Saturday, January 05, 2008

Ron Paul and Bill Moyers Hold An Interview that The Establishment Doesn't Want You To Hear

Are the establishmentarians and their sycophants as frustrated with Bill Moyers as they are with Ron Paul? They must be, because Bill Moyers was the consummate professional when it came to his interview with Congressman Paul on PBS last night.

Sean Hannity is a dolt who is nice to people (such as recently to Ron Paul) that he doesn't like only when it is to the advantage of himself or the shitpot network that he works for. Tim Russert didn't do too bad of a job interviewing Ron Paul on Meet the Press recently, but Bill Moyers is a cut above the rest. Moyers interviewed Ron Paul about his Presidential candidacy on PBS last night. He asked him tough questions, but he let him speak.

It's clear that Paul and Moyers disagree on at least some issues, but never once would you have known it from the consummate journalist or the consummate statesman. Neither once did Paul emit the hatred that his detractors constantly claim that he and his supporters exude. Paul, not limited to sound bites, gave a compelling reason, with policy examples, as to why he should be taken as a very serious contender for the highest office in the land. Unlike Fox News, Bill Moyers did not attempt to silence the presidential candidate.

Bill Moyers has let it be known that he does not support the war in Iraq, a position that Ron Paul also holds. He also abhors the domination of the American media landscape by, as he said in the Paul interview, "five major companies". But these, I think, are NOT the reasons that Bill Moyers was more courteous to Ron Paul than Fox News, who still will not invite Ron Paul to be a part of their New Hampshire "war hawk" debate, and ABC, who finally relented and invited Paul to appear on theirs.

Bill Moyers, although he and I likely disagree on more issues than not, is a champion of freedom.

I know Bill Moyers does not agree with Ron Paul on every issue, but he at least had the courtesy to let Congressman Paul express himself without trying to throw brickbats as some media types have.

Here are some of the issues that Mr. Moyers and Congressman Paul discussed:
  • Media - US media is largely controlled by a small few, but the internet is allowing presidential candidates like Paul and Dennis Kucinich to get their messages out anyway.

  • Republican Party -Moyers asked how he can belong to the "war party", the "big debt party" and the "Party of God". Ron Paul responded that the Republican platform--more clearly in years past--does not advocate any of these things. Rather, its leaders do, and most of the rest feel pressured (beholden?) to be loyal to the leader rather than to the principle.

  • Government Spending and Programs - If we don't do something with our financial house, the entire country will be bankrupt. We should take care of those who need it, but if spend our money at home and introduce sound, free market principles and encourage people to take care of themselves, we can ensure a solvent government and a prosperous country.

  • On the nickname "Dr. No" - Ron Paul believes that several current programs and behaviors should be phased out, and has tranisition programs for everything that he wants to get rid of: Federal Reserve, IRS, Social Security, troops in Iraq and the Middle East, etc.

  • The Constitution - Ron Paul is not overly rigid about the Constitution, i.e. that he thinks it's perfect by any means. It's just that there is an appointed means to change it if we want it changed, and we haven't been good at that in recent decades. "Authorized Use[s] of Military Force" are not the same as Declarations of War, which is Congress' responsibility, rather than kowtowing to the President.

  • Liberal/Conservative Love/Hate-fest - Liberals love Ron Paul because of his opposition to the Iraq war, but don't appreciate his views on social programs. Conservatives largely share his views on social programs but have tried to make him a pariah because of his stance on the war. But Congressman Paul believes that economic, political, and personal freedom are part of the same thing--'freedom freedom'.

  • Religion - When asked specifically by Moyers, Ron Paul admitted that Mike Huckabee's wearing of his Christianity on his sleeve bothers him to a small degree, and he thinks that religion should not be flaunted. Paul has seldom attended Washington prayer breakfasts, because he feels they are flaunting of religion and media opportunites for those who go. Ron Paul is a believer, but doesn't flaunt it and doesn't think religion should seek to achieve its own publicity. He finds it very unsettling and ironic that that Mitt Romney might lose because of his religious beliefs, when we shouldn't even be asking those questions.
In their own refreshing but different ways, Ron Paul and Bill Moyers are champions of liberty. Just about a year ago, Cliff Lyon at One Utah pointed out (indirectly) to me that I had been wrong about my impressions of Bill Moyers. That was worth it; my knees feel much better now because they don't involuntarily jerk nearly as often as they used to.

;-)

If I can convince just a handful of you Ron-Paul naysayers that you have been wrong in your assumptions about Congressman Paul, it will have been worth it as well.

This article appears in a slightly different format at OneUtah.org.




20 comments:

  1. I keep hearing that if Ron Paul is Elected he will disband the IRS. Not that I wouldn't like to see that, but how is he going to accomplish that?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Congressman Paul gives an excellent explanation to that question in the interview. Essentially it begins with with reducing the size of government there by reducing spending. No income tax would reduce the federal money grab to its 1998 size, when government was smaller but functioned just fine. http://www.ronpaulforpresident2008.com/news/#RonPaulBillMoyersInterviewPART101042008

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ron Paul can achieve this by reducing the size of the federal government and by bringing our troops home from abroad. We don't need to build an empire around the world and we don't need to subsidize other countries and prop up dictators. We can use that money to rebuild our own infrastructure instead of building bridges, roads, etc. in Iraq and elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ron & Jessica,

    If Congressman Paul is elected, then there is clearly public support for the abolition of the income tax. In that light, there would be public pressure on law makers to pass such legislation or risk being booted from office. The election of Ron Paul would send a very distinct message to both houses and truly begin a paradigm shift. They would virtually have no choice but to cease the collection of all such unapportioned taxes.
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59515

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mozarker,

    I just saw the stats at RonPaul2008.com that more military veterans and retirees support Ron Paul than any other candidate. To me, an Iraq war veteran (who didn't support the war but did my duty and tried to show the Iraqis the better side of America) and a 24-year retiree, that is gratifying.

    I completely agree with you that we need to clean up our own problems before we ever go dictating to anyone else how they should live their lives. And even then, we should respect their liberties and rights to self-determination.

    Bring the troops home (in an orderly fashion) and save money on taxes!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Amen, Frank. Couldn't have said it better.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I saw Ron Paul on Glen Beck the other night. He gave him time to speak. I'd vote for Paul, but I'm probably giving my vote to Obama.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm not a Ron Paul supporter. In fact, I'm not supporting anyone at the moment. But it chaps my hide that Fox is refusing to allow Paul to paticipate in the NH debate. They say he isn't a "serious" candidate.

    Paul will probably perform better in NH than any other primary state. The people there like independent-minded candidates, they have lots of independents, and they have an open primary that allows people to vote in whichever party's primary they want. All of this could produce a good result for Paul.

    Fox will look awfully funny when some of the "serious" candidates they allow to participate in the debate get worse results in NH than Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ryan,

    I read Obama's book, and I am very impressed with him, although I don't agree with his social policies. However, my dream election in November would pit Obama with Paul.

    Reach,

    Thank you. I said the same in my comment on OpEd News this morning as it regards Kucinich and Gravel on the Democrat side and Hunter on the Republican side. Good point about worse results: Giuliani already did in Iowa, and probably will again in NH.

    ReplyDelete
  10. No income tax and no federal reserve.This means your income taxes wont be needed to pay the interest on our money the government barrows from the federal reserve.Making free money on the interest of the money they barrow that does not belong to them.
    The only ones who like this system are the ones who gain from this system.About 5% i think.
    Its so obviously a fraud i am surprised this has not caused a revolution.But then i think of how brave people in America are and i then understand how cowards are.And then i understand why they keep robbing us of our lives our wealth and our freedoms.Then i look at our education system in this country and i can see how they hijacked that too and have been brainwashing our kids and getting away with it.lol baaaaah. Any men left?I mean non leg shaving men who Aren't afraid of girls?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I have a question...

    I too would like to see Obama vs. Paul in the general election, because I think they are the only two runners that are in this race that have even an ounce on integrity. I don't agree with Obama's social approach, but having listened to a number of his speeches over the weekend, he appears to be a man on sound judgment and willing to put the needs of the US ahead of his own.

    Anyway, so my question is... Do you know if in Utah a person can vote in both the democrat and the republican primaries? It's my first year voting and I want to make sure my voice is heard.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I can speak for the Republican side. You must be registered as a Republican to vote in the Republican primary. I was among the hordes of Republican delegates that got this one through the state convention about 5 years ago, and now I'm regretting my vote.

    But I'm not sure if the Democrats have such a "closed primary". You could call your county elections office to make sure.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I was planning on stopping by after I get sworn in. My plan was to register as a Republican long enough to cast my vote for Paul in the Primary, following which I'll be switching to either an Independent or a Libertarian, but most likely independent. My first choice would be to be able to cast a vote for Paul in the General election, but if by chance he doesn't get the nomination, I'm going to be putting all my energy behind Obama - Don't agree with his social idealogies, but as to his integrity and ability to have a civil discussion on an issue, I am more impressed the more I see and read about him.

    My ideal vote would be for a Paul/Obama presidency - can't see that happening though.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Stranger things have happened (than an Obama/Paul presidency). It would be like a yin/yang thing--two people with great integrity and a strong belief in what they stand for.

    I've let myself stay registered as republican since my days of clamoring to require all Utahns to be republican to vote in the republican primary--but I don't actually vote republican all that much. My votes in the last election included, I think, a Democrat, and definitely a couple of Constitution party candidates.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Frank,
    I know you think Ron Paul is great and that you buy into his excuses about the racist and bigoted stuff published under his name in his news letters from the 90s. But this stuff is pretty damning.

    I think this guy said it best:

    Okay...

    I did support him.

    And I could accept back when I thought it was just one or two pieces that the man could overlook a column or two. Yes, it was embarrassing, but I could accept the explanation that he didn't write it and didn't know about it.

    But the volume cited there is just damning.

    Even if I assume the best about the man: that he did not write them, or know about them when they were printed, and that he dismissed the writer when it came to his attention, it's still an incredible lack of judgment to allow a letter bearing your name to go out without vetting it when the most important thing a man has is his good name.

    So, yeah... still a libertarian, but I can't vote for him. Or the rest of the GOP'ers

    Maybe Obama.


    What's your take?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Don,

    I believe Ron Paul. Not the new republic.

    I hope you do, too.

    But it seemed like it had its slimy effect in New Hampshire. Ron Paul only got 8%.

    Makes me pretty frustrated that people can't find out for themselves what the truth is rather than believing the latest carefully timed smear campaign by the Daily Rag.

    I'm actually shocked, based on the unmitigated bile that Kos has spit at Ron Paul, that you would for a second believe what they had to say about him.

    ReplyDelete
  17. It's not about believing what others have to say about him. It's about seeing the evidence with my own eyes. The sheer number of times that such disgusting rhetoric went out in newsletters under Ron Paul's name, not to mention the length of time over which it happened, does great disservice to Paul's explanation.

    Frankly, I don't know how anyone could take anything he says seriously after seeing the evidence of the Ron Paul Political Reports. Paul's statements about the content of the reports are half-assed at best. If he truly denounced the content, you'd think he'd make more of an attempt to disown it rather than simply saying he "takes moral responsibility" for not monitoring the content more judiciously. It went on for decades! And this is the man you want to run the country?

    I am just thankful that no more than 10 percent of the country has been duped by his smooth talking pseudo-libertarianism.

    ReplyDelete
  18. You say
    than simply saying he "takes moral responsibility" for not monitoring the content more judiciously. It went on for decades! And this is the man you want to run the country?

    I supposed one could say the same thing about Ronald Reagan.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Maybe I'm too young to remember, but you're going to have to enlighten me on this one because I really have no idea what you are talking about. Did Ronald Reagan publish racist and/or hate-filled newsletters under his name?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Sorry for not being more clear. What I meant by that is that Ronald Reagan was accused of several things (like Iran Contra) that his people had much more to do with than he did. He probably felt like he should have monitored what they were doing more judiciously.

    By the way, I am dissecting a great deal of the New Republic article and its links, and my analysis will be up here hopefully later today.

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.