I hate your freedom!Many of you, for logical reasons, probably did not see the recent Republican presidential debate on Fox. The highlight came when Ron Paul suggested that the United States government had a role in precipitating the attacks of 9/11 by meddling in the affairs of the Middle East. This observation stirred an angry rebuke from Rudy the Great who asked him to take it back. It was probably the high point of the entire presidential campaign.
Thankfully today a nationally syndicated columnist has seen fit to comment on the veracity of Paul's claim. I am proud to offer the link to this column for your perusal:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan58.html
By the way, Ron Paul won the debate according to the informal Fox News poll conducted afterwards, much to the consternation and angry confusion of that modern day political genius Sean Hannity. Way to go Dr. Ron!!!! Long live freedom and the truth! Those things still matter to some of us.
8 comments:
Watching the media fall all over themselves concerning Paul is a riot to watch. They really are dumbfounded. The morning after the debate, I watched Fox News to get some fallout. The morning anchor was talking about the results of the text message poll. Here's a paraphrase:
Anchor Guy: According to our Fox News poll, Mitt Romney won with 29% of the vote. And, to show how unscientific this poll is, Ron Paul came in 2nd at 25%.
So, you can declare Romney the winner, but Paul's 2nd place showing is the result of a flawed, unscientific poll. Nice logic, guy. There are rumors that the poll was extended to allow more Romney and Giuliani voters to catch up. When the poll was supposed to end, at 12:30 am, Paul, apparently, was still leading.
I also listened(cringe)to Limbaugh on Wednesday afternoon to see how he would address the Ron-Rudy exchange. He didn't think Rudy's rebuke was that big of a deal, because it wasn't really that hard to "smack down" Paul's comments.
Spoken like a true Neo-con shill.
Excellent article, I must say.
Beamis, have you read Buchanan's book ("How the Right Went Wrong")? I probably wouldn't agree with all his conclusions in there, but I bet there are some juicy tidbits throughout.
P.S. Is it just me, or has Newt Gingrich actually been sounding sensible for a little while now -- I mean, at least compared to the "non-Paul Nine"?
See, for example:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070517/ap_on_el_pr/gingrich_candidates_2
Yes, I read that book when it came out. I have a special attachment to Pat because he and I are homeboys (having grown up in the same neighborhood). I think he's a good guy, and like you, I don't always agree with him either but I think his heart is in the right place.
I haven't looked into Gingrich but will take your word for it and check out your link. For you to have something good to say about a guy that Christy Drexler demonized with a bumper sticker on her car that said "Neuter Gringrich" is really saying something.
You do remember Christy?
The problem with Newt is that he talks a good game. He had his chance in '94 when the Republicans took control of Congress and botched it. Same old, same old.
What are your guys opinions on Paul's runningmate when it comes time to choose? Let me throw this out to you. Colin Powell.
I honestly dont know enough about Powell and will do some research.
Paul needs a name to run with him.
One thing that crossed my mind is that Paul is a LOCK in Michigan after his comments on US foreign policy. Huge Arab population.
re: Gingrich: Oh, wait. Never mind:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070520/ap_on_re_us/liberty_commencement
re: Powell. That would be a great ticket, but there's probably close to a zero chance he'd do it.
Post a Comment