Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul

I didn’t see the whole debate, but I noticed that a lot of the mainstream media picked up on an exchange between Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul. You can read a more detailed analysis on Brian Berkey’s blog, and in many other places, including YouTube, but I’ll give a short synopsis.

Ron Paul spoke against US interventionist foreign policy. The moderator asked him whether 9/11 changed things. Paul then said something obviously true – that US interventionist policies cause others to hate us, and that increases their interest in attacking us (these are my words, not his).

The moderator asked him if he was saying we invited the 9/11 attacks, and he responded by providing a further explanation.

Rudy Giuliani jumps in, attacking Ron Paul and calling for him to withdraw his remark that we had invited the attack. Paul did not withdraw the remark, but then again he did not make that remark.

The mainstream media then decided that Giuliani won the debate by going after Paul on this.

So let me see if I got this right. Ron Paul says something that’s obviously true. Giuliani attacks him for saying the truth. And the mainstream media applauds him for attacking the truth.

What a disconnect.

8 comments to Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul

  • Ray

    Yes Warren, it sends chills up my spine when I admire the great intelligence and logic of my fellow Americans.

    Thomas Jefferson said: “There is not a truth existing which I fear… or would wish unknown to the whole world.”

    For the MSM and the establishment politicians it’s more like this; It is the truth we fear…and we wish it unknown to the world.

  • The problem, in my opinion, with Ron Paul is that he’s trying too hard to gain the anti-war vote. As such, his actual message begins to get warped and refocused in the wrong direction. Ron Paul is right on the money with MANY Americans on all the major domestic issues and if he really focused in on that and the economy I think he’d be better off than even bringing up the War in Iraq. Briefly mentioning, “I oppose it and would withdraw all troops in a reasonable timeframe” and be done with it.

    Also, an isolationist platform isn’t going to get him too far these days. In terms of his comments — yea, Giuliani jumped on him and so did everyone else making him into a martyr without actually saying what the entire media is presenting his comments. Then again, that’s the mainstream media…

  • Matty,

    I must take exception to describing Paul’s platform as isolationist. Is Switzerland Isolationist? Ron Paul wants the US to be Neutral in foreign policy. Not taking sides in a conflict doesn’t mean he wants to hide. He supports trade and travel with other nations.

    Paul supported going after Bin Laden. He recommended taking the constitutional option of “letters of Marque”, but did vote for US Action in Afghanistan.

    I too wish he would focus more on his domestic policy, but the Iraq War is the number one issue right now, and purportedly 70% of the American People want us out of Iraq.

    Steve

  • Briefly responding to Matty and Steve, I agree with Steve in that I would not describe Ron Paul as “isolationist.” His views are simply in keeping with the views of the founders of our nation, and the general view that was widely held in this country until roughly 1900 or so.
    Since WW2, the interventionist mindset has become very common in the US, and so our views are now characterized as “isolationist.” The difference between true isolationism and our position is that we do not seek to build walls and close off our country from trade. We simply want to stop meddling in foreign countries. That’s not isolationism. It’s just common sense – something that is sorely lacking in America today.

    –Warren

  • While it may be true in the traditional sense that Paul’s views aren’t strictly isolationism, that’s the way they are perceived.

    Also, look at data from the last election cycle. While most people said Iraq was an important issue…that was less than 30%. 21% polled said that the economy was an issue for them. If I can find the polling numbers, I’d post it — but in the end, only a third said Iraq was the most pressing issue. Paul could run readily as the Sarkozy candidate who can rally the troops in that he isn’t like the incumbent and is far removed from the corruption associated with him, despite being in his party (kind of, since he’s a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party).

    At this point — I think Ron Paul would have a bigger mark on the entire election if he bolted from the GOP primary now and began openly courting both the Libertarian and Constitution Parties. With high ranking members of both parties already endorsing him…his chances of getting their lines (and ballot access in most states) is actually stronger than you’d think. He would also make for one of the strongest candidates the LP had to offer in a LONG time for the Presidency.

  • I think Paul can make a larger impact by staying in the GOP race. If a few things fall into place, he could make a dent in a major primary and then the media would have to talk about him. For now they’re pretending he doesn’t exist. If he runs on the LP line, they’ll ignore him there too, as they’ve done with most 3rd party candidates. –W

  • I agree that Ron Paul will make a much bigger impact by staying in the the Republican Party and trying to get invited to all debates, but we have to help him in any way we can.

  • Anonymous

    Warren,

    Your blog rocks. Thank you for restoring my faith in Americans… well, a few of them anyway.

    Keep that tie on, we need more professions in the justice movement.

    Best,

    pj.henningsen@gmail.com