This past weekend Ron Paul talked to Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. Paul, as usual, was quite candid with his answers and explained in several areas why he doesn’t support the present design of the federal government, particularly the bureaucracy. Wallace was mostly respectful and gave Paul the change to answer his questions without taking on much of the nauseating Bill O’Reilly tactic of belligerent interruptions and flippant disregard for any explanation of context.
Now, you wouldn’t think this would be a major issue. Paul, after all, is the voice of consistency in D.C. for the last 30 years, in fact, he resigned at the height of the Reagan administration because the rhetoric didn’t match the results.
But, apparently the GOP leadership got in touch with personalities or Rupert Murdoch himself, or producers for the atrocious Fox News show, The Five. Parroting the general sentiments of Fox News as the propaganda arm of the GOP, The Five absolutely tore into Paul for saying in essence his principles and the Constitution are more important to him than the party.
You all consider yourselves the voice of reason? Andrea Tantaros, a model with a hosting gig on The Five, espoused her brilliant opinion (heavy sarcasm lest you think I support this crap) that if Ron Paul wasn’t going to support the nominee, the Republican Party should pull him from the debates. Please, GOP, by all means do this. The exposure that move would generate for Ron Paul’s message would absolutely detonate the internet.
The GOP and by proxy Fox News, need to recognize the fact the primary system is broken. Primaries are badly designed in general, Republicans and Democrats voting for the nominee they would most likely vote for; but that concept makes no sense when the general election results come into the picture.
Republican and Democrat voters do not decide general elections. Independents, voters from other parties and undecided voters determine the election. Roughly equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats vote for their nominee regardless. Thus, the Republican Party is running a real risk of losing this election because of their total disregard for Ron Paul and his supporters.
Roughly 13 percent of the GOP are dedicated strongly to Paul, his numbers have only climbed. Meaning no matter what quote the media takes out of context to attempt to portray him as a kook, his followers recognize the tactic and give the finger right back to the media by generating content for the internet to demonstrate their fallacious claims.
For instance:
Chris Matthews is about as unreasonable a personality you would find on the street, but at MSNBC he’s considered a moderate. In this clip he claims Paul’s views don’t hold up to scrutiny and runs through the litany of federal services that would fall apart without present tax rates. He identifies the FAA, now, this falling under “infrastructure” this is technically within the purview of government, however, there’s no reason the airlines couldn’t operate a functional replacement that would be significantly more efficient and would cost nothing.
Roads/Highways/Interstates, Chris wants libertarianism to be the death knell of society, but he’s flat wrong. Ron Paul wants to reduce the federal government’s spending and focus, there is no conceivable reason the states couldn’t do just as good, if not a significantly better job, than the feds.
Food safety. The FDA/USDA didn’t prevent the listeria outbreak last month and are universally behind the chain of events when something bad happens. If the FDA/USDA went away, would the product decrease in quality or safety? Of course not, but just in case, the courts are there to allow lawsuits to settle these issues, but without the cost and inefficiency of bureaucracy. It’s pure silliness.
Then we have Bill Maher. Outspoken liberal, mostly delusional and completely irrational when it comes to firearms ownership, Bill asked for suggestions to Constitutional changes his panel would like to see. Ugh.
Alex Wagner has roughly the Constitutional IQ of a grape nut. Issa gives a mostly accurate response, but when Bill Maher responds saying its a fantasy to think modern firearms would ever be protection against tyranny because the federal military has nuclear weapons, etc., Issa doesn’t take the opportunity to point out the absurdity of the idea of a US president deploying nuclear weapons inside the US.
I trust the federal government short of the distance from my eye to the end of my nose, but to think any president in any situation would use nukes is absurd. Conventional bombs in conventional aircraft, yes, in another civil war this would definitely happen. But nukes? Give me a break Bill. You do best when you stick to comedy. Leave the Constitution to Ron Paul.
Like my page on Facebook here
Follow me on Twitter @sjstern
Opposing the Status Quo 