There was an exciting interchange in last night's debate:
Ron Paul attacked Giuliani for his pro-war position,
steamrollering him with facts and figures. Giuliani
gave a weak response and Paul got a rousing ovation!
Best, Michael
IIRC, Paul blamed the US bombing of Iraq for 9-11 and Giuliani said that was absurd. It was Giuliani that got the applause in that exchange. Afterward, every other candidate wanted to jump in an put down Paul to gain political points for themselves, but the moderator moved on.
Paul's basic point was valid, but I think he phrased it in the wrong way.
- Steve
Paul Won
16 May 2007 01:34 pm
That's the result of WorldNet Daily's poll. And those guys are hard-
core, Christianist base-conservatives. His support sure isn't from
the left. I'm getting a lot of emails like this one:
"I'd like to join the chorus of praise I'm sure you are receiving for
defending Ron Paul from the conservativist (like that term?) smear
machine. It's pretty disgusting to see a group of wannabe tyrants
mugging for the cameras and describing how they'd save the world from
the villains of 24. Having Ron Paul up there, in a way, deeply
saddens me. The contrast between him and the other GOP candidates
starkly illustrates what a sad state America has fallen into."
Their thuggery last night really was an appalling snapshot into the
degeneracy of today's conservatives. I seem to have a lot of new Ron
Paul readers. So why not shamelessly tout my own manifesto against
the authoritarian, Christianist Republicanism that has usurped
traditional conservatism in Rove's coalition: "The Conservative Soul:
How We Lost It; How To Get It Back." There's a lot in it along some
of the lines supported by Ron Paul. And its arguments seem to me to
be more urgent now than when it was first published last fall.
Conservatism can be saved from these goons. It just requires balls
and a modicum of intellectual honesty.
> There was an exciting interchange in last night's debate:
> Ron Paul attacked Giuliani for his pro-war position,
> steamrollering him with facts and figures. Giuliani
> gave a weak response and Paul got a rousing ovation!IIRC, Paul blamed the US bombing of Iraq for 9-11 and Giuliani
said
that was absurd. It was Giuliani that got the applause in that
exchange. Afterward, every other candidate wanted to jump in an
put
down Paul to gain political points for themselves, but the
moderator
moved on.
Paul's basic point was valid, but I think he phrased it in the
wrong
IIRC, Paul blamed the US bombing of Iraq for 9-11 and Giuliani said
that was absurd. It was Giuliani that got the applause in that
exchange.
Steve, What gives you the impression the applause was for RG, not RP? Michael
Rudy got the applause, but it scared the moderator enough to get the f off the topic. Paul should run this on ads all over the country. Wow. These people never heard this.
This pointed exchange was also the subject of Daniel Schorr's commentary on
National Public Radio's "All Things Considered" news program this afternoon
about the debate. I believe it is the first time Ron Paul has ever been
mentioned on NPR. Paul suggested quite convincingly that the 9/11 attacks
were very likely caused by the united States government's interventionist
policies in the Middle East, and that we were far safer before we began
meddling in the internal political affairs of these fragile nations.
Terry Floyd
Phil,
What gives you the impression RG, not RP, got the applause?
Best, Michael
Michael,
I agree with Phil and Steve, it was Giuliani who got the applause -- it came after his remarks, that's what makes me think they were applauding for him and not Ron Paul. It's to be expected, that room was probably full of a lot of GOP insiders and associates of the various candidates, and most of those candidates, as well as most of the GOP establishment, share Giuliani's view and not Paul's.
Even though I support a non-isolationist U.S. government foreign policy that includes seeking to promote and support freedom and representative government in other countries (at least in the absence of viable non-government alternatives), I also have to agree with Ron Paul that such policies, not the wealth or freedom of the U.S., were the main factor motivating those behind the 9/11 attacks. There is often a price to be paid for standing up for freedom. Giuliani should be pressed to provide an alternate explanation of what motivated the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon -- at that point, people's attention will be drawn to comparing the two explanations, and I believe that they will find Ron Paul's more credible.
Naturally I wish that Paul's focus in the debates had been more on small government issues and less on the U.S. government's support for the Iraqi government (not that this focus was primarily up to him anyway, it was the media asking the questions). But the focus on Iraq does appear to be paying off for him in terms of a far higher public profile than he's ever had before, and that's certainly a good thing. I just hope he gets public recognition for being the small government candidate, and not just the "end the (U.S. involvement in the lraqi) war" candidate.
Love & liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Because the large applause immediately followed RG's words.
Ok, thanks.
Best, Michael