More Active Posts
Front Page
St. Paul on Leno
 |
 30 Comments |
Last night, Ron Paul delivered an incredibly cogent and winsome interview on The Tonight Show. I like him more and more. My favorite line from the clip: Paul says, “There probably is a risk that I could win.” Republicans need more irony like that. Until I determine how to post video, you can watch the fabulous 8-minute interview here.
 |
Topic: WorldMagBlog |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: conservatives, election-2008, politics, presidential-election, republicans, Ron-Paul |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
One more diversion
He knows what he’s talking about. Anyone can tell he’s well read and has an excellent understanding of history.
Speaking strictly of superficialities, now:
“Granpa Ron” is sure scoring big with the younger demographic — say, 18-25 year old voters. He may not be as polished as the Romnulator, or as quick of a wit as Newt Gingrich, but he has a down-to-earth genuineness and humility that nobody else can touch.
And of course, he does know what he’s talking about re. economics and the Constitution.
PS, Harrison: If I may suggest, one of the best ways to get to know what Ron Paul is all about is to read his own words, whether from his floor speeches or his articles.
Here’s an archive of such items:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/#art2
I tried to watch, but I fell asleep.
Note: He was Leno’s 2nd guest. He followed Tom Cruise. ‘Nuff said, right there!
BTW, Cruise plays a senator (Senator Jaspar Irving) in his new movie. Hmmm, would America elect a Scientologist to the Senate?
I thought the appearance was good, this will definitely help him build some credibility. While I’m not a big supporter of Paul he’s really the best candidate in this election.
I thought that Leno did an excellent job asking questions that most people are confused about concerning Dr. Paul. And, Paul did a great job answering them.
Go, Paul, Go!
Americans, having voted themselves “largess out of the public treasury,” will not elect a man who wants to replace largess with freedom.
Ron Paul may say all the right things, but he’s got all the wrong supporters. Thank goodness he has no chance of winning. Not that any of his rivals are much better, but… (I’ll be sleeping in late next election day.)
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=27720_Moronic_Convergence_in_Los_Angeles&only
http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/
http://lonestartimes.com/2007/10/25/rpb1/
http://muslimsvoteronpaul.com/
Ron Paul may say all the right things, but he’s got all the wrong supporters. Thank goodness he has no chance of winning. Not that any of his rivals are much better, but… (I’ll be sleeping in late next election day.)
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=27720_Moronic_Convergence_in_Los_Angeles&only
While I totally agree with Paul on economic issues, I just don’t know about his foreign policy ideas. Why can’t we have both a libertarian approach to politics and a strong stance against terrorism?
I love how I spend 20 minutes writing a comment here and, without explanation, the blog refuses to post it. I have no idea why the comment was rejected, so I’m just not going to try any more.
David L.
One way to get around that problem is to always copy your text to the clipboard before posting. Then if it doesn’t go through, paste and try again. Or past to Word or notepad and try it in parts. It’s not a solution to whatever glitch is causing this problem, but a workaround that will keep us from missing out on what you had to say.
Regards,
SG
I loved seeing the good Doctor on Leno last night. When do you think the last time a presidential canidate mentioned his love for Austrian economics and sound money in any platform let alone a national TV audience? Of Course, this afternoon, the Federal Reserve fired up the printing presses today and once again debased our currency to bail out Wall Street hedgefunds. We should be disgusted. That is, disgusted, if we understand what it means to have sound money. No other canidate, in either party, understands this at all (McCain thought it would be great if we had a 0% Fed rate) but it is the core issue of our economic survival. Listen to the good Doctor, Jim Rogers and Peter Schiff.
I was quite impressed with Paul, as I usually am. I really appreciate that he answers the question he was asked instead of using the question as a springboard to talk about what he wished he’d been asked.
Straightforward, intelligent answers without the double-speak. I wish we could see more of that in politics.
This just in from Mrs. Frank:
David L. says: “Ron Paul may say all the right things, but he’s got all the wrong supporters. Thank goodness he has no chance of winning.”
I presume that means you’re in favor of expanding the US empire, dishonest money, and heading toward the inevitable long range end of the collapse of the USA as we know it today? Also, that you believe terrorism is the inevitable result of NOT fighting fire with fire by invading country after country.
Did you read my whole comment, Wiglaf? I said, first of all, that none of the other candidates are much better. Second of all, I said, “He says all the right things.” So it’s not his policies exactly that concern me. I made it clear that my probel is that he attracts the most insane supporters from every nook and cranny of the political spectrum. It’s some surreal conflation of Islamists, hippies, conspiracy theorists and white-power neo-Nazis.
According to your logic, if you support Ron Paul, I assume that means you’re in favor of expanding the ummah, finding out why Bush really blew up the World Trade Center and eliminating the evil Zionist cabal that secretly runs the US. Very perceptive argument, no?
I love Ron Paul for a variety of reasons, and I’ve found yet another:
On Tuesday, both Paul and Tom Cruise were guests on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. The actor went to Paul’s dressing room to thank him for his work on a bill fighting the forced mental screening of grade-school kids. “Go. Go. Go. Go hard,” Cruise said. Paul turned to an aide and asked, “What movies has he been in?”
~ Joel Stein, “The Ron Paul Revolution,” 01 Nov 2007
BTW. David L., Ron Paul attracts a broad range of intelligent, well-read, working- and upper-class, conservative and liberal, Republican and Dmeocrat, liberty-loving Americans from a variety of religious, racial and ethnic backgrounds. If he also attracts some nutburgers (and admittedly, he does), please don’t write him off because of that.
We’re called “a coalition.” All of us.
And it’s gonna take just such a coalition to beat the Hildebeast.
Harrison writes: “I like him more and more.”
So when will World mag be doing a feature on Paul, Harrison?
David L,
If he says “all the right things” (assuming he’s sincere), why should it bother you that he has “all the wrong supporters?” Is a truth any less true because stupid people also believe it? Do you disbelieve gravity because every wacko, nutjob, and crank also believes it?
I am a “single-issue voter.” My issue is that no one should be President.
I am a hypocrite. I usually do vote, on the stupid basis of “Who is least bad.”
Libertarians are probably the candidates most compatible with my single issue.
Actually, I am a liar too. My half an issue is tolerance for gay people. What is Ron’s position on queers?
Ron Paul: The Libertarian
Rep. Ron Paul of Texas sees the issu e of homosexuality, as he sees most things, through the lens of his strict interpretation of the Constitution. He believes that government’s role is to stay out of the lives of citizens. It follows, therefore, that he is against a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. In fact, he is not even sure that government needs to be involved in marriage in the first place. “Marriage only came about, and getting licenses only came about — in recent history for health reasons,” said Paul, who is a medical doctor, in a “Values Voter Debate” on Sept. 17. “True Christians, I believe, believe that marriage is a church function, not a state function. It’s not a state function. I don’t think you need a license to get married. We should define it.”
This door swings both ways. [so to speak] He is also against federal laws that could protect gays and lesbians from discrimination, including hate-crime laws and ENDA. He says the current Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy is “a decent policy.” If Paul becomes president, it is a safe bet that he will not do much to help or hinder the cause of gay and lesbian rights. “All individuals have the right to their life if they do no harm,” he said at the debate, before a deeply religious crowd. “You don’t try to do a whole lot about it.”
JJF,
Ron Paul may sound like a good, traditional conservative on many issues, but why do white supremacists, radical leftists, conspiracy theorists and Islamists like what they hear so much? It makes me suspicious.
I would answer at more length, but I think this conversation is moot. He’s not going to win.
I’m with Kyle A on this one. I’ll only vote for a presidential candidate who is willing to fight against the Islamic terrorist threat.
David L:
I imagine for the same reasons pastors, teachers, doctors, lawyers, farmers, and mothers do.
I guess I don’t understand this “I like his ideas but he’s supported by the wrong kind of people” mentality. Paul’s message is limited Constitutional government and individual liberty. All kinds of people may be attracted to that message — some good, some bad, some you agree with, some you don’t. It is also, I would point out, the message of the American founders.
They were well aware that the government they founded was meant for a certain kind of people — a moral, responsible, religious people. People who would govern themselves rather than be governed by the bayonet. Perhaps you believe that we are no longer that people, and we need to be ruled by the bayonet. Then Guiliani is your man.
JJF,
Perhaps, as I already said twice, I don’t think any candidate will be voting for in ‘08. Perhaps I’ll just sleep in on election day, go to work and then go home to my family. Who are you going to vote for when Ron Paul’s not on the ballot?
Write Ron Paul in regardless.
David L,
Your inference that fringe group support of Ron Paul raises suspicion is a logical fallacy, commonly referred to as guilt by association as an ad hominem. The form follows:
A makes claim P.
Bs also make claim P.
Therefore, A is a B.
Just so you know.
#26
I am not familiar with the political office of “regardless.”
However, I regard Ron Paul as well qualified for it, re…
Never mind.
My son does valet parking at a restaurant in NH. Ron Paul went there and parked in a handicapped spot. Is he handicapped? I think not! Anyway his beat up little Pontiac was crunched later by a big pickup truck. This had nothing to do with the valets. Both customers parked their own cars. Welcome to NH Ron Paul, (even though you aren’t handicapped)!
Random Name,
Irregardless, you get my point.