The Iowa Crime of '07
by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
As I wrote on Wednesday, the misnamed Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance (ICA) have chosen to exclude Ron Paul from their candidates' forum on June 30.
There is more to report.
I've received emails from people telling me that the folks at the ICA insist that they had nothing to do with excluding Dr. Paul, and that the blame rests with Ed Failor of Iowans for Tax Relief. (Ed's not too popular with a lot of people these days, apparently.)
Now I have no doubt that there may be some decent people at the ICA, and that they may really believe what they are saying. But that organization cannot possibly be believed when it innocently claims it has nothing against Ron Paul.
The ICA has a page on its site that lists all the announced candidates for president. Here is the link.
Until yesterday, when I pointed it out on the LRC blog and embarrassed them a bit, there was no Ron Paul.
Now look at the list again. Ever heard of Hugh Cort? John Cox? Mark Klein? The people at the ICA evidently have, since there they are on the list. But they apparently hadn't heard of Ron Paul until just yesterday.
Actually, though, they did know who Ron Paul was. They even used to have him on their list, as this Google cache shows. But then he disappeared.
They also used to have a link to Paul's YouTube site, along with those of the other candidates, at the bottom of the page, but that's also been suppressed. So if they thought they could claim that deleting the link to Ron Paul's campaign site was some kind of innocent mistake, that isn't going to work.
Heck, they even include a list of "potential" candidates. That list includes Al Sharpton.
So Al Sharpton merits inclusion, but Ron Paul does not. There is the faith of the apostles, according to the Iowa Christian Alliance.
Now let's return to my other favorite Iowa organization, the Iowans (Allegedly) for Tax Relief. Its executive vice president, Ed Failor, wasn't happy about my LRC article on Wednesday. Not happy at all.
In fact, he called me on Wednesday and insisted that I correct something I'd said — that by replacing Jim Gilmore with Duncan Hunter at the last minute (a fact I discovered by comparing press releases from earlier this month), Iowans for Tax Relief implicitly revealed that the reason they were excluding Ron Paul — that the event had supposedly been organized months ago and was now cast in stone — was bogus, and a lie.
Here is the earth-shattering change Failor wanted me to make. Hunter, he said, had been one of the original invitees — man, these guys are just great at picking out the credible candidates, aren't they? — but failed to respond by the deadline. So when Gilmore dropped out, they went back to Hunter, who accepted.
But if they really wanted "credible" candidates, why would they do such a thing? By now even the zombie population can see that Ron Paul is far more credible than Hunter by any measure. The comparison is almost laughable. And since Hunter had his chance to participate but elected not to respond, why not give Paul a chance, since his initial exclusion — on the ludicrous grounds that he was not a "credible" candidate — has subsequently been shown to be a gross misjudgment? Paul seems particularly "credible" given that he came in second behind Fred Thompson in a straw poll that Iowans for Tax Relief itself co-sponsored!
Meanwhile, with Failor's technicality off his chest, he had absolutely nothing to say about 99 percent of what I wrote: he never denied his support for the execrable George Pataki (what non-hack ever supported Pataki for anything, much less for president?), his support for Pataki's spending increases, or his donations to the McCain campaign, for which Failor is a senior advisor.
The humorless Failor appeared on Jan Mickelson's radio program later that day in order to justify his organization's exclusion of Dr. Paul; Ron Paul campaign manager Kent Snyder also appeared. You can listen to it here.
My favorite part is Failor's claim that other non-credible candidates weren't invited, either, so Ron Paul hasn't been treated unfairly. And which candidates would those be? Why, Hugh Cort, John Cox, and Mark Klein, of course!
You cannot make this stuff up.
The "Rudy McRomney" moniker is meant to suggest that the establishment's favorite Republican candidates are indistinguishable from each other, and that they collectively represent the same inoffensive commitment to nothing that characterizes the entire political mainstream. As surely as the sun will rise tomorrow, electing one of these men means absolutely nothing will change. Of that you can be certain.
And that's just the way Ed Failor, Rudy McRomney supporter, evidently likes it. No Ron Paul revolution for him. Who needs a revolution when you can vote for John McCain and get a slightly more maniacal status quo?
This is the man who sits in judgment of Ron Paul?
And no, Ed, I don't buy your phony explanation. Neither does anyone with an IQ over 75.
June 22, 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