Great, great commentary from Cody Willard who's a regular on Fox Business and ran his own hedge fund but also plays backup for Neil Sedaka. Interesting dude.
How Ron Paul can go mainstream and become our next president
How Ron Paul can go mainstream and become our next president
July 22, 2011, 1:45 AM
I don’t play the Republicans-are-conservative and Democrats-are-liberal game. I mean, I get the idea that Republicans pretend they are “conservative” and that Democrats pretend that they are “liberal”, but I don’t ever vote for either party. Yeah, I know that you Republicans will say that means I “split the vote” and put in Democrats, and that you Democrats will say that means I waste my vote by voting for somebody who can’t win. I disagree because the only wasted vote is one that feeds into their system.
Seriously, there is no difference between the parties.
I’ve seen targeted tax tricks for the ultra-rich and corporate welfare explode throughout my lifetime under both, either, the same party. I’ve seen Republicans start wars and Democrats extend them. I’ve seen Democrats start wars and Republicans extend them.
I’ve seen bailouts for Wall Street started for and propagandized by Republicans including Bush, Palin, McCain and McConnell. And I’ve seen that same incredible redistribution of wealth upwards expanded under the Democrats including Obama, Pelosi and Reed.
I’ve seen Reagan expand Medicare benefits for the elderly so that private corporations with huge lobby and donation power can profiteer on our system. I’ve seen Obama dramatically increase spending on the health care system so that those same private corporations, though much fewer in number after years of supposedly illegal consolidation and elimination of competition, can further their profiteering on our system.
I’ve seen Clinton – and now Obama – cut social services while dramatically increasing our spending on murderous unconstitutional wars. I’ve seen the intangible but very real symbiotic corruption of the mainstream media by these same parties up front and personal in my years in the media.
I’ve seen the Democrats expand the ability of the TBTF banks to extend and pretend, to loot and to profiteer on our financial system with a bill that they said would do exactly opposite called Dodd-Frank. (I actually read more than half of it, as I did all the bailout bills that come in the last three or four years, if you can call looking at that giant incomprehensible loophole nonsense “reading.”) I’ve seen the Republicans declare that if the Democrats don’t add hundreds of more pages and inconceivable loopholes to that bill that the Entire Financial System Will Collapse.
I’ve interviewed many of the Congressman, Senators and lobbyists who put these bills and propaganda through.
I’m very worried that we’ve gone way too far in the last few years. I am betting my time and money and reputation on that idea that these Republican/Democrat policies are driving us into yet another huge series of bubbles (please visit TradingWithCody.com or Revolution Investing for more info). We might have a few years of incredible wealth generation for the giant corporations, banks and elite who benefit from 0% interest rates and trillions in hidden monetary infusions/targeted tax tricks/extend and pretend policies.
But I’m worried that unless we quickly stop this incredible profiteering and looting by the corporate/banking/Republican/Democrat Regime that we’ll bankrupt ourselves somewhere say five to ten years out when the music stops once again and they can no longer borrow against your children’s future prosperity to enrich themselves.
Until we stop this rapidly expanding Republican/Democrat paradigm of redistributing trillions in wealth annually upwards from the quickly disappearing middle class, we have no business debating the four trillion dollars over a ten year period from the redistribution of wealth downwards. That is, let’s conquer the trillions spent annually on corporate welfare, bank welfare, homeowner welfare and other redistribution of wealth upwards. Then, let’s get to the debate about the one trillion of so spent annually on redistribution downwards. It’s a matter of simple math, no?
How about no loopholes, no special interests, no deductions for anybody or any company? Set the tax rate much lower than it is right now for everybody and every company but kill every loophole and targeted tax trick. Something like that, I guess. Like I say, I don’t necessarily have all the answers, but I know a 68,000 page tax code is a problem and not a solution.
There are only a handful of people in the public eye, in the public sphere who get this concept and actually rail against it. One is presidential candidate Ron Paul. Another is Elizabeth Warren, who basically created and should have run the Consumer Financial Protection-Bureau.
Wait a minute! Isn’t Ron Paul a “major conservative?” Isn’t Elizabeth Warren a “liberal?” Ron Paul and Elizabeth Warren are on the same side!
See, there you go! You do a little homework and it turns out that the entire paradigm is all wrong. I’ve interviewed both of these incredible people several times over the years, and both in front of the camera and off, they are principled, smart and fighting for the common man/woman. I’ve read practically every interview they’ve given in the last few years. I’ve watched them volley back and forth against…the same enemies in Congress and the Federal Reserve.
So here’s what I propose. Congressman Ron Paul should get Elizabeth Warren as his VP candidate. Imagine the passion that ticket would enlist in people. It might actually win! It’d be impossible for any true “conservative” to vote against presidential candidate, Ron Paul. And it’d be impossible for any true “liberal” to vote against vice presidential candidate, Elizabeth Warren.
Congressman Ron Paul’s floated the trial balloon of even putting my good friend Judge Andrew Napolitano on his presidential ticket as his VP. Don’t get me wrong, I do love Judge Nap and he’s another very principled good man. But a Ron Paul/Andrew Napolitano ticket would have no chance of winning.
I think about it this way — my dear Aunt Mokie probably considers herself a died-in-the-wool “liberal” and I know she almost always votes for the warmongering/bailout-loving/upward-redistributing Democrats of the Republican/Democrat Regime. She’d never vote for a Ron Paul/Andrew Napolitano ticket, but I’d bet she’d vote for a Ron Paul/Elizabeth Warren. She’d at least think about it that way. No way a couple of “libertarians” like Ron Paul and Judge Nap would garner a second look from her, though.
The fact is that such leadership might actually turn this country around before it’s too late. If nothing else, it’d sure help re-frame this entire nonsensical conservative vs liberal paradigm that truly has no meaning in reality in the 21st century.
Yes. And if I were Ron Paul, I would do everything in my power to argue that the United States could've killed OBL at any point between 2002 and 2011. The specific useful message there is that both Bush and Obama wanted him alive so long as he was useful and dead when that became more profitable. Nothing is so harmful to Obama as the (true) accusation that he is playing the exact same game that Bush/Cheney did with nothing more than a change in rhetoric.Had we killed OBL too early, there would have been less political capital for endless war in Afghanistan and the middle east.
That's a good interview. I saw this one today and it's amazing that there are people that still think he's crazy. He's predicted everything.
I started timestamping all the key points, but the list became too long.
He knows some stuff about some things. Makes the bible thumping candidates look like they are running for class president.
A good editorial about the difference between the current candidates (- Gary Johnson) and past/present administrations and Ron Paul when it comes to drugs and the ridiculous war on them.
Ron Paul and the War on Drugs
Friday, 29 Jul 2011 07:41 AM
By Doug Wead
Last month the United Nations issued a report admitting that the worldwide war on drugs has failed. Richard Nixon was the first president to use such terminology back in 1971, and subsequent presidents have been hard at it — all with mixed results.
When I served in the Bush, senior White House, it was the common belief that what was needed was an even bigger hammer for the drug problem. A good combination of focused military power and CIA ingenuity would do the trick. We even invaded Panama. But today, the crisis is worse than ever before with no end in sight. Mexico is only a collateral causality. That country has been ruined by addiction.
Albert Einstein once quipped that "insanity was doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result." Barack Obama and all of the new serious GOP presidential candidates offer only more of the same, proving that our drug policy is indeed insane. That is, all presidential candidates except for one. The one exception is Ron Paul, who would decriminalize drugs.
This was one of the big reasons I was late to sign up for the Ron Paul revolution. I liked what he said about a return to constitutional government, about stopping the endless wars, about balancing the budget, about reigning in America's Empire and paying its bills at home. But what was with this idea of decriminalizing drugs? Wouldn't that make it worse?
Actually, studies have shown that it is exactly how we will one day solve the problem. And that's why even leaders on the religious right, like Pat Robertson, are touting it as a solution.
Imagine us trying to end the use of tobacco in this country by declaring war. Imagine arresting young people selling cigarettes on the street corners. Imagine policemen going into hospitals and arresting people dying of lung cancer and throwing them in jail. Imagine defoliating the tobacco fields of Virginia and North Carolina. Just how far would we have gotten?
Instead, we educated the nation and now the smoke has cleared.
Laws do not solve such problems. Prohibition of alcohol didn't work either. It created a criminal underclass that corrupted the American judicial system and ran some of our largest cities. Drugs are doing the same thing. Last month we discovered that a single border guard had been paid $ 5 million to let the drugs pass her station. According to a study by a Harvard economist decriminalizing drugs would pump more than $76 billion into the American economy.
Our country has the second highest incarceration rate in the world. Close to 1.5 million Americans are arrested each year for drug use. In the last twenty years almost half of all arrests in America were for marijuana possession or marijuana use. In most states, a three time felon will spend his whole life in prison at a cost of millions of dollars to taxpayers. We are warehousing people on a massive scale. To give you a sense of perspective, in the Soviet Union in1934, just before the Great Terror and the massive killing began in Stalin's famous Gulag camps, he had gathered close to one million prisoners. This is less than the population of our own prison system in America today.
Now, I am not for decriminalizing drugs because I want to use them. I have never tried marijuana or any other illegal substance, which is interesting when you consider that my name is Wead. But I know that our nation's war on drugs hasn't worked. And there is no use pretending otherwise.
I appreciate the good intentions of those who fought this war and their sacrifices and service and their wonderful ideas. For a time, it may have held back the tide and saved lives. But the stakes are higher than ever. Even more lives now hang in the balance.
I supported Ron Paul because of his prescient understanding of the American economy.
His warnings, which seemed farfetched when I first heard them, started happening right before my eyes. Now, I understand that what he has been saying about the war on drugs is equally true.
We are in trouble. It is time to do this right and quit playing politics with such a serious issue. It is time to do the things we need to do and get this done before another generation burns out.
Doug Wead is a New York Times best-selling author and a former adviser to two American presidents. He is now serving as senior adviser to the Ron Paul presidential campaign.
Last edited by maninblack; 07-29-2011 at 12:25 PM. Reason: Ron's badassedness required it
$#@! John Boehner. $#@! the Republicrats. The whole system is corrupt and we need change. I love this man and I can't wait till he's the President of the United States.
The "he wouldn't pay his rent in silver" line got me.
Last edited by maninblack; 07-29-2011 at 09:47 PM.
I'm calling it now. If Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination for president, he will be assassinated. Special interest will not let him become president because they can't control him.
I'm not that into the tin foil hat club to believe of assassination. What I will say is that you'll see lobbyists and Congress getting much cozier in attempts to marginalize the White House.
Yeah I shouldn't be "calling it now" as if it's a certainty but what I will say is I wouldn't be surprised in the least if he was.
You definitely won't see congressmen/women stepping up saying they want to give the executive branch more power like a certain douchebag did recently. Though, of course, Ron would be fine with that since he believes in rational $#@! like, you know, checks and balances and the things that are supposed to make our system of government one of the best in the world.
If Paul was in his 50's this $#@! would be over by now.
Time to look at Rand, not Ron. Ron's just too old. No prez has come close to his age (Reagan the oldest was finished with his 8 years at 76, a year younger than RP would begin.
Last edited by phdhorn; 07-30-2011 at 04:36 PM.
This past week has nearly put me in the Ron Paul camp.
And when looking at the alternative (voting in a younger, crooked politician), I say it isn't that hard of a choice.
But, he's too old anyway, now, and nowhere near in condition to handle the stress of the presidency. Anyway, he's almost exactly 1 year younger than RP, so his age would also be a factor in another run (which he's not going to do, no way, no how).
Anyway, Ron won't be a factor, again he won't come close to being nominated as usual, so it's not gonna matter. But really, even with increasing longevity in this country, it would take an unusual circumstance to vote in someone who would be 80 during his term. Not gonna happen.
Ron has managed to handle the hectic schedule of campaigning, legislating *and* holding hearings with his subcommittee with aplomb. He's a man who practices modest living and it shows. Sound mind, sound body.
According to The Hill, Bachmann's absentee rate is significantly higher than other lawmakers currently running; Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), who is not seeking re-election to focus on his presidential race, has only missed 8% of his votes since declaring his candidacy. Thad McCotter (R-MI) has missed 10%.
Slowly but surely they're coming our way boys. Check out the author of the column below.
Minds opening to libertarian ideas
By George F. Will
Sunday, July 31, 2011
George F. Will is a columnist for The Washington Post and Newsweek. He can be reached via e-mail.
August is upon us, beaches beckon, and Michele Bachmann has set the self-improvement bar high. She recently told The Wall Street Journal, "When I go on vacation and I lay on the beach, I bring von Mises." The congresswoman may be the first person ever to dribble sun lotion on the section of Ludwig von Mises' "Human Action" wherein the Austrian economist (1881-1973) discussed "the formal and aprioristic character of praxeology."
Autodidacts less exacting than Bachmann should spill sand on the pages of "The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong with America" by Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch. These incurably upbeat journalists with Reason magazine believe that not even government, try as it will, can prevent onrushing social improvement.
"Confirmation bias" is the propensity to believe news that confirms our beliefs. Gillespie and Welch say "existence bias" disposes us to believe that things that exist always will. The authors say that the most ossified, sclerotic sectors of American life -- politics and government -- are about to be blown up by new capabilities, especially the Internet, and the public's wholesome impatience that is encouraged by them.
"Think of any customer experience that has made you wince or kick the cat. What jumps to mind? Waiting in multiple lines at the Department of Motor Vehicles. Observing the bureaucratic sloth and lowest-common-denominator performance of public schools, especially in big cities. Getting ritually humiliated going through airport security. Trying desperately to understand your doctor bills. Navigating the permitting process at your local city hall. Wasting a day at home while the gas man fails to show up. Whatever you come up with, chances are good that the culprit is either a direct government monopoly (as in the providers of K-12 education) or a heavily regulated industry or utility where the government is the largest player (as in health care)."
Since 1970, per-pupil real, inflation-adjusted spending has doubled and the teacher-pupil ratio has declined substantially. But math and reading scores are essentially unchanged, so we are spending much more to achieve the same results. America has the shortest school year in the industrial world, an academic calendar -- speaking of nostalgia -- suited to an America when children were needed on the farms and ranches in the late spring and early autumn. "No other industry," Gillespie and Welch write, "still adheres to a calendar based on 19th-century agricultural cycles -- even agriculture has given up that schedule."
In the 1950s, A&P supermarkets (remember them? You probably don't) had a 75 percent market share. What used to be the General Motors Building near Central Park South has an Apple store where the automobile showroom once was. When Kodak loses customers, it withers.
But when government fails, it expands even faster. This is, Gillespie and Welch say, because "politics is a lagging indicator of change," a sector of top-down traditions increasingly out of step with today's "bottom-up business and culture" of: "You want soy with that decaf mocha frappuccino?"
A generation that has grown up with the Internet "has essentially been raised libertarian," swimming in markets, which are choices among competing alternatives.
And the left weeps. Preaching what has been called nostalgianomics, liberals mourn the passing of the days when there was one phone company, three car companies, three television networks, an airline cartel, and big labor and big business were cozy with big government.
The America of one universally known list of Top 40 records is as gone as records. When the census offered people the choice of checking the "multiracial" category, Maxine Waters, then chairing the Congressional Black Caucus, was indignant: "Letting individuals opt out of the current categories just blurs everything." This is the voice of reactionary liberalism: no blurring, no changes, no escape from old categories, spin the world back to the 1950s.
"Declaration of Independents" is suitable reading for this summer of debt-ceiling debate, which has been a proxy for a bigger debate, which is about nothing less than this: What should be the nature of the American regime? America is moving in the libertarians' direction not because they have won an argument but because government and the sectors it dominates have made themselves ludicrous. This has, however, opened minds to the libertarians' argument.
The essence of which is the commonsensical principle that before government interferes with the freedom of the individual, and of individuals making consensual transactions in markets, it ought to have a defensible reason for doing so. It usually does not.
i found this line funny. hilariously funnyPreaching what has been called nostalgianomics, liberals mourn the passing of the days when there was one phone company, three car companies, three television networks, an airline cartel, and big labor and big business were cozy with big government.
this is a glaring issue with our discourse. first of all, this ^ is what we have now (at least some of it, like the banks/gov and dysfunctional airline cartel + media/gov cartel), and second, the term is left-wing, fool.And the left weeps. Preaching what has been called nostalgianomics, liberals mourn the passing of the days when there was one phone company, three car companies, three television networks, an airline cartel, and big labor and big business were cozy with big government.
Ron introduced legislation yesterday to cancel debt held by the Fed.
Rep. Paul introduces bill to cancel $1.6T in debt held by Federal Reserve
By Pete Kasperowicz - 08/02/11 10:13 AM ET
Rep. Ron Paul on Monday introduced legislation that would lower the federal government's debt by canceling the roughly $1.6 trillion in debt held by the Federal Reserve.
Paul has argued for the last few weeks that the idea represents a quick way to make the growing fiscal crisis more manageable. Under his bill, H.R. 2768, the $1.6 trillion that the Treasury owes to the Federal Reserve would disappear.
The Federal Reserve began buying Treasury bonds in earnest late last year as part of its effort to keep long-term interest rates down. But Paul has argued that Fed purchases of Treasury debt represent a debt that the government owes to itself, and one that also leads to an unwanted and inflationary increase in the money supply.
Paul has also said the Fed is allowing the federal government to continue a spending binge it otherwise would not be able to afford, and is forcing the Fed to print money to keep up.
"If the federal government cannot cut spending and bring the budget back into balance, the Fed undoubtedly will be forced to simply monetize trillions of dollars in Treasury debt, which is nothing more than a stealth form of default," Paul said back in May.
Paul is highly critical of the debt-ceiling agreement that the House approved Monday, and said that rather than require real cuts in spending, the bill mostly cuts planned spending levels in the future. According to the legislation, discretionary spending in 2012 would be just $7 billion less than in 2011, and in 2013 it would be just $3 billion less than 2011 before allowing increases above 2011 levels.
"No plan under serious consideration cuts spending in the way you and I think about it," Paul wrote in a piece that appeared on The Hill's Congress Blog. "Instead, the 'cuts' being discussed are illusory, and are not cuts from current amounts being spent, but cuts in projected spending increases."
Ron Paul's campaign is seeking additional funds to win Iowa. They want to raise another $1.4M for their projects leading up to the Ames Straw poll.
Main campaign site:
Campaign site where you can donate to specific projects (kinda neat idea):
If Ron wins Iowa, which is possible, the GOP primary race will become very interesting indeed.
http://www.businesswire.com/news/hom...owngrading-U.S.Ron Paul Issues Statement on S&P Downgrading of U.S. Credit Rating
“Washington must take heed, and act to restore America”
LAKE JACKSON, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Today, 2012 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul issued a statement in response to the credit rating agency Standard and Poor’s decision to downgrade the United States’ credit rating from AAA for the first time in history. The ratings agency has removed the United States government from its list of risk-free borrowers, citing concern about the rising burden of long-term federal debt. See comments below.
“We have just learned that for the first time in our history, the United States’ top credit rating has been downgraded by credit rating agency S&P.
“We were told by proponents of increasing the debt ceiling that a credit downgrade would come if we didn’t raise the limit, but the opposite was true.
“The ratings agencies had been warning us for some time that it is imperative upon the U.S. government to get its fiscal house in order and tackle its debt and deficit problem by taking serious steps.
“Unfortunately, the game in Washington has been one of partisan blaming and bipartisan out-of-control spending.
“America has been dealing with this severe economic crisis for years because the Washington establishment failed to focus on the true issues at hand: a declining dollar and out-of-control spending.
“Last November, millions of frustrated Americans let it be known that they wanted our debt crisis solved and our spending problem to end. They sent a group of new lawmakers to Washington to end business as usual.
“But the old crowd of elites still refuses to budge on doing everything it takes to get us out of this hole they’ve dug. Instead of real substantial budget cuts, we get minor or ‘fake’ cuts and budget tricks that may or may not happen far off into the future. We get a Congress that abdicates its responsibility to an unconstitutional ‘Super Congress’ with the power to make things worse than they already are.
“The American people realize that our nation can no longer afford to stay on this same path of reckless spending and follow the status quo of Washington. They will not tolerate any further ineffective stimulus schemes that do nothing to help our economy and actually do the opposite to the tune of trillions of dollars in money being spent and printed, and millions of people remaining unemployed and without much economic stability or security.
“If Washington refuses to take heed, there is little cause for optimism.
“Growing inflation, rising gasoline and food prices, and trillion-dollar budget deficits will all soon seem like minor issues if our nation does not immediately change our monetary and spending policies.
“We must take bold actions to reduce out-of-control government spending, and get the federal government out of the way of small business and entrepreneurs so that they can start hiring again.
“If elected President, I pledge to veto any unbalanced budget and to balance the federal budget in the first year of my term. I will fight to reduce taxes and remove unconstitutional regulations so that businesses can hire, Americans can get back to work, and our economy can truly recover.”
He is the only person in Washington who I can believe when they say that they will balance the budget.“If elected President, I pledge to veto any unbalanced budget and to balance the federal budget in the first year of my term. I will fight to reduce taxes and remove unconstitutional regulations so that businesses can hire, Americans can get back to work, and our economy can truly recover.”
I'm really glad to see Ron starting to add the "as President I will" action items to his press statements.
Latest Gallup Poll:
Mitt Romney 24%
Rick Perry 17%
Ron Paul 14%
Michele Bachmann 13%
Newt Gingrich 7%
Herman Cain 4%
Tim Pawlenty 3%
Jon Huntsman 2%
Rick Santorum 1%
Gun owners sya yes to Ron Paul:
‘Gun Owners for Ron Paul’ rolled out
By Lynda Waddington | 08.09.11 | 8:42 am
2 Comments and 0 ReactionsShare12The presidential campaign for U.S. Rep. Ron Paul continues to roll out constituency support groups, their latest being an organized effort to pull Second Amendment advocates toward the candidate.
“Rep. Ron Paul has justly been dubbed a champion of our Constitution. He works tirelessly to stop — and reverse — federal encroachment on the Second Amendment. While other members of Congress traded their integrity to get votes for pet projects, Ron Paul earned the nickname ‘Dr. No’ for his unwillingness to abrogate the Constitution,” Ed Dolan of Central City said in a prepared release.
Dolan is a Gun Owners of America life member, a patron member of the National Rifle Association and a member of the Iowa Firearms Coalition.
Paul earned a 100 percent score on the National Association for Gun Rights Presidential Survey after being the first respondent. He maintains an “A+” rating from the uncompromising Gun Owners of America and an “A” rating from the NRA. He earned such ratings by introducing and supporting legislation friendly to gun owners. For instance, the Texas Congressman re-introduced legislation that aims to repeal the federal Gun Free School Zone Act, which he deems is misguided legislation that has the unintended consequence of leaving school children and adults vulnerable in or around schools. He also pushed the Citizens Protection Act of 2011, and has advocated for responsible gun owners to freely exercise their right to defend others against criminals that do not observe firearms prohibitions.
“Ron Paul has been a staunch defender of the Constitution for his entire career,” noted Tim Pugh of Cedar Rapids, who helped form and lead the local tea party movement and is an avid sportsman. “Along with that defense is his unwavering support for the Second Amendment.”
Although a state-based group, Iowa Gun Owners, praised a decision to link a Carroll Library bond vote to Second Amendment rights in an unidentified automated phone call to local residents, and numbers used to make such calls were linked back to Ron Paul’s Iowa operation, it is is important to note that Iowa Gun Owners and Gun Owners of America appear to be two unaffiliated groups.
Drew Ivers, Iowa spokesman for Paul, said that there was a time when when the campaign was associated with Iowa Gun Owners, but the campaign ultimately found the organization’s style to be “too abrasive.” Other Iowa Second Amendment organizations have also sought to distance themselves from IGO tactics.
The automated call noted that the Carroll City Council had voted to ban firearms on public property, and labeled the proposed new library as a “victim zone.” The Carroll bond issue was defeated, and no organization has claimed responsibility for the automated calls.
Interesting times indeed:http://www.lewrockwell.com/political...-be-president/Proof That Ron Paul Could Be President
Posted on August 12, 2011 by Lew Rockwell
After snubbing him for 29 years at their annual monetary conference, the Koch Bros. have invited Ron to be the keynote speaker this time, a position usually taken by Greenspan, Bernanke, or some other central banker. The oligarchs fear him and the power of his honest money and banking ideas.
It's a CATO conference. I found the reference in an old LRC post which was linked from this interesting Ron Paul vs. the Kochtopus bit. Justin Raimondo had also published a lengthy piece detailing the rift between the CATO/Reason crowd and Ron Paul last time around.
Tom Woods offers some constructive criticism and advice for the next debate:
Gang, you know I would crawl over broken glass for this guy, and that I consider him a giant in terms of his intelligence, his courage, his honesty, and his integrity. Here’s my post-debate commentary, saying just that. And standing on a debate stage alongside creeps and liars, getting 30 seconds to discuss complicated matters, must be unspeakable. It’s easy to be a Monday-morning quarterback, for sure.
Having said that, I want to share a few thoughts on what I would recommend if I were a debate coach:
(1) Remember the level of economic knowledge most Americans have: pretty much zero. They have never even heard the term “business cycle.” One must be less ambitious in a debate, in terms of what he can expect to get across, as opposed to a more leisurely magazine or television interview.
At the same time, the candidate has to differentiate himself, and can’t simply repeat that he favors low taxes, reduced spending, and a balanced budget. That’s what they all say.
I would say something like this: “By my count, we have tried at least sixteen forms of economic stimulus. And most of them were tried under Republicans, so be skeptical of the pretty speeches you’re suddenly hearing from the other candidates tonight. None of it gives us real prosperity. Just a sugar high that we’re now crashing from — and all the president can suggest is more sugar.
“My supporters are always on me to boast more. After all, they say, I predicted long ago that this system of unpayable debt and money created out of thin air would come to grief. Now I do hate boasting. But the current crisis is too important for me not to level with you. No one on this stage saw the economic crisis of 2008 coming. I’m flattered that they’re at least trying to sound like me, but I actually have the track record to show that I warned about this long ago and have fought a lonely battle, without much help from people on this stage, ever since.”
(2) If the Federal Reserve comes up, I would keep it very simple. Two major points:
(a) “If you were given the power to create all the money you wanted to out of thin air, I bet you’d use that power. Now think about it: what group in society would we least trust with that power? If you said politicians, go to the head of the class. But no one, and I mean no one, will talk about the Federal Reserve. The less they talk about it, the more important you know it must be. And that’s why I want to talk to Americans about it, whether or not the focus groups say I should.”
(b) “The Fed benefits the economic elite at the expense of the general public, as I’ve explained in my books. And it encourages what we call moral hazard — which means these big firms take excessive risks in the expectation of a bailout in the future. Well, why shouldn’t they expect a bailout under the current system — it’s so easy to print the money! Enough is enough. If you’re going to cry and whine about bailouts on this stage but not utter a peep against the institution that makes the bailouts possible, you are a fraud.”
(3) It is necessary to call out the other candidates. I know this goes against Dr. Paul’s style. But here is where his humility comes in: this movement is not, in the final analysis, about Ron Paul. It is about his ideas. And those ideas have to be allowed to penetrate the fog of a presidential debate. Whatever Dr. Paul’s personal debating preferences, they have to be secondary. The ideas, and the welfare of our country, simply demand it.
He doesn’t have to pick on any person in particular. But it would be an extraordinary moment, and one that would intrigue countless Americans into making that fateful first Google search of Ron Paul, if he said: “May I have a show of hands, please, of all the people on this stage who predicted the crash of 2008, and who were critics of the Federal Reserve and its destructive effects on our economy before I made it fashionable to be? Economic convulsions are being felt all over the world. The system is coming unglued. My colleagues on this stage have been taken by surprise. I wasn’t — not because I’m a clairvoyant, or because I have some exclusive insight. I knew it because I actually read the great free-market economists, and because I have written and spoken on these issues for over 35 years.
“We have a very bumpy ride ahead of us, and we’re going to need a team that has been knowledgeable and alert. I invite you to examine my record for yourself, and then decide whose ideas are most likely to bring us through this crisis swiftly and effectively.”
(4) On matters relating to health care, I would have Dr. Paul repeat until it’s second nature, for every single time the issue comes up, “As a medical doctor myself, having delivered over 4,000 babies in my career….”
(5) As for how Ron Paul would deal with a divided Congress, I would say this. Ron Paul is calling for real changes, not the usual pile of nothing his opponents are calling for. If the country has decided it’s ready for a truth teller of his caliber, and someone who intends to change things root and branch, that would mean he had been elected with a serious mandate. He could then appeal directly to the public to help him with Congress, perhaps asking them to inquire with any recalcitrant congressmen whether any of them were as prophetic on the economy as the new president had been.
(6) A very effective 30-second closing statement has to be written, memorized, and rehearsed. This is absolutely mandatory. As he is flying to an event, or finding himself with a few spare moments, he can go over it. The statement last night was much better than the one in the first debate. But again, Dr. Paul owes it to his ideas to blow the other candidates off the stage with his closing statement. Thirty seconds is enough time to make clear that he is different, that he is telling them the truth, and that he isn’t a plastic man like the rest of them. I would be glad to draft such a statement.
I cannot emphasize enough that Ron Paul is a far more courageous person than I am, and that we deeply admire his vast knowledge, his personal integrity and his extraordinary, unheard-of record from twelve congressional terms. All we want is for more people to become aware of this great man, and I hope some of these suggestions can help make that possible.
I was thinking about this earlier today and I would approach it a bit differently:(5) As for how Ron Paul would deal with a divided Congress, I would say this. Ron Paul is calling for real changes, not the usual pile of nothing his opponents are calling for. If the country has decided it’s ready for a truth teller of his caliber, and someone who intends to change things root and branch, that would mean he had been elected with a serious mandate. He could then appeal directly to the public to help him with Congress, perhaps asking them to inquire with any recalcitrant congressmen whether any of them were as prophetic on the economy as the new president had been.
I have introduced a bill to Audit the Fed in Congress every session continuously for X years. The bills never received any support in the face of powerful lobbying interests. Politicians instinctually don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. However, thanks to support from voters - even a just a small faction of tea enthusiasts - we finally passed a first step audit measure through Congress. With the support of the people, anything is possible. Great things are possible. America is possible.
Last edited by Anastasis; 08-12-2011 at 07:55 PM.
Football .. Basketball .. Baseball .. Other Sports .. RC Didn't Offer .. Gamboool
Varsity .. Hole in the Wall .. PCL .. Einstein's .. Nasty's .. GM Steakhouse .. NSAA
Bada Bing .. Can you help me with this? .. Shagslist .. Cloak Room .. Classics .. Bellmont