Trending Topics:

Could Ron Paul’s Iowa surge finally open up political debate on Israel and Iran attack?

News
on 140 Comments

Ron Paul is apparently coming on in Iowa, second in two Republican polls, a potential frontrunner. The media blackout may finally be ending. But the Wall Street Journal says Ron Paul’s Iowa race “faces hurdle”:

The problem: Mr. Paul’s anti-interventionist views on foreign policy. “‘That’s probably the hardest part,’ said Mr. Luethje [a volunteer for the Paul campaign], whose regular job is making eyeglasses. ‘A lot of Republicans are of this Christian mind-set that we need to defend Israel.'”

I finally caught up with the attack that mild Bob Schieffer of CBS launched on Ron Paul uncharacteristically on his Sunday morning political show last week, for violating the creed of the new establishment on terrorism and Iran. This is nuts.

Schieffer says angrily that Paul believes that 9/11 happened because of actions the United States took. And Schieffer tells Paul he’s wrong, that no report says that it is the case.

“That’s exactly what the 911 commission said…. our policies definitely had an influence,” Paul says. Then he states, beautifully, the case that they want to do us harm “because we’re free and prosperous” is a dangerous idea.

Schieffer scoffs at the idea that we should “be nicer to Iran’s leaders.”

Paul: “we have 12,000 diplomats. I’m suggesting we ought to use some of them…” The Cuban missile crisis was resolved diplomatically. “We didn’t say we’re going to attack [Soviet Union over Cuba]… the greatest danger for us now is to overreact… Iran doesn’t have a bomb, there’s no proof…”

Schieffer again contradicts Paul, says that no one in our gov’t is threatening military action. “May I correct you. The United States government is not going to attack Iran.”

Paul’s triumph: “But they say, Nothing is off the table.” That means military action. 

Glenn Greenwald was on this a week ago, in typical steel-trap fashion:

In this 7-minute clip, Schieffer repeatedly mocks, scoffs at, and displays his obvious contempt for, two claims of Paul’s which virtually no prominent politician of either party would dare express: (1) American interference and aggression in the Muslim world fuels anti-American sentiment and was thus part of the motivation for the 9/11 attack; and (2) American hostility and aggression toward Iran (in the form of sanctions and covert attacks) are more likely to exacerbate problems and lead to war than lead to peaceful resolution, which only dialogue with the Iranians can bring about…

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is senior editor of Mondoweiss.net and founded the site in 2005-06.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

140 Responses

  1. lysias on November 29, 2011, 10:32 am

    I think this is why the powers that be are now building up Gingrich, and at the same time trying to destroy Herman Cain’s campaign. They want to consolidate the religious right vote for one candidate (Gingrich) that they find reliable and that they hope can beat Paul in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

    OT, Craig Murray is continuing to pursue the Werritty/Fox story. Here’s his latest: Gould-Werritty Plot Finally Mainstream.

    • gazacalling on November 29, 2011, 12:47 pm

      You’re exactly right, Lysias. The WSJ *hates* Paul for his foreign policy views, it’s totally obvious.

    • Kathleen on November 29, 2011, 12:50 pm

      Cain destroyed his own campaign.

      • Citizen on December 4, 2011, 4:24 pm

        Thanks god he did as he merely hired the same Zionist clowns as consultants as all the other GOP candidates have–WTF, is there some law that says our foreign policy experts must all be Zionists? W

        ouldn’t you like to have heard the dialogue when Cain realized he had jumped into the fray without a net? “Oh gee, I need to get some talking points on this foreign affairs thing.”

        “Don’t worry, we got the word out.”

        “Here, take your pick; they’ve all passed the AIPAC litmus test.”

        “Huh, what’s that?”

        “Never mind–it’s the pizza that sells best.”

    • annie on November 29, 2011, 1:06 pm

      They want to consolidate the religious right vote for one candidate (Gingrich)

      the religious right has a irreparable problem w/romney and a certain amount of the will have a irreparable problem w/gingrich because of his divorce. not just any divorce, it was particularly nasty. i don’t know the details but i recall it was very two faced. this party is very much a family values party and the christian conservatives don’t like cheaters, especially the women. so that’s gonna be gingrich’s cross to bear going forward. that’s not something that gonna rock the boat in new hampshire but throughout the bible belt it will be a problem.

      • lysias on November 29, 2011, 1:15 pm

        Also, Gingrich has converted to Catholicism. The religious right won’t like that either.

        But I think the powers that be want to reduce the race to the man they really want, Romney, and an alternative who is acceptable to them, Gingrich.

      • seafoid on November 29, 2011, 6:01 pm

        The Republican base won’t accept Romney. If he’s selected they’ll take him down before the election. The Republican elite has created a Tea Party golem over which it has no control.

      • on November 29, 2011, 6:52 pm

        1. There’s a branch of Catholicism that’s more evangelical than the, er, anti-pope. Evangelical Catholics have a string of universities like Franciscan University of Steubenville, OH & Christendom College in Virginia, that make Falwell and Robertson’s operations look like Berkley.

        Evangelical Catholics get the word out on EWTN communications network, which at one time enjoyed funding from the Carlyle Group.

        The late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, a convert from Lutheran iirc, published ‘First Things,’ and argued for greater concessions to religion in “the public square” — Neuhaus wrote a book called, “The Naked Public Square.” Many of the other participants in Catholic Evangelicalism = converts from Protestant denominations. One such convert/personality, Scott Hahn and his wife Kimberly, run programs on natural family planning, teach Old Testament ‘covenant’ bibliology, lead tours to Israel (not Gaza).

        Even the putatively liberal National Catholic Reporter bows and scrapes at the feet of Israel.

        Rick Santorum is Catholic, too, and is part of the rabid fundamentalist right wing of Catholicism. In his years post-senate, he worked at George Weigel’s ethics & public policyt think tank. Another of their think tankers, Peter Wehner, was director of George Bush’s Office of Strategic Initiatives, the post that Cass Sunstein holds in the Obama admin. Wehner, Santorum, Weigel, and another of their fellows, Michael Cromartie, former chair of State Dept. office for International Religious Freedom, are stridently pro-Israel, reflexively anti-Iran and borderline Islamophobes. This is the Catholic milieu Gingrich inhabits; no fan of Thomas Merton or or Hans Kung or Teilhard Chardin.

        I suppose one shouldn’t judge a person’s soul, but my impression is Gingrich is such a conniving political animal, his conversion to Catholicism = strategic. He can get Jewish money; conversion to Catholicism gets him Catholic votes; participation with the evangelical Catholic network gets him Catholic pro-life, evangelical pro-life bona fides and access to those networks & communications facilities.

      • MarkF on November 29, 2011, 1:56 pm

        I think he dumped his wife when she was in the hospital dealing with cancer. Now if that ain’t “family values”, I don’t know what is.

      • annie on November 29, 2011, 2:15 pm

        yeah, i didn’t remember the details just that it was really gross. and i’m a person who is pretty slack about excusing peoples private lives but pleeeeease. inexcusable.

      • lysias on November 29, 2011, 2:42 pm

        The wife that he served divorce papers on in hospital just after she had surgery for cancer was also the one who paid his way through graduate school.

      • Duscany on November 29, 2011, 4:25 pm

        Gingrich’s daughter says that never happened. They family had had a sit-down discussion of the impending divorce before Gingrich’s wife went in the hospital. And she wasn’t there for cancer. It was for the removal of a benign tumor. The -dumping-his-wife-while-she-was-hospitalized-with-cancer story originated with Mother Jones, which undoubtedly had its own reasons for propagating an unsubstantiated story.

      • lysias on November 29, 2011, 4:43 pm

        No, the Washington Post recently ran a story attempting to exonerate Gingrich on that count, but the article made only two weak exculpatory points: (1) Gingrich and his wife had already agreed on a divorce before he visited her in the hospital to serve the papers on her; and (2) the first wife did not die of cancer, as some accounts had alleged, and is indeed still alive. But it’s quite clear that she had indeed had cancer, and, even if the surgery she then underwent turned out to be for a benign tumor, they couldn’t be sure of that until after the operation: Aspects of Gingrich divorce story distorted:

        The hospital visit took place that summer, several months into their separation. Battley, who was undergoing treatment for uterine cancer, had had two prior surgeries, and Gingrich’s visit occurred a day after a third operation at Emory University Hospital, in which doctors removed a benign tumor, according to Cushman [Gingrich’s daughter].

        And nobody has ever denied that that first wife (Battley) had been the one to pay his way through graduate school.

      • Duscany on November 29, 2011, 8:26 pm

        What you call “weak exculpatory points” were the heart of the original case against Gingrich.

        As for his first wife paying for Gingrich to go to graduate school, what are you suggesting–that he couldn’t therefore divorce her? According to Gingrich’s daughter, it was her mother who requested the divorce.

      • annie on November 29, 2011, 8:39 pm

        According to Gingrich’s daughter, it was her mother who requested the divorce.

        do you believe her? how nice his daughter is supporting him in his presidential primary campaign.

      • Proton Soup on November 29, 2011, 9:38 pm

        none of this matters. the religious right will not judge Gingrich as harshly for the following reasons.

        1) he’s white.
        2) there’s only one accusation against Gingrich (that i know of), and quite a few against Cain. and this plays right back into the fears from reason 1) – the religious white fear mostly this image of the sexually-aggressive black male. it’s one of the reasons they take them out of public schools and put them either in a local church-run school, or homeschool.
        3) McCain. Look at how McCain dumped his now-crippled wife after coming back a crippled POW himself. all to wed some rich princess and buy his way into being a made political man.
        4) the Gingrich affair is old news.
        5) i don’t think Gingrich is lying about it, and Cain (even if he’s completely innocent here) appears to be lying through his teeth. trust is bigger than the actual issues.

        probably some more, but i’m getting bored with it. Cain is an obvious loser, and Gingrich the obvious winner. if you want to go after Gingrich, i’d try something like labeling him antiamerican for the freedom-hating stuff he displayed in the prior debate between him and Paul.

      • lysias on November 30, 2011, 10:46 am

        Just one accusation against Gingrich? What about the fact that, at the same time he was leading the impeachment fight against Clinton for his infidelity, he was at the same time conducting an extramarital affair with a staffer of his? Then he later divorced his second wife, and married that staffer.

      • LanceThruster on December 1, 2011, 12:52 pm

        I think Gingrich’s most recent display of hubris clearly indicates just how flawed his powers of reasoning are (though his hypocrisy knows no bounds). He indicated that his infidelity was a result of his patriotism. I don’t even think he even elaborated further but obviously he feels that he operates under a different set of rules as weilding great power requires the regular and timely release of stress through sexual congress of the forbidden fruit variety. This forbidden fruit is even sweeter if he’s also condemning someone else at the same time for similar illicit acts.

        What a piece of work.

        What a POS.

  2. Dan Crowther on November 29, 2011, 10:55 am

    You should see Greenwald’s latest Richard Cohen. Glennzilla is the MAN. I love that dude.

    Ron Paul is the most important national political figure we have right now. There, I said it.

    Don’t get me wrong, I think alot of what he says is bat shit insane, but one does get the sense from him that he actually BELIEVES in real enlightenment values – so much so that you can actually hear him say “The Enlightenment” – which in and of itself is pretty fucking radical, considering the medieval mindset of pretty much everyone else in the public sphere. Do I think he emphasizes “freedom” and liberty for commodities, capital and “property” more than actual people? Yes, I do. But to me, we can at least work with that, rather than fighting against forces that are for arbitrary and authoritarian control of EVERYTHING.

    When it comes specifically to foreign policy, and Israel in particular, I can say for certain that the Ron Paul crowd ( as evidenced here) are not scared at all about the “anti-semitism” charge, and there is the real potential, if he gets coverage and his folks continue to get the message out, he could be a leader of sorts of the “american awakening” seafoid often hopes for. I mean, would you EVER hear another candidates campaign volunteer call out “christians” like that? I have to say, that is very refreshing to a whole lot of us recovering “christians”

    Paul makes people think and talk, which is absolutely frightening to the establishment – The War and Israel Lobbies included ( to the extent that they are separate)

    • Donald on November 29, 2011, 11:31 am

      Paul is someone I couldn’t vote for because of the reasons you mention (his domestic and economic views) but he’s the only candidate (Democrat or Republican) out there saying anything that makes sense on foreign policy. What a stupid political system we’ve got.

      • lysias on November 29, 2011, 12:07 pm

        For most of the domestic and economic policies that Paul favors, he would need to get approval from Congress, which I think would be hard to get.

        Whereas, on military and foreign policy, there’s a lot a president can do without getting approval from anybody.

      • Charon on November 29, 2011, 4:02 pm

        No candidate is perfect. Our foreign policy is what made us broke, what put our national security at risk, what caused 9/11, what causes instability in the ME, what drives this neoconservative and Zionist agenda. It is directly related to our economy and domestic issues.

        Paul is the best overall candidate for the middle class and below. Not for the 1% elite who have dominated the political landscape for decades. For the average American citizen

        People confused because of non-important issues due to their morals, culture, and religious ideology are not seeing the whole picture. Presidents should not be elected based on their views on abortion. These are meaningless partisan issues placed in the spotlight to confuse the masses with something they believe to be meaningful when ultimately they are meaningless and have absolutely nothing to do with running a country. No president is ever going to dictate abortion at a federal level, not unless their was a majority nation-wide consensus and even then the odds are slim.

        Partisan issues are just for the sheeple to ‘baaahhh!’ over

    • Mooser on November 29, 2011, 11:34 am

      “I mean, would you EVER hear another candidates campaign volunteer call out “christians” like that? I have to say, that is very refreshing to a whole lot of us recovering “christians””

      Oh, nothing a “volunteer” might say would surprise me. But on the basis of his remark, I would say Mr. Luethje has a bright future in optometry.

    • Kathleen on November 29, 2011, 12:52 pm

      I wish to hell Chris Matthews and other news show host would have the chutzpah/balls/nerve to have Greenwald on. Chris Matthew is too chicken shit. Greenwald would wipe up the deck with the spin and lies about the middle east on many of these outlets.

    • annie on November 29, 2011, 1:18 pm

      I mean, would you EVER hear another candidates campaign volunteer call out “christians” like that? I have to say, that is very refreshing to a whole lot of us recovering “christians”

      do you have a link dan? i read phil’s greenwald link and it wasn’t referenced there. i’m curious to read about this.

      • Dan Crowther on November 29, 2011, 1:56 pm

        annie,

        that quote from the campaign volunteer is in the WSJ link in the article above….. btw, that is my big beef with the new MW – embedded links are hard to see….anyone else have that problem, or is just my backlight?

      • patm on November 29, 2011, 2:42 pm

        “btw, that is my big beef with the new MW – embedded links are hard to see….anyone else have that problem, or is just my backlight?”

        I agree, Dan, they are hard to see.

      • MRW on November 29, 2011, 3:06 pm

        Me too. Too cute by far. Links are standardized across the web now, and MW should hew to them.

    • Mooser on November 29, 2011, 10:57 pm

      I find it hard to think that a guy who doesn’t quite accept the US civil rights laws will end up as President caring about Palestinian rights. I could be wrong, but for me it doesn’t compute.

      • ToivoS on November 30, 2011, 1:37 am

        Mooser I agree with you on this — Paul is not going to be motivated to protect Palestinian rights. What he is saying is that it is not the business of the US to support any faction in other nation’s civil wars. To me, that is a vast improvement over the policies of either Republican or Democratic administrations since the end of WWII.

        The world would be a much more peaceful place if the US had simply decided that it was not in its interests to back one faction or another in the following places: Vietnam (1950-1970), Yugoslavia (1991-1999), Central America (Guatamala, Hondouras, El Salvador from 1950 to now), Korea (1950), Libya (this last year), Iraq (1991-now) and, of course Iran (1953 to now). This not to mention the Israeli-Palestine conflict or the civil war in Lebanon.

        Paul is saying we do not need to engage in those conflicts.

      • NickJOCW on November 30, 2011, 3:22 am

        ToivoS, if you wish to be brutally correct on this, US imperialism germinated with intervention in WWII (and by extension) WWI. I don’t want to get into ‘what would have happened if’ but that is the fact of the matter.

      • patm on November 30, 2011, 7:18 am

        You can go back further than WWI.

        American Philippine war:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War

        Spanish American war:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish–American_War

        Mexican American war:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War

        War of 1812 with the British in what is now Canada
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812

      • seafoid on November 30, 2011, 7:42 am

        Don’t forget all the Indian wars.

      • Woody Tanaka on November 30, 2011, 8:22 am

        “Don’t forget all the Indian wars.”

        Indeed, the American imperialism program began in prologue when that Genoese bastard, Columbus, set sail from Europe. If specifically US Imperialism is the issue, then it’s birthdate is coterminus with that of the US, itself, as in the US’s birth certificate, the Treaty of Paris, the Americans made claims to vast swathes of Native American lands beyond the Appalachian Mountains, which had theretofore been off limits to them under the Proclamation of 1763.

        The US is and always was a sticking imperialist country.

      • patm on November 30, 2011, 8:43 am

        “I smiled at him. AMERICA, I said quietly, just like that. WHAT IS IT? THE SWEEPINGS OF EVERY COUNTRY INCLUDING OUR OWN. ISN’T THAT TRUE? That’s a fact.”

        Leopold Bloom speaking in the great Irish writer James Joyce’s “Ulysses”.

    • Antidote on November 30, 2011, 10:02 am

      re Paul not intimidated by charges of antisemitism

      Have you seen this, from Larry King 2009? Note that Paul isn’t even talking about the Israeli occupation. Ben Stein’s brain seems to operate on the assumption that there is no difference between Israel and the US: all they do in the ME is defend themselves, everyone who resists is a lunatic and terrorist. Everyone who does not share this view is an antisemite. Crazy stuff:

      • Dan Crowther on November 30, 2011, 10:19 am

        Antidote-

        is that the one where Paul says “we’re the occupiers over there”? and stein then immediately says something like, “we’ve heard these anti-semtic arguments before….” – yea, its illustrative of both the zio’s inner sickness and also of Paul’s total unwillingness to be silenced or browbeaten by the charge….. i’ll say this for the guy, he’s totally unafraid….

        As for Paul not caring for Palestinian rights because he didn’t support civil rights here, as a read up the thread, I think a little trepidation is warranted, but Paul actually says forbidden words like “Palestinians” when discussing foreign policy, and takes the side of the colonized.

        His views on civil rights here are due to the hodge podge of philosophies that is american “libertarianism” – it seems like this issue is one where the traditions of libertarianism ( really anarchism) meet with the emphasis on private property rights and entitlement for private capital, found in the american strain. If it seems muddled, it’s because it is.

      • patm on November 30, 2011, 10:53 am

        “i’ll say this for the guy, he’s totally unafraid….”

        Hey, what are they gonna do to the guy? Make him old? (I get to say things like this.)

      • Chu on November 30, 2011, 11:22 am

        I watched this when it came out. Ben Stein is the only one who should be embarrassed. Throwing out the antisemitism charge was not only unwarranted, it was ludicrous.

      • Citizen on December 4, 2011, 4:41 pm

        Stein is like Adam Sadler; he thinks he’s cute but only his yiddisha mother could love him.

  3. dahoit on November 29, 2011, 11:02 am

    Yeah,the last American patriot has gone from unelectable to racist,gullible anti progressive(whatever that is)in the blink of CBS’s eye.
    The wacko racist Zionist monsters that control US fear his election,when they really should see that his election will bring peace to their chosen nation by making them choose sanity instead of the power of overwhelming military might overriding reason.

    • lysias on November 29, 2011, 11:52 am

      Meanwhile, Glenn Greenwald’s home, salon.com, runs another anti-Ron Paul hit piece: Ron Paul’s phony populism: The libertarian presidential candidate is a true friend of the 1 percent.

      • Kathleen on November 29, 2011, 12:53 pm

        that is what I basically believe about Ron Paul. Really like him on foreign policy but domestic issues he is a the strong and rich will survive kind of person

      • lysias on November 29, 2011, 1:18 pm

        But on domestic issues, the power of a President Paul to have his policies adopted will be very limited. Unlike on foreign policy.

      • seanmcbride on November 29, 2011, 2:01 pm

        Lysias,

        I love it that there are so many smart commenters here on Mondoweiss, like myself. :) This is precisely my take on Paul: the neocon/neolib authoritarian juggernaut is far more dangerous for Americans than Paul’s libertarian absolutism on domestic economic policy. Paul’s views on foreign policy and domestic civil liberties make me a strong sympathizer. I am an Enlightenment guy through and through and a true believer in most of the views of the American founding visionaries. (I define myself politically as a progressive libertarian — equally leery of the concentration of too much power in either government or private hands.)

      • Dan Crowther on November 29, 2011, 2:23 pm

        and i here i consider myself a “libertarian socialist” – we are all homing in on the same prize here, sean.

        I am not as bothered anymore by Paul’s domestic agenda, mostly because the people would be re-empowered to make economic decisions – I get no sense from Paul that he would institute authoritarian economic policies, I’m starting to believe him when he says, “the people will decide.” I just happen to think that what the people will decide on is a far better system than the one we have, and a drastic departure from Paul’s Ludwig Von Mises school of economics…..

      • Woody Tanaka on November 29, 2011, 2:27 pm

        “I love it that there are so many smart commenters here on Mondoweiss, like myself.”

        That should be “like me.” (sorry…)

        “Myself” is the first-person reflexive pronoun. It is used as the object when the speaker is both the subject and the object of the clause. (“I hurt myself.”) When the speaker is only the object, but not the subject, the word “me” is appropriate. (“He hurt me.”)

      • seanmcbride on November 29, 2011, 2:57 pm

        I knew that. :) (Must have, cause I’m smart.)

      • MRW on November 29, 2011, 3:09 pm

        Ron Paul as President would have 100% dominion over foreign policy, but not domestic policy. That’s congress’ domain.

      • lysias on November 29, 2011, 3:40 pm

        That kind of use of “myself” and of other “-self” pronouns is very characteristic of Irish English.

        Himself is gone to town.

      • seanmcbride on November 29, 2011, 3:46 pm

        Woody,

        For what it’s worth (we probably shouldn’t get distracted by grammar debates):

        “Myself” is also fine in expressions like “young people like myself” or “a picture of my boyfriend and myself.”

        Paul Brians, Washington State University, Common Errors in English Usage

        http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/myself.html

        But “like me” is more grammatically logical. (I always like to be corrected on grammar and usage. Grazie.)

      • seanmcbride on November 29, 2011, 3:55 pm

        Dan,

        I saw a discussion a month or two ago on Democracy Now between Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky. What impressed me is that they seemed to be on the same page on several key issues and that they both radiated a high order of intelligence and civility. Chomsky seems to have some strong libertarian instincts despite being classified by the mainstream media as a “leftist.” Both Paul and Chomsky can think rings around the mediocre establishment punditocracy. It’s a delight to listen to them. I thought that Obama might be a mind of this caliber (that is why I voted for him), but he has turned out to be a great disappointment — perhaps more a failure of character and backbone than intellect. Obama in his policies has proven to be a more enthusiastic neocon than even George W. Bush.

        (There are problems with Chomsky on Mideast politics, as Jeffrey Blankfort has ably pointed out. On the subject of the Israel lobby, his mind blanks out entirely.)

      • Dan Crowther on November 29, 2011, 4:23 pm

        Sean,

        Chomsky is indeed a libertarian, he also considers himself a “libertarian socialist” – sometimes referred to as “anarchist” or “left-libertarian”

        Chomsky’s Notes On Anarchism
        http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1970—-.htm

        I consider many American “libertarians” to be “on the right track” but not there yet. There seems to an emphasis on the “liberty” of capital and capitalist institutions- whereas someone like myself thinks “freedom” and “liberty” should be extended- by way of true up and down democracy- to all parts of one’s life, work place included. If man is to be truly free, he must have control of his labor. This forms the biggest difference between the “left” and “right” versions of “libertarianism.” But again, at least we can begin a conversation from the starting points mentioned here – and that’s why I don’t “fear” Paul like I once did….

        As for Noam and the Lobby….yea, I go back and forth. He does himself a disservice by brushing it aside, but many of his points regarding US policy in the “Grand Area” are valid. I think, along with Finkelstein as well, its hard for him to talk of “cabal’s” of american jews scheming for Israel……

      • seanmcbride on November 29, 2011, 4:58 pm

        Dan,

        I breathe the same air generally as Chomsky — it’s nice clean crisp air. And I think that even Jeffrey Blankfort would have to admit that Chomsky’s “Fateful Triangle” is solid (and daring) on Mideast politics. He is certainly not afraid to challenge the Israeli establishment.

      • Woody Tanaka on November 29, 2011, 5:27 pm

        “For what it’s worth (we probably shouldn’t get distracted by grammar debates):”

        Oh, sure. Why not?

        “‘Myself’ is also fine in expressions like ‘young people like myself” or ‘a picture of my boyfriend and myself.'”

        I would agree that the first is acceptable — barely. But only because, gramatically, it is the same as “young people like I am myself.” The second, however, is, in my opinion, an abomination.

      • pabelmont on November 29, 2011, 6:00 pm

        But OBAMA said good things, too, early on. His desire for MONEY for re-election (and clout with Congress, he had to NOT antagonize them) — with the net result that HE COULD NOT USE THE POWER HE THEORETICALLY HAS. He could run his ambassador to the UN any way he wants; he doens’t HAVE TO tie himself to Israel. But he does, Would RON PAUL be different? Maybe, because he’s an ideologue and Obama’s a pragmatist (go for the money).

      • seafoid on November 29, 2011, 6:04 pm

        The most important thing he says in that interview is “we are bankrupt” .

      • on November 29, 2011, 7:07 pm

        Kathleen, Ron Paul’s domestic and economic thinking is far more sophisticated that “strong & rich survive.” It’s so radically different — literal meaning of the word radical — that it can’t be explained in a sound byte.

        I borrowed a CD version of Paul’s “End the Fed” and learned a great deal. You have to learn about Hayak’s ideas on economics, and the history of the Federal Reserve, and when you do, I suspect you will embrace Ron Paul.

        His quest for individual freedoms cuts through all the fighting at the margins about “health care.” As I understand Paul, he doesn’t think government should be legislating that everybody should buy health insurance — that’s a scam to keep health insurers in business, but it has no impact on the actual health of a nation & its people.

        And if you drill down further, Paul makes you think, well, why should a centralized government subsidize or legislate THIS kind of medicine but not THAT kind of medicine; shouldn’t it be up to each individual in a free society to decide whether he/she prefers what is now called conventional medicine — ie. surgeries, pharmaceuticals — or holistic medicine, or natural medicine? Who is to say that the vast medical industry we have now is really the best thing that humans can wish for?

        Ron Paul THINKS about issues to their core — not the faux intellectualism that so many have been persuaded that Gingrich represents.

      • Antidote on November 30, 2011, 10:22 am

        That should be “like me.” (sorry…)

        I think it should be “like I (am)”. Subject (I), not object (me)

      • CloakAndDagger on November 30, 2011, 10:52 am

        Shouldn’t that be “smart people like I” ?

      • Woody Tanaka on November 30, 2011, 11:23 am

        @ Antidote:


        I think it should be “like I (am)”. Subject (I), not object (me)

        No, because in the formulation, “smart people like me,” the word “like” functions as a preposition and “me” as the object of the preposition. If you added “am” then “I” would be correct, as “like” would function as preposition introducing the clause “I am” (the entirety of which acts as the object of the preposition) with “I” being the subject of that clause.

        @CloakAndDagger

        Shouldn’t that be “smart people like I” ?

        See above…

      • Citizen on November 30, 2011, 12:45 pm

        Somebody might ask in behalf of RP as to domestic issues, do you draw the line anywhere in terms of redistribution of wealth by government fiat? If so, where?

      • Antidote on November 30, 2011, 5:06 pm

        Woody – Cloak And Dagger and I are conjunctionalists when it comes to ‘like’ or ‘than’:

        The Columbia Guide to Standard American English:

        “Than is both a subordinating conjunction, as in She is wiser than I am, and a preposition, as in She is wiser than me…. Some commentators believe that the conjunction is currently more frequent than the preposition, but both are unquestionably Standard.”

        The American Heritage Dictionary:

        “The writer who risks a sentence like Mary is taller than him in formal writing must be prepared to defend the usage against objections of critics.”

        ;)

      • seanmcbride on November 30, 2011, 5:17 pm

        The English language is infinitely pliable, flexible, revisable, expandable, etc. and bound only loosely by the grammatical rules of the moment, which are continuously evolving under the pressure of real world usage. Very libertarian.

        Who pays any attention to fetishes like don’t split infinitives or don’t end sentences with prepositions? Often the best course is to do what feels and sounds right.

      • Woody Tanaka on November 30, 2011, 5:34 pm

        “Cloak And Dagger and I are conjunctionalists when it comes to ‘like’ or ‘than’”

        Heretic!! (Although the Columbia guide did agree that the pronoun case changed depending on whether verb was present. Which was nice to see.)

        I confess that part of the reasons why I never fully bought the distinction between subordinating conjunctions and preposition was because I could never remember the rule to distinguish them, so I just go with a functional approach and call them all prepositions. (Although I did learn a pneumonic to identify subordinating conjunctions set to the Marine Corps Hymn decades ago that stuck in my head…)

        And I agree with American Heritage that the using just the pronoun without creating the clause is ugly, foul and should be avoided. Nevertheless, if you’re going to do it, you use the objective case.

      • Antidote on November 30, 2011, 7:02 pm

        “The English language is infinitely pliable, flexible, revisable, expandable, etc. ”

        That’s true for all languages. English is a Germanic language, yet German has been Anglicized for decades, causing some serious concern about the disappearance of the German language: Will German, not too long ago held in high esteem and studied widely as the language of poets and thinkers, morph into Denglish as a result of WW II and the WWW? As a German native speaker, I can imagine buying German editions of Kafka’s works as ‘translated from Hebrew’ within my lifetime. Wouldn’t surprise me at all.

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/09/worlddispatch.germany

      • Antidote on November 30, 2011, 7:42 pm

        “Heretic!! (Although the Columbia guide did agree that the pronoun case changed depending on whether verb was present. Which was nice to see.)
        I confess that part of the reasons why I never fully bought the distinction between subordinating conjunctions and preposition was because I could never remember the rule to distinguish them”

        Neither can I. The difference between prepositions and conjunctions has been discussed for at least 200 yrs, and there is no consensus. I dropped out pondering such questions a long time ago but vaguely remember that prepositions can’t introduce verbs. They are used as a verbal prefixes, yet many prefixes are not readily recognizable as preps because they are Latin, as in: “I would have to UNDERgo brain surgery and have my frontal lobes EXtracted in order not to be a heretic”

      • Citizen on December 4, 2011, 4:44 pm

        Well, he’s a doctor, what do you expect? BTW, as a doctor he was a general practitioner and never took a dime of government aid while he helped folks via his medical practice, often charitable. I don’t think the comments here do him justice on domestic issues at all–of course in foreign policy he is very courageously wise.

      • Mooser on December 4, 2011, 5:21 pm

        “and never took a dime of government aid”

        You mean he wouldn’t treat Medicaid patients?

      • Citizen on December 5, 2011, 4:45 am

        He practiced medicine before medicaid, in the 1960s. He worked in a hospital that was funded by a church. Mooser, you might find this interesting: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/09/the-libertarian-three-step-program/

        He says the cost of medical services and drugs is way too high, and that is due to greedy insurance companies, drug companies, etc.

      • Charon on November 29, 2011, 4:11 pm

        Thing is his foreign policy will affect the 1% negatively. He is a constitutionalist and had urged the auditing of the FED and suggested alternative currency printing by the US (the FED is foreign and private, the government has no control over it other than a ceremonial appointment position that the FED tells them who to pick). He wants to abolish the federal income tax (which was never ratified, yet enforced anyways.. plus it doesn’t pay for the things we think that it does with much going the debt created by the FED).

        I don’t know why they are trying to spin it in that direction. Classic example of torturing the results so they will tell you anything

  4. pabelmont on November 29, 2011, 11:07 am

    One big battle for the 99% is that we (the 99%) live IN the environment — we breathe polluted air, drink the polluted water, live on the polluted land — and the 1% believe (with Paul, I suppose) that we have no right (No right at all, sir!) to limit industrialists and farmers (who are also industrialists nowadays) from using all these chemicals which have these SIDE-EFFECTS which enrich the industrialists and poison us and our progeny. SOMEONE SHOULD SPEAK THIS CLEARLY to Ron Paul. And they should be blowing REAL SMELLY CIGAR SMOKE in his face as they ask it.

    • seanmcbride on November 29, 2011, 2:06 pm

      pabelmont,

      I am a full-throttle environmentalist, and Paul’s views on this issue and quite a few others disturb me. But Paul’s views on foreign policy and civil liberties put him head and shoulders above all the other Republican candidates and above nearly all contemporary Democrats, including Barack Obama.

      • MRW on November 29, 2011, 3:10 pm

        Mr. Full throttle, ;-)

        Check out my post under mondo beyondo.

      • Citizen on December 4, 2011, 5:32 pm

        I agree with you, seanmcbride; because civil liberties and foreign policy are more seminal than things folks object to about Ron Paul, it’s clear to me that he should be backed as any lesser things will can be dealt with with Ron Paul’s fundamentals.

  5. seafoid on November 29, 2011, 11:52 am

    Paul is going to win serious backing the day after the NYT has its first Op-ed by Ismail Haniyeh. Control tower to pigs . Takeoff !

  6. Mndwss on November 29, 2011, 12:14 pm

    If Ron Paul became president and created a new Glasnost (Openness), he would be treated by his own people like Mikhail Gorbachev was/is.

    But the world would love Paul like a new Mandela…

  7. Kathleen on November 29, 2011, 12:30 pm

    thanks for this Phil. Schieffer went extreme right away by trying to spin Ron Paul’s statements that Paul has said in the past that you”suggest that you believe that 9/11 happenned because of actions that the United States took.” Ron Paul goest on to explain that US actions have had an “influence” a “connection”

    Then Schieffer takes another stab at spinning Ron Pauls statements about “influence” a “connection” between US foreign policy and reactions to those foreign policies. Schieffer says to Paul “basically what you are saying it is the US’s fault” Schieffer really demonstrates his inability to listen to what the person is saying. Too bad.

    Ron Paul “policies have an effect”

    Schieffer never ever actually repeats what Rep Paul says. Schieffer is more than a bit wormy in this interview

    Schieffer “well” Then Schieffer tries again ” you are saying it was the governments fault that is basically what you are saying” Rep Paul “policy makers fault”

    Then Schieffer tries to spin what Rep Paul has said over and over again that the US should use diplomats, negotiations with Iran. Rep Paul has never ever said that the US should be “nice” to Iran which is the way Schieffer spun what Paul has said over and over again.

    Schieffer “the government has never said that they would bomb Iran” The Obama administration, the I lobby, US congress people have threatened Iran endlessly.

    Schieffer has a history of allowing then Senators Obama, Clinton and McCain to all repeat unsubstantiated claims about Iran on his program during the 2008 Presidential campaign

    • Tristan on November 29, 2011, 12:42 pm

      Schieffer also got absurdly emotional, back in 2008, when Wesley Clark said of McCain, “Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”

      • Kathleen on November 29, 2011, 12:49 pm

        He was such a manipulative weenie in this interview. Not listening to anything Rep Paul was actually saying. Manipulating the hell out of what he was saying. I guess Schieffer just thinks his shit spin just flies immediately after he says it. He must think people are incapable of hearing what Rep Paul just said

      • lysias on November 29, 2011, 12:59 pm

        Schieffer’s bosses assigned him the job of persuading members of the Christian right, in Iowa especially, not to vote for Paul in the primaries. Time will tell whether he succeeded in that mission.

      • Citizen on December 4, 2011, 5:38 pm

        Schieffer’s spin is toally a lie; even the public 9/11 commission report said that us foreign policy was to blame for 9/11 as general counterpunch–inside that report the I-P situation was ranked number one offender; in the original report the US rubber-stamping of Israel was named # 1 motivation for 9/11.

    • lysias on November 29, 2011, 12:48 pm

      Well, let’s hope this latest news doesn’t lead to war with Iran: Protesters Storm British Embassy in Tehran:

      LONDON — Dozens of Iranian protesters screaming “death to England!” stormed the vast British embassy compound in central Tehran on Tuesday, tore down the British flag, smashed windows and ransacked the offices in what appeared to be an officially sanctioned protest of Britain’s particularly tough economic sanctions against Iran over its suspect nuclear energy program.

      The embassy assault, reported by Iranian news services and broadcast on Iranian television, was the most serious breach between Britain and Iran in more than 20 years, and the images evoked memories of the siege of the American Embassy following the Iranian revolution of 1979. It was not immediately clear whether any hostages were taken by the embassy assailants, and there was no word on the whereabouts of the embassy staff.

      I wonder if the protesters will turn out to have seized documents that turn out to shed light on the murky role of Matthew Gould, current UK ambassador to Israel, who was Deputy Head of Mission in Tehran from 2005 to 2007, and whose meetings with Liam Fox and Adam Werritty are the cause of current controversy. There have been allegations that Gould is or was MI6, i.e., a spook.

      • MHughes976 on November 29, 2011, 1:09 pm

        The BBC main evening news is treating the Iranian incident as less significant than the bleak economic announcements being made by the government today. The ‘breaking news’ as I write is about Michael Jackson’s doctor. The teletext service is saying that there have been ‘apologies from Iranian officials’. At the moment it doesn’t sound too warlike. If there do turn out to be outrages against individual UK citizens I suppose things might change.

      • MHughes976 on November 29, 2011, 1:24 pm

        Apparently some ’embassy workers’ were taken hostage but ‘have been released by police’ and ‘all accounted for’ (says the Foreign Secretary). A picture of the Queen was inverted. (All per the BBC).

  8. DBG on November 29, 2011, 12:38 pm

    Things are getting interesting. Katyusha’s from Lebanon, Western Embassies sacked in Tehran, economic sanctions against Syria. I see a substantial attack on Israel anytime now.

    • Mndwss on November 29, 2011, 1:21 pm

      Yes. DBaG. Things are getting interesting.

      It will be interesting to see if you choose peace or war.

      Will you have to go to the Masada/Hitler bunker if you choose war?

    • MarkF on November 29, 2011, 1:59 pm

      So are you saying that our 3 billion+ a year isn’t helping keep Israel safe and promoting what’s in our best interests in the region? Are we then pouring money into a losing cause? If it’s not working, should we cut our losses?

      • seanmcbride on November 29, 2011, 2:33 pm

        Lavish American support for Israel has been destructive both for American and Jewish interests. And, yes, we should cut our losses before we drift into an unimaginable catastrophe.

      • Citizen on December 4, 2011, 5:44 pm

        It’s not gonna happen. Despite all the spending on the ax block this year, Israel is sure to gets its biggest hunk of US aid; it’s a bipartisan thing with nobody objecting except Ron Paul. The US regime would rather see Dick n Jane out on the street homeless, before it cuts aid to Israel or to our underwriting of its debt (even though we are 15 T in debt & have a lower credit score than Israel, which also has national health insurance).

    • john h on November 29, 2011, 2:20 pm

      See if you can stand back from yourself a little, DBG, and see what is behind what you are saying. Now that would be getting interesting.

      I see a substantial attack on Israel anytime now.

      We mean so well, how come they’re picking on us?

      …there there, you poor victim Israel…

    • MRW on November 29, 2011, 3:14 pm

      DBG,

      Israel is doing the attacking in those nations (secretly), and trying to fire up the US to go into another war. You’re naive.

    • Charon on November 29, 2011, 4:16 pm

      DBG, the only thing interesting is the timing. The timing outs the real perpetrator. Somebody needs a diversion, has a history of diversions and critical times, and is a pathological lying untrustworthy psychopath. If Israel was Pinocchio, you could travel to the moon and back on it’s nose. No there is no buried antisemitism in that last sentence either, don’t go pulling the A card because I would use the same analogy for any other guilty party.

  9. Kathleen on November 29, 2011, 12:47 pm

    This morning(Tuesday) on MSNBC’s Morning Joe Scarborough, Mika, and Mike Barnacle were pounding the let’s go get Iran war drum again. Scarborough said “Iran is out of control” and just a matter of time before there is a military attack on Iran. He said this with such a matter of fact and supportive tone it was again disgusting. Mika, Joe, Mike Barnacle all pretend to be concerned about the unnecessary lives lost in Iraq, Afghanistan yet they are promoting an attack on Iran based on unsubstantiated claims. The height of hyporcrisy on that news outlet. Gjelten and Linda Wertheimer were discussint the most recent Republican debate.

    Phil and Mondo team. Last Wednesday on NPR’s Morning Edition Tom Gjelten went further than any reporter I have ever heard to stop one of the unsubstantiated claims about Iran from being repeated once again with no challenges.

    GOP Candidates Address Iranian Nuclear Issues
    Linda Wertheimer and Tom Gjelten

    November 23, 2011

    Listen to the Story
    Morning Edition
    [4 min 46 sec] Add to Playlist
    Download
    text size A A A November 23, 2011 Tuesday night’s GOP presidential debate was hosted by CNN and two think tanks and was focused on foreign policy. Iran came up several times during the gathering. Is what the candidates said about Iran accurate?

    “REPRESENTATIVE MICHELE BACHMANN REPUBLICAN, MINNESOTA: Iran has announced they plan to strike Israel. They’ve stated, as recently as August, just before President Ahmadinejad came to the U.N. General Assembly. He said that he wanted to eradicate Israel from the face of the Earth. He has said that if he has a nuclear weapon, he will use it to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. He will use it against the United States of America.

    GJELTEN: And Linda, that statement is just plain incorrect. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the Iranian president, has never said he would use a nuclear weapon against Israel or against the United States. In fact, Iran has said over and over and over again, they have no intention of getting a nuclear weapon. They may well be lying, but that is what they’ve said.”

    Have never ever heard any reporter, or news show host stop these unsubstantiated claims about Iran with a challenged. Never

    • annie on November 29, 2011, 12:52 pm

      thanks kathleen, interesting.

      • Kathleen on November 29, 2011, 1:03 pm

        I was in my truck travelling when I heard the Gjelten piece. Wrote it down that I wanted to share it with you folks. Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett have recently hammered Mika Brzyzinski, Scarborough for beating on the Iran drum quite a bit.
        “THE “IRAQIZATION” OF AMERICA’S IRAN DEBATE: MOHAMMAD JAVAD LARIJANI AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA
        Posted on November 20th, 2011 under general with 783 replies.”

        I thought the Scarborough team would show some steel and have Mika’s father on after they went on another lets go get Iran feeding frenzy. But I bet Zbigniew would be hesitant to directly slam his daughter’s and teams stupid comments about Iran on Scarborough’s show.

        The Scarborough team repeat such bottomless claims about Iran I think all they read about Iran has to be out of the bloody NYT’s ? And then they have the nerve to rant and rave about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while they beat the let’s go get Iran drums. They have been doing this for several years now.

        Forget about counting the dead in Iraq dead due to US drones etc. The Scarborough team is ready and willing to push for a confrontation with Iran. Insane

      • annie on November 29, 2011, 2:16 pm

        I was in my truck travelling when I heard the Gjelten piece. Wrote it down that I wanted to share it with you folks.

        you are a MW site treasure.

      • gloriousbach on November 29, 2011, 8:45 pm

        You both are treasures.
        I’m glad to hear of Gjelten’s integrity and not in the least surprised at the Matthews-Schieffer axis of journalistic corruption.

    • lysias on November 29, 2011, 1:02 pm

      Meantime, Iran’s neighbor Russia is threatening the U.S. with cutting off its supply line into Afghanistan from the north, at a time when Pakistan has already cut off the southern supply line.

      If the U.S./UK/Israel insist on going to war with Iran, they may just get a bigger war than they have been bargaining for.

    • Charon on November 29, 2011, 4:19 pm

      HAHA! Ahmadinejad can’t even make that call, that’s up to Khamenei

  10. Leper Colonialist on November 29, 2011, 12:57 pm

    Let’s hope so, but face facts, Paul is just too marginal and too outside the mainstream to be a viable long-tern contender. He’ll fade quickly enough, but let’s hope that his Israel-skepticism finds some traction with the other candidates [HA!] and the public at large HA! HA!!].

    Interestingly, KSM admitted, while being waterboarded 183 times [and we know how effective torture is when it comes to elicting the truth], that US support of Israel was his overwhelming personal motivation for his participation in the 911 attack. [And there’s no reason to belive that KSM is unique in that POV]. A pity Scheiffer doesn’t want to dreg that inconvenient fact out of the memory hole, and a pity that Paul didn’tthink to do it himself.

  11. Justice Please on November 29, 2011, 1:29 pm

    Thanks Phil for covering Paul fairly. It’s a rare occurence in most media outlets, both in America and in Germany.

    And to all who say “I’m a Democrat, I could never vote for Paul because of his domestic policies”, I respond: You don’t have to vote for him, but support him and make sure he is given a fair chance! Protect him against all the false accusations made by the usual suspects. Because the more influence he has on the Republican side, the more your Democratic leadership is forced to nominate someone who equals Paul’s moral foreign policy of Peace, non-Intervention and non-Imperialism.

    Thank you, your country will be better off.

  12. seanmcbride on November 29, 2011, 2:10 pm

    Bob Shieffer represents everything that is rotten in the mainstream media establishment. Here is hoping that the Internet blasts the mainstream media to smithereens. They are already running scared.

    • Chu on November 30, 2011, 11:27 am

      If Shieffer needs to attack Paul in such a shameless manner,
      they media must be getting word from their producers to
      do their best job to defame his character.

      The problem is for Shieffer, that his hit-piece on Paul completely backfires.

  13. Kathleen on November 29, 2011, 2:30 pm

    Paul’s triumph: “But they say, Nothing is off the table.” That means military action.

    And then Schiefer interrupts and says “um let’s move on”

    Mondoweiss could go hog wild with this one. Linking everytime Clinton has threatened, numerous Reps who have gone ballistic making inflammatory remarks on the floor and threatening Iran…over and over again

  14. Shingo on November 29, 2011, 3:03 pm

    Did I hear Bob Schiffer right when he said he questioned the reports on 911, including the official one?

    The contempt he showed for Ron Paul was astounding. Whatever Schiffer might have been trying to achieve, it migbht well backfire.

    • MRW on November 29, 2011, 3:19 pm

      I agree, Shingo, about the backfiring. Paul did not come off as some wingnut. Shieffer’s grilling of him only improved Paul, it didn’t diminish him.

      • Charon on November 29, 2011, 4:28 pm

        Agreed, MRW. Those rhetorical tricks backfire when used on people who aren’t of a weak mind. This frustrates the ones using the tricks and they childishly change the subject and try to have the final word. Just like the hasbara trolls here do. It’s a common psychopath tactic, their brains are wired differently

      • MRW on November 29, 2011, 10:17 pm

        Correct, Charon. BTW, I falsely accused you of being a hasbarist a few threads back a couple of weeks ago. Meant to correct it. Don’t remember if I did, doubt it. So please accept my apology now.

  15. on November 29, 2011, 3:07 pm

    Mr Paul, so you dare to question Allmighty American Politics towards Middle East (and the rest of the world) that has taken place so far??
    Mr Paul , so you dare to say that we should be nice to Iranian leaders and avoid conflicts with them??
    So , Mr Paul, you are trying to tell us that we should talk , use our diplomats and not to overreact??
    Mr Paul ,no one has suggested bombing Iran, we just impose sanctions, ( which later lead to bombing Iraq).
    Mr Paul , you insist on bringing our troops home?? Any reasons for that??
    You tell us ,we can’t afford it?? You tell us the US is in a very bad financial state.???
    (That’s the first time I hear about it. I personally have not notice that. It didn’t affect my pocket).
    So, Mr Paul, you are planning to improve financial situation in the USA. ???. (Hm ,strange man).
    You are planning to reduce the influence of our Allmighty, Omnipotent, All-Knowing Government? Our secular G-d??
    You are planning to reduce our Governmental G-d’s sanctuaries, organisations that were created to make sure that people are obeying the laws created by our secular G-d .
    So you are trying to remove the Golden Calf that was built for so many years, that was created so nobody escapes its powerful influence.????
    Hmmmm??

  16. James on November 29, 2011, 4:13 pm

    question : “Could Ron Paul’s Iowa surge finally open up political debate on Israel and Iran attack?”

    i very much doubt it.. the usa is a plutocracy run by those who dictate what is or isn’t off bounds to talk about.. paul will continue to be marginalized until the plutocracy is challenged more aggressively and it becomes a feature of the mainstream.. this is why the occupy movement was / is so interesting to me.. it appears to be another opening in a conversation of what is allowed into the conversation among other things..

    • on November 29, 2011, 7:22 pm

      just listened to Candice Millard talk about her book on the assassination of James Garfield. She emphasized that Garfield did not particularly want to be president, was not thought to have a chance of being elected — in an age of machine politics, he was not part of machine. But he was, and his principles and independence served him well and could have served the nation well, had he lived.

      Millard said that presidential campaigns have become such big business that she did not think it possible for another candidate like Garfield to be successful.

      But Paul has been at this for >20 years; his ideas have matured; he’s been in the arena, and he knows how to play the political game and run the presidential campaign business. He’s been particularly astute in NOT attacking Israel head-on.

      maybe there’s a chance??

      • MRW on November 29, 2011, 10:20 pm

        If Paul does well in Iowa, then the media will be forced to report on what they’ve thought they squelched … on purpose.

      • James on November 29, 2011, 10:55 pm

        i don’t think so teta.. i like ron paul and hope he does, but i don’t think he has a chance..

  17. yourstruly on November 29, 2011, 4:26 pm

    how to set both our government’s domestic and international policies in sinc, isn’t that the question? after all hasn’t history shown that can’t have one without the other? so ron paul’s spot-on foreign policy, can it hold up when here at home, the policies he supports carries us back to the laissez-faire jungle of the 19th century, with seniors, for want of health insurance, dying of preventable/treatable illnesses. remember, too, that paul, when asked by the republican debate moderator (wolf spitzer, if my memory serves me here) what he’d do about someone, who, after declining to purchase health insurance, ends up in an emergency room with a serious illness? paul answering, to paraphrase him, that his government would do nothing cause he made the choice & will have to live with it” & when pressed paul mentioned the possibility of charity helping said person. doesn’t he know that the failure of relying upon charity is what led to medicare and other social services? yes, getting it right internationally (with ron paul) but not domestically would be better than getting neither right, but at a time when the occupy everywhere movement has emerged, why the hell settle for only half a loaf, when the whole loaf is up for grabs?

    • on November 29, 2011, 7:34 pm

      perhaps you are placing far too much emotional weight on that comment of Paul’s about the health insurance.

      it makes me crazy when people weep for people who do not have “health insurance.” Provision of medical care is not the domain of government. The medical industry is corrupt to its core, and the health insurance industry is even more corrupt; they are feeding off each other; toss in big pharma and you have a bankrupt federal government going socialist in its bid to jam some bureaucrat’s definition of “medical care” down our throats. The health insurance/medical care/pharma industries are the next big bubble; entire cities are running their economies on billion dollar cancer treatment centers. From a radically different perspective, that causes people to think the current forms of treatment, ie for cancer, are the ultimate; it sets the status quo in concrete.
      I frequently wonder what someone who lived in 1911 would think of the world we live in today, and given that it is drastically different, how different will be the world we will live in come 2035? If we overinvest in what we persuade ourselves are the cutting edge technologies — of 1990s, and we centralize it and mandate that an entire nation of 300 million should be medically treated THIS way, how will we engender the spirit as well as the SYSTEM to seek innovation, much less the financial support to break through to the next new thing?

      • yourstruly on November 29, 2011, 8:51 pm

        the single payer health care systems of almost every industrialized nation except the u.s. of a.* effectively deliverS health care to everyone at approximately half the cost of the private health care insurance system we have in america. assuming you believe that some health care is so expensive that only a few billionaires could afford it on their own, how does ron paul propose to deliver hemodialysis, for example, to the over three hundred thousand people who are on this life-saving treatment today? pass the hat around? and how does the fact that todays’s government doesn’t represent the people mean that government of, by & for the people is impossible?

        *with medicare and the veterans administration also more efficient than privatized insurance

      • Citizen on December 4, 2011, 5:58 pm

        The medical profession is one of the top strata of the the 1%.

      • yourstruly on December 4, 2011, 9:55 pm

        yes, but insurance/financial institutions control the medical profession, just as they control almost everything else in america. change the paymaster and the medical profession would change too.

  18. on November 29, 2011, 4:39 pm

    Basically, they, (plutocracy)want us, (people) to talk the talk ,while they walk the walk.
    In other words, they will do ,whatever they plan (-ed) to do, while WE keep talking, and debating, ,and chewing, and swiveling,and wondering and hoping and…….etc.

    • RoHa on November 29, 2011, 8:25 pm

      “and wondering and hoping and…….etc.”

      and wishing and hoping and thinking and praying …

  19. lobewyper on November 29, 2011, 9:02 pm

    I don’t think Ron Paul is going to be the next president, but he can open up the dialogue about the Lobby and the MSM will have to (against their wishes) cover it!

    • James on November 29, 2011, 10:58 pm

      if ron paul was courageous and wanted to go down on his own sword he could open up the dialogue about the lobby and the msm, but i think he actually believes he has a chance by not addressing these issues head on… i think he is wrong to think this and i agree with you in thinking he isn’t going to be the next pres… nice guy though…

  20. Duscany on November 29, 2011, 9:07 pm

    Bob Schieffer was obviously trying to do to Ron Paul what Charles Gibson did to Sarah Palin (on the Bush Doctrine). But Paul knows a good deal more than Palin. I only wish Paul was a better speaker (and had a better modulated voice). Although he called alertly called Schieffer on his claim that no report had ever assigned any blame to the US over 911, he didn’t do with the kind of impact that would leave Schieffer gasping for breath like a fish out of water.

  21. stevelaudig on November 29, 2011, 11:27 pm

    Schieffer shows himself to be among the smarmiest of ‘journalists’. His scornful disrespect and condescension fills the screen. Schieffer is deeply embedded as part of the problem from corporate owned media. Schieffer is a deeply dishonest questionner who is a tout for the ruling [pro-Zionists Israel] party line.

  22. kalithea on November 30, 2011, 12:34 am

    Anyone on the left who cares about the Palestinian issue and doesn’t want to see another war, worse than any other erupt in the Middle East, and dismisses Ron Paul as a wingnut kook, is JUST PLAIN STUPID.

    Ron Paul is an important, strategic game changer and singular voice in the Republican wilderness of short-sighted pandering to Zionism and warped Zionist ambition.

    He’s waking up the right; and God bless him, ’cause that’s a feat almost as impossible as reversing gravity on this planet.

    • on November 30, 2011, 7:01 am

      Kalithea,
      I totally agree with you. He also seems sincere and he seems like he genuinely care for America or American people.
      I can NOT SAY it about ANY OTHER candidate.
      All the rest are just sharks waiting impatiently for their chance to take a big bite.
      Wolves, playing temporarily the role of the nice sheeps to please the audience.

  23. ToivoS on November 30, 2011, 4:37 am

    I began after the end of WWII. But to push it back further I agree with you about WWI. That was one disastrous decision. No way we should have intervened. It led directly to the Versailles Treaty which was the beginning WWII. But as you say that leads to ‘what if’ history and it is too far back now spend time worrying about it.

    • ToivoS on November 30, 2011, 7:39 am

      This was a response to nickjocwhatever. Somehow it ended up here.

  24. atime forpeace on November 30, 2011, 7:22 am

    If you guys just want more of the same Establishment run amuck against any and all nations that do not comply with their wishes/plans then, by all means vote for anyone else but Ron Paul.

    “Let me see your papers” is a phrase americans will become quite familiar with in the not too distant future.

    No hyperbole here just following the trends and taking a wild stab at whats in store.

    • Chaos4700 on November 30, 2011, 11:09 pm

      You know, before 2008, I would have disagreed with you vehemently. But Obama really rather has proven that the degree of separation between Republican and Democratic policy nowadays is superficial at best and essentially nonexistent at worst.

      I’m so disgusted with the Democratic Party I’ve essentially decided not to vote for ANY Democratic candidates on the federal level. I’d just be throwing my vote away. Change you can believe in, huh?

      • MRW on December 1, 2011, 1:34 am
      • Chaos4700 on December 1, 2011, 1:23 pm

        Oh please. There was nothing clever or brave about what the Democrats did with the cuts to spending. It wasn’t a goal of the Democrats, it was an attempt to set the Republicans up to look like they are to blame for the spending cuts to defense if the talks fell threw.

        Those cuts happened quite literally on accident. And now both parties will be scrambling to place the blame on the other. Never mind that they needed to happen, neither party has the spine to do what’s right because it’s right.

        I’m not voting for somebody who does the right thing for the wrong reasons, that’s stupid.

  25. dbroncos on November 30, 2011, 12:40 pm

    annie:

    ” i don’t know the details but i recall it was very two faced. this party is very much a family values party and the christian conservatives don’t like cheaters, especially the women.”

    Gingrich divorced his first wife after she was diagnosed with terminal cancer. He reportedly served her divorce papers in the hospital where she was asked to sign them on her death bed. He asked for the divorce so that he could marry a woman with whom he had been having an affair. Gingrich divorced his second wife after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. He left her for another woman (a much younger Congressional staffer) with whom he had been having a six year long affair. This affair was going on even as Congressman Gingrich was slamming Clinton for his “that depends on what your definition of is is” scandal.

  26. on November 30, 2011, 5:57 pm

    Any person who dumps her/his spouse when they are very sick is a scumbag, not worthy to be even a friend . How can he want to be president if he can not fullfil one (two) oath of loyalty and faithfulness??

    • Mooser on November 30, 2011, 6:35 pm

      If I am not mistaken, Newt has dumped his wife for a younger woman with whom he had been having an affair, not once, but two times.

  27. Mikesailor on November 30, 2011, 5:59 pm

    In 2003, Shieffer sat on a panel reviewing JFK’s assassination. The panel discussion was televised on C-Span and I’m sure remains in their archives.. During the question and answer period, an audience member asked about Jack Ruby and why his part in the drama was always downplayed, what was the history of Ruby, his connections etc. Shiefffer came unglued and merely stated with contempt that Ruby was a bar owner of no importance. Interesting how he never answered any of the questions. At that time I understood that he didn’t care for TRUTH, only what he could ‘sell’ to a gullible public. I wouldn’t doubt his contempt bled over to Ron Paul because, unlike the other Republicans who are willing to abrogate any US foreign policy interests in their slavish devotion to Israel, Ron Paul espouses a foreign policy where US actions woulod be governed by US interests, not Israels. One of the strangest interludes during the last debate was Herman Cain saying he would join with Israel in an unprovoked attack on Iran if the Israelis came up with a foolproof plan. And the other Republicans nodding in agreement. Except for Ron Paul. I wholeheartedly agree with Paul’s position that Iran is not really a problem.
    The funny thing is, even the MSM debate hosts have deliberately ignored Ron Paul and will not even discuss his positions on foreign policy even after the deabtes during their so called ‘analyses’. MSNBC avoids him, and any criticism of Israeli oppolicies like the plague. Ditto FOX and CNN, let alond CBS, ABC or NBC.
    I agree that Paul’s views on domestic policy are simplistic at least, and utterly destructive at most to the workings of modern civilization. Yet, his idea of US foreign policy acting in furtherance of US interests, first and last, do hold appeal. As for Shieffer, ‘Nuff said.

    • seanmcbride on November 30, 2011, 6:49 pm

      More reasons to dislike Bob Schieffer. Good lord, what a dinosaur. In the Internet age, he really is a nonentity.

      The oligarchs are losing their power to force these mediocrities on us. Schieffer probably imagines that he has received big paychecks because he is smart, which is exactly the opposite of the truth. He has been paid either to be dumb or play dumb.

      Jack Ruby’s Israeli connections? There are a few.

  28. thetumta on November 30, 2011, 10:22 pm

    Thanks Phil. Progressive Democrats and Libertarian Republicans arriving at the same place from different directions on many issues including this one. When was the last time that happened? Open Republican primary, everyone can vote, Independents as well. Or are you going to do the Barry thing again?
    Hej!
    P.S. New Hampshire too?

  29. on December 1, 2011, 5:04 pm

    Here is an extremely interesting news that shows clearly how much we are surrounded by lies and manipulations.
    ….”Before NATO and the U.S. started bombing Libya, the United Nations was preparing to bestow AN AWARD on Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, and the Libyan Jamahiriya, FOR ITS achievements in the area of human rights. THAT’S RIGHT–the same man, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, that NATO and the United States have been telling us for months is a “brutal dictator,” was set to be given an award for his human rights record in Libya.
    How strange it is that the United Nations was set to bestow a human rights award on a “brutal dictator,” AT THE END of March…”
    http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=627240

Leave a Reply