Ron Paul: 'Pretty sad' that Limbaugh is GOP leader (Raw)

[struggle4progress]

David Edwards and Rachel Oswald
Published: Monday March 2, 2009

... In a phone interview Monday morning with CNN’s John Roberts, Paul said of Limbaugh “He is a leader. He does say the right things now and I think a lot of people like to hear what he’s saying but I think it’s also a little bit polarizing and confrontational and I think that’s why the Democrats are bragging that Limbaugh now speaks for the Republicans so I guess the Democrats think its to their advantage if he’s leading the charge.”

Responding to a question from Roberts on what it means for the Republican Party that their “spokesperson” is a radio talk show host and not a member of the political leadership, Paul said, “I think it’s pretty sad. It’s a good point to make. That means the Republicans are really starving for some type of leadership” ... http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Ron_Paul_Pretty_sad_that_Limbaugh_0302.html

[Bicoastal]

1. Ron Paul vs. Rush Limbaugh?!

Now that's a Internet flamewar I'd like to see.

[Wickerman]

2. "...I think it’s also a little bit polarizing..."

No, Seriously, Ron? No wonder he had legions of fans, wisdom like that.

[Hello_Kitty]

3. Ron, you can't be libertarian and anti-choice. You just can't.

I know that's not the topic but every time the man's name is mentioned that's what I think.

[SergeyDovlatov]

6. libertarians don't have unified position on abortion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_abortion

from Murray "baby is a parasite" Rothbard: "no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person's body"

to "not the federal issue, a state can elect whatever policies its population desires"

the latter, I believe is Ron Paul's position

[Hello_Kitty]

7. The latter is Ron's way of saying that if a state decides that my uterus is state property

That's okee dokee with him. Not very libertarian, if you ask me.

[SergeyDovlatov]

8. The powers not delegated ...

to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Coming back to your point. I think it is not so much about a uterus being a state property as deciding what is acceptable for people of a particular state.

Reducing the discussion to an "abort anytime" vs "no abortion whatsoever" is trivializing the problem.

There is a spectrum from.

one second after conception ... to .... one second before birth.

There are people on extreme ends of this spectrum, but, I believe, most of the people lie somewhere in between. Moving a decision of what community finds acceptable to the state level can better reflect the will of the people.

Personally, I don't want the choice to be taken away from me, by anyone, but I understand the ethical problems with what to do with the fetus after it was removed. If it is alive, weights 4+ pounds... Does killing it constitute manslaughter or not? Btw, I don't have the answer to that question. I hope I won't be put in the position where I have to make this choice.

[Hello_Kitty]

9. I don't recall delegating power over my uterus to any government entity.

And the current restrictions on abortion are the compromise that women had to make in order to have any choice over our reproduction. I suppose that falls under the auspices of "what is acceptable" to certain members of the community but it doesn't mean there has ever been a legitimate state interest over my uterus.

A fetus that is born alive and weighs over 4 lbs is no longer a fetus, it's a baby.

[SergeyDovlatov]

10. I agree about a uterus (or any other part of the body) not belonging the state

The point I tried to raise is that abortion contains two acts. Surgical procedure of removing the fetus from woman's body, second doing something with that fetus afterwards.

You own your body, you can request the desired treatment (removal from your body) from your doctor. No argument here.

The ethical questions are

1. Can you insist that procedure must kill the fetus before it leaves your body? (Of course, in some cases it is unavoidable, I am not talking about those)

2. Can you insist that after a fetus is removed and is alive, it must be killed?

3. If it is not killed, who should pay for caring for the baby. (less difficult question than the first two)

Practical question on where you are on the spectrum of different abortion possibilities you already answered.

You don't support abortion of healthy 4 pound fetus/baby.

In summary, yes, you own your body, if you don't like something in it, you have a right to cut something out of it. The harder problem is to decide on what conditions it is ok to kill it afterwards/during and when not.

Different people have different ideas on what those conditions should be, hence moving it down to more local level allows the law to get closer to what those people believe.

Politically, I don't think it will fly. It is too important of the wedge issue to get it resolved ever. pro-life group would hate for the issue to go away. Similar to drug lords, who really don't want war on drugs ever to go away.

Cheers,
Sergey

[Hello_Kitty]

11. In the case of no. 2, if the fetus is viable it's a baby and no longer my decision

No. 3, if the mother doesn't want to raise it, it becomes a ward of the state or adopted.

If there were no restrictions on abortion whatsoever, and it could be performed in any stage of the pregnancy, the likelihood that very many women would decide to abort pregnancies in the 8th month, and would find doctors willing to do them is nil. The vast majority - and I'm talking 99.99% - are performed for serious medical reasons. The best, and safest, time to do an abortion is in the first trimester and thats when most of them are done.

[endersdragon34]

14. So I take it you guys agree with 3rd trimester abortions?

I mean after all that is the libertarian thing to do. Being an aspie, and knowing my kind will be aborted anywhere from 60-95% of the time (look at other disorders) when and if theres a test (I believe Autism Genocide Clock has it around 6 years from now) I can't be pro-abortion. Too often being pro-abortion means being pro-eugenics. Remember even our Secretary of State said that no woman should be forced to have a child with severe abnormalities even if the child is already in the 3rd trimester. And doesn't Ron Paul do charity work regarding giving birth to babies... I tend to trust him over most others regarding the subject. But how about we do this... try to pass a new amendment saying "A womens right to have an abortion shall never be infringed upon". I don't think it would have passed in the 18th century... and I don't think it would pass now.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Transmorgify]

13. Just to clarify

This has to do with philosophy/science and whether you think the fetus is human and separate from it mother or if it's non-human and part of its mother. If your like Ron Paul & think the fetus is a separate human being, abortion, to him, is like killing a two year old would be to you, atrocious.

So technically, yes, you can be libertarian & anti-choice. Although, I still wouldn't consider him a true libertarian for various other reasons.

[tridim]

4. They both want zero government, but I think only Paul is honest about it

I'm surprised at this development because Paul and Limbaugh basically agree on almost everything else.

[URDRWHO]

5. Paul is probably honest about it

I would doubt if Rush is ready or willing to see many of Paul's views on freedom. A few that would save $trillions would be.

Paul
Not a fan of the Patriot Act
Not a fan of no-knock laws
Not a fan of drug raid war mentality
Not a fan of Iraq war
Not a fan of fiat money

I would guess that Rush wouldn't agree with the above few ...there are more of them.

It has been many,many years since I listened to Rush. Once he started talking about his private plane, which big government politician he just had dinner with or played golf was the end for me. To be on the edge, to be able to take down the politicians when needed, you can't be playing golf with them. Too buddy-buddy with someone clouds your vision.

Instead I listen to the local shows, the shows you can call in and talk, the shows that aren't all about the show host.

[Jiradog]

15. To sum up the difference in a sentence

Limbaugh is a statist and Ron Paul is not.

Fredom is incompatable with a powerful state.

[opihimoimoi]

16. The GOP is the Breed of Greed...and they have done it to themselves

blew it all to hell....FUBAR...somehow they have imploded themselves....into teaparties of the low count type...

Rush is their temp leader spokesperson....until the PUBs get some Balls and secure a good leader for their Party.

Not anytime soon it seems....no one in sight that fits the bill....

But then...since the GOP is a CANCER

THIS IS A GOOD THING....tell the GOP go fuck themselves...they have fucked America big time...

[SleeplessInAlabama]

19. But....

What about Michael Steele?

He'll bring the fried chicken and potato salad!

[gamecock]

17. limbaugh is only considered the leader

Because Rahm is making him out to be. No one with a sensible mind in the GOP respects that idiot.

[lk9550]

18. Both are tools

That's all I have to say.

[ShiiStyle]

20. re:

Who is Ron Paul a tool of besides his own short-sightedness?

[Fazed and Condused]

22. Ron Who ??

The remarkable thing about Paul's popularity is he was a relative unknown until the SC R- Prez debate. He served up Guilianni's one and only sound bite about the real reasons for 9/11 attacks (blowback). Immediately afterwards, Paul was assassinated by the red-white-and blue drooler Hannity AND the rest of FOX news. Limbaugh dog piled on too. Their negative focus on Paul caused his fandom to increase, at the expense of the GOP. Eventually they had to acknowledge him.... but only after he was not a threat to their pseudo-conservative candidate of choice.

and now, they often echo him.

I find many of his ideas to be refreshingly sane....and a pleasant alternative to the archaic GOP. (more people would like them if they weren't so easy to hate.... BTW... I remain an independent who supports Prez O attempts to GET THINGS DONE. Too bad he is finding out that congress moves at the pace of an Hippo in bellydeep mud)

His (Ron Paul's) focus on the Federal Reserve's audit is one to watch. The more you read about that entity, the scarier it gets. Almost like a Political Pandora's Box.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.