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
Paul signed a pledge that requires not only judges be anti-abortion but also cabinet appointees.
Ron Paul signed the pledge. GWB did not.
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!
“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.
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)?
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.
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)
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
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.
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
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.
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)”
“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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
“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.
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.
“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.