Visit Your Local PBS Station PBS Home PBS Home Programs A-Z TV Schedules Watch Video Donate Shop PBS Search PBS
Photo of Bill Moyers Bill Moyers Journal
Bill Moyers Journal
Bill Moyers Journal
Watch & Listen The Blog Archive Transcripts Buy DVDs

« Dominique Green: In his own words | Main | Media and the Presidential Election »

Bill Moyers Rewind: Ron Paul (2002)

This week on THE JOURNAL, Bill Moyers conducts two conversations with presidential contenders, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) and Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), candidates with an inside view of the process who know well the power of the press to set expectations and transform the agenda.

Congressman Ron Paul appeared on NOW WITH BILL MOYERS in 2002 and explained why he was not yet convinced that an invasion was necessary and justified:

Andrew Rasiej and Micah Sifry of TechPresident, a blog which focuses upon how 2008 presidential candidates are using the Web, recently wrote:

"Over time, online strategies that shift power to networks of ordinary citizens may well lead to a new generation of voters more engaged in the political process. That, in turn, could make politicians more accountable, creating a virtuous circle where elected officials who are more open and supportive of lateral constituent interaction, and less top-down, are rewarded with greater voter trust and support."

Do you agree? What effects will the Internet have on future presidential elections?


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/874

Comments

People need to become aware that media is biased
as Dennis Kucinich explained. It is an unjust shame that major corporations are now in control of what we see and hear. Media today is pimping for the insurance, nuclear, and war industries.
The internet is our hope to find out at least a portion of the truth, and to find a way to restore our country.
I appreciated your segment on Dennis K. I appreciated also your inclusion of the awards and recognition he has earned for his dedicated service on your web site. It would have been appropriate I feel to have mentioned them in the broadcast rather than to cast the question of doubt as to why he remains so dedicated as if there was something wrong with him.
Dennis speaks for masses of people who are too ill or too busy struggling to survive to have time to investigate the hidden agenda's of our administration and congress. How fortunate we are to have Dennis who will not quit.

Who is going to save us from disaster?
We have a corrupt government, a disastrous war and we no longer have a free press.
We have started an illegitimate preemptive war and have set ourselves up for a preemptive attack
from any nation that thinks we might be a threat.
A fear mongering administration has undermined our system of justice, our moral fiber and our
fundamental freedom.
How bad does it have to get before our so called representatives have the intestinal fortitude to clean up
the mess?

Thanks to Bill Moyer for bringing us Paul and Kucinich. Agree or disagree, we need change! The political process is a sham and those that organize it know that we as American citizens are largely uninformed and unorganized and would like to keep us that way.
Ron Paul Revolution? Or revolutionary ideas? We as American citizens are responsible for the mess that America is in now. We have allowed our attention from duty to be distracted by Bling-Bling. Go Shopping our President tells us. Are we done shopping yet? It is time to wake up to the fact that we as citizens desperately desire peace, prosperity and change. We continue to bicker, disagree, discredit and disenfranchise each other instead of searching for common ground. The common ground of the richest 10% of this country is obvious. Where does that leave the other 90%?
Revolution? Shout out! Join together! Please find common ground and be our heroes!
Sick and Tired, of being Sick and Tired!

Now my light (hope) is going out! I have been a passionate person: I have also been a skeptical person. Dennis Kucinich is just a struggling Congressman and a lawyer with a large poor family. He knows he will never be President but I intend to vote for him and disseminate his views because I agree with them. I really wish for someone more capable and attractive to take a similar stand on the issues of healthcare, war, energy and exploitive foreign policy. (Ron Paul also has no chance of being elected in this system which makes me glad.)
I am old enough to recognize the unoriginal and regressive ideas of Ron Paul while I agree with many of his criticisms of policy. His plan is the same one conservative columnists and the Hoover Institute have advocated for decades, saying democratic government is the main enemy. They, and idealists like the Mises Institute (Hernando de Soto)and the Chicago School of economists (Milton Freidman)tell the public that individual hard work, educational diligence and personal initiative will lead to success, and that is a big lie in the modern economic environment. These powerful ideologues know the score. We already have a polarization of wealth that would require a
"French Revolution" to rectify, societal institutions who's primary mission is to defend perogotives of wealth, and now an elite class that has transcended nationalism and intends on turning the world into a meat factory. (How long before they succumb to cannibalism?)
When I say that Paul supporters have fantasies of entrepreneurship and royal status it is based upon my experience as a participant observer. Paul Harvey came blathering into my little town in 1963, saying any bullhead could be a football star and any pretty booster boy President. My essay was selected as the winner of the All-American City Contest by editors at the local newspaper. All I had to do was take out the part about unions and strikes and I would get the prize. After I refused, my life in the community changed completely. That is why today they run my debate partner's column (Thomas Sowell, what a butt kisser) and I am relegated to Feedback. That is America, where if you agree with the Big Man things might be OK for a little while. Entrepreneurial royalty doesn't often get there by ingenuity or hard work, but by collusion with moneyed interests. It is a miracle that even little Kucinich hasn't been co-opted by power. That is why ethanol is beating the hell out of solar. People can work together in an open, honest inclusive way or they can scheme behind closed doors at the expense of the majority. After all,conspirators are chosen by God (a conglomeration of elite needs and prejudices), they are moneyed royalty, and we others are their dumbed down chattel. And that's the "rest of the story."
At this point I will cease my chatter on Moyer's dime, never to be heard from here again. I hate talking to air. If anyone wants to contact a depressed little old bigmouthed man email beretco.op@gmail.co. Bye Bill, bye all.

- Grady –

You’ve said something in your post that I don’t understand. Would you be willing to explain the sentence below (and why it was addressed partially to me?) Thanks.

>>>>>
Contrary to your instincts you would not become royalty if Paul were President, neither would your entrepreneurial dreams come true.
>>>>>


I believe I have already clearly stated my points in the post further below. Instead of addressing those issues I raised in direct response to your original post, you went off on a tangent about other issues.

Right now I want someone in office who will please read my first post towards the bottom. And as I’ve already stated, I don’t agree with all of Ron Paul’s ideas. But I don’t have to. The bureaucracy that has already corrupted both parties will fight him and balance out his more extreme views. I just want to start heading back in the right direction and I personally believe that Ron Paul can help kickstart this move.

Your posts seem to join together many disjointed thoughts. I think it comes across that way, because I’m not seeing the thinking behind the writing. Honestly, I think we are much more alike than different, but I think that you truly are putting more issues on Ron Paul because he isn’t Dennis Kucinich. That’s fine, we all do it. But how would you feel having an established “bureaucracy” man (or woman) in office to continue our path? Your post about the planet is dying makes me think you understand the gravity of continuing down the same path.


I hope you are doing well. Take care until next time
Ken

I do take issue, however, with the term, 'pro-life'. Please stand up to the fact that it is 'anti-choice'. 'Pro-life' is so self-congratulatory. This, however, gets into the semantics that typically overshadow the greater issue……

>>>>>>>
Oh Jan,

Yes, Jan, we would hate to get into semantics. That being the anti-life person you are. Pro-choice is so self-congratulatory.

I find it so interesting you read posts from people like you (on both sides) that attempt to tear down other people while at the same time trying to appear you are better than that “despicable” behavior. If you really wanted to rise above it, then focus on the issue here and not bring in your own personal take on semantics.

re:Republicae
What would be the purpose of 'accusing' anyone of choosing a particular religion? How disrespectful!
I do take issue, however, with the term, 'pro-life'. Please stand up to the fact that it is 'anti-choice'. 'Pro-life' is so self-congratulatory.
This, however, gets into the semantics that typically overshadow the greater issue that Mr. Paul has taken with what will always be a philosophical and ethical controversy.
His choice is specious and paternalistic. It should caution his supporters that when he has a personal moral and ethical dilemma the result will be the Constitution be damned.
Luckily, Mr. Paul can do less damage as a politican than as an obstetrician/gynecologist, as his generation, who chose this medical specialty, becomes extinct.

Ron Paul is amazing in his insight and foresight. He understands just how important the Rights of the Individual really is to this country. I hope the day will come when we all understand that as long as anyone depends on their minority status to determine their rights then the majority will only recognize a degree of rights based solely upon a specified set of what the majority considers allowable and therefore, contingent freedoms. In other words, the majority will always restrict the rights of the minority unless the minority can base their rights upon something other than the specific attributes and or definitions of that minority.

The government is not inclined to, nor does it obligate itself to ensure the Rights of any person in this country although it was created to protect the Rights of every individual. It is up to the individual to combatively insist and aggressively pursue his or her Rights before the government. It is People, first and foremost, that form the State Republics through acting on a cooperative and voluntary basis, but with an extreme prejudice toward their Rights. It has been said that the majority opinion is the true ruler; if that is the case then perhaps it is time for us all to become the majority and not base our Rights upon a specific status as a minority. This does not preclude any attributes that a person has who is a member of a minority or their identity, but in the eyes of the majority and therefore the law, a minority is only a minority and will remain as such as long as they base their Rights solely upon their minority status.

The problem with every democracy is that the majority always rule to the exclusion of the minority. The reason the Founders purposed a Republic instead of a democracy was to blunt the force and power of the majority through layers of checks and balances to equal out the playing field. The more democratic a political system becomes the more the majority “lords over” the minority. It is strange that people are all for democracy until it actually rules against them and in a democracy, since the majority always rules, the minority will always suffer under the prejudices of the majority. There is a defined tyranny within a democracy and yet so many clamor for such a system because they feel that it will provide them with more voice while just the opposite is true. In every democracy the government system appeals to the material interests of the majority’s large voting block, in turn the government will then merely placate the minority with a degree of rights and yet never “grant” them the same degree of rights as the majority.

The established elite ruling class, the governing “gentry” fears nothing more than a unified People. As long as sectionalism can be promoted and therefore pseudo-legalized, then this nation will remain divided and that is exactly what the “State” desires: a house divided. Until We take the stance that the only status that is legally meaningful and powerful is that of the Citizen, then We will remain a conquered People subject to the will of majoritarianism and their preferred democratic tyranny. The majorities will always, whether by vote, referendum or even by a form of legal or judicial enforcement, secure their perceived rights over the rights of a defined minority. Majoritarian democracy desires the artificial designation of minorities, it keeps the “majority” holding the reigns of power while providing the minority with a degree of satisfaction based upon their struggle to gain or retain a certain allowance of rights, but such a system will never provide equality because it inherently promotes and maintains social, racial, religious, ethnic or sexual divisions among the People.

The “State” readily supports the idea that a particular class or group requires or is entitled to recognition based upon that class or group or category, because segmentation will continue to allow its decisions to be based upon the majority and keeps the perceived minority, of which ever particular group, in check or within a majority defined scope of “civil rights”. In such a “democratic” system the minority will always yield to the will and power of the majority. The majority will always enact policies which ensure that the minority is not strengthened and will never allow the total empowerment of the minority. The “State” will always seek to breed social divisions in order the restrict minority power or empowerment. The solution therefore, must be found through a very powerful and very different view: that of the Majority of Citizenship.

It is interesting to note that you rarely hear the word Republic, but democracy is tossed out by most politicians and for good reason: a democracy will always protect the majority first and keep any minority under the thumb of the ruling powers. Minorities are not only required, but desired within democratic majoritarian system of government because it will always demand that all minorities yield to the will and allowances of the majority. A Republic is anathema to democratic majoritarianism because it equalizes the power and force of government among all People of the Land when the People press their Sovereignty, based solely upon their Natural Rights of Citizenship, over the “State”.

Jan Green said: "It is disappointing that Ron Paul, a staunch defender of the Constitution, personal rights, and keeping government out of the lives of individuals is so rabid in his opposition of a women's right to choose, or not choose,abortion."

Jan:
From what I have read and understand, Dr. Paul states that a large part of his view on abortion stems from legal discrepancies regarding the fetus. He has stated that in an abortion a fetus is not considered an individual and yet in cases where a pregnant woman is murdered, the killer is charged with a double homicide. He has also stated that as a physician he is liable for the well-being of the fetus and can be held responsible for the death of the fetus if malpractice is evident.

Another issue is the fact that the fetus is a DNA Specific Individual, not merely a part of the mother's body.

Now my own view has changed over the years from being pro-choice to one of being pro-life based upon the fact that since we are a country based upon Constitutional ideals that the rights of the individual and the life of that individual trumps that of privacy and choice. Also, if the process of life doesn't begin at conception then logically it cannot begin at birth. Another issue is partial birth abortions, which have been banned; the question is if they were banned because of the recognition that the fetus is more than just a mass of tissue at a certain point within the pregnancy then why is the fetus considered just a mass of tissue at an earlier stage of the pregnancy?

As medical technology advances, the questions of fetal viability become even more narrow. If a fetus is medically viable at say 5 months, though premature, when does the question of legitimate abortion become invalid?

If, within a few years, thanks to a medical advancement, a fetus can be viable outside the body of the mother at 4 months, then is the life of the fetus to be considered differently in terms of the issue of abortion?

Dr. Paul believes it is an issue of Constitutionally guaranteed rights of the individual and he sees the fetus as an individual with specifically individual DNA, the very thing that makes a person a person.

Before you accuse me of being a christian, be aware that I hold such beliefs as superstitions in the same line of egg and serpent worship, but that everyone definitely has the right to believe whatever they want.


The GOP is corrupted by corporate interests. They are afraid of a man like Ron Paul because he is for freedom from these interests looting the treasury. We are being looted by several means, subsidies to corporations, income taxes, debt funding of our economy, they have themselves looted America and by the time we figure it out and ACT it will be too late. Here is a solution to the income tax and IRS - tax imports 10%....I'm sure the shoppers at Wal-Mart can afford another $1 when buyimng that folding lawn chair from China for $9.99 and this is how many other countries fund their governments - our income taxes are being spent to feed corporate interests.

It is disappointing that Ron Paul, a staunch defender of the Constitution, personal rights, and keeping government out of the lives of individuals is so rabid in his opposition of a women's right to choose, or not choose,abortion.
Also, the last time I checked, it is not only 'our boys', but 'our girls and women' who are fighting in Iraq.
I realize that Mr. Moyers wanted to give Kucinich and Paul chances to speak, but I wish he had asked Paul how his abortion views are consistent with his platform.

Stephen Whiteside: Philosophical linguistics (semantics; vernacular)cannot answer the dilemma of commerce's relation to liberty. Liberty is a conditional and limited situational substitute for freedom, based upon property (ownership society?). Only examples can illustrate the problem. China now has liberty for those who control property while its policies are dominated by the power potential of commerce. The poor, even here in the states, have neither liberty nor freedom once their credit is exhausted. They are essentially in chattel slavery as long as the debt relation remains in force. Can we really say that people get themselves voluntarily into debt when their wages are so low they must purchase necessities on credit? (I have been there.) Such is the case for those without property globally. If you lack the kind of property that brings meaningful income under a commercial regime (global monopoly capitalism at present) your fate is inevitable. Liberty is lost due to commercial considerations. As gasoline, grains, sugar and fiber rise in price those with liberty stand to profit, and hardly feel it.
Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, even Adams; subsequently Romney, Mrs. Clinton, Edwards, and even Paul are people of great liberty, based upon their personal property. Wow, and we have yet to discuss corporate personhood. On that vital subject, may I suggest "Gangs of America" by Ted Nace. Then maybe you can see why Kucinich refused to privatize Cleveland's electric utility, and why Paul might have had no qualms about selling it cheap.

The similarities between Paul and Kucinich are their lack of corporate ties, their opposition to the illegal occupation of Iraq and protecting civil liberties. This is where the comparison ends.

In regards to the comments from TechPresident:
"Over time, online strategies that shift power to networks of ordinary citizens may well lead to a new generation of voters more engaged in the political process. That, in turn, could make politicians more accountable, creating a virtuous circle where elected officials who are more open and supportive of lateral constituent interaction, and less top-down, are rewarded with greater voter trust and support."

I completely agree with the statement IF that same level of passion being displayed online is taken into our communities and does not stagnate on the Internet.

Bill Moyers is a great journalist asking my candidate, Kucinich, tough questions that I had wanted to hear the answers to.

Learn, absorb and share.

One could tell from the C-SPAN2 presentation last covering Mr. Paul, that all the republicans in the audience were wondering if he was in fact republican. He should simply move to Independent status. Many of us Independents would welcome him. (Remember, Jesse V did just fine with that same common sense logic. Most voters are fed up with both parties; we've been sold out by both.)
Kucinich and Paul, now there's a ticket that could win. It would have to be a totally grass roots drive. But with the Internet IT COULD BE DONE!!! They wouldn't have to participate in a single television interview. Do it all on YouTube, FaceBook, and all the other venues. It would bypass all the DNC and RNC dictatorships of who gets television air time. Let the people determine the vote. Seeing the truths on the social websites would drum up more than a majority and would give the non-voting majority reason to vote. Rise Up America!

I wish you would consider interviewing David Walker, the current U.S. Comptroller General. His program to bring the message of our country's grim fiscal picture directly to voters in early primary states is worthy of a discussion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxoP_9W6FC8

It is hard to believe that
Congressman Ron Paul as a libertarian could remain with the Republican Party when the Republicans are methodically undermining our freedom and liberty. the loss of the freedom of press is making it obvious that we are no longer a democracy. we are an Oligarchy run by a few rich and powerful people. We are no longer a nation of the people, by the people and for the people. I hope the next election will change that condition.

Mary and Ken and others: Contrary to your instincts you would not become royalty if Paul were President, neither would your entrepreneurial dreams come true. There is no way back to free and fair market without dispossession of corporate power. Paul's laissez faire would unleash a business police state neither you nor he could imagine. Do you realize our planet is dying?
As for internet money, I could give any name, address, citizenship status or employment and it would be of no avail except to ask you for more. Have you never heard of employers and organizations that require a contribution from each employee to a certain candidate, and then provde cash for that purpose. Even Paul may not realize he is being set up. It is a dirty and dangerous world where politicians are shot and their planes crash unexpectedly.

Thank you for having Dr. Paul on your show. It is refreshing to see him being treated with respect and given the opportunity to state his positions freely without interuptions. I'm 45 years old and I contributed to Dr. Paul's campaign - I've never dontated to a political campaign in my life. I only hope this country can wake up and see that Dr. Paul makes a lot of sense. We're going to be in a lot of trouble if we don't, and our children will be left to clean up the mess we've made. Go Ron Paul!

Thanks again Bill Moyers. What a great show you have. How sad that Mainstream Media seems to show the exact opposite of what America stands for.

I was disappointed that Congressmen Paul and Kucinich weren't on the show together. I think that would have made for an interesting conversation, for it seems to me that the two campaigns actually have much more in common than not.

This archived interview with Dr. Ron Paul should give pause to every person who watches it and those who will watch the one tonight (1/4/08) with Bill Moyers: Dr. Ron Paul is a man of principle and of consistency (to the Constitution) not only since 2002 when this interview was filmed but since his political career started some 30 years ago--and longer.

This soldier who served in Iraq speaks the truth and his heartfelt message is a clarion call to all who love freedom and liberty:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uk-T46soz8

This archived interview with Dr. Ron Paul should give pause to every person who watches it and those who will watch the one tonight (1/4/08) with Bill Moyers: Dr. Ron Paul is a man of principle and of consistency (to the Constitution) not only since 2002 when this interview was filmed but since his political career started some 30 years ago--and longer.

This soldier who served in Iraq speaks the truth and his heartfelt message is a clarion call to all who love freedom and liberty:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uk-T46soz8

On Dec 18, Grady Lee Howard wrote, "Please think critically about the lack of transparency in Internet transactions."
When I donated via internet, I was asked for my name, address, phone number, citizenship status and occupation. I expect that this information will be submitted to the Federal government at the end of the quarter along with the amount that I contributed -- therefore part of the public record.
I'm excited to see a candidate getting an average of 50-dollar donations, as Ron Paul did on Dec 16. It's a refreshing change from the big corps lining the pockets of politicians.

In response to the post by Jacqueline Balyer on January 4, 2008 at 12:15 AM:

I enjoyed reading your analysis of the 3 statements made in the Moyers/Barker podcast, the "Crisis in Capitalism?". You concur on the first two points: that (i) when politics permeates everything we call it totalitarianism, (ii) when religion permeates everything we call it theocracy. Then you point out that the context raised by the preceding two statements is that when a particular belief system permeates everything, this leads to a particular form of government that a society valuing liberty would find objectionable. Then you remark that the third statement doesn't fit this syntax because commerce is not a belief system. You conclude by suggesting that the statement should be revised to read "when capitalism permeates everything we call it plutocracy". I have two points of contention. First, I think you missed the fact that it was intended to be a sarcastic jab at the "new-speak" of our right wing administration and media propagated status quo. To fit the syntax and replicate the intended point of the remark, it should read "when capitalism permeates everything we call it liberty". On a second level, I think it is also important to point out that, if we put sarcasm aside and strictly follow the syntax of the preceding two points then the statement could be revised to read "when capitalism permeates everything it is called fascism".

Ron Paul is the only candidate who is not beholden to large special interest donations. How can any candidate who accepts large donations turn their back on them after he or she gets into office?

Is this the year where we as americans decide to take back our republic? How much more power can our corporate elite government confiscate before we revolt? Thank you Mr. Moyers for the great service you continue to provide our nation.
ze

I think the internet will make a big change in the election as soon as more people tune into it and use it to get information about the candidates instead of relying on what the TV stations allow us to view about them. We will get a better idea of what the candidates really stand for if we read about their platform on the internet instead of waiting for the information that is controlled by the owners of the TV stations.

I am also a Kucinich supporter. But, it will take a lot of persuading to convince the majority that we need a big change if we want to correct the mistakes of the current administration. The majority of people just may not be ready for that yet. But, Kucinich is making people think, and think twice, and that is a good thing.

Be very careful who you vote for...your future depends on it.

I think the internet will make a big change in the election as soon as more people tune into it and use it to get information about the candidates instead of relying on what the TV stations allow us to view about them. We will get a better idea of what the candidates really stand for if we read about their platform on the internet instead of waiting for the information that is controlled by the owners of the TV stations.

I am also a Kucinich supporter. But, it will take a lot of persuading to convince the majority that we need a big change if we want to correct the mistakes of the current administration. The majority of people just may not be ready for that yet. But, Kucinich is making people think, and think twice, and that is a good thing.

Be very careful who you vote for...your future depends on it.

My post seeks to engage Bill Moyer and/or Benjamin Barker's comment on the "Crisis in Capitalism?" podcast. Bill Moyer says 'Here is a question, maybe it comes from your book. When politics permeates everything, we call it totalitarianism, when religion permeates everything, we call it theocracy, but when commerce pervades everything, we call it liberty." Dr. Barber goes on to say it 'that is the central paradox of our time.'

I am confused, because commerce is a economic term referring to buying and selling of commodities, while liberty is a political & existential term 'being free' or the 'power to do what one pleases' - M-W.com . So the word used would be consumerism instead of liberty.

But still, it isn't quite that simple. The first two statements in the podcast expressed stated a social value system and the consequences when it is unchecked and allowed to pervade at all levels of the value system mentioned. The analysis for each was dead on accurate, but the third statement in the pattern does not fit seeming to be artificial or contrived.

Commerce is a consequence of cooperative human activity, a socialistic state has commerce, even a feudal state has commerce. The difference for commerce in a socialistic country and a capitalistic country centers around control of planning, production, and distribution. What if a political system in a country is Communist, then does that lead to liberty if communistic commerce pervades everything? So commerce does not fit into the context of the two previous statements, it is not a value system, nor does it fit into the segment in the larger context.

The type of an economic system would be a value system. So, what if the third statement was capitalism, which fits in the larger context. It would be something like, 'when capitalism permeates everything, we call it plutocracy'. This explains way we feel a loss of liberty, everything seems out of control and out of kilter, corrupt coupled with awareness that our voice and vote carries no weight. A sense of listlessness is riding over this milieu.

Mr. Moyers, I deeply enjoyed this conversation, as most it not all, it was informative. Your discussion with Dr. Barber went on to talk about capitalism and its role. The piece had capitalism in its title, so why did you side step the elephant at this poignant time in the conversation?

Grady Lee Howard -

I afraid my passionate response looks like an attack. I do apologize if it came across as that.

After rereading my post, I also may (ok, did) come across a bit strong.

I admit that Dennis Kucinich is the only other candidate I would support. :) My friends were quite surprised when I replied that my dream team would be a Paul/Kucinich ticket.

You bring up many tough points. I am guilty of picking the few most important to me and selecting my candidate on that basis.

I will look at Dennis Kucinich website and read.

If I have any questions, I will email you. It would be nice to have a civil, level-headed political discussion.

Let's put Diebold in charge of online voting. Under the present circumstances this could result in a 500% 0r even 2000% turnout, whatever it takes to satisfy corporate personhood!

Ken, Ken, Ken, Calm down young man. You're talking to a nobody, a retired actor who weaves wool and does political commentary. I have had a chronic condition all my life requiring medical help I could not afford. Several generous libertarian physicians treated and advised me at reduced price and allowed me to work off debt in service to them and their causes. I believe I understand and admire Ron Paul very well. Here we have a forum, and in a political cycle. My candidate is Dennis Kucinich, which makes sense considering my history and stature (40 inches tall).
Thank you Ken for your naval service, I hope you got education benefits.
I want to ask Dr. Paul how he would handle a nuclear crisis with Pakistan, how he would refund SS after it has been robbed for war and corporate welfare, how he would quell the racial and sexual hate still so prevalent in this country, how he would try George Bush and his crew (and maybe even Bill Clinton and Gen. Wes Clark, and Henry Kissinger and so on) for their crimes against humanity, how he would get beyond the ethanol debacle and wrestle energy firms for sustainable energy development, how docs like him would treat 300 million people on a cash basis in the middle of the coming depression, how he would control pharmaceutical and hospital firms, and how he would dispose war contractors and private mercenary firms. What would Paul do if 9/11 proved to be an inside job? (I am convinced.) Paul is a good man with simple answers, but one wall is missing in his room, the wall of interests that would economically overwhelm our rights by the assertion of their "sacred" property rights, and these are powerful interests. Look at dennis4president.com and if you still have beefs contact me at my folkschool email beretco.op@gmail.com

I agree with bob. The only time a racial or color description of anyone should be used is if it's a criminal the police are looking for. Everything Ron Paul has said so far I agree with, except abortions. Abortions and same sex marraiges are very private affairs. When I grew up what someone else did was none of your business unless it interfered with your way of life, job ,home,or anything else. It was called Democracy! o lets try to all vote and vote for the person we need not the ones being pushed in your face by the media. And no matter who ends up as your president if you ' vote for any incumbant congressman 'your going to end up with the same disaster you have now. Personally I have 3 choices Paul Obama, or Edwards.

The impact of the internet in future elections will obviously be affected by how its role in this election plays out. I personally believe that when the votes start coming in, the internet will be validated in recognizing the significance of the Ron Paul campaign. I expect Paul's vote totals to exceed the MSM's poll numbers by wide margins. The score after Iowa and New Hamshire will be internet 2, MSM pundits 0. Hopefully this may budge the MSM into grudging respect of the internet's ability to measure popular sentiment better than their so-called scientific polls and they will take it into greater account in future analysis.

Regradless, though, for the generation growing up today the internet is where it's at. As more young people reach voting age, the internet will inevitably play a larger role in shaping political opinion. The MSM can only save itself from total obsolescence by jumping on the same bandwagon.

I've been following the campaign pretty closely for many months. I've followed earlier presidential campaigns. There is always this endless talk about the polls and how a candidate is 'ranking' in the polls. In the same breath, not just in this election, there are the comments that the polls are never really very reliable and "you can't trust the polls."

No one, however, ever mentions or defines what these things are, these 'polls'. How they are conducted, how they are tallied, how many people are polled, what percentage of the population, etc? What I have heard this election go-round is that they are former party member voters in the last election who are called on the phone and asked who they favor. But, again, no numbers of how many are contacted.

But if we take the above data as a starting point, we then ask, what percentage of the population actually vote in a presidential election? I've heard figures around 30%. If true, then what percentage of these 30% are called to figure the polls? It seems to me this is a small cross-section of a non-representational percentage of a specific population.

Then pundits say that this cross-section, Republican and Democrat, is supposed to represent who is really going to win the election, even when, in the same breath, these same people say the polls are unreliable.

Now suppose that a candidate arrives from a different angle. He or she comes in via a populist line, say the internet, a completely new venue and largely unknown as to effects. Via this viral interface this candidate rounds up people who have never voted, either because of age or inclination. He or she has a message that resonates with voters, not on the pollsters' lists and they switch parties or shift due to this candidate's message. These individuals are below the radar when it comes to polls.

Mainstream Pundits use these "polls" like the are the Truth Incarnate and are "proof" of a candidate's viability. No matter what else this candidate might do in terms of message, opinion, popularity, etc, because they are 'down' in the polls, well, "Hell, son, he's a nobody."

We see the media has, until recently, ignored Paul and will not give him equal time. Why is that, do you think? Now he's being interviewed both on TV and the internet on CNN, MSNBC, Fox, NBC, etc, etc. Glen Beck, of all people, gave him an hour. He's probably the most exciting political news in 4 decades, whether he wins or not. He represents a whole new paradigm of political endeavor, running completely outside the entrenched corrupt system. There's been nothing like this, regardless of your political views, in the history of American politics, as far as I know. If I were a blogger, reporter, or pundit, I would be all over this story all the time. Not necessarily to get his message out, but to report on the phenomenon. Look at all the walls he's breaking down; look at all the subjects he's bringing to the surface to be discussed at a national level. I've never seen so many people excited about politics in my life.

Go to websites that cover the straw polls, if you want to look at polls. Look at the online polls after the GOP debates. Paul definitely does not poll in single digits. Why the disparity between these polls and the ones so often quoted? How can a guy raise $6 million in one day (an all time record) if there are not a lot of people interested in him winning? I would hesitate a guess that the 25,000 new folks that donated to Paul on 18 December, outnumber the number of people called in the "national polls". Throw in the 40,000 or so others who have donated and I'm sure it's a bigger number. What kind of poll is that?

Most of the mainstream media denies the validity of the internet. How many thousands, if not millions, of individuals are in communication about Ron Paul via the internet? If there has ever been a grass-roots vehicle in the world, it's the internet. Look at how many hits Paul has to his site, versus the other candidates. Everyone says he's big on the internet, but discount it in favor of traditional media outlets. Why? The times they are a changing. This is the first presidential election where the internet is mature enough to become a method of reaching people in a whole new different way. And it's being discounted, partly because it is new and there are no precedents. You keep hearing the MSM saying, "Yeah, but all that internet traffic has to turn into votes and that's not likely?" Why not? No one knows - it's never been an issue before.

Our only hope for the future is that the internet stays free in the hands of the people because this will guarantee the future of our republic. You will find Paul at the top on the internet, not the bottom. This is truly an exciting time and it will never be the same again. The Founding Fathers said a republic can exist with an "informed population". With the dumbing down of America by media hype and propaganda, this "informed people" were disappearing. With the internet it's coming back and watch out. Americans will take back their country in a way the establishment never expected.

**My comment hasn't shown up yet in 12 hours so I'm reposting.**

-- Grady Lee Howard --

You obviously dislike Ron Paul and have decided to raise all the issues that bother you. I have tried to respond to some of them. I would like to have a discussion about these matters. Some background on me for you: I’m 31; prior military (6 years Navy); not a homeowner, work full-time at an IT helpdesk entry-level position; attend school full-time; and I’m conservative with the exception of being wildly liberal about protecting personal freedoms. I have included 4 points below:

1. A lack of transparency on the Internet and rigged voting machines are in no way similar. You might as well compare apples and horses. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Can you explain this further?

2. We are short-sighted as young healthy people? Did you expect us to wait around for Social Security which is broke due to the pillaging of the US Government? Why should I ride out a broken system that will take much more money out of me than I will ever receive? Does that mean that I think people that have already paid into it should suffer because I want out? No. We need to find a middle ground.

3. So he opposes abortion. So what? Many people do. He also opposes the Federal Government making it illegal. Did you miss or ignore that point? He is not trying to force his viewpoint on you so why did you bring it up?

4. A flat tax is the fairest tax around. The big difference is taking out all of the loopholes that the wealthy (and corporations) use to pay no or very little tax.


The simple fact is our whole economy is in a bubble of borrowed money. It is kept its value do to being the standard for oil (thereby forcing nations to keep many dollars on hand despite a desire not to) and “persuasion” of our military in so many countries around the world. While we may be the world police, we have also been a world bully to many countries. We need to address this economic issue sooner than later. Do you know of any ongoing problem that gets better by ignoring it? This one will not get any better, I promise you.

I don’t agree with everything Ron Paul stands for, but I there are three things that are most important to me: (1) we need to straighten out our economy; (2) We need to stop interfering with other countries governments. We already have a history of covertly overthrowing governments we don’t care for. (3) Strong protection of personal freedoms that are the cornerstone of democracy: a frustrating cornerstone, but a cornerstone nonetheless.

Lastly, he has integrity. His stated beliefs and values don’t change week to week as the majority of politicians. And you can verify his integrity by looking at his voting record in Congress. No stray votes to try to explain…


I hope we can discuss this Grady. I’ll try to check back here every couple of days.

--Grady Lee Howard--

You obviously dislike Ron Paul and have decided to raise all the issues that bother you. I have tried to respond to some of them. I would like to have a discussion about these matters. Some background on me for you: I’m 31; prior military (6 years Navy); not a homeowner, work full-time at an IT helpdesk entry-level position; attend school full-time; and I’m conservative with the exception of being wildly liberal about protecting personal freedoms. I have included 4 points below:

1. A lack of transparency on the Internet and rigged voting machines are in no way similar. You might as well compare apples and horses. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Can you explain this further?

2. We are short-sighted as young healthy people? Did you expect us to wait around for Social Security which is broke due to the pillaging of the US Government? Why should I ride out a broken system that will take much more money out of me than I will ever receive? Does that mean that I think people that have already paid into it should suffer because I want out? No. We need to find a middle ground.

3. So he opposes abortion. So what? Many people do. He also opposes the Federal Government making it illegal. Did you miss or ignore that point? He is not trying to force his viewpoint on you so why did you bring it up?

4. A flat tax is the fairest tax around. The big difference is taking out all of the loopholes that the wealthy (and corporations) use to pay no or very little tax.


The simple fact is our whole economy is in a bubble of borrowed money. It is kept its value do to being the standard for oil (thereby forcing nations to keep many dollars on hand despite a desire not to) and “persuasion” of our military in so many countries around the world. While we may be the world police, we have also been a world bully to many countries. We need to address this economic issue sooner than later. Do you know of any ongoing problems that gets better by ignoring it? This one will not get any better, I promise you.

I don’t agree with everything Ron Paul stands for, but I there are three things that are most important to me: (1) we need to straighten out our economy; (2) We need to stop interfering with other countries governments. We already have a history of covertly overthrowing governments we don’t care for. (3) Strong protection of personal freedoms that are the cornerstone of democracy: a frustrating cornerstone, but a cornerstone nonetheless.

Lastly, he has integrity. His stated beliefs and values don’t change week to week as the majority of politicians. And you can verify his integrity by looking at his voting record in Congress. No stray votes to try to explain…


I hope we can discuss this Grady. I’ll try to check back here every couple of days.

Ron Paul and his fundraising: Please think critically about the lack of transparency in Internet transactions. It is analogous to the rigged voting machine programs in Florida and Ohio. Paul can't even be sure who is contributing. I don't think it could be sorted out in a timely manner.
Ron Paul's small and limited government ideals appeal to business. I wonder if he realizes we are no longer living in an
Adam Smith world. We live in a rigged world with prearranged outcomes in business and politics.
You young healthy people who want to avoid taxes and not buy health coverage are short sighted. You have parents and kids (or probably will) and it is unfair for you to deny the public commons and the commonweal. At a time of environmental and energy crisis a "hands-off" federal government could doom the entire world.
Paul has simple answers, but has not even faced any hard questioning. We know he was right on Iraq, but that's about all we know, besides he opposes a pregnant woman's right to choose and that he would tax me and Bill Gates at the same rate, no wait, Gates could probably buy a loophole, and rich girls abort offshore while "vacationing."

Ralph Nader said the two parties were "one corporate party with two heads." They use their refined propaganda skills to elect their figurehead leader every four years. The Internet, to the extent it hasn't become controlled (like in China) under our "Patriot" Act and the nascent anti-homegrown terrorism acts (H.1955, S.1959), is really the only hope for elective democracy that remains to the people. If we didn't have the communications channels and opportunities for community that the Internet provides, we'd have been "divided and conquered" through isolating influences already. I hope that someday voting itself may conducted online through the Internet. I don't see why it can't be, and it would facilitate near-100% voter turnout! We just have to get rid of the Electoral College (I still think most people don't even know about that)! Check out the Google Zeitgeist report. It reflects enough "democratic" interest in Ron Paul to have elected him. Oh, yes, the Internet will matter more and more, and it really is the salvation of the democratic process in the U.S. and someday worldwide.

Quite frankly, I hope that the internet will have an effect on political races. It gives back the power to the people. A prime example is Ron Paul. The mainstream media has attempted to exclude him at every step. They first paid attention to straw polls around the country, but then Ron Paul was doing very well. Then they focused on the amount of money candidate have. Now Ron Paul has money. Now you see random, meaningless polls brought up in conversion. I have interacted with some people who have told me that Ron Paul's name isn't even offered as an option! I have not verified that for myself though.

In conclusion, I believe that the internet will give people such as me the chance and hope that I can make a difference; that it isn't just big corporations and corrupt politicians anymore.

That is what you are seeing. It is the result of hope being born again. Hope that we aren't helpless, that we aren't just bystanders in this country's government. It's a good day to be an American.

I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THE BLACK MINISTER(THE ONE THE PREVIOUS BLOGGER COULDNT REMEMBER HIS NAME OR THAT HE WAS A MINISTER)I THINK THE PIECE WAS EXCEPTIONAL ABOUT THE LYNCHING TREE AND THE NOOSE. THE PEOPLE WHO PREVIOUSLY WROTE A COMMENT OBVIOUSLY DID NOT WATCH THE SAME PROGRAM I DID.

watching this week's interview with a black author ( whose name I dont recall) , I was once again reminded of the bigotry in this country ...against any race but the black race.

once again , I was reminded of the fact that a little over 13 per cent of the entire population of the US are 'entitled' ...to the exclusion of other races.

once again , I was reminded of the highly discriminatory nature of the the race relation efforts...not including the federal, state and local governments discriminating against everyone but the blacks in contract allocation ...

hmmmm what is that word ..'affirmative action"...

and , for the FIRST time, I was disappointed in Mr. Moyers , normally objective style. He came off as a pandering foot stool for the black cause...

why dont we have an AMERICAN cause ? I like johnny cash's explanation of an AMERICAN...either you is one or you aint

..no black american, no red american., no white americans...americans period.

dont get me started on the war ...lets hear if for Ron Paul !

Post a comment

THE MOYERS BLOG is our forum for viewers' comments intended for discussing and debating ideas and issues raised on BILL MOYERS JOURNAL. THE MOYERS BLOG invites you to share your thoughts. We are committed to keeping an open discussion; in order to preserve a civil, respectful dialogue, our editors reserve the right to remove or alter any comments that we find unacceptable, for any reason. For more information, please click here.

THE MOYERS BLOG
A Companion Blog to Bill Moyers Journal

Your Comments

Podcasts

THE JOURNAL offers a free podcast and vodcast of all weekly episodes. (help)

Click to subscribe in iTunes

Subscribe with another reader

Get the vodcast (help)

For Educators    About the Series    Bill Moyers on PBS   

© Public Affairs Television 2008    Privacy Policy    DVD/VHS    Terms of Use    FAQ