The brain, the dick, the asshole ... and a little pussy - Republican debates

So, Ron Paul (the brain) is explaining, once again, that we need to leave Iraq — and the Middle East in general — because it was our interference in Middle Eastern affairs that brewed terrorism and the resentment of Islamic extremists towards the US government, leading up to the attacks of 9/11. He is explaining this for the umpteenth time because Chris Wallace (the dick) has asked him about it for the umpteenth time.

Wallace and his crew seem incapable of asking Paul anything about immigration, abortion, God, or any of the other things they ask the other candidates about. The boys at Fox Noise seem to get a kick out of Paul’s take on Iraq. Anyway…

So, the dick asks the brain a follow-up question: “Are you saying that we should take our marching orders from Al Qaeda?”

Now, this is about as absurd a straw man as one can imagine. It’s like asking Giuliani (the asshole) whether his stance on abortion means that he thinks we should murder babies. It is typical Republican reduction of a topic to its twisted bumper sticker essence. It is how this party has operated for decades and why it is fast becoming the hiding place of old white air-headed bigots. When you can barely read, you join the party that uses a few small words.

But Paul, a far more courteous gentleman than I could have been, answers with a resounding “No. I take my marching orders from the Constitution, and it says that Congress declares our wars.”

Oh yeah, I guess I should explain why Rudy “Have I Mentioned My Heroism During 9/11?” Giuliani is the asshole. It’s because from that moment on, Giuliani takes it upon himself to laugh — loudly and mockingly— for the duration of Paul’s comments, then and whenever Paul fields a question for the rest of the night.

A final note: the brain wins the Fox viewer poll by a landslide, taking 33% of all votes. The asshole comes in a distant third. Sean Hannity (the pussy) is beside himself once again with pissedness. That alone is endorsement enough for me.

Good reason for that. If you ask Paul about Iraq, you can make noises about “cutting and running” and all the other Rove-inspired talking points regarding the war.

If you ask Paul questions about all the other stuff, you might have to deal with some thoughtful, nuanced answers that don’t just repeat the same mantra that all the other candidates have been trotting out. Also, if you’re a FOX news employee and you get into a debate with Paul that involves substance and ideas, you’re probably going to end up looking like an idiot in front of your viewers, so you want to avoid that too.

Is this sort of behavior at FOX only just registering with you? Have you just started watching the network? They’ve been treating Democrats and anyone else who isn’t in lock-step with Bush like this for the past six years.

No need for explanations at all. Anyone who’s paid more than passing attention to Giuliani’s career knows he’s a colossal asshole. He was an asshole before 9/11; he’s been an asshole since 9/11.

I can’t find it on YouTube, but Paul did respond once to the “So you think we should cut and run?” question with, “I think we should cut the crap.”

Will the Pubs be having any debates that aren’t run by Fox?

I have not voted in the 18+ years that I’ve been eligible.

I’ll be voting for Ron Paul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BB3NrSpRGE (sound becomes off, but is tolerable).

Like on the return to the gold standard? Or the evilness of the IRS? I know this hasn’t come up before, but I think a good question for Paul would be what he thinks about the incident at Roswell… I bet there’s a lot of nuance there.

That’s because if you scratch Ron Paul he’s not too different than the rest of the GOPers on most issues. He’s anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-gun, pro-Jesus, he wants to make a fence on the Mexican-American border, and he wants to dismantle the FDA, FEMA, the Department of Education, and sundry other agencies.

Now, there are two two interesting things about him – interesting only because the American political landscape has been running off the tracks for several decades. First, of course, are his isolationist policies. Besides Iraq and imperial adventures in general, he thinks we should pull out of NATO and stop all (or most) foreign aid. He really thinks we should worry more about what goes on here and let the rest of the world take care of its own problems. That’s his only big claim to fame, and how he gets even liberals (ignorant of his social policies in most cases) to like him.

The other thing is he also doesn’t believe in the war on drugs, warrantless wiretapping, and torture – plus he’s pretty big on the Constitution. That’s a rare breed among Republicans and Dems.

Ron Paul is a flake - and unfortunately one of the things he is flaky about is a rather curious attitude towards race.

This was well discussed in another discussion here about Paul, which I will happily link to. Needless to say, were he a mainstream candidate on either side, these previous writings of his would doom him instantly. Right now no one cares.

I dunno, Lib. It was Ron Paul who brought the subject up, so I think it’s not so outrageous as you make it seem. Let’s look at the actual [url=]transcript:

Now, I tend to agree with Ron Paul on this issue, but not completely for the reason he gave. But when he said “they”, surely he meant al Qaeda (even if he might have meant others as well). And it is not only the people who said it would be a cakewalk who are predicting a bloodbath if we leave. Not be a loooong shot.

Well, the Iraq war is as “declared” as it gets these days, what with Congress authorizing the us of force there, so I don’t know what his point is. Last I looked, Congress had not deauthorized the use of force. If he wants to make a semantic point, well good for him. Operationally, though, it’s moot.

from The Wiki

Paul introduced the We the People Act, which, if made law, would forbid federal courts (including the Supreme Court) from hearing cases on subjects such as the display of religious text and imagery on government property, abortion, sexual practices, and same-sex marriage, would make federal court decisions on those subjects non-binding as precedent in state courts, and would forbid federal courts from spending any money to enforce their judgments.

Real Cite

In short, he may have personal beliefs on these issues, but he wants the federal government OUT of deciding for us. IMHO, I’d call that drastically different from most GOPers…

About half of Ron Paul’s policies are exactly what I want in a candidate and the other half make me cringe. I suppose that’s a hell of a lot better than most of the candidates.

May 3, 2007: MSNBC Republican debate from California
May 15, 2007: FOX News Republican debate video from South Carolina
June 5, 2007: CNN Republican debate from New Hampshire
Aug. 5, 2007: The ABC News Republican debate from Iowa
Sep. 5, 2007: FOX News at New Hampshire’s Whittemore Center 9pm
Sep. 17, 2007: Values Voter Presidential Debate from Florida @ 7:30pm
Sep. 27, 2007: PBS hosts a debate of the 2008 Republican presidential candidates at Morgan State University in Baltimore, MD
Oct. 14, 2007: ABC News, WMUR-TV, and the New Hampshire Union Leader host a Republican NH
Oct. 21, 2007: The Florida Republican Party and Fox News host a GOP presidential debate in Orlando, FL
Nov. 6, 2007: MSNBC hosts a Republican presidential debate at Iowa State University in Ames, IA
Nov. 28, 2007: YouTube/Google and CNN in Florida

2008
Jan. 5, 2008: The Des Moines Register and Iowa Public Television host a Republican presidential debate in Johnson, IA
Jan. 30, 2008: CNN and the Los Angeles Times host a debate of the Republican presidential candidates in California

Source

So…you were smugly saying?

I realize political debates aren’t weekend-long seminars hosted by the intellectuals - but referring to Ron Paul as “the brain” in the same paragraph you paraphrased his position that states ‘US interference in the Mideast’ as the main(?) catalyst for Islamic extremism against this country’ can only lead to one conclusion: That “brain” of his has some serious damage. American meddling might make the ‘Top 10 Reasons for Terrorism List’ but citing it as primary factor, above their own violent interpretations of The Quran, European colonialism or UN mandates leads this observer to question Mr. Paul’s perceptive functions.

Well, your Roswell reference is just stupid.

I’m not a libertarian, and there are dozens of issues that i disagree with Ron Paul about. But just because i don’t agree with him doesn’t mean that he’s not a smart guy who has thought long and hard about his positions, and who can actually speak about them intelligently and articulately, without simply repeating sound bites. I’ve seen him interviewed and in debates, and i’ve always found him interesting and provocative, even when i completely disagree with what he says.

Look at your own post.

“US interference in the Mideast’ as the main(?) catalyst for Islamic extremism against this country.”

Do you really think that Islamic extremists would devote such attention to the United States if it hadn’t spent that last half-century playing such a large role in the Middle East? He’s not saying that extremists wouldn’t exist; he’s saying that they would probably be targeting somebody other than the US if we stayed out of there.

It’s a pretty logical argument, and one that is completely in line with his isolationist policies (which i happen to disagree with, by the way).

I’m actually very curious what Paul thinks of various conspiracy theories, because there are a few quotes from him that make me believe that he could buy into some of them. Perhaps my first-ever link to a cite from a blogger, and a nutty one at that. There he seems to imply that the government covered something up WRT the Kennedy assassination, and in a very roundabout way seems to imply that the investigations into 9/11 may have covered something up. Because of that, I don’t think a Roswell question is stupid – he clearly distrusts the government enough to say that coverups are common.

I have no problem saying that Paul is articulate and engaging, but just because he’s thought about his positions a lot doesn’t really reflect any credit on him. For example, he seems to have thought a lot about going back on the gold standard, and that’s simply a dumb position to take in this day and age. If anything, his careful study of the issue is an indictment of him, given where he’s come out on that matter.

Part of this question has been answered. The companion question is whether the Democrats will be debating on Fox at all. If recent decisions hold, they won’t.

I don’t think it serves them well to ignore a potentially large audience and a group of voters who might need to hear their message. But then, they didn’t ask me.

Do you believe that the people who will watch Fox and no other channel/media - and who won’t watch other channels/media even when it is their only option to hear Democratic candidates debate - are the type of people open to such messages?

They’re ignoring a large audience who’ve already made up their minds that Dems are evil. I see no reason they should give a fuck about trying to appeal to Fox News viewers.

Are you saying that the Democrats should take their marching orders from Fox News?