Ron Paul in This Morning's Wall Street Journal

The debate was full of fireworks about Iraq, about its essentials--the rightness of the endeavor, and what should rightly be done now. From the libertarian Ron Paul a blunt argument against the war: We never should have gone in and we should get out. "The people who say there'll be a blood bath are the same ones who said it would be a cakewalk. . . . Why believe them?" His foreign policy: "Mind our own business, bring our troops home, defend our country, defend our borders." After Mr. Paul spoke, it seemed half the room booed, but the other applauded. When a thousand Republicans are in a room and one man of the eight on the stage takes a sharply minority viewpoint on a dramatic issue and half the room seems to cheer him, something's going on.

Ron Paul's support isn't based on his persona, history or perceived power. What support he has comes because of his views. As he spoke, you could hear other candidates laughing in the background. They should stop giggling, and engage in a serious way.

Read the whole thing here. Also, consider contacting the Journal about their inaccurate caption of Dr. Paul & Mr. Huckabee: "Honor vs. isolationism." I'm getting tired of hearing Dr. Paul referred to as an "isolationist." We need to speak up and correct that. Politely.

Comments on the article welcome.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The Ron Paul sound bite the audience needed to hear

In the exchange with Huckabee, I was hoping to hear something like this from the good Dr. (in his own inimitable style of course :-)):

“I’d like to pause for a moment to address the American people with regard to this comment. The Neocons who’ve invaded the GOP from the liberal party have “broken it” and now we indeed own it. They’ve broken the trust of the American people and destroyed the reputation of the United States as a standard of Liberty and Justice with these unconstitutional and illegal pre-emptive wars, advocating a policy which used to be the sole province of dictators and rogue nations.

And we all, the American People, own it! And it is our responsibility as a citizens to exercise our right under the Constitution to throw these rascals out, and to elect representatives who will instead promote the rule of LAW and not the rule of MEN.

I challenge every American to get up, to speak out, find your voice in a representative and in a president who speaks for you and your principles, principles which for the majority of Americans are unchanged since the time of the founding fathers. The principles of individual liberty, justice through the rule of law, and protection of individual rights by the Constitution against the tyranny of the Federal Government.

I challenge every American who has increasingly been too disillusioned and disheartened to speak out, to stand up NOW! Because you are not alone! There is a revolution underway, the collective outcry of millions of voices to stop this insanity.

I challenge every American to vote in this election. Not only because it is your right as a freedom loving citizen of this once great nation, it is your Sacred Duty!”

That is of course Dr. Paul's theme all along, but a concise statement like this would have generated applause to bring the house down!

they changed the caption

See http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/090707hucka...

In case that doesn't show up, the new caption is "Sparks fly between Huckabee and Paul." I don't know why they used an image editor and switched their positions relative to one another from what they were on the stage, but I don't know that that matters. Maybe someone else can explain if there's some psychology being employed there.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Get active NOW to put Ron in the general election. ronpaul.meetup.com

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
What is begun in anger, ends in shame.

looks like they digitally enhanced the images

First they put Ron Paul in a smaller box which naturally makes you look at the person with more space, then they have him invading Huckabee's space notice how they have Paul's arm over the line into the other side, next they have stars and a lighter area behind Huckabee and black and dots behind Paul. The they make Ron Paul appear to be smaller, notice how much more of the podium they show of Paul's than Huckabee. Then they simply took Paul's mouth which was in a straight fashion and then rotated it to appear angry. Then they took contrast in a dark way to Paul to make his brows, lines etc seem bolder and deeper, you can tell this just look at Huckabee's hands there is no detail to them at all.

I use to be a graphic artist for a living

The Street Columnist defends Paul!

Folks, the tide is turning. A Google search on Ron Paul just now turned up this column as THIRD on the first page of search results, headline titled "Huckabee Takes Unfair Shots at Ron Paul"

http://www.thestreet.com/s/huckabee-takes-unfair-shots-at-ro...

He actually uses *facts* to refute Huckabee and the rest of the Paul nay-sayers.

Can anyone explain to me

How it can be honorable to continue to do stupid and evil things? Perseverance and fortitude can be virtues, but not when persisting in the wrong thing.

Honor is more associated with humility than hubris.

Go ahead and support torture, destruction of liberty (isn't that Osama's marching orders according to some?), bleeding our treasury and military, and lose the election and call it what you want, but "honor" is not what any sane or rational person would use to describe it.

Good comment from Peggy about Paul

.
Her calling attention to the sniggering and laughing was good and true. That she appeared favorably disposed to Dr. Paul's anti-war position (at least enough to mention it without a snide remark) is encouraging. But what is most telling for me is that Rupert Murdoch owns the WSJ, as well as FOX, so for Peggy to even mention Dr. Paul was a kind of watershed. Bet she got a call from the Boss.

The giggles from the other candidates were, in my opinion, borne of uneasiness: Paul is touching nerves: the audience cheers, the CFR candidates shuck and jive. If you are able, watch the exchange with Dr. Paul and Mike Huckabee. When Dr. Paul brings up the 5,000 lost lives, Huckabee jerks as though he had been hit. Worth a replay.

Intentional Fox News Bias Exposed

A must see. Someone from the audience at the Fox debate videotaped the event from the audience perspective.

You'll notice that everyone is cheering for Ron and then for a quick moment, they split screen on the TV monitor and show Rudy's reaction which causes the crowd to "BOO!" Now on the live broadcast of the debate, the "BOO's" look like its a mixed reaction to Ron. I was wondering about this when I saw the debate on live TV during our Meetup.

Total manipulation. I hope everyone watches this clip and bumps up it up on YouTube.

Here's the clip: http://youtube.com/watch?v=sJkfVdMEx5k

Also, someone has published an open letter to Fox News. Its great, well-written and worth your read and support.

Here's the link and be sure to check out the short video clips as well:

http://openletter2foxnews.wordpress.com/

the face of fear

this revelation is most telling of the fear that the lamestream media has towards the prospect of true constitutional law

Response Sent to The WSJ

The WSJ will review my response for "suitability." In case it doesn't see daylight, in whole or in part, I am reprinting the text sent:

Subject:
Re: Off to the Races

Comment:
Since when is the constitutional requirement for congressional war powers a lean towards isolationism? I expect more from The WSJ than a blind submission to the platform of "the chosen ones." Perhaps some remedial research skills are on order, or, perhaps there is a fear of "the people" catching on to the true message of constitutional governance.

My $.02...

Here's what I sent. I tried to sympathize with Huck a little so they would post it. Nothing yet.

Subject:
Re: Off to the Races

Comment:
While this article is pretty much fair and accurate, I'd like to point out the inaccuracy of the caption under the picture: "Honor vs. Isolationism: Huckabee and Paul." I think it's unfair to label Dr. Paul as a dishonorable isolationist. He is a CONSTITUTIONALIST with a very honorable record of service to this nation. You may not agree with him, but owe him the respect he deserves. The caption is misleading and biased. He is the only candidate on either side that you could count on to follow the Constitution 100% of the time. If all our elected leaders did the same, as they swore to do, we'd not be in the straits we are now.

It was respectable for Huckabee to voice his disagreement, politely, without laughing like the other goons in the background, in the true spirit of debate. I think he and Dr. Paul are decent, principled men far above the anointed media darlings that we are being spoon-fed. Let's have more real debate, instead of a continuous loop of sound bytes, and allow the public to decide who's best.

Thank you.

update!!

The WSJ has just emailed me to apologize for not being able to submit my comment for online viewing:

"...additionally, the public humiliation which might result from such a reprimand would not be acceptable to our mainstream viewership...we therefore can not publish your submission..."

-- oh, wait a minute, that never happened; just another momentary lapse of reason --

It could have been worse...

They couldn't bring themselves to call Dr. Paul "Doctor," but at least they're off the Journalism-101-flunking tactic of calling the good Doctor "Mr."!

And does anyone have any solid references on this particular practice? I asked before, but if there was a response I sure never saw it...Do outfits like The Economist & the WSJ *really* never refer to Doctors as "Dr." anymore?? Or is it just, as I suspect, one certain Doc (not Howard Dean!) who inspires this kind of subtle bias???
JMR

Referring to people

Titles of courtesy such as Dr. and Mr. have traditions and contexts. It is proper to refer to all Congressmen as gentlemen (or ladies), ergo the title Mr. (Honorable was reserved for US Senators, based on the fact they were once appointed like many judges.)

Professionals with terminal degrees like MDs and PhDs should be called Dr. as part of their formal name when it is relevant to the context of their role. It is considered courteous to extend that acknowledgment to society at large.

As for professional journalism practices, I cannot comment. Personally, it really irks me when someone asks for a doctor when they mean physician. And I have always wondered why lawyers who hold Juris Doctor degrees aren't called doctor like MDs, PhDs and so on.

Support our republic and the liberty it provides - Todd

Support our republic and the liberty it provides - Todd

After reading the whole thing

It seem to me the "engage in a serious way" comment is a euphamism for "stomp it out right away!" Which, while misguided, I suppose she has the right to express. Furthermore, I'd like to see it as well. She's talking about Gandhi's third stage.

Ghandi's "second stage"

"...As he spoke, you could hear other candidates laughing in the background..."

First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.
- Mahatma Ghandi