ugh, more of the same old song and dance, NO ONE CARES! He's anti-war and anti-tax. That's what people want and that's what they hear, that's what they have been and will continue to respond to, you can keep playing this tune of yours but no one except the far left is dancing to it.
Before the flood starts, I just want to note that the woman in the video (at the top of the post) committed a serious breach of media editting. She had vocals in the background music! This makes it difficult to hear what she is saying, especially for folks like me who have some hearing loss. Not that she was saying much of importance, but it just makes it more annoying.
Let that be an example of what *not* to do, for all you lefty video producers out there.
Okay, everyone, grab yer rowboats!
Dave-
You've nailed it. I would like to see a dialogue with you and Glenn Greenwald. I like his writing as well as yours, but I don't think he's aware of the company Ron Paul keeps.
He's anti-war and anti-tax. That's what people want and that's what they hear, that's what they have been and will continue to respond to
So you're telling us that people only hear what they want to hear, and only pay attention to things that confirm what they want to believe, and that's a good thing? You think its a bad things to try and convince people to take a more nuanced stance on a candidate that reaches beyond "he's anti-war & anti-tax and bugger the rest!"?
In 2000, G.W. was against "nation building" and was definitely anti-tax. How'd that work out for you?
In my experience, the "liberals" and "moderates" who have come to support Ron Paul are primarily from the class of voter I like to call "The Cynically Ignorant". They are predominantly the hipster class of young(er) folks who often don't even want anything to do with politics and are, by their own words, ignorant of politics.
They simply hear "Libertarian" and "end the Iraq War" and look no deeper. Sad really, most of the Ron Paul supporters I know would be horrified to hear of his political views if they were from another politician, but cognitive dissonance has set in and they simply won't believe anything you tell them after that...
I keep trying to tell people that Ron Paul is the most dangerous man in the presidential race, but people don't want to hear it.
I keep trying to tell people that Ron Paul is the most dangerous man in the presidential race, but people don't want to hear it.
It's hard to be seen as the most dangerous when so much of the competition is enthusiastically endorsing expanded torture programs and pre-emptive nuclear war on other countries.
Prunes,
He's dangerous because his policies and views are, IMO, more extreme than even the rest of the rightie field yet he has, by and large, successfully cloaked them in Anti-War, pro-constitution rhetoric, allowing his radical ideas to fly under the radar of many less-informed voters. This may actually allow him to succeed among the less-informed voters in primary states.
If he is then able to parlay that to a win, god help us. His rhetoric will be just as effective with ill-informed voters in the general election. If he were elected to office he would do more damage to our national system of government in a year than the less-idealistic, more greedy Bushies have done in 7.
The problem, though, is the biggest threat facing the United States, or even the world, is the bipartisan (Democrat and Republican) "empire project" that thinks we have a right or a duty to intervene wherever our business elites think is useful.. Chalmers Johnston is right-the machine is intertwined deeply with both political parties. Look at Hillary, she fully accepts and propagates the kind of militaristic, city-on-the-hill violent American Exceptionalism that is bankrupting the United States. As does O-bomb-a.
A Paul Presidency might be a disaster for the United States, but it might also mean far less interference with the rest of the world. That's a pretty good tradeoff, imo. At least, the political chaos and infighting would make it more difficult to attack Iran and Syria.
ditto to the "you totally nailed it" comment. Most days, I agree with most everything Glenn Greenwald writes, but the Ron Paul love seems desperate. National heath care? Forget about if Paul's elected.
I'm glad you are taking issue with Mr. Greenwald's article on Ron Paul. I read G.G. from time to time and like you, I generally find him insightful even if I don't agree with him.
I didn't find the article about Ron Paul to be insightful and I didn't agree with it. The article read like insipid, fawning praise of the latest netroots money maker. Maybe I'll conceed that the article was written more about netroots fundraising than Ron Paul, but to ignore who this candidate is and what he actually represents seemed irresponsible. I would have thought Mr. Greenwald knew better.
In my experience, the "liberals" and "moderates" who have come to support Ron Paul are primarily from the class of voter I like to call "The Cynically Ignorant".
The upsurge in liberal support for Ron Paul is the inevitable result of taking impeachment off the table.
I won't even argue with you about Ron Paul but surely you'll admit that there's a gigantic hole right in the middle of the political dialog in the US that comes from the fact that neither major party will address the war or Bush's destruction of the Constitution.
So anybody who puts his back up and fights is going to get some support. Whether it's a guy who wants to abolish the IRS, a guy who bellives in UFOs or a nutty old man from Alaska who's been out of politics for 30 years, it doesn't matter.
It doesn't take "cynicism" to recognize that. Put impeachment back on the table, and Ron Paul's support will once again be confined to his "extremist" niche.
"In 2000, G.W. was against "nation building" and was definitely anti-tax. How'd that work out for you?"
Difference being Paul has a well laid track record of practicing what he preaches, as far as the far righties, eh, who else usually hangs around when you talk of limited government? What i notice is that they are not the ones he is addressing and they are in the minority of people responding to his message, which has everything to do with small government and non-intervention policy at a time when civil liberties are being abused and we're dying for and being hated by a world that neither wants nor needs our assistance. no one cares about these groups because it is not their message that is resonating, in all reality it isn't even Paul's message that is resonating, he just got lucky enough to tap into a hunger for a freerer world and if these connect the dots scenarios are the best you can dig up, i don't think his movement is going to slow any because of who it was that bothered to show up 10-20 years ago...
But-even if we were impeaching W, some of us are still not convinced that the Democrats are not complicit in many of his crimes. There's a bipartisan foreign policy consensus whose poisons are infecting us. Carter-supported the Shah (feebly) to the end, ok'ed the Indonesian assault on East Timor, started (along with cownboy Democratic Congressman) the disastrous funding of jihadists in Afghanistan, started the Central American covert terrorism and wars, etc. etc. That's not even going back before the 1970s.
Flying Monkey: Put impeachment back on the table, and Ron Paul's support will once again be confined to his "extremist" niche.
I agree. I think that would be the death-knell for the support he has from moderates and the politically unaffiliated.
Brian: ...A Paul Presidency might be a disaster for the United States, but it might also mean far less interference with the rest of the world. That's a pretty good trade off, imo.
I agree, it would be good for the rest of the world. Unfortunately for me and my family, we live in the US.
I think Arthur Silber get's it. As summarized by Empire Burlesque:
"As Silber notes, the Republicans proudly champion torture, Hitlerite aggressive war, and iron-fisted domestic tyranny; they think such things are good. The Democrats, in contrast, say they oppose all this, that such things are evil. Yet they do not and will not act to fight against these things. Given this undeniable fact, Silber poses the question:
So which is worse? Those who support evil, but insist they believe it is good? Or those who support evil while claiming, at least some of the time, that they actually know it is evil?"
I agree. I think that would be the death-knell for the support he has from moderates and the politically unaffiliated.
The danger isn't Ron Paul.
Here's the danger.
1.) You have a tremendous amount of populist rage, from the left (anti-war) and the right (anti-immigrant).
2.) You have a weak Republican field (Hagel or any Republican who might pull the party back from the abyss isn't running) and a Democratic Party elite determined to ram a pro-war candidate (Hillary) down our throats.
So what happens? The Democrats pull a 1968 and bury the anti-war wing of their party. They put up a candidate (hillary) who's complicity in an unpopular war. Left populists are demoralized and stay home.
On the other hand, with a candidate who represents the corrupt pro-war oligarchy and a party that's just crushed its own populist base, the Republicans now get to run as anti-immigrant populists from the right. Any of their weak candidates can do it. This pulls the whole political terrain far to the right and opens up the anti-immigrant movemnent to the mainstream.
The danger isn't Ron Paul speaking for the anti-immigrant movement. It's Rudy. And this WILL happen.
Flying Monkey: I actually agree with you -- Rudy is a far greater threat, because he's an authoritarian dictator in the making, and he actually could win.
It's a good point Flying Monkey, and definitely one to think on.
The thing that drives me nuts is that this "hole" in the political discourse is so artificial. Last I looked there were three democratic candidates calling for The same sort of repeals on presidential authority and warmongering, (Dodd, Kuchinich and Gravel), but they don't get play.
Ron Paul gets the "Man bites dog" note and everyone pays attention, ignoring the rest of his background. The Three democratic candidates saying what we apparently want to hear are "extremists" to be left out of any serious debate.
But yes, I too rank Guliani as being more of a threat to the United States than Ron Paul, but quite frankly, at this stage ANY of the Republican candidates are completely unacceptable. Ron Paul's only notable for being an quirky and unusual form of totally unacceptable.
Miranda:
It's not who showed up -- it's who Paul actively sought out, as recently as this year. It's who has constituted his base for the past 20 years, a base he has assiduously cultivated.
I mean, try reading the post, fer crissakes -- Paul was the guest of honor at a banquet held by the Patriot Network in 2004.
Ah, forget it. You're a True Believer, for whom facts are only so much flotsam.
I take it back, it's not the far left that has a problem with Ron Paul it's the centrists. The Far left and the Far right and the libertarians have 2 issues that take priority: Imperialism abroad and Fascism at home. Stop the killings, the wars, the occupations, the renditions and torture, restore the rule of law. None of the other issues matter as much as these. If kucinich or Gravel or anyone else on the left had a shot i'd support them, but they don't and Paul does. Not much of a shot, but a better one than Gravel or Kucinich. but the centrists are not too concerned with these issues, they'd rather play the left-right blue state red state game. They'd rather discuss gay marriage and social security and education and they don't understand why the rest of us have our priorities so different than theirs. I don't care what Paul's plans for Social Security or New Orleans are, i care about stopping the killing and restoring the republic before things get worse than they already have and Guiliana and Clinton are not going to change the Status Q, Ron Paul will. He gets my money and given the opportunity, my vote.
And that's speaking as one of the regular taxpaying citizens, not a political junkie, the same people giving Ron Paul 4.2million in 24 hours, because we have no one else. the same reason that we flood the blogs, because things have to change abnd you have to shake the political numbness off the rest to get your voice not only heard but reckoned with. It is a revolution and Paul is just the lucky one who's hit the right notes.
Yep...Miranda sums it up.
Sadly, though, Flying Monkey is also right-We will get Giuliani.
But you know, maybe we DESERVE him as a nation. We are reaping what we sow?
The Chinese are already pulling their reserves out of the dollar, Oil is spiking about $100/barrel soon, so Rudy il Duce will not have much of an economy to play with to fund his dreams of glory.
I mean, try reading the post, fer crissakes -- Paul was the guest of honor at a banquet held by the Patriot Network in 2004.
Let me throw out a name to compare to Ron Paul that may not occur to people immediately.
William Fulbright
Fulbright was a segregationist who opposed civil rights when other southerners like Al Gore Sr. and Lyndon Johnson supported them.
He was also one of the most articulate critics of the war in Vietnam war.
On the other hand, some of the most progressive people in the Congress and the executive branch were also some of the same people responsible for escalating the war in Vietnam.
Did Fulbright's segregationist politics disqualify him from speaking on Vietnam?
(Interestingly enough, Fulbright was also incredibly hostile to Israel and earned one of the first AIPAC hit campaigns).
the same people giving Ron Paul 4.2million in 24 hours
It's interesting to think about how much money the liberal blogs could raise for Kucinich if they could get by his height and personal quirks and go all out for him the way they did for Ned Lamont or Darcy Burner or any other number of bland, WASP centrist mediocrities.
Kos, Atrios, and the various other liberal online bigwigs got confortable and started to think of thsemelves as players with access to the Democratic power elite and not outsiders the way they thought of themselves when they got behind Dean.
Well, I've always considered Fulbright's legacy tainted for exactly this reason. (Incidentally, Al Gore Sr. also voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.) Though it's worth remembering that for hard-core segregationists, Fulbright was considered "soft." In fact, he was opposed in the Democratic primary in 1968 by Justice Jim Johnson of the White Citizens Council for just that reason.
That's the same White Citizens Council that eventually became the Council of Conservative Citizens. The group that now is among some of Ron Paul's most avid supporters.
ugh, pundits. You'll just have to wait and see. you are all missing the populism that's going to sweep the slate this season.
i'm telling you, i go to the Paul forums and meetup groups. they already know this stuff, the libertarians know it, the conservatives know it the liberals know, but it just doesn't matter to any of us and as the econmy gets more shaky, the dollar drops, the oil prices rise... they are not looking to the dems to save us from the repubs and certainly not the other way round. they want to start over and if you look at the mood of the country and congress's approval ratings so do most of americans. This stuff about the rascist and what not seems petty and catty by comparison.
That's the same White Citizens Council that eventually became the Council of Conservative Citizens. The group that now is among some of Ron Paul's most avid supporters.
Amy Goodman had a couple of these people on Democracy Now multiple times in 2000 when it surfaced that John Ashcroft and Trent Lott had ties to the CCC.
They're basically the white collar version of the KKK. But back in 2000, they were solidly behind Bush. And in 1980 the KKK openly endorsed Ronald Reagan.
What does it mean now that these white collar racists are endorsing an anti-war candidate? I get the stated support for civil liberties. They like guns and they don't like hate crimes laws.
But in 1980 and 2000 they were supporting hard core pro-Israel, pro-war, pro-interventionist candidates.
In 2008, some of them have broken off from the Reagan/Bush consensus and they're as sick of the war in Iraq as people on the left are?
What's driving this? Immigration?
Wouldn't a hard core racist be able to get his racist satisfactions by getting behind Rudy and cheering on the bombing of Iran?
"Wouldn't a hard core racist be able to get his racist satisfactions by getting behind Rudy and cheering on the bombing of Iran?"
Actually white seperatists(they don't refer to themselves as supremists anymore) like arabs and persians because they in turn don't like jews, at least that's what it appeared to be when i checked out the stormfront controversy. and they think all the mid east wars are on behalf of israel anyway, white boys dying for jewish kids, they don't like it.
White supremism is kind of out of fad for white racists, the "cool" thing now is racial seperatism, it finds them allies in other races(believe it or not) and they get to poretend that they are not carrying on with the racial genocides and nazism of the 20th century. There biggest concerns right now are immigration(as flying monkey pointed out), resisting the federal government(the ZOG as they call it), and globalization. as such they are very nativist(of course) but not imperialistic. They believe Persian should be able to do what they wnat in their "homeland", jews in theirs, and whites in theirs. The see interventionism and globalization as attempts at eliminating the white race or at least negating it's influence in the world. this is the prevailing view in north america and europe for poor uneducated white male racists. Think "Turner Diaries" and Tim Mcveigh.
Personally, i'm a mullato and a libertarian(of sorts), racism isn't in my blood or worldview(it's the ugliest for of collectivism i can think of).
But again outside of the racist websites i don't see any of these people represented in the Ron Paul movement, if they are at the rallies or meetup groups they keep their views on such matters to themselves(rightly so as the majority of Paul supporter wouldn't tolerate it). Same with the 9/11 truthers, i haven't met one one outside of 9/11 Truth websites yet, they don't make their presence known(and of course they have their own reasons for hating the war and distrusting the feds).
The people i see, the people meeting in person, congregating on the web, putting up signs, and showing up to rallies are normal people who want a change.
The few nuts that have tagged along do so only because their world view supports Paul's goals to a point, but no further than that, only to a point, and that's ending the Wars and scaling back the State.
and they think all the mid east wars are on behalf of israel anyway, white boys dying for jewish kids, they don't like it.
Yes. I get this.
And I see why David doesn't like Ron Paul. He thinks Paul frames his opposition to the war in Iraq in a way that points people to anti-semitic politics without his actually saying it himself.
That's the same criticism some people make of Walt and Mearsheimer. Their book on the Israel Lobby isn't anti-semitic but by arguing that the only reason the USA is in Iraq is the Israel lobby the book becomes a gateway drug to anti-semitism.
And I'll admit this point to a certain extent. Justin Raimondo, for example, a big Ron Paul supporter, can occasionally cross the line over into traditional Der Strurmer imagery.
http://antiwar.com/justin/?
artic...articleid=11867
Cheney isn't a "neocon" – in the same way a dog is not a flea. Cheney has neocons, however, just like man's best friend is often beset by similar pests.
That's white collar anti-semitism.
But here's the problem. The Democrats don't have a coherent explanation for the war in Iraq and a philosophically coherent argument against American imperialism.
Every liberal limits himself to pragmatic opposition to the war. "The troops don't have enough body armor" or "we really didn't have enough boots on the ground" or "George Bush is stupid and didn't do it right".
I saw Howard Dean on MSNBC the other day and he refused to say the war was wrong, only that it was a "mistake".
That creates a vacuum.
exactly, and right now Paul is the one filling that vacuum for a lot of different people. That's not to say Kucinich or Gravel and like minded people havn't said the same things, like i said, even though i don't agree with a lot of their politics, if they had the momentum, i'd support them.
As to "neocon" = "jew", i've heard that elsewhere, but i don't think it holds water. Neo-conservatism is a reality and it behaves exactly as it is described, one only need to read Kristol's "the neoconservative persuasion" to understand why it is the ire of both Mcgovernite liberals and paleocons and libertarians. Neoconservatisim behaves in the way that white racists have always claimed that judaism behaved. they are wrong about jews but right about "neocons".
that would be Irving Kristol of course, not to be confused with his little boy William "Bill" Kristol who i'm sure you're all familiar with.
Frankly, the way the Paul movement instantly shows up to astroturf any criticism is more than a little creepy.
What I want to know is what's going to happen to these right-wing extremists after Paul's inevitable nationwide defeat in the primaries. The cult of personality has been built up to a fever pitch, and the Paul Machine is not going to go gentle into that good night.
Excellent post, Dave!
Just so you know, the comment from Glenn that you quoted at length was directed to me, and my previous comment quoted posts from both you and Sara: "'No fault of his own'" and "The Trouble with Ron".
I read the description of how "experts" and the public think about foreign policy.
http://letters.salon.com/
opinion...c1e8cb2b38.html
OTOH, one reason he reaches beyond his hard core--aside from those Glenn already discussed--is that he expresses himself in terms of a set of assumptions that are common to how citizens, as opposed to policy elites, tend to think about foreign policy and America's relation to the world. I wrote about this--though not with Ron Paul in mind, in a diary I wrote this weekend at OpenLeft.
What struck me about it is that it's completely depoliticized. It assumes that there's no class conflict between "experts" and the great unwashed.
It also discounts how the experts who get into the media and get to testify by congress are chosen according to hell well they serve corprorate interests.
For example, during the runup to the war in Iraq, when the Democratically controlled Senate Foreign relations committe under Joe Biden held hearings, they chose Richard Perle but not Scott Ritter or Dennis Halliday.
When the great unwashed deluged Feingold's and the other Democrats offices with complaints, Biden decided to put Richard Butler in front of Congress but not Scott Ritter.
Note, all these men are experts and had a similar way of thinking about foreign policy but they were speaking for different class interests.
The experts in the foreign policy establishment who want to "save Darfur" have a different class interests than the great unwashed who might have to go to fight to "save Darfur".
Isn't it in the class interests of most Americans to oppose foreign interventionism? Isn't that as much of the reason Obama isn't clicking as his style is?
Thanks, Paul. I owe you a hat tip.
David,
The pleasure's all mine!
The interesting thing was that I came back again, directly addressed his points and quoted you guys again--or it might have just been Sara. Anyway, he responded by saying he respected both of your work, and would look into it further. So I'm optimistic.
Flying Monkey.
First of all, it's not that class doesn't matter. These are findings that reflect class to a certain extent (you don't find a lot of working-class foreign policy experts) and yet are impervious to class to a certain extent (Chomsky understands and can speak this language.)
Second, I'm a hardcore pluralist. I never expect any one perspecitve to explain everything. So this analytic lens was not expected to pick up everything, and the fact that it doesn't pick up something in no way means that I think less of what it misses.
Hope this helps.
Flying Monkey's comments in this thread have left me speechless.
Dead on. Powerful. Disturbing.
Thanks.
I think.
Miranda,
Some people probably will call me a centrist and I'm guessing you will too since education, Social Security, equal rights, and civil liberties are important issues to me. I'm also concerned about a runaway military budget, not to mention a runaway military. Peak water and peak oil are on the radar as well as a host of other issues. But here's the thing, the president and government's ability to comprehensively address the really big issues we're facing is limited, by design. Perhaps that was the founder's failure. Either way, Ron Paul's election to the presidency will not, as you say, save or restore the republic.
If you ask me, I recommend you grab someone you love, say aye to government programs you think are worth preserving or enhancing, and let the rest go. I'm voting for Kucinich in the primary, the Democratic nominee in the general election, and then cross my fingers.
Good night and good luck.
Just relax. I've contributed more than $1000 to Ron Paul's campaign. I will be attending the local WA state Republican caucus to push his candidacy. But I don't think he will get the nomination. And, partly because of his candidacy, many people who would otherwise vote Republican will not vote for whichever swine does get the GOP nomination. So Hillary Clinton will be the next President and we can all complain about our troops still being in Iraq in 4 years.
In the meantime, enjoy the ghost of Barry Goldwater savaging the big-government Christianist monster that the GOP has become.
Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are the only candidates that call American Imperialism 'imperialism' and want to end the goddamned war now.
Given those facts, this unsubstantiated talk of Ron Paul being linked to racism is absolutely tone deaf.
That said, I'll vote Kucinich or Edwards in the primary. It might be tempting to vote for Paul in a Hillary-Ron general election match-up (and laugh if Ron Paul wins - laugh in Canada, eh).
Not convinced.
If Ron Paul is such a loony, then why is he so much better at selling the Constitution to voters than you are?
Your willingness to sacrifice an opportunity to restore the Constitutional principles Ron Paul espouses and you both share, simply because you disagree on one or two issues, is troubling.
Your approach saddles you--saddles us, really--with a huge missed opportunity.
You could be exploiting Ron Paul's Constitutional issues and educating his base on key Constitutional points that matter most to you. An extremely diverse coalition can't be ignored so easily---and Ron Paul's candidacy can be used as leverage against Hillary to pry loose some real substantive adherence to principle (among other establishment "Democrats" that are equally complicit in assisting Bush).
I mean, go make your case that pro-choice feminists are really libertarian women of faith who really, really don't need Big Government in their beds, controlling their bodies, or sticking its nose in the most difficult moral decision any human can make. I'd never let Big Government make those decisions for me: imagine Tony Scalia or Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy demanding I have children or deciding when I can and cannot have an abortion.
Ron Paul has a moral position on that, so what.
But no single issue should be privileged over the Constitution as a whole. No litmus test should override the tremendous gain to be had by driving home your message to a wider audience, cementing a Constitutional alliance that breaks the stranglehold of the Liebermans and Clintons, Bushes and Schumers.
As a progressive, I have to say that only when you support Ron Paul's valid concerns about restoring the Constitution--only then will you be able to claim others' obedience to your own pet issues.
Rather than marginalize him or smear him, build a cross-party alliance that outflanks the dastardly triangulating middle.
Dave, this is a great post. Your analysis of Paul's political role is the best I've seen.
I was also a bit taken aback by how hard Glenn Greenwald seemed to be trying in that post of his to find something to admire in Paul's political philosophy. He seems to really be hoping to find some of those fabled "principled conservatives" out there. Maybe he will. But Ron Paul's principles look more like hard right dogma to me.
Flying Monkey has a very good point about Ron Paul having the potential to get Giuliani elected (or Romney, or Maverick McCain). But I worry about a different variation on that scenario. Which would be that Ron Paul makes a third party run in 2008, concentrating on close states like Florida. The Dems fail to make a strong enough antiwar stance and Paul pulls enough antiwar voters to kick the election to the Republicans. I'm sure the Reps could find ways to facilitate that strategy.
The Dems need to make sure their antiwar message comes through clearly. If they do that, then they can emphasize Paul's far-right credentials and maybe even turn the tables, so that some of the anti-tax and anti-immigrant and neosegregationist crowd vote for him over the Republicans.
I'm assuming like I think most people do that Paul's popular appeal is largely based on his antiwar stance. But is there real polling data to back that up? I haven't dug into the polling numbers enough to really have a good idea.
Dave, your response of the "guilt-by-association" issues was on point. Such things really are a matter of judgment. But that's not the same as saying it's totally subjective. It would be silly for anyone to assume that because I'm praising this post of yours that I agree with everything you say in every post. But since I'm saying explicitly that I'm in agreement with your take in this post, it's perfectly reasonable for people to assume that I agree with your take in this post.
Which is the point you make about Ron Paul. It's not that some kooks are attracted to some point or other about him. (Is there any political campaign that doesn't attract some kooks?) It's that he has a clear record of mainstreaming extremist themes and catering to far-right groups.
The Far left and the Far right and the libertarians have 2 issues that take priority: Imperialism abroad and Fascism at home.
Actually, lots of libertarians don't care about Imperialism abroad, or Fascism at home. And last time I checked, the Far Right is 100% in favor of Fascism at home, whether they want Imperialism or not. It's really the mis-named "Far Left" that care about those two things together.
"The real problem with the success of Paul's candidacy is not only that it helps to legitimize and mainstream his extremist beliefs, but that it also dramatically empowers the very extremist elements that Greenwald dismisses as an insignificant faction of his support..."
David seems worried that Ron Paul "might" legitimize far right views cause he "associated" with some groups considered to be racist or extreme right.
meanwhile, David conveniently forget to mention the current reality of extreme, immoral and unconstitutional views that "have been put in practice" by Bush and his cronies which have not only been legitimized by the support of the dems but also legalized with their help.
I guess David is right, Ron Paul is a loony to suggest that preemptive war is morally wrong and wasting the taxpayer's money is a crime cause Ron hangs with crazy whiteys.
However, when David's Pals Hillary and Guliani espouse pre-emptive nuclear war and hang out with Israel first extremist who propose ethnic cleansing of certain arabic groups.. well it's just dandy by him
BTW, which group has more firepower and money.. crazy whitey Ron Paul supporters or Israel First supporters of the neocon agenda?
But David thanks for alerting me to the danger of crazy whitey and the new world order, I feel so much safer now in the hands of the Hillary, Guliani crowds
sam
Shorter Dave re Ron: Okay, I really shouldn't judge a candidate by the most extreme beliefs of his most extremist followers. But I don't like this candidate so I'm going to do it anyway. But at least I'm not going to call him a fag. So that's something, anyway.
*sigh*
Yes, sam, Dave hasn't mentioned Bush's authoritarianism and illegal extra-Constitutional activities at all...
If you ignore almost every damn thing that has been written on the blog for the past few years.
Those of us who've actually taken the time to read this blog know that the context of Dave's reports on Ron Paul isn't merely "Man, this presidential candidate is a loon" but "By the way, all the Republican presidential candidates are loons, even that guy who talks about being anti-war.
This stuff about the rascist and what not seems petty and catty by comparison.
To whom? How many black or Jewish supporters has Paul got?
Frankly, the way the Paul movement instantly shows up to astroturf any criticism is more than a little creepy.
I think it's the Paulists' greatest liability. It reinforces the impression of a cult-like, "nutty" cabal of people. Imagine how weird it would be if any posting on any blog, of whatever persuasion, that criticized (say) Giuliani, got comment-bombed like that.
What I want to know is what's going to happen to these right-wing extremists after Paul's inevitable nationwide defeat in the primaries. The cult of personality has been built up to a fever pitch, and the Paul Machine is not going to go gentle into that good night.
Their paranoia goes into overdrive, because they've convinced themselves that all this internet buzz represents genuine mass support and that the polls don't mean anything. What happens after that depends on what Paul decides to do. I hope he runs as a third candidate and that his supporters turn out for him in droves and flip a few states from red to blue, thus guaranteeing Hillary the White House. This election is going to be lost by whichever side sees its hard-core ideological element desert to a third candidate when the nominee tacks to the center for the general election. There's a good chance that's going to be the Republicans.
Fresh,
Yes, it's true I have not read dave's blog much.. maybe he has called Hillary a war enabler.. and if so much credit to him
But as you say all the repubs are loony OK fine I believe that as well.. I would go further to also say that all the major Dem candidates are loony as well (apart from gravel and kucinich) especially the ones (hilary, obama, edwards..) that went on record and voted for not just loony but criminal and insane policies.
Not trying to get into a Republican/Democrat loony contest here but i'll take the Ron Paul loony over the evil, criminal and insane loony of Hilary, Guliani and company
Carter approved the Indonesian invasion of East Timor? Why did Indonesia ask the former Governor of Georgia for permission? In 1975 Gerald Ford was President....
Long-time reader (really!), very few comments.
Just wanted to poke my head in and say that, after reading a few of the comment pages on your RP posts, I really wish people would read more of what you write Dave. The first essay of yours I ever read was your bit on the Bush family history and it was a real eye-opener. I've always enjoyed your take on politics in general and look forward to seeing more in the future. One of these days I'll have to buy a few books:p
As for the whole Ron Paul thing, I'm curious as to what percentage of his support comes from white supremecists/neo-nazis. I'm just thinking back to my first election (oh 2000, how shocking you were) when I voted for Nader. I remember the great pull for him were his stances on voter education and more options on the ballot (I really wish we could vote "None of the above..."). Much past that I didn't really pay attention. I was also very dedicated at the time to talking to people about Nader, attempting to convince them to vote for him. I'm hoping that most of his supporters these days are more like I was back then, and I REALLY hope that the ones like "Soccer Mom" from the comment thread on the post you linked to at the top of this one are few and far between.
Talk about squirrely... yowza!
I have to admit, I haven't been following your posts too closely these days, I've been awfully busy, but I wonder if it's not worth looking into what the percentage of extremist right-wing supporters Ron Paul has--if it's at all detectable. I suppose you can't just walk outside and say, "Are you a racist and/or an anti-semite? Are you a member of a militia? How many guns do you own? Are you a Ron Paul supporter?"
I think a lot of people would probably act a little cagey to that:p
Keep up the writing!
Anon (poss. sam) -
You don't need to tell me about how much there is to object about the goddamn Democrats. I'm a socialist, and as such all the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates are pretty much People I Wouldn't Want To Vote For (As a Scot, alas, I can only register my moral outrage in blogs rather than through the ballot box). I wouldn't say the frontrunners in the Democratic Party are criminal, per se. Merely co-opted, corporatist, disorganised, directionless and weak, insomuch as that can be "merely". I recognise the war drums beating again and again for some kind of "intervention" in Iran, and the dominant ideology of the American foreign policy being American exceptionalism and hegemony. I wish there was a candidate who could point out that this ideology is wrong-headed, inflammatory and downright dangerous who has a chance of being elected, because that would be a turning point for America and for the world at large. From that angle, yes, Paul looks somewhat attractive.
But again, as a socialist, there is a limit to who I can ally with.
I cannot ally with a man who wishes for a lost mythical golden age of the 19th century.
I cannot ally with a man who has cultivated - not just gained, actively cultivated - the vote of xenophobic proto-fascists, racists and anti-government conspiracy theorists.
I cannot ally with a man whose economic policies would release far more private tyranny and private misery towards ordinary working people than any meagre amount of public freedom gained.
I cannot ally with a man whose wholehearted obsession with negative liberties would destroy the positive liberties modern working people have gained; we cannot just have abstract rights, we need the ability to use those rights to the greatest possible degree.
I cannot ally with a man who cares more for the 19th century interpretation of a document than the needs of the people right now (that constitutionalism works both ways, y'all; no waterboarding but no healthcare, no Guantanamo but no social security, no Iraq War but no foreign aid).
I know "at least the Democrat won't shit on us quite as much as the Republican will, either with social, economic or foreign policy" isn't much of a ringing endorsement of the Democratic Party. It isn't meant to be. It never will be. It simply reflects the fact that while I worry for the condition of the American people under a Democratic President, I worry for the American people full stop under any of the Republicans, whether that be through the enforcement of an authoritarian state under Guiliani or the enforcement of a multitude of authoritarian corporations under Paul.
These are findings that reflect class to a certain extent (you don't find a lot of working-class foreign policy experts) and yet are impervious to class to a certain extent (Chomsky understands and can speak this language.)
There are working class people who talk about foreign policy.
The clearest example is the runup to the invasion of Iraq. The anti-war movement, the various anarchist, socialist, Indymedia, radical media outlets got it dead right.
They were able to listen to the legitimate authorities on Iraq (Scott Ritter and Dennis Halliday) because it was in their class interest to do so. It's not that everybody in the anti-war movement is a proletarian (Noam Chomsky defines "elite") but that they were consciously speaking from the working-class, democratic with a small "d" perspective that came out of Seattle and the anti-globalization movement.
On the other hand the LIBERALS who controlled the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in August of 2002 (Biden, Kerry, Wellstone, Feingold) couldn't hear the truth, not because they were bad but because they represented the corporate elite. Even Wellstone couldn't break ranks.
Here's the problem.
When the elites are united in support of the military industrial complex, when the media, both major political parties and academia is united in wanting to bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran, dissent is often going to be distorted, conspiratorial, even racist. But it's not always wrong. I remember black people in the 80s talkign about the CIA bringing crack into the country. I thought they were crazy. They were right.
Ron Paul articulates the paranoia that some white men in the heartland have about the government. The trick isn't to suppress this paranoia but to articulate it in a more accurate, more scientific, more of a class conscious way. But the Democratic Party can't do this because they're a ruling class, pro-imperialist party. They and their supporters literally can't understand why we're in Iraq.
Dave, one criticism. There are conspiracies. Stop condemning the concept of conspiracies and confront which ones are patently false and which ones are true. The term "conspiracy theory" has been flogged in the media to avoid dissent and to avoid discussing the criminality of our government, just like Germans who worried about the loss of civil liberties under the Nazis were dismissed as "alarmists." Considering how many of the people in government have been indicted, and how many SHOULD BE indicted, it seems that we should have more conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists, otherwise known as prosecutors, looking into these criminal gangs.
In fact, by using term as merely a right-wing insult that dismisses all "conspiracy theories" you weaken your ability to criticisize many of your targets. The "worldwide Jewish conspiracy," for example, is not all that different from many corporate goals or our government's foreign policy post WWII. The Jewish part is the okey doke, but corporatists have been trying to control the world economy since the beginning of the 20th Century. People who actually believe that there's a worldwide "Jewish conspiracy" keep voting for the representatives of the corporatists who have been trying to control the world economy. There's the disconnect. People are told its George Soros and not the executive board of Exxon. Why do the right-wing hoi polloi support the people who are screwing them over? Because they are not informed, not because there aren't people trying to screw them over.
Some very clever person on the internet used to tag his posts with the expression: "One man's conspiracy theory is another man's business plan." When you use "conspiracy theory" as a vague, undifferentiated insult you are saying that the act of trying to consider if an organized criminal activity underlies something is by its very nature dangerous and politically right-wing. Your version of "Ignorance is Strength" fits nicely alongside "War is Peace."
This isn't a criticism of the piece, merely your continued failure to call criminal activities of the elite what they are--conspiracies.
Woodrwofan at 5:54:
Google is your friend. "Started" was an inaccuracy on my part, but Saint Jimmy certainly loved and supported his "anti-communist" generals:
"Indeed by late 1977 the Indonesians literally began to run out of weapons in its campaign to destroy the Timorese. The Carter Administration stepped in and increased military aid and weapons sales to the Indonesians, which resulted in Indonesia’s stepped up campaigns of 1978 to 1980 when the level of killing reached genocidal levels. "
http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvt...rEvts/
sunil.htm
And no, this is not some right wing source. Of course, most here would not credit Z Magazine either, because it does not follow the prevailing DLC/GOP Consensus View of the Glory of the American Empire (tm) and the need to crown the Glorious Hillary as first Empress
Ron Paul articulates the paranoia that some white men in the heartland have about the government. The trick isn't to suppress this paranoia but to articulate it in a more accurate, more scientific, more of a class conscious way. But the Democratic Party can't do this because they're a ruling class, pro-imperialist party. They and their supporters literally can't understand why we're in Iraq.
Flying Monkey is right again. When you have a "choice" that is no choice, why are you so surprised when people look to the fringes, especially when the fringe candidates are right on the single most pressing issue of the day. We are preapring to invade Iran right now, and the Democratic Party has done nothing but enable these plans through mealy mouth pronouncements whose basic theme is we demand the right to control the world-at whatever cost. The Democratic Party can't even hold the line of Waterboarding, for Christ's sake!
As for the argument that Paul supports a deep tradition of kooky beliefs, true. So what? The mainstream establishment has supported an equally kooky set of beliefs-Manifest Destiny, Monroe Doctrine, Shining City on the Hill that is the only hope of mankind, etc. Why do you not talk about the inherent kookiness of the mainstream consensus? This is a consensus that has dropped nuclear bombs on civllians and has led to the death of hundreds of thousands in our latest debacle. Every politican has nuts and kooks that support him or her. Rudy has outright mobster/criminals in his Administration!
I am not a Paulista. Heck, I'm a government bureaucrat, and I think he does have some very kooky beliefs. But, he is right on the most important issues.
Whatever personal criticism of Dr. Paul there may be, in order to understand his position and that of many of his (not-so-benighted) supporters, it will require some delving into comparatively ancient history, circa 1937.
In that year, after having his New Deal legislation continually rebuffed by the Supreme Court as being unConstitutional, FDR threatened to pack the SC with his picked men. The SC capitulated...and has been noted, even before then, the Commerce Clause had been interpreted as having much vaster breadth and depth than the Founders evidently felt it originally should have. The legal justification for many modern social welfare programs i.e. Social Security, stem from this interpretation. But that's what it was; an interpretation, and a politically motivated one. From the view of Paulists, this constituted a wrong turn which caused an imbalance in the uneasy but necessary juggling between Fed, State and local powers, resulting in greater Fed suzerainty.
That imbalance has also been reflected in the accretion of powers to the Federal Executive Branch at the expense of the Legislative and Judicial Branches, one that has recently gotten worse with packing the SC with Federalist Society ideologues (who don't practice their 'federalist' cant when it threatens that Fed dominance, see Scalia's actions in being thankful for the presence of New Deal exemplar legal case Wickard when previously he had disliked it, as it allowed him to scotch Raich with its threat to that Federal suzerainty).
From such a Constitutional 'wrong turn' a huge Federal edifice has grown. That edifice includes what we euphemistically call the Imperial Presidency, and all the misery that has resulted from loosening the restrictions upon what a President may or may not do, restrictions clearly defined in the Constitution but rarely utilized and thus are relegated to the 'fever swamps' of Constitutional scholarship. Dennis Kucinich recently tried to warm up and use those means of throttling an out-of-control President and his own party began poor-mouthing themselves, saying they wouldn't do it, because of the same reasons of not 'rocking the boat' as Raich would have threatened to do.
The entire social safety net - such as exists after decades of cutting holes in it - is derived from that Constitutionally artificial burgeoning of Fed power...that carries with it the seeds of proposed tyranny as the 'unitary executive' implies. The bad was wrapped up in the good, and few bothered to unwrap it to see what might be at the core. Now we know. But the damn things are intertwined, now. It's like conjoined twins who share a heart. Try to surgically separate one, the other dies. To return to the original intent of the Founders regarding Constitutional scope of powers will destroy the social safety net in toto.
It may require the most dangerous of all remedies, a Constitutional Convention, to untangle this mess, by making fundamental changes in the nature of governing by revising the Constitution. And if you think there's screaming now, better put your earplugs in first before you make that suggestion in public...
Flying Monkey,
You are now solidly into the realm of willful misreading, rather than innocent misunderstanding:
[me]: These are findings that reflect class to a certain extent (you don't find a lot of working-class foreign policy experts) and yet are impervious to class to a certain extent (Chomsky understands and can speak this language.)
There are working class people who talk about foreign policy.
Of course there are working class people who talk about foreign policy, you ninny. The newspaper I write for is distributed in the dispatch hall of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union. The county I live in--Los Angeles--is home to immigrants--disproportionately working class--from around the world, speaking hundreds of languages.
I was talking about foreign policy experts in the same context as the research paper I was discussing in my diary at OpenLeft that you were referring to.
Of course, you have to willfully misread me in order to launch into you pet peeve tirade:
The clearest example is the runup to the invasion of Iraq. The anti-war movement, the various anarchist, socialist, Indymedia, radical media outlets got it dead right.
They were able to listen to the legitimate authorities on Iraq (Scott Ritter and Dennis Halliday) because it was in their class interest to do so. It's not that everybody in the anti-war movement is a proletarian (Noam Chomsky defines "elite") but that they were consciously speaking from the working-class, democratic with a small "d" perspective that came out of Seattle and the anti-globalization movement.
On the other hand the LIBERALS who controlled the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in August of 2002 (Biden, Kerry, Wellstone, Feingold) couldn't hear the truth, not because they were bad but because they represented the corporate elite. Even Wellstone couldn't break ranks.
Since I was part of the Indymedia movement--and did more than anyone else to edit the LA Indymedia front page from August 2000 to December 2001--I am not criticizing this statement of yours from an outsider perspective when I say, "BULLSHIT!" Wellstone voted AGAINST the war resolution, as did Feingold.
See DW-Nomiate page on resolution votes.
Your attempt to create simplistic, demonizing dichotomies simply fails, and all it takes to disprove it is a simple glance at the voting records.
Here's the problem.
When the elites are united in support of the military industrial complex, when the media, both major political parties and academia is united in wanting to bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran, dissent is often going to be distorted, conspiratorial, even racist. But it's not always wrong.
Except that you've wildly overstated the degree of elite unanimity, especially when it comes to academia. And this sort of disingenuous apologetics differs from what the elite media does on behalf of George Bush exactly how?
Sorry, dude, but we have an obligation to be better than them. Otherwise, we end up as apologists for evil, same as them. And that's precisely what you're doing when you cover for Ron Paul.
I read the entire 800 comment brawl attached to Greenwald's article and I think I've figured out why debates on Ron Paul spin out of control.
People are LITERALLY seeing different things.
When Greenwald closes his eyes and imagines his worst fears he sees the no fly list and the patriot act, Gitmo and waterboarding.
When Neiwert closes his eyes he sees the government being "drowned in the bathtub" a la Grover Norquist, social security, the police, and emergy services being privitized.
And so Greenwald will say "social services are fucked anyway. Let's concentrate on getting rid of these authoritarian restrictions on civil liberties".
And someone like Paul Krugman will say "let's forget about Iraq and the Patriot Act for now, get a Democrat in office and make sure we keep the social safety net in place. In a few years, when people have calmed down, we can worry about the war and the Patriot Act.
So this isn't about Ron Paul. It's about the wedge in the progressive coalition.
Brian:correction noted. I was thinking of the initial invasion only and neglected to consider the aftermath.....
BULLSHIT!" Wellstone voted AGAINST the war resolution, as did Feingold.
I'm talking about the Senate foreign relations hearings in August of 2002.
The Democrats controlled them and only invited pro war voices, Richard Butler, for example, not Scott Ritter.
All I want to know is whether Ron Paul will restore my right to own slaves, as provided for in the original (that is, the real) Constitution. I'm tired of washing my own car.
Bob in Pacifica:
I've written at length about conspiracies vs. theories at some length previously. Paul's beliefs are decidedly part of the latter.
Except that you've wildly overstated the degree of elite unanimity, especially when it comes to academia. And this sort of disingenuous apologetics differs from what the elite media does on behalf of George Bush exactly how?
1.) The "Save Darfur" movement is huge in elite academia when it's clearly a scam to get US troops into Africa. Samantha Power is a key player in Obama's campaign. This allies Obama effectly with Charles Jacobs, CAMERA, and the neocons.
2.) Lee Bollinger of Columbia (how's that for elite academia) was a key player in the runup to Lieberman Kornyn. Remember the anti-Iran hatefest in New York last September was done in the name of gay rights.
3.) Hillary voted for Lieberman Cornyn. Obama sat it out.
There's an elite consensus.
Shorter Bob in Pacifica: It isn't a conspiracy theory when there actually are conspirators. Which is not to say that there aren't any actual "conspiracy theories" out there, as defined by the vernacular sense of the term; there are, and some of them are nutty, and some of them are insidious. There are also plenty of what some people would see as conspiracies but what cooler heads might label as "concerted actions." I'm seeing a lot of concerted action on behalf of Ron Paul, not all of it positive.
(Somewhat OT: Over the years, I've come to think of The X Files as being a splendid propaganda-catapulting vehicle designed with the express purpose of delegitimising any inquiry into and discussion of actual conspiracies. In this case, I would define "conspiracy" more or less in the legal sense of the term. I'm not sure whether Chris Carter intended it as such, but that's certainly how it worked out in the end, at least from where I'm sitting.)
Finding out who supports Ron Paul is pretty basic investigative journalism. The campaign finance reports on all that new dough are going to be very interesting reading for someone with the time and inclination to find out who all those people are, and what affiliations they have.
(It's the kind of thing that might make a good community journalism project, in fact....)
Based on what we've seen to date, we shouldn't be surprised if an unusual number of them turn out to have far-right connections.
Also, Brian wrote:
As for the argument that Paul supports a deep tradition of kooky beliefs, true. So what? The mainstream establishment has supported an equally kooky set of beliefs-Manifest Destiny, Monroe Doctrine, Shining City on the Hill that is the only hope of mankind, etc. Why do you not talk about the inherent kookiness of the mainstream consensus?
Brian, you're not a regular around here, are you? Because one of the things that makes this site different is that we don't do much daily news or horserace election coverage. Our job, as we see it, is to do exactly that kind of deeper analysis. We've spent almost five years talking about the deeper myths, metaphors, and archetypes that drive America to behave as it does. We often drill down to what's going on philosophically or systemically in given situations. We often compare-and-contrast current events with those of past history, and with the ideals of the Constitution, to see where we're doing better and where we're still falling short.
Because, at heart, we're convinced that liberals won't win until they put forth a coherent worldview based on solid principles that drive all our public decisions and actions. The right wing understood this early -- and it drove them to their present success. There's an equally compelling progressive worldview that too many on our side still don't understand.
It's our very commitment to that worldview that makes us reject Ron Paul. His top-level positions on the issues are all well and good; but pull that surface back, and you'll find he's coming to those positions from a completely different place -- a place that has always stood in (sometimes violent) opposition to everything the progressive movements has always stood for.
It is NOT enough for someone to agree with us on issues. They need to agree on principles, too. The right wing did not make the mistake of backing people who didn't share their principles. The fact that so many on our side can still be suckered in by mere sweet talk, while actively discounting the importance of the Paul's underlying philosophical substance, is a sobering measure of just how far we still have to go.
We are telling you that this man is made of different stuff than we are -- and wants a very different future than we do. And, in fact, the stuff he's made of and the future he wants are in diametric opposition to everything we stand for. That, in the end, is a far more important and serious consideration than anything he says about any transient issue today.
FM:
When Neiwert closes his eyes he sees the government being "drowned in the bathtub" a la Grover Norquist, social security, the police, and emergy services being privitized.
No, not really. I mean, those sound like awful things, and they certainly contribute to my darkest fear, but they're largely secondary concerns for me. When I close my eyes and think of my worst fears, it's of gangs of right-wing street thugs running about to enforce the rule of Republicans.
And someone like Paul Krugman will say "let's forget about Iraq and the Patriot Act for now, get a Democrat in office and make sure we keep the social safety net in place. In a few years, when people have calmed down, we can worry about the war and the Patriot Act.
I dunno about Krugman, but this sure as hell isn't how I think. Remember, I have been antiwar since Day 1 and before -- I helped put on antiwar teach-ins in Bellingham even before the invasion.
However, I will be upfront and say that I consider Job #1 being removal of the GOP from power. They're the wellspring of this disaster, and they deserve many years in political Siberia. And they're the main reason it's so hard to get anything achieved.
But I have no illusions about how quickly change is going to come, even when the political landscape changes. Corporate money and its power will always be with us, I'm afraid, and will always be capable of infecting even your greatest political hero's behavior, let alone the countless sellouts among the Blue Dog Dems.
So for me, it's largely a pragmatic thing: I want to be playing offense, not defense. We've been playing defense for the past 10 years, and I'm ready to look at the other end of the field. So yes, I will be voting for the Democratic nominee, and eagerly, regardless of who it is.
However, I will be upfront and say that I consider Job #1 being removal of the GOP from power.
Where we differ is that I think doing so via an impeachment process is profoundly different from doing it in 2008.
(and note Ron Paul hasn't joined Kucinich here)
Robert Parry wrote an article on why it's important not to repeat the mistakes of Iran Contra
http://www.consortiumnews.com/20...007/
110707.html
Putting a Democrat in the White House won't put Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Elliot Abrams in jail where they belong. It won't hold Bush accountable for legalizing torture. It won't restore habeas corpus.
And I genuinely believe that Hillary started the 2008 campaign early to kill the chances of impeachment. I honestly believe this. And it's why I can't vote for her, or for Obama or Edwards (both of whom played along).
This 2008 presidential campaign is a farce. It's kabuki theater. It's a campaign against democracy. Paul, Kucinich and Gravel have been the only entertaining exceptions.
I would submit that the failure to hold Nixon properly accountable - largely due to the fear that his 'Silent Majority' would no longer be silent in its' 'suffering' and instead become quite vocal and active, tearing the country further apart - was the start of the rot.
The meaning of that failure was clear; the underlings could fall on their swords, but the Big Cheese diddey-bops over the horizon with his book deals in hand...while ordinary folks are left to clean the mess, as always.
Well...the country is more divided than I remember it was during the Viet Nam War, so that earlier excuse can't be used. Yet variations of that supposedly pragmatic theme can be heard courtesy of the Pelosians. Which only serves to enable the malefactors presently in office in feeling they'll be able to make their little victory "V" wave from the hatch of Marine One as well. Just like their hero Tricky did.
Georgie, Dicky, Condi, the whole,lot, needs to see time in The Slam for what they've done as warning to other would-be Tiberius's that there are indeed consequences for abusing the enormous power that has been (unConstitutionally) vouchsafed to them. Or we can count on this happening again.
Last election two elections I had voted for all Democrats (2004 and 2006). I had many reservations, but I wanted change. I like by civil liberties and I believe the war we are waging is wrong. The Democrats are weak and stand for much I don't care for.
Then I heard about Ron Paul this year and started studying his positions.
The main issues for me:
1. Will end the war.
2. Wants to restore our Civil Liberties.
3. His ideas about monetary policy are insightful. Good thing the private Federal Reserve is printing cash like crazy, but isn't reporting the M3 numbers anymore. Value of the dollar is down. Is the price of Gold and Oil up so much all reflection of their worth, or the devaluation of the dollar?
Ron Paul has said that he would not cut social services for those that have been expecting them for years. He said it wouldn't be fair those that are dependent on the system to be thrown out in the street. He says by bringing home our troops from around the world, we would save enough money to actually pay for the social services without laying the debt on the children's feet. He would look for ways for people to get out of Social Security if they want.
I urge people to take a closer look at his ideas, and not just hear libertarian and think that all will be lost.
If he wins, I would be supportive of higher state and local taxes to keep my community up. But the money will stay more local. Less lobbyist between my community and their money.
I have been involved in many meetups for Ron Paul and have not seen any racism. Myself I am romantically involved in a mixed race relationship. I don't ever think about that fact most of the time, because I don't even see it. I'm only thinking about it now because some here are trying to portray Ron Paul supporters as racist.
Ron Paul supports the Constitution and respects the amendments that have been added. The Constitution does have the ability to change and it is a good thing that women and people of all races can vote now because of the amendments.
His message of freedom is refreshing. As he says it isn't a new idea, but neither an ancient one either. The United States of America was founded on the principles of individual liberties. It is a great experiment. An older form of government is the authoritarian type, kings and what have you.
We must protect what makes us great. Again I urge progressives to check out Ron Paul.
If you can not support him I urge those progressives to please get the sane people in the Democratic party some money and traction (Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel).
Don't be closed minded.
Brian:correction noted. I was thinking of the initial invasion only and neglected to consider the aftermath.....
It was Kissinger and Ford who greenlighted the invasion. Carter kept the arms flowing and Daniel Patrick Moynahan prevented the UN from looking too keeply into it.
Truly a bipartisan genocide.
What's more, Bill Clinton also had some big time Suharto money behind him (Google "James Riatti"). Some of that's probably behind Hillary too so, unlike Paul and David Duke (a clown really) the Clintons are obliquely connected to a real live fascist dictator who committed an actual genocide.
I actually do read your site daily, Mrs. R. 80% of the time, I agree with you all! 
Look: I'm not really a fan of most of Ron Paul's positions or principles. However, I think the Empire Project is literally facing a crisis point. We could literally lose it all, particularly given the upcoming collapse of the American (and world) economy, peak oil, and all that. The fascist state is beginning to show it's true nature now.
The United States, frankly, may not be salvageable. The authoritarianism, the founding myths, the worship of militarism, and the messianic Christianism may be too strong-particularly when combined with the power of the "military-industrial complex" and the security state.
I don't know if we have time to elect more and better Democrats, particularly when the leading candidates are all full scale proponents of the security state and the myths of American Exceptionalism that have gotten us into trouble. Every one of them believes in the basic underlying narrative, a narrative that has killed millions in the world, directly or indirectly. All in the name of your "principles" which sound so good on paper but are basically murderous.
Ron Paul is a nut on many positions. But, his nuttiness includes a pretty healthy amount of skepticism about overarching messianic prinicples. It's hard for me, when listening to Hillary or Obama, then listening to Ron Paul, to ignore that reality.
He has no chance in the world to win. I am not a Paul-ite, I am a Chalmers Johnston acolite. Heck, I am a strong believer, right now, in devolution. Sadly, there will be nasty, theocratic mini-states in this Disunited States, but, you know, the Republic of Labama probably won't be running 700 military bases and a gigantic nuclear arsenal. Maybe that's the only solution. Power corrupts. The United States, and its two-headed War Party, is pretty corrupt right now.
I jumped into the Greenwald thread later than Paul R did (without reading previous comments) but also had to disagree with Glenn about the guilt by association thing.
That has popped up in every single thread I've seen about Paul. As I said there:
Stormfronters support Paul therefore Paul is a white supremacist is a fallacy. Stating that stormfronters support Paul because he shares core beliefs with them that are conspiratorial in nature and have anti-Semtitic origins is not.
Recall the YouTube video of Alex Jones or someone working for him asking Paul if he believed there was a New World Order. Paul answered yes and cited the elder Bush's new world order remark from the first Gulf War. Timothy McVeigh was influenced by conspiracists who also thought that Bush's remark indicated the the NWO was taking over America.
That is not a "guilt by association" argument. Ron Paul is not guilty for Timothy McVeigh. But he is responsible for promoting and lending legitimacy to a belief system that has already in the past had dangerous consequences when an extremist Turner Diaries reading Gulf War vet acted on them. Do we want someone as President who believes in the NWO and has a large and passionate white supremacist following? Will this have any implications when the Turner Diary reading neo-Nazis who are currently fighting in Iraq come back home?
Another thing about Paul that bothers me is that I've heard him in the debates say that he wants the US to follow international law. I find that difficult to swallow coming from a champion of the John Birch Society who has been on the radar of the ADL and the SPLC for sometime now.
Oops: Meant Republic of ALABAMA.
Now, the First Texas Empire WILL be dangerous, but at least they won't be able to take MY tax dollars or install another Texan Oilman if my State was independent. (California)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z...h?
v=Z8DpKKSmaa8
That's the clip.
and here's a longer one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U...h?
v=UydCZJeQPPQ
"Congressman Paul, can you speak as you have in the past, to the New World Order's plan for a one world government? Will they succeed? With they [inaudible]"
Paul: "They're going to succeed if we don't do something about it."
Hume's Ghost: Do we want (yet another) President who believes it is right (or even "duty") of America to interfere and meddle throughout the world, to overthrow governments wherever he (or SHE) feels American economic interests (and it is always raw power and economics, not "principles") "justify" said intervention? No matter how many people die or how many Shah or Pinochet-style dictators are (always temporarily) propped up?
'Cause that's what the current crew of "mainstream" Democrats and Repugs believe!
Again-you folks are attacking the kooky beliefs of Paul and his crew while refusing to acknowledge how violent and dangerous and destructive the mainstream consensus is. Which consensus is more kooky and dangerous? The Paulist world view may be narrow and parcohial, but how is the mainstream consensus supportable?
The solution is dissolution!
I'd choose Chris Dodd over Paul in an instant.
Ok Hume's Ghost.
Who would you chose between Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Paul?
Stating that stormfronters support Paul because he shares core beliefs with them that are conspiratorial in nature and have anti-Semtitic origins is not.
This is going to go round and round in circles so it's not worth really pursuing, only pointing out that it points to that other of all wedge issues, Israel.
There are progressives who passionately support Israel and progressives who passionately support the Palestinians.
Which one you are determines which of these things you find more disturbing.
1.) Ron Paul's ties to Stormfront.
2.) Hillary's ties to AIPAC and the bomb Iran lobby.
I think people can honestly disagree about this but I think they need to be honest about what they disagree about.
Thanks for posting this. I was surprised when I read Glenn's post, because he seemed to be dismissing the very real concerns about Paul's record on race.
Brian: "Again-you folks are attacking the kooky beliefs of Paul and his crew while refusing to acknowledge how violent and dangerous and destructive the mainstream consensus is."
I haven't seen anyone saying "Yay, PNAC! Go American Empire!" It is, in fact, possible to think that Paul's extreme isolationism is just as damaging as the Bush drop-of-a-hat interventionist attitude is. The fact that the current "mainstream" candidates aren't articulating an alternative to these extremes is hardly something that progressives have been ignoring.
To be honest, Mr. Ghost. I probably would also. Except that he has no more chance than Paul does, and like all Democrats tied to the maisntream, you would see no real change in foreign policy.
Maybe we need a "nut" to give us shock therapy? We are more than willing to pontificate how OTHER countries need shock therapy to get their acts in gear. I think someone needs to give us a little dose of our own medicine! Ron Paul would do that more than Dodd.
I'd vote for Paul before I voted for Hillary Clinton, probably.
Of course given the choice, I'd be looking to vote for a third party candidate rather than vote for either.
Illuminancer: Monroe Doctrine, Indian Wars, Mexico, Phillipines, Dominican Republic, Panama, Haiti (multiple times), World War I and the oh so glorious Woodrow Wilson and his pernicious doctrines, Grenada.
These all predate any mention of "PNAC." The consensus is a century old. I'm sure the 200,000 dead Phillipinos and the thousands immiserated in Central and South America are pleased that we did not follow the advice of George Washington and have never been "isolationists."
You gotta get past the myth. We have been an empire a long time. I'm not convinced that is a good thing-even for us.
Maybe we need a "nut" to give us shock therapy?
That is a dangerous, dangerous sentiment. There is the germ of a nightmare in that notion.
I while back I had heard of the idea of the Unity 08 party. Something about being able to get on all 50 States ballots.
How about a Paul/Kucinch ticket?
Pure speculation as far as I could tell.
I'd vote for Paul before I voted for Hillary Clinton, probably.
I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul or give him any money. I think the anti-immigrant movement is extremely dangerous and Paul's an obvious supporter of it.
But I do think it's important to understand why the class interests of the Democrats won't allow them to address the Middle East or immigration.
And why the Republicans can.
In a way, it's not David Duke who's even the problem anymore. His ideas are already mainstream.
Hume: I know. I know. Just my frustration speaking.
Still-the status quo (exemplified by Hillary, Obama, Edwards, etc (I think we can just accept as a given that the Republican mainstream will be worse) is a bit of a nightmare to me, as well.
Can we have a candidate without Paul's baggage? I'm not sure we can-to get anywhere in the political system of Empire, one has to have been imbibing the koolaid for one's entire career.
There is thus no solution. When Dave doesn't touch on national politics, the articles on local efforts, local politicans, nonprofit organizations, etc.-are these the only real solutions?
Dissolution is the Solution!
Can we have a candidate without Paul's baggage?
If there were a mass anti-war movement in the streets with enough mass to threaten real disruption, Pelosi would have to put impeachment back on the table and Edwards and Obama would have to flank Kucinich on the left.
Look at Howard Dean. There was a mass anti-war movement in 2003 so the Democrats had to throw the people a bone in the form of Dean's anti-war insurgency.
After that faded, Dean went back to being a mediocrity.
I wouldn't vote for Paul either, I just would be more likely to vote for him than Clinton, whom I refuse to vote for on the grounds that I think it insane that we might have 20-24 years of our version of the War of the Roses with a father-son battling a husband-wife for the presidency.
Hasn't Richardson pledged to get all the troops out of Iraq by 2009 (the year he would be inaugurated, if he won)? Some of the Paulians would have you think their boy is the only guy with a plan.
Ok, InTheoryTV , who would you vote for?
Kang or Kodos?
InTheoryTV:
Ron Paul supports the Constitution and respects the amendments that have been added.
Not so. He rejects the 16th Amendment. Presumably based on spelling errors.
Don't be closed minded.
Take your own advice.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
There are progressives who passionately support Israel and progressives who passionately support the Palestinians.
Which one you are determines which of these things you find more disturbing.
1.) Ron Paul's ties to Stormfront.
2.) Hillary's ties to AIPAC and the bomb Iran lobby.
Ah, FM, before you put that neat little sweeping generalisation out there, I've had sympathy towards the Palestinian cause for years now (with a two-state solution, in all probablities, at least at first) and protested against various Israeli atrocities and the War in Lebanon.
And I still think Stormfront's ties to Ron Paul are more disturbing. Y'know, since for all AIPAC's and the foreign policy crowd's legendary faults (and as Brian has pointed out, they are legion), they ain't Nazis. Maybe, again, this is my European side talking that leaves me with a revulsion towards Nazism and fascism above anything else, maybe it's my socialist sympathies and the old stories of the Spanish Civil War, the murder of Matteotti, the repression in Germany or the Battle of Cable Street, or maybe it's because I've had friends threatened and stalked by these violent gangs of scum that call themselves "fascist parties" simply because they were some of those traitorous reds, but in my book, the line is well and truly crossed if you're consorting with fucking Nazis. Or proto-Nazis, as Dave has so dilligently catelogued.
Hasn't Richardson pledged to get all the troops out of Iraq by 2009 (the year he would be inaugurated, if he won)?
He also slammed Kucinich for introducing the resolution to impeach Cheney.
He also slammed Kucinich for introducing the resolution to impeach Cheney.
So?
Re Hume's Ghost's comments above re: guilt-by-association vs. holding folks accountable.
Like virtually all fallacies, guilt-by-association derives its power from mimicking a valid hueristic, but taking it as sufficient unto itself. In general, it is valid to start with the hypothesis that those who hang together think and act similarly. Virtually any investigative practice--criminal, journalistic, historical, scientific, whatever, makes use of this principle.
The point is, no valid investigative practice takes this first step as the be-all and end-all. Association points you in the possibly-right direction, and then you have to investigate more carefully.
What folks are doing here is taking the abuse of a valid investigatory principle as their prototypical model, and then deploying it against someone--David, but also Sara and others they have cited as well--who has already gone well beyond that initial stage. This is a totally invalid form of argument, a fallacy in it's own right. Though one that's only become so widespread as to need its own name in fairly recent times.
Since as a form of "reasoning," it's a crock, and it's become so widespread on the Internets, I suggest we might call it the "Post Crock" fallacy.
Or perhaps Post Crock Ergo Proper Crock?
So?
Rusty Shackleford | 11.08.07 - 11:40 am | #
So it means he wants to let criminals go unpunished only to show up in a decade to get back into government.
How's Ron Paul's impeachment resolution coming along, FM?
I've had friends threatened and stalked by these violent gangs of scum that call themselves "fascist parties" simply because they were some of those traitorous reds, but in my book, the line is well and truly crossed if you're consorting with fucking Nazis.
Fair enough.
But I also think that Nazis can also be used as a convenient bogey man to shut down debate. Just because Osama Bin Laden is a mass murderer doesn't meant that every time Bush or Giuliani invokes his name, I have to agree with their point.
And I realize that nobody running for President's accepted the Bin Laden endorsement just yet so it's not a perfect analogy.
But neither is the comparision of David Duke to Hitler. David Duke is a clown who likes to play dress up. Hitler had a major European power under his control.
Lest I be misinterpreted, I mean Paul's own resolution to impeach Bush/Cheney, which he allegedly believes so strongly in. He's a congressman, right? He can do that?
And yet...
But anyhoo, I doubt Cheney will be returning to politics in ten years anyway, unless it's from beyond the grave.
If it had been up to the white voters of Lousiana, David Duke would have been governor. He's more than a clown.
Can the Nazis be used to shut down debate? Certainly, that's why we've got Godwin's Law, although it doesn't really apply when we are talking about today's modern day tryouts for Team Fascism.
Now Stormfront ain't exactly the Wermacht, the Council of Conservative Citizens ain't the SS by a long shot, and David Duke certainly ain't Hitler, but they've got far more of a media reach and influence than I'd like nasty little fuckers like them to have, and frankly, I'd like not to give them or their right-wing extremist ideas - many of which, as David has noted, are a big part of the Paul mindset - any more of the oxygen of publicity than they deserve. Which is none.
But anyhoo, I doubt Cheney will be returning to politics in ten years anyway, unless it's from beyond the grave.
So what? They bring 95 year old neo Nazis to trial. Cheney (and Kissinger) should do time as well.
And no, Paul hasn't backed up Kucinich on impeachment and THAT is the best argument against him by far.
Curious, FM. Ron Paul was certainly eager enough to vote in favor of impeaching Clinton. Yet for impeaching Bush/Cheney, markedly less enthusiasm.
Curious.
So the reason progressives should back Paul instead of, say, Richardson, is... what, again?
And when is Paul's campaign going to release the political newsletters that were mailed out in his name to protofascist extremists? I've said before that I strongly suspect that folks like David Duke have read the Survival report letters that we have not.
What did those things say?
If it had been up to the white voters of Lousiana, David Duke would have been governor. He's more than a clown.
What do you think about the fact that Duke supported Reagan in 1980 and he's now trying to attach himself to the anti-war movement?
Honest conspiracy theory question, is it possible he cut a deal with the FBI in order to make the anti-war movement look bad by agreeing with it and bringing along some of his followers?
He did do some serious time a few years ago.
On the other hand, there are legitimate anti-war conservatives (Like Paul Craig Roberts) who come out in favor of Pinochet's coup and Franco.
Tell me what you think of this article. It's a marxist critique of "liberal" anti-fascism.
http://libcom.org/library/fascis...sm-gilles-
dauve
Speaking as someone who cannot in any way vote in the US election, I'd say that apart from Ron Paul's racist ties, the major reason for not voting for him, is his complete delusional idea of monetary politics.
People argue that going over to the gold standard would be good because the current dollar situation, but they seem to fail to grasp that the current situation is due to bad economic policies, not monetary policies. If the US went over to the gold standard, international trade would be impossible - why would any foreign country accept US dollars? And paying with gold would, given the US trade balance, lead to US bankruptcy in a short time.
People need to read up on their history, and remember how hard international trade was in the past - and without trade, no economic growth.
Do people really think that the US could survive that economically?
Duke is anti-war in Iraq because he thinks its part of a Zionist conspiracy.
What do I think of Duke supporting Reagan? The same think I think of Duke endorsing Bush in '00 and '04. That being not much more than the Republican Party is closer in rank to him than Democrats are.
So the reason progressives should back Paul instead of, say, Richardson, is... what, again?
I'm agreeing with you. It's a legitimate argument against him.
But where's the support on the liberal blogs for Kucinich and why did they turn against Cynthia McKinney?
Where's the support for Kucinich on liberal blogs? At least in the comments sections, most liberal blogs are non-stop Kucinich love-fests. At least that's been my experience.
What liberal blogs are you talking about?
I'm glad I'm an anarchist (and abstentionist), so that I can actually look myself in a mirror after an election...
Ron Paul supporters are putting forward this scenario of Paul VS Hillary. Why not Guiliani VS Kuccinich? Or maybe we'll get Gandhi VS Jesus this time around? You know, since we're *dreaming* and all.
There's no messiah coming to help you, anti-war protesters. If you want to stop the war, you lay in front of the train tracks over which supplies are being transported (like they did in Ireland). You demolish recruiting stations and throw out recruiters from your campuses. If you want to stop Israeli authorities from demolishing innocent Palestinians' neighborhoods, you get in front of those bulldozers (and yes, you might get trampled and be the butt of the jokes of warhawks on the Right like Rachel Corrie, because that's what struggle means, you don't always get to be seen as the hero you are).
Because if elections ever changed anything, they would be against the law. Simple as that. Ron Paul is not going to get the nomination from his party. Ralph Nader is not going to win. To raise enough money for a campaign you have to sell your soul to the devil. If you do get in government, there's an army of lobbyists ready to buy you up. If by some miracle a principled and incorruptible socialist was to get in the White House, well, anyone remembers the Spanish Civil War? Allende?
You're wasting your time and your money supporting electoral candidates. The Greens in Germany ended up 'moderating their positions' and supported the globalization of their economy. The Parti Quebecois in Quebec, with its socialist past, ended up working towards Zero Deficit and cutting deep gouges in social programs. The State is not by the people, for the people, it's by rich imperialist bastards for rich imperialist bastards.
Put your energy where it will matter, and actually *do direct action* to bring about the changes you want.
What do I think of Duke supporting Reagan?
Reagan was extremely pro-Israel and anti-black obviously (which is obviously why Duke supported him).
Why support him in 1980 and not Rudy in 2008 (who's also pro-Israel and anti-black)?
Where's the support for Kucinich on liberal blogs? At least in the comments sections, most liberal blogs are non-stop Kucinich love-fests.
I guess by that logic, Orcinus must be a pro-Ron Paul blog.
Where's the same support for Kucinich that I saw for Ned Lamont for Darcy Burner?
"Why should progressives support Ron Paul" seems to be the only question that Paulites don't have an answer for.
So this isn't about Ron Paul. It's about the wedge in the progressive coalition.
Flying Monkey | 11.08.07 - 9:04 am | #
The attack-dog tactics only further the political divide in this country, and can never bear the fruit your looking for.
Your blindspot is the wedge in the RepublicanParty /Red Stater bloc.
Ron Paul presents an opportunity to split the haters and wackos from the Constitutional Conservatives, and split those who believe in limited Federal power off from the Republican party and attach them to a broader, progressive, pro-Constitutional coalition.
Both ends break the stranglehold of the alleged "moderates" / "centrists."
Speak to the valid Constitutional concerns of disaffected Republicans. This is really a historic moment---one that won't come around for another 100+ years.
They've just been betrayed by a nominal ally (Bush), the forthrightly pro-military among them have been misused.
This is a golden opportunity to point out that Congress has the Power to Declare War--not the Prznt. Engage them on those terms to explain that the Constitution was written that way to prevent the abuse of our military men in foreign wars that are nothing more than adventurism without any just political cause to back up our involvement.
Why not reach out and identify common ground? After all, the pro-choice position is libertarian in that it insists on limited Government: Big Brother has no place in our bedroom---or determining what we do with our bodies and to whom. That's something any gun-rights advocate can understand.
I'd point out that denying Ron Paul's supporters ANY recognition of the validity of specific issues, the "antis-" here stereotype and broad brush as effectively as any right-winger supremacist.
Think about it.
Haters generally feel alone, scared, excluded, powerless, and dismissed.
Doesn't vilifying them only catalyze their supposed extremism? Doesn't scapegoating them for your own failures to uphold the Constitution effectively set up a more visceral, more damaging clash between supposedly opposing camps?
Because Bush, Lieberman, Clinton, and Emmanuel would just love for you to exspend your political capital tearing each other to shreds.
Think.
As a nonviolent Constitutionalist, I strongly insist that it's a breach of trust to pretend that a comma in the Second Amendment indicates American Citizens have no right to bear arms. Such a position by the Establishment "middle"--which is by no means moderate--is unconscionable and a grievous breach of trust.
Same principle with the abortion issue. My folks are pacifist, old-school Liberals and Ur-veterans of the civil rights and feminist causes. They are people of faith. Staunchly pro-choice, they nonetheless are not FOR abortion. They're for limited govt and a woman's right to choose as a free adult in a free country. They are liberals---and values voters---who've always stood against he likes of Bush.
Yet they have much in common with Red Staters, who've obviously begun to wake up.
You can choose to scapegoat Ron Paul, or put your shoulder to the wheel and capitalize on a golden opportuntiy.
A historic shift in power relations may be in the offing---if, that is, you can get over yourselves, listen to other voices for a change, and stop exacerbating the political divisions in this country because it makes you feel better.
Hume's Ghost wrote -
I'd vote for Paul before I voted for Hillary Clinton, probably.
Thank you for that, Hume's Ghost.
You have just clarified what I now think Ron Paul's actual agenda is. It was not clear to me until just a moment ago, when I read that line.
He's the Republican Party's replacement stalking horse, taking the place of the now discredited Ralph Nader in the 2008 Presidential election campaign.
If this hypothesis is true, it makes Dave Neiwert's fears about the threat posed by the Giuliani campaign far more solid and credible. Rudy will be the most probable beneficiary from the split at the polls, as disgruntled, nay, despairing progressives vote for Ron Paul instead of the all-but-inevitable Hillary.
Moot point, Stormcrow. There is not going to be a contest in which the options are Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul.
Stormcrow:
Why don't you just use Ron Paul as a stalking horse for the GOP nominee?
That makes more sense and more closely parallels the Nader 00 scenario.
Persuade enough Repugs to vote Ron Paul, and you undermine the Huckabee, Giuliani, McCain candidacies.
The Repubs are flocking to Ron Paul because NONE of the supposedly mainstream GOP candidates (they're Establishment, but extreme) even BOTHER to espouse any Constitutional principles any more!
They can't even reject torture, and have been lying so long and loud about who they that even Repugs are sick unto death about it.
The Republican pro-military base just got burned, burned, burned by the abuse of Constitution and power----and Niewert and likeminded commenters can't be bothered to grow and push that phenomenon til the Republican party splinters and flies apart.
You should be peeling off those disaffected GOP voters with the resources of a freakin Manhattan project.
They're pissed about the balanced budget. Why aren't you offering a way forward on that like you mean it?
They're pissed about the economy. Why aren't you insisting we invest in America?
They're pissed about the way veterans are treated. Why aren't you connecting a Constitutional argument about the Congressional Power to Declare War with the abuse of our veterans? With the Walter Reed scandal, the benefits, pay, and mental health abuse scandals? Put up a comprehensive program. Or shut up.
A Ron Paul supporter from Texas came right out and said, "my boys don't need to die in some oil war."
SHE'S PRACTICALLY WRITING YOU AN INSTRUCTION MANUAL. GOOD GRIEF!
RON PAUL IS GETTING SUPPORT BECAUSE EVEN REPUBLICAN GET IT.
Now's your chance to offer a sound platform 'pulling a Clinton' that takes all those cudgel issues Dems have been beaten sillly with for the past 50 years. Get busy.
Paul Rosenberg,
You said that Ron Paul rejects the 16th amendment. If you mean he thinks it isn't valid, then you are incorrect. He believes it exists and he has plans to try and repeal it, via the proper way that is laid out in the Constitution, not by simply ignoring it or saying that it isn't valid.
http://www.renewamerica.us/issue...es/
ron_paul.htm
I'm taking a wild stab here.. Kodos.
As to why should a progressive vote for Ron Paul. Because we need a change from the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton cycle. Lobbyist control to much. With our technology and the ideas of the Liberty reinstated, imagine the progress we can make as a country, planet, and species. Because he isn't bought off and if we have a smaller Federal government, everyone can work at the local level with their local money at making a nice place to live.
As to why should a progressive vote for Ron Paul. Because we need a change from the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton cycle.
And the only way to do that is to vote for Paul?
Lobbyist control to much.
True, but they're more influential in the legislative arena. Shouldn't we keep the good doctor there, where he can resist them?
With our technology and the ideas of the Liberty reinstated, imagine the progress we can make as a country, planet, and species.
Okayyyy.... done.
Because he isn't bought off...
Never heard that one before.
...and if we have a smaller Federal government, everyone can work at the local level with their local money at making a nice place to live.
I hate to break this to you but even if he were elected president, you wouldn't get a smaller federal government. You need Congress to achieve that. So maybe Ron Paul is in his proper place already.
Rusty, who do you think Progressives should vote for?
Can that person win? If not will the Progressives voice mean anything in the Presidential election?
I don't have a strong favorite, ITTV.
InTheoryTV:
Paul Rosenberg,
You said that Ron Paul rejects the 16th amendment. If you mean he thinks it isn't valid, then you are incorrect. He believes it exists and he has plans to try and repeal it, via the proper way that is laid out in the Constitution, not by simply ignoring it or saying that it isn't valid.
Ron Paul is on record saying that it is not valid because it was not properly ratified. You can see him say that in this video, which I link to in my OpenLeft diary, "Ron Paul Equates Former Militia Wingnut Tax Evaders With Martin Luther King".
Given a choice between believing you and believing my own lyin' eyes, I'm going to have to go with my own lyin' eyes on this one.
Not a big kool-aid fan, me.
He's the Republican Party's replacement stalking horse, taking the place of the now discredited Ralph Nader in the 2008 Presidential election campaign.
Discredited? Hardly. Sadly, Nader's been proven right.
In fact, in light of the Democrats performance after 2006, my one big regret in life is that I can't go back to 2000, unvote for Gore and vote for Nader. Cancel that, my one big regret is that I can't go back to 2000, move to Florida and vote for Nader.
It's funny how Ron Paul takes more crap for some stupid racist newsletter than Gore does for having chosen not to fight for disenfranchised black voters in 2000.
And that's only the beginning. People argue that we wouldn't have invaded Iraq without Bush being in office?
Maybe not, but think of it this way. There are MORE troops in Iraq now under a Democratic Congress than there were before 2006 under a Republican Congress.
Had Gore won in 2000, we might have had 500,000 troops in Iraq? That's what Kerry wanted in 20004, right? Oh that and that they all have the right body armor.
Nader hasn't been proven right about anything. You said it yourself, FM - if Gore had been elected in 2000 we probably wouldn't be in Iraq right now. And the point about how many troops were there at any given time would be moot.
Nader fucked up, and a lot of people are dead because of it.
David exposes himself here..
...
"However, I will be upfront and say that I consider Job #1 being removal of the GOP from power. They're the wellspring of this disaster, and they deserve many years in political Siberia. And they're the main reason it's so hard to get anything achieved."
"But I have no illusions about how quickly change is going to come,..."
So here is the crux of the matter...
David #1 issue is to rid The GOP of power.. so he can get his progressive Dems to fix all this stuff.. but it may take along time he admits..
Well my #1 issue is to stop the war machine and it's 700+ bases around the planet and Ron Paul says he will do this because he want's to shut down the empire project.
Well there really is no comparison between David's preference and other RP supporters like me.. I'd choose stopping the killing ASAP any day
My main issue is to get back to
There seem to be a couple of concerns about Ron Paul that I haven't seen clearly expressed. Most of us here seem to think that he won't get the Republican nomination. That's a safe bet. But the Paul campaign could have the effect of building support for far Right movements outside of electoral politics. And that agenda could still influence electoral politics in the form of an independent Paul run or the 2012 Republican candidates. The more "popular" Paul gets, the more likely that the U.S. political center moves toward the John Birch Society.
How can anyone in the reality-based community support a man who thinks the Trilats are going to establish a One World Government?
It is NOT enough for someone to agree with us on issues. They need to agree on principles, too. The right wing did not make the mistake of backing people who didn't share their principles. The fact that so many on our side can still be suckered in by mere sweet talk, while actively discounting the importance of the Paul's underlying philosophical substance, is a sobering measure of just how far we still have to go.
We are telling you that this man is made of different stuff than we are -- and wants a very different future than we do. And, in fact, the stuff he's made of and the future he wants are in diametric opposition to everything we stand for. That, in the end, is a far more important and serious consideration than anything he says about any transient issue today.
Thank you for the food for thought, Mrs. Robinson.
The entire social safety net - such as exists after decades of cutting holes in it - is derived from that Constitutionally artificial burgeoning of Fed power...that carries with it the seeds of proposed tyranny as the 'unitary executive' implies. The bad was wrapped up in the good, and few bothered to unwrap it to see what might be at the core. Now we know. But the damn things are intertwined, now. It's like conjoined twins who share a heart. Try to surgically separate one, the other dies. To return to the original intent of the Founders regarding Constitutional scope of powers will destroy the social safety net in toto.
Nemo, I wasn't sure that I understood your argument. Since the New Deal helped people economically and be better able to bear the costs of living in this country, why would that be a threat to the way the Constitution affects our lives and in what ways? How could anyone be absolutely sure what the orignal intent of the Founders was? Isn't it possible that they might have thought that the Constitution should be open to further evolution and change? I'm not talking about the way that Bush trashes the Constitution and destroys civil liberties, but rather that the Constituiton could be made better as time goes by and the unexpected needs of the citizens demand different solutions.
I would appreciate any clarification that you could give to me. Thank you.
What's more, consider Ron Paul's record in Congress. Not that he'll ever occupy the Oval Office, but what would he do after pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq? His past legislative proposals will provide some clues, and they are not friendly to progressive ideas. Here are some bills that Ron Paul has proposed, not merely voted on, but sponsored. And you can see that he tries repeatedly on certain issues, which suggests they are important to him.
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
-- He opposes the right of women to be free to control their own reproductive systems if they happen to live in particular states or other countries, or if they work for the Peace Corps.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focu...ws/912300/
posts
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d110:h.r.01095:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d109:h.r.00777:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d108:h.r.1548:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...z?d106:HZ01003:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd.../z?d106:HZ0380:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd.../z?d105:HZ0312:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d098:h.r.4984:
-- He wants to erase the distinction in U.S. law between a zygote and a person
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d110:h.r.02597:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d110:h.r.1094:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d109:h.r.00776:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...z?d097:h.r.392:
-- He would deny the use of the Federal court system -- and even Federal precedent -- to people discriminated against because of their religious beliefs or sexual orientation. This would also limit the cross-state recognition of same-sex marriages. Some of these bills he cynically calls this the "We the People Act".
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d110:h.r.00300:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d109:h.r.04379:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d109:h.r.05739:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d108:h.r.3893:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d108:h.r.1547:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d107:h.r.4922:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d106:h.r.5078:
-- This includes limits on courts' hearing cases related to abortion, and he has introduced bills specific to these kinds of cases. He also uses the deceptive term "partial-birth abortion".
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d108:h.r.1545:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d108:h.r.1546:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d107:h.r.2875:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d106:h.r.03400:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d106:h.r.3691:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d094:h.r.15169:
-- Even though he claims to be a "libertarian", he opposes people's freedom to burn or destroy their own copies of the design of the U.S. flag
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...105:h.j.res.80:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...105:h.j.res.82:
LAWS IMPROVING THE LOT OF THE WORKING CLASS
-- He has tried to repeal the Occupational Safety and Health Act
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d096:h.r.2310:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d094:h.r.13264:
-- He would like to make it much easier to decertify labor unions
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...z?d107:h.r.694:
-- He opposes the Minimum Wage.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d098:h.r.2962:
-- He would deny the prevailing wage to employees of federal contractors, and remove prohibition on kickbacks in Federal projects
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...z?d106:h.r.736:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d105:h.r.2720:
-- He wants to severely weaken Social Security.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d098:h.r.2030:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d098:h.r.4604:
More from Ron Paul's record:
VOTER ISSUES
-- He has come out against attempts to make the United States more democratic, including the idea of eliminating the Electoral College, even *after* the debacle in the 2000 Presidential election.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...7:h.con.res.48:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...:h.con.res.443:
-- He wants to repeal the "Motor Voter" Act, which has made it easier for people to register to vote.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d108:h.r.2139:
CORPORATE POWER
-- He would repeal significant portions of antitrust law, including the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, and others.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d108:h.r.1247:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d106:h.r.1789:
-- He would gut the regulatory power of Federal agencies, forcing Congress to micromanage all decisions.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d098:h.r.1204:
DISCRIMINATION
-- He has tried to make it easier for racial and ethnic discrimination in our society?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d096:h.r.3863:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d096:h.r.5842:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d098:h.r.4982:
-- He would propose an amendment to the Constitution to gut the Fourteenth Amendment by denying citizenship to people born here whose parents aren't already citizens "nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States". That latter part could produce some serious political discrimination, especially if radicals can have their citizenship revoked.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...:h.j.res.00046:
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/...:h.j.res.00046:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...108:h.j.res.42:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
-- He would limit or try to repeal various environmental protection laws and regulations, including the Clean Air Act, the Soil and Water Conservation Act, and the use of devices that protect the "bycatch" of sea life.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...06:h.j.res.104:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d105:h.r.3735:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d105:h.r.4423:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d096:h.r.2504:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d096:h.r.7079:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d096:h.r.7245:
Ron Paul also has a lot of bills relating to the shrimp industry and trying to block competition. Maybe he's in their pocket?
-- He would promote offshore oil-drilling, the construction of more refineries, coal-mining on Federal lands, and block conservation measures. This would further threaten our coastal and internal environments, and further trap our economy in fossil-fuel dependency
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d110:h.r.02415:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d109:h.r.04004:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...z?d097:h.r.393:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d096:h.r.4639:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d096:h.r.5293:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d096:h.r.6936:
-- He has fought ratification of the Law of the Sea. As President would he "un-sign" it?
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/
...h.con.res.00056
More from Ron Paul's record (or, Can you say "isolationism"?:
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND MILITARY ISSUES
-- This "champion of peace" wanted to prohibit the dismantling of ICBM silos in the U.S.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d107:h.r.1665:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d106:h.r.3769:
-- He would continue U.S. opposition to the International Criminal Court, despite the usefulness of this body for prosecuting war-crimes that are not challenged domestically.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d108:h.r.1154:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd.../z?d107:HZ0480:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d107:h.r.4169:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...7:h.con.res.23:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d107:h.res.416:
-- He has promoted the Bricker Amendment to the Constitution, and otherwise sought limit the protections of international law. He would also prohibit U.S. courts from citing foreign laws or policies (other than English ones) in their decisions.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...4:h.j.res.1028:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...096:h.j.res492:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...7:h.con.res.49:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d108:h.r.4118:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d109:h.r.1658:
-- He would end U.S. participation in the United Nations. Failing that he would prohibit or severely curtail appropriations for U.S. payments to the U.N. or its affiliated agencies. Please note that isolationism is not the same as anti-imperialism.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d110:h.r.01146:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d109:h.r.01146:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...109:h.amdt.285:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d108:h.r.1146:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd.../z?d107:HZ0190:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd.../z?d107:HZ0191:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d107:h.r.1146:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd.../z?d106:HZ0306:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d106:h.r.1146:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd.../z?d105:HZ0138:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d105:h.r.1146:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d098:h.r.3890:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d098:h.r.3891:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d096:h.r.6358:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d094:h.r.14788:
-- Not having any success there, he has worked to block U.S. membership in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/....con.res.00132:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...08:h.con.res.4:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...:h.con.res.443:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...:h.con.res.489:
-- Would he pull the U.S. out of the ABM Treaty?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...096:h.j.res566:
-- Oh, but he would "protect" U.S. soldiers from wearing any insignia of another country or the U.N.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d109:h.r.04797:
-- Would he try to re-establish U.S. "sovereignty" over the Panama Canal? As I recall, the Canal Treaty was a major concern of the far Right back in the 1970's and 1980's.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...:h.con.res.231:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d094:h.res1410:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d096:h.r.2522:
Nader hasn't been proven right about anything. You said it yourself, FM - if Gore had been elected in 2000 we probably wouldn't be in Iraq right now.
No. I'm saying we probably would be in Iraq now. But it's a moot point. Gore didnt' want to fight for the presidency.
On the other hand, you might be right about Ron Paul. He actually voted WITH Pelosi against Kucinich to kill the Cheney impeachment bill.
http://dailykos.com/story/2007/1...11/8/123533/
273
In order to avoid a floor debate on the merits of impeaching the eminently impeachable Vice President Cheney, Pelosi and her allies then moved to send Kucinich’s bill directly to the Judiciary Committee. They were joined by three Republicans, including maverick Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX).
More from Ron Paul's record:
A GUN FREE-FOR-ALL
-- He would allow more guns in schools and National Parks, repeal requirements for background checks and gun-locks, use Federal authority to nullify state laws regarding concealed weapons, and eliminate many other regulations including prohibitions on gun possession by minors, recent felons, fugitives, addicts, and domestic abusers, and prohibitions relating to semiautomatic weapons.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d110:h.r.02424:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d110:h.r.01897:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/qu...?c110:H.R.1096:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d109:h.r.01703:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d108:h.r.3125:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...z?d108:h.r.153:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d107:h.r.1762:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d106:h.r.1179:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...z?d106:h.r.407:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d105:h.r.2721:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d105:h.r.02722:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d105:h.r.1147:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d098:h.r.3892:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d096:h.r.2311:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d094:h.r.14768:
EDUCATION POLICY
-- Speaking of schools, he would weaken educational standards by using Federal power to interfere with states improving their standards for teacher certification.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...z?d107:h.r.966:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d106:h.r.1706:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d098:h.r.4653:
TAX POLICY
-- He wants to dramatically reduce the tax obligations of people who make inordinately high incomes and who inherit large fortunes they did not earn. Specifically, this includes attempts to repeal the estate tax, and to apply one tax rate to all income levels.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...:h.j.res.00023:
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/...:h.j.res.00014:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...108:h.j.res.15:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...107:h.j.res.45:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...106:h.j.res.81:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...05:h.j.res.116:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d098:h.r.5484:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d098:h.r.2137:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d098:h.r.1664:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...098:h.j.res.23:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d097:h.r.6352:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d096:h.r.4569:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d094:h.r.15619:
-- And short of that he wants us to pay our income taxes every month, and not use withholding.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d107:h.r.1364:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...d106:h.r.04855:
Finally, the even weirder parts of Ron Paul's record:
GOLD! GOLD! GOLD!
-- What is his obsession with gold, and does this make for sound economic policy?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d108:h.r.3101:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d107:h.r.3732:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d098:h.r.4226:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d098:h.r.1662:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d098:h.r.1663:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...z?d098:h.r.878:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...z?d097:h.r.391:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d096:h.r.3862:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d096:h.r.3349:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d096:h.r.2658:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d096:h.r.5605:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d096:h.r.5658:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d096:h.r.6217:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d096:h.r.6297:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d096:h.r.7874:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d097:h.r.6054:
-- He might even try to get rid of the Federal Reserve, which has long been a bogeyman of the far right.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d108:h.r.2778:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d107:h.r.5356:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d106:h.r.1148:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...z?d098:h.r.875:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...z?d098:h.r.876:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d098:h.r.4652:
-- Does he want to abandon the dollar and set up 50 separate state currencies? Does that even make sense?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d108:h.r.2779:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d096:h.r.3931:
OMNIBUS REACTIONARY
-- He has favored all manner of other right-wing policies, in the following case with a single bill, which includes provisions for such things as supporting corporal punishment, requiring that young people seeking reproductive care have their parents notified, allowing churches and religious organizations that run "public" services to discriminate against potential clients, and moving us back to school segregation.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...?d096:h.r.7955:
Fortunately, Ron Paul rarely gets anywhere with his proposals. I doubt there would be many progressives, or even many liberals, who would like where this man comes from politically, or where he wants to take us.
Nice spadework, Trefayne. Thanks -- it'll be useful.
The more "popular" Paul gets, the more likely that the U.S. political center moves toward the John Birch Society.
It's more like the more popular Paul gets the more dissent looks like Alex Jones and less like Ramsey Clark.
Since Democrats hate both it doesn't really matter very much to you and since the margins are so smaller it doesn't matter much to anybody.
But by your own logic the united front of "liberals" John Edwards/Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton all calling for a possible war on Iran made war with Iran look reasonable and bipartisan. Bombing Iran went from something that everybody except the 20% of the population who still support Bush was nuts to something that looked as if it had support across the political spectrum.
Strange that you're silent on that. That put us in real danger, not Ron Paul's ideas about the Trilateral Commission.
Wait. Lindorff actually says Paul's vote was pro-impeachment.
http://www.dailykos.com/comments...3533/273/
37#c37
As soon as Cheney's impeached liberals and progressives forget they ever heard of him and nobody has to worry about his vote on Shrimp issues anymore.
That's IF most people here really want impeachment.
How is it exactly that so many of you think that Ron Paul is more extreme than the rest of the Republican field? You mean, he is more extreme than wanting to start World War III and blow up the world, while simultaneously torturing people and urinating on the Constitution? What, do you think he has set his sights on destroying the entire solar system or something? The only other complaint I hear is that you dislike the people he deigns speak to, which I suppose makes Jesus, in your estimation, a prostitute and a tax collector both.
My argument is that Paul's contrarian style, combined with the fact he is going to face a Democratic (if not progressive) congress will result in a moderation of both viewpoints, which are at the moment rather extreme. Additionally, Pauls idea of Presidential power is -highly- limited, which is very much needed to counter previous years of President as god-king. In other words, the goofy stuff isn't in his power, and the good stuff mostly involves him -not- doing things (i.e. not spending us into bankruptcy, if we aren't there already, not torturing people, and not claiming Godlike power), and setting good precedent.
Now, go ahead with your hyperbolism, and call me a moron and what-not, but I know that until the American people unite and start gaming both parties toward recapturing our previous freedom, we will only fail even as the fascists who have obviously taken hold of the leadership of both parties succeed in their creeping coup. In order to win this, we all have to give up our partisanship (as the fascists have) for a time, set aside our differences, and focus on what we all have in common as Americans. Though I would prefer a Democrat to lead the movement back to the Republic, but even a kooky Republican is far better than the alternative, which is life in an all-knowing police state.
Flying Monkey,
Overall, I'm closer to BlackBloc's position the further we get into 2008. (Oh, yeah, it isn't even an election year yet. Ugh.)
As for the nature of dissent, I think you're right that Jones-types are more likely to gain from Paul-popularity. That's another reason I don't like him. Jones is way out there, pushing the "Troof movement", etcetera. And don't think I shed the least tear for Ramsey Clark and his authoritarian leftist pals.
There are other anti-war elements out there, though. Think of all the Quakers and others who have been quietly running anti-recruitment drives. Think of the radical vandals who have trashed recruitment centers. And more of that can be done, as has already been said.
Also, let's not forget that most people already oppose the Iraq War. The learning curve could be faster with Iran, especially if you ask people if they like the current oil prices we've been experiencing and think the U.S. military should make them higher.
----------------
And Dave, you're welcome.
Oh, yeah, and that he is in the pocket of the shrimp industry. Frankly, as long as he's not in the pocket of an industry that makes its money off killing people, he's a step up from the entire line up in both parties (besides Kucinich)
And perhaps Obama too, I'm not familiar with his position on the death industry.
Let's imagine Paul loses the Republican nomination (damn near inevitable) and, having raised a bunch of money, decides to make a third party run for it. Now, let us also imagine that the major party contenders are, as seems likely, Clinton and Giuliani. Who do you think has the best chance in that scenario? Who benefits from Paul running as a third party?
David Neiwert wrote
Nice spadework, Trefayne. Thanks -- it'll be useful.Wow.
I'm going to have to make up a link farm after I get home this evening.
But, alas, Dave, this isn't going to make any impression at all on the Rondroids. Their reaction will be the same fast and furious denial that is characteristic of people with obsessions they neither understand nor control, but which control them.
I have recent personal experience, having just emerged from an extended conversation with a Rondriod. About the Ron Paul botnets which came to light recently. Didn't get to first base, natch.
The ONLY way these people are going to understand how thoroughly they are being duped is when they actually feel the knives enter their kidneys. Same as a lot of "moderate Republicans" who got duped into voting for W in two elections. By then, of course, it will be far too late.
Stormcrow,
I put all that together not for the Rondroids (nice one!), but for the frustrated progressives and liberals who might take a shine to the congressman. If they want to check him out, I think they should look deeply. I think most people will get it and try somewhere else.
Not that I'd bet fake money on it: http://www.libertydollar.org/ld/...d/
ronpauldollar
The RP netbots are sounding more and more like zombies.
Good work, as usual, David, keep up the good fight.
Have you gotten the threatening e-mails and phone calls yet?
Others who have been pointing out and writing articles about the "real Ron" have had bully attempts thrown at them.
The good thing, as someone has already pointed out, is that these "followers" of his are not experienced at politics and in the end, after they use all the threats and intimidation tactics that they think is defending and fighting for their new Messiah, they will actually damage him beyond repair.
I suggest to any other journalists who have faced this with the Ron Paul Koolaide drinkers to file reports with the FBI to make record and to make public about it as much as possible.
Trefayne -- Thanks for putting together the links to the legislation that Paul has sponsored.
For anyone else. I compiled all of Trefayne's categorized links into a pdf file and anyone who wants a copy can send me an email and I'll send you a copy.
Ack. The email link didn't post from the form.
Here's to living dangerously and getting lots of RP spam in my inbox.
LiberalAmerican@hotmail.com
Just popping in to say:
There are really no good candidates running in '08. Kucinich is the best, but he won't get nominated. Everyone else pretty much sucks, imo.
I'm getting closer to BlackBloc's position every day. I'm probably going to just write in a name on election day. Don't know who.
>>It's more like the more popular Paul gets the more dissent looks like Alex Jones
And Alex Jones and his cronies are right-wing conspiracy nuts. Like Ron Paul.
Bolo
And so you are affectively voting for whoever has the most fanatical support.
Hushpuppy, my point was that the barriers between the various powers of The State - the Branches of government - created originally by the Founders were meant as deliberate impediments. The classic 'checks and balances'.
Contained within them were the means of preventing the possibility that any one Branch could become more powerful than any other...so long as those barriers were respected, of course. But expediency has always been used as an excuse to erode those barriers. The Great Depression was a good example. Depression or no, the pre-1937 Supreme Court believed that the barriers were being assaulted by FDR's New Deal program, and resisted it at every turn. It was FDR's threat to pack the SC with his own hand-picked Justices that led to their capitulating on his proposed legislation, which was for all intent an purposes orchestrated from from the Executive Branch, rubber-stamped in a Democratically dominated Congress, and then given the seal of approval by the (cowed) post 1937 Court. The Repubs have been doing roughly the same thing, lately, but to undo what had been done, not for the benefit of the Great Unwashed whom they claim they serve, but for their true plutocratic masters, who seem to have very long memories of slights against their class.
When this happened, way back when, the center of gravity in the balance of power began to shift from the Legislative and Judicial to the Executive...as did the accretion of power to the Executive, a process further aided by various Executive Orders. The precedent was set; from this we had the birth of the modern Imperial Presidency...and today, with the Right in ascendancy, in its' penultimate form we have the abomination known as Junior occupying its' throne.
If it is allowed to continue to the logical progression, in its' ultimate form, well, we have Huey Long's description of what that would look like, namely, fascism wrapping itself in a flag and carrying a crucifix (and I would add, while checking its' stock ticker) and I'm afraid it's almost here.
nemo, there never was a real balance of powers in our country. A review of our history in the 19th century, see the Seminole wars, shows Congress and the SC rubberstamping and funding everything the President wanted.
Chester,
I have no doubt of that; power tends to override any such checks on it so long as those who can benefit from it can gain control of the political machinery...and bend it to their wishes, as the past 7 years have amply demonstrated.
But the root of the present problem has existed since 1937; it has allowed for greater and greater reductions of power on the part of the Legislative and Judicial Branches to such an extent that the damage may be irreparable. The very interpretation of the Constitution as allowed for by the (FDR cowed) Supreme Court that permitted the creation of the New Deal also laid the groundwork of legally sanctioning the de facto power grab by the Executive Branch that laid the foundation for today's Imperial Presidency. A power grab mirrored by the expansion of Federal power at the expense of States.
This is the kind of thing that has the intelligenstia in the Paulist camp up in arms, and what they mean by scaling government back. The likelihood of their success isn't great. But they may act in much the same way as Ross Perot did.
Perot forced the major parties into a dialog as to the necessity of balancing the budget and eliminating the National Debt. By focusing the consciousness of the Average American on the problem of an out-of-control Executive Branch, the Paulists are also calling attention to how the problem got started...and how they say they have a solution for it. But their solution looks more and more like a prescription for political suicide; who's going to be willing to be behind any Paulist-proposed cut-off bar for receiving Social Security benefits, after paying into it for so long? Not too bloody many, I suspect. It would be like trying to ban tobacco with scores of millions still addicted to nicotine; not very practical.
A course of action entered into long ago has shaped our present in such a way that a supposed return to the original course is simply not possible, for it would lead to the destruction of many programs that like as not we are dependent upon. Whether we should have ever become dependent upon them in the first place is moot; we are. And the mechanism for rolling those programs back will cause a lot of hardship...and thus IMHO will not be implemented.
The Paulites argue the way Intelligent Design proponents argue: never a positive argument for their position, because there's nothing there. It's always along the lines of "well, [evolution/John Edwards] has flaws, thus by default my option is the right one." Constant deflection and spinning.
Gore didn't fight enough in 2000 (which is arguable in itself), so I should vote for Ron Paul?
Democrats and Republicans are the same (ludicrous on its face) so I should vote for Ron Paul?
Everything is all fucked up already anyway, so I should vote for Ron Paul?
Sorry Paulites, those aren't reasons to vote for Ron Paul.
Trefayne has kindly provided plenty of reasons NOT to vote for Paul, but I still haven't seen a single good reason to vote FOR him.
There are really no good candidates running in '08. Kucinich is the best, but he won't get nominated. Everyone else pretty much sucks, imo.
I'm getting closer to BlackBloc's position every day. I'm probably going to just write in a name on election day. Don't know who.
Bolo | 11.08.07 - 7:46 pm | #
Then let me be the voice of cynical realism, Bolo, and point out that even Neoconservative-lite Hillary would be better than either Theocon Mitt Romney or Ultra Neoconservative Rudolph Giuliani. A Shit candidate really is better than a Radioactive Toxic Biohazard candidate.
Thank you, Dave. I try to scan Orcinus a couple times a week, but there's always a chance I miss something. I would just like thinking people to retire the term "conspiracy theory," which was created and abused by people who have tried to conceal criminality.
I also agree with the commenter above who said he felt that "X-Files" acted as a kind of propaganda to delegitimatize areas that might be otherwise be investigated. Given the time, I could give a list of a number of TV shows that boost the concept of torture, spying on people, the bravery and patriotism of secret government agencies, etc.
Just as a final note, one of the first people attacked with the term "conspiracy theorist" was New Orleans DA Jim Garrison, whose investigation of the Dallas assassination was portrayed in the movie "JFK."
Walter Sheridan, whose past connections to the CIA are now known, ran an hour-long special on national TV to smear him. In 1967 Garrison was interviewed, rather hostilely, by Playboy Magazine. Here's a small part of the interview, where he described his politics and what he saw was happening to America. Read it carefully and see if you don't agree with what he said:
[This is the question he was asked: "Where would you place yourself on the political spectrum--right, left or center?"]
That's a question I've asked myself frequently, especially since this investigation started and I found myself in an incongruous and disillusioning battle with agencies of my own Government. I can't just sit down and add up my political beliefs like a mathematical sum, but I think, in balance, I'd turn up somewhere around the middle.
Over the years, I guess I've developed a somewhat conservative attitude--in the traditional libertarian sense of conservatism, as opposed to the thumbscrews-and-rack conservatism of the paramilitary right--particularly in regard to the importance of the individual as opposed to the state and the individual's own responsibilities to humanity. I don't think I've ever tried to formulate this into a coherent political philosophy, but at the root of my concern is the conviction that a human being is not a digit; he's not a digit in regard to the state and he's not a digit in the sense that he can ignore his fellow men and his obligations to society.
I was with the artillery supporting the division that took Dachau. I arrived there the day after it was taken, when bulldozers were making pyramids of human bodies outside the camp. What I saw there haunted me ever since. Because the law is my profession, I've always wondered about the judges throughout Germany who sentenced men to jail for picking pockets when their own government was jerking gold from the teeth of men murdered in gas chambers. I'm concerned about all of this because it isn't a German phenomenon. It can happen here, because there has been no change and there has been no progress and there has been no increase of understanding on the part of men for their fellow man.
What worries me deeply, and I have seen it exemplified in this case, is that we in America are in great danger of slowly evolving into a proto-fascist state. It will be a different kind of fascist state from the one the Germans evolved; theirs grew out of depression and promised bread and work, while ours, curiously enough, seems to be emerging from prosperity. But in the final analysis, it's based on power and on the inability to put human goals and human conscience above the dictates of the state. Its origins can be traced in the tremendous war machine we've built since 1945, the "military-industrial complex" that Eisenhower vainly warned us about, which now dominates every aspect of our life. The power of the states and Congress has gradually been abandoned to the Executive Department, because of war conditions, and we've seen the creation of an arrogant, swollen bureaucratic complex totally unfettered by the checks and balances of the Constitution.
In a very real and terrifying sense, our Government is the CIA and the Pentagon, with Congress reduced to a debating society.
Of course, you can't spot this trend to fascism by casually looking around. You can't look for such familiar signs as the swastika, because they won't be there. We won't build Dachaus and Auschwitzes; the clever manipulation of the mass media is creating a concentration camp of the mind that promises to be far more effective in keeping the populace in line. We're not going to wake up one morning and suddenly find ourselves in gray uniforms goose-stepping off to work.
But this isn't the test. The test is: What happens to the individual who dissents? In Nazi Germany, he was physically destroyed; here, the process is more subtle, but the end results can be the same. I've learned enough about the machinations of the CIA in the past year to know that this is no longer the dreamworld America I once believed in. The imperatives of the population explosion, which almost inevitably will lessen our belief in the sanctity of the individual human life, combined with the awesome power of the CIA and the defense establishment, seem destined to seal the fate of the America I knew as a child and bring us into a new Orwellian world where the citizen exists for the state and where raw power justifies any and every immoral act.
I've always had a kind of knee-jerk trust in my Government's basic integrity, whatever political blunders it may make. But I've come to realize that in Washington, deceiving and manipulating the public are viewed by some as the natural prerogatives of office. Huey Long once said, "Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism." I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security.
+++
Forty years ago he nailed it.
Nemo, thank you for your thoughtful response.
So in my email box this morning I see that more people commented on this thread, so have read what has been posted since my last post.
Nice, I see that people like me are being called Ronbots, Rondroids, and Whatever is calling for people to report people like me to reported to the FBI. Nice.
Tell you what. I won't come back to this site. I'm not looking to be debased, I was looking for a debate with people who call themselves progressive. Since I have labeled myself that in the past, having joined Moveon.org and have sympathy for people in the general. I have now reexamined my beliefs (always thinking) and see the positives of Ron Paul's policies would far out weigh any negatives. Of course this is just my opinion and you have the right to yours. I really want everyone to be happy and not have us all waste so much energy on things that bring pain and sorrow.
But this is political and as seems the standard of the day is for name calling and to label people something other than human. Less than human. It does make angry to be treated this way after spending the time reading the thread and posting in it. Being told -- I'm not a thinking being, I'm a mindless drone. I understand that people act differently online than they would face to face, I have studied the interweb and how people relate to each other when they are miles apart. I don't have to like it though and I got to be moving on.
I know leave your chamber, but not with the anger I did when I began typing this post. Venting helps.
Good luck and good night.
That reminds me of another argument ID'ers use against scientists: the "you guys are mean" argument.
ITTV, name-calling or not, your failure to make your case for Ron Paul isn't really our fault. Instead of taking your ball and going home, why don't you try to defend Ron Paul's legislative record, as detailed by Trefayne?
InTheoryTV- The reality is simply that you have aligned yourself with a gang of nutcases.
It's not saying that you are on the level of some of these dregs, but just to point out who is doing what from your side.
I got a phone call yesterday from a journalist friend who wrote a piece exposing Paul, and he told me about a threatening call he had recieved earlier that morning from a Paulite, not to mention the nasty mentally ill style e-mails he is receiving, all containing the crazy conspiracy themes the Ron Paul worshippers are infamous for.
Given the people involved here such as Nazis, Militia types, White Nationalists and various other extremists who are making up the Ron Paul "Revolution", why shouldn't the federal authorties be contacted?
InTheoryTV, it sounds to me like you are playing with people you really have no idea about.
The good thing, as someone has already pointed out, is that these "followers" of his are not experienced at politics and in the end, after they use all the threats and intimidation tactics
If any of Ron Paul's supporters are threatening and harassing journalists or spamming (believable considering the prominent support on Stormfront), shame on them. They should be reported.
On the other hand, if it's only strongly worded e-mail that's being inflated into a threat because of the ideology of the person sending it, then shame on the people who are doing the inflating. Jane Harman's thought crimes bill raises it ugly head.
Instead of taking your ball and going home, why don't you try to defend Ron Paul's legislative record,
I can very easily defend his vote against the Patriot Act.
Maybe you can justify how you can vote for somebody who voted not only for the Patriot Act the first time but also voted to renew it.
Flying Monkey,
whew, thanks for the breeze. Who knew moving goalposts so far so fast could create that much wind?
I haven't voted for anybody yet, FM. Note that there are Democratic candidates who did not vote on the Patriot Act at all - like Richardson.
It's great that Paul voted against the Patriot Act. I applaud him for that. But that's just one vote. Trefayne listed legislation that Paul not only voted for, but actively sponsored. (I give him a pass on favoring the shrimp industry, because of his location.) Are progressives to divert our eyes from all that legislation just because Paul was right about the Patriot Act? Wouldn't that be foolish?
The test is: What happens to the individual who dissents? In Nazi Germany, he was physically destroyed; here, the process is more subtle,
Have you read Ward Churchill's the Cointelpro Papers?
There's always been a series of escalations (from calling someone crazy a la Cindy Sheehan to outright murder in the case of Fred Hampton).
But what's happening now seems to be a step closer to genuine fascism, specifically the arbitrary nature of a lot of the detentions (of Muslim Americans), inclusion on "no fly" lists, etc. It seems designed not only to marginalize or neutralize threatening dissidents but to create a state of mind in the general population where people are afraid to question the government.
Are progressives to divert our eyes from all that legislation just because Paul was right about the Patriot Act? Wouldn't that be foolish?
Never said that, only that the occupation of Iraq and the Patriot Act are both so important they outweight a lot of other factors.
paul like nader, is tapping into the disgust people have for the 2 major parties. their support was/is more anti rep. or dem. than pro nader or paul. i sympathize with this feeling, but why cant we ever have a third party candidate that isnt a kook?
libertarians are like communists. their political philosphy sounds great in theory but is in direct contradiction with how people behave and how the real world works.
Kucinich is against the occupation of Iraq and also voted against the Patriot Act. It seems to me that if a progressive wants to support a long-shot candidate, he's the logical choice.
Looking over the votes against the Patriot Act, I see that Obama and Dodd voted against reauthorization.
Note: In parliamentary countries people make weird alliances all the time (eg the Israeli Labor Party with the ultra Orthodox Parties).
There would be nothing out of the ordinary for socialists or leftists making alliances with extreme libertarians to form an anti-war government.
It seems to me that if a progressive wants to support a long-shot candidate, he's the logical choice.
Since I'm registered as a Democrat, that's who's getting my vote in the primaries.
If Conyers and Pelosi lets impeachment happen and it neutralizes the neocons, I'd think about voting for a more mainstream liberal in the general election.
But if there's no impeachment, a democrat would only be giving a moderate face to the same agenda.
Note: In parliamentary countries people make weird alliances all the time (eg the Israeli Labor Party with the ultra Orthodox Parties).
There would be nothing out of the ordinary for socialists or leftists making alliances with extreme libertarians to form an anti-war government.
I think in the U.S. that would be at least a little out of the ordinary. It would also require that progressives sacrifice a lot of what they believe in based on a career politician's promise that he will be anti-war.
I think in the U.S. that would be at least a little out of the ordinary. It would also require that progressives sacrifice a lot of what they believe in based on a career politician's promise that he will be anti-war.
Is it possible that Republicans could be pushed into supporting Kucinich's impeachment bill because a.) they see an invasion of Iran sending them over the cliff and b.) a lot of people in the heartland who would never think of supporting a left anti-war can be pushed into opposing the war by someone like Paul
In other words, could impeachment be used to build an effective alliance between the left and traditional conservatives who see the neocons as having sent their party over a cliff?
Is it an accident that the Republicans helped Kucinich's impeachment bill alive only the week after Paul got 4 million dollars in a day?
Couldn't that have sent a message that even white guys in the heartland want out of Iraq?
I guess so, FM. I'm more of the opinion that the Republican "support" for Kucinich's bill was based on the idea that they could use it to make the Democrats look bad.
Is it possible that Republicans could be pushed into supporting Kucinich's impeachment bill because a.) they see an invasion of Iran sending them over the cliff and b.) a lot of people in the heartland who would never think of supporting a left anti-war can be pushed into opposing the war by someone like Paul
In other words, could impeachment be used to build an effective alliance between the left and traditional conservatives who see the neocons as having sent their party over a cliff?
Is it an accident that the Republicans helped Kucinich's impeachment bill alive only the week after Paul got 4 million dollars in a day?
Short Answer: No
Long Answer: They were trying to force the Democrats to take a not-popular stand [it's not unpopular, but it's not a winning issue either] that would likely become more unpopular over time [see, Clinton impeachment]. Not that it isn't deserved in this case, but practical politics come into play.
even white guys in the heartland want out of Iraq?
Of course they do. As Atrios is fond of noting, Americans hate this fucking war. But let's not delude ourselves here. As the past decade+ has shown, any political strategy that depends on "reasonable" or "moderate" Republicans is doomed to failure.
I always thought the whole "Impeachment" scam was to create a pretty feel good hot air balloon for people to look at and keep them from focusing on real issues we are facing, and, BTW, I will add that I'm a lefty.
I just think starting something like that when 08 is so close is pointless.
No doubt we are in a mess, created from the last 7 yrs of bad leadership, but to throw support behind an extremist because he is using the right buzz words and tapping into the images of the disenchanted sounds like jumping from the frying pan into the fire, even given the poor choices for the next election.
It's like saying oh why not vote for this Hitler guy, because things are so bad and he says some good things about restoring our Fatherland?
We have seen in history where that took a society, and let's learn from that mistake.
The writing can't be any clearer on the wall about Ron Paul, it's just a matter of how long before his more well intentioned supporters finally read it and understand.
It's like saying oh why not vote for this Hitler guy, because things are so bad and he says some good things about restoring our Fatherland?
I'd argue that Cheney is a better candidate for Hitler than Ron Paul.
And aren't you arguing that "we'd better support this Hindenberg buy because we might get something worse"?
They were trying to force the Democrats to take a not-popular stand [it's not unpopular, but it's not a winning issue either] that would likely become more unpopular over time [see, Clinton impeachment].
Once again, I think this is the real division. I think the rule of law, the occupation of Iraq, and making Bush and the criminals who got us into Iraq pay. Other people think it's important to let them get away with it as part of a deal to get Hillary in the White House.
You think Clinton Impeachment. I think Iran Contra 1987. Clinton made a deal in 1993 to let the Iran Contra thugs off. We're still paying for it, not only because we got Elliot Abrams back but becuase it institutionalized the idea of making war without the consent of the governed.
FM, Ron Paul will have no power to "make Bush and the criminals who got us into Iraq pay" if he is elected president.
The time for him to try that would be NOW, as a Congressman.
He is doing NOTHING.
It's not about individuals.
If the Democrats "don't have the votes" to end the occupation of Iraq and impeach, you go to anti-war conservatives, not soft neocons like Hillary and the DLC.
FM- Just because we don't like Cheney and his scummy dealings, why would we want Ron Paul and his extremist ties and ideals?
Sorry, I say dump them both in the trash and find someone who won't try to kill our nation's education system, take away our reproductive rights and most of all.... someone who isn't advertised on and takes large donations from Stormfront!!!
If the Democrats "don't have the votes" to end the occupation of Iraq and impeach, you go to anti-war conservatives, not soft neocons like Hillary and the DLC.
Then why is Ron Paul doing NOTHING to impeach?
>>There would be nothing out of the ordinary for socialists or leftists making alliances with extreme libertarians to form an anti-war government.
But there would be something out of the ordinary with making alliances with cryptofascists like Ron Paul.
This reactionary type of anti-war movement makes me sick. At least the alterglobalist movement had the sense not to ally with National Alliance front groups. And I'm proud that my comrades and I had those street scuffles with the MNLQ and the Sons of Vinland who were trying to infiltrate the anti-FTAA riots in Quebec.
What makes the Iraq war so special that we should ally with reactionary anti-socialist forces? Imperialist wars are a dime a dozen, and they're caused by the necessities of capitalism to create stable markets, not by mere imperialist ideology. The ideology was created to justify the economic necessities of imperialism, not the other way around. Get the Libertarians in power, and all you'll get is guilty hands wringing when they're finally 'forced' to go against their precious principles to secure some oil.
Y'know, Paul not supporting Cheney's impeachment *is* surprising. Maybe Flying Monkey above (11.07.07 - 2:32 pm) has the right explanation.
Meanwhile, I found a (somewhat unscientific?) chart of the candidates' relative political positions. However, I think Clinton and Giuliani should both be closer to the authoritarian pole. And why is Richardson so far up there? What's he been up to?
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
...usprimaries2007
Kinda puts the Democratic Party's "liberalism" in perspective.
BlackBloc- Spot on!
El pueblo unido jamás será vencido!
Politicalcompass.org has some significant flaws in it and that chart definitely exposes them. Gravel is farther to the right on economic policy than the rest of the Dems mainly due to his damned national sales tax idea.
Imperialist wars are a dime a dozen, and they're caused by the necessities of capitalism to create stable markets, not by mere imperialist ideology. The ideology was created to justify the economic necessities of imperialism, not the other way around. Get the Libertarians in power, and all you'll get is guilty hands wringing when they're finally 'forced' to go against their precious principles to secure some oil.
BlackBloc, I don't like raining on your parade, because when it comes to guys like Ron Paul, we see pretty much eye to eye.
But if I am reading you aright, your thinking seems to go along pretty classical Marxist lines.
I won't belabor the history of Marxism here.
My point is other, and the bits of your comment I highlighted are key.
The whole idea of fighting wars to "create stable markets" or "secure some oil" has been trumped by military historical change.
The classical robber baron capitalists are running on empty themselves when they pull this shit. Which they insist on doing. All they are liable to achieve is to wreck the economies of the countries they use as platforms. Besides the human cost, which is horrific, this whole process exposes the intellectual bankruptcy of classical capitalist thinking.
Spend some serious quality time at places like Global Guerrillas, and start reading up on 4GW, if you haven't already done so. I also heartily recommend Bill Lind, even though he's a frank and thoroughgoing dinosaur on every subject under the sun other than generational warfare.
I can recommend a number of other works. I've been reading up on military history since I was in my teens. As things fell out, my reading took me right to the doorstep of Bill Lind and John Boyd and the "maneuverists" who tried, and failed, to re-point the Army towards operational methods more suitable for the sort of wars we find ourselves fighting these days.
I didn't even realize this fact until about three years ago.
A view of the changes from 50,000 feet is that modern smallarms and modern communications favor diffusion of authority and responsibility away from the center of an organization, and towards the periphery.
This assumes that your people can be relied upon to act responsibly in the first place, of course. If they can't, you're stuck with antique first generation "clockwork armies" or their second generation kindred. Like the army that America is now stuck with.
But if your people can be relied upon to act responsibly, and if you can suppress your own ego and fears to the extent of letting go of totally centralized and hierarchical command and control, you can beat clockwork armies, or second generation armies, like rented mules. As example, I give you the South Lebanon War of 2006.
The sting in the tail is that if this process spirals out of control, this same radical decentralization that wins your war against your would-be occupier can hand you a civil war for dessert. As has happened in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
That being said .. the robber barons aren't getting doodly squat out of Iraqi oil fields by simply stealing it, the way they'd like to. The insurgency is on more intimate terms with the jugular vein of the attempted theft than they are.
For example: Just exactly how the hell is the occupation supposed to secure hundreds of miles of fragile oil pipeline, where one single failure of defense is fatal, when they cannot even secure Baghdad??
Like I said, these people are running on empty.
I hear several people argue for voting for Ron Paul based upon his promises, yet those promises would be more efficiently carried out in his current position (the position where he can actually make laws).
When looking at his voting and sponsoring record, it's clear that the only thing he has going for him is his opposition to the patriot act. An opposition that is quite widespread among far-right people (for obvious reasons).
If it comes up to a Guiliani-Hillary race with Ron Paul as a third candidate, I would suggest that all progressives votes Hillary - she is certainly not the candidate that many would want, but it would move politics in the US more towards the left. In a duo-political system like the US the perfect is certainly the enemy of good.
Now, in the long run, it would be better to get more political parties in the US, but that has to happen on the local level, not by going after the top spot from the start. Even if a third-party candidate got elected president, it would in effect be worthless, unless backed up by congress.
Dave,
I made many of the same points to counter Glenn's constitutional argument that you've made here in a comment I'd left with him earlier that same morning. In addition I e-mailed directly to him because I could see the comments were being flooded. I'm very disappointed to see today that Glenn has closed comments on the matter without addressing any of our counterpoints. Instead he's allowed his original argument, that states and localities would do what he think Paul would only restrict the federal government from doing, to stand alone on his page.
As we've both pointed out, he's missing the whole point that Paul's objection is not just to federal involvement in education but to any government involvement at all.
That's a pretty major point for him gloss over. I really enjoy his work and usually find him to be very sharp and on the mark but, in this case, he's not represented himself well. Perhaps he just felt the need to move on with other topics. I can understand that but, at the same, he left that issue open at a very awkward point for him, I think.
-ep
Yeah, I e-mailed Glenn when I put this up, but he's been mysteriously silent.
Regardless, I'm sure we'll continue agreeing on most subjects. But he hit a sour note on this one, I think.
David,
I wouldn't start to worry just yet. Having read Glenn for as long as I have, I know that his rhythms can catch you by surprise. It would have been good to have an immediate response, but the lack thereof shouldn't be interpreted too hastily.
If anything I think Glenn has raised the attention level across the progressive blogosphere, and I don't think it likely that many will end up where his first post leaves things.
The more attention this gets, the better, I would think. A PDF of your past posts--with this one, too--might be in order.
Ah! Ron Paul! My favorite anti-government crusader, who has spent the last twenty years drawing a handsome government check. Not to mention his extra-legislative activities, if you can call them that. All those people can vote, you know.
While it is impossible to know Glenn's motivation (whether conscious or subconscious), my first impression was that Glenn might have intended to draw Ron Paul supporters to his blog (and Salon.com) - new readers who might benefit from reading all of the rest of Glenn's previous and future posts.
(Any Ron Paul post creates a spike in readership these days, and in Glenn's case that's really not a bad thing!)
Orcinus has already been demonized by many Ron Paul supporters, and nothing said here will be effective at reaching the hardcore of their ranks.
My hope is that Glenn will say no more on the subject- or continue to remain neutral- so that an even wider audience might continue to read him.
("hearts and minds" & all that...)
and it seems to be working:
recent GG comments:
Good article, Mr. Greenwald. I'm not saying that just because I'm a Dr. Paul supporter (I am), but because it shows an objectivity that's often lacking when discussing public questions.
That was a great piece. Although I do not agree with all your opinions in past columns I can certainly support your sentiments in this one. Political debate has become very antagonistic in the past 10 or 15 years, and it's important to remember that people you disagree with are not always stupid or evil.
Well said. It seems many liberals can't get their heads around the idea that he's not necessarily against social security, universal healthcare, etc. From my reading about him, Paul just takes the constitution literally and believes those are issues the states should address individually.
I agree with Glenn that views such as those espoused by Ron Paul deserve a full and fair hearing in the marketplace of ideas. Glenn's defence is principled and well formulated. So at least are some of Ron Paul's views.
Once again, I must applaud you for so eloquently expressing ideas which should be second nature to all of us. The ridiculous name-calling that passes for political is a treacherous phenomenon. We must return to rational dialogue or this country will sink in a morass of authoritarianism.
GREENWALD '08!
Ok, if you are here for guilt-of-association (his 'extremist' views), I would like to point out, that the nazi-germany, among others brang to germany:
- social benefits
- public obligatory and free education
- drug prohibition
- medicine regulation
- strict market regulation
- labour union support, minimum wage etc.
If you want to associated Paul with some racists - be aware, that you will be associated with fascists. To be honest, I would rather live with a racist who respects my rights (but just doesn't like me and won't trade with me) then with fascists.
You can keep chanting "it isn't a guilt-by-association argument", but adopting it as your mantra won't make it any less fallacious.
I understand that you enjoy opera, Dave. I believe Hitler was also an opera-lover. It seems to me we need to tug at this thread for a while to get to the bottom of your nazi sympathies. Do you attend the opera to cultivate a constituency with the stormfronters and the birchers - surreptitiously?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/.../paul-
arch.html
Just go read what the man has been saying the last thirty years.
Good luck with Hillary.
Wow...a personal and distorted interpretation of what Ron Paul endorses and WHY. He is for limiting the power of GOVERNMENT to make decisions for the citizens of America and wants local and state governing bodies to make decisions according to the people residing there!! Duh! I guess truth twisting, half truth, subversive and slanderous writings are to be found all over. Lets hope pal that Ron Paul does get elected or your free speech days may be limited and you'll be next in line for a national "ID card"...nay, "ID chip" implanted in your all knowing ass!
I read the comments and can't stop laughing.
It is quite telling to read all the childish insults that are hurled Dr. Paul's way and come to the conclusion that the sheeple are nervous. When someone threatens the socialistic way of life (public brainwashing/schools, "free" health-care at the expense of others) the debate is reduced to insults.
Since 1913 this country has slowly gone down the toilet because of the assault on the Constitution and liberty.
The dollar is barely worth the paper it is printed on and the reason is the removal of the gold standard. Ron Paul has been saying this for 30 years and no one wanted to listen. Well throughout the news you read about the coming financial disaster.
The public school system is a disaster that is creating functional illiterates everyday. People believe so highly in public education but do not give people a chance to opt out. I don't consider having to pay twice for education (i.e. paying for public through taxes and private after taxes) a choice. If you know it works so well than why worry so much? People will contribute to a good cause without being coerced through taxation. That is how a real free market works. But we all know that the public school system isn't really about the children but about the jobs and teachers unions.
I'll take his "radical" ways of thinking any day over a bunch of socialists who hide behind their view of the "free market". I leave you with this quote by Jacob Hornberger:
"Goethe once pointed out that none are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The Cuban people have suffered through decades of socialism, but at least they know what socialism is. Who is freer -- those who know the truth or those who do not?
Just wanted to pitch in my two cents about the Commerce Clause. I would have to agree with those on the right who think that it is one hell of a stretch to put Civil Rights legislation under the umbrella of 'regulating interstate commerce.'
However, this stretch wouldn't be necessary if the 14th Amendment hadn't been castrated by the Slaughterhouse Cases way back when. Civil rights legislation had to happen, and when the old-old-school conservatives blocked its legitimate path via the 14th Amendment, it went through the Commerce Clause instead.
So I would say, overrule the Slaughterhouse Cases, give Congress the power it needs for civil rights legislation and rein back in the distorted Commerce Clause we have today.
The problem isn't so much Paul's ideological connections to various odious groups. It's that he's running for president in 2007-8, as if it's 1907-8.
Comments like this:
Since 1913 this country has slowly gone down the toilet because of the assault on the Constitution and liberty.
Add fuel to the fire. Were you around in 1913, Mr (White, Male) Lib&Cap?
More generally, political movements that basically want the clock turned back beyond living memory are problematic, because they're appeals to an imagined past.
Just wondering a couple of things about Paul's stances:
-Is calling for the end to government education so terribly bad? Only 60% of high school 9th graders graduate. Less than half of high school graduates who go to college actually finish. Is this considered successful? Would you invest in a business with this kind of failure rate?
-Paul also spoke at the Arab-American Institute. Does this mean he believes in Islam? Does this mean he supports "IslamoFascism?"
How else do you get people to modify their thinking unless you talk to them? Would Christians be Christians if the Apostle Paul never told the story to people - even "bad" people?
-As for the "New World Order" paranoia - I don't know much on this - but there were a number of stories in the news recently about creating governmental bodies that would handle issues for all of North America. In the link in your story to Jeff Fecke, he states that Paul is a "rambling, psychotic-guy-on-the-corner."
First, is this what passes for intellectual debate? Boyish ad hominems?
Second, here are some links that discuss the subject and support Paul's views:
http://www.humanevents.com/artic...le.php?
id=14965
http://www.augustreview.com/issu...nion_200608181/
Lou Dobbs report: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H...h?
v=H65f3q_Lm9U
here's one opposed:
http://www.alternet.org/audits/54184/
here's the link to the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) paper:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/
8..._community.html
-Since I'm going backwards through the article, I finish with that which you started: Paul's online "organization."
I've been a believer in Ron Paul for sometime, having lived in a district adjacent to his in Texas. He is a consistent and thoughtful man. But what his detractors don't REALLY grasp: that's what draws us to him. He's genuine.
He didn't organize us. His campaign didn't organize us. We show up for him. We support him. We all have different reasons, but we all are attracted to his consistent conservatism.
I talk to people about Paul but I've never talked to someone from his office or campaign. I can read his views online. I can read his writings online. I can make my decision without some paid political-lackey telling me who to support.
Can you say that about Romney? Guiliani? Huckabee? Any of the Dems? Do any of the other candidates websites have ANYWHERE NEAR the same amount of writings that Paul has on his site. I mean, actually written by the candidate. These guys are all politicians. These guys will say whatever they must in order to get elected.
Ron Paul is a statesman.
No one organizes the Paul supporters. We don't try to "plant questions" in the crowd. We don't get our tickets paid for at Straw Polls. We don't support him for the promise of an ambassadorship or government position.
We support him because he's frugal with his money. We support him because he sees what the Fed is doing to our dollar through inflation (by the way rate drop = inflation; bailout = inflation). We support him because he believes states can govern better than DC. We support him because he sees that wars - drug, Iraq, Iran - do nothing but use up our resources. We support him because his voting record in the House - while not perfect - is damn well better than any other Republican. He's a true Republican - for smaller government, less spending, non-intervention, sound money, more freedoms, greater liberties.
Again I ask, name another candidate you can say that about - and BELIEVE IT - and I vote for them.
Too bad you can't.
Our foreign policy is bankrupting the country. The current wars cost 1,600,000,000,000,000. This is the most important issue of our lives. It's not just Iraq it's the 700 military bases in 130 countries. We can't pay for this foreign policy we don't have the money. We are using our childrens, childrens money. You must vote for a candidate that will drastically change our foreign policy. Don't let the parties drag issue's in front of this one that may touch you on a more emotional level. Focus on the fact that we are spending our childrens money on a foreign policy designed to cause endless war.
Ron Paul is a statesman.
President Clinton was a statesman, Chancellor Kohl was a statesman. Ron Paul is a conspiracy believing no-body.
His issues are entirely local (even his foreign policy is locally oriented, except perhaps for his grab for the Panama Channel), and that flies against being 'a statesman'.
If he gets elected, he will be inefficient (no backing from congress), and unable to work together with foreign nations. Why should the rest of the world take him seriously, when he obviously have so little understanding of how international politics, or international economics for that matter, works?
This is what the Ron Paul fans doesn't seem to understand. The US doesn't operate in a vacuum. B
Dave,
I must take umbrage with one leit motif throughout this post: the assertion that Ron Paul-- or Libertarians-- are 'far right.'
I spent most of my youth as a die-hard Libertarian. I voted for Ron Paul in my first Presidential elections. Neither of these things is evidence of my being far-right. Quite the contrary.
As you may recall from your first college civics class, when plotting the positions of the various political parties on a chart, we place democrats to the left and republicans to the right. To the far left are socialists and, perhaps erroneously, communists, and the the far-right we put religous radicals and organizations such as the KKK.
Libertarians, by contrast, are dead-center. They believe, as I did and to a great extent still do, that people everywhere have a right to trade amongst themselves freely and that they have the right to be treated equally in so much as they have the right to be left alone as long as they are not impinging on another's right to same.
Perhaps this plotting puts them at the center by virtue of two extremist and, at least in modern politics, evidently contrasting positions: free trade from the right and civil liberties from the left; but it is simply erroneous to call Ron Paul or any true Libertarian 'far right.'
My own views are far more liberal today then when I was an adolescent or young adult, call me a left-leaning libertarian. Ron Paul's are not. And while I may no longer espouse the same views as does he, I think that one has to respect the fact that he gives voice to meaningful and laudable ideas.
Were we to be stuck with a Republican again, we can only pray that it would be Dr. Paul.
Man, those Pauliacs are madder than hornets.
And not much brighter.
Of course I wasn't around during 1913, genius.
Neither were you and somehow that makes it any less relevant Mr. (Socialist mooch)?
Now we can only speak about things that we were actually present for?
If anything has happened outside of our lifetime it is considered imagined?
History gives us an insight into the thinking that was present before the federal government hijacked the country and establishes the way the government was supposed to be run.
Your thinking is the typical response to knowing your wrong. Trying to label anyone that doesn't accept the status quo is considered adding fuel to the fire.
What fire would that exactly be?
The fire currently consuming Americans liberty, wealth and freedoms?
Apparently the founding fathers should of accepted the encroachments on their liberty and wealth and stuck with the stauts quo because they were adding fuel to the imaginary fire, right?
Everything you say is hogwash and people are finally beginning to accept that this government is the biggest threat to their liberty and hard earned wealth. Not everyone is going to take it lying down and watch a bunch of socialist morons (like yourself) try and fleece them dry.
The founding fathers didn't accept this nonsense and the mere hint of a candidate who won't either is scaring the crap out of all you freeloaders.
'the price of liberty is eternal vigilance and that the natural tendency is for government to grow and liberty to yield." ---Thomas Jefferson
Geologist discovers link to the next 911 in global warning policy
www.H2onE2.com Glacial Respiration, Conceptual Ring of Ice, The End of Linear Western Religion
A Geological Exploration of an E2 Earthen Planet And the H2 Human Species
Author: B Billy Marse, Professional Geologist
Brief Description:
www.H2onE2.com is an exploration of the universe, geology, climate, biology, humans, psychology, folklore and ancient structures to uncover the beginning and disclose the end of linear western religion. The true DaVinci Code behind the bible is not a supreme spiritual power but a scientific record of climate change described as Glacial Respiration. The Greek philosophers originated the practice of communicating a hidden idea or message in the short story format, as a metaphor. In the bible, metaphors conceal historic climate change within the fanciful stories. The theory of Glacial Respiration explains the myth behind the Holy Grail, structures such as the Great Pyramids, Stonehenge, Easter Island and is the knowledge that was collected in the Jewish Ark of the Covenant.
The environmental changes of Glacial Respiration determine all biological evolution and can explain why higher forms of intelligent humans developed. Further, Glacial Respiration releases the secret hidden by the Knights Templars, Masonic Order and all religions. Uncovers an advanced Blue-Blooded semi-industrial Atlantian Civilization that was built and destroyed many times over for the last million years. The book ends with an explanation of how linear western religion will be physically ended and describes the construction of the doomsday device capable of fulfilling its own self defining prophesy, “Revelations”. H2onE2 is a mind-expanding experience that stimulates the soul, instinct, intellect and is an almanac to the past, present and future of humanity. Rise, awaken and evolve into H3 human consciousness.
The discovery:
As a Professional Geologist, I attempted to link the Dust Bowl/Great Depression to a pre-glacial condition or mechanism and ended up writing the book H2onE2. I felt that there was a strong connection between the Dust Bowl and transition back into Glacial Winter. I did notice that my professors scientifically crumbled every time I mentioned the relationship. I could not go back in time or locate indisputable proof. The proof came from understanding all educational disciplines including history and theology. I soon discovered that all religious text both eastern and western continually described significant climate change conditions relating to Glacial Respiration. For years I fought off mixing science and religion until I discovered that the origins of all religions were founded or created to help humans psychologically survive the harsh earthen environment. Without reason I soon accepted that the world's complicated religions were the same. This came true and I continued to write and discover. Everything came into place as though I was unlocking a 10,000-year-old puzzle. I also realized this puzzle was opened before I discovered it, by someone else, some other group. If so, further understanding of this knowledge might be extracted from significant historical events. Lastly, this is the vital information needed to make future predictions.
evefvev
RE: "The US doesn't operate in a vacuum."
That's true. But I'm sick of playing "policeman" all over the world.
The total spending for Afghanistan and Iraq is now $1.6 trillion. That's over $5,000 PER AMERICAN. Over $20,000 per household. That's over $400,000,000 for every person killed on 9/11. It was all paid for by Treasury bills that were sold to China and Japan (they hold $2.7 trillion in U.S. notes). In other words, we borrowed money to pay for these wars.
We wonder why the Canadian dollar is now worth more than ours.
We wonder why the euro is now worth almost $1.50.
We wonder why New Orleans isn't rebuilt.
We wonder why gold is over $800/oz.
We wonder why oil is nearly $100/barrel.
We wonder why foreign tourism in America is down.
We wonder why education sucks, bridges collapse, and roadway crumble.
Think about it. Do you want to deal with people who try and tell you how to live your life? Especially at the end of a gun? No American would tolerate a foreign occupation, why would we expect any other human being to tolerate it?
Doesn't anyone see we're making more enemies than friends? Don't we realize than for every wedding, hospital and school we accidentally bomb, each surviving family member who lost a loved one now hates America?
Again: listen to Jesus - walk a mile in their shoes. If a foreign army came to America to liberate the American people from the oppressive regime of George Bush and that army accidentally (or purposely) killed a family member, wouldn't you turn into one of the kids from "Red Dawn?" Wouldn't you do everything in your power to make sure that those bastards that killed your ______(brother, mother, father, sister, aunt, uncle, friend etc) would suffer the same fate? Wouldn't you be making IED's and roadside bombs? I would.
RON PAUL is the ONLY candidate, on either side, saying we should stop worrying about the Middle East because, like Reagan said (I paraphrase), the dynamics are too confusing and long-lived for us to understand.
It's time to bring the troops home. It's time to get them out of harm's way. It's time to stop watching 19-year olds come home with their limbs blown off.
If Reagan could walk away from Lebanon after the Beirut bombing - because he knew it would solve nothing and waste American lives - we should walk away now.
And I'd really like my $20,000 back.
Thanks for pointing this out -- the stupid fundraising techniques that some Paul supporters have resorted to.
Indeed, as Ron Paul bewails things like the 500,000 displaced Iraqis and the untold tens of thousands of Iraqi innocents murdered at the hands of America's proudest, and the billions of dollars Americans have paid for this Godly and Holy war that he is too crazy to understand, you've taken the high road and alerted us to this smut! A young girl taking off her pants and sweater for the sake of attention for her chosen candidate! Thank God my children haven't stumbled on this pornography yet, and Lord knows they won't just so long as they stay tuned to Fox, Laura Ingraham, and your blog. What has America become? You, sir, are a Godly man. A reward awaits you in heaven.
Why the Authoritarian, "guilt-by-association" Left is not all that different from the neocons: they worship the Establishment and see Huge government as the solution. Here's a great article on antiwar.com
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?
a...articleid=11905
Very good article, as are all at antiwar.com.
He's still a racist son of a bitch
http://bluehampshire.com/showDia...do?
diaryId=2595
Waaaait a second... it's not guilt by association because he doesn't hold with the views of his racist followers, but that's not okay because he does hold with the views of his far-right followers, and a lot of them are racists?
As a non-racist paleoconservative, you've just slandered ME with guilt by association, and then lumped Ron Paul in the same group as me! Here's a hint: Being radical right, or even extremist, does not make one morally, ethically, or factually wrong. Apparently, though, it does make you consistent, and that appears to be intolerable.
I am a Ron Paul supporter 110%, and I and a group of my friends would like to sincerly thank you for making our own point and for showing the virtues of our beloved Ron Paul. And with the grace of God, he will be the next prisident of these United States. I understand you meant it to discourage people from supporting him and to discredit him, but your blog has the opposite effect. Thank you so very much and keep up the good work.
this is really entertaining!
actually, there were few bigger racists/homophobes than che and fidel. do some research. gonna drop your support of them? they put gay folks in jail. won't even let Amnesty Int into their paradise ( i read that on AI's website btw). progressives.
as far as the 'anti-war' and 'anarchist' demos being working-class. ha ha ha. mostly college kids. i used to belong to the SWP, believe me, i know.
"spanish civil war?" "death of mateotti" wow--it's like reading "the masses"! just think! your US Gulag has already been prepared by Bush and Clinton. just awaiting your enlightened administration.
RP is kooky, and i will always fight for worker's rights, against him or anyone else--being a bona-fide born in the ghetto working-class element, but his criticism of the war and police state are good starts. kucinich seems to think so. he said RP was courageous, honest and HIS CHOICE FOR A RUNNING MATE.
I am a Ron Paul supporter, but I am not afraid to admit that as a candidate he has faults.
As far as population control/birth control/abortion, anyone who isn't at least a Christian would disagree with Paul.
BUT, the blurbs offered in the latest post often serve to distort the intentions of his proposals. Examples are numerous.
First comes the "We the People Act." The issues that would be covered in the act serve to eliminate rulings in ONLY Federal courts. This has no affect on the rulings of States, where such rulings were intended to be made in the framings of the Constitution.
As for the elimination of Social Security, the act makes it OPTIONAL, not eliminated. In this way, an individual could choose to use that more than 8% of income for whatever he wishes.
On not eliminating the electoral college and efforts to make the US more democratic, refer to the Federalist #10 and #51 and perhaps Plato's Republic, then make an informed decision once the pros and cons of a republic/democracy
Ron Paul's legislations do much to limit the actions and regulations of the Federal government. Mind you, they have no regard whatsoever to the actions of State governments.
Another large omission is the question of national sovereignty in Paul's record. The portrayal here of the International courts and UN as superior to our own systems is bizarre in my opinion (more concentration of power a good thing?) These two points are negligently (dare I say intentionally?) absent and obscured by this piece of journalism.
How can anyone who publishes such gross misrepresentations of truth consider himself a journalist?
Cheapest FFXI Gil, Buy Cheap FFXI Gil, final Fantasy XI Gil,
then please go to FFXI Gil, Buy FFXI Gil, FFXI Gil Sale,
warcraft power leveling and understanding for WoW PL'ers warcraft gold. Come to here for wow leveling. If you are in the mood for Final Fantasy XI gil,
Hello, there. This is a quick summary of the goodness of buying wow gold from wow gold, wow power level, the World of Warcraft network of trust wow power leveling,
you are good girl.
lapel pins manufacturer
MP3 Players
The world of Warcraft gold sales ( wow power leveling )
Commenting by HaloScan
