Michael Medved: The Speech Ron Paul Ought to Give

[freejack]

Nah, he just wants to say "I beat Ron Paul." He wants to be the man that corrupts the incorruptible.

I wouldn't say that any of his suggestions would 'corrupt' Ron. To me it sounds more like "You're right but I win".

 

[Captain Shays]

I too wish Ron Paul would hold a press conference to once and for all dispel the news letters but at the same time I don't want him to pander or to give back the money that racists gave him as Medved demands. He might as well give back all the money every sinner gave him and so should every other candidate. What Medved doesn't accept nor will he ever is that just because some anti Jewish or anti Israel or anti black or anti whatever group or individual supports Ron Paul is NOT because Ron Paul supports their racist causes. I got banned here once for posting the link to stormfronts web page in order to prove to people why they supported Ron Paul. It was NOT because they believe he agrees with their racist ideas but because they agree with his small government ideas.Sorry Medved if Ron Paul is too rational for you. But then again you act like a little tattle tail in school. Like that kid we used to beat up for being such a wuss.
My comparison is once I heard an interview with Charles Mansion and was knocked over when he said he hates child molesters. What am I supposed to do now Medved renounce myself as a murderer for agreeing with Charles Mansion that child molesters are reprehensible? Just because me and Charles Mansion agree on the issue of child molesters doesn't make me a murderer any more than some racist agreeing with Ron Paul on limited government makes him a racist

 

[jmdrake]

Hmmmmmm......don't break the link. It's not a hit piece. It sounds like an olive branch. My question for Michael Medved would be "If Ron Paul gave such a speech would YOU finally quit saying that he's anti Israel and/or supports a 'dangerous' foreign policy? Or are you trying to get Ron Paul to move in your direction only to remove the football at the last second like Sally does Charlie Brown"? I would suggest the campaign contact Medved and ask him that directly and further ask that if Medved is being genuine that he let Dr. Paul come on the show and make such a speech. Before someone neg reps me or stones me hear me out. Medved is trying to play this as someone who's appearing as reasonable as possible. If Ron doesn't respond to this Medved can say "See? I told you. He's just cranky and not trying to get along with anyone". But any such response would need to be done in a way that Medved has to budge as well.

Going point by point on Medved's hypothetical speech:

Point 1: On disavowing the racist newsletters.....For me as a black man Ron Paul has already done this. But doing it once more to drive the point home wouldn't hurt. I'm not sure what Medved meant by "my stubborness in delaying the acknowledgement of my errors"...except perhaps that's referring to the 1996 interview were Ron kinda-sorta defended the content. I know some here are of the opinion that Ron should ignore the newsletters and hope they go away. But they won't. The'll be back the next time Ron Paul is ahead in any state or in any other form seems to be "surging".

Point 2: On disavowing David Duke, Don Black and others. I think Ron Paul should point out that he has no control over who endorses him. It's interestingly enough that Louis Farrakhan has recently said kind things about Dr. Paul even though he didn't go so far as an endorsement. And if someone says "Well Farrakhan is an anti-semite too" (not true as Farrakhan likes Arabs and Arabs are more "semite" than most Jews), Ron Paul can point out that nobody complained when Farrakhan endorsed Obama. Sure, disavow the views once again. But point out the media bias in singling out Ron Paul on campaign contributions. Is the media going to try to get everyone controversial who donated to Obama to return their contributions? Will the media track down this guy and see if he donated to Obama?



Point 3: Policy toward Israel. I have to give Medved credit for skillfully playing this. He acknowledges that Ron Paul's "concept of presidential leadership" is one of neutrality. But then Medved seeks to subtly get Ron Paul to break that neutrality by on the one hand fighting to get the U.N. to end its long standing criticism of Zionism as racism instead calling it "just another form of nationalism" while at the same time he attacks Ron for being critical of Israel and speaking favorable of Palestinian aspirations in "Liberty Defined". If the aspirations of Zionism must be respected, then why not the aspirations of the Palestinians? Of course Zionism is not just another form of nationalism. It's a form of ethnic nationalism and in that way is really no different from white nationalism that Medved condemns in point 2.

Still Ron should take the time to reaffirm is apparent agreement with Medved that Israel should not be dependent on U.S. dollars and is better off standing on its own.

Point 4: Ron should turn the tables on Medved and say that as long as Republican candidates like Newt Gingrich and Micheal Bachmann cannot come out and say they would support his candidacy if he happened to win the nomination, it is unfair for Medved and others in the media to demand that Ron preemptively do what they are unwilling to do. Clearly there is a bigger ideological struggle here than just "defeating Obama". Part of the reason Obama won in 2012 is that John McCain was too much like Obama when it came to bailouts, budget busting prescription drug benefits and other issues. A nominee who was like Obama in the worst ways and only different from Obama in wanting to violate Bush's agreement to leave Iraq and/or wanting to start a preventable war with Iran would not be someone that Ron could in good conscience support.

 

[jmdrake]

What exactly in the article is bad about his Israel stance? Am I missing something? The article says he believes Israel should be free to defend itself which is essentially what Paul believes. Right?

The article as states is Ron's stance on Israel. The question is does Medved actually agree with his own article, or is he trying to just box Ron into a corner using Ron's own beliefs. I don't know the answer to that question. But I think the campaign should respond to this. They could use this to box Medved into a corner.

 

[jmdrake]

How would this speech strip Paul of his dignity?

It's riddled with pandering and phony contrition. Furthermore, Ron has already said most of what Medved laid out in his stupid speech, without the histrionics; not sure what more Medved wants.

You are both right and both wrong. And it's clear what Medved wants if you take the time to think about it. He's hoping that Ron will not respond to this, and in not responding he can say "See! I told you he was unreasonable." If the campaign played its cards right with this Medved would either have to endorse Ron or face looking unreasonable himself.

 

[Revolution9]

Being infested with IDF megaphone shills???? Really???? Can anyone say paranoia?

The Israelis spend alot of money on this program you think is paranoia.

Rev9

 

[Revolution9]

He wants to be the man that corrupts the incorruptible.

This right there is the #presscorpse gambit and the gambit of zionism..hence the criminal enterprises it often gets caught with its pants down around.

Rev9

 

[bobbyw24]

Oh yeah, you should see the millions israel pays me to post a link on this forum. You got me.

Isn't this site for liberty full of liberty??

 

[smithtg]

medved is like 2nd tier to rushbo and hannity, almost as annoying as levin

 

[jmdrake]

The Israelis spend alot of money on this program you think is paranoia.

Rev9

That such a program exists is documented and is not paranoia. That anybody who might take a slightly different approach on how Ron Paul should respond to the "He's anti Israel" smear must/might be part of that program is paranoia.

 

[fj45lvr]

Isn't this site for liberty full of liberty??

yes, I like the fact that this forum doesn't delete posts that I am aware of or censor posts....normally there is a fierce debate on issues and hopefully out of the fray people learn something to promote liberty....

 

[cary]

Medved could hardly get more smarmy in this article, whose point is simple: Ron Paul is a racist and an "angry crank and conspiracist who deserves no serious consideration for high public office". Once you wade through all the condescension, you see that this speech, designed to validate all of Medved's long-standing "concerns" about Ron Paul, would meet only a minimum Medvedian standard, to "put to rest most of the troubling questions" and lift Paul to a level suitable for "serious consideration". Medved does not say he agrees with Ron Paul on foreign policy. He here justifies why he does not need to engage Ron Paul on policy because Ron Paul is disreputable and beneath him. In some alternative Medvedian universe where Ron Paul delivers this speech, Medved can then transition smoothly to calling Ron Paul dangerous.

 

[fj45lvr]

That such a program exists is documented and is not paranoia. That anybody who might take a slightly different approach on how Ron Paul should respond to the "He's anti Israel" smear must/might be part of that program is paranoia.

yeah and just asking what people think of Medveds propaganda without injecting any basis on it could be taken to be EXACTLY what the zionist lobby wants (Medved is a major proponent for the zionist lobby and supports the neo-con agenda and was probably thrilled by newt's recent comments about Palestinians....) Dr. Paul directly has addressed this type of thing in his infamous speech "neo-conned"....Medved is a propagandist and I think stands against most of what Liberty, Paul and we would stand for.

 

[jmdrake]

yeah and just asking what people think of Medveds propaganda without injecting any basis on it could be taken to be EXACTLY what the zionist lobby wants (Medved is a major proponent for the zionist lobby and supports the neo-con agenda and was probably thrilled by newt's recent comments about Palestinians....)

You're free to see it that way. I don't. I see it as a tennis match. Medved hit the ball in our court, we can knock it back and score. Here's how:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ught-to-Give&p=4014654&viewfull=1#post4014654

Or we can just be "cranky", say "we just aren't going to talk about this anymore", and people in the middle (the folks we need to score with) look elsewhere.

Dr. Paul directly has addressed this type of thing in his infamous speech "neo-conned"....Medved is a propagandist and I think stands against most of what Liberty, Paul and we would stand for.

On the above you are provably wrong, at least with regards to the "neo-conned" speech. All it says about Israel is this:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html

They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.

Like it or not, Michael Medved does a better job presenting Ron Paul's view on Israel than does that one speech. That's because Ron Paul's life work can't be summed up in one speech. Sure, Medved goes beyond what is reasonable by asking Ron to distance himself from his own words in "liberty defend" as not becoming of a "commander in chief". Only Ron wasn't president when he wrote that book, and it is hypocritical to ask Paul not to affirm Palestinian aspirations while demanding that he affirm Zionist aspirations. Ron Paul could affirm where he agreed with Medved, put Medved on record as agreeing with Dr. Paul on Israel even if Medved doesn't want to and still maintain his dignity by explaining why it's not "anti-Israel" to say the Palestinians have legitimate grievances as well. It's the art of political "verbal judo". Learn it.

 

[fj45lvr]

You're free to see it that way. I don't. I see it as a tennis match. Medved hit the ball in our court, we can knock it back and score. Here's how:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ught-to-Give&p=4014654&viewfull=1#post4014654

Or we can just be "cranky", say "we just aren't going to talk about this anymore", and people in the middle (the folks we need to score with) look elsewhere.



On the above you are provably wrong, at least with regards to the "neo-conned" speech. All it says about Israel is this:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html

They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.

Like it or not, Michael Medved does a better job presenting Ron Paul's view on Israel than does that one speech. That's because Ron Paul's life work can't be summed up in one speech. Sure, Medved goes beyond what is reasonable by asking Ron to distance himself from his own words in "liberty defend" as not becoming of a "commander in chief". Only Ron wasn't president when he wrote that book, and it is hypocritical to ask Paul not to affirm Palestinian aspirations while demanding that he affirm Zionist aspirations. Ron Paul could affirm where he agreed with Medved, put Medved on record as agreeing with Dr. Paul on Israel even if Medved doesn't want to and still maintain his dignity by explaining why it's not "anti-Israel" to say the Palestinians have legitimate grievances as well. It's the art of political "verbal judo". Learn it.

agree that Paul may score some points as he walks into the trap these enemies of liberty provide for him. I mentioned the Neo-conned speech because it describes what Medved is or supports and not because it is a representation of what Dr. Paul thinks. I know Dr. Paul is ideologically consistent so he is not a supporter for States that have no bill of rights, are openly racist, are documented as police states, conscript their people, and are active in ethnically cleansing others that have lived there before they arrived and have used violence to achieve their political agenda....

 

[fj45lvr]

States that have no bill of rights, are openly racist, are documented as police states, conscript their people, and are active in ethnically cleansing others that have lived there before they arrived and have used violence to achieve their political agenda....

in review of this, it applies to the US as well....LOL unfortunately

 

[gmc1988]

Sorry Medved, but Dr Paul will never make a speech like the one you suggest. He will never sell out his principles for people like you.