Is America Burning - a Forum To Discuss Issues

All comments welcome, pro or con. Passionate ok, but let's be civil. ...Pertinent comments will be published on this blog. Air your viewpoints.

Photobucket

Skyline - Houston, Texas

Sunday, October 28, 2007

Freedom of Speech - As Long as You Agree With Me

Most of this report is the usual thing from Media Matters. They listen carefully to what is said by the consvervatives and point out the errors and omissions.


Take a look at the two paragraphs in extra large print.


Ron Paul is a legitimate candidate, no matter what the voting public may think of him. He has as much right to his views as any of the others. Why is "Red State" so afraid of a difference of opinion? I won't vote for any Republican candidate but I wouldn't dream of censoring their right to speak or the right of anyone to support whomever they wish.

On the October 26 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, discussing Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (TX) and "the remarkable Paul-for-president movement," Los Angeles Times columnist Rosa Brooks attributed Paul's support to his "tapping into ... a lot of distaste for the kind of cookie-cutter stuff of the major parties. A lot of desire to have a candidate who just says whatever the heck he thinks." Later in the segment, Washington Post staff writer Anne E. Kornblut said that the "groundswell that Ron Paul has" demonstrates "a real craving on the Republican side for somebody who seems like they are being authentic." During the segment, the panel discussed Paul's position on numerous issues, and host Tucker Carlson asked: "But who does agree with him? OK, consider -- here is a guy who is against legal abortion. Just against -- he's gonna ban abortion. Very pro-marijuana, Ron Paul, OK? Doesn't believe the IRS ought to exist and is for the gold standard. So just take those four among 4,000 positions he 's taken in his public life." However, at no point in their discussion of support for Paul and his positions did any of the participants note that Paul is the only Republican presidential candidate to have voted against the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq Resolution of 2002, or that he has repeatedly voiced his support for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

During the June 5 Republican presidential debate, Paul asserted that "it was a mistake to go" into Iraq, and said that "[t]he sooner we come home, the better":

WOLF BLITZER (moderator): Congressman Ron Paul, how much longer should the United States stay in Iraq?

PAUL: The sooner we come home, the better. If they declare there's no progress in September, we should come home. It was a mistake to go, so it's a mistake to stay. If we made the wrong diagnosis, we should change the treatment. So we're not making progress there and we should come home. The weapons weren't there, and we went in under U.N. resolutions. And our national security was not threatened.

We're more threatened now by staying.

Numerous media accounts have attributed Paul's support in part to his opposition to the Iraq war:

  • An October 15 Washington Post article reported that "[l]ike Paul himself, the Paulites are against the war in Iraq, against the growing federal bureaucracy, against the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Education, the income tax, against, as [New Hampshire Paul supporter Jim] Forsythe says, 'politics as we've known it.' "
  • An October 4 Houston Chronicle article reported, "The libertarian-leaning Paul has drawn media interest and a group of devoted followers, in part because of his outspoken opposition to the Iraq war, which has set him apart from other GOP presidential candidates."
  • McClatchy Newspapers reported in an October 17 article: "Iraq, too, is beginning to split the [Republican] party base. While Arizona Sen. John McCain lost his front-runner status in part by championing the war, libertarian Texas Rep. Ron Paul is gaining traction in part by stoutly opposing it."

According to a CBS News poll conducted October 12-16 with a margin of error of three percentage points, 24 percent of Republican respondents said that the United States should have "stayed out" of Iraq rather than taking military action, and 26 percent said they would be "willing to have large numbers of U.S. troops stay in Iraq" only for "less than a year."

From the October 26 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:

CARLSON: Plus, Ron Paul joins the presidential campaign for real, dipping into his significant cash pile just as one prominent conservative website bans his famous Internet supporters. A look at the remarkable Paul-for-president movement and those who would stop it.

[...]

CARLSON: Plus, a conservative website is banning bloggers from talking about presidential candidate Ron Paul. More on the No Ron Paul Zone after the break. We'll be right back.

[...]

BROOKS: Because I think it would be a mistake to conflate the idea of Iraq that possessed a nuclear weapon with an Iraq -- I'm sorry Iran -- with an Iran that is necessarily going to use it, because I think that there are more effective containment strategies even in the worse-case scenario and because I think that there are other paths toward preventing them from getting nuclear weapons.

CARLSON: All right. We will be right back to talk with a man who probably agrees with you. There is trouble brewing in the blogosphere. Why are supporters of Republican Ron Paul being banned from a site popular with Republicans?

[...]

CARLSON: Welcome back. There is agitation in the world of conservative blogs. Beneath the headline "Life is Really Not Fair" Redstate.com recently announced it was banning bloggers from posting Ron Paul-related comments. The site bans Ron Paul posters as quote, "a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans." Others say the Internet is the perfect place for Ron Paul. And you can't stop him.

Who is right? Back again: L.A. Times columnist Rosa Brooks and The Washington Post's Anne Kornblut.

Here is part of the statement put out by Redstate.com. I want to put it up. It says a lot about a lot, I think.

"Effective immediately, new users may not shill for Ron Paul in any way, shape, form or fashion. Not in comments, not in diaries, nada. If your account is less than six months old, you can talk about something else, you can participate in the other threads and be your zany libertarian self all you want but you cannot pimp Ron Paul. Those with accounts more than six months old may proceed as normal."

This is a measure, I don't need to tell both of you who write in public and have public email addresses, Ron Paul is a big deal online, no?

BROOKS: Yeah, I'm hearing from his supporters in my email account.

CARLSON: Can you stop Ron Paul?

KORNBLUT: Of course, this is the reason that you're even putting him on the show is to spike your ratings, because we know that every time we write about him, hits to our website, it's not a joke. I mean, it's amazing that every time we write about him, the hits to The Washington Post website go up. They're very activist. They've raised him money. And it's sort of amazing to me, given that the real measure, I mean, I think if you measure the money alone, this isn't just a phenomenon. It is not six cranks sitting at home writing about Ron Paul. There are real people who really like him. Like it or not.

CARLSON: That's right. There are 6,000 cranks sitting at home writing about Ron Paul.

BROOKS: But, you know, actually it -- it actually is heart-warming, and I am not a Ron Paul supporter, but it's a kind of American phenomenon, and I don't mean that it's an American phenomenon that there are crazy people out there although that's also an American phenomenon. Because I don't think all of his supporters are crazy.

But I think he is tapping into something that, thank God, is still there in America, which is a lot of distaste for the kind of cookie-cutter stuff of the major parties. A lot of desire to have a candidate who just says whatever the heck he thinks. You know, and Ron Paul does that. You know, and I am -- he is a genuine phenomenon. He is not a media creation. And thank God that Ron Paul is out there, even though I don't agree with him on much of what he says.

CARLSON: But who does agree with him? OK, consider -- here is a guy who is against legal abortion. Just against -- he's gonna ban abortion. Very pro-marijuana, Ron Paul, OK? Doesn't believe the IRS ought to exist and is for the gold standard. So just take those four among 4,000 positions he 's taken in his public life. Who is at the intersection of all those? And who agrees with all of those?

KORNBLUT: Have you ever been to New Hampshire? This is sort of like rural New Hampshire or rural New England.

CARLSON: Well, I sort of agree -- I'm not sure about the gold standard but on for the rest of it.

BROOKS: You know, I think Ron Paul actually knows something that the other candidates probably deep down in their little shriveled hearts know but are scared to let themselves feel, which is that, you know, people will vote for you even if they don't agree with you on everything. If they feel like you're a guy or a gal who's got a conscience, who's got some integrity, who's got some intelligence, who calls it like you see it. Who thinks for yourself. You know, who is not just a creation of a bunch of consultants.

CARLSON: I agree.

BROOKS: And he is that. You know, I'm sure that there is nobody out there who agrees with him on everything, even in New Hampshire.

CARLSON: No, I don't agree with him on everything. I will say I agree with him on most things.

BROOKS: Which piece of that do you agree and not agree with him?

CARLSON: I'm not for the gold standard. I think Iran probably is trying to get a bomb and that's a problem. I don't think it's all a neocon plot to take over America. But I'm with him on the IRS. I'm probably with him on abortion, I'm with him on marijuana. I'm kind of, you know, I'm kind of there on Ron Paul's side.

He's going up with TV commercials. Rudy Giuliani hasn't gone up with TV commercials. He has got $5.4 million on hand.

KORNBLUT: It's impressive.

CARLSON: Are people -- is he going to have any effect in any specific state? Can you tell me quickly?

KORNBLUT: I think certainly he'll have an effect on the debate in places like Iowa and New Hampshire. Now, whether he changes the outcome, I can't say for sure. But I will say it's worth noting he's been more effective than, on the Democratic side, Mike Gravel, who you could argue is equally wacky and inconsistent. He's not had the same kind of groundswell that Ron Paul has. So it shows, I think, a real craving on the Republican side for somebody who seems like they're being authentic.

CARLSON: I would say Mike Gravel, as much as I love him, I think he actually probably is deranged and I think Ron Paul is just flamboyant and eccentric. And there is a distinction. Thank you both very much.

KORNBLUT: Thank you.

CARLSON: As we prove every day

COMMENTS:

USpace said...

Good coverage here, Ron Paul has some good ideas...
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
just blame America

for all the ills of the world
don't blame simple dictators

.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
ignore the threat of jihad

SCREAM that it's made up
an excuse for blood for oil
.

http://absurdthoughtsaboutgod.blogspot.com/

:)
.

Sunday, October 28, 2007 6:41:00 PM

Delete
Granny said...

Thanks for the comment; however, I didn't mean to imply that I agreed with everything Ron Paul says or that I'm a supporter.

I do agree with some things; especially his stand on Iraq.

The purpose of the post was to express my disapproval of that one blog banning comments on a candidate they dislike. It would have applied to any candidate; it just happened to be Ron Paul.

Sunday, October 28, 2007 6:50:00 PM

Delete
USpace said...

I know what you mean, but Daily Kos, among other Lib sites routinely ban conservatives. Maybe they don't state it implicitly though. Btw, Red State has since modified their Ron Paul posting policies. Free speech is best, but it's their site too, so they have the freedom to restrict content on their site if they want. They don't ban all speech they disagree with either, it's just that apparently, Ron Paul fans are rabid spammers and refuse to debate anything.

absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
never debate your beliefs
.

Sunday, October 28, 2007 7:15:00 PM

Delete
Granny said...

That does make a difference. My blogging partner and I welcome differences of opinion although a spammer or a troll is something else again. Even with the trolls, we try to wait them out. We don't get many. Still, it sounded like the Ron Paul fans were banned from the beginning.

I've heard that about KOS but I stopped reading him some time ago because it seemed like the participants were more interested in scoring points than discussing.

To each their own but not for me.

Sunday, October 28, 2007 8:17:00 PM

Delete
The Future Was Yesterday said...

Every blog, regardless who "owns" it, is a bully pulpit, for the simple reason the owner gets to speak first, last, and determine who speaks in between. There's nothing "free" in any of that speech process.

I used to worry about "free speech" on my blog. I tolerate all dissenting opinions, provided they're in a tasteful manner. But we write posts on our blogs so that you can give your opinion on our subject matter - sort of a validation process of our thinking, if you will.

If you want to write about Ron Paul or Betty Crocket, and my post's about fishing in China, then the Ron Paul and Betty Crocket writers are going get zapped. These are all personal blogs. There's no law or rule that says we have to follow anything, other than Google's guidlines. Nearly all of us let anybody say what they wish, is all, but if I even think somebody's trying to use my blog for their platform, they get the boot, and I sleep very well at night. You want true freedom of speech? Wrote your own blog. Otherwise, your freedom of speech ends where my blog begins.:)

And the use of "your" "you" was in no way aimed at you, Granny.

Sunday, October 28, 2007 10:52:00 PM

Delete
GDAEman said...

The line that caught my attention was:

CARLSON: Can you stop Ron Paul?

It inspired my own commentary.

Thanks

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 9:00:00 PM


Worried American said...

On one of my other blogs ( a war blog) i used a statement by Ron Paul as the header :

"Only tyrants can take a nation to war without the consent of the people. The planned war against Iraq without a Declaration of War is illegal. It is unwise because of many unforeseen consequences that are likely to result.It is immoral and unjust, because it had nothing to do with United States security and because Iraq had not initiated aggression against us." Congressman Ron Paul (How true that statement has proved to be).

I do not agree with Ron Paul on every issue but I do not think we will ever have a candidate with whom we agree on every issue - especially since so many lie just to pander to voters then renege after they are elected. At least Paul is honest about his views, even if some are unpopular.

Sunday, November 04, 2007 1:07:00 AM


9 Comments:

  • At Sunday, October 28, 2007 6:41:00 PM , Blogger USpace said...

    Good coverage here, Ron Paul has some good ideas...
    .
    absurd thought -
    God of the Universe says
    just blame America

    for all the ills of the world
    don't blame simple dictators

    .
    absurd thought -
    God of the Universe says
    ignore the threat of jihad

    SCREAM that it's made up
    an excuse for blood for oil
    .

    http://absurdthoughtsaboutgod.blogspot.com/

    :)
    .

     
  • At Sunday, October 28, 2007 6:50:00 PM , Blogger Granny said...

    Thanks for the comment; however, I didn't mean to imply that I agreed with everything Ron Paul says or that I'm a supporter.

    I do agree with some things; especially his stand on Iraq.

    The purpose of the post was to express my disapproval of that one blog banning comments on a candidate they dislike. It would have applied to any candidate; it just happened to be Ron Paul.

     
  • At Sunday, October 28, 2007 7:15:00 PM , Blogger USpace said...

    I know what you mean, but Daily Kos, among other Lib sites routinely ban conservatives. Maybe they don't state it implicitly though. Btw, Red State has since modified their Ron Paul posting policies. Free speech is best, but it's their site too, so they have the freedom to restrict content on their site if they want. They don't ban all speech they disagree with either, it's just that apparently, Ron Paul fans are rabid spammers and refuse to debate anything.

    absurd thought -
    God of the Universe says
    never debate your beliefs
    .

     
  • At Sunday, October 28, 2007 8:17:00 PM , Blogger Granny said...

    That does make a difference. My blogging partner and I welcome differences of opinion although a spammer or a troll is something else again. Even with the trolls, we try to wait them out. We don't get many. Still, it sounded like the Ron Paul fans were banned from the beginning.

    I've heard that about KOS but I stopped reading him some time ago because it seemed like the participants were more interested in scoring points than discussing.

    To each their own but not for me.

     
  • At Sunday, October 28, 2007 10:52:00 PM , Blogger The Future Was Yesterday said...

    Every blog, regardless who "owns" it, is a bully pulpit, for the simple reason the owner gets to speak first, last, and determine who speaks in between. There's nothing "free" in any of that speech process.

    I used to worry about "free speech" on my blog. I tolerate all dissenting opinions, provided they're in a tasteful manner. But we write posts on our blogs so that you can give your opinion on our subject matter - sort of a validation process of our thinking, if you will.

    If you want to write about Ron Paul or Betty Crocket, and my post's about fishing in China, then the Ron Paul and Betty Crocket writers are going get zapped. These are all personal blogs. There's no law or rule that says we have to follow anything, other than Google's guidlines. Nearly all of us let anybody say what they wish, is all, but if I even think somebody's trying to use my blog for their platform, they get the boot, and I sleep very well at night. You want true freedom of speech? Wrote your own blog. Otherwise, your freedom of speech ends where my blog begins.:)

    And the use of "your" "you" was in no way aimed at you, Granny.

     
  • At Wednesday, October 31, 2007 9:00:00 PM , Blogger GDAEman said...

    The line that caught my attention was:

    CARLSON: Can you stop Ron Paul?

    It inspired my own commentary.

    Thanks

     
  • At Sunday, November 04, 2007 1:07:00 AM , Blogger Worried American said...

    On one of my other blogs ( a war blog) i used a statement by Ron Paul as the header :

    "Only tyrants can take a nation to war without the consent of the people. The planned war against Iraq without a Declaration of War is illegal. It is unwise because of many unforeseen consequences that are likely to result.It is immoral and unjust, because it had nothing to do with United States security and because Iraq had not initiated aggression against us." Congressman Ron Paul (How true that statement has proved to be).

    I do not agree with Ron Paul on every issue but I do not think we will ever have a candidate with whom we agree on every issue - especially since so many lie just to pander to voters then renege after they are elected. At least Paul is honest about his views, even if some are unpopular.

     
  • At Tuesday, November 06, 2007 1:53:00 PM , Blogger Ingrid said...

    Living in the heart of Texas, I've been seeing so many Ron Paul bumper stickers, posters, home made posters, that I had to take a second look. I've had to learn so much about American politics, let alone Texas politics that I had not really heard about him as such. And Ann is right, there will never be a candidate who one will completely agree with. In fact, I'd rather support someone like that, then someone who purports to share (all)my values only to have an ulterior agenda and who (and who's party) wants/needs my vote. It is much easier to agree to disagree than not to be truthfully validated! I don't personally agree with everything RP says but I must also concur that he's thought about his positions and inspite some of them seeming far out there, there's gotta be a reason/rationale for it. The Democrats are just useless as a party, it is up to authentic politicians of either persuasion (ooh, or independents!) to shake up the apple cart.
    Where are those writers who should be writing an American version of 'Yes Prime Minister'!! (there's so much inspiration being wasted...)
    Ingrid

     
  • At Tuesday, November 06, 2007 2:18:00 PM , Blogger Granny said...

    Ingrid, I was watching the House vote to lay the impeachment motion on the table as your comment came in.

    Finally - someone with the huevos to do something.

    Of course the Motion to Table will carry but surprisingly a few Republicans weighed in.

    And where are the Democrats? Wimping out, as usual.

    Cheers for Kucinich!!

     

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home