Is Ron Paul A Clear and Present Threat To War Correspondents?

We have yet another live mike mishap. While reporters were waiting to hear from President Obama on his reform of the military, a C-Span mike picked up on reporters saying “See this room? Two-thirds of us laid off when Ron Paul is president.” It is a far point. How can Paul claim to be serious about creating jobs when fewer wars mean fewer war correspondents? In the meantime, President Obama should be credited with taking an unpopular step in calling for a reexamination of our long-standing “two-war” strategy of maintaining an army ready to fight two conventional wars.

Here is the tape:

Obama’s reform of the military calls for stripping down the size based on his view that “the tide of war is receding.” It is a pretty daring move during an election year and would move our military beyond the Cold War assumptions to make it more efficient and tailored to current threats.

Source: NY Daily News

69 thoughts on “Is Ron Paul A Clear and Present Threat To War Correspondents?”

  1. Last time…You know who you are, what you do and what you are…That is it…

  2. SwM,

    Back to the subject at hand. If the Hate Obama people had someone they could promote then they would spend time praising and promoting that individual as Tony has done with Ron Paul. But all the other candidates are deeply flawed so the only course of action is hate Obama, hate Obama. This is fine for republicans (as opposed to democrats and independents) who, knowing none of their candidates stand a chance in hell of winning the Presidency, have turned all their efforts, once again, to state level elections. For them, hate Obama is a distraction that, hopefully, will impact favorably on their state contests.

  3. Swarthmore and Mike S.
    I agree that being in favor of Obama’s reelection has been unpopular here on occasion, but I agree that most of the people who do not like or favor his reelection have been very polite and logical in their responses.. I do think that Ron Paul’s strongest point is the anti-war position, but there is not much beyond that is of interest to me.
    I also agree that even a slow down in the growth of the military budget is a good step. As long as the reductions aren’t in the programs that help the vets or supply the active duty military. Let’s cut a few generals and save some cash there.
    One more thing Demonic. I, for one do not despise anyone on this blog and I do not think any of the posters who have had differences would use the word despise to describe their opponents.

  4. Never mentioned you but if the shoe fits….or should I say the code…..

    1. I received this from the Alan Grayson for Congress Campaign today. I think he is one of the few good guys in politics, who articulates the problems we face with candor and simplicity. I think people will find it interesting:

      “Dear Michael,

      I think that I figured out what happened in Iowa. Here’s what I think.

      Results of the Iowa Republican Caucus, Jan. 3: Romney 25%, Santorum 25%, Paul 21%.

      Reliable earlier polling results:

      Dec. 18: Paul 24%, Romney 18%, Perry 16%.
      Nov. 28: Gingrich 28%, Paul 13%, Romney 12%.
      Oct. 16: Cain 37%, Romney 27%, Paul 12%.
      Aug. 31: Perry 29%, Bachmann 18%, Romney 17%.
      July 11: Bachmann 29%, Romney 16%, Cain 8%.
      May 29: Romney 21%, Cain 15%, Gingrich 12%.

      So the lead went from Romney to Bachmann to Perry to Cain to Gingrich to Paul and back to Romney. That is waaaaaaaaay more complicated than Tinker to Evers to Chance. Seven leaders in seven months. And that doesn’t even count the boomlets for Donald Trump at the beginning, and Rick Santorum at the end.

      And it’s not as though we saw some kind of “character development” in these characters that would account for the change, as if the Iowa race were like some Stendhal novel, “The Red and the Redder.” The only change that I saw in any of them is that on November 28, when he was ahead in the polls, Newt Gingrich was a sour megalomaniac, and on January 3, when he came in fourth, Gingrich was a bitter megalomaniac. Sour, bitter, what’s the difference?

      Also, leaving Herman Cain aside, there were no extraordinary revelations about any of the Republican candidates that could possibly account for their rise and fall. For instance, I gently noted on December 15 that Newt Gingrich is “a philanderer; a corporate shill; a crass greedhead; an egomaniac; and a cranky, crabby, crotchety, caustic, cantankerous, choleric cus.” None of that was exactly news. I could have said the same thing about Newt Gingrich on December 15, 1995, and it wouldn’t have surprised anyone.

      I looked at those Iowa polling numbers again and again, and I asked myself what possible rational explanation there could be for them. And then I realized that there is no possible rational explanation. Only an irrational one.

      And it’s not the candidates. It’s their voters.

      Let’s see. Severe highs and lows. Violent mood swings. One day, a person thinks that someone is the messiah, and a week later, the devil. And did you see the audience during the Iowa Republican debates? Violent temper tantrums. Inexplicable angry outbursts.

      Hmmmmm. What does that sound like?

      It sounds like manic depression to me.

      All of those manic depressives, about a third of the vote, were forced to choose among Romney, Santorum, Paul, Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, Cain and Huntsman. But the only candidate whom they really could have related to would have been the late, great Thomas Eagleton. (George McGovern’s 1972 running mate for 18 days, until all that nasty stuff about electroshock therapy came out.)

      I don’t know why this would surprise anyone. Roughly 10% of the population of the United States is on anti-depressants. And only 4% of the population of Iowa actually voted in the 2012 Republican caucuses. Just who did you think those 4% were?

      So now I understand it. Romney won the paranoid vote, everyone who thinks that the brown people are trying to steal all their stuff. Why? Because no one is more white than Mitt Romney. As I said earlier today, it’s as though Romney is on a strict diet of sour cream and cottage cheese, small curds only.

      Perry and Bachmann split the schizophrenic vote, all the people who hear a voice in their head, and think that it’s God. Because Perry and Bachmann can listen to the radio whenever they want to, even when it’s turned off.

      Ron Paul got the obsessive-compulsive vote, the folks who think that America is like some kind of mechanical wind-up toy, and the Articles of the Constitution are the gears.

      And Santorum ended up with the manic-depressive vote. Maybe because they like the way that Santorum cries in public. Boehner was their second choice.

      By the way, I’m not the first person to notice this about the other side. Noted Nixon-hater Philip K. Dick actually wrote a novel about this in 1964, called “Clans of the Alphane Moon.” Except that Dick placed that story in outer space, not Iowa. Minor difference.

      Anyway, I’ll tell you one thing. If these are the kind of people who are choosing one of the two major-party candidates for President this year, then I’m voting for the other guy. I’m definitely voting for the other guy.

      Courage,

      Alan Grayson

      P.S. Our campaign for Congress raised an extraordinary $600,000 in the last quarter. But now it’s a whole new quarter, and we have to do it all over again. God, I hate that. Anyway, if you think that maybe, just maybe, you would like to support our campaign, then click here. Remember, whatever you may think of me, just think about what kind of people will be picking my opponent.”

  5. I’ll take a stab at this as well SWM….There are people that just don’t like other people for no articulable reason….Then there are folks that get to know someones inner character and then make the decision….Suffice it to say I am in the latter camp…. I have not nor do I intend to comment to you directly or indirectly again….I am not playing sockpuppet….If you are doing so in order to engender and endear sympathy….I would not be surprised….Leave me out of your drama….Thank you….and you know exactly what I am saying…..Good luck and riddance…

  6. Exactly! I’d rather be a sock puppet and be happy, knowing who I am, rather than trying to figure out what people really thought about me.

    It’s cold up here today.

  7. I have been a bystander for a while and am now wishing to complement all those brilliant post on this blog. It seems that we have a few on here that are cavier appetites with milk toast feelings.

    I have seen only a few poster attack directly. There are a few on here that attack indirectly and they know who they are. They are despised by the very people that they call friends. Though they remain on speaking terms in public, they are very much despised in private.

  8. Yeah, “dolts” is a bad choice; mine not yours, Mike.

    FWIW, my wife thinks I’m over the top, too. But don’t get her started on Santorum or one of those clowns. : – O

  9. Mike S and SwM,

    There’s a great piece in the NYTimes today:

    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/newts-shop-of-horrors/?nl=opinion&emc=tya1

    “This is your democracy on meth — the post-Citizens United world. … Unlimited political filth by anonymous rich groups — this is John Roberts’s America.”

    It is one thing to intelligently discuss Obama’s presidency with Gene H but quite another to try and discuss it with the “Hate Obama” crowd.

    “Look at my language again, I didn’t call or imply they were dolts” (Mike S). Of course you didn’t but misrepresenting you is part of their game … a game they use on SwM every day. It’s democracy on meth.

  10. “Sander’s constitutional amendment is a way to change things but it requires a vote by two-thirds of the house and senate and three quarters of the states.”

    SwM,

    Don’t blow this for me I have a blog written about it for tomorrow.:)

  11. “I’m sorry for this long rant SwM and everyone, but sometimes I see some people on my side recklessly disregarding the real consequences of their actions.”

    Mike, I certainly feel and relate to the ardor of your position. But, I imagine there are some here with similar backgrounds who equally ardently don’t see it that way. Actually that’s become obvious ; ) Doesn’t make them dolts, of course, since no one actually knows.

    My own history goes back into the 60’s protest era, and working in the public sector with the ‘underclass’ most of my life. I am fond to note that the lessons of Vietnam have been shitcanned and dismissed IMO. All sorts of authorities, pundits, and wise guys telling me, yeah, but that was then, this is now. Like I say, no one knows, even among ‘men of good will”.

    Pardon my rant.

    1. “Doesn’t make them dolts, of course, since no one actually knows.”

      Don S.,

      Look at my language again, I didn’t call or imply they were dolts, though I admit I got vituperative in dealing with Tony. Gene H., for one disagrees with me on this and I respect his intelligence far too much to even imply that he is being unreasonable disagreeing with me. I understand the other side of this coin far too well and you can see that in some of my comments about Obama since his election. However, I strongly feel the way I do and I am usually passionate in my presentation of anything, even my wife thinks my passion goes overboard at times. 🙂

  12. Curious, those “automatic sequestered cuts” are about as guaranteed at this point as a ping pong ball.

    In any case, Obama noting even remote such possibility, you will recall, puts him at odds with his defense secretary. . .

    And we know how Congress loves that defense pork.

    But, too, simply because Congress appropriates doesn’t mean the executive branch has to ‘expend’. If there really is a will to cut defense.

  13. I’m pretty sure NPR reported that Obama said the automatic sequestered cuts will also take place. Now THAT will mean some damn substanial cuts. I’m not counting ’til I see it, but still….

  14. Timely:

    http://www.salon.com/2012/01/06/michael_hastings_on_war_journalists/singleton/

    Excerpt:

    “Ordinarily, I would urge as many people as possible to buy the book of someone like Michael Hastings solely in order to support the kind of journalism he does: the more successful his book is, the more it bolsters this journalistic approach and the more of a repudiation it is to the power-serving reporters who attacked him. But this book is very worthwhile in its own right. The Afghanistan War is now more than ten years old with no end in sight, and this is one of the most eye-opening accounts provided yet about why it has dragged on, from one of the bravest and most intrepid journalists who has covered it.”

    ( http://www.amazon.com/Operators-Terrifying-Inside-Americas-Afghanistan/dp/0399159886/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1325863637&sr=8-1 )

Comments are closed.