Ethan Miller/Getty Images
Ron Paul at the Republican debate in Mesa, Arizona on Wednesday.
Lawrence O'Donnell's latest Rewrite segment on Ron Paul resulted in a commenting frenzy. Last week, he exposed Ron Paul as a "fake" libertarian because of his position on sex and birth control. You gave your two cents, and then some; we got about 1,000 passionate comments on Facebook alone. Here's a sampling of your reactions.
"The use of the pill or not really isn't the issue. The issue is that even if Paul believes immorality leads to use of the pill he would never use government force to enforce his views. That position of not using the force of government is a libertarian view."
— Liberty Joe, Last Word blog
"You raise an interesting point, Lawrence. If it is true that the truth hurts, judging by the hornets nest you have churned up it looks like you are right."
— Maoriora, Last Word blog
"So, how is it he is unelectable — its easy enough to spew rhetoric, but take some time one evening, and tell us in detail why Ron Paul is no better and/or worse than his fellow three GOP candidates. After all, no GOP candidate is worthy in your eyes, and seriously anyone other than Ron Paul is so right wing, they themselves garner no goodwill when lined up against your liberal principles. Ron Paul may be conservative, but he's a whole lot better than the other three in just about every respect."
— Marginalized, Last Word blog
"There's an orchestrated movement using code-speak and exploiting this country's puritanical streak (I thought we settled this one in the 60's). You can tell there's a lot of frustration by the number of folks posting here on a Friday night (right after Valentine's day no less) when they could be out schmoozing and romancing...Make love, not culture wars."
— SL Cabbie, The Last Word blog
"Paul appeals to moderate independent thinking voters-his viewpoint doesn't fit the GOP."
— @msgoddessrises, Twitter
"Obama, Newt, Santorum, and Romney are all establishment candidates. The only one for true liberty and a restoration of the Constitution is Ron Paul."
— Kaan Bahadir, Facebook
"Very well put! If only there was such an understanding of Libertarianism among the populace at large... Every time I hear Paul referred to as an Isolationist I want to scream."
— Ryan Sellers, Last Word blog
"Lawrence O'Donnell, society is immoral!! If you're not seeing that, your eyes are closed. Sex out of marriage, sleeping around and preaching that it's moral is in itself immoral. And, you never did show where Dr. Paul actually said that the government should ban all abortions!!! Where and when did he say this? He did not... Ron Paul believes that the people have the right to vote in their own state to decided on abortion, and to get the government out of their business. Whether or not he believes in abortion, he would nver put his views on any subject in the hands of the government because he believes in our freedoms.“
— Bonnie Davis Ross, Facebook
"Unbelievable! Ron Paul was just trying to, exactly as Lawrence said, school the people around him, basically saying the pill is not bad by itself. Finally Paul said that Santorum's abstinence federal fund use is stupid and it isn't the government's role to be in people's private business... *Paul shook his head in disagreement with Santorum on the issue btw*"
— Jhansi2, Last Word blog
Let the discussion continue! We value all your opinions. Weigh in now in the comment section.
Leave a Comment:
It's unfortunate that people can't see Paul for who he is. People make apologetic arguments concerning him saying he's anti-government and the would never let the government control this or that. Sorry, but that's not true. He would allow state governments to dictate minutia of people's lives, just not the federal. He's scary and frankly dangerous, especially for the poor and needy in this country.
Read the Constitution. States are allowed MANY powers the federal government is not, so read your state's constitution. You seem to miss the whole point... There is no way a state can be as oppressive as the federal government because they are smaller, more localized, and consequently easier to replace. READ THE CONSTITUTION.
To me, what you just said seems stupid... would you like to try again?
You're so right. We definitely need to decide major issues at the federal level so its across the board. Take for example the issue of abortion. No matter what the liberals do we'll eventually get a ban on abortion. It will eventually get overturned but we'll eventually get it back. It will be overturned but we'll still get it back. This is obvious sarcasm but you can hit me up with time and true argument that state powers allowed segregation but you're wrong. Separate but equal was upheld by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Plessy v. Ferguson which in case people have forgotten is a branch of the federal government. Everyone seems to turn a blind eye to the failures of federal government. One size doesn't fit all. What works in Utah will never work in California.
I love how when somebody says something this stupid about Ron Paul, we step up and correct it. That is why this movement is true. People actually believe and care.
Never give up guys. You make me proud to be a Paulista :)
Alex--Nevada
Lawrence needs to get off Obama`s you know what. I voted for Obama in 2008 unfortunately.. My family and i were planning on voting for Obama if RP failed to secure the nomination. But after he signed the NDAA bill, I refuse. Most the people i know, a candidates stance on, Abortions, Birth controls, And gay marriage, Are not a deal breaker. Those are social issues. with 11% unemployment, And 15 of the 25 homes on my block foreclosed on, Social issues are irrelevant. Unemployment, The national debt, The economy, Taxes, Wars, War on drugs (Where 70% of our overcrowded prisons are filled with non violent offenders) , Drone strikes (that kill 70 civilians for every 1 militant, NDAA, Patriot act.. Those are important issues. I can care less if loose Betty Sue could get a abortion.
the constitution states that the power to write the laws should be the states or THE PEOPLES meaning it's up the people to make sure the government of the state is representative of the peoples interest. to clarify this means that the government works for you not the other way around and so if the government is passing a law thats not in line of your moral code it's up to you to make sure they know that, that @!$%# is not gonna fly any more.
and thats what us paul supporters are trying to accomplish. to give people back the choice of how they're gonna live their lives and what our money is going to be spent on, to give people their voice in how things are gonna be done in their community, because what might be good for california might not be good in virginia, and whats good for hawaii may not be good for alaska, and they should be able to have the choice in how they proceed
Actually, if the federal government would stop taking money away from the states, the states and local governments could help poor people more. Instead, the opposite effect has happened from sending our money to the federal government. We have more poor people than ever now..
LOL I'll just be happy when this election year is over.....Lots of stuff going on we are so busy fighting among ourselves at the fate of loosing our country>>>>We need to work as one so much division WOW......Team President Obama
Ron Paul has been in Congress for 36 years, if that tenure doesn't make you an "establishment Politician" then what does?
it's amazing that he is for making drugs legal and against sex and birth control...freedom does not ring with this guy unless it's allowing you to stay high...
What are you talking about he thinks contraception use is fine, he thinks if a women is raped she should prevent the pregnancy. You are totally off base and confusing simple statements.
He is NOT for making drugs legal... He is for getting the federal government out of things they don't have the constitutional authority to be involved in. What that means is: Pretty much all the drugs people are concerned about would still be illegal in most states unless their citizens vote for them to be legal in their state. I can't see many states wanting heroin, crack, and acid to be easily accessible...
If you think of Ron Paul's dislike of abortion, you would think he would advocate banning it all together....but his view on that is the same as drugs. He would leave it up to the states to do what they already do. As Paul has said before: States deal with violent crimes like murder already, and if he killed or injured an unborn child as a practicing doctor...he would be charged with a crime. Also, if a person drives negligently and kills a pregnant lady, he will be charged with 2 deaths. So unless we force the states to change their attitude about that and to stop treating the unborn as people with full rights, we have to treat abortions as a crime against a person with full rights as well.
Personally, I think there is an already defined compromise in science. Before 8 weeks a developing egg is called a zygote and doesn't have much more than outlines of body parts. After 8 weeks when we call it a fetus, it generally has internal structures in the heart, brain, etc, and I believe that is the minimal framework to "legally" be declared a human that is entitled to the rights our constitution gives. I would probably say 10 weeks would be a good cut off point, but of course if the baby is causing problems for the mother or something, then you have an issue where the child is "infringing" on the rights of the mother, so an abortion would be authorized to protect the mother from being harmed by the other legal "person".
(Sorry for the essay. I've been fighting a civil rights case for the last couple years of my life, so I look at things from a very specific legal framework due to reading an excessive amount of legal opinions.)
From ronpaul2012.com:
As a physician, Ron Paul consistently put his beliefs into practice and saved lives by helping women seek options other than abortion, including adoption. And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:
* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”
A bit of Cabbie history here... The first "activist judge" was U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall who established the practice of "judicial review" in Marbury vs. Madison.
History is not on the side of those who parrot that silly talking point.
He didn't say he wanted to make illegal drugs legal, he said he wanted to end the war on drugs on the federal level and leave the rest up to the states on what they wanted to do. That right should go to the states or the people. If CA wants to legalize pot, then they should be able to without grief from the Federal government. If someone living there doesn't like it, then they can vote with their feet and move..
@Coleen - seriously?? Because it's on his web site it must be true. It's truly astounding how people let themselves be fooled. Fortunately, the President will win again. Thanks to all those who write-in RP in November!
It's funny that the Media has ignored Ron Paul almost the entire election, and now that things are getting closer to the big day all that they cover are sound bites that make him look bad. If drugs are legal tomorrow and you go and get cracked out, maybe you should look at your own moral values and principles before blaming a "politician". Start taking responsibility in your own lives. If your kids get into drugs, maybe you should look at your own parenting skills. Yes Ron Paul is a Politician but at least he doesn't bend his views just to make people happy. Mitt Romney was all for women's rights, but now that he thinks he can get a larger vote by being against abortion he's flopped to that side. Ron Paul is against big government, and for REAL freedom of choice; and if that scares you, maybe it's because your to weak to really take care of yourself without Uncle Sam making every decision for you. Sorry to break it to you, but if your born in the middle-class, you'll have to work hard for what you want in life. Ron Paul offers freedom of choice, and a country where if we work hard enough we can reach our goals.
No, he is for freedom of choice only as long as he agrees with your choice. If he doesn't like your choice, just like all the republican candidates, he has zero problem bringing about as much government as he can to force you to choose as he would. Small government-yeah right.
So true. I have a couple friends that are RP supporters and they refuse to see this bigoted little man for what he is - a nut!
If we agree that Ron Paul is an honest man...
And we agree he will do what he say he will...
Then can we agree that, at the very least, he will save lives when he brings our soldiers home to their families?
This time around, put the left/right paradigm behind you and consider a vote to save your childrens future.
I would like to have at least 4 years of the constitution back please, before I die. Don't make me drag you kicking and screaming to freedom.
Thank you
All these rude ill mannered attention junkies have had way more than their 15 Warhol minutes. They all know everything so much better than the rest of us and can't stop saying so. This 2012 holiday season will be the best one ever since those jerks and their ilk will see how irritated the rest of us have become at their inanity and you-all media types should keep in mind that none of us really want to hear about them any more, NOW. If you keep putting them in our faces AFTER they lose their elections, we will all have to switch to cartoons.
Maybe you need to stick to watching cartoons.
In response to the comment above by Bonnie Davis Ross: You clearly did not research this. This is the link to his website:
If this is any indication, you might want to do some actual research before voting, somewhere other than Fox "News".
Again...." Last week, he exposed Ron Paul as a "fake" libertarian because of his position on sex and birth control. " It was an ATTEMPT to expose Dr. Paul! It was not and exposure. Please find another branch to climb...this one is broken.
I find Ron Paul to be an extremely comical, paradoxical figure. In the first place, I have always seen Liberterians, in general, as imposters. I view them all (especially guys like Ron Paul and Rupert Murdoch) as conservatives, cloaking themselves in liberalism.... which is ironic enough in itself, but then add to that that Ron Paul isn't even a true Libertarian. So that makes him, in particular, a fake of a fake. Ron Paul is a conservative cloaking himself in Libertarianism, who cloaks himself in Liberalism! And this is obviously true, because he believes in government protection and government services when they benefit him personally (for one example, he has the government secret service- a tax-paid service- working to protect him, but does not believe in disaster relief- like FEMA for hurricane victims.) And he believes in liberty when they are the kinds of liberties that he sees as important, but not when it comes to the kinds of liberty that, for example, women who want to protect themselves and their daughters from unintended pregnancy might view as important.
I see your point but I also see your confusion. FEMA's increase in its role to provide disaster relief was a consequence of conflict overseas. FEMA's intended purpose was to coordinate disaster relief. The reason for this was because each states national guard relief in disaster situations. Worked really well until they were overseas and Katrina hit the gulf. FEMA is the disaster. Additionally, Paul has not requested secret service protection either. Paul also supports preventive measures like contraception and prevent conception after rape. So the only paradox I find is your belief that you know Paul.
lol.... idiot.(sh!tbazooka) sugarbazooka doesn't seem to work for you.. sorry i'm too tired to get detailed
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." ~ James Madison, The Federalist #45.
A federalist and a all around badass.
How about the war-loving news media covering Santorum/Romney/Gingrich saying inflammatory comments about Iran when the CIA and military intel has clearly found and reported to Martin Dempsey that Iran to be a "rational actor" Let's stop hyping the wars and start balancing our budget just like Ron Paul has proposed for decades.
Dropping the threat of war will drop the price of a barrel of oil. Free trade with all entangling alliances with none.
Dr Paul has my support because he is a physician who is able to recognize disease, diagnose it and treat it with the most effective cure.
Our debt is the disease, the diagnosis is acute overspending, the Cure is spending cuts. It is a hard treatment because it requires lifestyle changes ( like diet and exercise) But it works. If you quit overeating you lose weight and blood pressure goes down.
The treatment plan is already out there for you to read on his website 2013 budget proposal. Balances the budget in 3 years and reverses the disease status.
Alternatively, Obama the quack says I'll give power to 12 people to organize this spending mess. They fail and he asks for another trillion dollars of debt to get the sick country up walking again so he can get back to Mconalds and continue the gluttonous lifestyle of debt based currency that is responsible for the current situation.
Ron Paul has earned my vote by teaching me about the "inflation tax"
Of all the GOP candidates, Paul is the one I find most palatable. His honesty is a refreshing contrast to all the lies and smears the others are floating around. With him, I think what you see is what you get. I applaud his stand on many issues; I totally disagree with others. It's unfortunate that he's running with this group of looney tunes. Saintorum makes ME want to puke. The Pope is a better Catholic.) Romney really has no clue about the day-to-day struggles of working people (In Detroit, "I like American cars, I have a Ford and a Chevy, and I think my wife has a couple of Cadillac's." Seriously? And Gingrich is downright mean and hateful. Paul should distance himself from these three clowns and run as an Independent. He's not going to get the nomination. But we so badly need a viable third party in this country, and he may be the best chance we have to get a start. Would he get my vote? Probably not, but maybe.
So now that we can see Ron Paul is beating Obama on national polls and out-doing Romney on rallies, we will see the attacks get ramped up. From the right it will be about his "dangerous" foreign policy, from the left it will be about his so-called desire to end abortion, end social security ("immediately!!!") and that he is a racist.
Scaring the establishment:
My taxicab just turned pink with embarrassment. Thank you, Sarah...
I think its a disgrace the way Ron Paul has been treated by the media. To have a blanket blackout by the media is tantamount to censorship. The war mongering we see on TV every night is usually followed up by coverage of Romney and more specifically Santorum. The one evening they had journos on the decks of warships going through the Straights of Hormuth and I was so taken aback by the coverage I had to proclaim out loud 'look at this crap' to my wife's chagrin! - It was like watching the charge into Iraq all over again - its like the News media can't wait for the next conflict, and will even help it along where possible. Now tell me, who is more dangerous, RP or the media ??!!
Ron Paul may not have the greatest foreign policy, but I hardly see it as dangerous. Ron Paul in no way will endanger the USA, its citizens or its military - The other three certainly will.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. - Mahatma Gandhi - OK RP is no Gandhi, but the principle is the same.
New Rassmusen Poll has Ron Paul besting Obama
Where's the news room when we need it.
Better read Nate Silver's criticism of Rassmussen's polling in Wiki. The operation is in a synchronous orbit with FAUX Noise.
Here are some samples; you're free to cherry pick stuff, but it'll leave you awfully disappointed, I promise.
//www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html
//www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html
Here's one that includes Ron Paul in Missouri; there the President has moved into a tie with Romney and beats Paul and Santorum handily.
//www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/02/obama-competitive-in-missouri.html
Add Virginia (which, in combination with a couple of the above states easily gives the President more than the requisite 270 votes), and one wonders what Paul is doing besides a huge disservice to his constituents...
And that disservice has characterized his tenure in Congress for 36 years now.
James ODonnell "Read the Constitution. States are allowed MANY powers the federal government is not, so read your state's constitution. You seem to miss the whole point... There is no way a state can be as oppressive as the federal government because they are smaller, more localized, and consequently easier to replace. READ THE CONSTITUTION".
That is how it should be, but that is not how it is. You actually end up having LESS rights at a local and State level then you do at a Federal Level for many of the issues that we face today. Things like Hunting work great at the Local Level.
Human Rights are FAR better at a Federal Level.
Example, Dry Counties. People who do not believe in what someone else wanted 100 or 20 or 200 years ago has to abide by those laws and Regulations.
What happens if you get a handful of people who create such a law today, and they pass it without voter approval because they want too? You reduce the rights of the people in that County. Your family grew up there since the mid 1800's lets say and all of the sudden because of a few people who want to force their views on you, you have to either abide or move?
Now if you take Non Union Worker rights, They are far better at a Federal Level then a State level. States then can improve upon those rights if they so wish, but they can not reduce them.
Currently, Employees, in many Blue States have better Non Union worker rights then people in Red States, it is no coincidence. Yes there might be one or two exceptions, but as a rule the do not.
Now if it was a Federal Level, everyone across the Country would have the Same Employee rights as everyone else.
It's Ron Paul or bust. Santorum is the worst candidate I've seen come along in some time. I don't see how someone can support such an angry and judgmental man. How can someone call themselves a Christian and vote for someone who can't wait to go to war and ignores the Golden Rule?
http://www.whatthehellbook.com/the-book/
I am offended by the hypocrisy of those who say they are "pro-life". The only true pro-life people I know are the Society of Friends, who do not accept the death penalty or war. If you believe "thou shalt not kill", why are you so eager to kill thousands, maybe millions of living humans?
I have never met anyone who can explain this peculiarity in thinking. If you are anti-abortion, and pro war, please stop saying you're pro-life... you aren't.
Ron Paul is NOT a Libertarian. He is a paleoconservative and he has a lot of people fooled