RSS 2.0 FeedRon Paul At Ames
by Doug MataconisHere’s Congressman Paul’s speech at the Ames Straw Poll yesterday:
and Part II:
“Complete equality means universal irresponsibility.” T. S. Elliot
August 12, 2007
• • •
11 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Based on this speech, the first item on his agenda is … drum roll please…
–abolish income taxes and the Fed? No.
–bring back the gold standard? No.
–reduce government spending? No.
–withdraw from Iraq? No. (!)
Instead, the first item on his agenda is to abolish all right to an abortion. Not even the deceptive canard of “sending it back to states,” but an absolute fetal right to life.
Go figure.
Comment by KipEsquire — August 12, 2007 @ 7:30 amKip,
This isn’ surprising for two reasons.
(1) Paul has consistently been pro-life.
(2) The IOWA GOP, especially the core of it that participates in the poll, is very pro-life.
Personally, I don’ consider his position on abortion to be anti-liberty at all.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — August 12, 2007 @ 7:35 amSo Paul shifts his priorities based on the audience of the moment, and focuses on telling people what he thinks he wants to hear.
And that makes him an “unusual politician” — how?
Comment by KipEsquire — August 12, 2007 @ 7:37 amwhat he thinks they want to hear — d’oh
Comment by KipEsquire — August 12, 2007 @ 7:37 amIsn’t that what every politician does, though ?
You don’t go to a meeting of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and give a speech about education.
And, whether you agree with him or not, I don’t think it’s fair to say that he was tailoring his speech to appeal to the audience. He’s been saying this same stuff for more then 20 years now.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — August 12, 2007 @ 7:43 amRon Paul may shift the emphasis, or how he explains it, or which issue he talks about first (or at all) depending on which group he is in front of, but he never shifts the actual position. If asked, he gives the same answer regardless of what the questioner would like to hear.
For example, he would never claim to be Pro-choice just because he was at a NARAL forum. He might focus more on the state’s rights side of it, but he would never deny he wanted the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
This is what makes him so different from someone like Frudy McRompson.
Comment by Kevin Houston — August 12, 2007 @ 8:47 amBravo !
Thoroughly enjoyed his speech.
A bit confused about his discussion on foreign debt and the national deficit and immigration. He needs to work on his delivery there.
He seemed to bemoan the foreign debt, decry illegal immigration, mock the fact that “the Chinese” are lending the US billions of dollars, and ridicule the idea that illegals receive free health and education. I think in this part of his speech, he came across as pretty xenophobic and a bit of a redneck.. i.e “sending our best jobs overseas”.
I didn’t really see a calm free market economist emerge.
Comment by Jono — August 12, 2007 @ 9:47 am“So Paul shifts his priorities based on the audience”
Uh wait a sec. Other politicians shift their “principles” or their “position” based on who they are speaking to. Not just their “priorities”
Comment by charlesm — August 12, 2007 @ 10:10 amThis is a radio interview i listened to yesterday.
Comment by charlesm — August 12, 2007 @ 10:23 amhttp://www.whoradio.com/cc-common/political/article.html?feed=187092&article=2499328
It’s rather long, but one thing that stuck out to me, was when he talked for a while about how for every $1 Iowans pay to taxes, they get back something like a $1.20 from the government for farming subsidies. It’s simply amazing that he’s talking about this on an Iowan radio show. Any politician would stay miles away from that subject.
This is one example, and I’ve seen this time and again, where he’s not shied away from an issue, simply because he’s speaking to an audience that has an opposite viewpoint.
I’ve seen almost all of Paul’s YouTube videos and I agree that this speech seemed off. It seemed more cagey, more filled with dictates and rhetorical hysteria than his usual reasoned pronouncements and encouragements; those that I believe have given him the deserved descriptor: refreshing. But in Iowa, all of the sudden talk of the war vanished and talk of vanishing abortion appeared. It didn’t seem like the model of consistency and charming, well-thought calmness that many have come to expect and appreciate. What happened? I agree that he didn’t “change” his message, but he certainly angled it… and I’ve never seen him do that before.
Comment by Jake — August 12, 2007 @ 5:50 pmI loved what he had to say about freedom and choice in education.. that the government needs to stay out of private schools and homeschools.. and that the federal department of education should be abolished.
Amen!
Comment by Judy Aron — August 13, 2007 @ 8:52 am