“And, besides, you know, some of our border guards are over in Iraq. I think they would be better off on our borders, you know, protecting our borders, not in Iraq”
by http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=2427
Occidental Observer
Fox News, which excluded Ron Paul from a http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=2869 on the eve of the New Hampshire primary, included him this time around, in South Carolina. But, as soon became evident, the courtesy was reluctant. Dr. Paul was asked questions designed to make him look bad. Twice he appeared to be interrupted as moderators called for a break.
Nevertheless, Ron Paul’s answers were home runs. I am pleased to see him being more assertive, asking for the chance to participate with other candidates in the more meaningful issues raised by FOX News’ debate moderators. For example, here is his response to a question on the war in Iraq:
“We used to support Saddam Hussein and we used to be allied with Osama Bin Laden, and what I want to do is stop that.
“Who are our friends one day turn out to be our enemies. Right now, we finally got rid of Saddam Hussein. And what are we doing now? We’re re-arming the Sunnis, the old henchmen of Saddam Hussein.
“And what are they going to do with it? There’s all those weapons we’re giving the Sunnis in Baghdad. So look out, believe me, that war is not over and right now they’re demanding more troops in Afghanistan and we’re — some people, like the Senator, he thinks we should be there for 100 years if necessary.
“How can he commit the young people of this world, five more generations, to be in Iraq if it’s necessary? I say it’s time to come home.”Here is his answer to a question on illegal immigration:
“Congressman Paul, is denying a path to citizenship for people now in the country illegally important enough that Republicans are willing to concede the Hispanic vote to Democrats in November?”
PAUL: “Well, I don’t know that, but I don’t know if that’s necessarily true, but I do think we should enforce the law. And the law says that illegals shouldn’t be here and that we shouldn’t have amnesty.
“But I think this whole thing should be thought of more in economic terms. Maybe I think about economics too much. But there is something said in economics that, if you subsidize something, you get more of it.
“And this is what we do. We encourage it by giving free medical care, and free education, and the promise of amnesty. And no wonder more will come.
“We have a weakening economy and now immigrants, especially the illegals, are seen as a threat because they come and they undermine our tax system. And some of our hospitals are being closed and some of our people won’t work because of the welfare state.
“You can’t solve this problem if you don’t deal with the terms of welfarism. And, besides, you know, some of our border guards are over in Iraq. I think they would be better off on our borders, you know, protecting our borders, not in Iraq.”
(APPLAUSE)
PAUL: “So, yes, I think we have to deal with it. And if we don’t deal with it carefully, yes, we’re going to lose some votes on it. But quite frankly, the law is the law and we should enforce the law.”
A major criticism of the moderators — besides dealing unfairly with Ron Paul — is their assumption that the Hispanic vote can be had by endorsing amnesty for illegal aliens. That belief is right out of the neocon playbook. President Bush’s endorsement of amnesty and his 34% of the Hispanic vote in 2004 is advanced as proof.
It’s weak proof. Indeed, no proof at all! Compare Bush’s puny 34% with the 47% of Hispanics who supported Arizona’s Proposition 200, the three provisions of which seriously crack down on illegal immigration. Voting Hispanics — presumably citizens — are only slightly less anxious than other citizens to stop illegal aliens’ entitlement to welfare and illegal access to the ballot box.
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.com/authors/abernethy.html#abernethy-link