More media smear and RPs response

This was an article in the National Review Online magazine.

What Paul Is Running For
The kooky doctor.

By Mona Charen

Memo to: Ron Paul supporters
Subject: Your e-mails

Okay, enough is enough. Like every other journalist in America, and who knows, maybe the world or even the universe, I’ve been deluged with your letters and e-mails. So I’ve done as you asked and taken a closer look at your candidate. Here is what I’ve found:
1. Ron Paul is inconsistent. Though he calls himself a man of principle and is apparently admired as such by his ardent fans, his principles seem somewhat elastic. He rails against the Bush administration for its supposed assault on civil liberties, yet when he was asked at one of the debates whether Scooter Libby deserved a pardon, he said no. "He doesn’t deserve one because he was instrumental in leading the Congress and the people to support a war that we didn’t need to be in." Notice that he didn’t say it was because Libby was guilty of committing a crime. No, because Libby argued for a policy with which Paul disagreed, he deserved to serve time in prison. Ron Paul, the libertarian, who presumably values liberty above all, is willing to deprive someone else of his because of a policy disagreement?

2. Ron Paul is historically challenged. He argues that by embracing isolationism, he fits within a Republican tradition stretching back to Eisenhower "who stopped the Korean War" and including Nixon "who stopped the war in Vietnam." Let’s recap. Eisenhower threatened to use nuclear weapons against China. It was the Eisenhower administration that had a hand in toppling Iran’s Mohammad Mossedegh (an intervention that Paul has elsewhere cited as causing the U.S. grief 25 years later when the Islamists took power). Eisenhower also intervened in Guatemala, Cuba (planning for the Bay of Pigs began during his tenure) and Lebanon.

Nixon, an isolationist? Most observers, whatever they may make of detente with the USSR and the opening to China, agree that Nixon was an emphatic internationalist. For the record, he intervened in many countries including Chili, Peru and Cambodia. And he saved Israel by resupplying her during the Yom Kippur war. Neither his successes nor failures grew out of a Paulesque policy of "minding our own business."

3. Ron Paul is unserious. Suggesting that you will eliminate the IRS, the CIA, the FBI and other government agencies within weeks of taking office is ridiculous. These are bumper stickers, not serious reform proposals.

4. Ron Paul is too cozy with kooks and conspiracy theorists. As syndicated radio host Michael Medved has pointed out, Ron Paul’s newspaper column was carried by the American Free Press (a parent publication of the Hitler-praising Barnes Review). Paul may not have been aware of this. But though invited by Medved to disavow any connection, Paul has so far failed to respond.

Paul has appeared on the Alex Jones radio program not once, not twice, but three times. Jones is the sort who believes that black helicopters are coming to impose a police state on America. He is quite concerned about the Bohemian Grove, the Bilderbergers, the federal election system (it’s rigged, of course) and so on. Naturally, he believes that 9/11 was an inside job. Ron Paul has even appeared in a Jones film, Endgame, the point of which is apparently that the Bilderbergers are plotting to control the world. They’ve already got Europe (through the European Union) and now are on the verge of securing America by means of a North American union that would unite Mexico, the United States and Canada.

Even if Paul says nothing insane in this film, his appearance alone calls his judgment into question. I have not seen Endgame, but I have heard a tape of Paul on the Jones program just after the 2006 election. Jones asked the congressman whether the victory for the Democrats wasn’t a "rejection of neo-fascist imperialism." Paul replied, "Yeah . . . This was a healthy election as far as I’m concerned."

Ron Paul is the favorite candidate of a number of racist, neo-Nazi and conspiracist websites. While Paul cannot be held accountable for the views of cranks and kooks, he can disavow their support and return their checks. He received $500 from Don Black, the proprietor of Stormfront.org and former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. He has not yet returned it.

Moreover, Paul seems to be playing a sly game with his conspiracy-minded fans. He does not explicitly endorse the crazier theories out there, but he hints at dark forces in the U.S. government threatening our liberties, he inveighs against the "neo-cons" (shorthand for Jews in some circles) and he gives aid and comfort to the paranoid by appearing on their favorite radio shows.

No, Ron Paul is not my candidate. Not for president. He might make a dandy new leader for the Branch Davidians.





And here is Jesse Benton's response. I love seeing these Paul bashers called to task. A great Job by Mr. Benton.



Ron Paul

To the Editor

I read Mona Charen’s column on Friday and I had to clear a few things up. Outside of the name-calling ("kook," as I’m sure you remember, was the attack word of choice used by critics of Barry Goldwater), Charen was way off base.

1. Dr. Paul’s commitment to principle is second to none, so to attack him, Charen twists the understanding of what a presidential pardon really is. A pardon is a constitutional check by the executive branch on the judiciary to protect against cruel or unusual punishment. When considering a pardon, a president examines extenuating circumstances to decide whether a punishment for a conviction under the law was unjust. Scooter Libby was convicted of a crime; that is not the issue here. Dr. Paul is not sympathetic to issuing him a pardon because he finds Libby an unsympathetic character. There is nothing inconsistent here. President Bush, who has issued the fewest pardons of any president since World War II, hasn’t pardoned Libby either, by the way.

2. If Charen paid much attention to the campaign, she would know that Dr. Paul never utters the word "isolationist" except to explain why he is not one. He believes in the foreign policy of the founders: peace, commerce, and open friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none. When he references Nixon and Eisenhower, he is clearly talking about past successful Republican campaign strategies, not what they did in office. Eisenhower campaigned to end the Korean War, Nixon to get us out of Vietnam. Dr. Paul argues that the GOP can only win in 2008 with a candidate who will bring hope troops form Iraq. Last I checked, many National Review readers cared a thing or two about Republicans winning elections.

3. Ron Paul is dead serious and very sober about what it will take to reform things like our oppressive tax system. Clearly, a Paul administration cannot end the IRS on January 29, 2009. Ending the income tax, a goal all real conservatives should share, would take major cooperation with the Congress. But, with honest communication and a lot of hard work, Dr. Paul knows that we can end the end the income tax over the course of just a few years. Over half of federal government revenue presently comes from sources other than the income tax. The United States could end the IRS and still fund the same level of big government we had less than ten years ago. There is nothing "unserious" about that.

4. Dr. Paul is a modest man with a sparkling record and unimpeachable personal integrity. I understand why you need to attack him by linking him to less-than-savory individuals (there is simply nothing else to use), but it is just not going to work. Some of your charges are silly. Dr. Paul’s "Texas Straight Talk Column," for example, is public record and anyone, from the American Free Press to Cat Fancy, has the right to reprint it.

Yes, Ron appears on the Alex Jones radio program. But you know who else talks to Alex Jones? People like Judge Anthony Napolitano. Guess who hosts Alex Jones? FOX’s John Gibson and National Public Radio. Dr. Paul has said time and again that he does not believe 9/11 was an inside job. He does, however, think we should always question authority. When, by the way, were conservatives supposed to become trusting of big government?

Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity, and the protection of inalienable individual rights. He knows that liberty is the antidote for racism, anti-Semitism, and other small minded ideologies. Dr. Paul has focused all of his energy on winning the presidency so he can cut the size of government and protect the freedom of every American. Neither he nor his staff is going to waste time screening donors. If a handful of individuals with views anathema to Dr. Paul’s send in checks, then they have wasted their money. I cannot profess to understand the motivations of Don Black as neither Dr. Paul nor I know who he is, but a simple Google search shows that his $500 contribution has netted him at least 88 news hits, including Charen’s column. Perhaps a better explanation for his "contribution" is not support for Ron, but the attention he knew he would receive.

Mona, I can not expect everyone to support Dr. Paul, especially those who have sunk so much of their own credibility into supporting the Iraq war. In fact, Dr. Paul welcomes open and spirited discussions, and even legitimate criticism. But, I had to get a few things off my chest.

Jesse Benton
Communications Director
Ron Paul 2008 PCC
Arlington, Va.

 

I had the same thought, great minds think a like.
The knights that say "Kook!"

 

Here's a couple of snippets from two recent articles.

Yet Paul's success has mostly left the mainstream media and pundits flustered, if not openly hostile. The Associated Press recently treated the Paul phenomenon like an alien life form: "The Texas libertarian's rise in the polls and in fundraising proves that a small but passionate number of Americans can be drawn to an advocate of unorthodox proposals."

Republican pollster Frank Luntz has denounced Paul's supporters as "the equivalent of crabgrass . . . not the grass you want, and it spreads faster than the real stuff." And conservative syndicated columnist Mona Charen said out loud what many campaign reporters have no doubt been thinking all along: "He might make a dandy new leader for the Branch Davidians."

When conservatives feel comfortable mocking the victims gunned down by Clinton-era Attorney General Janet Reno's FBI in Waco, Tex., in 1993, it suggests that a complacent and increasingly authoritarian establishment feels threatened.



And this;

WHO'S EXTREME?
'MAINSTREAM' HUCKABEE VS. LIBERTARIAN PAUL

November 24, 2007 -- AS the hopeless but en ergetic presidential campaign of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) builds momentum in name recognition, fundraising and cross-ideology appeal, some conservatives are beginning to attack him in earnest.

A GOP consultant condemns Paul's "increasingly leftish" positions. Syndicated columnist Mona Charen calls Paul "too cozy with kooks and conspiracy theorists." Film critic and talk-radio host Michael Medved looks over Paul's supporters and finds "an imposing collection of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, Holocaust deniers, 9/11 'truthers' and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists."

For the most part, these allegations strike me as overblown and unfair. But, for argument's sake, let's say they're not. Let's even say that Paul has the passionate support of the Legion of Doom, that his campaign lunchroom looks like the "Star Wars" cantina, and that his top advisors have hooves instead of feet.

Well, I'd still find him less scary than Mike Huckabee.

While many are marveling at Paul's success at breaking out of the tinfoil-hat ghetto, Huckabee's story is even more remarkable. The former Arkansas governor and Baptist minister is polling in second place in Iowa and could conceivably win there. He's still a long shot to take the nomination and a pipe dream to take the presidency, but Huckabee matters in a way that Paul still doesn't.

One small indicator of Huckabee's relevance: His presidential opponents are attacking Huckabee while ignoring Paul like he's an eccentric sitting too close to you on the bus.

What's so scary about Huckabee? Personally, nothing. He seems a charming, decent, friendly, pious man.

What's troubling about The Man From Hope 2.0 is what he represents. Huckabee represents compassionate conservatism on steroids.

A devout social conservative on issues such as abortion, school prayer, homosexuality and evolution, Huckabee's a populist on economics, a fad-follower on the environment and an all-around do-gooder who believes that the biblical obligation to do "good works" extends to using government - and your tax dollars - to bring us closer to the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.

For example, Huckabee would support a nationwide ban on public smoking. Why? Because he's on a health kick, thinks smoking is bad and believes the government should do the right thing.

And therein lies the chief difference between Paul and Huckabee: One is a culturally conservative libertarian; the other is a right-wing progressive.
Whatever shortcomings Paul and his friends might have, his dogma generally renders those shortcomings irrelevant. He is a true ideologue in that his personal preferences are secondary to his philosophical principles. When asked what his position is, he generally responds that his position can be deduced from the text of the Constitution. Of course, that's not as dispositive as he thinks it is. But you get the point.

As for Huckabee - as with most politicians, alas - his personal preferences matter enormously because, ultimately, they're the only things that can be relied on to constrain him.

In this respect, Huckabee's philosophy is conventionally liberal, or progressive. What he wants government to do certainly differs in important respects from what Hillary Clinton wants, but the limits he would place on governmental do-goodery are primarily tactical or practical, not philosophical or constitutional.

This isn't to say he - or Hillary - is a would-be tyrant, but simply to note that the progressive notion of the state as a loving, caring parent is becoming a bipartisan affair.

But there's something weird going on when Paul, the small-government constitutionalist, is considered the extremist in the Republican Party, while Huckabee, the statist, is the lovable underdog.

It's even weirder because it's probably true: Huckabee is much closer to the mainstream. And that's what scares me about Huckabee and the mainstream alike.

 

Why Has Ron Paul Lit the World On Fire?

Written by Kimberly S. Tilley
Published December 13, 2007
See also:
» Satire: Al Gore Opens Mouth, Increases Carbon Footprint
» Israel - A Disintegrating, Dysfunctional Society
» Wanted: An FDR for the 21st Century
Dr. Ron Paul is running for the presidency of the United States. His goal is to restore our sovereignty, our liberty, and our freedom. As a result, the media and the established politicians in Washington, D.C. have united against him.
As evidenced by articles and polls that either exclude his candidacy altogether or refer to him as a "fringe" or "darkhorse" candidate, as well as a virtual blackout of any news relating to Dr. Paul, the media has indulged in several tactics that won’t bear close scrutiny. How can the front-runner in the straw polls be a fringe candidate? How can the lead fundraiser of both parties be a darkhorse candidate?

The founders of our nation foresaw that any government ruled by humans would tend toward corruption, so the Constitution was created to limit the powers of the government. Yet slowly, almost imperceptibly, our Constitutional rights have been infringed upon and eroded by our elected officials.

Both supporters and detractors of Ron Paul’s candidacy agree that if he wins the Republican nomination, he has excellent odds of winning the general election. Professional gamblers have taken note of the situation, adjusting his odds of winning from 200/1 to 15/1. Is he not the only candidate who plans to end the war immediately? Is he not the only candidate who puts Americans before the American bureaucracy?

The true battle is in the primary elections, where only a minority of Americans vote. But as Samuel Adams, one of the founders of our great country said, "It does not take a majority to prevail...but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

Once the primary hurdle has been passed, there is no doubt that Ron Paul’s candidacy will soar. His message resonates with the American people. His straw poll numbers and head-to-head records are a good indicator of what the world can expect in a general election. We want our freedom and our liberties protected. Most of all, his honest patriotism has reignited the flames of liberty that had nearly been extinguished here in the United States.

As you love liberty and your country, vote for Ron Paul in the primary elections.

 

I used to like Faux news but there treatment and deliberate snubs of Ron Paul have shown me their true colors. I will not watch this POS network ever again.

Press Releases › Has Fox News Excluded Ron Paul?

December 28, 2007 10:39 pm EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – According to the New Hampshire State Republican Party and an Associated Press report, Republican presidential candidate and Texas Congressman Ron Paul will be excluded from an upcoming forum of Republican candidates to be broadcast by Fox News on January 6, 2008.

“Given Ron Paul’s support in New Hampshire and his recent historic fundraising success, it is outrageous that Dr. Paul would be excluded,” said Ron Paul 2008 campaign chairman Kent Snyder. “Dr. Paul has consistently polled higher in New Hampshire than some of the other candidates who have been invited.”

Snyder continued, “Paul supporters should know that we are continuing to make inquiries with Fox News as to why they have apparently excluded Dr. Paul from this event.”

 

An article came out over the weekend that said this story was false that the debate had been canceled. Then this this yesterday.

ELECTION 2008

Ron Paul not invited to Fox News forumN.H. GOP negotiating with network to include other candidates

Posted: December 31, 2007
5:34 p.m. Eastern


Contrary to earlier reports, the Fox News Channel is hosting a Republican presidential candidate forum in New Hampshire, and, so far, Rep. Ron Paul has not been invited.

WND previously reported the event was canceled three weeks ago, but New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen confirmed today the forum is scheduled for Jan. 6.

The New Hampshire GOP is co-sponsoring the event, to be held at St. Anselm College in Goffstown, N.H., just two days before the crucial primary.

Candidates who have received invitations are former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Arizona Sen. John McCain, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson.

Cullen said the New Hampshire Republican Party is negotiating with Fox News to have as many candidates as possible participate in the event.

"Limiting the number of candidates who are invited to participate in debates is not consistent with the tradition of the first in the nation primary," Cullen said in a statement today. "The level playing field requires that all candidates be given an equal opportunity to participate – not just a select few determined by the media prior to any votes being cast."

Cullen said the New Hampshire Republican Party is calling "upon all media organizations planning pre-primary debates or forums for both parties to include all recognized major candidates in their events."

Paul said Saturday that Fox News is "scared of me."

They "don't want my message to get out, but it will," he told the Boston Globe's Primary Source blog. "They are propagandists for this war, and I challenge them on the notion that they are conservative."

Last night, Paul spokesman Jesse Benton told the Chicago Tribune's Jason George the campaign remains angry and in the dark.

"We have not heard anything else today," he said. "[Fox] continues to ignore our calls."

 

Let the wrath begin. Boycott Faux news sponsers in protest of this blatant bias.




Ron Paul pressures Fox News
The Politico Tue, 01 Jan 2008 10:57 AM PST
Fearing exclusion from a Republican forum on Sunday, Ron Paul plans counter-programming.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=431 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=center>Fox's Explanation for Excluding Ron Paul Doesn't Pass
The New York Observer Tue, 01 Jan 2008 11:57 AM PST
Fox News Channel has listed almost every presidential candidate as appearing in the Republican forum it is holding two nights before the New Hampshire caucus. But they have not listed Ron Paul. Paul's supporters aren't happy , and Fox hasn't been forthcoming with an explanation. But according to CNN, Fox's justification is that they are inviting only candidates polling in double-digits . ...
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


Ron Paul supporters lash out at FOX News
WTOL 11 Toledo Tue, 01 Jan 2008 3:10 PM PST
Paul supporters are distributing e-mails calling for a boycott of Fox advertisers. Why? Click to find out.


TV cuts candidates from debates, angering Paul backersCNN.comTue, 01 Jan 2008 3:50 AM PST
NEW YORK (AP) -- ABC and Fox News Channel are narrowing the field of presidential candidates invited to debates this weekend just before the New Hampshire primary, in Fox's case infuriating supporters of Republican Rep. Ron Paul.