The Simi Valley Republican presidential debate of May 3 did not cover any matters concerning voting rights or election law, except that each of the 10 presidential candidates was asked about changing the U.S. Constitution to let foreign-born citizens run for President. Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee said “yes”, and John McCain said he is undecided. The others said “no.”
Ron Paul did not utter the word “libertarian”, yet the press coverage of the debate consistently described him with that adjective. The Boston Globe said he is a “fiery libertarian”; Newsweek says he is a “Libertarian Republican”; National Review Online mentioned his “non-interventionist libertarian position”; Bloomberg.com says Paul “echoed the libertarian themes on warrantless searches and foreign policy”; the New York Sun said Paul is a “pure libertarian”; the Long Island Press said Paul is “a one-time Libertarian Party presidential nominee”; the Brazosport Facts (a newspaper in Paul’s district) referred to his “libertarian views”; the Ventura County Star called him “a libertarian who voted against the Iraq war at the outset.” It is almost as though the Libertarian Party was represented in the debate, at least for those voters who are reading the press on May 4.
Sounds like the majority of the press fears him and is clamouring to marginalize him, so Republicans don’t take him seriously.
It’s sickening how the press so consistently tries to sway public opinion with dirty tricks like this. This is surely, the results, no doubt, of having members of the Council on Foreign Relations running every major media organ.
It is truly a travesty that Ron Paul is not getting the attention he deserves. We are at a point in this nation when we must change course and soon. In my opinion, it’s time to return to the rule of law and the constitution, and there is no better candidate to take us there than Ron Paul.
This morning, I’ve read plenty of articles talking about how all the candidates “looked” or whether they “appeared presidential.” My goodness. If that were a criteria for US President, Lincoln never would have been elected.
What’s not to like?
Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.
Actually, I think Rep Paul SHOULD mention the “l” word at least once in his debates and some longer public appearances.
Not “L” as a noun ie, Libertarian Party, but small “l” as an apt adjective to describe most of his points of view.
He may never get elected to senate or president but at least he gets publicity for the one word that best encapsulates the best ideas, ideals and solutions to economic, social and foreign woes.
The Council on Foreign Relations? You’re crazy!! It doesn’t even exist. Michael Medved told me so!!
(And since perception becomes reality, Ron Paul who clearly won the debate last night, does not exist either as far as the media is concerned)
Yosemite1967, no worries. People are getting less scared of the word ‘libertarian’ as time goes on and, perhaps more important, members of our movement grow older and more rounded. From what I’ve read, Paul gained a great deal of admiration from his debate performance. MSM mentions of the word ‘libertarian’ in that context can only be good.
P.S. Here’s an interesting tool for tracking memes and news mentions: http://google.com/trends?q=libertarian
The worst article I saw was a Reuters article describing how the Republican debate focused on the Iraq war, but not even mentioning that one of the candidates (Ron Paul) was opposed to it. Paul was mentioned as “also at the debate”.
Man, I think it’s kind of historic that the libertarian movement has grown enough to make a blip on the mainstream media’s radar.
It also reaffirms to me that the MSM really does go out of its way to exclude us. Which is OK, because we own all over the Internet.
A major reason that Dr. Paul is referred to as a
Libertarian is that he ran for President in 1988 as
the Libertarian Party candidate. Remember, at that time
the Constitution Party was not yet organized with just California’s American Independent Party and Nevada’s
Independent American Party being ballot qualified and
running candidates in the West. In ’88, Jim Griffin was
the AIP’s candidate for President. The question that
can not be answered is in 1988 would Dr. Paul have run
for President as the Constitution Party candidate if
it had existed then. Currently, the AIP is running a
poll of our contributors for a Presidential candidate
in 2008. Dr. Paul is currently running almost 2:1 ahead
of Alan Keyes in second place. Many contributors didn’t
list a choice. What is most interesting is that since
few states now give all there delegates to the winner
of their primary, one or both major parties could end
up without a nominee by the end of March. Which should
make for an interesting summer of horse-trading before
their conventions. It also would cause problems for all
3 Alternate parties campaigns. Without a fixed bogey to
run against, campaign strategy will need to become far
more flexible than in the past. One thing that all 3
Alternate parties are certain of is they will know for
sure who their Presidential candidates will be before
Independence Day. The greatest help we in the alternate
party movement can receive is for all National debates
include all 5 National Parties that will be running a
candidate in a majority of the states in 2008. With the
current debates having 9 and 10 candidates, it will be
impossible for any debate organizer to say that 5 is to
many to handle easily.
Ron Paul is STILL a member of the Libertarian Party. He has been a Life Member of the LP for years and has never renounced his membership.
While Ron has a lot of crossover appeal to the Constitution Party, he is not completely in-line with them either. Ron opposes the War on Drugs. The Constitution Party says that the federal government should prevent drugs from entering the country and that drugs should be outlawed at the state level. Ron opposes the drug war at all levels. Ron is against NAFTA, GATT, WTO, etc…, but not because he’s against free trade, but rather because these agreements are not really free trade but rather government managed trade for the benifit of politically connected corporations. Ron is in favor of free trade and he opposes the protectionist tarriffs that the Constitution Party advocates. Ron also opposes laws against victimless “crimes” such as gambling and prostitution.
The major parties have had several candidates in their primary debates in the past, yet when it comes around to the general election debates they always seem to use the “crowded stage” arguement as an excuse to keep minor party and independent candidates out of the debates.
The quality of the info is what keeps me on this site, thanks!