Can We Use Ron Paul To MEASURE Media Bias?

Posted by Proofreader on August 08, 2007, 02:11 PM | #

Ron Paul’s Jewish adviser, Burt Blumert :

In 1988 I was chairman of Ron’s first presidential campaign. Lew has been his friend and associate since 1975, and served as Ron’s chief of staff in Congress.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blumert/blumert123.html

Don’t miss this stuff from another member of his staff, Gary North, and more relevant to the topic of this entry (with some interesting insights as wel into the Council on Foreign Relations and their role in the US presidency) :

When I joined his Congressional staff in June, 1976, he was the most junior Congressman, having been sworn in only two months earlier. The Democrat incumbent had been given a position in the Federal bureaucracy, and he had resigned his office. Paul won the special election.

Ron Paul is #3 in the digital race. Everyone else is an also-ran.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north552.html

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 10, 2007, 01:15 AM | #

Randall Burns’ assessment of Mitt Romney is ... what’s the word I want? ... What’s the word government press secretaries use when two leaders emerge from talks in which they couldn’t agree on anything and hated each others’ guts? ... “Constructive”? ... No that’s not it ... Oh, “frank,” I think ... Right, “frank.”  “The two leaders emerged from ‘frank’ talks today at Camp David ...”  OK, well Randall Burns made a ... “frank” ... assessment of Mitt Romney tonight over at Vdare.com:

I was recently reading about Romney’s net worth of between $190 million and $250 million. [...] I must disagree with Joe Guzzardi’s judgment that Romney’s record on immigration is “good.”  For example, Romney did very little to address seriously the problem of illegal employers while he was governor of Massachusetts.  While Romney has recently attacked Rudy Giuliani for being Mayor of a “Sanctuary City,” Boston was also a sanctuary city during his term as governor.  It wasn’t until near the end of his term, when he was already thinking about national office, that he signed an agreement with the federal government to allow thirty Massachusetts State Troopers to be trained in immigration enforcement.

What I see is someone who will seize on high-profile aspects of the immigration issue —  but still tries to appeal to both sides. [...]

Is there really any reason to assume that Romney will not support higher real levels of (legal) immigration, possibly through “guest worker” programs that allow fewer political rights and civil liberties for those allowed to immigrate, and greater overall concentration of wealth in America?

Romney’s attitude towards those who are forced to delay —  or avoid —  having families due to the decrease in wages and living standards that immigration produces is rather cold [...].  And Romney, despite his recent contradictory statements, endorsed a massive amnesty of illegal aliens in 2006 [...]

Remember, those immigration rights don’t come for free. As I have argued before, American citizenship has a quantifiable value —  which a loose immigration policy devalues, just as a public company that issues additional stock can “dilute” the value of stock already issued.  Romney has no plan on how to maintain the value of American citizenship —  or handle the incentives for further illegal immigration his proposals create.

My take as a member of the VDARE.COM Progressive Caucus:  It simply doesn’t occur to Romney that those of enormous wealth are affected differently by immigration than working Americans.  At least until very recently, his stance was in effect serving a wealthy elite, with which he identifies far more strongly than he identifies with America as a whole.

[...] Romney is a man of considerable natural gifts born to enormous privilege. It is sad that he is so unfeeling towards the nation that gave him so much. 

What I find especially difficult to deal with is his hypocrisy.  Romney claims to be pro-family, but he promotes the concentration of wealth that makes affordable family formation less likely.  It is simply revolting to see a man born to wealth and privilege promoting policies that will deny many poor people the chance to be part of a stable family and which, by the way, systematically increase the rate of abortions in the country.

I might cut Romney some slack if he were really looking at developing that pioneering aspect at the root of his Mormon heritage. [...] But I don’t see Romney taking America in that kind of direction.

I might cut him some slack if I didn’t think he was bright enough to connect the dots.

This hypocrisy and lack of vision and empathy is the reason we are seeing traditionally obedient [Mormon] youth starting to seriously question their elders.

I hope that rebellion cleans house.

Let’s just say Romney would not be ... Burns’ first choice ... and leave it at that, shall we?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 11, 2007, 01:16 PM | #

Mitt Romney was non-committal when asked if the anchor-baby phenomenon was a problem that needed mending.  Right there, that non-committal response all by itself, disqualifies him from consideration as the candidate.  Period.  Full stop.  End of story.  Un point, c’est tout.  Fini.

Bye-bye, Mitt, and don’t let the swinging door hit you in the butt on the way out, you sad, bought loser you.

Also mentioned in the linked entry are the turds Giuliani and Brownback who get everything about immigration wrong every single time, both men bought and paid for of course, owned lock, stock, and barrel by the deadliest most determined enemies Whitedom has had in a hundred thousand years.  Tancredo’s, Hunter’s, and Ron Paul’s positions on the problem, as cited at the same link, are all commendable, exactly as one would’ve predicted.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 11, 2007, 01:21 PM | #

Huckabee’s too, according to the linked article, but he’s an unprincipled man who cannot be trusted any more than the typical member of the Bush family.

Posted by Dove on August 18, 2007, 05:11 PM | #

Please view the latest brief from Ron Paul Online.

This week we’re discussing what it means to be a Washington, DC Insider: someone who is a member of the exclusive think tanks, policy organizations, lobby groups, and other groups that influence and decide policy. You and I, the outsiders, are those who are not part of these clubs.

The bottom line is that the insiders have political and economic power, and the outsiders don’t.

Outsider’s democratic voice amounts to little more than voting on occasion, that day every couple of years where we have our say, and then we are expected to shut up and take it until we have the privilege of voting again.

Please welcome our newest author by adding this excellent article to your reading list. We’ve included a Handout (in PDF format) so that you can easily distribute this information via email to your friends, even those who are not yet Dr. Paul supporters.

Click here to View the article

http://www.ronpaulonline.com/content/view/190/197/