Republicans To Ron Paul: “We Just Call Them Debates”
At Tuesdays Republican Party debate, Texas Rep. Ron Paul turned a few heads by suggesting that *gasp* interventionist American foreign policy breeds the kind of resentment that leads to terrorist attacks on the U.S. Quoting Reagan, Paul advocated avoiding the “irrational politics of the Middle East,” cited our overthrow of Mossadegh in ‘53 as a cause for the Iran hostage crisis of ‘79, and generally pointed out the downsides to self-righteous crusading in that part of the world. The only answer to this line of critique came from a blustery Rudy Giuliani, who postured for the crowd by tapping into his “I lived through 9/11″ mystique, and now it turns out that many Republicans would rather not have to go through such an unpleasant experience again.
Saul Anuzis, chairman of the Michigan Republican party, has announced that he is circulating a petition to ban Paul from future Republican debates, proving once and for all the fact that these are really debates in name only. It is a sad commentary that a party which has lost touch with it’s ideological roots, and is on an electoral losing streak cannot seriously debate foreign policy amongst themselves without inciting an ideological purge. Those of us who would like to see a return to sanity in the Republican party (and some who don’t really) may not necessarily see Paul as the person to bring change about, but his voice in debates is absolutely crucial.
What do you think? Sign the meaningless online petition of your choice!
Kick him off (no link, RNC members only) . Keep him on. Make Rudy debate him one-on-one. Send him to the Daily Show where he’ll be appreciated.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:41 am
The funny thing, New York Sun’s blog uses a (totally invented) quote from Wonkette to “prove” that he’s anti-Semite.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:55 am
I’m telling you guys, a Gavel/Paul show down is going to rock our world.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:09 am
I suppose the Republican party is trying to prevent the infighting that is going on with the Democrats right now, where they can’t seem to agree on a plan for Iraq. 59 Democrats voted against the most recent bill to have troops withdrawn in 9 months. They can’t decide how drastic they want their change of course to be, and while they continue to be indecisive about their collective goals as a party, the funding for the troops is dwindling away.
Whoops, I was actually talking about the Republicans. I think that that’s what they are trying to prevent. However, with such a rash and hasty action as banning a fellow party Congressman from future debates only shows how sensitive and insecure they are as a party.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:21 am
From the transcript:
Paul: “They attack us [referring to 9/11] because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years.”
Gulf One was “self-righteous crusading”, Ted?
May 17th, 2007 at 11:23 am
I don’t think anything until Gulf Two has been self-righteous crusading. It’s just been bad chess.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:45 am
‘53 is more where my beef is… I just keeps it relevant like that. Yes, the crusading is Iraq 2 and Afghanistan, and yes, “bad chess” sums up the rest far better.
Where would I be without you guys?
May 17th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
You’d have a lot more nits.
May 17th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
The quotes posted to Wonkette attributed to Paul imply that he has, err, strange racial views more than anti-semitic views. To wit: ““Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the ‘criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” wrote Paul.
I mean, that sentence makes absolutely no sense. What the fuck is a semi-criminal, anyway?
Websites like Wonkette and Hit & Run have been reflexively pro-Paul for a while now, without satisfactorily qualifying their support — aside from reaffirming Paul as an anti-war, libertarian-Republican who hates taxes. I can sort of understand the Reason folks throwing their weight behind Paul; they can be a bit myopic sometimes, blinded by the fact that he once ran as a Libertarian in 1988. (Now, perhaps I’m not as libertarian as some people, but I fail to understand how running on the Libertarian Party presidential ticket makes one credible.)
Unless Paul starts making some headway in the polls, however, I think that at the future debates one could make a very valid argument that Paul doesn’t deserve the right to debate. Further, Paul made a fairly bad impression at the last debate.
May 17th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Danimal: …and free time.
I think Paul pulled a bit of an “reverse Tenet” in the link between Iraq 1 and 9/11… I’m not sure that the link is quite as causal as he thinks. However, the Reagan ‘83 anecdote is some powerful stuff, considering his apotheosis among the Republican rank-and-file.
Of course, Reagan also sold arms to Iran and backed off from hitting Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah in Baalbek after the Beirut bombing, so maybe the neo-cons/WOT hawks aren’t that fond of him anyway.
May 17th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Happy, successful?
May 17th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Hey now, don’t give me too much credit.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Republicans are right to shun Ron Paul’s comments. And democrats like myself should be speaking out against them too. At the same time, I certainly don’t support the exclusion of Paul from future debates - that would set a nasty precedence for future elections. But let’s get to the meat of Paul’s comments:
Anyone who thinks that Islamic hatred against the United States is fuelled by U.S. intervention in the Middle East is not examining all the facts. That is a disgusting argument, and it needs to be reexamined.
First, to argue that U.S. intervention breeds Islamic extremism is a sick way of justifying acts of violence. This argument is poor because instead of actually dealing with the people who commit the violent acts, it puts the onus of blame on the victims. It’s like making a rape victim examine why she was raped! It’s also a way of saying that the United States was not a victim on 9/11 - that in fact the U.S. invited that kind of violence. And that is disgusting. There is no excuse in the history of the recent Middle East – pre 2001 – to justify that kind of violence. The burden of self-examination should NOT be on the victims of violence, but on the people who perpetrate the violence. We should be trying to figure out how to STOP Islamic extremism instead of trying to pander to its unreasonable motives. Giuliani was right in everything he said: the September 11 attacks were caused by an ideology of hatred and extremism. It is in fact that simple. Those individuals who flew the planes into the twin towers had no fair grievances against the people in the twin towers, and had no fair grievance against the United States as a whole. This is especially true considering most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, a country where the U.S. has rarely intervened.
Second, it’s unfair to group the origins of Islamic extremism as broadly coming from U.S. intervention in the “Middle East,” because the Middle East consists of several countries where the U.S. has NOT intervened. Take Saudi Arabia, for example. While most of the 9/11 hijackers were in fact Saudi Arabian, U.S. intervention in Saudi Arabia has been minimal over the past few decades. And even if U.S. intervention in Saudi Arabia were large, would that then be a justification for murdering 3000 people? Is that okay? According to Ron Paul, U.S. intervention in the “Middle East” somehow caused other people to become violent! This is messed up thinking.
Third, it is important to understand that most Islamic hatred against the United States is caused by hatred alone, whether religious hatred, dictatorial hatred, or simple brainwashed hatred. If Islamic fundamentalism were somehow about foreign intervention, then we’d have to ask why Islamic extremists from Iraq don’t target Iran more often? Or better yet, why don’t Iranian extremists attack Iraq more often? Iraq has historically intervened in Iran’s affairs more than the U.S. could ever dream of. And even better, why haven’t extremist Jews attacked Germany? If we’re talking about intervention over the past 60 years, I can’t think of a country that has affected an entire group of people more than Germany. Wouldn’t Jews be justified in committing acts of terrorism against Germany because of what happened by a German government more than 60 years ago? Absolutely not. Intervention does not justify violence.
Finally, Congressman Paul foolishly cited the United State’s overthrow of an Iranian government in 1953 as a reason for the Iran hostage crisis. Whether this was indeed a reason or not, we must realize that there should be no tolerance for such reasoning to commit an act of hostage taking. Keep in mind that just a few years earlier in 1944, Hitler had exterminated 6 million Jews. When Israel was created in 1948, did they attack Germany? No. When Israel became the super power of the Middle East (and Europe militarily), did they attack Germany? No. Has Israel, a country which has dealt with more intervention in the Middle from their European allies than any other country in the world, ever threatened Germany for their actions in 1944? No. To say that because the U.S. intervened in the politics of some Arab countries in 1953, and therefore Islamic extremists are justified in committing acts of violence is a poor, poor argument. Extremism which promotes violence, in all forms, is evil, and we should never catch ourselves trying to justify it! As a matter of fact, ALL violence in the name of hate should not be tolerated. So let’s STOP making excuses for violence, and accept that it is wrong, no matter what kind of bullshit intervention once happened. And don’t bring up the Iraq war… I’m talking about U.S. intervention pre-2001.
May 17th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Rosenberg, I don’t think Paul was saying US intervention in the Middle East justifies the terrorist acts. I think he was correctly pointing out that these actions don’t occur in a vacuum. It’s not like we’ve been sitting around twiddling our thumbs for the past 50 years when it comes to foreign affairs. I’m of the opinion that if you poke around a hornet’s nest, you can’t act surprised when you get stung.
“And don’t bring up the Iraq war… I’m talking about U.S. intervention pre-2001.”
Fair enough, but you can’t bring up any events occurring after the Spanish-American War. I’m talking about U.S. intervention pre-1898. I mean, as long we’re setting limits on the argument …
May 17th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
CJ Ciaramella, the argument is about the 9/11 attacks. So, again, don’t bring up the Iraq war. Are you saying that the 2003 Iraq war has something to do with the cause of 9/11? I don’t think you are.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
“Websites like Wonkette and Hit & Run have been reflexively pro-Paul for a while now, without satisfactorily qualifying their support — aside from reaffirming Paul as an anti-war, libertarian-Republican who hates taxes [emph added].”
It’s a mystery, I tells ya.
But seriously, though: Ron Paul is the Republican Kucinich. He’s voguish precisely because he has no chance of winning and will never be called upon to actually address that possibility.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Olly: Zing! I just talked to you, but I thought I’d post this anyway.
I’m glad that you added that “emph,” but I think that my post alone was all the “emph” needed. I’m not saying this is some great mystery (Hit & Run’s support, that is), but merely a ridiculous reduction of Paul’s beliefs. His views on immigration are really no different from Tancredo’s.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Rosenburg: “Are you saying that the 2003 Iraq war has something to do with the cause of 9/11? I don’t think you are.”
Then you would be correct because I didn’t say anything at all about Iraq in my post. But fine, whatever. Let’s DEFINITELY NOT talk about Iraq. How about Afghanistan?
It’s kind of funny how the U.S. funded and trained the Taliban in the 80’s, isn’t it? (Don’t believe me? Watch Rambo III). I mean, it was cool and all at the time because they were fighting the Soviet Union. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, right? It’s just too bad they had to turn the country into an oppressive regime and haven for terrorists.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Rosenberg:
Can we give this “those who suggest that our foreign policies might have a wee bit to do with terrorists wanting to kill us are actually justifying the attacks and blaming the victim” shit a rest? That kind of knee-jerk, willful misreading holds up honest debate about our foreign policy among people who can all agree that terrorists are depraved, ignorant scum.
Fact is, for depraved ignorant scum to have a target, they need reasons to hit that target. Why are we targeted? Here are three reasons, among others, which have nothing to do with blaming the victim or justifying terrorism:
(1) Shitheaded, repressive regimes that we are closely allied with scapegoat us to misdirect the frustrations of their citizens (Saudi Arabia). Are these regimes our allies?
(2) We strongly support Israel, in military and diplomatic ways, and the Middle East is teeming with frustrated anti-Semites. (Note that this blames the anti-Semites more than the supporters of Isreal. = Not Blaming Victim.) Does supporting Israel so strongly, whatever its merits of principle, have realistic consequences that might merit reexamination?
(3) We have occupied Muslim holy sites in Saudi Arabia and Iraq. (In Osama’s eyes.) Setting aside all of the reasonable motivations that brought us there, who would Osama be fighting right now if we had no presence in the Middle East?
Next, it’s curious that you want to cut out all discussion of intervention motivating terrorism prior to 2001, while impliedly allowing that our current presence might have some effect. How do you square that?
Finally, let’s declare a Godwin-esque rule about bringing rape into the conversation. A more accurate analogy might be somebody spitting in our face after we kicked him in the jimmy, and then asking why’d he spit?
May 17th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Also: “we’d have to ask why Islamic extremists from Iraq don’t target Iran more often? Or better yet, why don’t Iranian extremists attack Iraq more often?”
If you’d check up on the whole Sunni/Shia thing, I think you’d find that’s kind of exactly what’s going on in Baghdad right now.
May 18th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Rosenberg: As I think is being made clear, most Americans and certainly most Republican candidates for President have a distinct distaste for terror and those who perpetrate it. Exploring and discussing the impacts of our foreign policy actions is not a fruitless “blame America” jag, but rather is aimed at more efficiently prosecuting the War On Terror. I think at this point, it’s fair to say that our heavy-handedness in the region has shifted public opinion there to a point where ordinary Arabs want to see us fail. They don’t all want to see a global caliphate, but at this point they do want to see us fail.
I urge you, and anyone else who so strongly reacts to this line of inquiry to relax a bit. America will not adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy any time soon, nor will it withdraw support from Israel… not because they aren’t rational choices, but because intervention and support for Israel are persistent realities of American politics. So, let’s live with that reality, but let’s not hide the fact that they are also two of the policies which generate some of the most hatred of America.
Rep Paul’s arguments are particularly germane to the Republican debates because of the fact that Republicans base so much political power on not questioning the value of turning Al Qaeda into something worth occupying the Middle East over. Romney’s assertion that Shia and Sunni are working together to defeat the west is absurd, as is Giuliani’s laughable assertion that the Fort Dix plot somehow justifies our presence in Iraq. Should we take these arguments seriously, or should we see them as Republicans playing to the Republican base? If the latter, than we should also be aware that as Rep. Paul pointed out in the debate, the Republican base is shrinking because of the Iraq war.
May 18th, 2007 at 9:41 am
T-
Well of course no one can call themselves a libertarian if they don’t advocate for 100% open borders. Your boy Nick Gillespie mentioned the exact quip about Dr. Paul a few weeks ago also. But tell me what is more ridiculous - fighting domestic terrorism by attacking Iraq or fighting domestic terrorism by tightening border security If you believe in the country of the USA, then we have to have borders. Also, our unfunded liabilities of 60 Trillion dollars of welfare will only be exacerbated unfettered immigration. Don’t we have enough people on the dole already?
Ron Paul is labeled a libertarian because the Republicans are so far to the left that. Just because he disagrees that government should be the father of the citizens from cradle to grave, and is *shock* pro-life CONSISTENTLY - he’s automatically a radical libertarian who has no hope of being elected.
It’s also absurd to compare Dr. Paul with Kucinich because to my knowledge the latter has never won a debate, and lets take a look at fund raising for the two:
Kucinich: $344,891
Dr. Paul: $639,989
These numbers are from opensecrets.org and were from before the debates too.
He’s also getting incredible press covereage from Guliani’s remarks; he’s been on CNN and discussed on every conservative radio talk show. He can do it.
May 18th, 2007 at 9:43 am
Olly, take a look at the CNN interview with him and Wolf Blitzer the other night - he was asked that question about whether he had a chance and if he didn’t win the nomination would he go third party. Just imagine if his was a ticket like Paul/Romney? It’s just getting started.
May 18th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Do you vote in Republican primaries, Andy? I sure don’t, I therefore see Paul getting the nomination as unlikely. I also think Paul/Romney would be comedy gold, but pretty unlikely.
May 18th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Paul/Romney: Now Less Than Ever!
May 18th, 2007 at 11:47 am
I don’t vote in the Republican primaries, but there are a lot of conservatives who are so libertarian as me who do. I just don’t think it’s unlikely as currently presumed.
May 18th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
“He can do it.”
No he can’t. Look, I’m a huge fan of having marginal presidential candidates floating around, and I certainly want to see Ron Paul at the next debate, but let’s not delude ourselves.
The point of the (slightly spurious) Kucinich comparison was not that neither of them have enough money, it’s that neither of them would survive five minutes of being treated like an actual contender. However, now that you mention it: it is also true that neither of them have enough money.
May 18th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
B-but, Ron Paul has twice as much money as Kucinich! Nothing can stand in his way!
May 18th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
I can’t beleieve after all the whining about Bush and anti-war none of you so-called ‘men’ have the nuts to support the real conservative, Ron Paul.
What are you afraid of, liberty?
Disgusting.
It’s Rudy and McCain who lost the debate polls (18% and 4%) and thus who should be thrown out of the next debate. Rudy is disgusting with his Daffy Duck lisp (if I hear the word ‘terroriTHm’ one more time….) and wants us all to have a Real ID card with biometrics. (Or did you pundit wannabes miss that?) Rudy knows less about security than my lawn boy. He is a johnny one-note of the worst kind.
And you call Ron fringe? Please do not compare him with Rudy, Kook-cinich or Gravel, none of whom we allowed on our radio show.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Ron Paul has to date, made more money than Rudy or McCain in NH so far, in just one visit, so yes, you are right Danimal…I would assume he has more money than Kook as well.
C’mon have the nuts to support someone who isn’t controlled by corporations. When counting money, corporations don’t count.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
What kind of nuts, exactly, does it take to support a hopeless candidate?
May 18th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
“I can’t beleieve after all the whining about Bush and anti-war none of you so-called ‘men’ have the nuts to support the real conservative, Ron Paul.”
VOTE RON PAUL ‘08: WE FUCKIN’ DARE YOU
May 18th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
I for one am freaking terrified of liberty. That’s why I’m going to take a tip from Sen. John McCain.
Except I’ll be sure to have them cut my balls off.
May 18th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Rudy is more of a liberal then Paul. He’s pro-choice, and as anti-gun as your most extream liberal democrat. He’s for big spending. How people can consider him Republican much less conservative I don’t understand. Ron Paul is the only candidate who actually talked about some departments he’d cut. Shrinking government includes shrinking the warfare state. What’s unAmerican about that?
What’s unAmerican about following the Constitution?
TRacy
May 18th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
I’m not sure how much of a chance for the nomination Guiliani will have after this:
Dobson Says He Won’t Vote for Giuliani
May 18th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
I’m not sure how much of a chance for the nomination Guiliani will have after this:
Dobson Says He Won’t Vote for Giuliani
May 18th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
What’s great about pragmitists is that they refuse to discuss their real opinions and attempt to shift the debate to a discussion of “reality” and “feasability.”
So you can either qualify your opinion of which candidates are hopeless or not, and then we can have a discussion. I think Dr. Paul would only dare people to challenge thier pre-conceived notions about the role of government.
But, most people around here haven’t been exactly screaming about Bush or the war fwiw…
May 18th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
What’s great about zealots is that they cast suspicious aspersions on everyone else’s motives, accuse them of cowardice, and clog up innocent comment boards.
May 19th, 2007 at 8:53 am
There were no accusations of cowardice, only allegations of tossing in a red herring - and this comment board is far from innocent!
May 19th, 2007 at 8:54 am
There were no accusations of cowardice, only allegations of tossing in a red herring - and this comment board is far from innocent!
May 19th, 2007 at 9:51 am
I think that one could easily appreciate Paul’s impact on the debate, without necessarily considering him an electable candidate. Look at Howard Dean… he was on fire (especially on the web) for much of the campaign before imploding. If you don’t look at politicians practically, you get swept up in the hype and before you know it, you have flown yourself to Iowa and are knocking on peoples doors wearing an orange hat, only to have your candidate go down in YouTube flames.
Curb your enthusiasm, I think is how the saying goes…