Like JulieAnnie? And Gomer Pyle?
Posted on 12/29/2007 12:26:12 PM PST by StopTheNAU
PLAISTOW, N.H. -- Ron Paul said the decision to exclude him from a debate on Fox News Sunday the weekend before the New Hampshire Primary is proof that the network "is scared" of him.
"They are scared of me and don't want my message to get out, but it will," Paul said in an interview at a diner here. "They are propagandists for this war and I challenge them on the notion that they are conservative."
Paul's staff said they are beginning to plan a rally that will take place at the same time the 90-minute debate will air on television. It will be taped at Saint Anselm College in Goffstown.
"They will not win this skirmish," he promised.
The Fox debate occurs less than 24 hours after two back to back Republican and Democratic debates on the same campus sponsored by ABC News, WMUR-TV and the social networking website Facebook.
Paul, the Republican Texas Congressman, was wrapping up his final day of campaigning in New Hampshire until the Iowa Caucuses on Thursday.
He spent much of the day campaigning at diners in Manchester and Plaistow and downtown walks in Derry and Exeter.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
I've seen Paul's supporters up close and they're just regular joes who don't like the direction that our nation is headed in. There's a meetup group in the Fox Valley here in WI I went to though I'm not a member because of my job committment. There were homeschoolers, Christians, blacks, Hmong, some liberals, college kids, you name it. People from all walks of life. If you want to believe that Paul's support entirely comprises of white supremacists or whackos go ahead but you're simply being disingenuous.
They're mostly disgruntled folks concerned about the direction our nation is headed.
They aren’t coming to him because he’s converting liberals to conservatives. They’re coming to him because they view him the same way we viewed Dennis Kucinich in the 2004 primaries:
But you fail to understand that Paul is not compromising for THEM. He has thrown the message of freedom and liberty out there. What people do with it is their business, not Paul's.
a spoiler candidate who would suck exposure and votes away from the real candidates.
The other GOP candidates never had those votes to begin with, so Paul's not a "spoiler." It is the responsibility of candidates to attract votes. If they can't do it, then how is it Paul's fault? Paul doesn't owe the other candidate's NOTHING. This is what's so funny about the Paul bashing, when the general election rolls around, you guys are going to call Paul's supporters "traitors" for not voting for the GOP nominee. Politicians do not own anyone's vote. They have to go out there with a winning message to attract them. That's what Paul is doing, his message of freedom and limited government has attracted folks to him in droves.
Alright, if you want to pimp your guy, that’s fine. But don’t pretend that libs are giving him money because he’s converting them to conservatism.
Plugging your ears up and singing “LALALALALALALA” is the Democrat way.
"I didn't say he supported Reagan."
I'll parse on you,too. I didn't say you had claimed Paul supported Reagan, I said "don't you go on to claim Paul supported Reagan. And my point is that with regard to the major issue of Reagan's presidency, Paul was firmly on the side of the freezers and the Soviets. Trust him if you want.
bump
As I pointed out, he faced dire professional consequences if he had.
Clearly he believed that the Vietnam War was unconstitutional - he has said as much on various occasions.
So it's pretty clear that he chose to serve in the ANG for the money. He famously bragged to the Dartmouth Review that he was getting paid more and had better hours working for the USAF as a flight surgeon than he did as a medical resident.
Far from complaining about his lucrative service far from front lines, he was overjoyed to be sitting in the rear with the gear, as the saying goes. He had just about the cushiest and safest position in the whole armed forces.
That's not true.
Of course it is. Violating the Selective Service And Training Act Of 1940 could have resulted in a felony conviction.
In the 1960s, a felony conviction would almost certainly have guaranteed forfeiture of one's medical license - as it usually does today.
If they're donating to Paul, they either enjoy wasting their money or they want to learn about freedom and liberty. The bottom line is that Paul is not going to change his views for them.
Fox News is pushing for nobody. They report and let us decide unlike the Clinton News Network.
Like JulieAnnie? And Gomer Pyle?
That never crossed his mind. When he was drafted, he set out to make the most of it. He never even thought about avoiding or wiggling out of it.
Clearly he believed that the Vietnam War was unconstitutional - he has said as much on various occasions.
That was years after his service. He didn't have an opinion on Vietnam then because Vietnam was in its infancy. He was drafted during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
So it's pretty clear that he chose to serve in the ANG for the money.
Uh he served two years in the Air Force prior to going into the ANG and rose to the rank of Captain. The same ANG that FReepers defended Bush on in 2004, but have no problem disparaging Paul's service in it.
He famously bragged to the Dartmouth Review that he was getting paid more and had better hours working for the USAF as a flight surgeon than he did as a medical resident.
That's true because there was a shortage of flight surgeons then, hence the reason why he was drafted. Nothing wrong with tooting your horn about it.
Far from complaining about his lucrative service far from front lines, he was overjoyed to be sitting in the rear with the gear, as the saying goes. He had just about the cushiest and safest position in the whole armed forces.
Paul spent time attending to pilots on flights in Iran, Korea, and dozens of other flight missions. He could have been killed in a plane crash just as much as if he would have had boots on the ground in combat. So his position in the military wasn't "safe." His military service is just as honorable as Duncan Hunter's or President Bush's.
I trust the two congressman running for POTUS in the GOP. But I do not trust any senators current or former nor governors current or former running for POTUS in either party. You may hate him but Ron Paul does have some good ideas the GOP would be wise to wake up and take up as their own. I've said this before though. In todays GOP John F Kennedy would be considered unelectable as he would be too conservative for the GOP's acquired Liberal taste.
You can’t get much more swinish than that!
Whatever one thinks about Ron Paul’s positions on various issues, this is total B.S.
He’s tied with, or ahead of, a number of the participating candidates in a number of polls.
However, I don’t think it’s Fox News at which he ought to be venting his anger.
More likely, it’s some of the GOP “officials” in New Hampshire who are pulling the strings.
If he does go third party after this, it’ll be hard to blame him.
FOX News is going to lose a lot of credibility if Paul finishes strong in IA
‘Perhaps because he has an enthusiastic base of supporters’
“Yes, they’re called Democrats.”
No doubt there are Democrats, as well as Republicans, supporting Ron Paul... but the wild card (read, or re-read carefully, the editorial) is previous non-voters, which includes many former Democrats and former Republicans who have written off the two “mainstream centrist” imperial parties since both of these have become addicted to power derived from the corporate welfare/warfare state that the US national government has become.
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB119888809249456697.html
Ron Beats Rudy?
December 29, 2007
Manchester, N.H.
Well, I emailed them for all the good it will do. I’m still undecided as to who to support (my candidate, Tom Tancredo, dropped out of the race), but this is just plain unfair.
People don’t seem to realize that ABC will be hosting all of the Republican candidates two days before the Fox debate.
The Fox debate is going to be a sit-down, intimate affair, so they want to keep it limited to the top tier candidates. I applaud them for that. It won’t be a mere re-run of the ABC debate.
I have listened to Ron Paul and he is no more a Republican than Dennis Kucinich is. He is an isolationist of the 1940s era before Pearl Harbor.
I know you feel extremely close to your hero, but you will excuse me if I do not take your word for it that you were privy to his inmost thoughts 45 years ago.
That was years after his service. He didn't have an opinion on Vietnam then because Vietnam was in its infancy. He was drafted during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
He was in the ANG during the Vietnam era and he has spoken publicly about how he was deeply morally conflicted at the time about giving physicals to young pilots who were slated to enter combat.
So, according to his own statements, he was morally opposed to the Vietnam War even while he was being paid to facilitate it.
Uh he served two years in the Air Force prior to going into the ANG and rose to the rank of Captain.
He entered the USAF as a first lieutenant and left two years later as a captain - in other words, he was promoted one rank. Pretty standard.
The same ANG that FReepers defended Bush on in 2004, but have no problem disparaging Paul's service in it.
Setting aside the fact that training as a pilot involves a real risk of death on every training run, while sitting around in a base hospital examination room does not - the point is (a) his attitude toward the armed forces and their mission and (b) his career alternatives.
George W. Bush has never expressed the opinion that his country was wrong to be involved in Vietnam - his service in no way conflicts with his conscience. Also, George W. Bush was paid substantially less as an ANG pilot than he would have been had he entered his father's business instead.
So George W. Bush was not doing something he believed was wrong, nor was his only apparent motive for doing so hard cash.
It is the opposite for Ron Paul - he is saying now that he was doing something that he thought was wrong but that he was making more money doing it than would have otherwise been the case.
That's true because there was a shortage of flight surgeons then, hence the reason why he was drafted. Nothing wrong with tooting your horn about it.
He was not drafted because of his medical training. The Selective Service And Training Act Of 1940 operated under a lottery system. Paul was chosen at random. If he is tooting his horn, he is tooting his horn over winning a blind drawing.
Paul spent time attending to pilots on flights in Iran, Korea, and dozens of other flight missions.
He didn't attend to pilots - he was a flight surgeon (an antiquated term that does not actually involve surgery) and not an attending physician. He did not become an attending physician until a year after he left the ANG.
He examined pilots to see if they were fit for duty. He was never on a "flight mission."
The USAF flew him to the secure bases they wanted him to go to in order to examine pilots because it was more economical to fly one doctor out to examine a few dozen pilots than to fly a few dozen pilots to see a doctor.
He could have been killed in a plane crash just as much as if he would have had boots on the ground in combat. So his position in the military wasn't "safe."
"Just as much? LOL!
Neither is anyone's position safe who ever takes a commercial airline flight. Paul spent his military career as safely as any civilian.
In fact, more safely, since I believe the non-combat, non-training safety record of military aircraft is safer than that of civilian aircraft.
Ask someone who has served in combat whether they felt safer in combat or on the flight they took home to enjoy leave.
His military service is just as honorable as Duncan Hunter's or President Bush's.
It certainly would have been, had he not subsequently publicly admitted that he didn't believe he should have done it, but that the cash he got for it was much fatter than his civilian pay.
Doing something you believe to be wrong just because it pays well is not honorable, by definition.
Fair enough. Which candidates will be included?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.