Dr. Paul on CNN again tonight at 10PM 5-27-07

[Cunningham]

I guess any exposure is good exposure but i'm getting tired of seeing the same interview with slightly different questions. I'm starting to worry that since the media can't ignore his internet popularity there just going to make him seem like a one issue canidate by only asking him "non-intervention" questions. I hope in the next debate he'll get to say somethings about domestic policy that gets him as much press as the Rudy dust up did.

 

[asvusa]

I loved the CNN spot. Here's my idea:

I hope you like what I designed.

http://www.cafepress.com/goronpaul

RON PAUL T-SHIRTS, HATS, BUMPER STICKERS, COOL STUFF FOR WOMEN, MEN, KIDS AND PETS. 50% of the proceeds go to the Ron Paul 2008 campaign.

Please repost the link and start showing your colors. People will ask about Ron Paul if you are wearing his name and face. Check it out please!

1,000,000 people donate $25 per month for 12 months, that's a whopping $300,000,000 (three hundred million!!!)

Let's donate consistently and spread the word.

 

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zex8uW_9pqo

Thanks, aravoth! I managed to go to bed without waiting up for the link last night, so it was something to look forward to this morning.

RP did very well. It was essentially a debate between him and Bush. The anchor did a nice job -- didn't catch his name.

 

[StagirasGhost]

Sunday Spotlight, Late Edition

Just once, when interviewers label Ron a "pro forma isolationist from the 30's," I'd like him to respond:

"There is a context, Sir/Mam. History has proven the position true. As opposed to labeling me, as I certainly do not label you a mainstream ventriloquist puppet, why not evaluate my position of limited government promulgating free markets, free of force and coercion? This is the heart of my message, the main tenet that defines republicanism."

Nevertheless, any and all exposure is good exposure. He's also done well in destroying the left vs. right orientation.

 

[TheDuke]

The man who is promoting unregulated (no WTO, no North American Union, no government quota or subsidies,...) free trade, is called a protectionist

Probably the media will start twisting the true meaning of the word for their own interests again... like FOX/O'Reilly has raped the true meaning of the word 'liberal' (I think Adam Smith, if he was still alive, would want to kick O'Reilly in the balls, but then again, who wouldn't ).

 

[qednick]

I'm not too sure O'Reilly actually has any balls. If he did, he wouldn't talk over guests, tell them to "shut up" or simply cut off their microphones. If he had balls, he'd give everyone their time on the soap box and allow them to express their views.

 

[Carl_S]

Paul's line about WWII was an error.

Here's the transcript of that portion:

Q: You sound like a proforma 1930's isolationist.

A: No, I'm not an isolationist - I'm a noninterventionist - because the founders of this country, that I listen to carefully, were very much - they were not protectionists at all. They were free traders, they wanted trade and travel and friendship-

Q: If fact that's your point. You say you're the true republican when it comes to the republican candidates.

A: Right, and Robert Taft is the example I use. He did not want to be in NATO. And there was a strong element in this country that didn't want to go with World War I and World War II. Even the president has advocated peace - we'll never take you to war in Europe. And I like that old saying. Don't go to war in Europe and don't go to war in the Middle East. It's best for Americans to stay at home, mind their own business, become a wealthy, prosperous country. Set a good example, and they'll want to emulate us. We can't force our ways on other people through the point of a gun.

=== end of interview ===

Most Americans believe that America won WWII and prevented Europe and Britain from falling to Nazi Germany. You simply cannot come anywhere close to implying that America should have stayed out of Europe in WWII.

In my opinion, Paul needs to be very careful here when discussing nonintervention. He is vulnerable on this point because Giuliani and McCain will draw parallels between Nazi Germany (Hitler), and Al Qaeda. They can effectively argue that the reasons America had to be involved in WWII are the same reasons America must have an active military throughout the World - and particularly the Middle East - to prevent the rise of evil.

On WWII, Paul simply needs to say that WWII was a just and Constitutional war. Congress made a formal declaration of War in that case, so America was right in fighting to defeat Nazi Germany. All American wars since have been unconstitutional because they are not debated by congress and are fought without a formal declaration of war, as required by the Constitution.

Never try to link the concept of nonintervention with WWII (my opinion.) The concept of nonintervention goes out the window once Congress declares war.

 

[Bradley in DC]

Paul's line about WWII was an error.

Here's the transcript of that portion:

Q: You sound like a proforma 1930's isolationist.

A: No, I'm not an isolationist - I'm a noninterventionist - because the founders of this country, that I listen to carefully, were very much - they were not protectionists at all. They were free traders, they wanted trade and travel and friendship-

Q: If fact that's your point. You say you're the true republican when it comes to the republican candidates.

A: Right, and Robert Taft is the example I use. He did not want to be in NATO. And there was a strong element in this country that didn't want to go with World War I and World War II. Even the president has advocated peace - we'll never take you to war in Europe. And I like that old saying. Don't go to war in Europe and don't go to war in the Middle East. It's best for Americans to stay at home, mind their own business, become a wealthy, prosperous country. Set a good example, and they'll want to emulate us. We can't force our ways on other people through the point of a gun.

=== end of interview ===

Most Americans believe that America won WWII and prevented Europe and Britain from falling to Nazi Germany. You simply cannot come anywhere close to implying that America should have stayed out of Europe in WWII.

In my opinion, Paul needs to be very careful here when discussing nonintervention. He is vulnerable on this point because Giuliani and McCain will draw parallels between Nazi Germany (Hitler), and Al Qaeda. They can effectively argue that the reasons America had to be involved in WWII are the same reasons America must have an active military throughout the World - and particularly the Middle East - to prevent the rise of evil.

On WWII, Paul simply needs to say that WWII was a just and Constitutional war. Congress made a formal declaration of War in that case, so America was right in fighting to defeat Nazi Germany. All American wars since have been unconstitutional because they are not debated by congress and are fought without a formal declaration of war, as required by the Constitution.

Never try to link the concept of nonintervention with WWII (my opinion.) The concept of nonintervention goes out the window once Congress declares war.

Dr. Paul is correct. Most Americans did NOT want the US involved in WWI or WWII. We elected presidents who promised (but lied) to keep us out of "Europe's wars."

 

[NMCB3]

There was no error in the statement at all. I do agree however that they will use WWI and II as some sort of an ideal that we should hold to.

 

[Brandybuck]

I'm not too sure O'Reilly actually has any balls.

Sung to the traditional tune:

"O'Reilly... has only got one ball!
Hannity has two but they are very small!
Savage can somewhat manage,
But Michelle Malkin has no balls at all!"

 

[propanes]

The suggestion of non-interventionism could be used against Ron Paul as in,

"If Ron Paul had been President in 1940 then we'd all be ordering sushi in german."

 

[Carl_S]

There was no error in the statement at all. I do agree however that they will use WWI and II as some sort of an ideal that we should hold to.

My point is, Paul cannot imply that the U.S. should have stayed out of WWII. Make that statement in a debate and you're toast.

I fully support Ron Paul and know he understands the intellectual subtleties of the issue. In a debate or interview, you can't get those subtleties across in the time allowed.

This is the big league. Giuliani and McCain have large staffs who will certainly review what Paul and other candidates say on CNN in order to prep their candidate for the next debate. Paul does not have that kind of staff. My hope is that this forum can fill-in and give his campaign constructive criticism so he can avoid mistakes in the next debate coming up in a couple of weeks.

 

[ronpaulitician]

Any chance Paul meant that we didn't want to get involved in WW2, and didn't, until we were attacked in Pearl Harbor?

 

[ronpaulitician]

This is the big league. Giuliani and McCain have large staffs who will certainly review what Paul and other candidates say on CNN in order to prep their candidate for the next debate. Paul does not have that kind of staff. My hope is that this forum can fill-in and give his campaign constructive criticism so he can avoid mistakes in the next debate coming up in a couple of weeks.

I think it may be worth it to have a forum specifically for figuring out what Paul's opponent's will attack him on, and then figuring out what the answer to those attacks should be PRIOR to the actual attack.

 

[Bryan]

I think it may be worth it to have a forum specifically for figuring out what Paul's opponent's will attack him on, and then figuring out what the answer to those attacks should be PRIOR to the actual attack.

Noted- good idea.

 

[ronpaulitician]

Noted- good idea.

How about "offense" (questions to ask the other candidates, like "Mr. Giuliani, did you read the 9/11 report?") and "defense" (answers to likely questions from the moderators/other candidates, like "Are you suggesting we should not have participated in WW2")?

 

[MusoSpuso]

Ron must be absolutely and crystal clear about his distinctions between isolation and non-intervention specifically in reference to his WW2 comment.

He needs to make it clear that once we were attacked, the war was justified as a war of defense and since a formal declaration of war was made by congress. Cannot afford to muck up this distinction.

 

[Korey Kaczynski]

Any chance Paul meant that we didn't want to get involved in WW2, and didn't, until we were attacked in Pearl Harbor?

However, the Japaenese attacked us because the US set sanctions against them. Classic example of blowback.

But, yes, the war was justified going into once Japan attacked us, and Germany followed suit by declaring war. However, the US could have done more to not go into it by not declaring sanctions against other nations (which is technically an act of war, though...).

People will say that you're a big bad meanie for not wanting to rescue the poor, poor Jews, but knowledge of the holocaust came AFTER the war started. Still, the slur of being an anti-Semite never was a logical accusation.

 

[Carl_S]

I think it may be worth it to have a forum specifically for figuring out what Paul's opponent's will attack him on, and then figuring out what the answer to those attacks should be PRIOR to the actual attack.

I like the idea of a special forum section for debate preparation. You know Giuliani and McCain have lots of staff working just on debate prep. Perhaps we can do the same for Paul.

The problem is that forums are lousy for organizing ideas. Handing Paul a printout of the forum thread with 50 rambling posts is not going to help him very much.

What you really need is a Wiki. We could setup a private Wiki that known members of this forum could login and edit. On that Wiki is a single page, perhaps called "Debate Notes". We organize the page as best we can, bulleting out each issue with the concise points Paul needs to make to get his message across. You could also include danger points to avoid (like bringing up WWII when talking about nonintervention). The relevant issues could be discussed ad nauseum on the special section of this forum.

When we're done, email the thing to Justine and hope that it finds its way to Ron Paul. As far as I know, Paul does not read these forums, so someone on his small staff will need to carry the ball from us to him.

The private Wiki is also advantageous because the debate prep notes would not be posted on a public forum. We don't want to make it too easy for the other guys...

It's easy to create the Wiki -- let me know if anyone else is in support of the idea and I'll get it done.

BTW: If you're not familiar with what a Wiki is; it's an online document that many people are able to access and edit. Wikipedia is the world's largest Wiki.

 

[Bradley in DC]

Ron must be absolutely and crystal clear about his distinctions between isolation and non-intervention specifically in reference to his WW2 comment.

I don't mean to pick on this comment, but I wasn't sure where to jump in. Dr. Paul has argued that Americans pick the peace candidates (or those pretending to be). In addition, he has argued that (US foreign policy) actions have consequences (blowback).

Many observers, including Winston Churchill, believe that if the United States had not intervened in WWI, there never would have been a WWII.