and no re-election worries or any political restraints whatsoever, and that prospect looks very very bad to me.

    And similarly I don’t care what Ron Paul’s beliefs are: What I care about is what he would be able to do, and compared to what I expect from Obama, that does not look nearly as bad to me.

  82. Tony C,

    I understand your views on Obama and won’t argue with them as I consider them justified.

    I made up my mind a long time ago about Ron Paul and he hasn’t done anything in the last 7 years to cause me to modify that opinion.

    But I still think he should be the nominee and not because I think his running would guarantee Obama’s victory. Whoever the Republicans run is going to lose. I think Ron Paul is the best one out of the bunch to debate Obama and thus highlight Obama’s doublespeak.

  83. @Swarthmore: Ron Paul may well do that as a personal thing, it doesn’t mean he gets to do it as President. We do not elect Kings that get to make unilateral decrees and have them stick. What Ron Paul would actually do, as he has said and continues to say and continues to practice, is follow the law, which is more than I can say for Obama.

  84. I haven’t researched this candidate. I saw this in rawstory: “Long-shot Republican presidential candidate Buddy Roemer blasted New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg on Tuesday after police tore down the nearly two-month-old “Occupy Wall Street” demonstration in Zuccotti Park.

    “The mayor of New York City is standing on the wrong side of history. His actions in the midnight hours against the Occupy Wall Street protestors are unjust, uncalled for, and unconstitutional,” said Roemer in a statement on Tuesday. “The First Amendment right of assembly and speech exists to
    protect America from this kind of government power abuse.

    “His actions will be a stain on America’s long history of peaceful assembly. I encourage Mayor Bloomberg to read a history book on America and he will see from the civil rights marches to the Vietnam protests, our young Americans have stood up to injustice and in the end were right in their action.”

  85. Buddy Roemer was a blue dog that switched to the republicans when many in the south did. Don’t know his positions, but he was a moderate. He is not even in the debates. I don’t think he or Paul will be the nominee. It is Gingrich today.

  86. “There is a strong argument that we are already in a dictatorship.
    An oligarchical, plutocratic, fascist dictatorship with serial dictators of limited term serving as simple figureheads for the corporatists who are stealing our rights, our government and our property.”

    Gene,

    I agree with this assessment but I would nuance it slightly. The problem this feudal oligarchy has is ego driven and reflects differing management styles. This is our only saving grace in that it is not homogeneous in approach and that competition keeps it from total control over our lives. I look at in in two important aspects:

    1. There are competitive egos at work and they war with each other for supremacy as much as they war with us. This follows the model of the feudal aristocracy closely in form, such as France prior to Louis XIV. It was broken up into great baronies, some as powerful as the king and all the Barons in competition with each other to be considered top dog. This state of flux exists simply because our Presidents are figureheads, rather than Kings or Dictators. Just as in the feudal system powerful nobles do not wish to cede their prerogatives. The difference now is that instead of Baronies we have large corporations and banks involved in shifting alliances. Add to those Baronies our Military, which is far from heterogeneous and other government entities like DOHS, NSA, CIA, FBI and of course the DEA.

    2. Secondly, there are two basic theories of how to manage the populace, with various sub-theories to add to the mix. The first theory is the old Theory X taught in some business schools. This is basically keep everyone below you scared of being harmed economically, physically and when it comes to religion spiritually. The second theory I describe as the “Iron Fist in Velvet Glove”. This is basically try to meet the minimum needs of the 99% to keep them happy and convinced they to can rise to the top, but kick them in the balls if they get too uppity. We see the actions of this now with OWS. In NYC Mike Bloomberg is an advocate of this theory which is to pretend to care, but allow no one to challenge your authority.

    It is because of the competition described above that we are able at this point to write what we do because at this point it it threatens no one and maintains the illusion of freedom. That freedom mythology is very important to all parties since it assures the stability of the country and the compliance of the majority.

    I’ve gone this far with this, so I might as well complete what is left unsaid. I believe that few people running for the Office of President really understand the game being run. I think that when elected some people sit down with them and explain the parameters of what they can and cannot do. To run in the first place you need to be monumentally egocentric to want to take on this life of being constantly onstage. When the facts are explained these egomaniacs fall back on their narcissism and accept the terms. After all they’ll at least go down in history as someone who had a modicum of greatness.

    Now this gets me to the question of who I vote for in 2012. There are too many smart people here like you Gene, Tony C., Blouise, Mespo, SwM, Elaine, LK, Shano, Raff, OS etc. (If I missed you it doesn’t me I don’t hold you in esteem, it’s just the list was getting too long and that’s boring) that I respect so much that I won’t try to patronize you all by trying to convince you who to support. The truth is that it’s a Hobson’s choice and anyone’s guess is as good as mine, yes you too Bron and Bdaman. Personally, I will vote for Obama, with the understanding that I agree with much of the opprobrium aimed at him. I think he represents the “Iron fist in Velvet Glove” category that I mentioned above. For those who think him week just look at the actions of Geithner and Holder and tell me if those actions don’t represent the use of repressive power in service to the oligarchy.

    Selfishly, I will not vote for any Republican now in the race because the victory of any one of them will have coattails leaving us with a Congress in total control of Republicans. Social Security and Medicare will be destroyed and loss of those programs will impoverish me and may well lead to my death if I am unable to afford my anti-rejection medication. I extrapolate my personal need to that of the multitude less fortunate then I and know that at this stage of the insanity total Republican power will mean the triumph of Theory X and quite possibly the death of hope for changing things around.
    Yes, lest you ask, my idea is to stall for time. Time enough to give an effective movement the impetus to coagulate and perhaps take back this country. I see the seeds of it beginning in OWS, but the organization and coalescence still need a few years organization.

    All bets are off if a good primary challenge is mounted against Obama, or if some Republican or Independent candidate arises I don’t know who it might be, but I sure like Elizabeth Warren and Alan Cranston. What sets them apart for me is their ability to clearly articulate our problems in terms easily grasped by all. I’d vote for either in a heartbeat. While Ron Paul was/is right about the warfare/torture his anti-choice stance makes him suspicious to me on civil liberties. Also to be honest he has a crazy look in his eyes. Those are my less than sage thoughts on these issues. When you live on the cusp of a Feudal Plutocracy all you can really do is speak your mind and lend support to those you hope are sincere.

  87. SwM,

    It’ll be Romney unless Huntsman pulls a Clinton (first or a strong 2nd) in N.H. followed by a win in S.C. Then Romney has a problem.

    Here’s a NYTimes piece regarding Huntsman in N H. Another wealthy daddy just like Kennedy & Bush

  88. Mike,

    It is my opinion that the CIA runs the Oval Office and has done so since Bush I. Clinton fought them and lost … Bush II gave them carte blanche and they have burrowed in. It’s going to take one hell of a strong President, backed by a strong Congress, to drive them out.

    Although I am in agreement with everyone about the heavy influence of corporate America on all things within the government … it is the unchecked black power of the CIA that rules the Presidency.

  89. Blouise, I became aware of the Huntsmans when we toured Penn some years ago. They have given Wharton tons of money and scholarships and a building or two are named after them.

  90. SwM,

    Downtown (Philadelphia) and one of the best places to visit (Penn). Did a lot of classical music there in my youth.

    The Philadelphia Museum of Art was one of my favorite places to go but no matter how many times I went I always ended up getting stuck in the circle. I broke more traffic laws around that Museum than anywhere else in my entire life … I even got out of there once by driving on the sidewalk.

  91. “It is my opinion that the CIA runs the Oval Office and has done so since Bush I. Clinton fought them and lost … Bush II gave them carte blanche and they have burrowed in. It’s going to take one hell of a strong President, backed by a strong Congress, to drive them out.”

    Bouise,

    The question to me is who runs the CIA. They are certainly a conduit of power and have been since JFK’s assassination. In my estimation though, the CIA is also riddled with factions. There is a majority strain of personnel there that come from our country’s elite. Bush I is an example of this. There is definitely an Ivy League connection and indeed that is where they are thought to do much of their recruiting, particularly Yale. The CIA is no doubt one of the “Baronies” that make up our feudal, corporate State, but it to answers to “higher” authority.

    Lest someone think that I’m off of the deep end, awash in conspiratorial paranoia, I’m not. Beside ego, the thread that unites our ruling elite is affinity of background. These are people who either grew up with each other and/or hang out in the same strata. They have developed friendships, hatreds and alliances. Having wealth they share similar interests and prejudices that are moderated, or not, by their desire to properly shepherd and/or shear the “common folk”. So this is not a “conspiracy” in the common sense of the word and because it isn’t, it is more loosely woven.

    To my mind the best exposition of this affinity of class and of the operational mindset of the CIA, is what I think is Norman Mailer’s greatest novel
    “Harlot’s Ghost”. Mailer is one of my favorite novelists because he combined the skill set of an investigate journalist with the craftsmanship of a literary talent.
    This book really helped me to shape my concept of the CIA and in the macrocosm, how our society is run. To me he showed that looked at from an affinity of people standpoint, the “conspiracy” is less than meets the eye. Our country is analogous to High School, with the difference being that the stakes are much higher. All the ego, the cliques and the disputes are being played out on a grander scale. It doesn’t make the life of the 99% any better, but it does give clearer perspective on why things are so badly messed up and perhaps hints at what can be done to change it.

  92. Swarthmore mom, ” ….. is let people die uninsured …..”
    Do you prefer that people die with insurance? It always gets me when people believe that having health insurance is some kind of magic immortality pill. Not only do people die WITH insurance everyday, having unfettered access to doctors IS the THIRD LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH!
    ——————–
    Even more significantly, the medical system has played a large role in undermining the health of Americans. According to several research studies in the last decade, a total of 225,000 Americans per year have died as a result of their medical treatments:
    • 12,000 deaths per year due to unnecessary surgery

    • 7000 deaths per year due to medication errors in hospitals

    • 20,000 deaths per year due to other errors in hospitals

    • 80,000 deaths per year due to infections in hospitals

    • 106,000 deaths per year due to negative effects of drugs

    Thus, America’s healthcare-system-induced deaths are the third leading cause of the death in the U.S., after heart disease and cancer.
    ——————-
    Saying you want people to have government paid insurance is worse than wishing a stoke on someone, as stokes are only the fourth leading cause of death!

    If you want to actually help people, allow natural and holistic practitioners to work, promote exercise and a good diet. Instead the government wants to restrict access to supplements.

  93. I am reposting a message I left on another JT article, since it seems particularly more relevant here.

    It is on whether Ron Paul’s anti-abortion stance and his disbelief in evolution make him either a libertarian hypocrite or a bad choice for possible presidency.

    As far as his creationist leanings go, I don’t see how that affects his proven track record on maintaining a voting record that is adherent to a rather rigorous interpretation of the Constitution.
    Creationism is fairly much a sub-belief of many religions; as all religions are based upon magical thinking, and most politicians at least profess a religious belief system, excluding Paul on such a ground seems unduly harsh.
    It is compartmentalized belief that has little affect on the believer’s abilities in other areas. Paul is obviously fundamentalist in his religious beliefs, and he is also fundamentalist in his governmental beliefs. And one of those latter beliefs is his belief in the separation of church and State.
    I’d be voting for his ability to administer government, not for his mythological beliefs about the cosmos and the origins of Man.

    As far as the accusation of him being a liberterian poser, most libertarians are pro-choice, about 99.5% of them, but there is actually some wiggle room in the libertarian theory that does not outright disallow a libertarian to be anti-abortion, even from a legal POV.

    That wiggle room is the legal recognition of when does a pair of gametes or a zygote become a person that has legal rights.
    I have pondered about that point from a libertarian pov and I cannot come up with an objectively valid argument of why it would be at any particular point in the development. It is an arguable point that runs anywhere between conception and live birth. Personally I would put it at the point where a fetus could survive outside the womb.

    However, if that point is instead, say, at the zygote stage, then the whole panoply of libertarian laws protecting one individual from violence from another come into play, and effectively would outlaw abortion.
    Of course there are other libertarian arguments that could be made, notwithstanding the legal status of the fetus, such as the fetus infringing upon the rights of the mother, but they are not as strong as the primary prohibition of killing another person.

    So, in sum, Paul’s stance against abortion is not intrinsically anti-libertarian, it is just extreme, and certainly does not comport with the spirit of libertarianism, insofar that the mother is already a full blown person with inalienable rights, who should be able to do with her body what she pleases.

    Also, I have issue with another poster here, that to argue that Paul is merely saying it shouldn’t be a federal issue but rather a decision for the states, is sophistry. From a libertarian POV, it shouldn’t make any difference from jurisdiction where the individual’s libertarian rights are upheld, it is simply a mandate that they ARE upheld.
    Many politicians who lean libertarian but are afraid of directly opposing a voting bloc, will sidestep the issue by claiming it is a state’s rights issue.
    That is disingenuous. Either it is a libertarian right, or it is not.
    Paul is a little bit of both, he is explicitly anti-abortion, but he also mitigates that opinion by saying the federal govt should stay out of it.

    Personally I think the federal govt should stay in it. The only issue I have with the federal govt’s upholding abortion rights is the legal premise upon which it is based in Roe v Wade. This is not privacy issue, it is a liberty issue.

  94. @Garyonthenet: That is disingenuous. Either it is a libertarian right, or it is not.

    Or libertarians cannot agree on whether it is a right, or cannot agree on how to balance the mother’s rights against the infant’s rights. Perhaps Paul recognizes that state of affairs and believes the only solution is state-by-state experimentation to arrive at some citizen-approved median.

    Also, Paul has stated before (I have watched him doing it) that his position is that a human life is a human life from conception, and the mother (although he did not address non-consensual intercourse) assumed the risk and responsibility to carry the child to term at the time of impregnation. So Paul’s stance is principled, he is entitled to his religion and belief. Libertarians do not believe murder should be legal, and because of his erroneous relgiious beliefs he has convinced himself that abortion at any stage is murder.

    Personally I disagree, I am completely pro-choice for the first 15 weeks (based on brain development), and conditionally pro-choice for the rest of the pregnancy, for cases of non-consensual pregnancy, physical mother endangerment (not psychological), and testably abnormal fetal development. A fetus is a potential person, but as science has shown, so is every cell in your body and every egg lost in menstruation. We cannot judge a woman’s choice to not realize a potential as a crime, otherwise every woman would be required to remain constantly pregnant. After 15 weeks, however, it becomes increasingly impossible to distinguish what a normal person with a right to life has that a fetus does not. Certainly once a fetus exhibits the brain activity of a normal infant, I do not think we should allow its life to be terminated on the mother’s decision alone, I think a more objective assessment of the risks is in order.

Comments are closed.