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 an