Ron Paul's gaff
Submitted by Treg on Wed, 10/10/2007 - 18:33First, I must say Ron Paul was not STALE last night in the Michigan Debate. Thank goodness.
He was alive, on message and on message in a new way and he incorporated what other candidates had said. That is all good. My last post on Ron speaking, I was critical that Ron did not listen to the other candidates, make fresh freedom arguments from that. I am happy to see he was firing on Just About all cylinders. Perhaps he does have a few Karl Hess type speech writers---lets hope so, this is the big league-=--even the Great Communicator Ronald Reagan had speech writers.
Now about Ron's gaff.
Probably the best is Ron's attack on Romneys "consult lawyers" gaff, but within his attack, he said we had not been attacked for 220 years or so.... Where upon later Giuliani had taken note of Ron's remarks and whipped out his verbal attack on to Ron Paul's non interventionist position, "I don't know where you where on 9/11...have you heard of Afghanistan" He could have added Pearl Harbor. Right now the Giuliani camp is calling that a Paul gaff, and are busy making hay out of the Revolution's non interventionist message.
We must do damage control ourselves.
The Campaign needs to do damage work on that. Sure, Ron chimed back in on Giuliani that it was 19 crazed terrorists but not a country..... but THAT all GOES right to the key point of the neocons.
They are not looking or respecting nation-states.... you have bad apples, thus you are all open for attack from us at will whenever and wherever the Super President so decides its in the interest of the USA.
1) Lets point out that such a system will make the President a Caesar towards all other countries.
2) as a Caesar, other countries will, for their own protection, find it easier to assassinate the USA President rather than hunt down in police fashion all the bad apples in their own country.
3) Interpol.... which is TRULY responsible for international criminals, needs to be FUNDED to the tune of a trillion dollars.
What was interesting to learn on 60 minutes was how it really works. It is not like some spy novel. Rather, each country sends its police to interpol to work on international cases... for example: If Brazil has a mass murderer who left Brazil and is in Mexico now. Those Brazilian police go to Interpol where upon the feed the case and info all the the Mexican authorities to find and catch the murderer and make the arrest. Same with a child rapists, who leave USA, go to Vietnam, commit the crime and return to the USA. Those Vietnamese police, send a detective to interpol Headquarters--use translators there and computes, who then works with all the local USA authorities to find and catch the criminal themselves --in say California. It was good to learn how Sovereignty of each country is protected, yet each countries police can --through interpol--get to the criminal arrested by the local police. What is clear to me, after the 60 minutes interview, that terrorism of the kind we worry about, is an Interpol function. Yet a $50 million dollar budget is less money than one US Soccer player named Beckham gets. Instead, rather than using this international police system, which respects sovereignty and allows English speaking police to work with Brazilian Portuguese speaking police or Vietnamese speaking police, or especially police who speak the Arab languages, ...No, our government turned to the Pentagon after 9/11 instead of Interpol. And today we need Pakistan authorities to catch Bin Laden. How much has Bush and Congress given to Interpol? Zero?
4) Its not as if Rudy did not make his own GAFF. Ron did catch Mitt Romney's gaff, and nailed him on it. But Rudy called himself a Supply sider who wanted to cut taxes TO GROW GOVERNMENT. (he also called himself a Strict Constructionist). Saying that, in front of an anti-big government crowd, leaves your chin right out there for someone like Ron to knock him out with.
5) Again, Ron Paul could use a writer. Of course he is used to doing it all himself, ....and of course this is the big leagues now. He does NOT need COACHING...I do not want to "Polish" Ron in the least...No, rather I want to offer Ron More to Ammo to draw from...... provide more input into his speeches. Just like Ronald Reagan, it will be 100% Ron Paul's speech in the end because ONLY Ron will be the editor, the one to say , "Mmmm I like that, I'll use it."
6) About speech writers.... Humor is always GOOD. Mitt used it twice last night. Once on taxes saying he thought he would get taxed just to come to the debate, and the other, on Fred Thompson about being late to the debates.... In both cases, the laugh worked. But I am sure its not from Romney, but something he took from his speech writer. The one thing Ron Could use is a little humor.
7) Ron DOES NOT MEAN to BE pessimistic and down, especially since he uses "HOPE for AMERICA" as his message, but he is. That is what people come away with -- a man who is more worried and frightened than they are. Its ironic yes, since its the Neocon candidates who are worried and frightened and thus advocate the policies that they do. But did you notice, all of the other 7 pro-war candidates caught on to Ron's doom and gloom, and trying to be POSITIVE and truly give the feeling of HOPE to the audience. And they DO. Rudy Giuliani, going for the gut not the head, said again and again, lets Get our Heads Up, lets look on the bright side... He did a great job with that. Rudy, with that positive --things can be great if you elect me --smile. Ron's doom and gloom, is playing INTO the Giuliani message. This must stop.
8) SO, if Ron DOES want to BE ..."HOPE for America", he must start GIVING HOPE. Hence, he could use a speech writer ASAP. As someone who has read perhaps all of Ron's essays and his book, ....honestly, he does not write or speak in a manner that GIVES HOPE....but he does explain principle very well. But that was ok in the minor leagues, but now on a national stage, he needs a speech writer. He needs a young Karl Hess, a young Pat Buchanan who has not made a name for himself yet, ready to give his all to the Cause of freeing Mankind from his foolish safety shackles.
Fear vs. Hope
I understand why you would say that Dr. Paul can appear as though he is as frightened as the voters, but he (and we) need to really pound home the message of his solutions. Otherwise we are just as guilty as those who whine but do nothing about it.
Dr. Paul's solutions need to be highlighted to the world. The beauty is that Dr. Paul is starting to do this and we need to follow his leadership and even "amp it up" a bit.
Rudy McRomney is a child with a gun and no parental oversight. We need to make sure the public knows that. The leader of 911? Ask any of my fellow firefighters what they think of Rudy. Here is a link that will give you all the ammo you need for him... http://www.rudy-urbanlegend.com/
Ask a real Mormon how they feel about Mitt's allowing/endorsing of abortion...or being the governor of the state that legalized gay marriage. That being the only thing that he did that was actually Constitutional (it is a state issue, after all).
We have plenty of ammo...and we have the solution - let's make sure the world knows what the solutions are. The Constitution and it's statesman-defender, Ron Paul. Educate yourselves then everyone else...
Fred Thompson? Puhlease...
Until the Election is Won!
Chaplain Steve
Until the Election is Won!
Chaplain Steve
Ron Paul - Lion of the Constitution
The Rudy quote
Rudy---"And the point of – I think it was Congressman Paul made before – that we've never had an imminent attack, I don't know where he was on September 11th.
"PAUL:---" That was no country. That was 19 thugs. That had nothing to do with a country".
"GIULIANI: ----And since September – well, I think it was kind of organized in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And if we had known about it, maybe – maybe hitting a target there, quickly, might have helped prevent it. In any event, we've had 23 plots since September 11, where Islamic terrorists are planning to kill Americans, that we've had to stop. So imminent attack is a possibility, and we should be ready for it."
I wish Paul would NAIL Rudy on this. Hold a press conference, nail Rudy and Nail Romney and Huckabee for saying they would not go to Congress to Declare war on Iran. Further, go back and smack Rudy by saying hittign afganistand and Pakistan would NOT have prevented 9/11 BECAUSE The terrorists Cells where already in THIS COUNTRY you nitwit.
Invest in Liberty, one Apartment deal at a time with me. Get a check each month as a passive investor, just ask me how.
Giuliani using Pauls attack on Mitt
Guiliani's crowd is busy USING the Mitt Romney gaff over lawyers AS if Rudy had done it. ABC news crediting (basically) Giuliani, just mentions Paul.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=3711933...
HERE is a summary video of Michigan Debate; See/hear/ how Paul is does not give off any "Hope for America".... he gives worry and concern and fear --- ironically, while it is the 7 neocon candidates who are worried about Iran and sell fear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZZMPVaqu6I&mode=related&search=
Here, Jimmy Carter still does not GET IT ... that Accepting the Shaw into the USA was a STUPID move and caused all the added hatred and then hostage crises. At least he thinks Giuliani is Stupid for wanting to attack Iran.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoEPqXNpZuc
Invest in Liberty, one Apartment deal at a time with me. Get a check each month as a passive investor, just ask me how.
The only answer which
The only answer which could've been better, was on the question if Dubai should be allowed to buy NASDAQ. Ron Paul answered something like "Yes, if there's no threat to national security."
He should've answered:
"Yes of course the owners of NASDAQ are free to sell their property to whomever they choose! Having politicians regulating such free market actions, as suggested by Giuliani, is called 'Socialism'...
If there are suspicions of crimes involved, or what else is meant by "threat to national security", then the justice system will take care of it, not the president."
Ron did not say "we have not
Ron did not say "we have not been attacked for 220 years" he said that we have not faced an "imminent" attack in 220 years that would require us not to go to congress. There is a HUGE difference.
The President has the authority to go after fleeing enemies but he does'nt have the power to attack a country that is years away from being a "real threat".
If the President got intelligence that Iran was planning on nuking us tomorrow that would be considered an "Imminent Threat"
Jarrod is correct.
The poster of this blog needs to listen more carefully to what Ron Paul says. Ron Paul was 100% correct about us not having to face an "imminent" attack in 220 years. Pearl Harbor was NOT an immenent attack but unfortunately a horrible suprise. I don't like it when people sit back and start picking at and criticizing Ron Paul's statements. Believe me, Ron Paul knows more about economy and international affairs than ALL of the 2008 candidates combined and Ron Paul does NOT need someone to help him with his answers. Maybe if Dr Paul had more than 2 main questions during a debate, the Americans could hear all of his positions but the controlled media doesn't want him to speak because he would make the other candidates looks like the idiots that they are.
We need to get beyond all this questioning, analysing, worrying about ads, what happens when Ron Paul gets in etc. This is very destructive and very negative to his campaign. We need to believe in him, his message and move forward in the Revolution. I have no doubt that Ron Paul can do his part, it is our part that is important right now. Stay focused, get the message out, quit worrying about every debate, every poll, every news report and spread the word! Ron Paul is our only hope for freedom....we aren't doing this for him, we are doing this for ourselves! RON PAUL REVOLUTION!
Pearl Harbor was imminent
There is evidence to suggest that Pearl Harbor was imminent and that the gov't knew about it in advance and did nothing. Thus giving Congress and FDR reason to go to war.
Imminent vs. Unexpected
Imminent implies foreknowledge of when, where, and how. Both Pearl Harbor and 9/11 lacked those elements, even if there were alerts that something was up.
Unexpected means being caught totally off guard with the pants down.
Dr. Paul was once again right, but as usual the talking heads and Judy weren't paying attention.
THERE WAS NO GAFFE!
"The Revolution MAY be televised!"
Gaffe's aren't necessarily bad
The other candidates make them all day. Romney's statement about goign to lawyers won't affect his numbers much. At this point, we just need to get the name out.
Everyone call RP crazy in the beginning. After awhile, they came around. The same will be true of the next round of potential voters.
Let's just focus on getting the name out!
To your point. Gaffe or not.
To your point. Gaffe or not.
I watch the total number of subscribers to RP you tube channel everyday. After 2 broadcasts on Tuesday the number of subscribers jumped up 500 each time it was aired. Toatal 1000 more in one day. Daily average is increase of 100.
MORE PUBLICITY. WHATEVER IT IS!
Ron on Target
Dr. Paul is right; we have never been attacked by a foreign country within our borders since our Revolutionary War, and our founding as a nation. Pearl Harbor, in 1941, was in one of our territories, yes, but not part of our nation, like Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa, to name oa few. Hawaii joined the union in 1959.
September 11th was an attack by individuals whom I believe were all citizens of Saudia Arabia. Thus, following Giuliani's logic, the President should have ordered an attack on the country of their citizenship -- Saudia Arabia.
Dr. Paul did not make a gaff.
And, I agree with the other poster here who says: Let's get busy and go out and do our best PR for RP!
Gwen Kraft
"Personal Liberty & Personal Responsibility" -- Dr. Ron Paul
"A hero is someone who understands the responsibility that comes with his freedom." -- Bob Dylan
Pearl Harbour
And the congress did declare war on Japan. The president didn't act on his own.
Seriously folks....
No offense to anyone (and this goes for me, too), but instead of bantering back and forth about things like this at EXTREMELY GREAT length (ad nausea?).....wouldn't it be much more productive for our cause if we got off our computers, got out there, and spent more of our time introducing people to Dr. Paul?!.....i.e. handing out literature, talking to people, hanging signs, etc? Does anyone else feel this way?
Hey Buddy!
I'm at work right now! I'll be back on the ground later, but until I get off work, this is the most amusing thing I can do with my time!
Ron Paul is good.
Gotcha bozimmerman.....haha:)
Yeah, I'd say there's a lot of folks in that position.....man, if we didn't all have to work for a living, we could REALLY get the word out!! Just imagine.... Of course, with RP as Prez and no IRS we might not have to work as much! haha:) That sort of sounds like a circular problem, doesn't it?
Agreed
Agreed
Yes indeed
Thank you, because we could ALL let this go on all day, but should not.
There is much work to be done!
--------------------------------------------
Look At All The Happy Creatures
Anyone with half a brain
Anyone with half a brain should understand what Dr. Paul was saying and Giuliani chips away at his own credibility if he tries to suggest differently. September 11th was hardly an attack in the sense of a precursor to a full scale war threatening the sovereignty of a nation, which Iran for example, completely lacks the capacity for. Even if they achieve a viable nuclear weapon, they have to have a delivery system for it and that's equally as tricky.
At best September 11th represented guerrilla warfare, it was well planned and orchestrated, but it was just a bunch of guys with box cutters sneaking onto planes and like trick plays in football, you can't pull that stunt twice once the other team has seen it. They inflicted serious damage, they took lives and put a ripple in our economy but it was a one shot deal. Passengers and crews will know that it's do or die time (not to mention the Air National Guard) that they're not just being held hostage to meet some demands, that their sitting quietly will mean complicity in mass murder. I doubt we'll see a hijacking of any sort again.
Dr. Paul also made it clear that he was in favor of invading Afghanistan to pursue the leadership that initiated the attack that day, what he opposes is preemptive warfare, which opens up a whole different can of worms. If Iran manages to finish a bomb and then manages to deliver it to a major target inside the US there is a very short list of who possesses that capability and you can be assured that the nation responsible for such an attack will have it's encompassing landscape redone shortly. Thus, I highly doubt any contiguous nation will dream of executing such an attack, it wouldn't be 19 people committing suicide, it would be millions of people, all on the head of their leaders and the same is to be said for any nation that would dare to pass such technology on to a terrorist group for the same purpose.
September 11th was a horrible horrible event, one that I should hope we never see the likes of again, just like I hope that highway automobile accidents will cease and airliners crashing on their own and people falling off ladders and home invasions...we need safety, but we also need to count the cost of that safety. You could prevent another auto accident from happening in this country again if you forced everyone to drive five miles an hour and fill their passenger compartments with styrofoam peanuts, but is that reasonable? Does the risk of death necessitate eliminating the usefulness of motorized transport? Like Dr. Paul suggested, compare the number of deaths on the highway each year, calculate the costs of emergency services, lost incomes, etc. to the number of deaths on September 11th and it's economic impact. You cannot toss the Bill of Rights because of such an event and you cannot arbitrarily attack other nations on the suspicion that they might have had something to do with an attack. What the neocons are suggesting we do and what they have been implementing is driving at five miles per hour, filling your car with styrofoam peanuts, not even leaving your house for that matter.
Don't worry about Rudy and 9-11
If 9-11 is the only thing Rudy is going to hang his hat on, he's in for a long ride. There's a lot of questions that could be asked of 9-11 that might get a little uncomfortable for Rudy. I'm not suggesting Ron Paul dig this up, but here's a few:
1. Who was security company of world trade center? I don't know the name of it, but George Bush's cousin is on the board...go figure.
2. Had the world trade center owners, prior to the new owner "Silverstein", applied for a demolition permit - yes, years earlier, but denied. It's a matter of record. go figure
3. Were any significant SEC papers destroyed in building 7? Can you say "enron"? Didn't Rudy have an office of emergency management located there? go figure
4. How come the structural debris was not allowed to be evaluated by independent engineers? You'ld think a "crime" scene of this nature would be thouroughly examined. Not so. go figure
5. When all other commercial planes were grounded, why were all members of BinLaden family whisked away by officials. How did they know where they were, and why would they do this. You'ld think they might want to interogate them. Their family member was the "so called" mastermind. go figure
6. Is anyone aware that over 40 pieces of heavy equipment were moved to Lower Manhattan on Sept. 9th. Street repair, it was said. go figure
Ah, the list goes on, and on. This was a terrorist attack alright, but BinLaden was more surprised than anyone. No one could have done this without the Bush nod of approval, and Rudy was part of the gang. Maybe, just maybe, this is why the corporate military media moguls are so hell bent on another neocon. Let's upset their apple cart. The truth will set you free!
alan laney
Securacom
Marvin Bush is George's BROTHER - not cousin.
"From 1993 until June 2000, he was on the board of directors of the Sterling, Virginia company Stratesec (formerly known as Securacom),[1] which had contracts to provide security for United Airlines, Dulles International Airport, and the World Trade Center. The Securacom/Stratesec company was publicly traded and backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corporation. In 1996, Marvin Bush had 53,000 shares in the company's stock he bought at 52 cents a share. In 1997 the stock sold for $8.50 a share. Marvin Bush was no longer listed as a shareholder by the end of 2000.
Resigned from board of directors with Securacom/Stratesec shortly before 9/11 attacks."
"Securacom received a contract to provide (electronic) security services for the World Trade Center in 1996. The contract was ended in 1998, however."
Those security contracts were then given to Kroll Inc (owned by Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc)
"On October 11, 2001 Marsh established a crisis consulting practice specializing in terrorism, with Ambassador L. Paul Bremer as Chairman and Andrew R. Daniels as President and COO. Marsh also announced a partnership with Control Risks Group LLC to provide political risk assessment"
--------------------------------------------
Look At All The Happy Creatures
Amazing..
Thanks for the clarification. Amazing connection for the Bush's -
Security Check Offs at:
1. World Trade Center
2. Dulles Airport
3. United Airlines
And this is just the one angle of interest.......I think Barney Fife could figure this crime out.
alan laney
Debate Tactics
The problem is that Paul is too smart for most of the population to understand. Thus, Rudy can mutter untruths which seem at first glance to be correct, and more importantly these untruths pique the emotion of those not willing to research the facts on their own. Check out this article:
http://www.slate.com/id/2175694/nav/ais/
They are exactly right, Rudy appears to be winning to a lot of people, when in principle and in reality he is getting trounced. He may not even realize what Paul is talking about even though Paul is arguing circles around him and everyone else. However, it doesn't matter, at least not until the majority of people in the country realize that Paul is the philosophical heavyweight and that he is punishing Rudy. I think more people are waking up however.
This is frustrating
One of the points where he really nailed Rudy was on the Hedge funds. He gave an eloquent explanation about how fed generated inflation transfers wealth from Rich to poor.
Then McCains says he should read wealth of nations ? ? ? My God ?
McCain got how Giuliani was skewered a little, and responded weakly, but no one noticed.
I can apprecieate what you're saying...
I too am passionate about this campaign. Dr. Paul himself said that we brought him into this revolution. In that light it is appropriate to make constructive criticisms. I have often felt so far, that with a little analysis and post-debate strategizing, we could capitolize on the message of freedom and the mistakes of others. I think Dr. Paul is improving in his presentation. At the Tavis Smiley debate, I felt he was jumping from A to C a little and losing some poeple along the way. I know his message is contagous but I think when the Dr. is tired from traveling or flustered from neocon attacks and tactics that the message can come out less than prime. I only say this because it is SO important to all of us in this revolution and in this country. I know that if the word could get out, if a majority of americans had heard of the Dr. and his message, than he would pull off the nomination. It wouldn't hurt to spend a little now I think to improve in the Dr.'s main media outlet.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history.
~Mahatma Gandhi
Wrong question?
It seems like the question asked.... "should the President consult Congress before attacking" had a hidden meaning, namely, "are you willing to attack Iran pre-emptively?" I'm wondering why Dr. Paul didn't make the point that since Norad has a protocol and is at the ready 24/7, the question of "do we have time to consult Congress?" seems moot. Further, if he as Commander in Chief, brings the troops home and consentrates on protecting OUR BORDERS, the chances of a terrorist attack being successful would be even less than it is now.
Rudy Made The Gaff
It just takes some logic and common sense.
An imminent attack by a foreign country would entail massing troops and weapons along the US border before any attack took place. As Ron said its never happened.
If the 9/11 attacks were imminent on September 10th as suggested by Rudy then he belongs in prision for not warning the city.
9/11, we're told, was a surprise attack. So how could it have been imminent? Ironically Rudy defended the "conspiracy theorists" argument of foreknowledge. Its funny how that worked out.
Treg...
Hey Treg,
I just wanted to say I respect what your saying and I know from reading all your other posts that you really, truly support Dr. Paul. There just isn't any question of your loyalty at all!
That being said...I think we need to just accept that Dr. Paul isn't going to be perfect. Yes, I too hope he has a speech writer..if only to give him more time to rest and prepare... Yes, I also agree that a little humor goes a long way (catch more bees with honey...) but we'll all just have to agree to disagree on this particular debate because all we're doing now is a lot of "inner office" bickering.
Heres hoping that someone from HQ checks here and sees our concerns...
That Dr. Paul rallies (with our support)...
and Guilliani's supporters all take some pepto bismal to help their diarrhea of the mouth.... =)
Going out now to hang some signs ;p
I agree....
I agree with this article A LOT! I don't know how we can get it done though! My friends and family are saying exactly what you said...Ron Paul is coming off as negative to those people that don't know anything about him...we must remember, the people that are supporting Ron Paul have actually done research, Ron has to reach the American's that are too lazy to read a book and actually research the candidates..."It's not what you say, but how you say it!" I agree also that if Ron would be careful in his wording regarding 9/11 etc., it wouldn't give Giuliani a chance to strike back...we can sit here and say Ron was right, but for most Americans, if they saw that, Giuliani would have been the winner hands down...
www.RonPaul2008.com
www.RonPaulitics.com
www.RonPaul2008.com
www.RonPaulitics.com
1) If Rudy is so good at
1) If Rudy is so good at predicting and defending against imminent attacks, where was he on September 10th, 2001? Was he advocating bombing Afghanistan that day?
2) Why do so many questions at these debates sound like they are based on a Tom Clancy novel? Suitcase bombs? Imminent attacks? Thirty seconds to respond? What the hell have we let terrorists do to political discourse in this country?
Not a gaff.
The situation posed by the question has not happened just as RP said. You must remember what the original question was. It was speaking of a "preemptive strike" against Iran's supposed nuclear facilities. This means prior knowledge. The "official" versions of both 9/11 and Pearl Harbor did not include this prior knowledge. But, in the case of Pearl, Roosevelt went to congress with his "Day which will live in infamy" speech and got congress to issue a true declaration of war. In the case of 9/11 Bush went to congress and got funding to go after Bin laden (but not to replace a government and actually nation-build) in Afghanistan. Ron actually supported this funding as it was very close to a letter of marque and reprisal targeting a specific person and group.
What I'm trying to say here is that in the context of the question and in the manner it was posed, Ron Paul was correct and we shouldn't be shooting ourselves or our candidate in the foot.