The Shotgun Blog
« Character and Leadership | Main | Ron Paul Forum »
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Outfoxing Fox
As The Shotgun's lone voice for Ron Paul, I feel compelled to comment about Fox News' decision to exclude Ron Paul from their upcoming debate.
I think it's a lousy decision, but it may be a blessing in disguise for Paul.
Some context: Coming out of Iowa, Ron Paul is surprisingly strong. He came in fifth, which sounds bad, until you look at the details. Fifth, sure, but within three percentage points of third. He also received fully 10 per cent (roughly a 40 per cent increase over the polls prior to the caucus) of the vote, and beat out all other candidates in terms of Independent support (he got 29 per cent of Independents).
The up-tick from the "official" polls could have been predicted. Young people are flocking to Paul's campaign. Young people who don't have landlines. People, like me, who have only a mobile phone. In addition, the regular polls tend to count registered Republicans, and ignore the Independent vote. This is confirmation for what Paul's supporters have been saying all along--the official polls artificially deflate Paul's numbers. I suspect that in states, like New Hampshire, where Independents make up a larger proportion than in states like Iowa where people tend to be registered Republicans, Ron Paul will do surprisingly well.
My guess is that you would do well to take Paul's official poll numbers, and increase them by a factor of 40 per cent across the board for the two reasons I've outlined. This won't net Paul the nomination. But it does put him in double-digit support range in almost all of the States. It also means that Paul's winning a state, like Alaska, for instance, is not outside of the realm of the possible.
Now you might think that heading into the Granite State Paul will be hit hard by Fox' ridiculous decision to exclude Paul. But consider the following.
1) The New Hampshire Republican Party has withdrawn as a sponsor of the debate because of RP's exclusion.
2) CNN has decided to re-air the ABC debate from yesterday at the same time as the Fox debate.
3) Ron Paul is full of money. He is so flush, that he will host a town hall meeting at 5 p.m. tonight (live streamed here... I'll be watching). He may also do a Reaganesque address to the nation after the debate.
4) Perhaps coincidentally--but I doubt it--Jay Leno has invited Ron Paul back just after news of his exclusion broke. RP will be on the Tonight Show this Monday. Ratings for the Tonight Show are going to be much higher than for Fox' trailer park debate.
5) After Fox announced the exclusion, NewsCorp stock took a tumble. I don't want to suggest that this has to do with the rumblings on the internet about Paul supporters shorting and dumping NewsCorp stock, but the fall NewsCorp took was beyond what we should expect given the general decline in the market recently.
6) Some Fox News commentators are openly lamenting Fox' decision to exclude Paul. This is generating plenty of RP mentions, and is gathering up the kind of steam that needs to be gathered in order for Paul to profit from the exclusion. Media hits, news stories, articles, columns, and commentary on the exclusion may generate more eyes and more ears for Ron Paul's message than his being included in the debate.
7) Fox News website gets slammed with over 2,000 comments (mostly from Paul supporters besmirching the Fox tag "fair and balanced")
And so on. (A protest Fox website is up to motivate the Paulbots further).
RP will get more free media from being excluded, than he would have from being included. This might be very good. It might also play very well in New Hampshire, where the fierce Live Free or Die spirit might move some to head to the primaries for RP just to stick it to Fox.
Is there a chicken in the Fox coop? There's at least a few, and their decision to cut Paul out may hurt them a lot more than it'll hurt Paul.
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on January 6, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54fc2ae028833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Outfoxing Fox:
Comments
Ron Paul should be excluded from the debate. Hell, he should be excluded from the country. When, during the Civil War, one former Congressman became a particular bother with his support for the enemies of the Union, Lincoln had him exiled to the Confederacy.
We should "staple a flag to his butt and mail him to Iran." Again, borrowing from the unbeatable Simpsons.
As for his "winning a state", Lyndon LaRouche once won the North Dakota caucuses. Doesn't mean that he's not a nut.
Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-01-06 2:25:55 PM
Ron Paul should not be excluded from the debate.
Ron Paul should not be mailed anywhere. That's just dumb.
Ron Paul is hardly a nut. That's a slur someone throws around when they haven't bothered to read his platform, or pay attention to his message. (Unless, of course, you can point to a policy platform that you think is nutty, and make the case that it is nutty, rather than something that reasonable people can reasonably disagree about. Good luck. No one has succeeded yet.)
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-01-06 2:31:56 PM
How about his 19th century plan to withdraw all American troops from fgoreign countries (at least any Muslim ones) because he doesn't want to upset the jihadists. In todays world where we are so interconnected that is nuts!
Posted by: Markalta | 2008-01-06 2:40:47 PM
Paul's candidacy is useful if only for its utility in smoking out the "big government" warmongers among GOP supporters.
Posted by: Spending Cuts Please | 2008-01-06 2:41:20 PM
I have no opinion of Ron Paul. I don't intend to form one.
What Fox did is the best thing that could have happened for Mr. Paul. They've given him a much louder voice than he'd have in the actual debate. He can voice his opinions on a different stage without having to face his opponents in a real debate.
If Fox thought this was a way to silence him they were sadly mistaken.
Posted by: dp | 2008-01-06 2:43:17 PM
Ron Paul is just a re-run of several other fringe candidates that have attempted to disrupt the political process over time. His mantra about "fiat money" has been around for over 100 years, rearing it's stupid head every once in a while.The yougsters will pick up this because they don't know any better. Us oldsters just laugh and say, same old...same old...
The USA is the fairest. most democratic country in the world. Paul had his chance to tout his wares in Iowa and indeed anywhere else in the USA.
The networks are not an arm of the government in the USA (unlike Canada) and can pick and choose as they see fit.
God Bless the United States of America and God Bless the Office of the President of the United States!
Posted by: atric | 2008-01-06 2:49:16 PM
Listen People, and listen good. At approx. 3:06 seconds into this, you will hear Susan say " we'll fix that" listen for yourself.
Posted by: Flo | 2008-01-06 2:52:53 PM
What a bunch of American wannabees! Go south, my friends...the disintegrating empire calls!!!
You are Harper's worst nightmare and achille's heel.
Posted by: Trdeau's ghost | 2008-01-06 2:58:00 PM
Withdrawing American troops from around the world sounds like a great idea to me, Markalta. Perhaps you have some insight that I don't on this topic? Seems to me like stretching American military might awfully thin is a bad idea.
I don't get it, atric. All the candidates are, in one way or another, reruns of other candidates. Think John McCain is somehow a totally new candidate, never before seen? Fred Thompson? Rudy Giuliani?
You oldsters might laugh and say "same old, same old," but that applies to the Fox Selects candidates just as much as it might to Ron Paul. Actually, Ron Paul is much, much rarer than the McCains and Giulianis.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-01-06 2:58:26 PM
Fox News can no longer be considered a credible news organization. They've destroyed whatever shred of journalistic integrity remained. The snub by Fox is working in Dr. Paul's favor, bringing him far greater publicity and energizing his supporters even more. The anti-Paul forces have tried ridiculing him, they've tried ignoring him, they've tried attacking him with lies and innuendos -- and no matter what they do, his popularity keeps growing.
People are disgusted with politics as usual and want someone with honesty, integrity, and authenticity. For a great satire on the president, the mainstream media, and the war on terror, see this YouTube music video from the international award-winning zombie musical feature film, "Song of the Dead." It' stars horror movie veteran Reggie Bannister (Phantasm, Wishmaster, Bubba Ho-tep) as the president of the U.S. The filmmaker, Chip Gubera, is giving a share of his profits from DVD sales to the Ron Paul campaign. Go to:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qQmkkoxSKYw
Posted by: mketcher | 2008-01-06 3:03:04 PM
Oh Please...
Oldsters just laugh and say same old dame 0ld.. you vote same old same old and run your picks as if this was the Super Bowl How about voting for principle? Your own?
19th century plan of withdrawal... try a 21st century concept of open dialogs. If we are so interconnected...why not talk? Peace and diplomacy first. The boogie man is not real he has and always will be manufactured!
Exclusion... if we are the best democracy, please explain why the other democracies in the world have more than two-I-mean-one-but-will-let-you-think-two party system?
We all want the same thing, though some of us are more courageous and vote for it! If only to let the rest of this country know... we are fed up! NOW, THAT'S A MANDATE!!
Posted by: Amy | 2008-01-06 3:09:39 PM
Paul has no foreign policy credibility. However, with the recent firing of Stephen Coughlin by the Pentagon (see link)
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019446.php
it's getting obvious that even the current Bush government is surrendering to the myth of peaceful islam. If even Bush doesn't understand the enemy that we face, then I guess withdrawing into a 19th century isolationism can't be any worse. Just get ready to bend over and kiss your a-- goodbye.
Posted by: Markalta | 2008-01-06 3:19:44 PM
To Yoshida:
You are merely confirming what Paul has argued, viz., that the rest of the Republicans are harmful towards life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As far as supporting enemies of the US, McCain called Mushareef "one of the good guys." I wonder how Al Qaeda escaped from Tora Bora and is hiding out in Pakistan. So much for not supporting torture, as well.
To markalta:
Paul is for removing American troops from the 130 countries they are now in today, like Korea, Germany, Iraq and so on. He is not doing this to appease anyone, but because it is in the US' interest. The trillion dollars spent on defense could be better served eliminating the IRS. Paul did vote for the US to go after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. But what is going on in Afghanistan today is simply weakening the US. It is better than the 5th century idea of continuous warfare. That's 5th century BC. I'd rather adhere to the relatively modern ideas upon which Western Civilization is based.
To atric:
You may be an oldtimer, but if you were born during the creation of the Federal Reserve, you would be 95 years old. It is pretty obvious that you don't have any insight regarding sound money based on personal experience, except for the personal experience that each of us have with fiat money: the continuous loss of our purchasing power.
Posted by: Jefferson N. Glapski | 2008-01-06 3:40:43 PM
Fox News is infected with some major rot at high levels. They aired a typically hysterical AGW special about a year ago after Gore pressured someone up high. It was a mistake for them to exclude Ron Paul this late in the process particularly with Paul's spectacular success (for a principled libertarian). If this trend continues we may see a libertarian President in, say 20 years!
Despite the naivety of isolationism as simplified by Paul's soundbites, one must admit that the US has never actually learned how to end a War given the continued presence of troops in Germany, Japan, Korea, etc. The Jihad won't be contained by military action abroad as much as it will by ending multiculturalism domestically and in the West generally.
If the alternative is the same old continuing creep toward Nanny/Welfare/Porky state, A Paul term would be great. He could become the greatest vetoer the republic has ever seen.
Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-01-06 3:53:18 PM
Atric's weak and feeble anti-Paul, pro-status quo, pro-statist blather is so intellectually vapid and politically ignorant, I have to wonder whether his post is intended as satire rather than his true feelings. I certainly hope not the latter, or I shudder to think how anyone could be so follow-the-herd and trusting in the good intentions of a leviathan, near-totalitarian government.
Posted by: akak | 2008-01-06 4:01:41 PM
Jeff: Maybe you believe that Paul doesn't want to appease anyone, but I heard him say that we need to get out of Saudi Arabia and other muzzie countries because they don't want us there and that is why they attacked us on 9/11...or are you one of the Paul truthers?
Posted by: Markalta | 2008-01-06 4:26:29 PM
New Hampshire Republican party? That must be a lonesome bunch...New Hampshire's almost as liberal as Vermont, aren't they? That's why McCain is so popular there.
Posted by: Martkalta | 2008-01-06 4:32:24 PM
If getting out of muslim countries means withdrawing all investment, aid packages, immigration quotas, military support, etc., etc., then I could get behind it.
Let them get the oil out of the ground themselves. In about 5 years they'd be scratching their heads like a bunch of 1 year olds with a mechano set.
Posted by: dp | 2008-01-06 4:34:55 PM
I love the fact that removing troops from foreign soil is a 19th century idea. How about the fact keeping troops on foreign soil is a 18th century idea, and well older for that matter? This idea of non-interventionists policy being some kind of archaic institution that is laughable in the modern age is ridiculous. Imperialism and colonialism are just as just as old, and the result of overextending an empire have been proven time and time again to bring disastrous results. How about we laugh at those foolish centuries old policies for a change?
There are plenty of countries that get along just fine in this interconnected world without stationing troops in a hundred plus countries. Simply amazing that survive! I would really like to see a coherent argument about how having troops in Germany in necessary because of our interconnected world. Exactly what benefit does extending our military in such a manner give us?
Finally, if we are better off without troops stationed in Muslim countries, who cares if that appeases them as well? It should be our goal for us to be loved and respected around the world. Especially if you are concerned about terrorism, because the only way to ever stop it is to make people not want to blow you up any more. And no, we will never convince everyone, but we don't have to go out of way to piss them off instead. I don't understand when this moronic idea came about that if we do something appeases "them" (fill in whatever country or group we don't like at the time) somehow they won and we lost. Better for us to just dominate and force our will on "them".... It is a fools policy and you can only keep it up so long. Actual diplomacy requires both sides to feel that they gained from the exchange. It may come as a shock, but there really is nothing wrong with that idea.
Posted by: Recluce | 2008-01-06 5:02:59 PM
Recluse,
Brilliant post! I never heard the "non-interventionism as outdated" argument so succinctly and thoughtfully refuted! Excellent, insighful point you make, that it is IMPERIALISM that is the archaic, atavistic policy instead.
Also, your refutation of the "nonintervetnionism as appeasment" strawman argument is point-on as well. To say that something that we should morally and self-interestedly do anyway, that may happen to please others who may not be our enemies, is "appeasement" is exactly like arguing that because a business transaction benefits one participant, it automatically harms the other. If your customer views an exchange with you as in his best interest, does that necessarily (or ever) mean therefore that it was of harm to you? Ridiculous on the face of it, actually.
Again, thanks for your thoughts and your posts. If only Adam, Atric and others could even once come close to having such a relevant and insightful thought to contribute, much less refraining from the ad hominem attacks so much favored by the Neocons and their wannabes.
Posted by: akak | 2008-01-06 5:18:39 PM
Any candidate on the Republican side, other than Ron Paul, is a vote for the democratic candidate. No Candidate, other than Ron Paul, can beat Obama or Hillary. Period. So if you want Obama/Hillary, then vote for anyone but Ron Paul.
Posted by: Duane Maddy | 2008-01-06 5:21:52 PM
Wow.
Now it's starting to look like a dating service.
The truth is neither of you made a lick of sense. I haven't heard such jibberish in a while.
Maybe both posts are from the same address?
Posted by: dp | 2008-01-06 5:25:31 PM
dp ~
This is so typical of Roo Paul androids. They sound like zealous missionaries, trying to convert the Natives.
They are totally brainwashed. When Roo Paul loses, as he will, they'll just move on to their next false messiah.
SHEEEESH!
Posted by: obc | 2008-01-06 5:54:51 PM
obc: Did you just cut and paste that from your other four or five comments on Ron Paul-related threads?
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-01-06 5:59:57 PM
Good for Greta to at least bring this up. I don't like her reasoning (it's not what I would have argued), but I'm glad that someone said what needed to be said.
Watching this so-called forum, it looks like they've tried to squeeze these five at the table. It looks at though there's even space for 5. It's ridiculous. It's almost like they sat them close together on purpose to make it look as though space really were tight.
Posted by: KEVIN | 2008-01-06 6:17:54 PM
When you're filling your car with $3 gas and buying some $2.65 a dozen eggs, remember who is running on stopping deficit spending. The war for oil is what caused prices for anything that eats grain to skyrocket. When THOSE prices rise, the fresh fruit seller raises his prices again, now you have some nice $5 a pound grapes in the market. Laugh all you want, it's YOUR money being spent. YOU'RE the one going to pay $250 a week for groceries. Still think Ron Paul sounds like a bad idea? He's the ONLY candidate, Republican or Democrat that is running on reducing your cost of living. Maybe you have plenty money. Me, I'm not so rich.
Posted by: lnardozi | 2008-01-06 6:31:46 PM
Imperialist? Did the U.S. stay in japan and rule them? Did they stay in Germany to rule that country? You morons who spout this imperialist crap are retarded. Sorry if my response is not up to debate standards, but I have tired of your pathetic arguments. later...
Posted by: Markalta | 2008-01-06 6:34:12 PM
Same old, same old, will get you another 8 years of the Bush/Clinton dynasty that will then extend from the executive branch for 36 years. 1980-2016,
Romney Guiliani Obama are cut form the same CFR international corporate cloth. Dont believe me look up the agenda of the CFR and realize that Obama is part of the same corporate corruption that lowers your savings value of the dollar and reducing your jobs to the service sector because we don't actually compete to produce goods as a country because as the NAFTA promoters would rather let the corporations make a larger profit by hiring 3rd world labor at a fraction of American workers salary.
The rich can then buy cheaper goods while we continue to expand the govt. debt so you and your children can spend a lifetime paying income tax on the interest of those loans to the IRS who are the debt collectors for private banks known as the Federal Reserve.
How does status quo sound to you?
RONPAUL2008.com
Posted by: kansan | 2008-01-06 6:49:03 PM
Adam, I think Ron Paul should leave the US and live in Iran or North Korea. The guy has no clue, whatsoever, in matters of foreign policy. I m glad Fox News excluded this guy who has a huge following from Nazis and KKK people. Fox News Channel did a great job!
Posted by: winston | 2008-01-06 7:07:52 PM
Markalta,
Imperialism today does not have to be the same as, say, the British empire in its height. Posting troops on others soil, and going from influencing to near control of foreign governments would fall under any sane persons definition of imperialism. If you don't know what I am talking about outside of the obvious Iraq and Iran examples that we have heard about so often lately feel free to look up our influence in South America. To list all of the civil unrest we instigated and supported coup attempts, etc. would take a small book.
As to your Japan and Germany arguments I am not going to bother to go into the history. If you actually care you can look it up yourself. Feel free to see how long it took for Japan to be allowed any sort of military and how little they are still allowed. Do you have any idea why there was a Berlin Wall... it more complicated than just a few sentences obviously, but Russia and the US split up the conquered nation into our sections to control. We stayed for decades and ruled them. We seemed to have learned enough about the blunders of classical imperialism to know that we couldn't by force keep a hold there forever. However, the troops stationed in their countries, along with decades of shaping their government are a nice reminder of the force we could bring if necessary.
I don't actually disagree whatsoever with our post war occupations of Japan and Germany. But we have to get to some point when say its enough, I think half a century ought to do it. No matter how look at it, our continued presence is a form of imperialism. It is not overt and aggressive, but it is imperialism.
The real problem I see is that we are heading back to an aggressive and overt imperialism. I wrote above that we learned enough to know that we couldn't control counties by force... well we seem to be forgetting that. That is exactly what we are doing right now in two countries, and we are least drumbeating to extending that to Iran. What part of this does not meet the definition of imperialism?
PS. If you can't make coherent arguments you have no right to call others morons.
Posted by: Recluce | 2008-01-06 7:17:58 PM
US imperialism! give us a break, you guys sound like Jane Fonda in the sixties. Ron Paul and his supporters do not seem to realize that the Jihadists declared war on the US (and much of the Western World) in 1979 and they have been killing US citizens ever since and no US President has had the courage to take the fight to their own backyard except Bush.
If "President" Paul was to withdraw the US forces from Iraq, the Arab world will think that it is a sign that America is weak and Ben Laden and the terrorsts have won.
So, the US could surrender to the Jihadists like Ron Paul likes to suggest but millions will die as a result and in the end, the terror will happen on US soil as in 9/11.
Posted by: andré | 2008-01-06 7:47:00 PM
Andre,
You refutation consisted of "give us a break" and you "you guys sound like Jane Fonda." That is not a refutation of an argument. How do you hope to prove your point if you don't make any points?
So, they started the war in 1979? Perhaps they think that we started the war in 1953 when we overthrew Mossadegh and reinstalled the Shah in Iran, effectively making the Shah government look like a US puppet. Perhaps it started even earlier when the British and Soviets first installed the Shah in 1941?
Perhaps the war started in 1951 when the US began supporting the Saudi Royal Family (not exactly know for its freedom loving nature) with troop training and weapons? Supposes for some the war actually started a year later than your date of 1979, when we decided to support Saddam with weapons (including chemical) in his war with Iran.
I will avoid, for now, getting into the even older history of the Islamic states... including the key point of their borders being created by western powers. Yes we can mostly point to Britain for that masterpiece in planning, but the US has taken advantage of it ever since.
If you are going to discuss history I humbly suggest that you know some first. It will avoid embarrassing moments like this. Anyway, back the matter of terrorists thinking they have won. You make the argument that millions of people would die if we "surrender" the jihadists. I have two quick points, then two quick questions.
Points:
1. Unless you are one of those people that think all Muslims look alike, Iraq has nothing to do with the "jihadists" that attacked us.
2. Stopping a war that is not in our interest, and is not even against the terrorists that are we are supposed to be fighting does not equate to surrendering to the jihadists.
Questions: This the fun part where you can actually support your arguments.
1. How exactly does fighting a war in Iraq help to keep us safer from terrorists? Are they so one track minded that every single one of them will go to Iraq to fight rather than come here again?
2. How exactly will leaving Iraq send a message for terrorists to come to the US en mass and kill one million of us?
PS. Bin Laden is normally spelled with an i.
Posted by: Recluce | 2008-01-06 8:25:10 PM
Several question Americans need to ask themselves:
.
.
Would you rather spend 1 trillion dollars annually to build an empire or have that 1 trillion dollars back in your pockets via elimination of the IRS?
.
.
Would you rather have 550,000 troops stationed overseas or 550,000 troops defending your national borders?
.
.
Would you rather have a nanny state that looks out for your best interests, or would you rather have the freedom to make your own decisions for your & your family?
.
.
Would you rather have a president who will promise you everything and give you the same old same old, or would you rather have a president who has a 20 year history of consistency; One that will try to make some much needed changes?
.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIivoqLbeeg
.
.
Posted by: Tim_Ohio | 2008-01-06 8:27:54 PM
Ron Paul should have been included in the debate, but his actions tonight were lame as well.
Posted by: Uomo Del Ghiaccio | 2008-01-06 8:34:07 PM
What did he do today that was lame, Uomo?
I saw nothing lame in what he did. He merely held a town hall forum...
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-01-06 9:07:22 PM
Does anyone remember when Germany asked the US to remove their troops forthwith? Of course not! They help sustain their economy, especially in the small towns surrounding them that have very little else going for the.
Does anyone remember when the Philipines asked the US to remove their troops forthwith?
I do! And they left forthwith! The US dies not occupy other countries!
In fact, Europe saves BILLIONS on defense BECAUSE the Us has stationed troops there! Thus, they can better afford their socialist giveaways.
Now, the Soviet Union - THAT was an empire!
But Leftoids kept their traps shut for a half century when it came to their fellow commies.
Posted by: obc | 2008-01-06 9:21:43 PM
obc,
The Philippines example you used was a pretty bad one. You do not have to go far to see it. A little history quote: In 1899 the First Philippine Republic was proclaimed in Malolos, Bulacan but was later dissolved by the US forces, leading to the Philippine-American War between the United States and the Philippine revolutionaries, which continued the violence of the previous years. The US proclaimed the war ended when Aguinaldo was captured by American troops on March 23, 1901, but the struggle continued until 1913 claiming the lives of over a million Filipinos.
Let us fast forward. We "free" the Philippines from an equally if not more oppressive occupation after WW2. I applaud that. Afterward instead of giving them a little help to rebuild and leaving we stay on, despite decades of anti US resistance, especially in the form of peasant uprisings. We install a dictator by the name of Ferdinand Marcos, who is finally overthrown in a popular movement in 1986. Even now, Bush has recently authorized the use of military forces in the Philippines to fight al'qaeda in the Philippines itself, which is in violation of the Philippine constitution. (if you don't believe any of the above, please feel free to look it, I can provide links on request)
You see, the problem is not that these countries governments want us out. I am sure that the aforementioned Marcos loved our presence. I am sure that Saudi Royal Family loves our military support, and I am sure that Shah appreciated us putting him back in power after the popular movement overthrew him. Why in the world would they want us out when we keep them in power? The problem, when you are facing terrorists, is that our actions anger and alienate the common people. They can't even fight back in their own counties because a huge supper power from thousands of miles away is propping up the very system that oppresses them. So tell me, what do you think the blowback from that is going to be?
Your Germany argument does hold weight in that at this point, our troops are probably welcome by many if not most, but there is still a flaw in that argument. The point of not being Imperialist is not simply for the sake of countries and people that don't want us there. To be honest, and sound cruel in the process, that is the far smaller reason in my mind. We should stop this policy for our own sake. I am not sure why you like the idea of spending hundreds of billions of our dollars to make sure that Europe can afford to be socialists but I do not care for it all. I am not sure why want to make sure that people desire to kill us for propping up dictators but I do not care for it all.
Posted by: Recluce | 2008-01-06 10:14:27 PM
I detect a western educated middle-eastern accent in recluce's writing.
Posted by: dp | 2008-01-06 10:31:56 PM
Recluce,
Plz don't repeat the old Leftist made cliche against the late Shah of Iran. Plz plz educate yourself about the 1953 incidents before commenting. Read the former constitution of Persia/Iran to understand the incident. Thnx
Posted by: Winston | 2008-01-06 10:50:00 PM
Winston,
I am no Iranian history scholar, butI do not really understand your objections against the arguments of our influence/control over the governments of Iran. I understand that Mossadegh violated his own countries constitution to consolidate military and political power, illegally removing political opponents (including democratically elected parliament members) from power, appointing himself powers that he was not entitled too etc. You know, the same things that the current administration is doing now that people like me go crazy about. The Shah's record of constitutional violations isn't spotless either though. The point was not that Mossadegh was a great man. He was, however a popular man with his people, and I have not seen any evidence to suggest that even though he was usurping power his popularity with the people wanned.
What I do know is that he was for nationalization of his countries oil (previously controlled by foreign companies), which was cited by the CIA as one of the main reasons to institute the coup. There are also claims (quite possibly true) of ties to the Soviet Union and communism. The classic scapegoat for any US action during the time.
So, no matter the character flaws of Mossadegh the bottom line is we removed a popular leader, dedicated to keeping the resources of his county for his people rather than for foreign interests, and put the Shah back in. Huge violations of constitution follow, members of opposing parties tried, executed, suspention of freedom of speech, etc. The good news, the companies that took back over control of the oil allowed the Iran government to keep 50% of the income, and the Iran government only had to pay the AIOC (you may know them under the modern name of British Petroleum) a compensation of $70 dollars US over a period of 10 years. Yeah, if I were an Iranian I wouldn't be upset at this at all....
As to reading the constitution of Iran (yes, the 1906 version) it is a huge document, and I would appreciate if you would point out the specific sections I am failing to understand. While I admit that I have not thoroughly gone over the whole thing, I have read over some as per your request. I have read our own very throughly also. One thing I am pretty sure of is that no where in either does it say that the US has the right or obligation to choose the leader of Iran.
Posted by: Recluce | 2008-01-07 12:31:08 AM
edit:
$70 million dollars, not $70 dollars... oops
Posted by: Recluce | 2008-01-07 3:10:10 AM
I never heard Leftoids complain about all the commie dictators propped up by the Soviet Union.
Only America is a bad boy for doing so - AND PREVENTING THE OPPOSITION LEFTISTS FROM TAKING POWER!
That's what they are so mad about!
Posted by: obc | 2008-01-07 6:36:08 AM
Because Paul is a "blame America" guy and is running a "blame America" campaign, and that is his right, he has become a lightening rod for the entire "blame/hate America crowd".
Although I'm sure there are some very well intentioned Paul supporters, unfortunately the majority of them are the left and right kool-aid drinkers, truther's, big government conspiracy people, you name it, they all like Paul.
Just check out most of his supporters on here.
It is no secret (it is scary) these people make at least 10% of the population, so its no surprise he has some support.
Unfortunately for Paul these people cannot be taken seriously, and as much as they may shriek he is not going to be president.
Time for the real contenders to debate.
Posted by: deepblue | 2008-01-07 7:46:39 AM
Recluce,
First of all you're probably just repeating what you have read in leftist/anti-Shah made up books. I suggest you to read "Eternal Iran" by Michael Rubin to see what really happened. But in short, Mossadegh was appointed to Premiership and not ELECTED. His popularity faded away as he consolidated power and became a tiny dictator himself. Plz get your facts straight before commenting about major issues you have no clue about. US had no control over the government of the Shah. Shah hated the Democrats and never trusted them and Republican presidents saw the late Shah as a great ally (read Nixon's memoir) and trusted him to run the country. Moreover Shah was very arrogant himself and would never allow any foreigner to tell him what to do. Again, you showed that you have not read enough about the Shah either. Plz read more about the troubled history of Iran before commenting further.
Posted by: winston | 2008-01-07 8:33:14 AM
On November 7, 2007, Ron Paul was a speaker at the American Fascism Awareness Day in Washington along with Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore and Sean Penn. The Revolutionary Communist Party was one of the sponsors of this event.
Ron Paul is supported by the extreme left, he is against the state of Israel.
He believes that the embargo against the Cuban regime only leads to the suffering of Cubans while strengthening Castro. He thinks that by setting a good example at home, the US can become an inspiration for countries like Cuba who will only want to emulate the USA.
Ron Paul is so blinded by his libertarian theology that he thinks that Islamist terrorists are “just hoodlums and convicts” (his words) who are angered by the foreign policy of the US. He is too naive to understand that Islamists have the duty to obey their God and spread their religion in the entire world by every means, including terror.
Ron Paul is a dangerous fool who has surrounded himself with a band of zealous libertarian apostles who believe that they hold the absolute truth, much like the Islamists.
Posted by: andré | 2008-01-07 8:33:59 AM
obc: happy New Year! Don't bother with those Paulites...they ignore the truth, and spout their imperialist bs...waste of time and effort! Reckless totally ignores the U.S. closure of bases in Philippines as per the request of Philippine gov't. etc. etc.
Posted by: Markalta | 2008-01-07 10:46:26 AM
Markalta |~
I'm sure you've noted how little I've posted about Roo Paul in comparison to what I used to.
You are correct - it's like convincing a Muslim that Islam us a falsehood, founded by a murderous pedophile. The message falls on deaf ears and blind eyes.
AND HAPPY NEW YEAR to you and yours as well!
Posted by: obc | 2008-01-07 11:51:02 AM
It is hard enough to convince a born in Canada Canadian that Islam is an adulterous and paedophilic death cult masquerading as a religion.
Too many Canadians mindlessly believe that once something is designated a "religion" that it is somehow immune from criticism. Furthermore, those that do criticise these hate-filled cults are prosecuted and rendered bankrupt.
Epsi
Posted by: Epsilon | 2008-01-07 12:14:36 PM
Wanna see something really funny and refreshing...?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9p9uBLqz958
Posted by: Marc | 2008-01-07 12:21:47 PM
Epsi,
Jesus went to his death on the cross willingly and many Christian martyrs followed him in sacrificing their lives. Also, many Christians believe that when they take communion they are literally drinking the blood of Jesus and eating his body. Does that make Christianity a canabalistic death cult? Just curious whether you hold a double standard or not.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-01-07 12:57:28 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.