Ron Paul on The Daily Show

Like Anthony Gregory, I was disappointed when Jon Stewart’s coverage of the Republican debate studiously avoided all mention of Ron Paul and the Paul-Giuliani exchange on 9/11.

Well, a Ron Paul clip finally appeared on Stewart’s show tonight – but not in the way I was hoping. A clip was shown of Paul complaining about how easy illegal immigrants have it – and Stewart went on to make fun of this viewpoint.

Now I agree with Stewart against Paul on this issue – but why is it solely on this issue that Paul gets a mention? C’mon, Jon, play fair.


14 Responses to Ron Paul on The Daily Show

  1. Thomas L. Knapp May 23, 2007 at 4:16 am #

    Er … fair? Wazzat?

    Ron Paul has issued statements in strident opposition to the immigration “deal” currently under consideration. He’s emphasized the immigration issue in his campaign appearances, in his fundraising letters, etc. How is it “unfair” to cover that?

    Naturally, libertarians find this embarrassing. Ron Paul is effectively our standard-bearer in the electoral arena at the moment, and his immigration stand can only be characterized in one of two ways: Either it’s anti-libertarian in principle, or it’s a strategic blunder — allowing a libertarian immigration policy to be held hostage by an anti-libertarian welfare state policy.

    The Daily Show, like most programs, tends to cover the negative rather than the positive (although Stewart gives us jokes instead of crocodile tears — a good thing, IMO). Why should there be a double standard for Ron Paul?

  2. Nick Bradley May 23, 2007 at 8:35 am #

    I don’t see why so many libertarians are opposed to immigration restrictions. Read Hoppe on Immigration.

    Under a statist system, massive immigration is not feasible and reduces liberty.

    Due to our peverse welfare benefits, far more immigrants come to the US than would under a free market. Furthermore, massive corporate Ag welfare has caused demand for farm labor to be far higher than it should be.

    The aim of libertarians should be to ensure the number of immigrants that enter our country is similar to what the number would be in a free market.

    I know it is impossible to determine it precisely, but it can be ballparked.

  3. quasibill May 23, 2007 at 8:52 am #

    I think it is a good thing that this is the only time Paul gets singled out for treatment on the Daily Show – when he takes a stand that is worthy of ridicule. The fact that they haven’t lampooned him before speaks volumes about the rationality of his stances; on most things, very rational. On immigration, not so much.

    As far as Hoppe’s argument on immigration, you can use that for any socialist government program – let’s try to enact the socialist policy that we’d most like to see the market provide. But you can’t avoid the fact that you are trying to coerce people who are entering into voluntary transactions. If you don’t like the welfare state, attack *it*, not the peaceful people who come here to work.

  4. Ben May 23, 2007 at 8:54 am #


    Libertarians aren’t opposed to immigration. In fact, I think the Libertarian position on immigration is to get rid of social programs such as welfare and free hospital benefits and then let the immigrants come in. Shouldn’t free people be able to move freely across boarders?

    I realize that you agree, and Ron Paul is very libertarian but has a Constitution Party leanings and this is one of those issue he doesn’t fall on the side of freedom.

    However, is there a better choice….I don’t see one

  5. Jim West May 23, 2007 at 10:09 am #

    You guys need to understand that if Paul came out for open borders he would be totally unacceptable to the GOP. On the war he has some wiggle room but not on immigration. He also needs to distance himself from the Libertarian label since that only furthers the media characterization of him being “fringe”. Besides all this he is right on mass immigration and his stance will appeal to a large number of people.

  6. Administrator May 23, 2007 at 10:55 am #

    Ron Paul has issued statements in strident opposition to the immigration “deal” currently under consideration. He’s emphasized the immigration issue in his campaign appearances, in his fundraising letters, etc. How is it “unfair” to cover that?

    I never said it was unfair to cover that. I said it was unfair to cover only that. Stewart devoted a lot of time to Gravel, the dissident maverick at the Democratic debate. Why wouldn’t he cover Paul, the dissident maverick at the Republican debate, especially when doing so would have given Stewart a chance to beat up on Giuliani?

  7. Dain May 23, 2007 at 2:21 pm #

    Stewart represents cynical, hip liberalism. Everything sucks and nothing is too off limits to have its bubble burst, but only neanderthal fascists would question the Civil War, immigration and World War 2 and deny that national health care is a must-have. That is, it’s a liberalism that finds the political world corrupt while holding to the idea that more politics staves off ridiculous conservative notions of private property and dog-eat-dog individualism. It’s a liberalism that loves to lampoon the sacred (human) cows of its own camp while sticking to the underlying assumptions of much progressive authoritarianism.

    Or at least that’s my take.

  8. Sag May 23, 2007 at 2:41 pm #

    I agree. I think Stewart still buys into the whole idea of Iraq and civil liberties being a Republican vs. Democratic debate. I also disagree with Paul on immigration. But Jon Stewart covered even Al Sharpton fairly well in the last election.

    If he brings up Ron Paul, why not even mention the Paul vs. Giuliani debate – something which is still playing out even in the MSM? Stewart’s silence on speaks volumes. It’s either deliberate or he has major blinders on. Disappointing for someone so funny and supposedly aware.

  9. Rich May 23, 2007 at 5:37 pm #

    Here is Dr. Paul’s plan for Illegal Immigration I don’t find it liberalism at all
    this was posted at his web site before the current bill on the floor being debated today and given the fact that americans are to become sub citizens to the invaders if this bill passes it will bring the total economic fall of our country when their is 300 million south american invaders running our streets all the other candidates so not care they love them Wake Up. We need to go back and wipe the slate clean and bring the principals of the founding fathers and constitution This bill s.1348 is a nau bill which will quickely turn all the people into slave labor.

    Border Security and Immigration Reform

    The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:

    Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
    Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
    No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
    No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
    End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
    Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

  10. Dain May 28, 2007 at 11:35 pm #

    “Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.”

    Would “fairness” guarantee that far fewer than 60 million immigrants enter the country? And over what time period is this 60 million figure anwyay? Ten years? What is the criteria for assessing “insanity” in this case?

  11. David June 4, 2007 at 7:55 am #

    Anchor babies would be one way. Step across the border, deliver your baby, and then your American baby needs to have the care of it’s mother and preferably father, right?
    Our social services industry perpetuates all this.

  12. dave June 5, 2007 at 6:09 am #

    The main focus of neo-cons and democrats and all other pro-globalism, pro-federal, pro-corporatism factions has been increasing immigrant labor (weakens small business while giving corporations a low wage labor advantage, justifys regulations on guns, private property, or lack of regulation on warrants etc) and aggressive foreign policy (aggressive threats for countries refusing “free trade” agreements creates new sources of immigration). It is completely natural that this will be attacked by both sides because while issues like abortion and ID cards upset some people, immigration is a key decision between continuing as an independent nation or becoming a third world country. consider that out of the world’s top 100 economies 51 are transnational corporations, 49 are countries, and you will perhaps begin to understand why our corporate media seems to hate our independence and why people like john stewart have cash showered on them while neo-cons democrats and libertarians all seem to band together in the event an anti-immigration candidate manages to survive.

    What people do not seem to understand is that Ron Paul is NOT a libertarian as much as he isnt a modern republican or democrat, but a true conservative. I strongly recommend you research what a the “paleoconservative” party refers to and how the meaning of conservative was inverted to become merely jingoist leftism from 1945 through 1970, thus “neoconservative” was born. About the only thing paleo-cons and neo-cons have in common is christian morality, and i am an atheist paleo-con voter, mainly because of my backround in physical anthropology and belief in preserving genetic diversity rather than global mixture.

    paleo-cons are a middle ground between republicans and libertarians i suppose, we are libertarian on everything but the issue of immigration. We see no logical need to be replaced and are against considering self destruction to be artistic and progressive.

  13. Joshua Katz June 14, 2007 at 3:43 pm #

    Immigration isn’t about “being replaced,” it is about a true free market in labor. Appeals to fairness and sanity need to explain why it is “fair” for Americans to have high wage rates, while those over an arbitrary political line are not permitted to compete for those jobs. Should a storeowner facing competition be permitted to shoot the owners of other stores? If not, why should a laborer have the government shoot those who attempt to compete for his job? An influx of labor cannot lead to there being no jobs left in a free economy, just to lower wage rates. If wage rates are where they are due to supply having been artificially lowered in the past, then allowing them to fall, while painful, is not a bad thing. Yes, Americans would have to adjust their standard of living – so what? Why does one man’s standard of living entitle him to use force to keep down anothers? In a free market, due to scarcity, there are always jobs, and can be no involuntary unemployment except due to government interference. Remove welfare, remove regulations, and allow open immigration.

  14. David June 21, 2007 at 5:09 am #

    Why is it that Ron Paul, a Republican at a nationally televised debate for Republicans, can say that our foreign policy is a major reason for 9/11, and no one investigates it? Ron Paul was stating the findings of the 9/11 Commission as well as the CIA, and Guiliani interupted to show the country how ignorant he truly is by discreditting Dr. Paul’s statement. The crowd applauded, THEN other candidates where trying to get their jabs in. They saw the crowd applaud and where trying to ride the wave of patriotism. EVERYONE in that room showed how ignorant they really are. If Guiliani is such an expert on terrorism, then why is it he didn’t bother reading any of the reports explaining why HIS city was attacked? Why is it no one in that room, with the exception of Dr. Paul, knew anything substantial about those reports. I’m tired of hearing campaign slogans as answers. I’m not interested in epe rallies. My question is, why doesn’t the findings of that commission get any attention?

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes