"Bachmann and Paul campaigns accuse debate sponsors of bias" by Shira Schoenberg, Globe Correspondent
Paul’s campaign chairman, Jesse Benton, accused CBS of being “arrogant” and “media elites” for not giving Paul sufficient time in the debate. “CBS’s treatment of Congressman Paul is disgraceful, especially given that tonight’s debate centered on foreign policy and national security,” Benton said in a statement.
“Congressman Paul was only allocated 90 seconds of speaking in one televised hour. If we are to have an authentic national conversation on issues such as security and defense, we can and must do better to ensure that all voices are heard,” Benton said.
So I saw the only question he was asked.
Benton noted that Paul, a Texas representative, is a veteran who serves on the House Foreign Relations Committee, and has been polling among the top three Republican candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Paul was asked three additional questions in the last half hour of the debate, which was not televised in most markets.
--more--"
"As caucuses approach, Paul rises in Iowa poll
VINTON, Iowa - Representative Ron Paul of Texas is emerging as a significant factor in the Republican presidential race, especially in Iowa.
He’s been long dismissed by the GOP establishment, but the libertarian-leaning candidate is now turning heads beyond his hard-core followers - and rising in some polls - just weeks before the state holds the leadoff presidential caucuses and four years since his failed 2008 bid.
Paul’s sharp criticism of government spending and US monetary policy has not changed since then.
And while his isolationist brand of foreign policy may be a non-starter for some establishment Republicans, its appeal among independents is helping Paul gain ground in a crowded Republican field.
His rise is an indication of just how volatile the Republican presidential race is in this state and across the country.
“The good news is the country has changed in the last four years in a way I never would have believed,’’ Paul told about 80 Republicans and independents at the Pizza Ranch restaurant in this town yesterday. “In the last four years, something dramatic has happened.’’
What has helped Paul rise here has been more method than drama. His sophisticated campaign here is a stark comparison to the shoestring operation of four years ago.
Paul was the first candidate to begin airing television ads this fall and has spent almost twice as much time in Iowa at this point than in his bid for the 2008 caucuses. Paul finished in fifth place then.
This time, surveys show Paul is reaching deeper into the caucus electorate.
A recent Bloomberg News poll showed him a close second behind Herman Cain and narrowly ahead of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former House speaker Newt Gingrich.
Two weeks earlier, the Des Moines Register’s poll showed Paul in solid third place, behind Cain and Romney.
Meaning he should win the thing, but you know how AmeriKan elections are.
--more--"
"GOP contenders to ramp up campaigning before Iowa" November 21, 2011
A recent Bloomberg News survey showed a four-way race: Clustered at the top were Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, and Ron Paul, candidates whose positions, backgrounds, and personalities run the gamut. Languishing far behind were Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann, who at one point enjoyed huge support.
Iowa’s outcome matters because it could shape the contest in New Hampshire, which holds its primary Jan. 10, and in states beyond....
Cain and Gingrich seem just as poised to break out of the pack as they are to fade....
Related: Globe Trick-or-Treat: Putting Out Ron Paul's Fire
Why would they want to do that?
Paul opposes stationing US troops around world
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said yesterday that he does not believe American troops should be stationed anywhere around the world.
Paul, a representative from Texas, was asked on CBS’s “Face the Nation’’ by host Bob Schieffer, “Do you think there’s any place in the world US forces should be stationed?’’
Paul responded, “No.’’ He explained, “Other than the fact I think a submarine is a very worthwhile weapon, I believe we can defend ourselves with submarines and all our troops back at home.’’
Paul said with the US recently testing a new hypersonic weapon, which can strike anywhere around the world in less than an hour, it is an “old-fashioned idea’’ that the United States needs troops in 900 bases worldwide. He also said the United States is “bankrupt’’ and cannot afford the same military presence.
“Those troops overseas aggravate our enemies, motivate our enemies,’’ Paul said. “I think it’s a danger to national defense, and we can save a lot of money cutting out the military expenditures that contribute nothing to our defense.’’
In other topics, he said he opposed using sanctions or force to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. “We have 12,000 diplomats. I’m suggesting that maybe we ought to use some of them,’’ he said.
:-)
--more--"
"Republican debate heats up on limits of US security; Gingrich takes immigration stance" by Matt Viser and Tracy Jan | Globe Staff, November 22, 2011
WASHINGTON - The Republican presidential candidates clashed last night - at times vigorously - over their visions for American security, whether Muslims should be targeted for extra screenings at airports, and how precipitously the US military should pull out from Afghanistan.
Several candidates argued forcefully that the Patriot Act, which made it easier for authorities to track Internet traffic and tap phones in the United States, should not only remain in place, but be strengthened. If preventing future attacks means occasionally infringing on civil liberties, they said, so be it....
But US Representative Ron Paul, a Texas Republican, challenged his seven rivals on the stage, saying that expanding government surveillance powers was akin to placing “a policeman in every house, a camera in every house because we want to prevent child-beating and wife-beating.’’
As I have often said here, he is the ONLY CHOICE for PRESIDENT!
“You never have to give up liberty for security; you can still provide security without sacrificing our Bill of Rights,’’ he said. To his rivals who referred to this as a time of war, Paul said, “I don’t remember voting on a declaration of war.’’
With just six weeks left before voters start to make their choices, the Republican presidential candidates gathered again last night for what feels like a running weekly special on prime-time television: another debate in another city, offering another chance for candidates to try to break through....
--more--"
We know who is breaking through, and so does the AmeriKan media:
"Paul goes against Republican grain on foreign policy; Backs diplomacy with Iran, cutting defense budget" by Shira Schoenberg | Globe Correspondent, November 25, 2011
CONCORD, N.H. - When presidential candidate Ron Paul looks for a Republican model of foreign policy, he looks to Robert Taft - the Ohio senator who opposed US intervention in World War II. He looks to Howard Buffett, a Nebraska representative who criticized the US role in the Korean War.
Ask him for a model in the party today, and Paul is vague. “We have a coalition in Washington,’’ Paul said yesterday. “It tends to be bipartisan.’’ Paul added that President George W. Bush’s advocacy of a “humble foreign policy’’ was promising, until Bush backpedaled on it.
Paul, a US representative from Texas, took a unique position when the Republican presidential candidates met in a debate this week on national security and foreign policy sponsored by CNN, the Heritage Foundation, and the American Enterprise Institute.
Isn't it SAD that PEACE is a "unique position" in AmeriKan politics?
While most of the Republican candidates are open to military action against Iran, Paul advocates diplomacy. While several of the candidates oppose cutting the defense budget, Paul wants to slash it. Paul was one of the only candidates in the debate to oppose extending the Patriot Act. Yet while Paul’s non-interventionist philosophy puts him at odds with his Republican rivals, he believes voters agree with him.
“The number of people who are sick and tired of being into the second decade of [the war in] Afghanistan is growing and growing,’’ Paul said at a forum sponsored by Concord Patch at The Draft sports bar. “Once they connect the economics and foreign policy together, they’ll realize that one of the most comfortable, the easiest place to cut, is to cut spending on all these foreign expenditures.’’
We are NOT ONLY SICK of them, we HATE THEM!!!!!
The LIES have simply GONE ON TO LONG -- and are, in fact, CONTINUING EVEN AS I TYPE!
But some Republicans are turned off by Paul’s dovish views.
Sorry, but they are the minority.
Fran Wendelboe, a Republican consultant and former New Hampshire state representative, thinks Paul sounds “very naive’’ in his attitude toward Iran, and too isolationist. “I heard a lot of people who said they could absolutely be behind Ron Paul if he wasn’t so out there on foreign policy,’’ Wendelboe said.
Even though it is an ECONOMY ELECTION and the PUBLIC AGREES with the END the WAR SENTIMENT!!!
Paul laid out his philosophy at the debate and hours beforehand, campaigning at Enviro-Tote, a tote bag manufacturing company in Bedford, N.H., and at The Draft. First, Paul said, he would cut $500 billion from overseas expenditures in one year. “That would mean we bring our troops home,’’ Paul said, including troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Japan, South Korea, and Germany.
Paul said the United States should accept a “golden rule’’ of foreign policy. “We shouldn’t do to any other country or any other people what we don’t want anybody to do to us,’’ he said. “Imagine if China or somebody else said there’s a bad guy in your country and he committed a crime in China, and they lob a bomb on us.’’
That is SUCH A GOOD POINT!!!!
Paul opposes assassinations of Americans....
So do I.
Paul’s stance on Iran is among his most controversial. While most of the Republican candidates support the use of sanctions and potentially force to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, Paul called such talk “war propaganda.’’
He's right again.
Paul said other nations with such weapons - Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea - have declined to join a nuclear proliferation treaty, and the United States treats them with respect.
Yup.
Israel has never officially confirmed the existence of its nuclear weapons, though it is widely assumed to have them. “If they get one bomb what are they going to do with it?’’ Paul said of Iran. “Israel has 300 of them, Pakistan has them, India has them, we have them, the British have them.’’
Yup.
Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has threatened to wipe Israel off the map.
That is a LIE, and yet HERE IT IS AGAIN in my "newspaper."
Unlike Iran, each country Paul mentioned has friendly relations with the United States and has some form of representative government.
North Korea has friendly relations with us? Would Pakistanis also describe it that way?
Is it deception or sloppiness, readers, and does it really matter?
And while most of the Republican candidates say they would back Israel if it strikes Iran, Paul said Israel can take care of itself.
I agree. ISRAEL CAN FIGHT ITS OWN BATTLES from now on.
Dean Spiliotes, an independent political analyst from New Hampshire, said Paul’s foreign policy contradicts core Republican tenets of strong national security and defense. But it appeals to Americans who are tired of war and are focused on economic issues. “He may not be at the center of the Republican Party, but he seems like less of an outlier than four years ago,’’ Spiliotes said.
And that is a WHOLE LOT of US (and WE VOTE)!!!
Whether Paul will lose support by diverging from his rivals may depend on which conflict he talks about. Andrew Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, said, “Republicans support military action started by Republican presidents. Democrats support military action started by Democratic presidents.’’
That's why the media rarely give him one.
Chadi Mekhael, a Salem Republican who owns a financial company, said the United States should keep the money it sends overseas. “I totally agree with him about getting our troops back home, taking care of our own country, and not worrying about everyone else,’’ Mekhael said.
--more--"
For once I'd like to thank the Globe. That really wasn't that bad a piece even though it sets the stage for the script to deny Ron Paul the nomination.
And he EVEN HAS the SUPPORT of the SOLDIERS??
"Paul’s coffers boosted by unlikely sources " November 26, 2011
Political notebook
For more from BostonGlobe.com, sign up or log in below
To continue, please sign up or log in to BostonGlobe.com
Access the full articles and quality reporting of The Boston Globe at BostonGlobe.com
Sign up
Unlimited Access to BostonGlobe.com for 4 weeks for only 99¢.
Are you a Boston Globe home delivery subscriber?
Get FREE access as part of your print subscription.
--NOmore--"
I guess the Globe doesn't want you to know.
Hmmm. Why is the story appearing in my Globe on a Slow Saturday four days later?
Ron Paul, the presidential candidate who says he’ll shrink government the most, is attracting more campaign cash than any of his Republican rivals from two unlikely sources: U.S. government workers and employees of the biggest federal contractors.
Paul, a U.S. representative from Texas who has said he’ll cut $1 trillion in his first year in office, leads in donations from federal employees, with $95,085 through Sept. 30. That is more than four times the $23,000 federal employees gave to Mitt Romney, according to Federal Election Commission data compiled by Bloomberg.
Paul, who opposed the Iraq War, has raised $76,789 from employees of the top 50 government contractors, a group led by weapons makers such as Lockheed Martin Corp. and Raytheon Co. Romney has raised $65,800 and Rick Perry $16,250.
“There is at the bottom of this a truly bizarre set of paradoxes, where many of the people who are attacking government the most are ultimately heavily dependent on it,” said Don Kettl, dean of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland.
President Barack Obama has raised more money than any of the Republican candidates from federal workers and top contractors’ employees.
Ideology rather than practical considerations motivate many contributors to presidential campaigns, especially those who send money more than a year before the election, Kettl said.
“This is much more a vote from the heart than a vote from the head at this point,” he said.
Those working for the U.S. Army and Air Force, including active-duty personnel, gave more money to Paul than any other candidate, according to FEC data compiled by Bloomberg. They donated $42,378 to Paul, $26,429 to Obama and $5,400 to Romney.
Paul said in an Oct. 5 speech at the National Press Club in Washington that he leads in fundraising from the military because troops support his opposition to foreign conflicts.
“They’re sick and tired of these wars and they know they’re not working out,” he said.
Yes, EVEN the TROOPS are TIRED of THEM!!!
It isn’t unusual for ideology to drive donations to presidential campaigns, said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington.
“People might be giving for things completely unrelated to their economic interests, or even counter to their economic interests,” she said in a Nov. 9 phone interview. “Presidential donors are far more ideologically motivated than donors giving to congressional candidates.”
People vote against their interests all the time, or so I am told by the controlled-opposition "left" of AmeriKa.
Paul is the only candidate who plans to cut about $1 trillion of the $3.5 trillion federal budget in the first year of his term, Jesse Benton, chairman for Paul’s campaign, said in a Nov. 16 e-mail.
Paul has said he would eliminate the departments of Commerce, Education, Energy, Interior and Housing and Urban Development.
Paul’s cuts could reverse a decade of gains for contractors driven by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yeah, they are the only ones who benefited.
The total amount the government spent on contracts more than doubled to $533 billion in fiscal 2010 from $221 billion in 2001, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
That's where my Globe brief ended.
Paul’s campaign raised a total of $12.8 million as of Sept. 30, third most among the Republican field behind Romney, with $32.6 million, and Perry, with $17.2 million, according to data compiled by Bloomberg....
Bruce Ferguson, an electrical engineer at Lockheed Martin who lives in Fort Worth, Texas, said he thinks he would “most likely” lose his job under a Paul administration.
That didn’t stop him from giving Paul $2,500, the maximum individual contribution allowed in the primary.
“I think Ron Paul has lots of good ideas and I support him 100 percent, and if it hurts me personally -- he’s not doing it on purpose,” Ferguson, 56, said in a Nov. 15 phone interview. “He’s doing the right thing. His philosophy is sound.”
Yes, WE ARE GOOD PEOPLE over here!!!!
Ferguson, who works on the stealth system for the F-35 fighter jet, the Pentagon’s most expensive weapon system, said he doesn’t think political views need to align with financial self-interest.
Though he has worked for 32 years at the company that today is the world’s largest defense contractor, he said there’s a bumper sticker on his car that reads: “I fear government more than I fear terrorism.”
I like this guy!
A political action committee set up by Lockheed Martin has contributed $837,000 to the 2012 campaigns of congressional candidates, in addition to $11 million the company spent on lobbyists so far this year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics....
See what Ron Paul is up against?
--more--"
Related: Ron Paul's Money Doesn't Matter
