3 Antiwar.com Columnists Appointed to Advise Ron Paul Campaign

Eric Garris, February 01, 2008

This morning the Ron Paul campaign announced the appointment of three new policy advisors: Doug Bandow has been appointed policy advisor to the campaign, while Charles Peña and Philip Giraldi have been named as foreign policy advisors.

On another note, the campaign has announced a new book by Ron Paul, to be published in April, The Revolution: A Manifesto. The book and audiobook are both available for pre-order.




29 Responses to “3 Antiwar.com Columnists Appointed to Advise Ron Paul Campaign”

  1. Re the above appointments: wonderful, wonderful news. You go, friends. And if the book is as great as its title, the audio and it should be best sellers.

  2. Great stuff! It will be a nice counterweight to Obama, who has appointed Zbigniew Brzezinsky, creator of Al Qaeda (“The Toilet”) as his foreign advisor.

  3. [...] Eric Garris writes: [...]

  4. Hopefully he will take good advice and do something about the lack of antiwar emphasis in his ads! Very few people are going to vote for him on immigrants or even on the Fed. The real opportunity is to get people who worry about war and civil liberties.

  5. Excellent choices, sure to be valuable assets to the campaign. Does this signify what I hope it does? That Congressman Paul intends to continue the good fight – perhaps with an independent run? I hope so for selfish reasons, as I can’t wait to see that smirk leave McCain’s face as he realizes that the guy who finishes him off is the one that his and the other Repub campaigns treated so unkindly, with the aid of the complicit MSM of course.

  6. I agree that his ads have not been strong enough about his anti-war/anti-surveillance state positions. On the other hand, one has to wonder just how intellectually lazy people have to be at this point in the campaign to be ignorant of his stance. After all, they’ve had a dozen debates, and the Internet shouldn’t be a secret. How hard is it to Google him?

    Now that Gravel and Kucinich have dropped out, Paul is the only anti-war candidate in the race. So what gives? If 70% of the people are against the Iraq debacle, I can only conclude that other considerations take precedence in people’s minds.

    My personal opinion: very few Democrats are willing to cross over and vote for a conservative Republican from Texas. Why they think a pro-empire Democrat is preferable boggles my mind. Does party affiliation trump all?

    Americans will get the government they deserve.

  7. My own experience as a Libertarian candidate standing out on a sidewalk asking registered voters to sign a petition so that I could be on the ballot was that Democrats would sign because “it is the fair thing to do”. The Republicans to an annoying degree refused, saying ” you are going to steal votes from the Republican candidate”. Asked about the fairness of biased ballot access, that kind of a Republican always answered “the stakes are too high to give you a chance”. Maybe that explains Paul’s high marks on polls and his disappointing finishes in Republican primaries – the Republican primary voters see Paul as a Libertarian and not as a Conservative.

  8. Have any of you learned a thing from the example of John Edward’s failed campaign? His message appealed to far more ‘real’ people, those who actually work for a living and where did he end up? No matter how you look at it, the fact is the complicit MSM you deride so vehemently is privately owned and the people that own that media are also earning huge profits from defense spending and the occupation of Iraq. In turn they determine who will or will not get covered by what they are advocating regardless of whether they are Republican or Democrat! And as Edward’s and Paul’s near invisibility proves, they are neither anti-imperialist or anti-war! The internet is a historic development in many ways specifically in regards to the free exchange of ideas and information but there is still a large section of the population that does not live in front of their computer. They are just as important as we are. And just so you know many of us who are anti-war correctly see capitalism and it’s INEVITABLE development, imperialism as the root cause of modern warfare. Even with the help of well meaning but ignorant liberals and independents notwithstanding, Ron Paul does not stand a chance of being nominated because of the very system that he so fervently defends. That having been said, I support his decision to run and believe he should be equally represented in the mainstream media as should Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader should he decide to enter the race. Only when the people are allowed to hear what each candidate has to say will they have the insight necessary to make an intelligent decision as to who represents their interests. I am not holding my breath………

  9. To complete my thought – the voters in the partisan primaries are usually the most dedicated. That means that in South Carolinaa and in Florida, Paul ran into the “mossback” Republicans – the most authoritarian and the most paranoid. With these people, it is always “who is the most conservative candidate on the ballot?” Which in present times means “who is the most militaristic”. When Paul ran in open primaries, he did better. I sure hope Paul eventually runs as an Independent.

  10. Scott,

    You seem to be confusing the free market capitalist approach that Dr. Paul advocates with the corporatist-fascist brand of capitalism that dominates the scene today. They are not the same.

    Need evidence? Take a peek at the donor lists for Clinton and Obama. They receive six figure donations (bribes?) from the big banks and merchants of death. They know where their bread is buttered.

    Follow the money.

  11. Lets hope these guys can convince Paul to give up those inflated aspirations of his vis-a-vis the Republican nomination and to launch an independent bid for the White House and the sooner the better. Any further fiddling around with the timing could cost Paul ballot position and worse. Someone needs to bring him out of clouds on this question, his excitement about the “success” of his Republican foray nothwithstanding.

    I’m a non-ideological Catholic, pro-life and anti-war. I am not a Libertarian. In my view no Catholic worthy of his calling could support any of the Democratic or Republican candidates now presenting themselves except Paul. And I’m not even sure that I could support Paul if he ran as a Republican given the closeness to the pathology endemic in that party. As an independent, Paul would present the first opportunity I’m aware of in recent history for Catholics to give concrete and honest political expression to Church teaching on just war and human life concurrently. I’ve not voted since 1992 because that combination of elements consistently has been absent. I’ll feel cheated if Paul continues to entertain the myth that he has a chance at the Republican nomination, he just doesn’t. Kindly impress upon his new advisors their need to redirect his energies. Here’s one old man who’d be pleased if you did.

  12. the dumbed-down american electorate–probably the most ignorant, savage voters in history–does not want substance in a candidate….they want sound bites, toothy smiles and promises, promises, promises……..the nightmare is upon us……

  13. May God grant them all wisdom and courage, and bless their efforts with success.

  14. Outstanding! Go get ‘em, guys! You’re fighting the good fight.

  15. Ron Paul had a surfeit of brains to begin with…and now he’s getting more of them! At this point I’m more worried about votes than brains…at least the kind of brains specializing in what a President Paul could do after his inaugeration. If only a libertarian Carl Rove wern’t an oxymoron!

  16. Amen!

  17. While I welcome the decision to bring in three antwarriors, I see it is a dollar short and a day late. Super Tuesday is four days away, and the Paul campaign has wasted God knows how much money trying to sell the good doctor as just another right wing Republican. Well, they’ve apparently succeeded, and the better known right-wing Republicans, like Romney, McCain, and even Huckabee and sometimes even Giuliani (notwithstanding abortion and gay rights positions) are getting more votes than the relatively obscure right winger, Ron Paul. DUH — who’da thunk it! They should have had them onboard as soon as it became apparent that RP had a large, unorganized base, largely OUTSIDE the Republican Party. Their focus should have been on the Super Tuesday primaries, above and beyond the “firsts” in NH and IA. Why didn’t the campaign even hire a California coordinator until less than a month before the primary?

    I think there is a cultural gulf between what has been dubbed “The Ron Paul R(EVOL)ution,” that amorphous but spirited mass of people who gave over $20 million to the campaign, and the campaign staff itself. What have they done to focus the energy of this crowd? I’d really like to know, because I don’t see it.

  18. Yes, intellectually lazy. To take off on Dumbsfeld, you have to get elected by the electorate you have, not the electorate you would wish for.

    Largely due to the efforts of the MSM, the issues of empire and foreign policy are now taking a backseat to the economy. What Paul needs to do is hammer away at the relationship between the war and the unfolding economic disaster.

    The electorate may be intellectually lazy, but they are not stupid. A careful explanation of the war, mounting deficits, the Federal Reserve first monetizing the war debt, then raising interest rates to prevent further collapse of the dollar, and how this sequence of events lead to the housing bubble and economic meltdown would clear everyone’s heads.

    It’s the war, stupid!

  19. What gives? The primaries were rigged,particularly the New Hampshire primary.The Israeli lobby and associates took the Ron Paul campaign threat very seriously and did something about it.Those of us who were active back in the 60′s learned that voting was a waste of time.Nothing has changed.

  20. This is a good start but how about hiring Emmanuel Steward as well?

    Dr. Paul is in the 10th round and way behind on points, he needs a knockout to win and so far his campaign has been too f-ing passive. Dr. Paul is the first pres candidate I’ve ever been motivated to donate to but his message is not resonating with the voters and the MSM is all but giving him the finger.

    He needs to step out of his comfort zone and be louder and more forceful with his delivery.

    If this election was based on substance alone he’d win in a landslide but unfortunately you get point for style and delivery as well.

    Go get em Dr. Paul…….please!

  21. Give ‘em hell!

  22. I agree to an extent–unless Paul plans to run as an independent. But even then, a more outspoken support of impeaching Cheney would have won him votes, even among Republicans, and considerably more attention from the press.

    Given that the mainstream media was trying to make him look like a lunatic, how popular and sensible a lunatic he would have looked making impeachment a central item of his campaigning, and a pinch bar to use against the other Republicans in the race.

    Don’t understand it–impeaching Cheney (and Bush if possible) follows logically from both his antiwar stance and from his Consitutionalism. Plus, if a third of NH voted for McCain because they thought he was antiwar, why was Paul, with years of good credentials, so reserved?

  23. Go Phil!

  24. Good hires! But the good Doc needs to hammer away at the war and why it is unconstitutional and therefore illegal. He also needs to explain where a dollar comes from, and how this has created all the economic problems that we face today. He also needs to get in McNuts’ and Romney’s face and ask them to explain where a dollar comes from. I bet they can’t answer! The last time Ron Paul asked an economic question to the Sen Nutball, he looked like a deer in the headlights. Let’s not forget that the MSM loves McNuts. They didn’t report that a majority of his voters in NH were AGAINST THE WAR! Duh, I guess a little too much Tim Russert, et al, who have adopted the nutball as their personal political pet, clouded the “minds” of these voters.

  25. I fear that you are right. How did we get into this predicament?

  26. I think that it is time for Ron Paul to explore a third party candidacy. In this way the media will have to pay attention to him, and when his message gets out people will be given a real choice. If he doesn’t win then we know for sure that the people will accept war–especially if none of their loved ones are in harms way–and loss of liberties if the government only promises to care for them; ie give them something.

  27. By.hell.pull.up.your.pants.Ron.paul..and.give.them.hell.give
    them.the.knock.out.pill.once.and.for.all.come.out.with.all.guns.firing,no.pissing.around.the.maypole.
    Hay.everybody.get.on.borad.cause.we.are.going.to.win,we.need.help.turn.them.Bull.Dogs.lose.and.kick.ass

  28. I agree that Ron Paul should run on some line other than Republican. It would turn my stomach to have to pull any switch on the Party of Nixon, Hunt and Liddy.

  29. To follow at least some of the money, its instructive to follow this link:

    http://oilmoney.priceofoil.org/federalRaceGraph.php

    No further comment is necessary.