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. 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

  2. “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.”


    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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.”

  5. @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.

  6. 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.

  7. @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.

  8. @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?

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. “we could slip into a dictatorship,”


    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.

  12. @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.

  13. 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.

  14. @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.

  15. 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:

    1. 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

  16. @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.

Comments are closed.