Sunday Funnies
posted by TheDon
Meat the Press
Oh Goody! We’re starting off with a round of “How Crazy is Ron Paul?” The over-under is “raving loon”, and I’m taking the over.
First notion – get rid of income tax and the IRS. Make up the difference with spending cuts. I’m liking my chances of winning this round.
Russert: “But if you eliminate the income tax, do you know how much lost revenue that would be?”
Paul: “A lot.” (Seriously. That was his answer.)
Russert: “Over a trillion dollars.”
Paul: “That’s good!”
(shortly after that)
Paul: “You need the income tax to police the world and run the Welfare State. I want a Constitutional-sized government. Use the Constitution as our guide, and you wouldn’t need the income tax.”
This clip should be required viewing for all the liberals who are attracted to Paul’s anti-war views. And he’s just getting warmed up!
He then defends his view that Israel wants us to bomb Iran for their needs, and that he would cut foriegn aid to Israel, and all others. He uses the same arguments used to destroy our social safety net, that making them stand on their own two feet will make them stronger.
Paul then successfully defends his (correct) assertion that Al Qaeda attacked us because we provoked them in many ways for many years. He equates neocons and their empire-building ways with the (small number of) Islamists who want to take over the world, and dates planning for the invasion of Iraq to W’s first cabinet meeting.
Paul’s reaction to 9/11 was a fear of big government. Not (as I understand him) the kind we got (spying, torturing, police state), but he says he was concerned about an expansion of the “nanny state”, and is happy that people are rejecting surveillance and the abolition of habeas. He seems to mix up the two concepts, and must be seeing a rejection that I don’t. Last time I checked, we still don’t have habeas or any real checks on the spying and torture.
During his 1988 presidential campaign, Paul wanted to abolish the FBI, CIA, every agency except the Justice and Defense Departments, public schools, welfare, Social Security and farm subsidies. (side note – many Libertarians call for private currencies as well, in case you were wondering about the Treasury.) He would no longer abolish the FBI and CIA, just stop them from secret wars, torture, spying on citizens. He doesn’t “recall” calling for the abolition of public schools, and doesn’t call for it now. He wants to “offer the kids a chance to get out” of Social Security.
Timmeh nails Paul for voting against Katrina aid, but loading up on earmarks. Paul says that he put the earmarks in because of his duties as a representative, but says he never voted for an earmark. Timmeh calls shenanigans. Paul says that he’s just recovering the money that the Feds stole from his constituents, so it’s all good. Tells Timmeh that he (Timmeh) is “confused.” He portrays it as a holy duty, and votes against all spending. He’s a hoot!
Timmeh nails Paul for running on term limits, then serving for 18 years. Paul’s quote? “I never ran on VOLUNTARY term limits.” heh. He’s honorable.
Paul really goes off the rails on immigration. He’s for unlimited immigration, but with no “subsidies”. No food stamps, social security, free health care, free education and amnesty. Well. That WOULD be cheaper. Slaves always are, in the short term. He wants to take away birthright citizenship from illegal immigrants.
He admits to wanting to treat all drugs like alcohol (no real limits on production, sales or consumption by adults), so he’s not all bad. End the war on drugs! He rails against arresting sick people for using medical marijuana. Hear, hear! He then says that he wants to de-regulate at the federal level, but let the states do what they want. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Libertarian make that argument.
Wow. Ron Paul, in 2004, spoke out against the “forced integration” of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Respond, please! Paul frames it as a property rights issue, and invokes the holy name of Barry Goldwater, completely skipping the part where he said it “did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the CRA of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.” He also claims that he has more black support than any other Republicans (by some measures) because of his freedom loving, war hating ways. I’m pretty sure that most of his black supporters are happy that the schools, lunch counters, neighborhoods, pools, restrooms and water fountains are no longer segregated. As much.
Paul argues that Abe Lincoln should not have gone to war, that there were better ways of getting rid of slavery. Why, look what the Brits did – buy the slaves and free them. Every other major country phased out slaves without a war. Lincoln went to war to eliminate the original idea of a republic,and did it to demonstrate the iron fist of Washington.
So… his PhD wasn’t in history? To buy his argument, you have to ignore the reality that the South fired the first shots, and declared that they were a new country. Slavery may not have existed by now, but neither would the USA.
Heh. Ron Paul’s web site brags about his support for Reagan against Ford in 1976. That would be a good thing in their primary, if only he had not spent a good deal of time disassociating himself with Reagan and calling him a “dramatic failure”. Paul says that Reagan ran on a good platform, but failed.
Timmeh asks Paul why he’s running as a Republican, since he says Reagan was a failure, 41 was a bum, he didn’t vote for 43, and he sent in his Republican decoder ring in 1987. Paul says it’s because he rolls Old Skool Republican! He stands for everything Rs run on, but never deliver.
Ron is “pretty darn sure” the he doesn’t intend to run as an independent if (if!) he doesn’t get the nomination.
Paul responds to himself quoting Sinclair Lewis (“When fascism comes to this country it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross.”) He backed quickly away from a Huckabee comparison, and takes the time to bash the PATRIOT ACT, corporatism, “support the troops” mentality as having a fascist tone. Says we’re getting close to fascism. I don’t disagree at all.
Overall I’ll give Paul an 8 on the loony-meter, but only because the bar has been raised so very, very high.
Now, a mini-panel discussing polls, commercials and upcoming votes. My take? When your top candidate polls at 20%, you don’t have a top candidate. Lying about marching with MLK in at a Republican primary seems stupid – why would they care? When you are up by 25% in the national polls, your campaign has not imploded, no matter what happens in Iowa and New Hampshire. National head-to-head presidential polls at this time are meaningless.
Next Sunday: Obama and Huckabee. That should be good TV.
Fawkes News
The surge is “working”! Now the question is how fast US troops can come home.
oh.dear.god. And they are going to ask General Betray Us himself.
Speaking of god, they will also have Rev Joel Osteen.
And a look ahead to what’s coming in 2008 with the panel.
I don’t have the stomach for this one. I’m out.
This Weak
Rudy! There’s no way I’m sitting through that interview. It’s straight to the panel.
Oh good, they are going to talk about the xmas campaign commercials. I can normally take the insipid and look for the gems, but the family is on the way and I still don’t have Santa nailed to the cross. Good night, and good luck. Maybe I can watch more next week, but I make no promises.
7 Comments.
I think Ron Paul is confused. Barry Goldwater only opposed the Civil Rights Act because it put a lot of power in the hands of the Federal government. He was never against integration. If he was then he wouldn't have helped desegregate the Arizona National Guard or have supported the AZ chapter of the NAACP. He even wrote in The Conscious of a Conservative that "I believe that it is both wise and just for negro children to attend the same schools as whites and that to deny them this opportunity carries with it strong implications of inferiority". (p38)
"the surge is working"
at the end of the russian occupation of afghanistan, they had a surge, declared victory, and went home. Of course this was after many surges that did not go over well enough.
"Paul's reaction to 9/11 was a fear of big government. Not (as I understand him) the kind we got (spying, torturing, police state), but he says he was concerned about an expansion of the "nanny state", and is happy that people are rejecting surveillance and the abolition of habeas. He seems to mix up the two concepts, and must be seeing a rejection that I don't. Last time I checked, we still don't have habeas or any real checks on the spying and torture."
It's difficult to understand how you put those two sentences together. In one sentence you state that according to your understanding, Paul isn't concerned about a spying, torturing police state, but in the next you report that Paul is concerned about violations of habeus corpus. In other forums, Paul has stated his concern regarding the expansion of federal powers for spying on citizens.
Yes, Paul puts in earmarks, but votes against the spending bill as a whole and speaks against it. If you're in a no-win situation, do like Capt. Kirk and change the rules. He knows the bill will pass despite his vote, so he's trying to recover some of the tax money his constituents send to DC.
Much of the pre-CRA segregation was state-dictated, not the result of individuals choosing freedom of association.
Just because the South fired the first shots, doesn't mean that the Northern states had to invade or attempt to prevent secession. Secession can be understood as an extension of freedom of association. Note that I'm not defending the institution of slavery, which many northern states had also previously practiced.
Do you have any substantive arguments, rather than the name calling, shallow analyses and ad hominem arguments you provide?
Personally, I disagree with Paul's lack of respect for the incorporation doctrine, but I suspect that if one were to pass a constitutional amendment explicitly stating that the incorporation doctrine was law, Paul would be fine with it. Paul is a constitutionalist libertarian, not an anarchist.
K,
If I sound confused on the "nanny state" comment, it's because I was conveying the style of Paul's answer while summarizing. His (more complete) initial reaction to 9/11 was a fear that more people would go on welfare and foodstamps, that we would go to socialized medicine and increase social security taxes. His great joy was a rejection of those nanny state ideals evidenced by people rejecting surveillance and the abolition of habeas. I don't see the connection between the two sets of concepts, and don't see much of the rejection he talks about. It came across as a way of main-streaming some ugly statements he made in the wake of 9/11.
Speaking against earmarks that you put into a spending bill speaks for itself, in the same way that voting to fund a war you speak against does. It's a base conceit, and fools nobody. Or almost nobody.
I am unsure what the point of your CRA comment is, so I will leave that one alone, pending clarification. I will note, however, that "freedom of association" is often used by racists, sexists, religionists and the like to enable their prejudices. I don't object to that per se, but do when it prevents economic opportunities, when it subverts justice, and when it is institutionalized by governments.
Yes, the United States of America (not the "northern states") could have let states in the south seceed, but why would they? The southern states had no "freedom of association", having surrendered that when they signed the Constitution which formed the federal government. That war wasn't fought to end slavery (a tactical afterthought in a desperate hour), but to prevent the secession. Not preventing secession would have eventually resulted in dozens of countries, and Balkanization in its worst form.
If you would like more analysis, I welcome you to ask more questions. Nobody is more aware than I am that the Sunday Funnies posts run looooooong, so I use a lot of shortcuts and snark trying to save space. In the case of Ron Paul, so many of his statements were self-mocking that I didn't feel the need to add a lot of substance, but I will happily address any specific questions/points.
My point on the drug laws was that I have only heard Libertarians make the argument that the government has no business regulating drug use, NEVER that it's odious when the federal government does it but ok if the state does. This struck me as another way of main-streaming a radical idea (which I happen to agree with) in time for elections.
Rall- You're using Russerts' talking points as though they were Pauls' answers and using Pauls' answers to support Russerts' talking points.
He's never wanted to get rid of "Public Schools", he wanted to get rid of the Dept. of Education, letting States decide on the issue, localizing the issue.
I knew you were unscrupulous, but this really brings it home. You and Michael MEdved sharing the same talking points! – Wow!
Say, do you have that 'megaphone' program on your P.C?
Just to be clear, any post which says "posted by TheDon", including this one, is from me, Don.
In the case of the public schools comment, I didn't hear a denial from Paul, so I wrote the post like I did. In fairness, there was a lot thrown at him, and he couldn't refute every single point, so I should have said that Russert accused him of having those positions.
You wrote a hit piece,pal.