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
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.
“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
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.
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!
😉
SwM,
For you and I Ron Paul carries some very flawed baggage.
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 😉
Ron Paul signed a pledge to appoint only anti-abortion judges and cabinet members.
@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.
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.”
My apologies for forgetting to properly site Tony C for his two statements I seconded.
“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.
@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.
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.
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!