Democrats Back Up Paul's Positions in ABC Debates

I have to give ABC thanks for allowing Ron Paul to take part in the debates on January 5th. It was a far better position to take than Fox who simply banned him from their forum. It was only in August that I told my nephew, who is part of the Obamanation that I usually agreed with most of what Bill O'reilly said on his radio program and my nephew ofcourse didn't have anything kind to say about that. I first heard about Paul in September and since then I myself don't have much to say that's kind towards O'reilly and Fox news. I haven't been watching much. I think the right of the people to hear the candidates takes presedence over any bias the press would have.

One nice thing about the debates is that some of the positions on the war that Ron Paul often tries to get across but never has time to in a national forum were carried over by the Democrats. The Dems talked alot about how Iraq is not doing its part to strengthen security in its own country. How the war has cost us terrible amounts in human lives and how it was a mistake to invade. They also talked about securing nuclear weapons material left over from the cold war, which gets very little attention. They also spoke about how our amazing spending over there makes it more difficult for Americans to pay for what's needed over here.
Does having the Dems back up Paul's positions make Paul a liberal on this issue. I don't know, at least they show he's not a lone nut making outrageous claims that no sane person would make. But Paul doesn't disagree with the President's policies because it boosts his career. He does so out of a true desire to stay as true to what he sees as Constitutional principles. He also does so out of a desire to stop the country from sliding into a horrible depression that will severly hurt America's poor and middle class. That's why I can support him even on this issue where I am not in complete agreement.

I give Obama and Paul more credit when they take a stand againt the war because they have stayed consistant by being against it from the beginning. The others who voted for the war play a political game where they support executive decisions as long as their Party has a President, then go the other way when the other party has a President. Republicans bashed Clinton for being too aggressive then, Democrats who voted for the war bashed Bush for being too aggressive.

At the top of the post I gave ABC credit for including Paul in the debate. In the next post I'll go into some of the subtle ways the major networks still show bias against Paul.