H/T: The Trail
Ron Paul’s taking on Mike Huckabee in New Hampshire with a series of negative mailers. The content? Mike Huckabee is a “habitual tax hiker” and Ron Paul is the “taxpayer’s best friend”! Also, notice the strategic picture plan: Ron Paul is posing chummily with Ronald Reagan (despite that Paul called Reagan a “failure”), and Mike Huckabee is next to Bill Clinton, who appears to be advising Huckabee. The subtext is clear. Here’s the mailing:
Clever deception in politics knows no bounds…
I actually don’t mind negative ads so long as they are truthful, as this brochure seems to be. Frankly, negative ads are often much more accurate than positive ads, which tend to contain a lot of fluff and misleading statements.
I did like how, when Russert pressed Paul on not absolutely ruling out a third party run (in the video Policraticus linked to), Paul said that “I deserve one wiggle now and then, Tim.” He certainly does.
Blackadder,
The last point on immigration seems, at best, to be a grossly misleading statement. Huckabee’s commitment to the pro-life cause prompted him to enact measures giving prenatal care to undocumented migrants for the sake of the child. He also upheld Arkansas law that dictates that all children must be provided with public education, which does not discriminate against illegal status.
Now, if providing prenatal care to a baby in the womb and educating children in the United States really constitutes “support” for “taxpayer subsidies to illegal immigrants,” then I guess Ron Paul is right. But the infant in the womb and child in elementary school did not break any law; perhaps their parents did. Can an infant in the womb really be an “illegal immigrant”? Can an eleven-year-old be tried under immigration laws? Should these babies and children be denied the basic right to prenatal health care and education on account of their parents’ decisions?
I think Ron Paul’s not only misleading us, I think he’s likewise misled.
Immigration is a fair issue to hit Huckabee with. His position has changed.
What doesn’t make any sense to me is why Paul wants to bring up Huckabee’s negatives. It isn’t like the two are sharing common voters. Yes, Paul might be following my analysis and attempting to poll better than Huckabee in New Hampshire. I almost lean more toward the conspiratorial side on this one: Paul is using his money in obedience to the Republican bosses. There just isn’t a whole lot of sense in it all. If he was taking advice from me, I would tell him to advertise against Obama and try to get as many anti-war independents voting for him as he can.
At least silly things like Thompson staying in the race I can understand. Every vote he gets in South Carolina is a vote Romney doesn’t get, and it makes his boss McCain’s task easier.
MZ, aren’t they both, generally speaking, populist outsiders?
I wouldn’t say populist. Ron Paul is an anti-war libertarian.
Doesn’t this make Huckabee look better and Paul look worse? Except for the bizarro world of Republican primaries, though…
Policraticus,
I assumed that “tax subsidies for illegal immigrants” referred to his wanting to give illegal immigrants in-state tuition. What makes you think it refers to prenatal care specifically?
As opposed to the bizarro world of Democrat primaries where the candidates try to out-abort one another.
Jay,
Thanks for the link. Michael and I were actually talking about this the other night, because Republicans were attacking each other on their record on executions, immigration, etc. ,and I was wondering whether Democrats did the same about abortion. Although they don’t do it in public debates or ads, do they? I haven’t seen that yet.
To Policraticus,
Illegal aliens are abusing the 14th Amendment to get their “birthright citizenship” and it is something to which they AND their unborn are NOT ENTITLED. Americans are tired of paying for the millions of illegal aliens to have their babies at our expense. No it is not the fault of the baby in the womb or the 11 year old dragged across the border. That fault lies squarely with the PARENTS of that child who chose to put the life of that child in danger for a “better life” at the expense of American taxpayers. It is the sole responsibility of the illegal alien parents to NOT teach their children to break laws and take what they want even if it is wrong. They are raising a generation of anchor babies who have no respect for the laws of the United States. The same anchor babies have allegiance to Mexico or their “mother country” even though they continue to benefit from services and free education provided by American taxpayers.
If they care so much about their “mother country” such as Mexico, why don’t they work toward making that country change to improve their lives without having to come to America? America is NOT a lifeboat that is required to give everyone who wants it a better life. We need to take care of AMERICANS and let the people from other countries work for change in their own countries. Instead they come to OUR country and expect us to bend over backwards for them. Ridiculous!
With that being said – it is the policies of the US government regarding NAFTA and other “free trade” agreements that have created this imbalance. The people of the US didn’t want this. It is the elitists and the globalists who wanted this and we are ALL victims of that cartel of business people and bankers who wish to create a one world class of consumer slaves and eliminate the middle class which made this country great.
The globalists and elitists are the real enemy here. They are the enemy of Americans as much as they are the enemy of poor Mexicans. The elitists care not about decimating the good life that most Americans used to have in order to create their one world slave class of consumers who just buy disposable CRAP from China and work two jobs just trying to make ends meet.
We are on the verge of American Revolution II. Be part of the solution not part of the problem.
I haven’t watched any of the debates, so I don’t know whether the Dems have attacked each other on abortion in those venues. Ads, however, may be a different story.
According to this story, Clinton sent out a mailing (which I suppose is an ad) attacking Obama for not being pro-abortion enough. Obama responded with recorded phone calls (I don’t know whether that constitutes an ad or not) bragging on his “… 100 percent pro-choice record …”
Illegal aliens are abusing the 14th Amendment to get their “birthright citizenship” and it is something to which they AND their unborn are NOT ENTITLED.
Why is it abuse? The law is the law. Unless you want to amend the Constitution to make one’s parent’s own citizenship a condition for U.S. citizenship, which affects many more people. Under the current criteria for U.S. citizenship, children born of undocumented migrants have the same rights and privileges as all children born in the United States.
Dear Mr. Ron Paul,
Half a truth is often a great lie.
Most sincerely,
Benjamin Franklin
1. Policratius – birthright citizenship is part of a very expansive and poor interpretation of the 14th Amendment (as are many problems in our country today).
2. Apparently Ron Paul has hit a nerve with birth right citizenship issue. Mr. Huckabee is now stealing a page from his playbook.
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080108/NATION/311698216/1001
3. Finally, I like Dr. Paul supported Ronald Reagan in 1976 when Reagan was considered a wacko extremist that was unelectable, and he was opposed by all the mainstream establishment Republicans. I was overjoyed when he was elected president. But, the joy quickly turned into disappointment. He did not do what he promised. The Department of Education stayed, buearocracy and the federal government grew (although at a slower pace), and pro-abortion justices were named to the supreme court. Was Reagan evil – no, I think he was a good man, but I think he was not up to the fight and achieved little if anything during his presidency.
Policratius – birthright citizenship is part of a very expansive and poor interpretation of the 14th Amendment (as are many problems in our country today).
Expansive? Perhaps. Poor? According to whom? That’s a value judgment that you merely assert. Convince me its poor by appealing to the original intent of the authors, not to your own ideological bent.