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.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Interesting article were it not for the fact that a large portion of it is a pile of crap.
First off, your rambling accusations against the 'compliant and complicit' media make no sense at all in this context, because while Paul was excluded from this debate held by non-media groups, he's been invited to the much more important August 5th debate in Iowa which is sponsored by the news media, so it's not the news media who are at fault here, but these two particular groups.
Second, every time Paul opens his mouth about 9/11 those who are potentially sympathetic cringe, because they're afraid he's going to pander to the lunatic fringe again as he has done in the past. It's not a strength for him, it's a weakness. Most people are not delusional conspiracy nuts, and when Paul starts talking to that crowd he alienates more mainstream voters. Confronting the other candidates on the war is a strong move for Paul, courting those who deny the facts about 9/11 is not. BTW, you try very hard in this article to downplay your own belief in 9/11 conspiracy fantasy - why do you take that tact? Could it be that you ALSO know that no one will take you seriously if you start babbling about 9/11 conspiracies?
Third, there WAS an investigation of 9/11. Ever hear of the 9/11 Commission? 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. Oh, and the other reason is that all the things you want investigated are transparently bogus.
Fourth, let me ask you a question about the candidate you worked for. Something there doesn't ring true. You suggest that he didn't get support because he was black, but in my experience, when given the choice the GOP bends over backwards to look for and support black candidates. Is it possible that he was challenging an incumbent? Incumbency is the one thing that tends to make a candidate inviolate. Or did he share some of your extremist views? That also tends to make the party blue hairs rather nervous.
Having said all of that, I agree that it's bizarre that Paul wasn't invited to this debate. Considering that the groups sponsoring it are a Christian group and a anti-tax group, how could they not like Paul? He's a Christian extremist and the most anti-tax candidate around. He ought to be their dream candidate.
Dave
2 - FJ Hurst
Is that brushfire I smell in the wind? LONG LIVE RON PAUL!!!!!!!
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."
-- Samuel Adams
3 - Rudy G
"...they hate us for our FREEDOMS."
4 - bret
Dave - RP has never said it was a conspiracy, stop repeating this drivel.
5 - Dave Nalle
Bret, I didn't say that Paul believes in the 9/11 conspiracy, but that the author of this article does. As I said, Paul panders to those people. He skirts the subject, raises questions and keeps playing to the audience of conspiracy nuts because he's found that they're willing to become fanatics for any candidate who gives them any consideration at all.
It's Paul's willingness to play demagogue to an audience like that which makes many of us who might otherwise support him a bit nervous.
Dave
6 - Paul
I think Dave is confused.
7 - Mythic Mystic
9-11 Commission Report, HA! Have you even read it? Wasn't that what Dr. Paul was talking about when he mentioned 'blowback'? BTW - What does it say about Bldg 7 or does that not matter because it is too hard to comprehend? The whole Anti-'Tin-Foil-Hat' ideal is a safe place for those with bloodlust in their harts, lack of vision in their minds, and cowardness in the face of power. Now you can marginalize every thing as 'Oh, so you think Bush did it', which would be incorrect anyway if you really researced ANYTHING. But continue to allow America to believe in the New America instead of the Constitution. Just because you love liberty and understand what it means does not not mean you are a 'Conspiracy Nut'. Granted there are some way-out things that people claim about 9-11 (pancake?) but there is also SOLID research being done. No, the 9-11 Report was NOT an investigation. If it was we would have seen truck loads of evidence being shipped to D.C. or the Commish halting the steal from leaving New York to go to China.
BTW - about the Bush, he has more ties to OBL than Saddam ever had (can you say Arbusto Oil?). And while your at it, since you know everything, check out Grandpa Bush Prescott. Then you will know where Bush got his family Fortune.
8 - G
Paul has flat out stated he believes al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. I don't know how much clearer he can get than that. The people he turns to for his facts on the "War on Terror" are respected members of the intelligence community and academia.
He is always skeptical of the government, of course, and so appeals to conspiracy theorists who are also skeptical. I don't see a problem in that.
He's also hardly an extremist, or at least not one who wants to force his views on others (other than probably wanting abortion outlawed by states, but thats more of a "when does life begin?" issue than a religious one).
9 - Dave Nalle
9-11 Commission Report, HA! Have you even read it?
Not only have I read it, but I've also read the followup reports from the NTSC and other investigating agencies debunking the various claims made after the report was complete.
Wasn't that what Dr. Paul was talking about when he mentioned 'blowback'?
Probably. But 'blowback' is a very simple term for a much more complex idea. It makes a great soundbyte, but it's almost meaningless in the context of radical islam? Blowback for the Shah? 50 years later? Why not blowback for the Siege of Jerusalem 900 years ago?
BTW - What does it say about Bldg 7 or does that not matter because it is too hard to comprehend?
I've never said there are no questions about 9/11, but the grand conspiracies just don't hold up.
But continue to allow America to believe in the New America instead of the Constitution.
What is this 'new america'? I'm not familiar with it.
Just because you love liberty and understand what it means does not not mean you are a 'Conspiracy Nut'.
True. Those who love liberty should oppose the truthers and other conspiracy nuts, because they are one of the greatest threats to our constitutional republic.
Dave
10 - dave is an idiot
Ron Paul has made it extremely clear that he thinks Al Qaeda is reponsible for 9/11. So much so that he thinks we should have targeted the war against OBL instead of Iraq. He doesn't skirt the issue. He is the most direct and honest candidate out their when it comes to discussing 9/11 it's causes adn the "war on terrorism" it is all the otehr candidates who "skirt" these issues.
11 - Nick
The greatest threat to our Constitutional Republic are citizens that don't vote for Constitutionalists, but rather vote for sound byte politicians that try to explain what Americans thinkm, as if we were united in our thoughts about anything. The only thing we should be united in, is our Constitutional integrity. The flag, the military, the President...they are not representative of freedom, or of rights. The Constitution is. If you would start promoting politicians like Dr. Paul instead of accusing him of pandering to conspiracy theorists (gee, I wonder why people might think a conspiracy lurks) maybe we would have leaders that want us all to be free and to live by our Constitution. He is not the enemy. The enemy is made up of gun grabbers, dictators, signing statements, imperialists, warmongers, entitlement promoters, and special interest politicians. Ron Paul fits none of those categories. Research every other candidate and they fit at least one, guaranteed.
12 - mean Gene
Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, Tommy Thompson, and Tom Tancredo will participate in this Iowa forum.
So......Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Duncan Hunter and John McCain are not included.
I know Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich haven't committed to running so no biggie there.
But were Rudy, Duncan and John offered a place at the forum but chose to decline?
Was only Paul snubbed?
13 - Jay
Independent switching to the GOP so I can vote for Ron Paul in the Primaries. Dr. Ron Paul 2008!
14 - chad morehouse
Dave,
if you think that the 911 commission was thorough then we must be talking about different reports.
the author of this article was refering to the fact that it took congress almost a year after 911 to commission a report and that was only because of the victims families demanded it. then, few of the testimonies were taken under oath, alot of the documentation was classified( and still is, think pentagon video's) and was only allowed to be viewed by select people.
so asking questions, or even considering anouther investigation is not ( or should not be) so proposterous.
especially since we know alot more now than we did when the report came out ( such as several of the hijackers have been reported as to still being alive, noone was reprimanded for incopetence in norad or any other agency, etc.) so i think asking questions is perfectly reasonable.
Ron Paul just wasn't to this debate because he is honest and knows more about the given topics than anyone else running for office, if you call the president of "Iowans for tax relief" and ask why they did not/will not invite him, they will either hang up on you or ask you to leave a message, never will they say why the taxpayers best friend is not welcome at a debate sponsored by a non for profit tax relief organization.
15 - Mythic Mystic
Blowback is actually very complicated. Put in simple terms it can be considered revenge of sorts. If you're saying that over 50 years of 'interventionalism' could not create a radical ideologies than why do they attack us? Because of our freedoms? So let's take all those away so we can be safe, right? (BTW-50 years is a short time in the span of humanity, ever seen a Confederate Flag?)
Cultures in the middle east have not always been angry at the U.S. In fact, many Islamic and Arab nations LOVED America because it was the FIRST anti-colonial nation in the 'West'. For the past 100 years we have been in a slide into the 'Old ways of government' all because we are 'scared' of 'those people'. Seems like Government sponsored racisim to me.
The 'New America' I speak of is this Neo-Con Juggernaught that has been firmenting for years. Those in the current administration (originaly) were refered to during the Regan years as 'The Crazies'. The PNAC (Project for the New American Century) explains the need for America to become, how should I say, more proactive by force in the world. This was published in 2000. I'm sure you have heard the soundbyte 'Everything has changed because of 9-11'. Well what? We have always been the enemy of Tyrrany so that is a given. But why must we throw out the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? How does that make us safe? We will allow the 'Terrorists' to win if we destroy our national foundations. Now you can not say that the Constitution hasn't been abused off and on throughout our history, but the kind of tactics used these days are very similar to those that we have opposed in the past.
Now why are 'truthers' and 'conspiracy nuts' dangerous? Because they give a justification for terror? What a propaganda tactic that is!! (just denounce the dissenting veiw as unpatriotic and a danger to the nation) Just like the ol'Nazi idea.
If you have a drug or alcohol problem what is the first thing you need to do? ADMIT YOUR PROBLEM! That is what 'truthers' and 'conspiracy nuts' are trying to do to help save this REPUBLIC (thanks for noting it is a Republic an not a Democracy).
They are not 'blaming America first' they are willing to own up to what we have done against even our OWN laws so we can move forward in this world and reclaim our heritage. You must have questions, but are afraid of the answers you may be given. What 'Grand Conspiracy' do you speak of? Is it the threat of Globalism taking over the spirit of Nationalism? Or do you relate it more to the UFO/Reptoid group of wakos. If it is the ladder, you are sorely mistaken by what it means to be a 'Truther'. I don't see how asking questions could be dangerous especialy when this is OUR nation, WE THE PEOPLE ARE CEASER SO GIVE CEASER HIS DUE!
16 - BabaRamDass
Bret, I didn't say that Paul believes in the 9/11 conspiracy, but that the author of this article does. As I said, Paul panders to those people.
Wrong. Ron Paul panders to those people who value liberty.
17 - Lumpy
US interventionism didn't create radical islam. It just gives it something to focus its attacks on.
As for the paul 'snub' the press release from his campaign says that they were not overlooked,but rather deliberately excluded.
18 - mnjrupp
Lumpy, US interventionism didn't create radical islam, but it did create "Blowback"
I didn't create "fire-ants" but if I stick my bare-foot in the middle of the ant bed, it IS my fault for getting stung!
Let's return back to our foundation.
19 - bbruhwiler8
You gotta be kidding me. The latest polls show that MOST Americans KNOW 911 was an inside job. If you haven't yet seen the overwhelming evidence, go to YouTube or Google Video and watch --> 911 mysteries, 911 in plane site, terror storm, loose change, zeitgeist the movie, money masters <-- Question the official story.
20 - Lumpy
It occurs to me that conspiracy theories are nothing more than another way to avoid having to take personal responsibility. If you can blame the world's problems on shadowy super-powerful conspiracies then you never have to account for your own weakness and failure. You're just another helpless victim.
21 - Lumpy
Mnjrupp. 'blowback' is just empty jargon for people who want to state something supidly obvious and sound trendy doing it.
You attack people it pisses them off. Duh. But what about all the millions of moderate arabs who are glad someone will stand up to the terrorists or the iranian intellectuals who still remind us that things have never been better in iran tha they were under the shah. Is that all 'blowback' too?
22 - Henry
Ron Paul will win. I know what your thinking. Your thinking I'm crazy and that Ron Paul has no chance. He may not win the election but the fire he is lighting in people's minds and hearts will eventually be victorious. Whether it be another bloody revolution in this country against an unconstitutional government or that people wake up and clean out the White house and congress. The message will win, therefor Ron Paul wins and the people win. Doubt me now if you want, but you will be wrong.
23 - Davy C Rockett
The Republican Party has been hijacked by liberals also referred to as "Neo-Cons", hardly conservative or fo small government.
Ron Paul is the only sensible and true conservative to come down the road in a very long time.
America can't miss this chance to return to our Constitutional Rule of Law.
Yes it will take more than a Ron Paul in the WH, to start following Constitution, but it would be a great start to getting people and authority to wake up and understand the laws of our land.
24 - Davy C Rockett
Lumpy, if I walked up to you and punched you in the face, your telling me that there would be no "blowback" towards me, from you.
I don't think so.
C'mon where's "founding father commonsense" these days.
Oh yeah I remember,... Ron Paul 2008.
Don't you think Iowans deserve to know he's running for President?
25 - allan Neal
I was going to comment, basically stating that love is more powerful than hate and hate is war and bla bla bla, let’s vote for Ron Paul. Then I saw the note about personal attacks. I would think “pile of crap” would fall under that. Thus, I can’t take any of you seriously. Attack?