Today on Blogcritics
Home » Iowa Presidential Debate Organizers Snub Ron Paul

Iowa Presidential Debate Organizers Snub Ron Paul

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Few examples of the behind-the-scenes power exerting its authority over the people are more impactful than the deliberate stranglehold on the free speech of candidates running for office. Today, Ron Paul finds himself in the chokehold of a couple of Iowa organizations that have refused to allow his message to be heard on the same stage as other Republican candidates. Ironically, one of the groups claims to be Christian.

As a former campaign manager for a popular candidate running for the California State Assembly in a wealthy district of San Diego County a few years back, I witnessed first-hand the backroom dirty dealing that goes on in the political parties. In my particular experience, the candidate was the front-runner but was eschewed by the Republican Party (the district was historically Republican and so was my candidate) simply and solely on the basis of the fact that he was black.

After weeks of phone calls, meetings and quiet inferences that the Republican Party of San Diego County would support him if he bowed out of the district for which he was running and moved to a southern district near the Mexico border and ran for Congress against a Democrat who was firmly planted there, my candidate accepted the fact that he would not be endorsed by the county Republican Party (although he held office within that same group). It was a conditional offer made by the party to provide support as a sacrifical lamb in a congressional battle if he gracefully exited the race in his home district. He declined. Not once, but several times.

Eventually, a high-ranking member of the Republican National Committee flew down to see us. The “us” was just my candidate and myself. The three of us were in an office conference room in Northern San Diego County when the proposition was made plain. My candidate declined the “offer.” In the following weeks the field of candidates for the primaries in our district tripled. When it came time to vote, there were 12 candidates flooding the field in the Republican primary, including a couple of very wealthy latecomers. In the end, we finished 4th.

I left politics after that.

It was quite apparent to me during my short involvement in the behind-the-scenes organization of campaigns for issues and candidates that what the public sees is often contrived, manipulated and sometimes cutthroat. I remember when another well respected Republican candidate, Ambassador Alan Keyes, was taken away from a debate (to which he was initially invited) in handcuffs because he refused to acquiesce to the power that informed him he could not participate.

Today, the organizers in Iowa are preparing for a debate between Republican presidential candidates. This time the odd man out is Ron Paul of Texas. His campaign is quite dismayed at the display of hostile suppression by the folks in Iowa who purport to be Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance. Such strongarm tactics to prevent Paul from addressing issues the other candidates prefer to ignore is not in keeping with the spirit of our constitutional rights to freedom of speech and the democratic process of electing leaders.

The gatekeepers that guard access to the public will do no great service to that public by dismissing a relevant voice in the presidential debate in order to kowtow to the candidates that have ganged up against Paul. While there is no outward proof that the other candidates intend to bow out or have exercised some other clout necessary to close the gate on Paul, the result is clear. Paul has not been invited to a debate his campaign clearly desires to attend.

There is really no mystery here. Since the debate where Paul and Rudy Guiliani briefly broached the topic of 9/11, Paul has been cast in the shadows while the rest of the field has steered clear of the issue of 9/11 and Paul’s specific comments. Nevertheless, the American people are interested in the subject even as the national media joins in the effort to suppress the issue from reaching mass audiences during primetime debate coverage.

Unfortunately, much of the American people are quite ignorant, intolerant and impatient, as many in political circles rightly describe the general population. Even a cursory look into the campaigns of numerous candidates reveal methodologies designed to persuade the dumbest among us. Marketing efforts seek to utilize jokes, references to pop culture and an overall appeal to the “Sopranos” fans of America. That isn’t to say everyone watching the Sopranos has the IQ equal to their shoe size. But the overall process of politicking and campaigning employs methods that insult the intelligence of many as candidates clamor to pander to the popular culture of the day.

Analyze the totality of the methods of marketing to the masses and you will learn little about the candidates regarding the most important issues facing this nation. They all just want to be liked, or receive the ultimate compliment of being perceived as “cool.”

The media is complicit in providing preferred candidates with a pass, choosing to focus on issues that segue into great sound bites by the candidates, rather than do the job of journalists and dig deep to expose the true positions of those seeking to lead this nation.

How is it possible that the future Commander-in-Chief is not grilled relentlessly (as are those appointed by him subject to the approval of Congress) about his or her position on Iraq today, yesterday and as far back as they were holding office? This nation has been at war in Iraq since 1991. The rationale for sending more ground troops in 2003 was the case made by a Commander-in-Chief with the approval of Congress in the aftermath of 9/11. How is it possible that the media is not centered like a laser on the issue of 9/11 and grilling each candidate about his or her evolving positions regarding 9/11 and Iraq? Why is there no focus on the controversies surrounding this administration’s reaction to 9/11 and the conspicuously missing Congress members who failed to call for an independent investigation of a scene of mass murder?

There is no greater issue facing this nation than our involvement in the “war on terror” that came as a result of 9/11.

Ron Paul has the courage and integrity to address the issue. He is today alienated by much of the media and his colleagues running concurrent campaigns for the same office. It is no secret that other candidates are unwilling to appear on the same stage as Paul. After all, they are the lying leaders who desire not to have their lies exposed through a thorough scrutiny or debate. No such risk exists in dealing directly with a compliant and complicit media. And no such risk exists when standing on a stage with other puppets.

But Paul is no puppet. And the refusal to invite him to present his point of view to the people of Iowa displays a haughty disrespect for Iowans in general, and those supporters of Paul specifically.

Still, such dictatorial tactics are not the exception in American politics. They are the rule. American politics is filled with propaganda, lies and deception to the degree that the argument that claims every vote counts stands on shaky ground.

Paul’s plight is but one tiny example among many that point to a radically changed nation that bears little resemblance to the one designed by the framers of the constitution — whose deliberate restrictions upon an otherwise tyrannical government have been thwarted by the very people to whom they trusted all power. That’s you and me, and the rest of the American people.

About Mike Green

  • StrawDog

    Just to be clear about my other post: This article on the exclusions of Paul in these upcoming debates is a rarity on the web – I’ve seen no similar mainstream commentary.

    Dave, thanks for responding to my comments. Honestly, I think this kind of being “realistic” is more “fatalistic”, which is exactly what it takes to stop everything in its tracks. Also, I’ve seen how Paul responds to the loaded questions against him – Wow, if that guy isn’t presidential material, who is?

    Like Bret said: Is the possibility of school prayer really a pressing issue right now? I don’t like every platform of Paul’s or any other candidate’s, but in the big picture, who else offers the real chance for change here? That is a HUGE deal, to me. Anyway, even Bush couldn’t get prayer into school or revoke abortion, and now we have a Dem majority in both houses.

    For the record, Dave, I’m responding to you – even though your view (that spiritual belief is delusional) strikes me as arrogant, narrow minded, and inflexible – because maybe I misjudge you, or maybe you are also bigger than that.

  • Dave Nalle

    Dupont. You might want to learn how to SPELL ‘shah’ if you’re want to talk about him and not sound like an idiot. You also might want to ask some actual Iranians how they feel about the Shah and the current Iranian administration. The Shah gets rave reviews from most of those I’ve asked, especially when compared with the current band of butchers who killed more people in their first two weeks in power than the Shah killed in his entire tenure in office.

    The Shah was a positive and liberal influence in Iran and the whole region, and the stories of his ‘oppression’ are laughable propaganda mostly manufactured by the current band of religious bigots who rule in Iran.


  • Dave Nalle

    Dave, it’s absurd to base your decision to support or not support RP on the basis of whether he’s for allowing Christian prayer in school or not. Prayer in schools, or gay marriage, or whatever is NOT KILLING PEOPLE ON A DAILY BASIS. The wars on Iraq, drugs, poverty, etc are killing people on a daily basis. Get your priorities straight, man. Seriously!

    The introduction of religion into our government and our public schools is the first step towards the further erosion of our constitutional rights and leads us down the path to a theocracy. That seems like a pretty serious concern to me.

    I do agree that the Waro n Drugs and some of these other issues are quite important, but I have no reason to believe that Paul would be able to end them. It doesn’t work that way. If it did then Bush would have been able to implement tax reform and privatize social security, and those ideas are a lot less radical than getting rid of the war on drugs.




  • Dave Nalle

    There you go. #54 is EXACTLY why Ron Paul is being unfairly marginalized in this campaign.


  • Adam

    Dave, it seems to me that banning prayer in school is a violation of our constitutional rights. Ron Paul is in favor of allowing it not making it mandatory. I’m a Christian though so obviously I see this issue differently.

    It does seem like you’re looking for reasons not to support him. Things like foreign policy are much bigger issues. Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate that doesn’t find it reasonable to launch a preemptive nuclear strike against a country that has no nuclear weapons and has not attacked us because they might eventually get some which they have the right to do under international law. The run on sentence was intentional to emphasize how insane our foreign policy has become. It makes my head spin just thinking about it.

    Also, people like #54 could be trolls trying to hurt Dr. Paul’s campaign on purpose. I can’t see any real supporter being stupid enough to think thats helpful.

  • Clavos

    “I can’t see any real supporter being stupid enough to think thats helpful.”

    Read the thread here.

    And here.

  • Mike Green

    Regarding post #40

    “This is part of what’s wrong with Ron Paul. The fact that he has these religious ideas which clearly run counter to the Constitution and he’s willing to let them trump the Constitution raises the question of what other circumstances he’d be willing to abandon his principles under.”

    Considering the fact that each of the presidents elected since FDR have chosen to use their power to exert force through clandestine means based upon expansion of U.S. power and influence, I would welcome an individual whose religious principles direct him his decisions regarding life and death. The notion that U.S. values, which prioritize “vital economic interests” (see several U.S. presidential speeches across three generations), are the driving force behind CIA operations that seek to murder leaders, overthrow governments, undermine governance both here and abroad, and violate principles of jurisprudence as well as moral laws, it seems to me that a change in ideology is also needed at the highest echelons of our society.

    Ron Paul represents a voice of peace and reason. Compared to those he is running against, as well as those who have been elected president in the past, Paul is far and away the most honest, forthright candidate we can hope for. If integrity holds any weight when voting, there is no question that just one candidate fits the bill, Ron Paul.

    Pauls’ personal beliefs not only do not run counter to the constitution, they shore it up in the same manner that the framers of the document had in mind. While protecting the freedoms of the people, Paul recognizes the limitations placed upon government. That includes, but is not limited to acts of war without proper justification and support from the people. Contrived and concocted reasons sold to the Congress is well outside of the constitutional boundaries of the executive branch, yet that is what has occurred through the past half-dozen presidents.

    I welcome a man of integrity, whose fellowship with the Lord of Lords provides him a moral guidepost that dissuades him from making the very decisions we’ve been subjected to by numerous presidents and congresses. I doubt if the CIA, FBI, Dept of Homeland Security and a host of other agencies operating in the darkness of unaccountability will find Paul a leader that supports the secrecy to which these organizations (and others) have grown accustomed.

    And I believe America would be a better nation for having a president like Paul, who would pull our troops from the Middle East — a feat Congress seems to be unwilling or unable to do.

    Certainly Paul is the only candidate that seeks to save the lives of our troops. And while he is running on a platform that brings the troops home immediately, all the other candidates are hedging their bets on Iraq, knowing full well the current policy is set to maintain a permanent force there. Yet, which one of the liars will admit that? None.

    It is time to make saving the troops the mantra of the 2008 campaign. Support saving the lives of U.S. troops — kill the current foreign policy in the Middle East. Vote Ron Paul.

  • Passenger57

    Why is there even a discussion on why a candidate is invited or not? If you are running for President,you should be AUTOMATICALLY invited to every debate.Of course, if THE CANDIDATE chooses not to participate,that’s their decision.Whenever I see someone is being marginalized,I wonder why-and I start listening to THAT candidate.
    Tha 9/11 attacks? Please. Three words- IN. SIDE.JOB. Condi Rice perjured herself before the 9/11 Commission-which I think was a whitewash, but she was under oath.Never imagined terrorists would use planes as wepaons? Look up G8 Summit/Genoa/2001 and you’ll see why she was lying.
    And I’d STILL like to know what Bush and Cheney told the 9/11 Commission about the worst attack on America in its history that NO ONE CAN KNOW ABOUT IT.It’s kind of incredible when you think about it…four jets hijacked over American airspace,nearly 3,000 people dead,two of the tallest buildings in the world destroyed,a third destroyed,the Pentagon attacked(with an AFB ten miles away)…WHAT did they tell THEM that they couldn’t tell US?

  • Dave Nalle

    passenger57 – 3 words – TIN FOIL HAT. Oh, and another 3 LUN A TIC. To believe 9/11 is an inside job you’d have to accept motivations from hundreds of national leaders so bizarre that they’d be showing other symptoms of insanity, and a method for enforcing secrecy along the lines of surgically implanting micro-bombs in the brains of all of our elected leaders. Please be real.

    As for the exclusion of Paul from the debate, it’s a matter for discussion because it happened. And it happened because this particular debate is privately run – as are all the debates when you get down to it. They all have mechanisms for excluding people, particularly 3rd party candidates when it comes to the major debates.


  • Clavos

    9/11 was an inside job, alright.

    All those A-rabs were inside those aircraft, hijacking them when they crashed.

  • Neil

    Seems like their explanation is that initially they didn’t invite him because they didn’t invite him (looks to me like circular reasoning). Since he’s a candidate who is well respected and desired by people, and most likely the only one who really has this status, they ought to go ahead and invite him. It’s not too late right now. So-now, if they still won’t invite him, then they should provide an acceptable reason; and if they don’t provide one then it should be plainly obvious to anyone that they have an ulterior agenda and that would be the end of that.

  • Shaun

    To Dave Nalle:

    You’re hilarious man. Anyone who is critical of the government is a loony.

    But if we let people decide for THEMSELVES whether or not they want to pray in schools… That’s the crack in the door that lets Christian evangelists brainwash little children…

    Who’s wearing the tin foil hat?

    (PS: I’m atheist – [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor])

  • Shaun

    PPS: If a teacher starts trying to pull children into prayer, you can be damn sure the parents (like you) would hopefully bring it up, right?

    On 9/11 – Pearl Harbor ring a bell Dave?

    Look for impartial information and you’ll find a lot of evidence to support the government’s prior knowledge of 9/11 (no not that we did it ourselves, but that’s still bad enough)

    Couldn’t they have warned employees? Secured NYC? Nah, that’d be too much work – better to let a few thousand people die, sway the American opinion to support war, and let banks push our country further into debt…

  • Clavos

    “On 9/11 – Pearl Harbor ring a bell Dave?”

    Oh shit. Not that old chestnut again…

  • PQ

    Dave writes, “This is part of what’s wrong with Ron Paul. The fact that he has these religious ideas which clearly run counter to the Constitution and he’s willing to let them trump the Constitution raises the question of what other circumstances he’d be willing to abandon his principles under.”

    Neither of your examples, supplied in a later message, held much water. But let’s assume for the sake of argument Paul is not *perfectly* consistent on the Constitution. Where is the candidate who is? Are you saying we should abandon Paul due to his lack of perfection, while all the other candidates cannot even hope to hold a candle to him, in terms of adherence to the Constitution?

    And this business about fringe elements… The last thing I am going to do is worry about who the fringe (however conveniently defined) supposedly prefers. Otherwise, I am letting the fringe influence my choices! Everyone holds opinions, of one sort or another, that are based on bad or incomplete information, or information created by propagandists. Everyone is “fringe” in some respect. Forget all that, look at the issues and the character of the men running for office.

  • http://buck Buck

    “It was sponsored by congress but it was run by independent investigators and it did a pretty damned thorough job with the hundreds of pages of report to prove it. Congress doesn’t push for an independent investigation because they already HAD one and they’re not going to second-quess the report they sponsored.”


  • Estrella Eguino

    Great Article! Congratulations and thank you for your effort to open the eyes of the public. Those people who have lived in the United States for say…more than ten years understand what is going on. The trouble is that we have millions and millions and millions of quickly naturalized citizens that barely know how to read and write in their own language, let alone English. They are the ones that are being manipulated by the media. And yes, the manipulation is Real.

    I have friends in Europe that had been telling me already for a very long time that our news is corrupted and skewed and the dumbing down of America by keeping Paris Hilton, Michael Jackson, Britney Spears, OJ, and all the other people that NOBODY in America gives a crap about will be our downfall.


  • Earnest A. Peal

    I’d like to know whether Paul supporters think he can get the backing of Christian groups? Any reaction to this article (mine, which is a spoof, but raises some issues I’d like your opinions on)?

  • Shaun

    To Earnest A. Peal: I hope what Ron Paul does is preach the problems we really have and persuade us to dissolve ridiculous ideological differences and realize that these petty issues are meant to divide us. We need to fix what’s really wrong…

    Do you realize that when we print money, it not only inflates the value, but also is LOANED after printing, at interest? What kind of retarded system is that… THAT’S THE ISSUE OF OUR GENERATION. It should have been done with after Andrew Jackson, but things that should not have been forgotten were forgotten (and history became legend, haha).

  • Dave Nalle

    You’re hilarious man. Anyone who is critical of the government is a loony.

    If you say so. I certainly wouldn’t go that far. Criticizing the government is a good thing. Making crazy shit up instead of criticizing their real misbehavior is loony.

    But if we let people decide for THEMSELVES whether or not they want to pray in schools… That’s the crack in the door that lets Christian evangelists brainwash little children…

    I’ve got no problem with silent, individual, non-demonstrative prayer in school. But can you actually limit it to that? The people promoting school prayer like James Dobson want it to be groups of people engaging in full-prostration prayer. That’s not a private prayer, it’s a revival meeting, or close to it.

    (PS: I’m atheist

    And this makes you special because…

    On 9/11 – Pearl Harbor ring a bell Dave?

    Quite a few, and still no proof of a conspiracy there either.

    Look for impartial information and you’ll find a lot of evidence to support the government’s prior knowledge of 9/11 (no not that we did it ourselves, but that’s still bad enough)

    Well of course. There’s no question that people in the employ of the government had big chunks of information about the 9/11 attack in advance and either didn’t act on it, or bungled it, or didn’t put the pieces together to draw the right conclusions. But none of that is a conspiracy, it’s just unfortunate coincidences.

    Couldn’t they have warned employees? Secured NYC? Nah, that’d be too much work – better to let a few thousand people die, sway the American opinion to support war, and let banks push our country further into debt…

    The evidence is that those who knew the possible targets and those who knew the possible perpetrators and those who knew the possible methods were all working separately and not communicating. Any of them could have put out a blanket warning, like ‘look out for plane attaks’ or ‘keep an eye on the WTC’ – but those who tried were stopped because their concerns were too vague and alarmist. They were sent back to work out more details. And pretty soon it was too late.

    Again, not a conspiracy, just unfortunate circumstances.


  • EEKman

    Ok guys, we all know that 9/11 was a lie. Problem is we dont yet have the political will to get the new investigation on 9/11 and it wont happen until after the election cycle. Just let Ron Paul think what he wants about who caused 9/11 and we can educate him after hes elected. Keep the 9/11 political will building but keep it on its own turf for now.

  • EEKman

    Btw to break my own rule, I thought 9/11 truth was tinfoil moonbat zone until I read ‘Crossing the Rubicon’ by Mike Ruppert. Then I woke up and things suddenly made sense.

  • Anthony Grande

    When is everyone going to stop taking Ron Paul as a serious canidate?

    Maybe these groups aren’t anti free speech or anti Ron Paul or anti anything but they don’t want to waste the spotlight on such a nothing canidate.

    With one less canidate in the debate we will get a chance to hear real canidates like Giuliani, Romney and… is Fred Thompson going to be there?


  • Dave Nalle

    Ruppert is an utter nutjob. I started to read his book and it was so poorly documented and full of blatant false assumptions that it was essentially worthless. He attempts to create a perfect storm tying every coincidence and potential conspiracy together and the result is just ridiculous.

    His book is so bad that other conspiracy freaks have accused him of being a plant designed to discredit the ‘truth’ movement. The irony is that he’s perfectly typical of their rat-brained, paranoid scaremongering and they’re just jealous that he’s slightly crazier than they are.


  • clifylq
  • Naughten


    Ron Paul is clearly regarded with fear and loathing by the Leftist Democrats and the Neo-Con Reps, and much of media; and he has proven himself to be the leading debater.

    If his sacred right to Freedom of Speech, guaranteed by the American Constitution, is somehow denied him; there will certainly be a severe backlash everywhere in America. After the rude and biased behavior of Fox News at the last debate, this ridiculously opinionated and pretentious group suffered such a severe firestorm of criticism by the American People, that it will never recover its former reputation.

    Ron Paul has moved up so exceptionally fast in the polls, from 2% to 6%, that it has put his opponents into a state of panic. After this next debate they will certainly suffer further humiliation.

  • L.Step

    Not to brag, but I try to be fair. So when I first heard what wretched and scurrilous things were being said about Ron Paul, I decided to try to find out if he was indeed such a dreadful person. After some research I was convinced that he wasn’t. Period. I then decided that I did not want to be among those who, for whatever reason, were so vicious. I am now ready and willing to vote for Ron Paul.

  • Mark

    Do you think Ron Paul has a better chance than he did in June?

  • Dave

    911 and the war are being used to suppress free speech. You can bet that many christian or conservative groups that attack Ron Paul would have supported him if it wasn’t for 911 and the war. These groups wont stand up for their traditional values. Pat Robertson, Hannity, it goes on and on. Ron Paul has stayed true these others are deserters. Paul states real concerns about how American policy can create blow back from fanatical organiztions because such policy is used as a recruiting tool. The spin media finds it easier to lump him with others with more extreme views. They ignore the other things he stands for.

  • Dave

    Why are the front runners front runners to begin with. Its because the media has put a spot light on them. Usually big money people and big money media are behind it. If Paul does something significant like raise huge amounts of money or has a strong message that people support, it should be reported. To exclude a particular candidate from a debate shows a bias and lack of respect for the political system. How are people to be properly informed on a candidates views if you exclude them. Second hand lies from their opponents? Real fair. These groups are dispicable. Ron Paul was a virtual unknown a few months ago. No big organizations or media are behind him. Its millions of individuals catching on and wanting a change in government. We are tired of the corruption and fascism. Fascism is when corporations or even individuals become so huge and powerful they can exert an unfair influence over media and government.

  • Dave S

    The above two comments were made by Dave S and not Dave Nalle

  • Jason

    Why are we talking to Dave? 9/11 we be the pretext for revolution, WAR in this country against this country.

  • STM

    Can someone tell me what will happen to all the millions of dollars donated to Ron Paul’s campaign fund by ordinary people when Ron Paul doesn’t make it.

    Does it get returned, or does someone get to keep it. Not a trick question, but a genuine query.

    No one gives Paul a snowball’s chance in hell, yet his campaign donation meter is ticking over at a rate of knots. So what happens to any unspent dough?

  • Clavos

    It’s governed by the various states, Stan, and varies as to what the candidate must do with surplus funds, but in no case are they allowed to keep the funds (for personal use) or distribute them to their families.

    Some states allow them to be retained for future campaigns, some require they be returned to donors, most allow charitable contributions, etc., etc.

  • STM

    Thanks mate for the heads-up. I notice that one of the defining things about Paul’s campaign is the amount of money he’s getting, but everyone seems to be saying that he’s no chance.

  • Clavos

    The thing is, mate, he does very well on the ‘net, but at least so far, isn’t considered a major candidate because he doesn’t poll very high, overall.

    Because most of your exposure to our race is on the ‘net, you’re getting a skewed view of Paul’s impact.

    Read the wires at the shop.

    All that said, who knows?

    His internet supporters are certainly vociferous.

  • STM

    And presumably, they’ll all get out lof bed to vote.

    Like you say, they are vociferous, so he may have more impact than the mainstream pollsters think.

  • Clavos

    They’ve got a lot of time left to get it right…

  • STM

    How would mainstream America feel about a President Paul?

    Or would that be because of mainstream America?

  • Clavos

    I don’t think he’ll pick up too many Democratic votes, and, all other things being equal, I do think the Democrats stand a good chance of winning, after the Republican debacle of the past eight years.

    But, I’m no expert, and this is just my opinion.

  • Dave

    Sorry Dave, I think Ron Paul is not a Republican nor a
    Hello shuga

    You are correct. Ron Paul is not a Republican or a Conservative…he is a Libertarian. That is what I like about him. He cares about America first, and screw the rest of the world. He believes in taking care of America first. I don’t live in the Sudan, or Zimbabwe, or Bumfuckt Egypt…I live in South Carolina, which (last time I checked) is a part of the United States of America. He has a strong defense policy, to protect us from the illegal aliens, to protect us from the foreign invasion of goods, and to protect us from our biggest fear, the Federal Government that interfers with our daily lives.

    I supported Bush and his invasion of Iraq…now, I question on how it was handled. It was handled totally wrong. Bush did it for retaliation of an assassination attempt on his father. He wanted Saddem Hussien, and he got him. End of story. Now, it is time to bring our troops home. No matter when we leave, whether it be next year, or 6 years from now, Iraq will revert to whatever regime that it wants to be. We can’t force Democracy on a country who doesn’t want it, or doesn’t believe in it for that matter. I do support our troops, don’t get me wrong. We need to find and kill Bin Laden…but he isn’t in Iraq.

    Bush screwed up his second term, and is going to make it that much more impossible for a Republican to be elected as President next year. He thinks that this country has an endless pocketbook. Well, it doesn’t. Our troops should have been out of Iraq three years ago if it had been handled right, they would be. Ron Paul has pledged to pull our troops out the minute he takes office. That would be when we start taking care of ourselves again, and stop worring about other country’s affairs. I could care less what happens to Iraq, as Israel is there with enough firepower to blow them and Iran out of the water. Iran knows not to attack Israel, as they would seal their destiny by America’s retaliation. One bomb on one day…no Iran. Ahmadinejoke, is too smart to think that we wouldn’t retaillate against him, so he aint gonna do a thing but threaten. If he does make a bomb, so what…he is still wasted by us. We got more than he will ever have. Russia and China, they won’t even want to be a part of it, as we are their biggest trading partner. France, who is also a nuclear power, would just tuck their heads between the ass and watch. India has the bomb as well, they just can’t figure out how to use it (they are too busy making telemarketing calls to the US to worry about firing off a nuclear missle).

    If the Iraq war has proven one thing, it is that we can’t force our way of life upon another country, nor should we try. But yet we still pour billions of dollars into the effort. Those dollars could be used here, in America, to be helping the homeless, the helpless, and the hungry. THAT, is what Ron Paul would do…get our troops out of a no-win, no-lose situation, and start rebuilding America. Our defense is secure, and we would then have the money to stay that way without robbing my Social Security check that I hope to have in the future. America is 10-1 in the wars that it has fought. It wouldn’t be so bad to end up 10-1-1. The people of Iraq ae going to decide their own future whether we are there or not.

    You will never guess what Lynn bought me yesterday…an MP3 player . She got tired of me going out to her car to listen to my gospel album that I recorded, she said I was messing up her car with cigarettes LOL. It works pretty good, but I checked out the package, and it was made in China. So, if you don’t hear from me after this, you will know that I have contracted lead poisoning and have a brain tumor or something.


  • T Yen Vu

    Greetings, Dave N. You stated the following:

    “Those who love liberty should oppose the truthers and other conspiracy nuts, because they are one of the greatest threats to our constitutional republic…”

    Sorry to drag this one up all the way from June 20th, but–with all due respect–how do such people constitute “one of the greatest threats”? As a fellow concerned citizen and patriot, I’d be grateful if you could supply reasonable and well-argued support to this statement.

    Again, sorry for the delayed reaction!

    T (newbie)

  • Dave Nalle

    T, I’ve posted on it at length in the past. Go check my article listing and look for my various truther debunkings.


  • bob johnson

    Dear Dave Nalle, just a few comment,

    Blowback of the Shah in Iran did NOT happen 50 years later, it happened 20 years later, which is not that unthinkable since the CIA molded Shahs secret police based on the Nazi SS one of the most brutal and harshest ever.
    for 20 years the people of Iran had to endure that brutal regime America put in to power, i will not go in to detail but you are severely miss informed on the subject if you don’t even know how many years after the CIA coup that put the shah back in to power, this “blowback” took place.
    So yes while some of the things Dr Paul says is clearly outside of the mainstream thought process. it does not make them any less true. In short Arabs do not want to harm you for your freedom fries. They want to harm you because you are squatting on their land with no plans to leave in the near future.
    I believe in the old west they also shot land squatters. These people are also sick of their own leaders acting as American puppets (which most are) and resent us even More for it than any religious teaching they might subscribe to that is viewed as extreme.
    America and the CIA hand in hand turned and funded the Saudi Muslims in to extremists during the cold war to fight against the USSR’s occupation of Afghanistan, 9/11 is also a direct blowback because of it.
    This all from a Canadian observing

  • Giovanni


    I’m not a conspiracy theorist or a lunatic. I go out with my friends, we hang out, talk and share laughs and a few beers. We eat food, sleep at night and make love to out girlfriends. We wear clothes and take showers. We see black helicopters but we see yellow ones too. We also like green tea. We like to drink it.

    I believe that 9/11 being a false flag attack, be it deliberate or negligent in circumstances, isn’t crazy at all but pretty normal to think about, given the many previous false flags. Nonetheless, I am not completely sure and I can discuss it dispassionately because I’ve learned to do that. Most importantly though, 9/11 being an inside job is something that a lot of people have strong opinions about and is simply not necessary in a campaign, be it true or false. On a strategic standpoint it would only hurt his chances.

    You do bring up great points and I want to acknowledge that. I also wanted to respond to the name calling and that ground zero is a crime scene and shouldn’t have been cleared up without a proper investigation. There’s a lot of holes in the commission. We will get bogged down in an endless debate about so I try to avoid the subject. Just try not to call anyone who considers that some people in our government would work to let this or make this happen a conspiracy nut or kook. I’m not a tin foil man and neither are my friends who find it plausible that the box cutter commandos were able to only learn how to take off in planes and not land them and somehow the government didn’t notice.

    What does it for me is the picture of the steel pillar neatly sliced like a piece of bread. Steel does not melt neatly and diagonally. Search on the web. I consider all realities and do not attach my ego to a perspective allowing me to not make intellectual cheap shots like calling people insane for considering such things.

  • Giovanni


    He used the remaining funds for C4L and some seed money for YAL.