Monday, December 10, 2007
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
9:16 AM
"Give a hug to Cha-vez...sing we all Noel!"
...In this, the heart of Cuban-American country where Fidel Castro is still ostracized, Paul was loudly booed when he called for improved relations with Cuba.
"We're at a time when we need to talk to Cuba and travel and trade with Cuba," he said...
...The candidates, with the exception of Paul, denounced Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez as a a tyrant...
He offended the Latino audience he spoke in front of tonight...
THEY booed him... not me. THEY rejected what he had to say. THEY - the Latinos in attendance think his ideas are crack'd.
Sure - shoot this messenger all you want... the point is the PUBLIC does not trust Ron Paul.
tsk tsk tsk... so defensive... |
|
I just saw a comment here negative to Mr McCullough. I went to log on to comment myself and now the negative post is gone. Hopefully it's not being censored.
As for Mr Paul. I am instinctively suspicious of anyone who resorts to name calling to criticise someone's political policy. I have found that it usually substitutes for anything rational and is the last resort of someone who can't knock a position.
While I may not Agree with Rep. Paul about Chavez, or perhaps Cuba, I can see that he has the wisdom to avoid antagonizing those whom he will later have to deal with just to stir up some votes. That shows wisdom.
If you recall the whole Chavez "problem" started with some ad-hoc comments about him. They might be true, but where they productive? Sometimes you can get more change by being polite than by forcing a dictator's back up against the wall. Did Pres. Bush's comments leave him any other choice but to condemn the administration to save face?
I find it ironic that they don't criticize Pres Bush for cozying up to Saudi tyrants, but he has plenty to say about Chavez.
I have never voted Democrat in my memory, but I will not be voting for a Replican again if this is how ideas are discussed within the party.
A little maturity please. Rush can pull it off and it's funny and cute. You, Mr. McCullough, can't. It just comes off as somewhat trite or lame. Don't worry, you're not alone. Michael Medved has started doing the same thing, calling any Republican who disagrees a cute little perjoritive name that rhymes with something. |
|
Sorry, I'm touch typing late with a $9 keyboard
The negative comment is back, so it was apparently just a glitch, which is good to know.
I'm afraid the days of the type Republican that is in power now are numbered. (I don't know what to call them, and neo-cons is so ....bleech). The party will either be demographically voted out of power for good or the party will go back and assume a more constitutional, less corrupt form that more consistently follows the constitution and drops the "world's policeman" role it assumed.
I think Pat Buchanan was right. The days of being a lone superpower will end soon, especially as the dollar drops and our budget deficits rise and we simply can't afford it. I'm sure there is a faction within the party that, much like Sunni muslims in Iraq, will fight this sort of change, tooth and nail. Their very existence depends on it. |
|
No one really cares...
Which is the point. Let him say whatever he wishes to whomever he wishes to say it to. That's called free speech - and I wish him all the happiness...
I'm just worried about people like "Knight" (a tad bit self-inflated me thinks but hey...) who might go on suicide watch the night of the Iowa caucuses.
It's really scary how many of the PaulPots may in fact lose all motivation to go on...
Meanwhile the rest of us - those not living in denial WILL - be left with the threat of global terrorism - that has nothing to do with blowback.
|
|
Kevin McCullogh posted from this website:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071210/D8TE97T80.html
"...In this, the heart of Cuban-American country where Fidel Castro is still ostracized, Paul was loudly booed when he called for improved relations with Cuba.
"We're at a time when we need to talk to Cuba and travel and trade with Cuba," he said...
...The candidates, with the exception of Paul, denounced Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez as a a tyrant..."
My question to Mr. McCullough: What specific point were you trying to make? |
|
I'm just wondering why the need to use terms like PaulPots at all? I assume it's some sort of wordplay regarding PolPot, the Southeast asian tyrant.
I'd much rather see a column entitled "here's why Ron Paul is wrong" than flippant name-calling. I know it's show-biz, but I suspect that Ron Paul has been misunderstood, or purposely misportrayed, on some of his points about minding our own business in the world.
I thought the liberals crazy for saying in 5 years ago, but really, if it weren't for oil, would we even be able to find Iraq or Iran on a map? Oil is a fungible commodity, it would reach us even if we never went there. We might be buying it from the Danes who bought it from the Saudis, but we'd get all we need. Leaping in to "protect" the free flow at market prices may well have been a strategic error if we were not prepared to jump in with both feet and destroy our enemies there, ala WWII style (which is politically incorrect these days)
We need to decide if we're an empire or not. If not, why the half-measures? Glad we're slaying terrorists by the thousands in Iraq, but it should be tens of thousands and standing around on street corners "nation building" is not the way to strike terror into one's enemies. I think Congressman Paul may just be several steps ahead of us in seeing that this strategy is half-arsed and that you are either at war or not at war. And that unless you are prepared to destroy nations perhaps it's better to just stay out of places where you aren't welcomed. |
|
the same way it's funny to call people stupid names in the third grade. Only here we're calling one of the most principled men in Congress by the same name as one of the most brutal butchers in modern history. Good one!
I used to buy the argument that the US was partly to blame for the murder of over a million people in Cambodia after we withdrew from Vietnam. Eventually, I realized Pol Paul was to blame. It was, however, a convenient argument for those who wanted the US to remain in Southeast Asia, even though the war wasn't going very well (to put it mildly).
Those who insist that the US must keep fighting wars that weaken our nation have much more in common with liberals than they probably realize.
|
|
|
Should have read: "Eventually, I realized Pol Pot was to blame." |
|
Not vexed at all... breathing deeply, feeling great after about 8 hours of sleep...
You my friend, however a different story I'm afraid...
Paul continues to slide, his numbers get worse, he alienates more voters, you have no rational explanation nor plan for him to win...
I just hope you survive the ride.
We all know what it is to be crushed by disappointment but I think Paul's let down is going to far worse for the likes of you than you presently realize...
We just don't want ya to do anything you'll regret later buddy... |
|
Put down the gun... seriously man it's just no worth it. You have so much to live for...
(BTW... I've explained more than once why Paul's denial of "I don't see any terrorists" viewpoint is MORE than sufficiently crack'd...) |
|
Which is: should we have dialogue with countries whose leaders are dictators? We did speak with the Russians throughout the cold war, but not in the way that the US is "allies" with the Saudis. We laid our demands on the table, which were essentially that to the extent they want American cooperation, they should give their citizens freedom, a la Sharansky.
Contrast that with how the free market helped the USSR fall when glasnost opened the way for economic freedom, and how (according to some) the same thing is happening in China. Once there is free(er) trade, it is like turning on the spigot of a waterfall that these petty dictatorships can't stop. So would ending the embargo mean the end of Cuba's communism, or would it be granting Castro legitimacy?
The embargo has been in place pretty much since Castro came to power. Castro is still in power. Doesn't seem to be doing a lot of good. If Raul gets in, it will happen for another quarter century. Perhaps the fact that Castro is weakening physically is a time for the US to re-examine its Cuba policy, to take advantage of what many perceive to be a turning point.
And if we do that, why should we not do the same with Chavez? Why should we continue our Saudi "alliance? |
|
|
Pooey on a bunch of Latinos with nothing better to do than boooo Ron Paul. I wouldn't want to be voting for their candidate, so guess I'll just have to booo whomever they want to vote for. I'm thinking the globalist & open borders candidates are the ones who deserve the booing! Those will be the only candidates I boo (I can boo as loud as any Latino can boo) |
|
|
Thanks to Libertybob for getting through all the hype. KMC has yet to answer my earlier posted question (What specific point were you trying to make?). Pardon my ignorance here but if you (KMC) have a point to make just come out with it. That way we can have have something akin to an intelligent discussion instead of flames and insults. |
|
I emailed him about what his main point was in posting the blog. Here is his reply:
"The man has trouble distinguishing the good guys from the bad... just as his view of terrorism is warped..." |
|
I emailed him about what his main point was in posting the blog. Here is his reply:
"The man has trouble distinguishing the good guys from the bad... just as his view of terrorism is warped..." |
|
|
|
Thank you for your reply. Your point just was not self-evident in the blog post. I am sure Dr. Paul can tell the "good" guys from the "bad"; it's just his approach on how to deal with some of them is different from yours. If we continue to have dialog and diplomatic relations with communist regimes such as China and Viet Nam then why not with Cuba? If Chavez is so terrible then why not embargo his oil?
As far as terrorism goes I do not know what you mean by "his view of terrorism is warped". Our foreign policy from World War II until the fall of the Soviet Union was based on "ABC" (Anything But Communism). It didn't matter how brutal these "friendly" governments were - as long as they weren't godless commies we backed them. Central and South America, Viet Nam and Iran come to mind of "strong man" or "junta" governments we backed during the Cold War. Is there any wonder why we are not trusted in some corners of the world?
As for the Middle East, it has always been about oil. If the major export of middle eastern countries were dates or apricots do we honestly think we would be over there? One of the arguments has been we are there to insure the free flow of oil. Do you think that if we were not there "protecting" the shipping lanes for oil on a continuing basis that oil would stop flowing?
Dr. Paul and the CIA "get it" when it comes to the blowback principle concerning reaction to our continued presence in that part of the world. Remember when the CIA orchestrated and supplied the Muhajideen fighters (including Osama bin Laden) in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion and occupation? Do you think bin Laden actually cared from whom he received his weapons and money? His only interest was to kick the infidels out. Now we are the ones occupying that part of the world - at least bin Laden is consistent.
|
|
We helped both sides during the Iran-Iraq war. First we aided Iraq at a minimum with intelligence on Iranian capabilities; do you remember why we helped them? With the Ayatollah in power we saw Iran as a destabilizing influence in the region and we were still furious with Iran over the embassy hostages. This was a chance to "stick it" to Iran for the hostage crisis without directly attacking them. Read an interesting article covering the early years here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
We also helped Iran later on in order to free western hostages from Lebanon. This of course was the famous "Iran-Contra" scandal and let's not forget that we officially don't deal with terrorists. Nor do we break the law bypassing Congress to aid counterinsurgency groups. Republicans are all about law and order...yeah...right... With such an amazingly coherent foreign policy it's inconceivable how anyone can blame us for anything going wrong in the Middle East. As Herbert Hoover wrote to friends after the attack at Pearl Harbor, "You and I know that this continuous putting pins in rattlesnakes finally got this country bitten."
Some may suggest that Dr. Paul has his head in the sand. I contend that those wishing to continue an "arrogant" foreign policy have their head up their butt. For what it's worth...
Very kind regards,
Hal Meeks
|
|
|