The New York Post usually seems to be anti-Paul, but an article by Jacob Sullum on 24th December is 100% in support, and rebuts the obnoxious critics. In its entirety, here it is below:
"Ron Paul vs. Empire"
Reporters routinely describe Ron Paul's foreign policy views as "isolationist" because he opposes the promiscuous use of military force. This is like calling him a recluse because he tries to avoid fistfights.
The assumption that violence is the only way to interact with the world reflects how oddly circumscribed foreign-policy debates are in mainstream US politics and why Paul's perspective is desperately needed in the GOP.
As the Texas congressman has explained many times, he supports international trade, travel, migration, diplomacy and cultural exchange. He supports military action when it's necessary for national defense - in response to the 9/11 attacks, for example.
The innaccurate "isolationist" label marks Paul as a fringe character whose views can be ignored. Given the dire consequences of reckless interventionism, that clearly isn't the case.
This week, America officially ended its Iraq war, nearly nine years after launching it based on the false claim that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to us because he had weapons of mass destruction.
The war, which replaced a brutal dictator with a corrupt government that may not be able to maintain peace, cost us $800 billion and nearly 4,500 American lives. More than 100,000 civilians were killed.
The regime American installed in Afghanistan is even weaker and more corrupt than the one in Iraq. Ten years later, we still have 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. So far, the war has cost about $500 bilion, 1,800 American lives and thousands of civilain casualties.
The United States would've avoided both of these costly nation-building projects if Congress had listened to Paul - or even to George W. Bush circa 2000, who (as Paul frequently notes) ran on a premise of a "humble" foreign policy that would not aim to solve all the world's problems. Now that the same people who supported the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are portraying Iran as an intolerable threat, some Paulian skepticism surely is appropriate.
That's especially true when the federal government borrows 36 cents of every dollar it spends, racking up a debt as big as the entire US economy. At the Nov. 22 debate, Paul corrected Mitt Romney, who complained that the Obama adminstration is "cutting a trillion dollars out of the defense budget." Actually, Paul said, "they're not cutting anything"; rather, "they're nibbling away at baseline budgeting and its automatic increases."
America has its military personnel in 150 countries, has nearly doubled its defense budget in the last decade and accounts for more than two-fifths of the world's military spending.
Paul challenges this mindless militarism. "We have an empire," he bluntly noted at the same debate. "We can't afford it."
For 35 years Paul has spoken truths that foreing policy mavens pf both parties prefer to ignore: that the Constitution give Congress alone the power to declare war, that unjustified interventions breed resentment that undermines our security, that there is a difference between military spending and defense spending, that foreign aid rewards autocrats and their cronies and that economic sanctions are an "act of war" that hurts people in the name of punishing the governments that oppress them.
If there's really no room for these arguments in the GOP, that it the party's fault, not Paul's.
Showing posts with label New York Post. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York Post. Show all posts
Monday, January 2, 2012
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Ron Paul takes the lead
For months now we have been getting press about this or that GOP candidate who was going to be the big winner. Bachmann started it off when she came in #1 in the Iowa straws, then fell fast; Rick Perry, who did
not even bother to attend the Iowa caucus, suddenly started off like a Texas messiah; he too fell fast after people questioned the sagacity of having a leader who could not finish a sentence; then Romney appeared to take the lead, but was hit hard with the fact that he does not stay true to issues; Newt Gingrich crawled out of a swamp and in some reptilian way started to outrun the hare, only to be undone by his own infidelities and inconsistencies. So yesterday's New York Post and New York Times were weighing the possibility, as we put forth here, that Ron Paul would wait and pace himself and despite the lack of press, emerge in the fore. Geoff Earle in the Murdoch owned Post, writing in an article titled "Newt's lead evaporates", was forced to note that a new Public Policy Polling survey shows Paul seizing the top spot, with 23%, Romney getting back up to 20%, and Gingrich falling to 14%. But leave it to Murdoch accolyte Rich Lowry to bash Mr. Paul; he writes that in 2008 the surest way to get applause in the GOP was to excoriate him. So what? Then he tries to dig up some material that Paul did not write that appeared in a newsletter years ago. And leave it to Murdoch to bash his opponents with anti-Israel views, which Paul does not have. Paul's warning about the CIA taking over the US military are then brought up, and if Lowry had a brain he would have given Paul much credit for this. Let us look at reality here, let us examine history...the CIA has ties to companies like Bechtel, which in WWII was instrumental in undermining the military in the Pacific by getting milions of tax dollars spent on useless projects in Alaska when money was needed for Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, etc. Tens of thousands died or were wounded while Bechtel used the war as an excuse to make money. And look at its relationship today to the Bushes, Halliburton, etc. Look at how in Vietnam Philip Habib suppressed genuine intel reports about Hanoi and US soldiers, left unprepared, were slaughtered. Habib, in an account by former DIA intel agent Mark Philipps, was more powerful at the White House than was Reagan in the Reagan years; third he was, according to Philipps and his co-author Cathy O-Brien, to George H. W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
Anyone who is well versed in the history of the CIA would see the pattern of it using the troops for rich idiots and failing to gather real intelligence; in yesterday's NYT there was also the story about the total lack of intelligence about Korea, which goes about building nuclear weapons and destablising the region - where is the CIA when you need it?
One answer could be - in the newsroom, trying to bring America to its knees by supporting stupid, hapless candidates who will do their bidding while trying to suppress an honest and experienced one who knows what is really going on...and another answer might be Dallas, shooting a president who tried to keep Operation Northwoods from going forward. Long would be this post if I were to explain such a stupid and evil plot that involved killing US military men and civilians to start another war-for-profit, so I will leave the reader to exercise their fingers on the google machine.
But getting back to Ron Paul and yesterday's coverage of him - Lowry belittles his fellow Americans when he closes his piece with this: "Iowa caucus-goers are protective of their pre-eminent place in the nominting process. If they deliver victory to a history-making Ron Paul, no one should take them as seriously again."
That from a man who works for a corporation known for aiding and abetting murderers and child molesters, and suspected of hacking into 9/11 victims' families' phones.
So not surprising the Murdoch press should attack Ron Paul. Nor does it surprise that the NYT follows, somewhat lightheartedly, by trying to associate him with racists in an article by Jim Rutenberg and Richard A. Oppel Jr. The New York Daily Mail did not cover this issue much, with its attention focused on the funeral of a policeman gunned down in the line of duty by a career criminal who was let out by some liberal judge, and then the man who set fire to a woman who had tried to help him; both of which atrocities show us the lack of leadership in America today and why, if we care, we need to get Ron Paul in and the clowns out.
So we watch the debates and see how the press will react, and hope that Ron Paul wins.
not even bother to attend the Iowa caucus, suddenly started off like a Texas messiah; he too fell fast after people questioned the sagacity of having a leader who could not finish a sentence; then Romney appeared to take the lead, but was hit hard with the fact that he does not stay true to issues; Newt Gingrich crawled out of a swamp and in some reptilian way started to outrun the hare, only to be undone by his own infidelities and inconsistencies. So yesterday's New York Post and New York Times were weighing the possibility, as we put forth here, that Ron Paul would wait and pace himself and despite the lack of press, emerge in the fore. Geoff Earle in the Murdoch owned Post, writing in an article titled "Newt's lead evaporates", was forced to note that a new Public Policy Polling survey shows Paul seizing the top spot, with 23%, Romney getting back up to 20%, and Gingrich falling to 14%. But leave it to Murdoch accolyte Rich Lowry to bash Mr. Paul; he writes that in 2008 the surest way to get applause in the GOP was to excoriate him. So what? Then he tries to dig up some material that Paul did not write that appeared in a newsletter years ago. And leave it to Murdoch to bash his opponents with anti-Israel views, which Paul does not have. Paul's warning about the CIA taking over the US military are then brought up, and if Lowry had a brain he would have given Paul much credit for this. Let us look at reality here, let us examine history...the CIA has ties to companies like Bechtel, which in WWII was instrumental in undermining the military in the Pacific by getting milions of tax dollars spent on useless projects in Alaska when money was needed for Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, etc. Tens of thousands died or were wounded while Bechtel used the war as an excuse to make money. And look at its relationship today to the Bushes, Halliburton, etc. Look at how in Vietnam Philip Habib suppressed genuine intel reports about Hanoi and US soldiers, left unprepared, were slaughtered. Habib, in an account by former DIA intel agent Mark Philipps, was more powerful at the White House than was Reagan in the Reagan years; third he was, according to Philipps and his co-author Cathy O-Brien, to George H. W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
Anyone who is well versed in the history of the CIA would see the pattern of it using the troops for rich idiots and failing to gather real intelligence; in yesterday's NYT there was also the story about the total lack of intelligence about Korea, which goes about building nuclear weapons and destablising the region - where is the CIA when you need it?
One answer could be - in the newsroom, trying to bring America to its knees by supporting stupid, hapless candidates who will do their bidding while trying to suppress an honest and experienced one who knows what is really going on...and another answer might be Dallas, shooting a president who tried to keep Operation Northwoods from going forward. Long would be this post if I were to explain such a stupid and evil plot that involved killing US military men and civilians to start another war-for-profit, so I will leave the reader to exercise their fingers on the google machine.
But getting back to Ron Paul and yesterday's coverage of him - Lowry belittles his fellow Americans when he closes his piece with this: "Iowa caucus-goers are protective of their pre-eminent place in the nominting process. If they deliver victory to a history-making Ron Paul, no one should take them as seriously again."
That from a man who works for a corporation known for aiding and abetting murderers and child molesters, and suspected of hacking into 9/11 victims' families' phones.
So not surprising the Murdoch press should attack Ron Paul. Nor does it surprise that the NYT follows, somewhat lightheartedly, by trying to associate him with racists in an article by Jim Rutenberg and Richard A. Oppel Jr. The New York Daily Mail did not cover this issue much, with its attention focused on the funeral of a policeman gunned down in the line of duty by a career criminal who was let out by some liberal judge, and then the man who set fire to a woman who had tried to help him; both of which atrocities show us the lack of leadership in America today and why, if we care, we need to get Ron Paul in and the clowns out.
So we watch the debates and see how the press will react, and hope that Ron Paul wins.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Occupy Wall Street is not into 30 days...and it is coming soon to a park near you.
This weekend it came to Times Square, after finding Washington Square Park
last week. Mayor Bloomberg tried to have it leave Zucotti Park, which he said
needed cleaning, but that failed. The campers stayed happy in their sleeping bags,
still getting free pizza and bagels and lox...and of course, taking their anti-capitalism
rant into McDonalds.
Which irony Drew Grant, writing in the NY Observer, was quick to point out in a large feature
article, pp.18-20 in the 17 October issue.
Grant was also quick to point out that there were no Ron Paul sympathizers: "We spent all day looking for a possible Tea Party member or Ron Paul sympathizer and can up empty-handed."
Funny, the Ron Paul people had the biggest banner there, it took three men to hold it up on the East side of Zucotti Park. And I was there on the west side promoting this blog and hemp (which Ron Paul supports). I asked another protester, or 'occupier' as Arnie likes to be called, and he just laughed; he'd seen plenty and he was not even looking; maybe Grant is blind. Or a total liar. I'm not calling him a liar, but I am pointing out that he may be a liar. Fine line between pointing out the truth here and getting sued for, well, pointing out the truth. Did I say he was a liar?
If I did so what....
The New York Times on Sunday, 16th (which for some reason actually came out after Grant's article of the 17th) seems to go to lengths to put down Ron Paul in an article by Matt Bai, who alludes to the 'radical isolationism of Ron Paul.'; no mention of Dr. Paul's actual popularity and his presence on the House Banking Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Nor any credible example of this 'radical isolationism.' A page or two later, quoting some lobbyist named John Freehery, Bai talks about Republicans having to sort out their 'Ron Paul problem." Excuse me? Ron Paul 'problem'?
Ron Paul is one of their only credible members. One does not read his name in exposes like the Trance-Formation of America or Rolling Stone articles about banking fraud. So maybe, since he does not go in for sexual predation and embezzlement, as do some Republicans, he is a problem. One may have to put this statement into context.
A piece in the New York Post a while back basically admitted that journalists avoided Ron Paul. And one wonders why? Is it because common sense is anathema to the media and political elites who ripped off America? Yes it is. And let them sue me if they want.
But first they have millions of protesters on their hands; Arab Spring has become Western Fall...and the protesters, or 'occupiers' as Arnie prefers to call them, are not just going to go away.
And among them there are plenty of Ron Paul supporters. Their website is
www.RonPaul2012.com
Friday, August 5, 2011
512 and falling fast
These last two weeks have brought about a string of bad news on the market, with the Dow Jones falling 512 points yesterday...much of this has been psychological, though on top of real problems like a loss of industries to other countries.
The budget deal was reached, with both parties looking bad. This does not inspire confidence. Bad news causes more bad news and few are betting on a rally.
Ron Paul voted no on the compromise, which was a sensible move. But he is not in with the GOP hardliners who just wanted a tax break. He has real ideas about cutting silly things like the government borrowing from the government which is a big part of the debt...common sense does not prevail, why not?
He barely gets mention in the press. What does get mention is the warmongering scare tactics of Arthur Herman and Peter Brookes, who tell us in the Post that we need more money for the Pentagon...which lost $2.4 trillion - not million, not billion - trillion - by 10 September, 2001. Find the money lads and we can balance the budget; why ask for more money for an institution that cannot account for such sums? And that was before billions more got 'lost' in Iraq...
Michael Barone, in the same Murdoch rag, tells us that the GOP has no one with the high-level experience in foreign or fiscal matters that some contenders in the Democratic fields of 1968 and 1972 had. This clever wording avoid mention of Ron Paul - who is both on the House Banking Committee, and the House Foreign Affairs Committee...Barone makes it sound like none of the candidates have such experience, who really remembers the CV of the '68 and '72 Dem candidates?
With this much self-serving and selective information, or disinformation in the press, it is possible that a candidate WITH financial and foreign experience will be overlooked. The very tone of the Post's rants add to the gloom. But might that not be part of a Murdoch strategy? Kick the people when they are down, and then buy up shares cheap?
With or without help from the press, we are in for more selloffs on Wall Street, the summer is usually a time of slow trading and losses, so we have another month of this. Not that the usual September rally is a given either, so we may be in for many months of it all. The best thing for the economy would be to get some good news, and having a candidate with the experience of Ron Paul, however he does not, in Mr Barone's opinion - measure up to the unnamed and long-forgotten Dem candidates of yore, who by the way both lost to Nixon - would possibly bring a measure of confidence; both in his ability, and in his honesty. That last a rare trait in a politician these days. Actually both seem to be rare traits; ones we need, and can get in with Ron Paul.
The budget deal was reached, with both parties looking bad. This does not inspire confidence. Bad news causes more bad news and few are betting on a rally.
Ron Paul voted no on the compromise, which was a sensible move. But he is not in with the GOP hardliners who just wanted a tax break. He has real ideas about cutting silly things like the government borrowing from the government which is a big part of the debt...common sense does not prevail, why not?
He barely gets mention in the press. What does get mention is the warmongering scare tactics of Arthur Herman and Peter Brookes, who tell us in the Post that we need more money for the Pentagon...which lost $2.4 trillion - not million, not billion - trillion - by 10 September, 2001. Find the money lads and we can balance the budget; why ask for more money for an institution that cannot account for such sums? And that was before billions more got 'lost' in Iraq...
Michael Barone, in the same Murdoch rag, tells us that the GOP has no one with the high-level experience in foreign or fiscal matters that some contenders in the Democratic fields of 1968 and 1972 had. This clever wording avoid mention of Ron Paul - who is both on the House Banking Committee, and the House Foreign Affairs Committee...Barone makes it sound like none of the candidates have such experience, who really remembers the CV of the '68 and '72 Dem candidates?
With this much self-serving and selective information, or disinformation in the press, it is possible that a candidate WITH financial and foreign experience will be overlooked. The very tone of the Post's rants add to the gloom. But might that not be part of a Murdoch strategy? Kick the people when they are down, and then buy up shares cheap?
With or without help from the press, we are in for more selloffs on Wall Street, the summer is usually a time of slow trading and losses, so we have another month of this. Not that the usual September rally is a given either, so we may be in for many months of it all. The best thing for the economy would be to get some good news, and having a candidate with the experience of Ron Paul, however he does not, in Mr Barone's opinion - measure up to the unnamed and long-forgotten Dem candidates of yore, who by the way both lost to Nixon - would possibly bring a measure of confidence; both in his ability, and in his honesty. That last a rare trait in a politician these days. Actually both seem to be rare traits; ones we need, and can get in with Ron Paul.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Citizen Murdoch and his team of politicians
It seems politicians these days are having to distance themselves from a crime suspect - Keith Murdoch, better known by his middle name of Rupert. Yesterday in Parliament, he had to answer questions after having to sell the News of the World - the kind of paper that takes a story from a illegal immigrant about how bad other illegal immigrants are but omits to notice that their source is in fact the world's largest heroin dealer...it is no loss, but to heroin dealers who have stories to sell.
Conveniently for Murdoch, the main whistleblower, who was contradicting the Murdoch line that the hacking was more or less of a one-off, ended up dead. He just 'happened' to die, and there is nothing suspicious about his death or the timing of it...so say the police who just 'happened' to check on him for some odd reason. And so, before the toxicology reports are even started on Sean Hoare, the police have cleared Citizen Murdoch. Which is really very nice, because Murdoch's staff were bribing the police right and left, and quite a few have had to step down. Maybe there are none left to investigate any more mysterious deaths in the realm?
Which is really nice also for the politicians who courted him, from Tony Blair to David Cameron. The whistleblowers die and the police quit and Murdoch can go on forcing his politicians on the public. Yesterday he seemed to be endorsing Michele Bachmann in some tired piece by a J T Young in the New York Post. Makes me wonder what criminal acts Bachmann is into to be on his good side. Hacking into 9/11 victims's phones? Paying off the police? Evidence tampering? Who knows.
It may just be a good policy to avoid any and all politicians whom Murdoch has espoused. Wipe the slate clean and get in people who do not make friends with the devil.
That is one reason to support Ron Paul. Murdoch, Sulzberger, Zuckerman and Sun Myung Moon - (Fox/NY Post; NY Times; NYDaily News; Washington Times) - do not get in bed with him - and we need independent candidates more than candidates need the press. Get out and write to your local papers and support Ron Paul, let them know you do not want Murdoch and others putting their minions in power. Just look at the meltdown that has happened in the UK - a country the US fought to get away from...now is time to fight to get away from Murdoch - and his politicians.
Conveniently for Murdoch, the main whistleblower, who was contradicting the Murdoch line that the hacking was more or less of a one-off, ended up dead. He just 'happened' to die, and there is nothing suspicious about his death or the timing of it...so say the police who just 'happened' to check on him for some odd reason. And so, before the toxicology reports are even started on Sean Hoare, the police have cleared Citizen Murdoch. Which is really very nice, because Murdoch's staff were bribing the police right and left, and quite a few have had to step down. Maybe there are none left to investigate any more mysterious deaths in the realm?
Which is really nice also for the politicians who courted him, from Tony Blair to David Cameron. The whistleblowers die and the police quit and Murdoch can go on forcing his politicians on the public. Yesterday he seemed to be endorsing Michele Bachmann in some tired piece by a J T Young in the New York Post. Makes me wonder what criminal acts Bachmann is into to be on his good side. Hacking into 9/11 victims's phones? Paying off the police? Evidence tampering? Who knows.
It may just be a good policy to avoid any and all politicians whom Murdoch has espoused. Wipe the slate clean and get in people who do not make friends with the devil.
That is one reason to support Ron Paul. Murdoch, Sulzberger, Zuckerman and Sun Myung Moon - (Fox/NY Post; NY Times; NYDaily News; Washington Times) - do not get in bed with him - and we need independent candidates more than candidates need the press. Get out and write to your local papers and support Ron Paul, let them know you do not want Murdoch and others putting their minions in power. Just look at the meltdown that has happened in the UK - a country the US fought to get away from...now is time to fight to get away from Murdoch - and his politicians.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Dave Brooks in the New York Times
A number of letters appeared in the New York Times yesterday in response to David Brooks article of 5 July ("The Mother of All No-Brainers"). Most were anti-GOP. Barrett Zinn Gross quoted Dick Cheney's absurd remark about deficits not mattering, and Ron Freeland asserts that they GOP is incapable of running the country.
Personally, I am not a big GOP fan. This blog is about Ron Paul - not the GOP. But I am not a fan of the left either - especially when they have some fringe lunatics running about letting rapists out of jail...call me a Centrist if you will.
And I might just call Ron Paul a Centrist, which is what this country needs. But I can work with either party, if I do not have to deal with the extremists. I think that in all fairness to the GOP these letters point out the extermists in the GOP - Cheney and Glover Norquist are mentioned, and neither of them are close to Ron Paul.
These extremists not only make the party look bad, but they deflect light from the sensible candidates. The press finds them an easy story - and does damage to the country, as the voters hear so much about them and not enough about the sensible politicians, right, left or in the middle - who could do the job. The press, especially the Murdoch press, also spends its time hacking into citizen's cell phones, which is why Murdoch may lose his empire in the UK - where his people hacked into the phone of a missing school girl, and possible the phones of UK military families and families of 7/7 victims.Why? It is very mysterious.
He owns the Post in NY, which almost never mentions Ron Paul. Why? Is Murdoch involved with people who do not have the interests of the US at heart? CCP? Chemical companies bent on selling DDT? Intel agencies bent on hacking into phones of military families? Who, by the way, is this paper supporting and why?
Just asking...
Personally, I am not a big GOP fan. This blog is about Ron Paul - not the GOP. But I am not a fan of the left either - especially when they have some fringe lunatics running about letting rapists out of jail...call me a Centrist if you will.
And I might just call Ron Paul a Centrist, which is what this country needs. But I can work with either party, if I do not have to deal with the extremists. I think that in all fairness to the GOP these letters point out the extermists in the GOP - Cheney and Glover Norquist are mentioned, and neither of them are close to Ron Paul.
These extremists not only make the party look bad, but they deflect light from the sensible candidates. The press finds them an easy story - and does damage to the country, as the voters hear so much about them and not enough about the sensible politicians, right, left or in the middle - who could do the job. The press, especially the Murdoch press, also spends its time hacking into citizen's cell phones, which is why Murdoch may lose his empire in the UK - where his people hacked into the phone of a missing school girl, and possible the phones of UK military families and families of 7/7 victims.Why? It is very mysterious.
He owns the Post in NY, which almost never mentions Ron Paul. Why? Is Murdoch involved with people who do not have the interests of the US at heart? CCP? Chemical companies bent on selling DDT? Intel agencies bent on hacking into phones of military families? Who, by the way, is this paper supporting and why?
Just asking...
Monday, June 27, 2011
Weekend press and more info on Hunstman
The New York Post ran a piece on Romney on Saturday, in which it was shown how much he flipflops...I guess that is how he got to be a red governor in a blue state.
On Sunday, the New York Times did a feature on Huntsman, and yet again, an underlying theme there was, who is this guy? Even his campaign staff do not seem to know; many of them have just met him for the first time.
Matt Bai hangs out with him for a few days and gives us a view of the happenings, which are very illuminating. What I make of it is that Huntsman is a rather capable bloke in many fields, and I have a respect for him as he learned the Chinese language and culture. Or I ought to be more specific and say he learned Mandarin and the Chinese culture. And by way of digression, I might just add that this has become a very useful language to learn if you want a job...but getting back to our speaker of Mandarin, who is looking for a job on Pennsylvania Avenue, I think that despite this qualification, he will best serve the US as a diplomat, political analyst, governor of his native state, or, as the article suggest he might be looking at himself, in the post of VP. I see nothing to really dislike in him, and those voters whom he met found him an affable fellow; however, they did not find answers to specific questions on policies, and this did not sit too well with the likes of Travis Blais, the GOP chairman in Windham, New Hampshire. "His attitude seems to be, 'Well, I'm just up here introducing myself to people, and I'll let you know what my positions are later," Blais told the NYT; Blais summed it up with: " Frankly, people noticed...people said, 'Nice guy, very smart, but I have no idea what he thinks.' "
So there. Not quite presidential, but not a bad fish. Nate Silver, a politics blogger for the NYT, opined that Huntsman has not more than a remote chance of scoring the nomination. Even with the vast wealth of his father, who by the way invented the clamshell takeaway containter, he will most likely not be able to convince people to give him the #1 job in America, even if he does speak Mandarin.
On Sunday, the New York Times did a feature on Huntsman, and yet again, an underlying theme there was, who is this guy? Even his campaign staff do not seem to know; many of them have just met him for the first time.
Matt Bai hangs out with him for a few days and gives us a view of the happenings, which are very illuminating. What I make of it is that Huntsman is a rather capable bloke in many fields, and I have a respect for him as he learned the Chinese language and culture. Or I ought to be more specific and say he learned Mandarin and the Chinese culture. And by way of digression, I might just add that this has become a very useful language to learn if you want a job...but getting back to our speaker of Mandarin, who is looking for a job on Pennsylvania Avenue, I think that despite this qualification, he will best serve the US as a diplomat, political analyst, governor of his native state, or, as the article suggest he might be looking at himself, in the post of VP. I see nothing to really dislike in him, and those voters whom he met found him an affable fellow; however, they did not find answers to specific questions on policies, and this did not sit too well with the likes of Travis Blais, the GOP chairman in Windham, New Hampshire. "His attitude seems to be, 'Well, I'm just up here introducing myself to people, and I'll let you know what my positions are later," Blais told the NYT; Blais summed it up with: " Frankly, people noticed...people said, 'Nice guy, very smart, but I have no idea what he thinks.' "
So there. Not quite presidential, but not a bad fish. Nate Silver, a politics blogger for the NYT, opined that Huntsman has not more than a remote chance of scoring the nomination. Even with the vast wealth of his father, who by the way invented the clamshell takeaway containter, he will most likely not be able to convince people to give him the #1 job in America, even if he does speak Mandarin.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Ron Paul is making news in New York!
A week ago, Ron Paul NYC Liberty went out to talk to the restaurant and bar employees and found them very enthusiastic about Ron Paul - who wants to make their tips tax free. The NY Post says he'll never have to pay for a drink in this town again...
But I hope he gets more than free drinks; votes are what he deserves. And votes are what Mitt Romney and, presumably Sarah Palin came after last week. Michael Walsh in the Post calls Romney's campaign 'substance free', and I have to agree. I am not that anti-Romney, and don't have a lot of bad things to say about him, in fact I think he may be a good governor for Massachusetts, but would not make a good president. As to the latter, well, before she tries to become President of the United States she ought to learn the history of the United States; Paul Revere did not ride to 'warn the British'. Unless he was a double agent and she knows some secret history even the CIA does not have access to.
Tonight I'll be seeing some of the pub crowd at Walters, a bar on 8th that flies the USMC flags as the owner was a Marine. It's Karaoke and lots of fun...but I digress. I will also be discussing the making of a video in which we interview people on the East Coast about their support for Ron Paul. That too will be fun!
But I hope he gets more than free drinks; votes are what he deserves. And votes are what Mitt Romney and, presumably Sarah Palin came after last week. Michael Walsh in the Post calls Romney's campaign 'substance free', and I have to agree. I am not that anti-Romney, and don't have a lot of bad things to say about him, in fact I think he may be a good governor for Massachusetts, but would not make a good president. As to the latter, well, before she tries to become President of the United States she ought to learn the history of the United States; Paul Revere did not ride to 'warn the British'. Unless he was a double agent and she knows some secret history even the CIA does not have access to.
Tonight I'll be seeing some of the pub crowd at Walters, a bar on 8th that flies the USMC flags as the owner was a Marine. It's Karaoke and lots of fun...but I digress. I will also be discussing the making of a video in which we interview people on the East Coast about their support for Ron Paul. That too will be fun!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)