Excluding Ron Paul
by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
DIGG THIS
The Iowa Christian
Alliance and Iowans for Tax Relief are co-sponsoring a Republican
candidates’ forum for June 30. The event will feature Mitt Romney,
Tommy Thompson, Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, and Tom
Tancredo.
Ron Paul, however,
is to be excluded.
In fact, that’s
what Paul’s campaign was expressly told when they inquired. Campaign
manager Kent Snyder tells the story:
We heard
about this forum from numerous supporters in Iowa who asked why
Dr. Paul was not going to participate. Those supporters
assumed that Dr. Paul was invited.
The campaign
office had not received an invitation so we called this morning;
thinking we might have misplaced the invitation or simply overlooked
it. Lew Moore, our campaign manager, called Mr. Edward Failor,
an officer of Iowans for Tax Relief, to ask about it. To
our shock, Mr. Failor told us Dr. Paul was not invited; he was
not going to be invited; and he would not be allowed to participate.
And when asked why, Mr. Failor refused to explain. The call
ended.
Lew then
called Mr. Steve Scheffler, president of the Iowa Christian Alliance,
to talk with him. Mr. Scheffler did not answer so Lew left
a message. He has yet to respond.
After reading
this, I called Edward Failor myself. I said I was calling about
the exclusion of Ron Paul from his candidates’ forum, particularly
in light of Paul’s extraordinary record on taxes.
"Is there
a question in there you want me to answer?" came the annoyed
reply.
"Well,
yes. Are you excluding Ron Paul, and if so, why?"
Failor explained
that the event had been scheduled months ago, and that at that time
they had made a decision about who the most "credible"
candidates would be.
I didn’t quite
understand his answer, though it was apparently more than he’d bothered
to provide the Paul campaign. "You thought Tommy Thompson was
a more credible candidate than Ron Paul?" I asked. (Can you
imagine people gleefully sharing YouTube clips of Thompson with
their friends, or holding up "Tommy Thompson Revolution"
signs?)
Failor refused
to answer that or any other question I posed to him, and closed
with, "That is the only statement I am willing to make."
I assume I
don’t need to point out that this explanation is not believable
at all. We’ll leave aside his organization’s, um, mixed record when
it comes to picking out the "credible" candidates. Had
this really been a mere logistical question, why would Failor not
simply have said so to the Paul campaign when they initially inquired?
(Not that that would have been a good explanation, but it would
have been something.) A non-hostile person with good manners might
have said something like, "We’re very sorry about the way things
turned out; we arranged this event a long time ago, and of course
we’d have been delighted to have your campaign participate if we’d
been able to feature more people on the stage."
The answer
I got was pretty obviously one Failor had devised on the fly, not
having expected anyone to call him on his decision to exclude Paul.
But the answer
I got is also an obvious lie. Here
is the schedule of the event as of a June 8 press release. Here,
on the other hand, is the schedule just the other day. The second
one replaces Jim Gilmore with Duncan Hunter.
I wonder why
Hunter hadn’t been told that the arrangements had been made months
in advance, that he’d been determined not to be credible – the whole
story.
Failor, you’re
busted.
After our call,
I got to thinking about this Failor character: what kind of person
running a "tax relief" organization would exclude the
presidential candidate with – and this is no exaggeration – possibly
the best record on taxation in all of American history, someone
who favors the abolition of the income tax and the drastic reduction
or elimination of nearly all other federal taxes? Should this be
the Iowans For a Little Tax Relief, But Not Too Much?
I did a little
poking around, and it turns out that our Edward Failor was initially
a supporter
of...George Pataki! George Pataki. And here I was thinking
Failor had a hard time pinpointing credible candidates.
I remember
seeing Pataki and Rudy Giuliani opening a Saturday Night Live episode
years ago in which they both spoke about New York. Pataki was reading
off his cue card so badly and awkwardly you just had to change the
channel. Slightly less intelligent than George W. Bush: who will
dispute this description of Mr. Failor’s credible candidate?
The New
York Sun, writing about Pataki’s record, observed in 2006:
"Mr. Pataki could be a hard sell to small-government conservatives,
given that state spending in New York has grown to a projected $75
billion in the coming fiscal year from $43 billion in 1995."
No problem for Edward Failor. According to the Sun, "Mr.
Failor said the increases were the necessary result of growth brought
on by aggressive tax cuts." Oh.
Maybe this
is Iowans Who Are Only Marginally Unhappy With the Status Quo, or
Iowans for Shell Games That Look Like Tax Cuts. Maybe it’s Iowans
Who Want Guarantees that Absolutely Nothing Will Change.
Or perhaps
it’s Iowans for McCain: check out Mr. Failor’s recent
campaign donations.
The Iowa GOP
at large, on the other hand, is not hostile to Ron Paul, and in
fact made sure Paul would be included in the Iowa straw poll. Iowa
Republican leaders want it known that they, at least, have no bias
against Paul.
Excluding
Ron Paul from a "tax relief" candidates’ forum is like
excluding Batman from an Anti-Riddler Convention. Even funnier is
that these two organizations, in blacklisting Paul, reveal themselves
to be even worse than the mainstream media they always criticize:
the very day the Paul campaign discovered it had been barred from
this Iowa event, they got a call from ABC News confirming Ron Paul’s
participation in the August 5 debate in Des Moines, Iowa.
Now
I don’t mean to leave the Iowa Christian Alliance out of the spotlight,
but attempts to reach them resulted in busy signals or endless rings.
They probably figured it’d be one day of angry calls, and that would
be it. So I found a second contact number for them, which I reproduce
below.
We shouldn’t
be surprised at all this; such treatment is exactly what a truly
anti-establishment candidate can expect in a world of phonies and
hacks. But Ron Paul’s supporters are legion, and growing all the
time. I rather suspect they will have something to say about their
candidate’s exclusion.
Thanks to
Michael Kenny for his input on this piece.
June
20, 2007
Thomas E. Woods, Jr. [view
his website;
send
him mail] is
senior fellow in American history at the Ludwig
von Mises Institute. His
books include How
the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (get a free chapter
here),
The
Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy
(first-place winner in the 2006
Templeton Enterprise Awards), and the New York Times
bestseller The
Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.
Copyright
© 2007 LewRockwell.com
Thomas
Woods Archives
|