You know, David, Glenn may not realize that Ron Paul traffics with some very bad people in our society. But the White Power movement knows -- and supports him completely. That's not irrelevant to me.
Keep telling the truth about Paul. He's right about the war, and wrong about virtually everything else, and he would be a serious danger to our republic if elected.
Hi There,
Just wanted to pipe up. Your post seems to focus mostly on the fact that the Paul campaign has received support from elements of the radical right.
I think that its silly to lump Paul along with the radical right. If anything Paul's ideas on the constitution, individual liberties and an end to the war in Iraq are very mainstream.
They are certainly old fashioned, but to say that he advocates an extremist position seems out of touch with the realities of his biography and his voting record.
I will say that its true that radical right white supremacists like him - this is unpleasant for many Paul supporters. That said, I have the strong impression from reading his writings that civil rights legislation would be strictly enforced.
Also, for what its worth, if he really had the righest radical agenda - as you assert, why then would he lift America's strongest anti-black policies, drug laws?
My ultimate conclusion is that Paul is a constitutionalist, not a radical rightest as you state.
Thanks,
James
It's a bit like discovering that Alexander Cockburn is a global-warming denialist. Greenwald is not a reactionary, but he has a blind spot. Also there is so much despair and misery on the American left, many having (fifty years too late) discovered how right-wing the Democrats are, that people like Greenwald seem to be clutching at what they think are straws, though they are actually floating turds.
You know, Bo Gritz always insisted he was just a constitutionalist too. So color me less than persuaded.
(1) I specifically said that I believed your error was unintentional, precisely because it stemmed from Paul's unusual practice of introducing amendments he doesn't agree with. Your statement about his flag-burning position was false, but not intentionally so, and I assumed - and still do -- that it was made in good faith. But it was still false.
Indeed, I said that the post you wrote on Paul's legislative record was otherwise "informative and legitimate." Is there something inappropriate about correcting a factual error in someone's post?
(2) The only specific criticism I made of your post was that error. All of the other commentary about "fruitcakes" and "weirdos" and smearing Paul with names of that sort wasn't directed to you, either implicitly or otherwise - it was directed to the bloggers to whom I linked who did that, namely Matt Yglesias and Kevin Drum and anyone else who hurled similar insults.
(3) As for the post you wrote about all of Paul's associations, I linked to that post and encouraged people to go read it and make up their own minds. I even supplemented your point with additional evidence that you didn't mention in that post (the Houston Chroncile argument). While I don't agree with your arguments on Paul's associations, what more do you think I ought to do than link to it, add more evidence to it and encourage everyone to give it a fair hearing?
Umn, how about acknowledging that I wasn't "smearing" Ron Paul? That would be good for starters.
Second, perhaps you can explain why you omitted this part of Paul's remarks on flag burning:
"Under the Constitutional principle of federalism, questions such as whether or not Texas should prohibit flag burning are strictly up to the people of Texas, not the United States Supreme Court. Thus, if this amendment simply restored the state's authority to ban flag burning, I would enthusiastically support it."
Dunno about you, but that doesn't sound like someone who opposes a flag-burning ban on civil-libertarian grounds. But you're the expert on that, so I may be mistaken.
He was the only member of Congress to vote against a bill commemorating the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He gave a floor speech denouincing "the forced intergration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964". That's enough for me to reject him, even if I didn't know he has SPOKEN AT gatherings of extreme far-right groups, including the neo-Confederate CofCC. Is there really any functional difference between Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan?
I think attempts to use the views of a candidate's supporters to reflect poorly on the candidate is a "smear," for the reasons I explained. And I think that's true of any candidate.
It's also a "smear" of a candidate to (i) state that a candidate has a position that he doesn't actually have and then (ii) refuse to correct the statement once you are aware it's false.
Saying that the "state should have the freedom to do X" isn't the same as advocating "X." Under Paul's view, states have the right to recognize same-sex marriages if they choose. Does that mean you think he's in favor of gay marriages?
No, but he hasn't presented a bill to do so, either.
Glenn Greenwald... I think attempts to use the views of a candidate's supporters to reflect poorly on the candidate is a "smear," for the reasons I explained. And I think that's true of any candidate.
Glenn, surely you have to allow that it depends on the "supporters" in question. Otherwise all attempts to equate Moveon with Hitler are legitimate.
Secondarily, you're eluding the point: You're surely not trying to claim that the remainder of those 159 bills were presented for the same purpose -- that is, to make a point about federalism -- are you?
I mean, explain to me: How are those 159 links -- along with two very arguably questionable ones -- to bills that Paul sponsored a smear?
However this plays out, I want to thank the three of you for doing this. Dave, Sara and Glenn have done us all a favor by focusing political discourse on issues other than wardrobe choices and haircut styles.
Glenn:
I think attempts to use the views of a candidate's supporters to reflect poorly on the candidate is a "smear," for the reasons I explained. And I think that's true of any candidate.
So you don't think having every neo-Nazi on the planet come out of the woodwork to support Ron Paul sets off any alarms for you?
I mean, Hillary, Mitt, Edwards, Obama -- they don't have this problem, do they? (OK, Rudy has Robertson, but that's still considered mainstream, for some reason.)
Though that, for me, has always been a secondary nuance to my main point, which is that there is a reason for that attraction -- namely, Ron Paul's embrace of an agenda that, at the bare minimum, is the realization of every John Bircher's dream: tear down the federal government, end the Federal Reserve and the IRS, go back to the gold standard, get out of the U.N., end all gun control, destroy the "New World Order". And if you look at his history in the "Patriot" movement, it's not hard to figure out where this is coming from.
I'll have a post talking about this in more detail tomorrow.
Guilt-by-association is a favorite method of authoritarians...and neocons. Here are 5 of the recent bills Ron Paul introduced or co-sponsored:
HR 2117 - Health Freedom Protection Act http://www.govtrack.us/congress/...?bill=h110-
2117
HR 3600 - Voter Freedom Act of 2007
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/...?bill=h110-
3600
HR 3664 - Tax Free Tips Act of 2007
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/...?bill=h110-
3664
HR 3835 - American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 (Habeas Corpus)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/...?bill=h110-
3835
HJ Res 53 - Constitutional War Powers Amendments of 2007
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/...d?bill=hj110-
53
Hi David,
"Every neo-Nazi in the planet...". Call it what it is, a smear job. You just can't help it, can you.
Ah. This is not what you were looking at but this does back you up. Once you see this map, you'll recognize the geographical area in question. Some might call it "Black Helicopter" country but that might be considered a "smear".
Dave writes...
The problem with Ron Paul isn't that he has irrelevant associations with far-right extremists -- it's that he seeks out their support, openly advocates their agenda, and receives financial and ideological support from them. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read somewhere awhile back -- though I can't find it now -- that Paul has historically received an unusually high percentage of his financial support for his congressional campaigns from outside his district.) Those grim realities make his associations all too relevant, especially for a public official in the position of a serving congressman, and now, presidential candidate.
http://www.ronpaulgraphs.com/donors.html
Alaska is there but you have to zoom out and slide up.
All charts and graphs:
http://www.ronpaulgraphs.com/dir.../
directory.html
So L.W.M, are California and NH backwoods country? It must be these big farmers at Kern County. Then again, Ron Paul is against subsidies to Big Agriculture. But you don't want to know that, do you?
So L.W.M, are California and NH backwoods country?
New Hampshire?
http://www.openleft.com/showDiar...do?
diaryId=2249
It has it's share and I thought everyone knew California is full of "fruits and nuts" or "Granola" as we Californians (transplanted) like to call it.
You may want to reiterate that you've spent 20 years tracking the right wing, and have written several well-regarded books on the subject. In fact, you're the left-wing blogosphere's point man on this subject -- so it's rather surprising to find these kinds of attacks on your credibility on this subject coming from inside our own quarters.
Unless I read this incorrectly, the problem here is that she is doesn't understand Greenwald. Greenwald is on the warpath because he is a Paul supporter and is slowly coming out in an effort to push a Libertarian agenda. He is not attacking "from inside our own quarters" because his quarters are not your quarters. But then I think you may understand that now.
The "moderate left" might just reach more people when it becomes smart enough to regard "Black Helicopter Country" as part of We the People rather than object of derision and sneer. Ron Paul spoke at a conference run by people (fellow citizens) you have a problem with, but he has also spoken at a mostly African-American college and is the only presidential candidate to speak at the recent Arab-American Conference.
David Duke expressed support for Cindy Sheehan. Does that make her any less of a brave anti-war activist?
Thank you, LWM. You are a genius. You still can't do research, though.
Open-Left and Fox News-2 peas in the same smear pod. Almost identical rhetoric.
Does that make her any less of a brave anti-war activist?
Judging by her recent comments and behavior it makes her a pitiable "useful idiot" for people like you, Bill. And you are just another "useful idiot" for the real useless idiots, the extremist, ultra-right wing in America. That's based on the research I can't seem to do.
Unless I read this incorrectly, the problem here is that she is doesn't understand Greenwald. Greenwald is on the warpath because he is a Paul supporter and is slowly coming out in an effort to push a Libertarian agenda. He is not attacking "from inside our own quarters" because his quarters are not your quarters. But then I think you may understand that now.
That's probably not entirely accurate. Glenn's priorities tend to be legalistic, constitutional and favoring the rule of law. He has little interest in the economic dimension of the issues as far as I can tell.
Glenn mentioned Bruce Fein in his post and compared him to Ron Paul. I wonder how accurate and fair an equivalence that might be. I would be interested to hear what John Dean, another conservative Glenn has a fair amount of respect for, would make of that comparison and also what his opinion on Ron Paul might be. It might be a good interview if Glenn cared to find out.
Anonymous, judging from your comment, you are an useful idiot (no quotes necessary here) for an authoritarian government, Left or Right.
Bruce Fein co-wrote Ron Paul's American Freedom Agenda Act, enthusiastically supported by Naomi Wolf and ACLU. More "useful idiots" in your failure to see the big picture.
Listen to yourself
YES, he's against flag burning, as he would be against singing in the rain, but he's against MAKING IT ILLEGAL under FEDERAL LAW.
He doesn't mind it being banned in Texas because he believes in State rights, unlike many who are ok with big government so long as it favors them
Smear does not mean outright false or intentional lie, it can mean misleading statements with negative effects.
Anonymous,
Keep using the word "extremist". It's a more honest smear than your shadow LWM's "black helicopter country". If you use that word enough times, it becomes the absolute truth. A scribe you are.
Glenn, you can easily correct this mess you've made in one of the eight-to-twenty updates that accompany each of your articles, and I strongly suggest and pray that you do so.
You've pissed away almost all respect I have for you in a single day, and that's no small feat. Your unfortunate knack for making gigantic, lava-belching mountains out of tiny, insignificant molehills is taking you off the damned rails, and the only ones who could possibly be enjoying this gross spectacle of defensive posturing are the LGFers.
You wanna play connect the dots to racism? Try this one!
http://ivorypower.com/blog/?p=4505
According to your standard, a racist cannot contribute or support any candidate, and anything a racist believes outside of his racist beliefs is equally invalid as his racist beliefs.
That's probably not entirely accurate. Glenn's priorities tend to be legalistic, constitutional and favoring the rule of law. He has little interest in the economic dimension of the issues as far as I can tell.
Sorry, don't buy it. If that were true he could choose to push "straight talking outsider" Kucinich. He hasn't and he won't. In both of his Ron Paul pieces he has tried to equate/link Paul with Dean much like BushCo links Al Qaeda and Iraq. He is a Paul supporter. I will grant that he cares most about perceived "constitutionalist" bona fides but, again, Kucinich has those too. No, I think what we are seeing here is, as the elections draw closer, the inevitable break-up of the anti-fascist coalition. The Libertarians are making their break and they have a new mouthpiece. It will be tough for his long time readers to swallow but it is what it is.
Kyle, these smearbots love the idea of thought crime.
Glenn is right on!
happy days!
finally david is engaging in his comments on the issues raised by his posts on ron paul.
i had given up on the possibility of seeing a conversation on this - and am very glad that glenn has been able to get one going.
i've questioned david's posts on ron paul since his first one was posted at firedoglake... because the arguments sure look like guilt by association and double standards to me. but i respected david too much to dismiss his thinking out of hand. here's hoping for a long and thoughtful dialogue, now that one has begun.
.
happenstance,
Actually, LGFers love Ron Paul detractors from the Left, just like William Kristol loves the top-tier Democrats. Neolib and neocons must unite for the common goal: preserve CENTRALIZED power.
Actually, LGFers love Ron Paul detractors from the Left, just like William Kristol loves the top-tier Democrats. Fay | 11.13.07 - 2:58 am |
Well, you are right about that. Now let's all do the correct thing and vote for Kucinich. The only man who wants to get back to the rule of law, protect and defend the constitution and civil liberties and also not turn the country into West Somalia!
"So it's OK to demonize Hillary for the people who are funding her campaign and supporting her candidacy -- but we're not allowed to judge Paul by the same criteria? Glenn keeps coming back over and over to how we're not supposed to engage in guilt by association -- but he just did it himself here."
here's an example of what appears, at least to me, to be a double standard.
sara - criticising hillary clinton for the people she chooses as her important advisors (see mark penn) is NOT the same as criticising ron paul for the people who send him money and vote for him. if/when he chooses someone from stormfront to be his pollster - then it would be a fair argument.
more broadly, i saw glenn's use of clinton as an illustrative example. if david's critique of paul was applied to clinton - wouldn't there be reason to call her policies extremist also? and yet, david seems to say that paul is extremist and clinton is not. that, i think, is a double standard.
........
david - the reason i have been raising questions about your posts on ron paul is because i don't get the arguments - and if i'm missing something significant, it's possible i'm not the only one. why not engage in good faith, unless you think i am either an idiot or a troll?
disclaimer - i'm not a ron paul supporter, his politics are not my own. but i do see some of the support for him (not the stormfronters) as a healthy sign and not the dangerous one you describe. juan cole's recent post on paul support rings true for me (although i may disagree with other aspects). here's a snippet:
"Ron Paul's popularity does not derive only from his opposition to the Iraq War. It derives from the sanity of the American people, who love liberty and reject Bushism. The opposite of fascism is not democracy but anarchy."
http://www.juancole.com/2007/11/...e-ron-
paul.html
if i am 180 degrees wrong, then i would really like to be corrected. but i have to be persuaded - and i find this post (and the earlier ones i've read) completely unpersuasive for the reasons that glenn describes.
.
Am I missing something, or is Mr. Paul advocating the correct position on flag-burning for a dangerously wrong reason?
Flag-burning is protected by the first amendment because it's overtly political speech. Mr. Paul appears to ignore the first amendment issue entirely, and instead hangs his opposition on Article I, section 8--since Congress has no constitutional authority to ban flag burning, it can't.
The problem is that the two arguments apply very differently to the states. If flag burning is protected under the first amendment, then the 14th amendment says the states can't ban it either. If the problem is merely Art. I Section 8, then the states can do as they like.
A strict adherence to a very narrow reading of Article I Section 8 is no substitute for the Bill of Rights. The fifty states can separately destroy our rights as easily as a national government.
This is not just a matter of "guilt by association". If it were just that racists and extremists were giving Paul their unsolicited support, that might be the case. But if he's been attending their meetings and otherwise tacitly showing that he welcomes and wants their support, that's an entirely different matter.
if i am 180 degrees wrong, then i would really like to be corrected. but i have to be persuaded - and i find this post (and the earlier ones i've read) completely unpersuasive for the reasons that glenn describes.
selise
Selise,
Juan Cole has his area of expertise, Glenn Greenwald has his and Dave and Sara have theirs. If Dave has been tracking the extreme ultra right in this country as long as he says - and I have no reason to doubt him, he's been doing it longer than Glenn has been practicing law.
Clearly this is not Juan Cole's area of expertise.
The opposite of fascism is not democracy but anarchy.
Not even close.
I mean, Hillary, Mitt, Edwards, Obama -- they don't have this problem, do they? (OK, Rudy has Robertson, but that's still considered mainstream, for some reason.)
Actually, bizarrely enough, the Clintons now have Richard Mellon Scaife.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/69545
Last July, the former president sat down with a billionaire impressed with the William J. Clinton Foundation's campaign against AIDS in Africa. The two men chatted amiably over lunch for more than two hours, and the visitor pledged to write Clinton's foundation a generous check. But there was something unusual, if not plain weird, about the meeting. NEWSWEEK has learned that the billionaire so eager to endear himself to the former president was Richard Mellon Scaife
Rupert Murdoch
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/
2...in1600694.shtml
Conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch will host a fundraiser for liberal New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Financial Times reports.
And Charles Krauthammer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...7101101598.html
I could never vote for her because the Clintons' liberal internationalism on display in the 1990s -- the pursuit of paper treaties and the reliance on international institutions -- is naive in theory and feckless in practice. And her domestic policy sees state intervention and expansion as the answer to every human ill from mortgage default to the common cold. Nonetheless, if 2008 is going to be a Democratic year, as it very well could, Hillary would serve the country better than any of her Democratic rivals.
Rudy not only has Robertson but Daniel Pipes, Norman Podhoretz, and Michael Rubin.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/2...ics&
oref=slogin
Mr. Giuliani’s team includes Norman Podhoretz, a prominent neoconservative who advocates bombing Iran “as soon as it is logistically possible”; Daniel Pipes, the director of the Middle East Forum, who has called for profiling Muslims at airports and scrutinizing American Muslims in law enforcement, the military and the diplomatic corps; and Michael Rubin, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who has written in favor of revoking the United States’ ban on assassination.
I'm not quite sure why support from genocide junkies like Krauthammer and Podhoretz is any better than support from Nazis
Well, better Ron Paul than Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, or any of the other "double Gitmo" "more torture" folks running for the Republican nomination.
Seriously, a sexist racist who opposes torture is a vast improvement over the lot of them. Frankly the fringe neo-Nazis may be backing Paul, but the serious fascists are backing Giuliani. Giuliani isn't racist or sexist -- he's happy to kidnap and torture *any* of you, no matter what your skin color!
"I'm still having trouble, I'll admit, recovering from my astonishment that Glenn Greenwald is one of them." -- you're in good company, buddy. I feel like I need to write him a "let's just be friends" letter or something.
Flying Monkey,
Some of those stories are over a year old.
The writing was on the wall a few years ago and the very wealthy can afford to hedge their bets. Ideologically it is meaningless. Purely political. You wonder what the difference is? I'll tell you quite plainly. One group of these RWAs thinks the greatest threat to liberty is an external threat, (islamic terrorists). The other fears the greatest threat to their liberty is an internal threat, liberals, progressives, socialists, collectivists, whatever. Their solutions will be the same either way. It always is with them. They are both xenophobic on immigration but Bush likes to provide cheap labor for big business.
Dave and Sara,
Take your medicine: you guys are off-base. It's sad really.
Dave and Sara,
Take your medicine: you guys are off-base. It's sad really.
BG
You take your tin foil hat off first, troofer.
No, I think what we are seeing here is, as the elections draw closer, the inevitable break-up of the anti-fascist coalition. The Libertarians are making their break and they have a new mouthpiece. It will be tough for his long time readers to swallow but it is what it is.
I must say that this seems to be a reasonable supposition as to what is occurring with Greenwald at Salon. Centripedal force affects the progressives just as much as it affect the loons of the GOP.
As the primaries draw nigh, people are going to get all frothy as they look at their crystal balls (candidates) and see exactly (and ONLY) what they want to see. Glenn is not immune and his crystal ball has an image of Paul in it with people tossing flowers and candy at him as he cuts loose the dogs of corporations to rape the environment and he cuts the safety net out from under everyone.
Hilarious!
About Ron Paul
Many are asking, "Why isn't Ron Paul on the condensed monthly poll and weekly poll?"
I'll give a time line and summary of developments on this site relating to Ron Paul.
When Ron Paul first announced I received many emails telling me to put him on. Not nice emails. They were emails filled with expletives and full of berating comments.
Since strawpoll08 is trying to be fair and include all, (as you can see from having over 120 candidates and over 50 parties to choose from) I decided to put him on all the polls.
I soon learned something. In the world of the Ron Paul follower, if he isn't winning, then it must be because of a big vast corporate conspiracy meant to suppress him. But if he is winning, then it's the Jesus given truth.
Well Ron Paul wasn't winning some of the polls. Because of this I received many berating emails filled with expletives, insults and conspiracy theories. The chat room and myspace messages were filled with such messages too.
We're not talking a handful of idiots here. We're talking many uncouth idiots.
When one like me is trying to run a nice pleasant website, having such activity isn't conducive to having a pleasant online environment. Plus receiving many berating, expletive filled messages over and over just isn't nice.
So I made a decision to not reward bad behavior. I took Mr. Paul off the condensed polls and left him on the expanded and junk polls. After all I still wanted to be somewhat fair. I figured at least their candidate would be on a poll against others.
Well this provoked even more, berating, expletive filled conduct from Paul supporters. This was around February of 07.
So I made another decision to not reward bad behavior. I took him off all the polls.
I received even more expletive filled berating messages.
Well it quieted down. I'd receive the random expletive filled message here and there for the next seven months.
Come October I had to update my polls. Just as a token of good will to the jerk-wads, I thought I'd put him back on the expanded and junk polls at least.
No sooner is he added and I start receiving the mass, berating expletive filled messages again!
It is mass consensus amongst non-Ron Paul supporters online, that the majority of his followers are uncouth, rude thugs! So me noticing this isn't something limited to strawpoll08. Even Ron Paul himself had to separate himself from his supporters for their actions.
My point? My site is not the only one that recognizes Paul supporters need a serious attitude adjustment.
I never received a message from another candidate's followers berating me about their candidate. Not one! Now don't you Paulies start sending me messages acting like you support someone else, and then berate me in their name. I'll know it's you doing it. Receiving one or two berating messages from another candidate's followers isn't going to make me take them off my polls. I'm on to the games you all will try to play after reading this.
So here's something I'm offering Paul supporters.
I'll consider putting him on the other two polls. Given you don't send me any berating messages. For every berating message you send me, I'll delay his inclusion on the polls.
I will keep him on the expanded and junk polls. But his votes will be reset to zero every time I get a berating message from one of you.
I'm only doing this to Paul supporters because of the extreme amount of rude messages and conduct they have. If it was just a handful of them, I'd ignore it. But it's clear a majority of them are this way and think they'll get their way by being rude.
Again you Paulies, don't send me berating messages in another candidate's name thinking it will get me to delete them from my polls. I know it's you.
Don't act like I'm being unfair because I'm only doing this to Ron Paul. I'm only doing this to Paul's votes because of the extreme volume of hate letters and berating comments I've received. As I stated before, if it was just a handful, I'd ignore it.
I'm trying to run a peaceful website here. Soon as you learn how to be peaceful, we can think about putting Mr. Paul back up.
It will be nice once the primaries are over. When Paul is no longer an item of real contention, posting anything about him wont bring up a slew of angry loons and bomb-throwers to bombard forums with tales of Pauls holiness.
It is "dangerous" to put up anything objective about R Paul. ANY smack of criticism at all unleashes a fulisade of nuclear detonations and rampaging hoards of rabies-infected worshippers. It is a danger to servers and a danger to clear thinking.
Ron Paul simply wants to bring back the Constitution, just like I do.
The only problem is, I want to bring back the Constitution of 1999. He wants to bring back the Constitution of 1799.
In reading your article, the major issue I took issue with was the interpretation of Ron Paul's statement:
"Under the Constitutional principle of federalism, questions such as whether or not Texas should prohibit flag burning are strictly up to the people of Texas, not the United States Supreme Court. Thus, if this amendment simply restored the state's authority to ban flag burning, I would enthusiastically support it."
You've concluded that this means to say that Ron Paul supports flag burning; however, in the context of Paul's broader political philosophy, I think it's more reasonable to say that he is in favor of that decision being made at the state level. In this quotation, Paul does not actually *say* that he supports a ban on flag-burning; he only opines that that decision should be made by the state of Texas.
Paul has an unfortunate tendency to make speeches and take actions in which his own positions are omitted to make a point of correct procedure, following the same philosophy as his declaration of war in Iraq. I'd tend to believe this is a case of that same idiosyncratic tendency, rather than a refutation of his entire political platform.
Rusty Shackleford ,
You aren't the guy at My Pet Jawa are you?
It's a smaller Little Green Footballs.
That's not his real name and he used to put a Dr. in front of it. Just curious. I don't think you are.
In the world of the Ron Paul follower, if he isn't winning, then it must be because of a big vast corporate conspiracy meant to suppress him. But if he is winning, then it's the Jesus given truth.
To quote G. Constanza: "...You know who's responsible for that, don't you? The Jews!"
Anonymous, I'm not the Jawa guy. We just picked the same pseudonym. I should probably pick a different one, but I've been using this one for a while.
Adam,
The U.S. Constitution, by way of the 1st and 14th Amendments, prohibits states from making flag-burning illegal. Paul's proposed legislation was profoundly anti-constitutional. Just one of the ways Ron Paul is not really a "constitutionalist."
Paul does not actually *say* that he supports a ban on flag-burning; he only opines that that decision should be made by the state of Texas.
Paul's desire to do away with the Dept. of Education is based on this:
A 1997 survey conducted by Congressman Ron Paul found that 54% of his constituency wished to abolish the federal Department of Education.[4]
In 2000, the Republican Liberty Caucus passed a resolution to abolish the Department of Education.[5]
I have many liberal friends in Texas but if I wanted Texans to decide for me and the rest of the nation, I'd move there and secede from the union because the rest of the nation has had enough of Texans, real or phony, to last the century.
Anonymous, I'm not the Jawa guy. We just picked the same pseudonym. I should probably pick a different one, but I've been using this one for a while.
Screw him, Rusty. He's a nutbar, too. And a namestealer. You keep your name.
L.W.M. @ 4:44 am -
thanks for the reply.... but i'm unwilling to outsource my thinking and judgement to "the experts" on this matter. i want to understand for myself - and, with all due respect, telling me i should just believe whatever the expert says, even when it doesn't make any sense to me, is just a more civil way to say STFU. something i'm not about to do.
so - convince me if i'm wrong. but telling me that dave is the expert (which i accept) is not argument at all.
.
Rusty Shackleford ,
You aren't the guy at My Pet Jawa are you?
I've been verbally sparring with Rusty for the past day or so and he strikes me more as a particularly vehement MoBetterDemocrat party activist of the Firedoglake variety more than he does as a neocon of the LGF variety.
Of course the important thing to remember is that the original neocons (Scoop Jackson and Daniel Patrick Moynahan) were Democrats who wanted big government and a welfare state at home in the USA and a lot of the killing of the brown people overseas. And a lot of your current gutter neocons like the gang at LGF probably don't have a lot of problems with gay marriage or abortion, as long as you're killing Muslims in the Middle East.
In fact, the justification for attacking Iran is being phrased in liberal not conservative terms.
Ahmadinejad hates gays and engages in hate speech.
Well done, Dave and Sara.
L.W.M. @ 4:44 am -
thanks for the reply.... but i'm unwilling to outsource my thinking and judgement to "the experts" on this matter. i want to understand for myself - and, with all due respect, telling me i should just believe whatever the expert says, even when it doesn't make any sense to me, is just a more civil way to say STFU. something i'm not about to do.
so - convince me if i'm wrong. but telling me that dave is the expert (which i accept) is not argument at all.
.
selise
I think your problem may be one of comprehension. I don't think you received the message I sent. You received a message I did not send. If you want to better understand fascism and proto-fascism, you go to someone who has studied it AND READ WHAT THEY have written. That would be how you better "understand for yourself".
Unless you think you can get messages in your sleep, in which case I suggest a medical consultation.
Try this and call a Dr. in the morning.
http://www.cursor.org/stories/
fa...ntroduction.php
I've been verbally sparring with Rusty for the past day or so and he strikes me more as a particularly vehement MoBetterDemocrat party activist of the Firedoglake variety more than he does as a neocon of the LGF variety.
You are hilarious - ly odd.
In fact, the justification for attacking Iran is being phrased in liberal not conservative terms.
Ahmadinejad hates gays and engages in hate speech.
I will NOT defend the Democraps in the Congress at all. I also count myself a More Better Democrapish type. I want to replace the Pelosis, Reids, Schumers, etc, with actual human beings, but that said...
The reason for the "progressive-style" defense of a coming attack on Iran is because the GOP is already, a priori, on board for it. To convince the Democraps in a way that they (falsely) believe they can defend with the progressive base, Bush/Cheney is extending a stick to them (poking them actually) with progressive carving on it. "Protect gay rights! Protect women's rights! Kill Iranians!"
The response from the Reids, Pelosis, Schumers will be "OK" (with Schumer whispering to them that a vote against murdering Iranians is a vote against Israel, his standard defense for doing ANYTHING wrong in the foreign policy sphere).
The reason for the "progressive-style" defense of a coming attack on Iran is because the GOP is already, a priori, on board for it.
But is the right necessarily on board with an attack on Iran?
I see Ron Paul's "surge" (especially among liberals) as having exploded pretty much out of nowhere right after the Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran hatefest at Columbia University in late Septemeber.
Ahmadinejad hates the ghey
and we don't know why
so bombs away
and let the nukes fly
In spite of the manifold faults of Ron Paul and his supporters Paul was quite literally the only person in the mainstream media who was willing to dissent on attacking Iran. If you remember his exchange with Rudy during the Republican debate he called the idea that Iran could be a threat "preposterous".
That got all over the cable news networks and, since small town conservatives in "red" America don't read Counterpunch, Paul was the only voice they could see dissenting on Iran.
In other words, support in "red" America on the right for attacking Iran is pretty thin and Paul's 4 million bucks in a day is partly a reflection of that.
In Paul's speech accompanying his flag-burning amendment he gives the obligatory shout-out to "some historians" who have "questioned" the 16th Amendment "as not being correctly ratified." That's always good for a larf.
I question the opinion of some Paul supporters that his flag-burning amendment was a spoof intended to show the other Congresspeople how to write a real amendment. In his speech he says flat-out that he BELIEVES that states should have more authority to restrict free expression than they do. I quote the wee doctor:
"I agree with those who are promoting this amendment that the Supreme Court overreacted, because I think the States should have many more prerogatives than they do."
His reference to the Supreme Court is to their decision upholding a person's freedom to desecrate the flag. Note that, at present, NO government entity has the prerogatives he mentions. He would like States to have powers that not only do they not currently have, but that the federal government does not currently have.
In other words, he wants to increase the overall amount of control the government can exert over individual free expression.
This is libertarian... how?
But is the right necessarily on board with an attack on Iran?
Yes. They are in the only place that, thus far, really matters. MOST people are opposed to the Iraq war yet in the halls of power, the war is continued and even getting the flames fanned for more and more.
The GOP IS a priori on board in Congress and that is the only place it matters. If THEY say "kill Iranians!" then Iranians will be killed. Same with the Dems. When they are brought on board under the false flag of serving gay rights and women's rights (and "freedom"), then it is totally irrelevant what the People want. C'mon. When was the last time the Congress of the GOP or the GOP (Democraps) done what the People really wanted with particular regards to Iraq?
The CONGRESSIONAL GOP is on board. Most of the Dems are likely on board as well because NOT to be on board is to be called mean names in November 2008. Plus, there are a saddle of Dems that make out like bandits when war drums play (Like Feinstein).
Fallon just reiterated a denial, again.
Fallon: U.S. strike on Iran ‘not being prepared.’ Admiral William Fallon, the head of U.S. Central Command, said a strike against Iran is “not in the offing.” Fallon added that the rhetoric of right-wing war hawks is unhelpful...
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11...being-prepared/
There is only one carrier group in the Gulf at present. Nothing gonna happen yet. You can keep track of them here if you like.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/mi...y/ops/
where.htm
Keeps you sane. Need at least 3 to go on Iran.
But is the right necessarily on board with an attack on Iran?
Yes.
I should have been more clear. I meant the rank and file right wing yahoo in Kansas, not the conservative elite.
Doesn't the idea of going to war to protect the gay lifestyle go down easier on Central Park West than it does on Main Street?
In other words, support in "red" America on the right for attacking Iran is pretty thin and Paul's 4 million bucks in a day is partly a reflection of that.
Flying Monkey
Dude, you don't understand "the right". Ron Paul is on the extremist fringe of that sector of American politics. The moneybomb was a stunt.
here:
http://www.publiceye.org/
researc...of_sectors.html
It's amazing that so many of these people are choosing to simply ignore Paul's real (he spoke at their meetings) with far-rightists. His speech objectiing to the 40th anniversary commemoration of the Civil Rights Act and "forced intergration" was not ghostwritten, and occured just a few years ago. It seems that many of you can afford to ignore that, but I can't. I heve more to lose.
Doesn't the idea of going to war to protect the gay lifestyle go down easier on Central Park West than it does on Main Street?
A little critique of part of your argument. First, though, I see your clarification that you meant the actual people of the right rather than the "movers and shakers" of the right as not being (necessarily) in favor of attacking Iran.
Now the critique...defense of the "gay lifestyle"? Just defending a lifestyle choice it would be then? Shame on you. Join with modern biology rather than reichwing blither. I suppose Global Warming is just an opinion too? One on par with the choice between Pepsi and Coke?
In any case, attacking Iran for the sake of gay rights or women's rights is, of course, as bogus as attacking Iraq to spread democracy or take away their nonexistent WMDs. It is smokescreen to simply take over their oil fields before the Chinese (and Russians) get their mitts on them...AND to ensure that a corporate-overly-friendly puppet government is reinstalled.
Ron Paul also refers to homosexuality as a "life style" - one that he finds unacceptable.
He also takes issue with "women's lifestyle", meaning having the gall to speak up as if they are cognitive beings, have any rights, and have any control of their own bodies.
Pauls "libertarianism" is for (mostly) white men. The rest, well the darkies need to checked out first before they are allowed their freedom and women, well, it's really for their own good that men control their bodies for them. Silly creatures can't be rational afterall.
The part of Ron Paul's platform that rings most hollow for me is how he vows to protect his interpretation of a document, but leaving out how he's not protecting the actual rights and liberties that document entails. He cares more about the letter of the Constitution than the spirit, as demonstrated by his stance on flag-burning.
It really reminds me of the sort of pseudo-legal word tricks the anti-income-tax and Redemption folks embrace; they latch onto one or two phrases out of the entire corpus, then build an entire alternate reality around it.
Now the critique...defense of the "gay lifestyle"? Just defending a lifestyle choice it would be then? Shame on you. Join with modern biology rather than reichwing blither. I suppose Global Warming is just an opinion too? One on par with the choice between Pepsi and Coke?
I was referring to the rationalizations that were made for bombing Iran that popped up around Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia and Lee Bollinger's belligerent introduction. And I was referring to how a "rank and file right wing yahoo" in Kansas would have perceived it.
The justifications for war were being made in the name of liberalism.
And at least part of the justification the Democrats make for "keeping all options on the table" is that Ahmadinejad uses "hate speech".
Any honest person would have seen that.
But I'll come right out and say it.
A homophobe and a racist who speaks clearly against going to war with Iran is vastly preferable to a "liberal" who wants to leave "all options on the table".
Goddammit, Dave, you don't deserve this abuse.
You didn't call Ron Paul a kook.
I called him a kook.
A homophobe and a racist who speaks clearly against going to war with Iran is vastly preferable to a "liberal" who wants to leave "all options on the table".
Ah. Point taken. Myself, I'd have to abstain from voting in such a case as I cannot choose between one evil and an evil of an entirely different sort. I already have no intention of merely choosing between the lessor of two evils, but the evils as put forth by the "all options" GOP and GOP (Democraps) and the different evils of the selectively "libertarianish" Paul is comparing Apples and Pomegranates.
Thank you for staying with this David.
I read Mr. Greenwald's latest and then reread this post. I am baffled that G.G. is accusing you of smearing Ron Paul. I suppose one way of looking at this whole thing is that if this is a smear job, then that would make Mr. Greenwald's posts enabling endorsements of Mr. Paul. I don't think G.G. would agree with that. But why go to the mat for this congressman? If I had to guess, I'd say Mr. Greenwald is looking for a challenge; he's trying to defend an indefensible position as a way of keeping his debating skills sharp. That or Salon has been tasked with polishing up Ron Paul's image.
Keep your teeth sunk into this one, David and Sara. You are right, G.G. is wrong on this.
The part of Ron Paul's platform that rings most hollow for me is how he vows to protect his interpretation of a document, but leaving out how he's not protecting the actual rights and liberties that document entails. He cares more about the letter of the Constitution than the spirit, as demonstrated by his stance on flag-burning. - N.C.
I think this is why much of his support comes from what I think of as "engineer types": devoutly linear thinkers who see everything in black and white and, because they took differential equations in college, feel smarter than the messy society that they don't comfortably fit into.
As I have quipped elsewhere, Paul supporters strike me as men who still have 20-sided dice in their closets.
My thoughts:
1. The point is not that Paul is a kook therefore he's wrong about Iraq or the drug war or civil liberties violations. Anyone making such an argument (such as Sean Hannity) is wrong to do so.
2. However, Paul is running for president, and as such I think it pertinent to point out that he is in fact an extremist. Saying so in and of itself is not an attack or a smear on Paul - it's simply the truth. His positions on the issues and his belief in a NWO conspiracy put him in the range of a John Birch Society member, which is why he gets a legislative score of 100 from them.
3. Concerns over Paul's extremism aren't just matters of partisanship. Ed Brayton of Positive Liberty (a libertarian blog) has done several posts about Paul, at first wondering if Paul is a dominionist because of his association with Gary North, and then linking to a post by another liberatarian (Tim Sandefur) who dismissed the dominonist charge but raised the point that Paul has said things that are talking points of neoconfederates.
4. Paul had a newsletter going out in his name for a number of years which was a deliberate attempt to target a proto-fascist movement that was stockpiling weapons to go to war with its government. I find the explanation that the racist LA riots screed we have was written by a staffer to be an extremely weak.
And if Paul wants to be President of the United States, I think it fair to ask him to account for the rest of the letters that were mailed out in his name. Shouldn't the campaign release those letters and let the public judge for themself if they think they are just something in the past to be ignored?
5. It's true that Bruce Fein and Bob Barr and such haven't changed all that much. But they aren't running for president. Were they and were they giving interviews to conspiracy theorists answering in the affirmative when the interviewer asks if you think the CIA is kidnapping children and sending people into sexual slavery and what not I'd be concerned by that, as well.
6. Glenn's concern is that Paul's opposition to the Bush administration is being marginalized. Our concern is that Paul's opposition to the Bush administration is giving Paul a free pass on his transmission of extremist ideas.
Perhaps a middle road would be to make clear that where we agree with Paul we agree with him, but that there is too much in his past and present (the InfoWars video of Paul saying that there will be a New World Order unless its stopped is from this campaign) to ignore.
L.W.M. @ 7:16 am -
i've already read david's series of essays on proto-fascism - read them when he wrote them, i may have even the donated the entirely reasonable suggested $5. what he writes there makes perfect sense to me.
my confusion/disagreement is with david's posts on ron paul.... which is why i asked questions in the comments from the very first post i read of david's on the topic. this is the first time i've seen david engage in the comments on my questions (although they are being asked by glenn).
i have, here, and previously, admitted that i may just be confused, or misunderstand something. what i'm hoping for is a discussion to help me better understand (both my own thinking and david's)... i don't need someone to tell me to go re-read all of david's previous writing, however i would welcome a suggestion to re-read some specific post that you think will address a question or comment i've made.
That or Salon has been tasked with polishing up Ron Paul's image.
I am betting they (Salon management) are after letter count and the attendant traffic that generates. Criticize Paul even ever so lightly or blow a kiss at him and that guarantees traffic. This fits in with GG, I suspect, because he IS "one of them". As objective as he tries to be, he simply cannot stop being human and letting his bias imbue his messaging.
Wow, Greenwald getting his knickers in a twist because Paul, not to mention his "supporters", is "labeled" as a nutter? As pointed out by Mrs. R, David did not call Paul a nutcase but I will happily confess to being one of the posters who did. His fans express too much messianic fervor for my comfort. I don't need a saviour, just a sane political choice.
Also, the suggestion that it is Guilt By Association to note that a substantial chunk of his support comes from the militia and patriot movements is puzzling because politics is a group endeavour and not a solitary pursuit. Is it now out of bounds to note the candidates that are supported by the religious right as evidence that their agenda runs contrary to our interests as a secular democracy? Birds of a feather, and all that.
Finally, how is it that an examination of Paul is interpreted as de facto support for HRC? I don't like her either, but I think it disingenuous to suggest that the choice presented is either Paul or Clinton. The fact that Paul might be the tallest midget in the room, to some, does not make him any less of a midget.
I am betting they (Salon management) are after letter count and the attendant traffic that generates. Criticize Paul even ever so lightly or blow a kiss at him and that guarantees traffic.
I think you're being unfair to Greenwald. After the Columbia Bomb Iran hatefest he was by far and away the most forceful voice criticizing the pro war propaganda.
And Greenwald doesn't live in NYC so he didn't even see the worst of it. Reading Greenwald (and oddly enough Maureen Dowd) was a lifeline back in September.
Hume's Ghost @ 8:49 am -
that was really helpful, thank you.
"6. Glenn's concern is that Paul's opposition to the Bush administration is being marginalized. Our concern is that Paul's opposition to the Bush administration is giving Paul a free pass on his transmission of extremist ideas."
and my concern is that our current political extremism (at least it looks like extremism to me), such as causing the deaths of a million people, creating the biggest refugee crisis on the planet, acceptance of torture, indefinate detention and kangaroo courts,... (the list goes on, but you get idea) is not being held to the same standard as paul's extremism. the idea of "preventive" war seems pretty extreme to me too.
whatever extremist ideology paul may have, focusing on paul's ideas without putting it into the context of other dangerous ideologies seems like holding him to a different standard than, for example the clintons.
.
Flying Monkey. I am patiently awaiting Greenwald's defense of Kucinich multiple times from those that call him a "non-
serious candidate" as well. And perhaps a friendly word of support for Gravel. The thing is, GG keeps returning to defense (and free positive spin) on Paul and then tries to cover critiques of Paul with "but Hillary does it too!" defenses (vis a vis, the company you keep).
When he starts giving kudos to some of the other low level candidates rather than zeroing in tightly on Paul, then I'll rethink my thinking. Until then, his lawyerly technicality arguments in favor of the various Paul positions AND studiously ignoring the 158 bills (other than flag burning bills) and what they signify casts an pall over GG.
i have, here, and previously, admitted that i may just be confused, or misunderstand something. what i'm hoping for is a discussion to help me better understand (both my own thinking and david's)... i don't need someone to tell me to go re-read all of david's previous writing, however i would welcome a suggestion to re-read some specific post that you think will address a question or comment i've made.
selise
Selise,
It was the quote from Juan Cole that you alluded to.
The opposite of fascism is not democracy but anarchy.
Can you not see how that is entirely wrong, counter-intuitive, counter-factual and with no examples from history? Fascism, as Dave and Orwell observed, is now largely a meaningless term, yet tthe beginings of fascist movements are much like a virus, mutagens, as Dave compares them to. They can assume almost any shape to fit any receptive population. I will grant you that these concepts are not easy to grasp. Even Glenn seems to have difficulty. Have you ever read Henry Wallace's article on Facism from the 40s? He was way off on some points. Righ on target with others.
http://newdeal.feri.org/wallace/...llace/
haw23.htm
"And Greenwald doesn't live in NYC"
Actually, he does. For part of the year.
Flying Monkey. I am patiently awaiting Greenwald's defense of Kucinich multiple times from those that call him a "non-
serious candidate" as well.
Kucinich is a traditional left populist and, as such, his critique of attacking Iran is more vulnerable to guilt tripping like "so Dennis. You're a humanitarian but you don't care about Iranian gays".
Same arguments that neutralized the opposition to attacking Saddam (a horrible tyrant).
I've also read David's Elimination in America series as well as the dreadful book he uses to develop his methodology, "Hitlers Willing Executioners" by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen.
Look at Goldhagen's writings in the New Republic where he argues that Iranian culture is now "eliminationist" and all of us little Neville Chamberlains who argue against destroying it are preparing the way for a new Holocaust.
Another aspect that I don't think anyone has addressed too extensively is that the authoritarianism of the conservative movement would likely increase under the agenda that Paul supports.
Repeal the estates tax and cut the taxes for the wealthy and get rid of regulations on corporations and what not and watch as the middle class radicalizes.
Kevin Phillips observed in Boiling Points (1993) that the sqeeze on the middle class resulting from Reaganomics led to protofascist politics in the '92 campaign.
Economics is a subject I am least informed about, but I can't imagine Paul's extremely ideological liberatarian views on the economy would be any better.
Terminus,
Ah. Point taken. Myself, I'd have to abstain from voting in such a case as I cannot choose between one evil and an evil of an entirely different sort. I already have no intention of merely choosing between the lessor of two evils, but the evils as put forth by the "all options" GOP and GOP (Democraps) and the different evils of the selectively "libertarianish" Paul is comparing Apples and Pomegranates.
In the art of statecraft and diplomacy, that is always the starting point, always. All options on the table. I know this bothers many people. If diplomacy is to work properly, with master practitioners of the art of statecraft, those options remain on the table until the deal is inked and then go back in the toolbox. But they have to remain in the box or on the table.
Oh great. Two of my favorite bloggers in a pissing match over Ron Paul? Though I think Dave has by far the stronger argument, I hope this little sideshow lasts about as long as the average American's attention span.
If Karl Rove finds out about this, it will make him smile really, really hard. Karl Rove is happy - delighted - that this argument is occurring. Dick Cheney couldnt be happier.
Makes me think Rove is moonlighting for ronpaul. This is Rove's way of turning lead to gold - take your weakness and make it your strength. Thus, rather than splitting off the right, Paul now is splitting off the left. Anybody else sense the signature of the turd blossom here?
Oh Glenn ?!? You have the constitutional knowledge of an expert, but here you are showing the strategic thinking of a 16-year old.
"Kucinich is a traditional left populist"
What is that? Never heard of it?
Glenn is usually a more subtle thinker than that, but he's slipped a gear here. The enemy of our enemy is not always (or even usually) our friend.
Thank you, Sara. That is one of my maxims as well. And it applies really well in this situation.
"Kucinich is a traditional left populist"
Oh! You mean DK is the next Huey Long? Gotcha.
Oh great. Two of my favorite bloggers in a pissing match over Ron Paul?
What? Ron Paul? Shit, I thought they were arguing over Ru Paul.
Ron Paul is a fruitcake too.
Ron Paul is a libertarian-leaning conservative. Do I agree with everything he says? No. But he is in favor of reducing government far more than any other candidate for President in the two major parties -- so I support his campaign financially.
Relax, guys. You're going to get Hillary next November. Why don't you sit back and enjoy the attempt of the old Goldwater faction to take back the GOP from the Christianists? I honestly don't think we are going to win this fight, but we are going to give it a damn good shot.
Oh! You mean DK is the next Huey Long? Gotcha.
L.W.M. | 11.13.07 - 9:27 am | #
No. But to quote Huey Long "fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism".
And invading Iran just might push it over the edge.
Ok im not even a Paul supporter and I think your posts are weak and I will tell you why.
The guilt by association thing is weak.
The accusing him of writing stuff he denies is weak as well.
The dumping 161 links with absolutly no context whatsoever is weak. As Glenn pointed out some of the links were misleading as well, the fact that he sponsored a peice of legislation did not nescisarilly mean he supported it. There is such a thing as too much information. 161 links is too much.
Why not pick one subject you think Ron Paul is wrong on. Get some of his own words on the subject ( he has written 12 books and you can find hundreds of pages of his writings and all his speeches on the house floor at RonPaulLibrary.com). Then find a vote you think he made wrong. Find out why he voted that particular way. If you think his reasoning is faulty then you can disagree.
A massive information dump of 161 links is totally meaningless. And you never give his reasoning wich makes it even more meaningless.
Ok im not even a Paul supporter and I think your posts are weak and I will tell you why.
Beedeebeedee. I am not a Rondroid. Beedeebeedeebeedee. I just repeat his talking points. Beedeebeedee.
In what kind of upside down world is Ron Paul not accountable for the Ron Paul Survival Report?
Was it written by someone without his permission of knowledge for those years? Did someone just make up a letter and use Paul's name for the heck of it?
Did Paul fire the guy? Did he ever do anything to distance himself from the letters before he got negative publicity?
How dare Dave and Sara associate Ron Paul with the bills he sponsored!
...the fact that he sponsored a peice of legislation did not nescisarilly mean he supported it.
Strange behavior from a "straight shooter."
"It was the quote from Juan Cole that you alluded to."The opposite of fascism is not democracy but anarchy."
Can you not see how that is entirely wrong, counter-intuitive, counter-factual and with no examples from history?"
L.W.M. @ 9:09 am - spain in the 1930's?
.
" How dare Dave and Sara associate Ron Paul with the bills he sponsored!"
Ok, as I said and Glenn Greenwald said too some the bills he has sponsored he hasnt even supported. I think its kind of weird, but to conflate the bills as something he supports is completly intilectually dishonest. Apparently your missing the point of my criticism wich is the complete lack of context of everything in the post. Dumping tons of bills and votes without explaining Paul's reasoning is meaningless.
Ray,
Greenwald provided a link to one of Paul's explanations of his reasoning - with respect to HIS flag-burning bill.
In addition to suggesting that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified - a wingnut perennial - Paul said that he thinks states should have more power to restrict free expression.
You see, his explanations of his reasoning do not make Paul look any better. If anything, he looks even kookier.
Why would he sponsor a bill he doesn't support? Isn't that the exact opposite of the Real Talk Liberty Crusader persona he's trying to build?
I completely understand why the Christian Right and the Big-government neocons are utterly bent by Ron Paul's campaign. The campaign is a direct challenge to their control of the Republican Party and their stricture that there will be a "coalition" of them and small-government conservatives, but that THEY will always be running the "coalition".
The hostility of progressive Democrats is a bit of a puzzlement. My theory is that there is a bit of envy going on. There pretty much has been a choice to not rock the boat in order to grasp power fully next year -- the Presidency, both houses of Congress and maybe even 60 votes in the Senate -- for the Democratic Party. And if that means progressives have to not make much noise, then so be it. That must make it pretty hard to deal with the fact that the candidate making the most success of "get out of Iraq NOW" is a Republican. And the candidate making the most success of "end the Drug War NOW" is a Republican. The candidate who voted against the Patriot Act is a Republican.
The candidate who voted against the Patriot Act is a Republican.
Kucinich and Obama are Democrats.
L.W.M. @ 9:09 am - spain in the 1930's?
Homage To Catalonia
http://www.george-orwell.org/Hom...onia/
index.html
If you've read it, well... maybe one of us has a blind spot. Perhaps both of us. Everyone has them. Even Orwell.
The enemy of our enemy is not always (or even usually) our friend.
Bingo. The anti-WTO coalition didnt take long to decide to ignore Pat Buchanan, who was trashing the WTO from his high perch - by Glenn's reasoning we should have embraced Buchanan then.
Motives are important. While we were seeking justice, Buchanan was trying to protect American "sovereignty" in the same vein as Ron Paul's followers in the patriot movement. We didnt need Buchanan to shut down the WTO and we dont need Ron Paul to take back the country.
Ron Paul is a Trojan Horse even if he doesnt realize it. Republican operatives do, and they consequently are pushing this in the media which is, unsurprisingly, lapping it up like a hungry kitten. Again - consistent with Rove's MO.
I also think, as an aside, that Ron Paul fears a democrat in the White House with access to all the extra-constitutional powers seized by Bush-Cheney - and that for some reason he is one of the only Repubs running for Prez who has that fear. I think that is his motive for opposing the runaway executive at this particular juncture, and even though I could be wrong about that, I strongly feel that, given the substantial evidence presented on this blog, the burden of proof is on those who would assume his pure motives to prove them up before progressives even think about any kind of organized support for Paul.
"Another aspect that I don't think anyone has addressed too extensively is that the authoritarianism of the conservative movement would likely increase under the agenda that Paul supports.
Repeal the estates tax and cut the taxes for the wealthy and get rid of regulations on corporations and what not and watch as the middle class radicalizes.
Kevin Phillips observed in Boiling Points (1993) that the sqeeze on the middle class resulting from Reaganomics led to protofascist politics in the '92 campaign.
Economics is a subject I am least informed about, but I can't imagine Paul's extremely ideological liberatarian views on the economy would be any better."
Hume's Ghost @ 9:18 am -
under paul's economic agenda, i agree (although i think it is unlikely to be enacted with a democratic congress).
the thing is that i think the neoliberal economic agenda - which is the agenda currently in vogue - is the economic agenda that is responsible for the widening divide and middle class squeeze.
let's not forget the neo-liberal advances of power consolidation made during the clinton years: nafta, welfare "reform", media consolidation, undermining our civil rights with-anti-terrorism legislation and the biggie that's biting us now - banking deregulation.
again, i have no problem addressing the weakness and issues of paul's agenda - but i do have a problem with doing that, while ignoring the dangers of a clinton agenda.
sometimes what is familiar starts looking "normal" while what is different looks "extreme". what happens if we step back and compare the various candidates using the same standards - and not the social signifiers of various subcultures?
.
The candidate who voted against the Patriot Act is a Republican.
Kucinich and Obama are Democrats and I'm sure a few more voted against it in both parties.
The only nay vote on the first AUMF was....
Lee is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus and Co-Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Lee is notable as the only person in either house of Congress who voted against the authorization of use of force following the September 11, 2001 attacks.[7]. This made her a hero among the anti-war movement, but also caused her to receive death threats.[8] Lee has been a vocal critic of the Iraq War and supports legislation creating a Department of Peace.
She was one of the 31 who voted in the House to not count the electoral votes from Ohio in the United States presidential election, 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Lee
I may disagree with that vote but she's the one who should be running for President
Bob Ney and "Butch" Otter voted against the Patriot Act as well. Shall we celebrate them?
It appears Obama supported the original Patriot Act. And, sorry -- I should have mentioned Kucinich as well as Paul. It's just that Kucinich has been pretty thoroughly abandoned by Democrats. Which is a damn shame.
http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/...t_act/
index.php
Shredder @ 10:09 am -
i don't have to support paul (i don't!) to think david's arguments are flawed.
.
Obama voted against reauthorization. Sorry Fritz.
p.s. to Shredder @ 10:09 am - i just want clinton (and the other candidates) given the same scrutinity and held to the same standards as paul. because i don't think bill clinton's presidency was a move away from authoritarianism.
.
No Fritz, no envy here. See, I don't want a President that doesn't care a fig about the environment, clean water, clean air, endangered species, doesn't believe in Global Warming, thinks that gays have a "lifestyle", that women should simply be barefoot and prenant (like it or not...no choice), and believes that THE answer is more and bigger corporations running everything without regulation.
On Iraq and Iran? He's right. On everything else? Dead-ass wrong to the point of living in a fantasy world.
Again, I recommend checking out Ron Paul's American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007. You resort to a smear campaign because you fail to see the big picture...and the most serious problem facing this country.
On Iraq and Iran? He's right.
I hate to tell you this, he's not even right there.
If all the "anti-Bush, anti-neocon from the get go" policy wonks aren't singing his praises, there must be a reason. The reason is, he has no foreign policy.
On Iraq and Iran? He's right.
I hate to tell you this, he's not even right there.
OK, I'm being very specific rather than bigger picture. On Iraq and Iran he is right in that he has no intention of invading or attacking, and would intend to end Iraq post-haste and bring the troops home. That is fine with me. He then goes off the rails with no foreign policy at all. Just business contracts overseas? Doesn't that pretty much sum it up? Corporations doing everything, government doing squat? Ever? For or against anything or anyone?
You resort to a smear campaign because you fail to see the big picture...and the most serious problem facing this country.
I can't see the "Big Picture" Bwill. The Scween is schmeered. Wipe it off, pwease.
Exactly. If you think that a key problem with our original approach to the problem was a lack of multilateralism, you're not going to back a guy who wants even less, even if that leads him to a sensible immediate approach to the problem.
From a progressive standpoint, Paul would be wonderful for about six months while he disengages the country from Iraq. He'd then be a nightmare for the rest of his term, as he pursues incredibly wrongheaded policies on every other issue of import to us.
The fact that the Goldwater wing of the Republican party is much better than the Christianist or neocon wings isn't going to make progressives suddenly favor Goldwaterian policy. That's not "jealousy," that's a profound policy difference.
Terminus Est is dead ass wrong. It's big government (Dems and Reps) that has allowed Big Corporations to run the country. Big government can only survive alongside Big Corporations, and a population of dependents who have little control over their own lives and destinies but to work slave jobs. I don't want a president who postures to be anti-war, pro-environment, spouts Earth-Day platitude and patranizes group-think while continues to enforce police action around the world, allow the Federal Reserve (a large private corporation of small number of bankers) to run our economy, and benefit from the system of corruption known as Lobbies. I want someone who will put a stop to the foreign policy of intervention, restore Habeas Corpus, and remove the influence of mercantilism.
I'm voting for Ron Paul.
Am I missing something, or is Mr. Paul advocating the correct position on flag-burning for a dangerously wrong reason? Flag-burning is protected by the first amendment because it's overtly political speech. Mr. Paul appears to ignore the first amendment issue entirely, and instead hangs his opposition on Article I, section 8--since Congress has no constitutional authority to ban flag burning, it can't.
No, you're not missing something. This is a really important point that I don't think Mr. Greenwald's responses adequately address, and they should. The focus on "states' rights" trumping federal power even when it allows states to oppress individual rights is a serious flaw in paleocon philosophy from the standpoint of civil liberties. Paul may be perfectly consistent ideologically by taking that position, but ultimately, it's a position which seems to be pretty antithetical to what Greenwald's positions on these topics has been. And it is, assuming you actually place any weight on the First Amendment, markedly unconstitutional: the states do not and should not have the power to trump the Bill of Rights.
In the art of statecraft and diplomacy, that is always the starting point, always. All options on the table.
No
Preemptive war is illegal under international law and it's long standing American *stated* policy not to preemptively use nukes against a non nuclear country.
What Obama, Edwards and Hillary did was a significant rupture both with interntional law and tradition.
It's big government (Dems and Reps) that has allowed Big Corporations to run the country. - Bill Chen
Yeah, remember the good old 1890s and laissez-faire? No big corporations running things back then, nosiree. No Rockefellers, no Carnegies, no Vanderbilts enforcing their rule by way of Pinkertons; just yeoman farmers and honest, humble merchants. Utopia, it was.
If all the "anti-Bush, anti-neocon from the get go" policy wonks aren't singing his praises, there must be a reason.
Yes. The elite consensus in favor of invading Iran is frightening.
And I think it has something to do with what I argued above. Since the American left tends to reject Marx and tends to base its appeal in humanist terms, it's hard to argue against invading a regime as grotesque as Iran's.
The extreme right, people like Chalmers Johnson, Walt and Mearsheimer, Michael Scheuer (the CIA's original Bin Laden man who does support Ron Paul) and Michael Lind has a far tougher minded, more coherent critique.
Selise,
You're talking to someone who considers David Cay Johnson's Perfectly Legal to be absolutely essential reading. I'm not giving Democrats a free pass on this stuff.
Watts, I agree with you. I'm really rather surprised that Ron Paul stated that Texas could ban flag burning. But it's actually not the Bill of Rights in question here -- after all, the First Amendment states only that "Congress shall make no law". The key is the extension, using the 14th Amendment of First Amendment provisions to control State actions. And it is possible that next year the Supreme Court may use similar reasoning to extend the Second Amendment to the states.
My brain is full of Schmear and bile, and I seriously need some sleep. It's a hard job. It pays little, and the pay-off is even more pathetic. These Ron Paul supporters (extremists from Black Helicopter Country) are usually more determined after my perfervid cut-and-paste all nighter. Do these "fruits and nuts" really still believe in grassroots activism? I mean, shouldn't we leave it all up to lawyers, campaign advisors, and experts?
No
Preemptive war is illegal under international law and it's long standing American *stated* policy not to preemptively use nukes against a non nuclear country.
What Obama, Edwards and Hillary did was a significant rupture both with interntional law and tradition.
Flying Monkey
I have no idea what you are talking about but neither do you. That might be the problem.
Greenwald's "Update IV" seems to engage in "innocence by association" -- Naomi Wolf is cool. She said some kind words about Paul. Ergo, Paul is cool.
If you're looking for another crack in Paul's candidacy, consider his position in "The War on Christmas" (see Huffington Post)
Yes. The elite consensus in favor of invading Iran is frightening.
Pardon me but you are a deluded idiot. No one has ever suggested we invade Iran. With what troops? Go to bed. You are as clueless as Ron Paul. In the morning, after you've had some rest, find a place to get reliablle information.
Somebody sed:
"Exactly. If you think that a key problem with our original approach to the problem was a lack of multilateralism, you're not going to back a guy who wants even less..."
One thing Ron Paul keeps saying is "What's wrong with talking to other countries?" An isolationist he is not, but one who who believes in national sovereignty....for all nations. Sure, that doesn't fit too well with the "world citizen" dream of some of you, but we'll have to leave it at that
It's big government (Dems and Reps) that has allowed Big Corporations to run the country. - Bill Chen
As bizarro as the neocons. Truly astounding.
LWM: "With what troops?"
Never underestimate the power of the Draft. You wouldn't be against that, I'm sure. There goes the minute difference between an Establishment liberal and a neo-con (ex-Establishment Liberal).
LWM: "With what troops?"
Never underestimate the power of the Draft. You wouldn't be against that, I'm sure. There goes the minute difference between an Establishment liberal and a neo-con (ex-Establishment Liberal).
Bill Chen
You are more fun than a barrel full of Flying Monkeys.
Ron Paul is a trojan horse. And I smell Rove all over this.
Im sorry, but "guilt by association" and "smear" are not words that apply to what Dave has been doing here. They are, however, things that rightwingers project onto us for specific strategic reasons. As Dave has pointed out many times.
Thus, accusing Dave of "smearing" Paul IS ITSELF THE REAL SMEAR. This is Karl Rove's playbook to the T, and mystifyingly, Glenn has fallen for it hook line and sinker.
After a certain point, this criticism of Dave for pointing out the obvious only serves as right-wing bait, even if not intended as such. This dispute helps the GOP much, much more than it helps us. It creates tension for us to support Paul, and not to support him at the same time when people like Dave very predictably point out Paul's anti-progressive views. That kind of cognitive dissonance is something Im sure Rove is very much tired of seeing over on the right but not on the left. They desperately need a divide and conquer strategy and they have found it in Ron Paul.
And so friggin' what about Bruce Fein? He and Glenn are not the first constitutional lawyers to fail to think strategically.
If you've never been involved in coalition-building, you have no idea how difficult it is. The last thing a coalition needs is a trojan horse like Ron Paul, and the Repugs understand this very well. And of course they have the MSM fluttering over Ron Paul so what an opportunity! What a Godsend for them, and to boot to have someone as energetic and determined as Glenn to carry that banner? Rove is having more fun with this than all of his times in the Orgasmatron put together.
Jeebus folks. All that shines is not gold!
Pardon me but you are a deluded idiot. No one has ever suggested we invade Iran.
You're just making Greenwald's argument for him. How does your namecalling advance an argument? Other than to advance Greenwald's that is?
With what troops?
There's also a frightening consensus among liberals (including people like Bob Herbert) that a draft/national service would be a good thing.
Paul would not only oppose a draft, he's also very clear on the fact that "sanctions are an act of war", declaring the Republican Guard as a terrorist organization means we're already at war.
Sorry, Shredder, but the smear brigade are well-versed in "projections".
L.W.M. -- perhaps not invading. Would "bombing the crap out of" do? Consider that there will not be another sanctions resolution of of the Security Council due to opposition from China and perhaps Russia. Listen to what French, British, and American official are saying -- that Iran will not be allowed to have nuclear capability. In the absence of UN action (or hell, even without that absence) this indicates more than a strongly-worded letter.
I have no idea what you are talking about but neither do you. That might be the problem.
L.W.M. | 11.13.07 - 11:15 am | #
Preemptive war is against international law. And a stated policy of preemptive nuclear war against a non-nuclear country is against Americant tradition. Leaving the nuke option on the table with Iran is not the equivalent of Mutually Assured Destruction. The Russians had nuke.
Do you deny any of this?
Ron Paul cares about international law? Hunh.
Rusty, Ron Paul supporters don't agree on everything, nor do we agree with everything he says.
So does Paul respect international law or not? I'm just curious because Flying Monkey seems to be suggesting that Paul respects international law.
Someone should check Rondroid Bill Chen's logic circuits. He's chiding Shredder for 'projecting' just moments after claiming to read LWM's mind.
"Preemptive war is against international law. And a stated policy of preemptive nuclear war against a non-nuclear country is against Americant tradition. Leaving the nuke option on the table with Iran is not the equivalent of Mutually Assured Destruction. The Russians had nuke."
And if you seriously think Hillary - or any Democrat for that matter - will actually nuke Iran premptively or call for a draft, raise your hand. Congratulations, you're now officially out of touch with reality. Here's your Lyndon Larouche '08 pin and 'THE END IS NEAR' sandwich board. Please exit to the door to the rear.
Here's your Lyndon Larouche '08 pin and 'THE END IS NEAR' sandwich board. Please exit to the door to the rear.
Shouldn't that be "THE END IS NIGH"? I mean, for fundies, they don't get into modern-style English with their military-style Jesus. They make a hash of old-style English, mis-translated or misunderstood biblical nonsense, and modern English.
Just sayin'
So does Paul respect international law or not? I'm just curious because Flying Monkey seems to be suggesting that Paul respects international law.
I'm making the argument that Hillary/Obama/Edwards statement about the nuke option being on the table against Iran is not diplomacy as usual.
I'm quite sure Paul wouldn't appeal to UN law.
But I'm also sure he'd acknowledge that leaving the nuke option "on the table" against Iran is not the "Mutually Assured Destruction" we had with the Russians.
To argue that pre-emptive nuking of a non-nuclear country should be "on the table" is not American diplomacy as usual.
LWM's "mind" appears to be scattered in several places, though he's only getting one check for his "thinking". Mind-reading is a favorite of smearbots, mind you. Thought crime, too.
To argue that pre-emptive nuking of a non-nuclear country should be "on the table" is not American diplomacy as usual.
Well, it is American "diplomacy" since the SCOTUS appointed Bush President in 2000.
But I get your point.
Glenn Greenwald... I think attempts to use the views of a candidate's supporters to reflect poorly on the candidate is a "smear," for the reasons I explained. And I think that's true of any candidate.
Come on, Glenn. This isn't like saying that Obama must be anti-Semitic because he's black and so is Louis Farrakhan. Paul is being actively promoted as a candidate and supported financially by extreme right-wing racist organizations. Surely it's legitimate to ask why such organizations think that he's their candidate, and to look at his previous history to see if there's anything that might explain that--and also explain why he hasn't forcefully repudiated those white supremacists and made it clear that he doesn't want support from hate groups. I'm really disappointed that you're dismissing the concerns of people who have spent years studying the extreme right and accusing them of "smearing" someone who appears to have close associations with said extremists.
A homophobe and a racist who speaks clearly against going to war with Iran is vastly preferable to a "liberal" who wants to leave "all options on the table".
I'm glad you think so, but for me, asking me to choose between the person who's going to get us into yet another unnecessary war and the person who wants to turn back the clock to a time when people like me were considered less than human is like asking me if I'd prefer to be strangled to death or drowned. Either way, I'm dead.
"A homophobe and a racist who speaks clearly against going to war with Iran is vastly preferable to a "liberal" who wants to leave "all options on the table"."
Wow. Just... wow.
Darkrose, the only problem is that Ron Paul is not a racist or homophobe regardless of how many times LWM uses the word "extremist".
Preemptive war is against international law. And a stated policy of preemptive nuclear war against a non-nuclear country is against Americant tradition. Leaving the nuke option on the table with Iran is not the equivalent of Mutually Assured Destruction. The Russians had nuke.
Do you deny any of this?
Flying Monkey
Look. There are nukes and there are nukes. I'm not going to go into this with you because you don't have the sense of a gnat here if you think an invasion of Iran is being considered or even a possibility. You probably think this means dropping the Big One. It doesn't. Personally I am opposed to a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, but if the stick (probably conventional, possibly tac nuke) on the table next to the carrot can make them see the light, that's how it's done, Sparky. You don't waltz over with flowers and candy and say, "Pretty Please?"
Flying Monkey, does it not concern you how much mind-reading of Paul is necessary to make him seem sane? I see this all the time from the Paulians: "I'm sure Dr. Paul would think..." or "If you'd ask Dr. Paul, he'd probably tell you..." etc.
I'm more comfortable looking at his record and activities, but that's something most Paulians seem hesitant to do.
Darkrose, the only problem is that Ron Paul is not a racist or homophobe regardless of how many times LWM uses the word "extremist".
Right. He just thinks being gay is an unacceptable "life style" choice.
"A homophobe and a racist who speaks clearly against going to war with Iran is vastly preferable to a "liberal" who wants to leave "all options on the table".
Ugh. How about just hitting the reset button and rebooting instead? Gotta say though...I'll take the 21st century over the 19th on the social and environmental level any day.
Rusty, more likely you are comfortable looking at cut-n-paste jobs. Try reading some actual Ron Paul writing in context. It may still make you very uncomtable, which will lead to quote it out of context. Somebody posted the links to some recent Ron Paul introduced bills earlier. Start with these.
For Christ's sake y'all.
Get some relaible info.
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/
Fay,
Done it. I've read his stuff. Sorry - he's a nut.
Rusty,
...and Ron Paul voted against the bill to ban gay marriage.
So does Paul respect international law or not? I'm just curious because Flying Monkey seems to be suggesting that Paul respects international law.
No. He does not believe any other nation or international body can dictate to us. We are a sovereign nation with the biggest bombs and the rest of the world be damned.
In his own handwriting, no less.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport...ives/
13135.html
I don’t need to tell you that our American way of life is under attack. We see it all around us — every day — and it is up to us to save it.
The world’s elites are busy forming a North American Union. If they are successful, as they were in forming the European Union, the good ‘ol USA will only be a memory. We can’t let that happen.
The UN also wants to confiscate our firearms and impose a global tax. The UN elites want to control the world’s oceans with the Law of the Sea Treaty. And they want to use our military to police the world.
http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blo...aul-still-
.html
Fair enough, Rusty. I've read his stuff. Sorry-I like 90% of it. You are not about to convince me by calling him a nut. Who is your choice of the next president?
Bill, that's because he thinks states should make that decision (like he thinks they should make every decision), not because he's not a homophobe. He has also supported the Defense of Marriage Act.
Are you saying Paul no longer believes that being gay is an unacceptable "alternative life style"?
Amazing what being overtly opposed to the War On Iraq can do for a fruitcake's credibility! Imagine what it could do for a mainstream candidate!
Are you listening Democrats? Okay then, however you want to play it.
That's great, Fay. If you like 90% of Paul's stuff then I'm glad you're going to throw your vote away on him.
I haven't made up my mind yet.
The UN also wants to confiscate our firearms and impose a global tax. The UN elites want to control the world’s oceans with the Law of the Sea Treaty. And they want to use our military to police the world.
I'm sorry Fay, the actual clinical terminology for someone who believes such nonsense is "nut".
Now LWM...
I'm sorry Fay, the actual clinical terminology for someone who believes such nonsense is "nut".
The term "nut" is "clinical" only privately amongst shrinks. To the nut's face, they use nicer-sounding public clinical terms.
if the stick (probably conventional, possibly tac nuke) on the table next to the carrot can make them see the light, that's how it's done, Sparky.
Yeah, tough-guy-by-proxy, how'd that "stick" work out for you in Iraq. Did it make them "see the light".
A war isn't a script you can write a pleaseing ending to.
That reminds me, have they "seen the light" yet in Afghanistan? I don't know where this crazy idea that agressive military actions will accomplish what you want. Or did you see a movie which ended like that?
Yeah, tough-guy-by-proxy, how'd that "stick" work out for you in Iraq. Did it make them "see the light"
Actually...though the nuk-u-ler stick wasn't waved at Iraq, a stick was (nearly CONSTANTLY for a friggin' decade) waved at them. Thing is, it worked.
Problem though...Bush/Cheney didn't want to accept that it actually all worked (i'm not justifying starving millions of Iraqis in order to spite Saddam, mind) and that there were no WMDs to be had, nor even PLANS for WMDs. They wanted war, goddamnit, and they were gonna have one.
It was required to pull of the PNAC plan. So it was off to the races.
And if you seriously think Hillary - or any Democrat for that matter - will actually nuke Iran premptively or call for a draft, raise your hand. Congratulations, you're now officially out of touch with reality. Here's your Lyndon Larouche '08 pin and 'THE END IS NEAR' sandwich board. Please exit to the door to the rear.
Doug H. | 11.13.07 - 11:38 am |
Do I think "any" Democrat would? No? But given the right combination of propaganda and AIPAC "help" I could absolutely see Clinton preemptively attacking Iran. She is as big an elitist/corporate/MIC whore as any "mainstream" Republican. I will never vote for Ron Paul but I don't support Democrats and with the exception of Kucinich (or perhaps Feingold if he were running) I won't vote for them either.
The draft is a completely different issue. Most true liberals who are calling for a draft are doing so because they know that it would be the precursor to certain withdrawal from Iraq or perhaps even lead to a bloody revolution here at home (which is what we really need). They are not calling for a draft because they support our illegal warmongering. They are calling for it in a desperate attempt to wake people up.
This is all an interesting though pointless discussion. Ron Paul doesn't have a shot in hell of being the Republican nominee, and if he runs as a third party candidate he'll just siphon off Rethuglican voters of the Libertarian variety, and sucker in a few random nuts and political naifs. It's all good.
I'm all for a North American Union, as long as we can exclude most of the southern US, Texas in particular. Let Texas form its own country and put a big ol' fence around themselves. Good riddance. Maybe Ron Paul can be Preznit of Texas, and Steve King and Tom Tancredo can be in his cabinet. Too bad about Austin though.
Personally I am opposed to a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, but if the stick (probably conventional, possibly tac nuke) on the table next to the carrot can make them see the light, that's how it's done, Sparky.
And there we go.
While I agree that a ground invasion of Iran is unlikely *now* I can't join you in arguing for any possibility of a preemptive nuclear strike against a non-nuclear country.
Even Nixon (who secretely considered the possibility of nuking North Vietnam) didn't come out and say it in the open.
You're a radical and you don't seem to realize it.
Greenwald is not a reactionary, but he has a blind spot.
I don't think Glenn has a blind spot, I think that he's just a "single-issue voter", as it were. And that's Ron Paul's entire focus right now-- he's trying to capture a particular kind of single-issue voter, the voter whose #1 priority is a stop to the wars and a rollback of the security state. The Paul strategy is to focus exclusively on his stances on these particular issues and hope that if he does this single-mindedly enough this will cause people to overlook or forgive his stances on literally every single other issue (his allies on those issues will hear the dog whistle either way). "Flying Monkey"'s comment is the exact response that Paul's campaign is intended to engineer.
People like David and Sara look at this and are horrified at all the things about Paul that are being buried in this process. What David and Sara's view of things overlooks however is that Ron Paul actually is doing what these people want on their most important issue-- in fact, one could argue he's the only candidate to be doing so. The real problem, then, is not that people are supporting a fruitcake because they like his stances on one single issue, but that single-issue voters of Glenn's type are finding themselves forced to support a fruitcake in order to get an acceptable stance on their most important issue. Ron Paul is simply exploiting circumstances here; blaming Paul exclusively for this ignores the problem that these circumstances were allowed to come to be in the first place.
However, Glenn-- if you're still reading this (I've never really been able to work out the comment system on your site, I'm sorry)-- I think you need to sit down and think carefully about what it is you're hoping to accomplish with your quasi-promotion of Ron Paul. Paul may be saying things you want people to be saying on one or two issues, but he is not on "your side". Even on the specific issues you share stances with Paul on, Paul is generally speaking not taking those stances for the same reasons you are. Where you and he agree, it is largely a matter of historical accident; when history shifts, and it's likely to soon, I do not think he will continue to make the choices that you agree with. Handing power to Paul, of any kind, does not help you or yours in the long run. I think I understand what you're trying to do with your posts on Paul; it seems like the idea is you like Paul's message, you want Paul's message to be heard, and you see attacks on Paul himself-- such as Orcinus has been trading in-- to have the primary effect of limiting the impact of that message. Okay, fine. The thing is that I think that it's possible that supporting Paul at this point in time does less to support Paul's message than it does simply to support Ron Paul himself; it seems to me that Paul is exploiting demand for this message for his own self-glorification. And I think when a year and a half passes people won't have been primarily impacted by Paul's movement to the extent of remembering that message, they're just going to remember a movement for "Ron Paul" without being able to clearly remember (is anyone even sure today, really?) what it was "Ron Paul" stood for.
I think that from Glenn's perspective the thing to focus on is this-- Ron Paul is saying what I want to hear on X, Y, Z issues. Why is no one else? Why are all the Democratic primary candidates chasing Republican votes on these issues while abandoning valuable supporters to be scooped up by an actual fringe Republican? How has the anti-war movement come to fail so badly in getting the Democrats on their side that their most public proponent is deep in bed with the Constitution Party? And how do we change this? What would most help your goals as I understand them is to focus on things like these-- things that refocus attention on that message. Whereas the approach you've been taking, including this little fight with Orcinus (interesting as it's been) is having the net impact of focusing attention on Ron Paul himself. Focusing close attention on Ron Paul in specific makes sense from Orcinus's perspective, since their goal is to catalog and bring into public scrutiny the activities and positions of the far right. I don't think, however, that in the long run raising public awareness of Dr. Ron Paul himself helps you. Am I missing anything here?
LWM, so it's not just the lawyers that you worship. Now you want an unelected organization to dictate terms to sovereign nations. The bigger and farther away the organization the better. See, these locals from "black helicopter country" just want to live in a polluted environment and drink from poisoned ditches. It's up to LWM's bosses to tell them what's good for them. Take away their cigarettes, guns, and land (and give it to a politically-connected developer in the name of public good) and make sure their children are never "left behind" in federally funded DARE and abstinence programs so they'd be ready for the next war. Is uniformity "progressives" are into these days?
Sorry I'm reading your "mind" again. For all I know, you probably aren't even a "progressive". Just another Establishment junkie in need of some serious R & R.
And if you seriously think Hillary - or any Democrat for that matter - will actually nuke Iran premptively or call for a draft, raise your hand. Congratulations, you're now officially out of touch with reality.
That's what you guys said in 2002 about the possibility that Bush would actually invade Iraq.
Rusty -- can you cite where Ron Paul called being gay an "unacceptable lifestyle choice"? I know he voted to not allow adoption by gay couples (I assume also unmarried couples) in DC, and I strongly disagree with that vote, and told him so. But I have never heard him call homosexuality an "unacceptable lifestyle choice". If you can point me to a source for that, please do so. Thanks.
I know he voted to not allow adoption by gay couples (I assume also unmarried couples)
I wonder about this sort of nonsense. To be consistent, such creatures also have to be for taking children away from unmarried couples who come by them the fun way. If they cannot be allowed to adopt, how can they be allowed to birth them the old-fashioned way? Are adopted children magic while locally grown kids are just blah?
And if you seriously think Hillary - or any Democrat for that matter - will actually nuke Iran premptively or call for a draft, raise your hand. Congratulations, you're now officially out of touch with reality.
Does that include Seymour Hersch and Scott Ritter, btw?
Amazing what being overtly opposed to the War On Iraq can do for a fruitcake's credibility! Imagine what it could do for a mainstream candidate!
Are you listening Democrats? Okay then, however you want to play it.
Mooser | Homepage | 11.13.07 - 12:07 pm |
Mooser, come now. You don't actually believe that do you? Kucinich is and has been overtly against the war. Why aren't these libertarians supporting him? The whole "get us out of Iraq" thing isn't, in the end, what is truly important to these libertarians. That is just how they are attempting to get decent human beings to go against their common sense and vote for Ron Paul. They would prefer you focus on that aspect of his candidacy because they know that as soon as we actually look a bit deeper we will see the same old right wing economic/social catastrophe waiting for us.
Oh and BTW...the mainstream Dem candidates are not playing a safe political game as you might like to believe. They actually do favor the war. Is their any evidence to the contrary?
So Dusty, based on Ron Paul's voting records on gay marriage (his oppositions to both "ban" and "define" amendments), he is a principled constitutionalist. Glenn is right after all.
Fritz: H.R. 7955. "Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style."
So Dusty, based on Ron Paul's voting records on gay marriage (his oppositions to both "ban" and "define" amendments), he is a principled constitutionalist.
He's a "constitutionalist," except when he isn't. Like when he's having Congress legislate when human life begins. Don't see that power in Art. I, sec. 8.
Praeter,
Ron Paul voted "no" on most of the bills that came across him, on Consitutional grounds (he has actually read every one of them, imagaine that!). You don't like some of these "nos". That's all. For every Ron Paul vote you don't like, there are two Ron Paul bills resembling the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007. I sure hope you like this one. Most of the Democratic front-runners have refused to sign the pledge, much to the dismay of ACLU.
Thanks, Rusty. I wish it was in something clearer than "prohibit spending Federal funds". Because that can certainly be pitched as "not spending Federal funds for advocacy".
Because that can certainly be pitched as "not spending Federal funds for advocacy".
Except it can't. It wasn't directed at advocacy. Presenting or even "suggesting" that homosexuality is acceptable is verboten in Paul's book.
Perhaps you can explain why he singled out homosexuality when he decided to be a fiscal crusader.
Yeah, Rusty, it looks like you can only vote for a "perfectly consistent candidate", or are you just a bit nit-picky when it comes to Ron Paul. If he is so "unelectable", why do you guys spend so much time on him and us "nutjobs"? Work on a grassroots level to get Dennis Kucinich elected. He is cool.
Yeah, Rusty, it looks like you can only vote for a "perfectly consistent candidate", or are you just a bit nit-picky when it comes to Ron Paul.
Fay, rejecting Ron Paul does not require nit-pickiness, just frontal lobes.
If he is so "unelectable", why do you guys spend so much time on him and us "nutjobs"?
Kicks.
"Amazing what being overtly opposed to the War On Iraq can do for a fruitcake's credibility! Imagine what it could do for a mainstream candidate!"
Mooser, come now. You don't actually believe that do you? Kucinich is and has been overtly against the war.
Over the last eleven months, Kucinich has raised slightly over 2 million dollars and spent slightly under 2. Most google hits for his campaign turn up his 2004 campaign; I am unable to even tell how many states he has a campaign presence in this cycle. A recent U of Cincinnati poll in Ohio, Kucinich's home state, shows that fifty-five percent of Democratic voters there don't know enough about him to even form an opinion about him, and that he has the lowest net favorability ratings of any candidate: About eight percent more of the voter base approves of him than disapproves of him. By contrast, the group of registered Democratic voters who have favorable impressions of him there is only six percent higher than the group which had never heard of his existence.
Dennis Kucinich is not running for president.
With a 9-trillion+ debt, I think any sane person would suggest "not spending Federal funds for advocacy." Has Ron Paul ever proposed Federal spending on any advocacy groups, Left, Right, or Middle?
With a 9-trillion+ debt, I think any sane person would suggest "not spending Federal funds for advocacy."
Nobody's talking about spending federal funds for advocacy.
Too bad about Austin though.
Candy
Free Willie... Nelson!
Watch out for these "kicks", Rusty. They can turn your frontal lobes into rancid cheese.
Watch out for these "kicks", Rusty. They can turn your frontal lobes into rancid cheese.
Don't you mean bleu cheese?
I love bleu cheese.
Bleu cheese makes a pizza!
You're right, Fay. Too much time engaging with Paulians would turn anyone's brain to rancid cheese.
Too bad about Austin though.
Candy
We'll partition it and keep the live music bars. Then we can drive through Texas to get there, just like you had to drive through East Germany to get to Berlin.
Oh and BTW...the mainstream Dem candidates are not playing a safe political game as you might like to believe. They actually do favor the war. Is their any evidence to the contrary?
anon
I'd engage these boneheads, but what's the point? The problem for guys like Mooser is that they have lost the ability to figure out the issues. This is part and parcel of the assualt on reason, the sowing of cognitive dissonance and poisoning the well of information. The right wing has done its job well. Poor Mooser and Flying Monkey are so full of misinformation they don't know up from down.
Rusty scrap: "Presenting or even "suggesting" that homosexuality is acceptable is verboten in Paul's book."
Which is exactly Ron Paul's point: why is it the federal government's job to decide which sexual orientation is acceptable or not?!
Misinformation is the modus operandi of LWM types.
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/
And Pat Lang
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/s...emper_tyrannis/
One stop shopping for all your needs.
Anything else is fluff.
Which is exactly Ron Paul's point: why is it the federal government's job to decide which sexual orientation is acceptable or not?!
It isn't. Curious then that he, acting as a Congressman, would make exactly that decision.
Rusty, you are not without hope. Seek help.
Rusty, you are not without hope. Seek help.
Fay
A Ron Paul candidacy is and he should seek help anyway.
Rusty baby, which "NO" vote were you referring to?
Can everyone just quit with the ad-hominems? Please?
L>W>M>, Thank you so much for answering for Rusty. It's the magic of Group Think.
I'm glad you too think he should seek help.
Fay: H.R. 7955. "Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style."
It died in committee, where apparently smarter heads prevailed.
Alright now. This thread is past its prime. It has gone rancid itself.
It is now down to "I know you are but what am I?"
Word. My only hope is that the Paulians continue advocating publicly for their boy. That'll definitely sink him.
Rusty: As I said earlier, he's against any Federal expenditures on any advocacy groups or anything related to government legislated "definitions" or "acceptance" on constitutional grounds.
Well....gotta have lunch, and attend a meetup meeting (LA Times will be there).
Hume's Ghost @ 10:55 am -
"You're talking to someone who considers David Cay Johnson's Perfectly Legal to be absolutely essential reading. I'm not giving Democrats a free pass on this stuff."
looks to me like david is - or at least i don't see an analysis of the dem presidential candidates that is similar to the ron paul analysis. are any of their policies and/or world views extremist or dangerous? i'm pretty sure the answer to that is "yes".
i know it's unfair, but i guess i was using you as a stand in for david (since you seem to agree with some of david's analysis and are willing to respond to my questions).
so, if you are willing to continue... do you think that ron paul's candidacy is uniquely dangerous? way beyond the danger posed by any of the dem candidates? that's the impression i get from david's posts on paul... and i'm just not so sure.
if you think paul is uniquely dangerous, will you tell me why?
thanks a lot for the previous response....
s
p.s. just visited your blog for the first time, and know i will be returning. wow. lots of food for thought (you have obviously given a lot more thought to these issues than i have). maybe to relate my questions to your most recent post:
"As the 2008 election approaches, the most important issue facing the nation is whether or not America decides to repudiate the Manichean style of the Bush administration in order to recapture our lost democratic values.Will we return to the world of the real or will we continue to inhabit the fantasy world of Good and Evil while democracy continues to crumble into dust?"
if you were to try to look into the future, how do you think you would answer these questions for a presidency of each of the candidates? are there any candidates who would/could help us repudidate the fantasy of bush's manichean world?
.
Well....gotta have lunch, and attend a meetup meeting (LA Times will be there).
Fay
The irony of it all. Meet up group group thinkers accusing others of group think.
Some people are just not equipped to deal with all this. Politics and all. Age and experience helps.
Rusty: As I said earlier, he's against any Federal expenditures on any advocacy groups or anything related to government legislated "definitions" or "acceptance" on constitutional grounds.
Were this true, he could have instead proposed a bill which banned federal money on things related to "definition" or "acceptance" of homosexuality. It is clearly not true, since instead, the bill he proposed, in the clause quoted above, would ban federal money in support of homosexuality. That is to say, under Paul's bill, federal money could be freely used to attack acceptance of homosexuality, but not to support it, not even implicitly-- and Paul, since surely he alone chose the wording of this bill (and given all the other things the bill does, clearly wasn't crafting his stance so as to make it likely his fellow Republicans would support it), clearly made an intentional choice not to ban from federal support those stances "related to" homosexuality he apparently agrees with, at the same time he tried to so ban those stances "related to" homosexuality which he does not agree with.
In other words, with the quoted H.R. 7955, Paul attempted to use the authority and distorting influence of the government to create an unlevel playing field in the marketplace of ideas, where avenues are selectively open to those who oppose inclusiveness of homosexuals which are not open to those who support it. If this is "libertarian", then that word means nothing at all.
Aside from this, I agree this thread does not seem to be really going anywhere relevant to the blog post it is ostensibly replying to.
Hilarious to me how so many former Glenn worshippers are jumping ship and trying to organize a mutiny against their Captain.
Let me explain to you why that is funny:
These people, these former Glenn lovers, loved Glenn because for a long time, what he wrote was perceived by them to be an intelligent treatment of the issues, principles and/or concepts that they've built their personal identities around. To them, Glenn was clearly a liberal, and he was on "their side." They loved his objectivity and his rationality, which they came to count on. "When Glenn writes something, you can be damn sure that he's going to treat the subject objectively and fairly." Glenn is almost universally regarded as doing that, and when he points that objectivity and rationality at a topic like Ron Paul, these people get all wonky because what they wanted Glenn to say was something like, "Ron Paul is a fruitcake nutjob who will ruin our Republic. And he's a racist nazi lover."
Unfortunately for their coritsol levels, Glenn's rational, objective treatment of certain Paul related matters does not agree with their perception of reality, so now they're panicking and they malign the objectivity they once applauded and relied on. They dogmatically parrot the weak criticisms of Ron Paul while asserting that Glenn has lost all credibility...all because they perceive that he is no longer on their side.
The problem with these people is that they are partisans, and partisans are by definition irrational because to be a partisan means to support an idea or cause because of its "left-ness" or "right-ness," not because of its objective merits. That statement is just plainly true, please feel free to try and argue otherwise.
One stop shopping for all your needs.
Anything else is fluff.
L.W.M. | 11.13.07 - 1:03 pm | #
Sigh, you're a "military expert", one thing the Internet has no shortage of.
But it seems to me that your argument for MoBetterDemocrats depends on their being no chance at all that any of them would take military action against Iran.
Do you see why this is not a good thing?
It means your agenda of electing MoBetterDemocrats depends on *suppressing* any vigilence in the Democrat Party rank and file against the possibility that Bush would attack. It means ignoring Hillary's vote for Lieberman Cornyn.
It's impossible to know what anybody in the government is going to do yet (Cheney himself probably doesn't know) so you have to look at:
1.) The process, the framing of the issues
2.) The positions of the candidates on the acceptability of attacking Iran
As we've already seen it's in your partisan interest to suppress even the discussion of the possibility that Bush would attack Iran.
And with Hillary's vote for Lieberman Cornyn, it's clear she thinks a unilateral, pre-emptive attack would be acceptable And Obama ducked the vote altogther.
if you think paul is uniquely dangerous, will you tell me why?
The surface anxiety is obvious. The Democratic Party elite wants to drive progressive voters away from the primaries in order to get Hillary the nomination.
They want them to come back in the general election and they're afraid that Paul will talk about the war just a little TOO much and poision opinions against MoBetterDemocrats. Thus the conspiracy theories about his campaign being a Karl Rove ratfuck.
But what I don't get is that a third party run by Ron Paul would overwhelmingly help the Democrats. It might even throw them the race, the way Perot did in 1992. So I can only imagine that it's some kind of gut identification with the elites by people who aren't part fo the elites. That would certainly explain the wild accusations of "craziness" or the belligerence. It's a form of sticking your fingers in your ear and saying "la la la I can't hear you about the war you Nazi".
Come on, Glenn. This isn't like saying that Obama must be anti-Semitic because he's black and so is Louis Farrakhan. Paul is being actively promoted as a candidate and supported financially by extreme right-wing racist organizations.
Now that you mention Farrakhan, a lot of this reminds me of the right wing Democratic attacks on Jesse Jackson in the 1980s.
Jackson had some anti-semitic supporters and he said some stupid things. But once the Democratic party's elite demanded that he renounce Farrakhan, he was put into a lose lose situation. Back down and prove himself weak as well as alienating some of his core followers or continue to be portrayed in the media as a racist.
Note, I'm not saying Ron Paul has anything in common with Jackson except some extremists among his supporters but what I am saying is that both exemplify how the elites control the discourse, set up an absurdly narrow "funnel" that makes it impossible for anybody but a candidate with a lot of money and no real ideas or core beliefs to get the nomination. And even someone like this (Hillary) is vulnerable to being thrown off balance by attacks from the media or rivals.
And what did the Democrats get by filtering out Jackson's core followers in the 80s? It was clear that while he couldn't win in 1988 he was by far the best candidate and the Democrats should have gone with him and lost while at the same time building the party. Instead they tanked the election with Dukakis so they could get Clinton in 1992.
So they won but in the end they wound up gutting the party's base in order to serve one president and now, it seems, his family.
That's not democracy. That's aristocracy.
"The thing is that I think that it's possible that supporting Paul at this point in time does less to support Paul's message than it does simply to support Ron Paul himself; it seems to me that Paul is exploiting demand for this message for his own self-glorification."
You can't be serious. How you can possibly imagine that Ron Paul is doing this for his own glory is beyond the ability of any rational person to conjure with. Paul knows fully well that as his campaign gains attention, he will be subject to every sort of catcall, vilification and brickbat the establishment can throw at him. I would describe him as selfless.
Your easy use of the term fruitcake says a lot more about your intellectual ability than you imagine. It does your cause, such as it is, no good to identify a political foe as a "fruitcake," as if any dispassionate reader would accept that judgement at face value, without wondering at your motivations in writing that.
Invidious intent? Possibly. Dull-witted non-recognition of reality? Quite likely.
Trade in facts, not ad hominem and puerile attacks. If you want perpetual war, an imperial rapacious state, and crushing taxation and debt, then oppose Paul. Be honest, and say those things. If you yourself are a single-issue voter, then say so. But don't call someone who quite obviously isn't deranged a "fruitcake."
That's nothing but brown-shirtism.
do you think that ron paul's candidacy is uniquely dangerous? way beyond the danger posed by any of the dem candidates?
thanks a lot for the previous response....
Uniquely dangerous to the extent that he's the only candidate with his particlar brand of extremism. But framing the issue in terms of whether he's more dangerous than Democratic candidates or not is the wrong way to look at it, imo. I'm not interested in making a case that Paul is more dangerous than X or Y ... I'm just interested in it being known that their are areas of concern that should not be overlooked because of his popular anti-war stance.
I think Hillary Clinton getting elected would be a very bad thing for this country and am more opposed to her becoming President than I am Paul, if that provides any perspective.
I'm hoping that the candidate least likely to become a dictator (with Giuliani and Duncan Hunter leading the will-become pack) becomes President and that the real fight is going to take place at the Congressional level.
if you were to try to look into the future, how do you think you would answer these questions for a presidency of each of the candidates? are there any candidates who would/could help us repudidate the fantasy of bush's manichean world?
I haven't the knowledge of all the candidates positions to answer how each would do so. From what I've seen I think that Chris Dodd is someone that would certainly be an improvement over Bush.
But any candidate who acknowledges that the "war on terror" is creating more problems than its solving would help. To that extent, Paul is doing so.
I like how anyone whose entire politics isn't defined solely by their opposition to the war in Iraq is called a single-issue voter by Ron Paul supporters...
"If you want perpetual war, an imperial rapacious state, and crushing taxation and debt, then oppose Paul. "
And if you want a return to racism, sexism, an imperial rapacious corporatist state, and everything else that made America great in the 19th century then go ahead and support Paul.
Comment to go over Charles's head in 3... 2... 1...
"The problem with these people is that they are partisans, and partisans are by definition irrational because to be a partisan means to support an idea or cause because of its "left-ness" or "right-ness," not because of its objective merits. That statement is just plainly true, please feel free to try and argue otherwise."
And Paul's supporters aren't partisan in favor of their guy? 223 comments (and counting) seem to indicate otherwise.
I like how anyone whose entire politics isn't defined solely by their opposition to the war in Iraq is called a single-issue voter by Ron Paul supporters...
I was thinking that very thing.
And as far as Democratic candidates go, I don't get this ignoring of John Edwards, who is in my view clearly the best choice for President. He's not a corporatist. He's the only candidate on either side who openly wants to use government resources to help alleviate poverty. He's sorry about voting to authorize Bush's Iraq debacle. He admits in no uncertain terms that it was wrong. And I firmly believe he would never bomb Iran. Does he throw a sop to the centrists now and then? Yes That's why he's still in the top tier.
I'm a socialist. Do any of the dems make me entirely happy? Hells no. But are any of them - even Hillary! - better than any Republican or nutbar Libertarian? Hells yes. Seriously, think about the supreme court. Is Hillary going to appoint better or worse judges than any of the Republicans? That's the most important thing of all, in my book. Keeping people like Roberts and Alito off the SC is hugely important. I don't like her, I'll never forgive the Clintons for "welfare reform", but she's still better than the alternative.
Seems to me that the corporate media has been working really hard to marginalize Edwards (and Dodd and Kucinich, for that matter) and we need to not let them do it. They are trying to annoint Hillary. We can stop that, if we try.
I think Hillary is going to get a little surprise here in Iowa once the caucuses roll around. I think she'll come in third. Obama has a great organization (god, they call me constantly, and they're so pleasant and inviting it's not even all that annoying!) and Edwards has passionate support among the hard core of the party faithful that actually goes to the caucuses . . . because they've gotten to know him.
By the way, Romney was stomping Rudy in Iowa, the last time I checked. Huckabee was doing better here than Rudy. I don't think it's necessarily written in stone that the race is Rudy-Hillary. Far from it. Not that Iowa is the be all and end all of the American primary system. But it's important. Just ask Howard Dean.
250 comments, half of which came from the anti-Paul smearbund. Actually Ron Paul supporters come from the political spectrum. We agree to disagree on some issues while focusing on our shared concern: Put an end to interventionism, stop the erosion of civil liberties, and establish a sound monetary system that is not controlled by a private banking organization known as the Federal Reserve, and is instead accountable to We the People.
You are right, Charles. There is as much "brown-shirtism" here as "UnFree Republic". I'm off.
selise | 11.13.07 - 1:23 pm | #
if you think paul is uniquely dangerous, will you tell me why?
Policy:
If he's genuine then he's actually intent on wrestling the feds under control and ending imperial foreign adventures abroad, while the dems are going to carry on to "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" but will distract everybody with feel-good cookies and domestic mood music. They have no intention of dismantling the empire, and this is the big Gordian Knot problem financially, militarily and morally?
So Paul is teh man? Maybe...but he's also going to pull out of the UN and NATO, just when we need international cooperation more than ever to get out of Iraq with some semblance of a future for the Iraqis, deal with the atom nukes in Pakistan, stabilise the climate, etc., etc., etc. And he'll neuter the federal government with strict conservative constitutionalism. And scrap Row v. Wade. And restore states rights. While ending all gun control. And being mean to immigrants. So, we end up with a race-culture-war-between-the-states-and-Mexico-
and-every-goddam-thing which will keep the whole world real busy until the global warming gets us. So, could be, like, too much?
Stalking horse:
Second - is he a wolf in sheep's clothing? With all these interesting characters Dave says he's hanging out with, how many K's will there be in his administration? K?, K? how many K's? Let us count the Ks my brethren, and also the McVeighs. With the federal government cut down to size and SCOTUS packed with Judge Dredd and so on, wherefore art thou your rights in reality?
Ron Paul is the constitutional nuclear option - is it broke so bad it needs a revolution, or will changing the driver suffice?
"I'm not interested in making a case that Paul is more dangerous than X or Y ... I'm just interested in it being known that their are areas of concern that should not be overlooked because of his popular anti-war stance."
Hume's Ghost @ 3:31 pm -
that's fair. i guess i'm more interested in the comparisons because it: 1) helps me put it in perspective, and 2) helps me try to understand the presidential choices - something i haven't yet got a handle on.
thanks for clarifying your views...
i guess i still disagree with david when he wrote ( http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/...ew-world-order/ ):
"Ron Paul may or may not be a racist — and arguing about it is likely to end up nowhere. But what is unmistakably, ineluctably true about Ron Paul is that he is an extremist: a conspiracy theorist, a fear-monger, and an outright nutcase when it comes to monetary, tax, and education policy. The more believers and sympathizers he gathers, the worse off the rest of us will be."my bold.
i have yet to see a convincing argument for why we'd be worse off with more ron paul supporters and less rudy giuliani supporters.
maybe someday david will try to walk me through that one.
.
I think Hillary is going to get a little surprise here in Iowa once the caucuses roll around. I think she'll come in third. Obama has a great organization (god, they call me constantly, and they're so pleasant and inviting it's not even all that annoying!) and Edwards has passionate support among the hard core of the party faithful that actually goes to the caucuses . . . because they've gotten to know him.
I actually think the Ron Paul boomlet among liberals like Greenwald will eventually wind up helping Obama in the primaries.
I think I'm going to exit the Ron Paul wars now but what's struck me about the whole debate is the sheer depth of rage among anti-war liberals like Greenwald against Hillary and the Democratic party right and the sheer determination of a certain kind of Democratic party loyalist to demonize any kind of debate that might hurt *the party* apparachniks.
Tom Harkin and the Democratic power structure in Iowa have also effectively excluded Kucinich from any kind of chance to gain any traction (he's been disinvited from pretty much everything) so that leaves Obama as the most credible anti-war alternative.
Obama's an interventionist but he's closer to the Carter/Brezinski wing of the elite than to the neocon/AIPAC wing of the elite.
Then again his organization in Iowa might suck.
That being said, it was fun debating everybody who was civil about this and I'm out.
david - although glenn did not critisize you for calling paul a "nutcase," i really don't see how that is so different than calling him a "fruitcake" or a "weirdo".
personally, don't have a problem with hurling insults - so long as there is something to justify the insult.
.
Dave,
Needless to say, I was shocked and disappointed by Glenn's response to your post. I really didn't expect that kind of answer from him. His post read more like a rant than an objective reading of your concerns. Clearly it was written with some degree of anger judging from it's incoherence. He moved almost instantly minor faults with your posts to attacks on Hillary Clinton and pundits, as if anything your argument held them up as above reproach.
But worst of all, he said absolutely nothing in response to the far more substantive issue of his defense of Ron Paul's views on education. I sat and read that entire rant thinking he just had be getting around to it and... NOTHING. Not a word. But he dedicates about 10 paragraphs to a riff against one bad link provided by Trefayne (1 out of 161 which, by calculation, is damned good shooting percentage for a blog comment).
Point blank, his response was weak. I'm very disappointed.
But, again, like you I usually love his work and link my friends to him all the time.
-ep
For those curious about the wasted electrons used in this thread, the story is not Ron Paul but the Rondanistas. Ron Paul probably has the same chance of getting the Hezbojeezus (formerly known as the GOP) nomination as I do. That is to say, zero divided by any number is still zero.
While it is entertaining to watch the republican base tear itself apart, the schadenfruede is tempered by the fact that this is a reflection of the sad state of politics in 'Mur-ka, where a candidate who is worried that the UN is going to take away his guns is considered a serious choice. After the elevation (not election) of Gee Dubya, one would think that the habit of not taking a politician's words seriously would be a thing of the past.
The standard Paulist response comes in a couple of flavors, the first and most popular being the "You don't understand [insert "the Constitution", "Ron", "Shit" etc.]". The second most popular seems to be accusing the NonBeliever of being a member of the establishment, a lesser minion of the Bilderberg group or even perhaps a shape shifting lizard ferried about in a black helicopter -- your basic conspiracy theory stuff popular with the Art Bell set.
All that said, the Rondanistas are an amusing lot. I hope they continue to siphon money away from the other Repub. candidates because it is almost certain that their activities are not damaging anybody but their own. Go Ron!
^
Sarcasm warning for the literal minded.
Glenn Greenwald was a Republican and has not become a socialist out of BDS. He used to make no secret of his small-gov't conservatism. In other words, he is much more sympathetic to Ron Paul's political philosophy than John Edward's and eventually will become a dangerous enemy to the Democratic party and the progressive agenda.. I wish liberals would link to him less.
That Greenwald could have such a blind spot toward paul is amazing. Goes to show that even smart people can delude themselves when they want to.
You are right, Charles. There is as much "brown-shirtism" here as "UnFree Republic". I'm off.
kerma | 11.13.07 - 4:14 pm |
So when were you and charles banned, Oh that's right you weren't. You left in a snit because the majority disagrees with you. But nice try at the reverse smear.
Neiwert, through no fault of his own, sides with the neocon war-staters on this issue. Hows that for guilt by association?
Ron Paul is the anti-nationalist anti-proposition-nation and anti-war candidate.
Dave -
As a long-time reader/lurker at UT, (and a very infrequent visitor here), I wanted to convey my astonishment at Glenn's arguments supporting Ron Paul and attacking you.
Simply to say that my esteem for you has grown tremendously, and my respect for Glenn's political judgement has been irrevocably shaken.
Your highly rational and evidence-based observations regarding the danger that Ron Paul represents seems to me the furthest thing from a smear... and the most likely interpretation of the massive body of past actions, pronouncements and policies that reflect the essence of the man.
Not that what I think makes any nevermind, but for what it's worth, many thanks to you and Sara for your hard work and integrity.
So it seems Ron Paul thinks the state should have the power to do anything it wants to its citizens--control their political speech, ban abortion, whatever--just so long as the federal government doesn't have such power. But states can do anything.
And he gets support from people who say they're opposed to "statism".
Why is that?
Evan, Because the smaller the system, the more connected by kin it is.
Who's wishes would you rather follow, your family's, or that of the federal leviathan that has no interest in you and only promotes war for CapitaliZtION?
It looks, on first impression, as if Glenn Greenwald is yet another Democrat who is thoroughly sick and tired of the Vichy wing of the Democratic Party. Which seems to include just about every Dem inside the Beltway these days.
I have said before, elsewhere, that this is precisely the sort of person whom Ron Paul is trying to woo.
In my considered opinion, Ron Paul is this Presidential election cycle's replacement for Ralph Nader. Nader is as useless as a spent cartridge case this time around. Since his name is now synonymous with the concept of "raw sewage" to many after his whoring for Republican money and his blatant attempt to split the Left during the last Presidential election cycle.
I would put the proposition to Glenn Greenwald, that perhaps he, like a good many other progressives, is on the hairy edge of being duped yet again.
This time, by a guy who is evidently a lot slicker than Ralph Nader ever was.
If it were not for warnings from people like Dave, I myself might have been one of the people being hoodwinked by Ron Paul. And Nader never even got close to taking me in, back in 2004.
Smash Zionazis | Homepage | 11.13.07 - 6:58 pm |
And for those who are still in denial about Paul's appeal to the StormFront crowd.....
So, anti-Zionism is "hate".
Thanks for verifying your pro-war position. And the position that Ron Paul is the ONLY anti-war candidate.
Smash Zionazis | Homepage | 11.13.07 - 7:11 pm |
Whatever. Wait, is that a black helicopter hovering outside my shack? Gotta go....
Neocon comeback number 314.
Gregory | 11.13.07 - 7:13 pm |
Nice. How do you think all those who have lost their lives in a war based on Tabloid-style intel feel?
As the war was based on Tabloid intel, by dissmising my words as part of a black-helicopter conspiracy theory, all you are doing is legitimizing Bush.
Krauthammer, Ledeen, and Podhoretz dismiss anti-war critics with the same exact condesending attitude. Well I don't believe in trillion dollar Tikkun Olam, as is my right in a land with freedom of religion as per the constitution, a document Neiwert hates, and Paul triumphs.
Smash Zionazis wrote ...
Well I don't believe in trillion dollar Tikkun Olam, as is my right in a land with freedom of religion as per the constitution, a document Neiwert hates, and Paul triumphs.Oops. The trolls have arrived.
Neiwert is a Wilsonian nationalist, same as the neocons, of course he hates the constitution, that's an objective fact, not trolling.
Neocons want to move beyond the "barrier" of the "anglocentric" constitution unto making the whole world a better place through war and upheval. Newiert as Neocons, have a vitriolic hatred of small town America which desires or displays any kind of autonomy from the American mores at large. Every nook and cranny of America should be a mirco version of the PC police state, importing criminals from Nambia, and blasting ghetto music (which our Troops, whom I fail to support, just love) and praising Israel's values as our values in the local megachurch.
I find Neiwert's stance is the same as Bushite imperial ambitions except, instead of finding a foreign enemy, he focuses inward.
His line is that if our government is killing people who define their community by kinship over there. Why aren't they doing it over here?
He is a tyrant.
"The fifty states can separately destroy our rights as easily as a national government."
--Llelldorin
Thank you! This is the #1 blind spot of Ron Paul and his supporters. States can become petty tyrannies.
"And the position that Ron Paul is the ONLY anti-war candidate."
--Smash Zionazis
Dennis Kucinich.
Dennis Kucinich.
Dennis Kucinich.
Say his name a few more times and you might remember. Ron Paul is not the ONLY anti-war candidate. Bill Richardson is as well, and I believe Gravel too. Is Dodd? Not sure.
Ron Paul is the ONLY anti-war candidate in the Republican field. That's it. The special distinction stops there.
Every nook and cranny of America should be a mirco version of the PC police state, importing criminals from Nambia, and blasting ghetto music (which our Troops, whom I fail to support, just love) and praising Israel's values as our values in the local megachurch.
You do realize that the more you proclaim your support for Paul with comments like this, the more you bolster David's argument that Paul's being backed by some really scary extremists?
...Every nook and cranny of America should be a mirco version of the PC police state, importing criminals from Nambia, and blasting ghetto music (which our Troops, whom I fail to support, just love) and praising Israel's values as our values in the local megachurch.
...
Smash Zionazis | Homepage | 11.13.07 - 7:29 pm |
It would seem that David has a lot to answer for, according to your "objective facts not trolling". I can completely see your point that Orcinus is responsible for the proliferation of megachurches.
Right, so in addition to Jews you don't seem to like Negroes either, and their "ghetto music". All that's missing is your denunciation of race mixing.
Wow, 17 visitors online as I write this.
Dave's sendups of Ronbo are attracting lots of eyeballs to this blog. Which is good to see, even if a fair number of the ones here present seem to be generic Internet trolls.
The price of fame. LOL.
So L.W.M, are California and NH backwoods country?
Oh, heavens no! California is entirely innocent of having any racists in it at all!
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?
a...articleid=11905
Ron Paul keeps company with Bo Gritz?
Bo Gritz is effing nuts. He went off the deep end into lala land over 20 years ago with his fantasies & wild goose chases about POWs & MIAs. Then there's the matter of his seriously faked military record... Yep, just the company for a true wingnut patriot like Ron Paul.
Justin Raimondo | Homepage | 11.13.07 - 10:19 pm |
I think you miss the point. No one is "afraid" of Ron Paul. Most of the traffic here is making fun of the Rondanistas.
On the other hand, this is an excellent opportunity for some blogwhoring.
Dave, I agree that Glenn Greenwald unfairly implies that you are "smearing" Ron Paul.
However, as for the reasons for Greenwald's support for Ron Paul, it should be obvious and you and others need to pull the scales from your eyes. The spinelessness of the Democratic Congress in standing up to Bush convincingly displays how broken our political system is, how married it is to the corrupt dispensing of federal largess (much unfunded) and favors to insiders, and how much the real power has shifted to the Administration - and that none of the mainline candidates in either party cares to address root problems (since they are more interested in controlling the lucre themselves).
One can disagree with Ron Paul on any number of issues while fully agreeing that the only real solution lies in hacking back Leviathan, primariliy by shifting much responsibility back to the state level.
As Greenwald further notes in an update to his post, even "[l]iberal pro-choice feminist Naomi Wolf recently sang Paul's praises", hailing him as "the outsider Republican presidential candidate who has long upheld these [constitutional] values and who was an early voice warning of the grave danger to all of us of these abuses."
The context? Paul's introduction of the American Freedom Agenda Act, which would: "bar the use of evidence obtained through torture; require that federal intelligence gathering is conducted in accordance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA); create a mechanism for challenging presidential signing statements; repeal the Military Commissions Act, which, among other things, denies habeas corpus to certain detainees; prohibit kidnapping, detentions, and torture abroad; protect journalists who publish information received from the executive branch; and ensure that secret evidence is not used to designate individuals or organizations with a presence in the U.S. as foreign terrorists."
Wolf notes that "Ron Paul was the first of all the presidential candidates, red or blue, to step up in this way -- and all credit is due to him for getting there first."
Why is Paul getting this kind or support across the political spectrum? Because it is clear that he is the only candidate that sees that it is big, centralized government and the ease by which it is subverted by elites, aided by lazy pork-dispensers in Congress and control freaks in the Admininstration, that is the underlying source of our present batch of problems. By pushing more responsibility back to the states, we can limit corruption in Washington and let local voters take responsibility for determining how they wish to handle a host of difficult issues, such as the war on drugs, abortion, public education, etc. This agenda does not favor any particular party, and provides greater power to local voters.
See Lew Rockwell, Jr. March 30, 2006. “Are Conservatives Crazy?”
; Lew Rockwell, Jr. May 4; 2006. “The Great Conservative Hoax.”
I'm with Shredder and Stormcrow in their suspicions about how Ron Paul's candidacy could play out. If he attracts sufficient attention in the Republican primaries, that could give him enough of a contributors' base to mount a third-party run in 2008 in closely-contested states.
He could emphasize his antiwar position enough to convince some independents and maybe even some potential crossover Republicans to support him as an antiwar candidate who also isn't a Democrat. It's not unthinkable that a candidacy like that could toss the fall election to Giuliani or Romney.
Greenwald writes in his "Smear" post, "A 'principled conservative' isn't someone who agrees with liberals on most issues ... That's what Ron Paul is, and it's hardly a surprise that he holds many views anathema to most liberals." Starting from there, it only takes a wink and a nudge to pitch Paul as: He's against the war, but he's not one of those liberals who wants to raise your taxes and who likes immigrants and black people.
It's not inevitable that a Paul third-party run would have that effect. A lot depends on how aggressively the Democrats respond to him and also how credible they are with their antiwar position. If they play it right, a Paul third-party could wind up pulling more anti-immigration votes from the Republicans in close states than antiwar votes from the Dems.
I'm also thinking of the post-Iraq-War period that will eventually come. And it should bring a serious rethinking of our foreign policy with it. Ron Paul's Old Right isolationist viewpoint isn't going to get us to anything better. For the peace movement, it's at best a dead-end. As Andrew Bacevich likes to point out, "isolationism" is mostly a bogeyman that Establishment foreign policy types use to hold up as the only alternative to their form of interventionism. But there are real isolationists. And even though they are a rightwing fringe, the traction Paul's candidacy has achieved shows that it has some appeal to antiwar voters.
Any real foreign policy alternative that gets beyond the interventionism that is still far too much a key assumption of "realists", humanitarian hawks and the nationalists/neocons of this administration, is going to have to promote a sensible internationalism with an increasing role for the United Nations. And strengthening nuclear arms control treaties and international inspections. Old Right isolationism won't get us there; it won't even point us in the right general direction.
I generally don't read comments to these posts, but I was directed to mcc's excellent post via Greenwald's article.
In a sense, you are right. Paul's support is largely about his opposition to the war (and the larger issue of state power).
My (admittedly somewhat languid) support for Paul is primarily economic--more on this later--and is the result of research. And even so, even being aware of his extremism, I see the war issue as extremely important. The damage to our economy, our reputation, and, perhaps most importantly, the lives of our soldiers and of the citizens of other countries whom we kill, is a huge issue. But the larger issue is of imperialism itself. There are no conspiracy theories here. What have we gained by it? Certainly we have done nothing to help Iraq. And over the last century, how many have we killed? How much blood must we be covered in before we drown in it?
Government power is the issue, and it also represents the gulf that divides the politics and supporters of Paul from the rest. To me, the idea that more government control can't possibly be a solution to anything. (Even so, I still have a little of that "trust the government" instinct.) But what more proof is needed? The socialist utopia is a dangerous fantasy. (So is the anarcho-capitalist one, but Paul himself isn't of that camp.)
I mentioned before (implicitly) that I am a libertarian for pragmatic reasons. I don't share the entirety of, and in fact disagree strongly on some issues with, the Old Right paleolibertarians (of which Paul is). But that's an aside. I have many of the same compassions and goals as those on the left. I do wish poverty could end, and that there would be no more hunger, disease, or war. Yet I'm continually baffled by the leftists who espouse statism as the answer. How can you decry the current government's abuses of the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, the spying, and the signing statements, and yet still believe that it is only by giving the government more power that these issues can be solved? I can't help but wonder again at how much blood must be shed for peace.
On the economy--its ruination is most devastating to the poor, so encouraging it through expansive government powers is not helping anybody. The government's power is inevitably in conflict with the market, and the market always wins. Government devastated the economies of Maoist China and the Soviet Union, and even Sweden, the socialist poster-child, is learning that it can't beat the market. And look what's happening to America.
I am bewildered at a comment above warning of the "economic catastrophe" awaiting a Paul presidency. Where are we now? An economic catastrophe is already upon us. And it is clear that it is the government's doing. The Fed held interest rates low during the 90's and up until a few years ago. This creates cheap money, opening up credit and thereby encouraging lending. Through Congress's prodding, mortgage lenders were encouraged to make loans to subprime borrowers. It was all in goodwill, meant to encourage the "American dream" of owning a home. Greenspan himself encouraged lenders to find alternatives to FRMs. And what happened? Exactly what should have been expected--the housing market ballooned due to the surge of buyers armed with cheap loans. People were buying houses they couldn't afford because the government made it possible. But the market fought back. The dollar fell (and continues to fall), and interest rates went back up. These poor saps who couldn't afford a $100K house before are left holding ARMs for $200+K houses with no way to pay them back. This socialist plan to help people--and I sympathize with the intentions--left people on the street and has thrown the country into an economic crisis.
How can people look at this--a single example among many--and still believe that, if only their candidate wins, government can fix all the problems? Government formed HMOs, copay insurance plans, and pharmaceutical subsidies/corporatism cause medical prices to soar and harm most those whom they are supposed to be helping. Corn subsidies make junk food cheaper than health food, again causing the most damage to the poor.
And less government will throw us into social and economic crisis?
My point--and my response to mcc--is that these "single issue voter" points are enormously important. He's not riding through by being "anti-abortion man" or "Mr. 9/11."
Mr. Paul is opposed to the Drug War, which, along with its extremely negative consequences on the economy here and economies and politics abroad (particularly Columbia and Afghanistan) is both rooted in and clearly influenced by racism, a point Paul made in the All American debate, but which is clear to anyone who has done even minimal research on the issue.
As for the points some people have been making about the limits of State vs. federal power: Mr. Paul has made it very clear that he is a federal agent and not a state politician. Perhaps he is against public education on all levels, but the state is outside his sphere and so is irrelevant to his presidency. And what has federally controlled education given us recently but the disastrous NCLB act? And without so much federal spending and taxation, states would have more money available for their own education, so a Paul presidency would only help public schools.
I will say that I disagree with him strongly on the immigration issue. However, as he has said many times, the reason immigration is a problem is the state. Consider the more socialist Germany and its population of permanently second-class Turkish immigrants. The welfare state cannot afford immigrants. The socialists cannot have their cake and eat it too. There cannot be free immigration and welfare. There cannot be a nanny state and a prosperous economy. This is not conspiracy. It's not some "dangerous extreme." It's fact. A country of personal responsibility will not be perfect. That is why I am not an anarcho-capitalist. But, in a frustrating tragedy, trying to solve problems by government action largely makes them worse. Yet breaking from that assumption--the assumption that government will cure all woes, right all scoundrels, and make prosperous every citizen--is an extremely difficult thing to do, even when it is so clearly wrong.
Justin's post at Antiwar.com puts his finger on precisely the same problem that has Greenwald supporting Ron Paul - disgust and frustration at the corruption of the two big government parties (and support by sycophants in the MSM and punditosphere):
"The appearance of an antiwar candidate in the Republican primary, one who is furthermore making substantial gains and a fair amount of noise, stands as a testament to the failure of any of the Democrats to take advantage of what is, after all, the antiwar majority in this country. Even as our soldiers are fighting and dying in Iraq, and the administration paves the way – with Hillary Clinton's help – for a war with Iran, the American people overwhelmingly reject our foreign policy of relentless aggression and serial "regime change." The majority is effectively disenfranchised. That's why the Paul campaign has captured the imagination of young people and all those looking for an alternative to the increasingly intolerable status quo."
Keep on "blogwhoring", Justin!
TokyoTom,
How does one say "sock puppet" in Japanese?
A quick response to Bruce Miller:
Be careful with your use of the word "isolationist". Paul is not an isolationist. Being against foreign interventionalism--war, nation building, foreign aid--is both part of isolationist philosophy and of Paul's position. However, Paul is a free-trade advocate. The tariffs that characterize isolationism are anathema to Paul's positions.
As for the UN, the point is that it is a governing entity, and thus giving it power inevitably leads to corruption and crisis (of which the UN has had its fair share), and it removes power from the people even further. Furthermore, the UN is intimately and inherently involved in the politicking of sovereign nations.
If there is to be world peace, it will come more easily through peaceful trade than planned governments from a power thousands of miles away. If Iraq (and the disaster that is the War on Terror) isn't a clear enough example, this kind of intervention and meddling in foreign affairs is what engenders the factionalism and hatred that obstacles peace.
As for the UN, the point is that it is a governing entity..
lap, have you been sleeping through the history of the last 60 years or something?
The UN managed to exert the raw force which is the essence of governance exactly once, to the best of my recollection.
And the ONLY reason it was able to do it just the once was because the Soviet delegation walked out.
Note that the Soviets never ever made that mistake again.
What Glenn is missing here is that Paul was a "constitutionalist" that would include the 14th amendment. But to make the constitutional arguments Paul does, you have to ignore it n favor of the "organic" constitution. This is standard neo-Confederate doctrine, not libertarianism. Why is labeling extremism for what it is considered a smear?
You know what I think is going on here? By comparing Moveon and Daily Kos to Nazis, every ounce of meaning of the word Nazi or Neo-Nazi has been drained. The true smears against those on the left have left us unable to identify actual extremism. Since we can't "do what they do" talking about people's fascist ideologies is now by definition a smear. Pretty much what you predicted, Dave, but sooner than I expected.
On another note, if Paul's prescriptions for dismantling the federal government were implemented, can anyone tell me what would prevent southern states from essentially returning to Jim Crow or a variant of it? If that's what mainstream libertarianism is about now, we have a real problem.
Justin's post at Antiwar.com puts his finger on precisely the same problem that has Greenwald supporting Ron Paul - disgust and frustration at the corruption of the two big government parties (and support by sycophants in the MSM and punditosphere)
Greenwald is not advocating, supporting nor endorsing a Ron Paul presidency. You may have to learn english and bone up on your reading comprehennsion skills to ascertain this for yourself, but it is, as they say, the fact, Jack.
And I asked Glenn this earlier today: Can you name one credible foreign policy expert who supports, endorses or advocates a Ron Paul presidency?
The answer is: none.
Hutton Gibson does not count. He, nor his son, Mel Gibson, are credible foreign policy experts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c...h?
v=cphTr8W9OnA
From where I sit, it appears that two of the best bloggers have a bit of a tiff.
GG points out some flaws, uses very polite and qualifying language, and then goes off on other topics.
DN acknowledges the flaws, but insists that the term "smear" is unfair.
DN's co-author insists that we pay homage to his expertise and accuses GG of being "lawyerly", that is, apparently, stating his topic and addressing his topic, and, it seems, getting a grudging acknowledgement of his point by DN.
Comments chaos ensues. Not too lawyerly, admittedly, but also completely not relevant to the intial points made by GG. Lawyerlyness is good when you have a specific point, and evidence, and a conclusion. Said conclusion, or course, later admitted by DN.
GG is also chastized for his frequent updates. I like the fact he posts more info on the front page, while it seems that DN flips a few comments, then disappears as his comment thread descends into topics that, while interesting, have nothing to do with the points GG made.
So...I think (and who cares what I think) that DN has not done well here. Made some bad points, GG pointed them out, and now DN is convinced that the "smear" allegation is for some reason over-the-top, despite the fact that he has completely climbed down with regard to the factual errors alleged by GG.
This is really too bad. I would suggest that one not play the lawyer game and then accuse one's opponent of being "lawyerly" (especially someone as well-versed in the law as GG). I would also suggest that DN not hide in comments or allow his commentors to suggest, without clarification, that GG's updates are anything other than trying to maintain transparency and relevancy to the original post.
Finally, the idea that GG, despite his representations to the contrary, and forcefully stated, is a Paul apologist, is flat-out absurd. It just ain't true.
The issue here is whether certain of Paul's positions were (unwittingly) misrepresented here. DN seems to say "yes, they were, sorry" but then hides behind the term "smear."
That's childish, as that was the original point. This thread is nothing more than a giant dust storm of silliness that has been created after the original quesiton, that is, whether Paul's positions were misrepresented or not, was answered within the first few comments between DN and GG.
I'm really disappointed (not that it does or should carry any moral weight) in the way that DN and his co-author took a very precise factual point by GG and have allowed it to somehow stand for the idea that GG supports Paul or even gives a rats ass about anything other than accurately portraying a person's weaknesses instead of relying upon misinformation and/or misrepresentation.
The Bill of Right was "incorporated" to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, and this is settled law (Mapp, etc). How can the states decide on a federal 1st amendment issue? Right wing extremists advocate states rights b/c federal intervention prevents what used to be called "massive resistance."
I referred to Sara as "co-author" in my last comment, and that was due to not being able to scroll back to the top of the post while writing my comment due to the huge comment thread.
No offense intended, I would have used Sara's name if it had been more accessible.
Sorry 'bout that.
Heh.
I don't fear Ron Paul. I fear the perennially low information voter, like Justin Raimondo, who voted for George W. Bush in 2000, and the rest of those fuckwads at Lew Rockwell and antiwar.com. They can get us into lots of trouble, as history indicates. Say, "Goodnight, Justin."
How does one say "sock puppet" in Japanese?
Gregory | 11.13.07 - 11:07 pm | #
A sock puppet is a 「成りすまし」、「なりすまし」 or "narisumashi".
http://www.asahipress.com/eeclub.../dic/
dic100.txt
http://wpedia.search.goo.ne.jp/s...K=1&
kind=epedia
Anything else I can help you with?
mmc said...
I don't think Glenn has a blind spot, I think that he's just a "single-issue voter", as it were. And that's Ron Paul's entire focus right now-- he's trying to capture a particular kind of single-issue voter, the voter whose #1 priority is a stop to the wars and a rollback of the security state. The Paul strategy is to focus exclusively on his stances on these particular issues and hope that if he does this single-mindedly enough this will cause people to overlook or forgive his stances on literally every single other issue...
I agree that that may indeed be Paul's strategery but you really think Greenwald is that stupid? Do you really expect us to buy that?
That dog don't hunt.
Greenwald supports Paul because he leans toward Paul's non-"constitutionalist" (ie. domestic socio-economic) ideologies also. If this were not the case why not choose to support Kucinich? Because he is a Democrat and thus a craven capitulator? We know that is not the case (see impeachment bill). Kucinich must not be interested in ending the war and the illegal domestic spying, restoring the constitution, civil liberties, checks and balances and rule of law either, correct? Also not the case. Kucinich is everything a supposed "single issue voter" like Greenwald could want if he were indeed focused on those few issues.
Greenwald is coming out for Paul because he values Paul's positions on lots of issues. There just isn't any other conclusion to be drawn here. Greenwald isn't stupid and he isn't a "single issue voter." That is simply inconceivable and amounts to a lie of omission. No one with a brain is a single issue voter.
As for your assertion that Kucinich is not seriously running for president.... well someone should tell him then because I think he and his supporters might disagree. If he isn't a serious candidate then Ron Paul definitely isn't.
Wow! I guess a Paul partisan like Justin Raimondo wasn't going to let a quasi-liberal like Glenn Greenwald outdo him in rhetoric.
Aside from three references in his latest article at Antiwar.com to "Smear Bunds", he credits Dave with an historical accomplishment in his posts on Mr. Gold Standard: "It's mass smearing on a scale never before attempted."
Gosh. I don't know what else to say.
Raimondo is a fascist and propagandist. A liar and a fraud. Those people are some sick pieces of shit and that's what the troops think.
Antiwar.com Senior Editor and Lewrockwell.com Columnist Jeremy Sapienza has once again given everyone an occasion to “smear” him by…quoting him. He recently headlined an essayas follows:
A Grim Milestone — 159,000 US Troops Remain Alive in Iraq Filed under: War Jeremy Sapienza @ 2:13 pm
Another occasion that Mr. Sapienza gave to “smear” him by quoting him was when he wrote:
“I will stand up proudly for it. I have cheered on men attacking US troops. I will continue to cheer any defeat US troops meet.”
If William Kristol and other neo-conservatives had tried to invent people to discredit their critics, they could not have done better than the kind of trash that antiwar.com and lewrockwell.com have dredged up. What a truly sickening display of how far someone can go off track — from “the state is an enemy of liberty” to “any enemy of my state is a friend of mine.”
(I mention the “smear” charge because when Mr. Sapienza is quoted, his defenders at lewrockwell.com and antiwar.com insist that such quotations — with links to his expressed opinions — are “smears.”)
UPDATE: I just had a chance to settle in to my hotel room in Portland, Oregon when I checked my email and found one insisting that Mr. Sapienza isn’t a columnist for lewrockwell.com. Sure enough, his name cannot be found on the list. I’ll respond to some of the comments later, but I did have the foresight to take a screenshot of the list of “Columnists and Commentators” before posting the column above. Here it is. And just in case Mr. Sapienza gets dropped from the masthead of the antiwar.com and sent down the memory hole, here’s a screenshot of the antiwar.com masthead taken at the same time the material above was posted. Had the neo-conservative warhawks set out to do it deliberately, it would have been an astonishing accomplishment for them to have invented personas more likely to discredit the cause of non-intervention and peace than Justin Raimondo and Jeremy Sapienza.
http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archiv...ives/
026869.php
Disgusting right wing pukes.
Antiwar.com Senior Editor and Lewrockwell.com Columnist Jeremy Sapienza has once again given everyone an occasion to “smear” him by…quoting him. He recently headlined an essay as follows:
A Grim Milestone — 159,000 US Troops Remain Alive in Iraq Filed under: War Jeremy Sapienza @ 2:13 pm
Another occasion that Mr. Sapienza gave to “smear” him by quoting him was when he wrote:
“I will stand up proudly for it. I have cheered on men attacking US troops. I will continue to cheer any defeat US troops meet.”
If William Kristol and other neo-conservatives had tried to invent people to discredit their critics, they could not have done better than the kind of trash that antiwar.com and lewrockwell.com have dredged up. What a truly sickening display of how far someone can go off track — from “the state is an enemy of liberty” to “any enemy of my state is a friend of mine.”
(I mention the “smear” charge because when Mr. Sapienza is quoted, his defenders at lewrockwell.com and antiwar.com insist that such quotations — with links to his expressed opinions — are “smears.”)
UPDATE: I just had a chance to settle in to my hotel room in Portland, Oregon when I checked my email and found one insisting that Mr. Sapienza isn’t a columnist for lewrockwell.com. Sure enough, his name cannot be found on the list. I’ll respond to some of the comments later, but I did have the foresight to take a screenshot of the list of “Columnists and Commentators” before posting the column above. Here it is. And just in case Mr. Sapienza gets dropped from the masthead of the antiwar.com and sent down the memory hole, here’s a screenshot of the antiwar.com masthead taken at the same time the material above was posted. Had the neo-conservative warhawks set out to do it deliberately, it would have been an astonishing accomplishment for them to have invented personas more likely to discredit the cause of non-intervention and peace than Justin Raimondo and Jeremy Sapienza.
I have been looking in at your opinons on Ron Paul for some time. Greenwald has called you right. You lie, twist, smear, defame, slander and insult the intelligence of anyone reading, along with Dr. Paul. Worse yet, you do it in the name of the cause. As a result, I investigated Dr. Paul even deeper and found a man who speaks to me and my needs - equality, freedom and respect as an individual. I have never in my life voted for a Republican. I have come to understand that freedom and integrity means more than party. I'm sick as hell of being mislead and manipulated by people who claim to be working for the people but have other agendas. That would be YOU and everyone else who take the support people of color for granted. Dr. Paul has proven, with his own actions and words, that he does indeed believe that all men are created equal and should be judged by their character as individuals. He has my vote and I registered as a Republican to be sure that my vote would not be denied if someone tries to change the rules come election time.
Thank you Ornicus for your harping so bad on this man and causing me to find out for myself. Greenwald got your number and so do I.
Ron Paul in 2008.
L.W.M., is Greenwald "supporting" Ron Paul? He hasn't endorsed Paul, but in his last two posts on Paul he has certainly taken on the role of rather eagerly praising, welcoming and defending him. Let's be honest and see it as support, even if not an endorsement.
Let's go to the videotape:
- "The Paul campaign is now a bona fide phenomenon of real significance, and it is difficult to see this as anything other than a very positive development.
- "Paul has a coherent political world-view and states his positions clearly and unapologetically, without hedges, and that approach naturally ensures greater disagreement than the form of please-everyone obfuscation which drives most candidates.
- "Paul is as vigilant a defender of America's constitutional freedoms -- and as faithful an observer of the constitutional limitations on government power designed to preserve those freedoms -- as any national political figure in some time.
- "So there is at least something in Paul's worldview for most people to strongly dislike, even hate, if they are so inclined. Yet that apparent political liability is really what accounts for the passion his campaign is generating: it is a campaign that defies and despises conventional and deeply entrenched Beltway assumptions about our political discourse and about what kind of country this is supposed to be.
- "While Barack Obama toys with the rhetoric of challenging conventional wisdom, Paul's campaign -- for better or worse -- actually does so, and does so in an extremely serious, thoughtful and coherent way. And there are a lot of people who, more than any specific policy positions, are hungry for a political movement which operates outside of our rotted political establishment and which fearlessly rejects its pieties, even if they disagree with some or even many of its particulars.
- "Regardless of one's ideology, there is simply no denying certain attributes of Paul's campaign which are highly laudable. There have been few serious campaigns that are more substantive -- just purely focused on analyzing and solving the most vital political issues. There have been few candidates who more steadfastly avoid superficial gimmicks, cynical stunts, and manipulative tactics. There have been few candidates who espouse a more coherent, thoughtful, consistent ideology of politics, grounded in genuine convictions and crystal clear political values.
- "There is never a doubt that Paul actually believes what he is saying, nor is there any doubt that what he believes is the by-product of critical and rational thought grounded in genuine political passion.
- "Perhaps most importantly, Paul is the only serious candidate aggressively challenging America's addiction to ruling the world through superior military force and acting as an empire -- not by contesting specific policies (such as the Iraq War) but by calling into question the unexamined root premises of these policies, the ideology that is defining our role in the world. By itself, the ability of Paul's campaign to compel a desperately needed debate over the devastation which America's imperial rule wreaks on every level -- economic, moral, security, liberty -- makes his success worth applauding.
- "[T]he Beltway political and media elite protect their prerogatives by demonizing anyone who challenges them as an unserious loser, and that is how they depicted Dean (until he joined them) and how they now depict Paul. I don't want to push the Dean/Paul analogy too far. There are obviously very major differences between them and what fueled each of their candidacies. But the hallmark of both was that they tapped into the widespread and intense scorn for the rancid establishment governing the Beltway, and anything that does so is something to be cheered.
- "[R]ead the answers he gave on foreign policy and decide for yourself if there is anyone challenging the core premises of our role in the world with anything approaching his level of coherence and persuasiveness.
- "A "principled conservative" is someone who aggressively objects to the radicalism of the neocons and the Bush/Cheney assault on our constitution and embraces a conservative political ideology. That's what Ron Paul is, and it's hardly a surprise that he holds many views anathema to most liberals."
You might not like it, but is Greenwald's limited support for Paul really that surprising? While he may disagree with Paul on any number of issues, Greenwald has made it clear that his own chief concerns are with the "radicalism of the neocons and the Bush/Cheney assault on our constitution", "the devastation which America's imperial rule wreaks on every level", the urgent need to "defend[] America's constitutional freedoms -- and ... [to] faithful[ly] observe[] the constitutional limitations on government power designed to preserve those freedoms", and with criticzing "the rancid establishment governing the Beltway", and "the Beltway political and media elite" who enable all of the ongoing damage.
One doesn't have to be a conservative to like Ron Paul. Chalmers Johnson and others on the left have long been pointing out that the federal government is a Leviathan running increasingly amok, manipulated for the benefit of certain elites, and that neither party cares particularly to tame the beast, but rather to milk it for all they can, costs to everyone be damned. Sorry, but these are not problems that libertarians and small-government types have created.
Greenwald clearly shares this understanding, and knows that Paul is in favor of vigorous debate of policies at state and local levels. It is rather surprising to me how little many on the left seem to appreciate the damage that the federal government is doing to our country purely on matters of domestic policy, outside of our imperial wars - war on drugs, anyone? - and how little interested national Democratic politicians are interested in policies that would allow progress by addressing them at local rather than national levels.
TT
Congratulations, Glenn. You've given every Ron Paul supporter a big-ticket reason to dismiss everything Dave writes about here.
I just wanted to comment on an earlier comment by Tokyotom:
By pushing more responsibility back to the states, we can limit corruption in Washington and let local voters take responsibility for determining how they wish to handle a host of difficult issues, such as the war on drugs, abortion, public education, etc. This agenda does not favor any particular party, and provides greater power to local voters.The fact that you say this favors no political party is very revealing and, I think, demonstrates that you don't have a very good grasp of American politics or even history. To say nothing of the Constitution. "States' rights" is the rallying cry of the confederacy, and the Republican party since Nixon has essentially been its political party. It's no accident that most of the Republican candidates support letting states decide on a number of hot-button issues, but only because it would enhance their "freedom" to do things like voter suppression or flag burning bans or abortion criminalization. Leaving everything to the states does not necessarily promote freedom and justice for all, I hate to break that to you.
I praise Ron Paul all the time and speak highly of his opposition to the war and the "Imperial Presidency," but outside of that he is a mix of a neo-confederate and Grover Norquist on steriods. It's not a smear to point out that this guy has a history, has made public pronouncements, has a record in Congress, and has many supporters that back him for these reasons.
Tokyo Tom,
You don't have to convince me. I am agnostic on whether this little venture of his is doing more harm than good, and to whom. But he has not "explicitly" endorsed him and I was merely correcting a claim made by someone who claimed he had endorsed Paul explicitly.
Greenwald has his priorities. His first published work may actually have been in Buchanan's AmConMag, I'm not sure. The point is, he's smart, but young, and was mostly apolitical but conservative, and I'm not about to turn on him. I agree with him on many points, a few I don't.
"Yet breaking from that assumption--the assumption that government will cure all woes, right all scoundrels, and make prosperous every citizen--is an extremely difficult thing to do, even when it is so clearly wrong."
Straaaaawww-maaannnn, if there ever was one.
In short, Tokyo Tom,
-Paul has a coherent political world-view and states his positions clearly and unapologetically, without hedges, and that approach naturally ensures greater disagreement than the form of please-everyone obfuscation which drives most candidates.
Comments like this are risible and where I have to say, as much as I respect Glenn, he doesn't know his ass from his elbow. Perhaps you can name one credible foreign policy expert endorsing a Ron Paul presidency. I've been asking this question for some time and only ask that you select from the pool of those critical of, or outright opposed to, the invasion of Iraq specifically and neocon policies in general. I'm still waiting for an answer.
The post at Sadly, No! regarding all this is pretty interesting, and some good points are made about electoral strategy, namely that it's a good thing if wingnuts support Ron Paul instead of, say, Rudy. And it's also a good point that most wingnuts are pretty much equally racist, it's just that some speak in code better than others. I don't know, maybe we should be encouraging a Ron Paul candidacy, just to take the issue of the war off the table (in favor of withdrawal) in 2008. I still don't think he has a chance in hell of winning the Republican nomination, though. By definition, in their party he is a trator.
[i]Ok im not even a Paul supporter and I think your posts are weak and I will tell you why.
The guilt by association thing is weak.
The accusing him of writing stuff he denies is weak as well.
The dumping 161 links with absolutly no context whatsoever is weak. As Glenn pointed out some of the links were misleading as well, the fact that he sponsored a peice of legislation did not nescisarilly mean he supported it. There is such a thing as too much information. 161 links is too much.
Why not pick one subject you think Ron Paul is wrong on. Get some of his own words on the subject ( he has written 12 books and you can find hundreds of pages of his writings and all his speeches on the house floor at RonPaulLibrary.com). Then find a vote you think he made wrong. Find out why he voted that particular way. If you think his reasoning is faulty then you can disagree.
A massive information dump of 161 links is totally meaningless. And you never give his reasoning wich makes it even more meaningless.[/i]
It's not meaningless. It's a tactic and a common one. Want to spend three hours refuting 161 links? I've been seeing a lot of this.
Hang on a minute. Look at this thread and you can very clearly see that a large number of Ron Paul supporters have serious psychological problems. Those who don't are, in essence, trolling, because their sole motivation is support for Paul and contempt for everyone and everything else, including any evidence against Paul.
That said, there is a bothersome resemblance with Greenwald. You don't accuse someone of a smear just because they put forward evidence which contradicts your case. That's lazy as well as dishonest. Greenwald's article was unquestionably pro-Paul, and this is worrisome because Paul is an extremist Republican. Extremist Republicans have not done a lot of good for the United States over the last thirty years.
It has to be said that Paul is attacking things which deserve to be attacked. However, for the most part (as Neiwert points out very clearly) he is doing so from premises which are either false, or disgraceful. I suspect that this is what appeals to Paul supporters; they can pretend to be radical without shedding their actual conservative opinions, which is standard right-libertarianism.
This stuff is dragging American discourse to the right -- as Greenwald demonstrates -- and it is undesirable.
"Perhaps you can name one credible foreign policy expert endorsing a Ron Paul presidency."
You mean the interventionist foreign policy experts? Can you name some non intereventionist foreign policy experts, because those are the ones I want to hear from.
It's no coincidence that Dr. Paul is the number one recipient of contributions from young people serving in Iraq. Guess what? They actually know what war is, unlike those 'experts' who never have been or whose kids never will be grist for the war mill.
MFB, I had a discussion with a professor of mine who thinks it's at least a good thing that this "conversation" is taking place within the Republican party, and Sadly, No! hits on this as well. That said, I definitely see what you're saying about the discourse being dragged to the right.
Kesha, you do have a point about foreign policy "experts." Paul largely has it right on foreign policy, advocating peace with all nations except in actual self-defense, except he would attempt to pull the U.S. out of the U.N., which would be a terrible mistake, and a setback for world peace in general. The United Nations has not been the entity promoting the global hegemony that Paul supporters fear, that has been the United States, unfortunately.
You mean the interventionist foreign policy experts? Can you name some non intereventionist foreign policy experts, because those are the ones I want to hear from.
It's no coincidence that Dr. Paul is the number one recipient of contributions from young people serving in Iraq. Guess what? They actually know what war is, unlike those 'experts' who never have been or whose kids never will be grist for the war mill.
Keesha
Like most of the Paulistas, you are ignorant of, or choose to ignore, the subtle differences between an interventionist vs. non-interventionist vs. isolationist foreign policy. Interventions themselves are rarely military.
It's no coincidence that Dr. Paul is the number one recipient of contributions from young people serving in Iraq.
Can you prove that? I doubt it. I'm sure they would ask for their money back if they saw this.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...6820341/
#295495
Paul largely has it right on foreign policy
Ron Paul has no foreign policy. Maybe if he came up with one he could attract some foreign policy experts to endorse him.
I will grant you that he has helped the debate but only because he is the only Republican, as nutty as he is, who is ironically made to look sane by comparison to the rest of those lunatics.
Look, this site is a globalist site. Naturally you're not going to support a pro constitution/sovereignty stance. It might be a more honest dialogue, around here, if you claim who you are and what you stand for.
Dr. Paul doesn't have any problem doing that. He is not an isolationist. You are conflating that with non intervention. They are not the same, but I suspect you know that 
And for the fellow mentioning the UN: You mean the slave trafficking, stand around and watch genocide UN? No, the US doen't need that affiliation. It needs to get back it's constitution.
It's no coincidence that Dr. Paul is the number one GOP recipient of contributions from young people serving in Iraq.
Fixed your typo.
Dwarfed by contributions to any Democrat.
Justin, I appreciate your efforts to educate me and others.
I'm not calling for "states' rights" so much as I am recognizing that our federal government is out of control, is asserting far more power than intended under our Constitution system, and that we would all be better off if we limited national government and relied on greater local decision-making - that could be accomplished without the type of "secesssionist" talk that is growing among the Blue states and others disenchanted with our bloated and corrupt federal government.
Talk of states rights now is really more about stopping runaway federal government than it is about advocating any particular sets of substantive policies.
I won't try to persuade you here, but here are a few links for readers who may be interested:
http://www.thelichfieldgroup.com.../05/federalism/
http://www.vermontrepublic.org/
http://vtcommons.org/
http://www.vtcommons.org/node/763
http://middleburyinstitute.org/
r...eparatists.html
http://middleburyinstitute.org/
c...ration2007.html
http://secessionist.us/
http://www.orionmagazine.org/ind...les/article/
311
http://www.lewrockwell.com/
dilor...ilorenzo42.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/
...dilorenzo2.html
What's wrong with this picture?
Look, this site is a globalist site. Naturally you're not going to support a pro constitution/sovereignty stance. It might be a more honest dialogue, around here, if you claim who you are and what you stand for.
This doesn't fit with this:
I have been looking in at your opinons on Ron Paul for some time. Greenwald has called you right. You lie, twist, smear, defame, slander and insult the intelligence of anyone reading, along with Dr. Paul. Worse yet, you do it in the name of the cause. As a result, I investigated Dr. Paul even deeper and found a man who speaks to me and my needs - equality, freedom and respect as an individual. I have never in my life voted for a Republican. I have come to understand that freedom and integrity means more than party. I'm sick as hell of being mislead and manipulated by people who claim to be working for the people but have other agendas. That would be YOU and everyone else who take the support people of color for granted. Dr. Paul has proven, with his own actions and words, that he does indeed believe that all men are created equal and should be judged by their character as individuals. He has my vote and I registered as a Republican to be sure that my vote would not be denied if someone tries to change the rules come election time.
Thank you Ornicus for your harping so bad on this man and causing me to find out for myself. Greenwald got your number and so do I.
Ron Paul in 2008.
Keesha
Have a nice troll, troll.
Tokyo Tom knows how to do it.
Better trolls, please.
Dude,
I want to thank you. Until your hysterical rantings against Ron Paul, I never even bothered to look at him. I am still struggling with my cultural marxism, generic social democratic leanings, and more recently my interest in Jeffersonian Democracy. But my gut told me something was up with Ron Paul, based in part on my sense that everything you were so breathlessly saying about him did NOT possess the ring of truth. As I look in to Jeffersonian Democracy, and the libertarian roots of Karl Marx, I am finding surprising congruity. And looking in to Ron Paul has really accelerated my feeling that he may well be THE guy to back in a world and presidential race dominated by Hilary Clintonistas and Neocon Nuttiness, both of whom THRIVE on BIG Government. My man KMARX always wanted a withering away of the State; Jefferson tried to tether and restrain a withered one; Ron Paul and his ilk may get us back there. So, to you, thnx -- by doing what you do, you have steered me in a new and exciting direction I might never have considered!
Ron Paul.....and Karl Marx?
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH...
Ron Paul trolls are the worst on the planet.
The Straw Poll guy has been dealing with them for over a year.
Hilarious read:
About Ron Paul
http://www.strawpoll08.com/ronpaul.htm
Straw Paul
You are editing/changing my post? You also think I should not only accept your anti Ron Paul position, but that I can't read? I've read a great deal here and know what the positions are. They are globalist.
Now about you changing what I wrote and those military contributions:
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, the congressman from the Houston area who opposes the Iraq war, has gotten more contributions than any other White House contender from donors identified as affiliated with the military. According to a Houston Chronicle analysis of campaign records from January through September, Paul received $63,440 in donations from current military employees and several retired military personnel.
Democrat Barack Obama, another war critic, was second in military giving. The Illinois senator got $53,968 during the nine months.
He was followed by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, a decorated Navy pilot and former Vietnam prisoner of war, who received $48,208 in military-related giving. McCain has been one of the most vigorous defenders of President Bush’s decision this year to increase U.S. troops in Iraq.
[…]
But an official with the American Legion, the veterans’ service organization that has supported the Iraq war, said she didn’t know why military employees support Paul. “I don’t know the rhyme or reason behind it,” said Ramona Joyce. “It’s America. Anybody can throw their money at who they want to.”
At the Texas headquarters of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Austin, state adjutant Roy Grona said military personnel do not vote as a bloc. “There’s probably a lot of veterans that aren’t happy with the war in Iraq,” he said. Grona said Paul has been endorsed by the VFW in his congressional races in part because of his support for veterans’ benefits.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com...donations_race/
Looks like you agree with the American Legion. Others don't.
Own who and what you are is all I ask.
By "worst" I mean totally ineffective. They actually do more harm to Paul's candidacy than anything his detractors could cook up.
Ron Paul trolls are also stupid, as well as disingenous and duplicitous liars
So now "Keesha" admits he/she/it is a troll and her first post was classic concern trolling/sockpuppetry.
It's no coincidence that Dr. Paul is the number one GOP recipient of contributions from young people serving in Iraq
That Houston Chron article has nothing to do with "young people serving in Iraq," you incredible dimwit. I'm done for the night. These clowns are no challenge. Pitiful, really. Shame on Glenn.
TokyoTom,
I am wholeheartedly with you on reining in the out-of-control aspects of the federal government. I visited the websites you linked and of course there is much to agree with. For example:
The American people must make the decision to dismantle both the empire that has been created in their name and the huge, still growing military establishment that undergirds it."Ron Paul, however, advocates rolling back not just the rollback of American empire, but also a rollback of the New Deal, a rollback of federal civil rights laws, etc. I feel a certain affinity for many of the Ron Paul supporters who are not necessarily wingnuts, since I started out thinking I was a libertarian, "small government" guy too. It was only later I realized that pure economic libertarianism was a pipe dream, utopianism incompatible with the maintenance of a modern society, especially a liberal democracy.
There are good Democratic candidates who oppose the war and are fighting for the Constitution, it's just most of them are scared stiff as being labeled "too liberal," and losing like Ron Paul is going to do. If you want to do something about the Bush administration's overreaching, come join us in 2008 so we can have a broad national consensus for change. I'm leaning toward Obama at the moment, personally.
Or just run a third-party Paul candidacy so that Giuliani will lose: I will bow to your patriotism for the next 30 years.
Damn. Anyone who does not go along with what you say we should think is a "troll" , a "liar", "stupid" and a "clown". AND you changed my post. Looks like you have issues.
Keesha,
That's not true, if you really agree with all of Ron Paul's positions you should vote for him, Dave is just doing what he feels like is his responsibility, to tell what he knows from his much longer history of observing Ron Paul.
I think we just read you classifying everyone and everything as "globalist" and sort of roll our eyes. Can you define that for us? You know, and I'm not trying to be mean here, if you accept a certain set of faulty ideas that labels anything outside of that worldview as something bad-sounding, like "globalist," it can be very convincing. But what does it mean to be a "globalist"?
You might call me a globalist because I (perhaps naively) look forward to the day that there will not be national governments fighting each other in violent conflicts, and the world is "ruled" by a democratic system that is sensitive to local concerns?
On the other hand Dick Cheney is a globalist because he wants an activist U.S. military hegemony over the entire globe.
What's the commonality here? We live on a global scale today. That's not a conspiracy, that's MODERNITY. How we deal with that is up to us; calling it "globalist" and hoping for a repeal of the interconnectedness of humanity is pointless.
We don't want to fight with you, we want you on our side, fighting for "truth, justice and the American way."
Decreasing federal power and increasing state power would only serve to increase racist policy. This is clearly evident by the fact that the federal government does nothing remotely racist. Nothing.
Wow.
The social fascists and fabian new dealers run rampant here.
To those who can not grasp the commonalities of Marx -- not marxISTs -- and Jefferson, and by extension the advocacy of liberty and small government by Ron Paul, I say: READ a BOOK or two, sometime.
The US state of DC is a STALINIST exercise, and its defenders, so prominent on this allegedly "leftist" blog site, are in fact a tiny minority, still fighting the Cold War not from the faded conservatie side, but from the utterly collapsed communist one.
Again, were it not for the debate stoked by Neiwert, I would never have looked at Ron Paul. But having looked, I am now suddenly awar of the wacky, reactionary "leftists", i.e., New Deal Stalinists that inhabit this end of the blogosphere. It is scary.
And all this clap trap about the absence of Big Government somehow being a formula for a racist regime: good gawd, kiddies, I AM 3/4 BLACK, and it was the STATE that INSTITUTIONALIZED SLAVERY. All you suburban whiteboy anti-racist poseurs are a disgrace.
I have to admit that I'm rather significantly disappointed that Greenwald would defend someone who wants to excise part of the 1st amendment (as applied to the states via the 14th). The US Supreme Court has done enough damage to the 1st amendment, we don't need someone like Paul to twist the knife.
" I have to admit that I'm rather significantly disappointed that Greenwald would defend someone who wants to excise part of the 1st amendment (as applied to the states via the 14th). The US Supreme Court has done enough damage to the 1st amendment, we don't need someone like Paul to twist the knife"
I agree.
The Paulians continually misunderstand their boy. He isn't talking about "shifting" power from the federal to the state level; he wants to create new powers for state governments that the federal government does not currently have.
I too am surprised that someone as savvy as Greenwald misses this.
The US Supreme Court has done enough damage to the 1st amendment, we don't need someone like Paul to twist the knife.
Care to elaborate, raj? If you think he`s trying to have government establish a religion, then which one please? Or is it his strong stance on free speech that bothers you? http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/...ul/
paul165.html
TT
He wants the states to have "more prerogatives" to ban flag-burning. They, along with the federal government, currently have no prerogatives to do that.
Paul favors increased state control over free speech. He has said so himself, in his speech introducing his "just kidding" flag-burning amendment.
Thanks for the link, TokyoTom. I must say I am intrigued by Ron Paul's advocacy for free hardcore pornography on the public airwaves. Seriously, that stuff can be expensive.
I for one look forward to the Paulian free-market utopia in which I can watch hot lesbo action on CBS at 2:00 in the afternoon.
I was also intrigued to learn from legal expert Dr. Ron Paul that Supreme Court justice Owen Josephus Roberts, appointed to the bench by known wild-eyed Marxist Herbert Hoover, was part of the "political left." (He penned the first "commercial speech" opinion.)
LWH: You don't have to convince me. I am agnostic on whether this little venture of his is doing more harm than good, and to whom. But he has not "explicitly" endorsed him and I was merely correcting a claim made by someone who claimed he had endorsed Paul explicitly.
Actually, you directly quoted my referefence to Greenwald`s "Support" of Paul.
Comments like this are risible and where I have to say, as much as I respect Glenn, he doesn't know his ass from his elbow. Perhaps you can name one credible foreign policy expert endorsing a Ron Paul presidency. I've been asking this question for some time and only ask that you select from the pool of those critical of, or outright opposed to, the invasion of Iraq specifically and neocon policies in general. I'm still waiting for an answer.
Greenwald was talking about Paul`s "world view", not his foreign policy per se. But what`s not to like about what Greenwald does say?
In principle, he is opposed to an interventionist foreign policy, believes we can protect our own freedom and advance prosperity and freedom best by trading with other nations, and believes that the "Commander in Chief" is not a policy maker. I see nothing naive in what he has to say.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/ts...6/
tst121106.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/ts...6/
tst121806.htm
http://benjaminsullivan.blogspot...policy-
and.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j...h?
v=jhjfuBYw8Ko (fanfare for reading list for Rudy)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockw...on-paul-
pf.html
http://www.mises.org/store/Forei...9C0.aspx?
AFID=1
Radley Balko, senior editor of Reason, had this to say in a longer piece about Ron Paul`s views on foreign policy:
"— The Cato Institute's Gene Healy: "After our quick victory, and after the "Arab street" fails to rise, you're going to hear a lot of self-congratulation from the hawks. But the fallout from this war is likely to be long-term, in the form of a protracted and messy occupation, and an enhanced terrorist recruitment base."
—Ted Galen Carpenter, also of Cato: "The inevitable U.S. military victory would not be the end of America's troubles in Iraq. Indeed, it would mark the start of a new round of headaches. Ousting Saddam would make Washington responsible for Iraq's political future and entangle the United States in an endless nation-building mission beset by intractable problems."
"Now contrast those forecasts — both made before the war — with predictions from the war's architects:
— Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz: "We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."
— Vice President Dick Cheney: "I don't think it would be that tough a fight."
— White House economic advisor Glenn Hubbard: "Costs of any [Iraq] intervention would be very small."
— OMB Director Mitch Daniels: "The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."
"It's striking just how right people who think like Ron Paul were before the war, and how incredibly wrong those now pilling on him were. And yet Paul Wolfowitz was promoted to head the World Bank; Dick Cheney is still vice president; and Mitch Daniels is the governor of Indiana.
"The people who were wrong were rewarded. And they go right on mocking the people who were right."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/
0,2...,274174,00.html
Does Balko sound alot like Greenwald?
Naysayer, as for flag-burning, Paul is clearly trying to put a stop to the irresponsible nonsense that national politicians engage in on the issue, and state laws would still be subject to First Amendment judicial doctrine.
As Greenwald notes, Paul`s argument that certain matters should not be decided by Congress but left to decisions at state levels is not an argument in favor of bad state policy. But it would be an improvement, for example, if the feds were to get out of the war on drugs business, right?
Rusty, you make Paul sound like a flaming liberal on the porno issue. Good for you.
Naysayer, as for flag-burning, Paul is clearly trying to put a stop to the irresponsible nonsense that national politicians engage in on the issue, and state laws would still be subject to First Amendment judicial doctrine.
You make it sound like he's not advocating anything different from the status quo, which he most definitely is.
He wants states to have powers over individual liberties that, at the moment, NO GOVERNMENT ENTITY AT ANY LEVEL HAS.
I'm sorry if the Paulians can't grasp that. I literally cannot say it any more plainly.
Oops. Second italicized statement above is mine. First is Tom's.
Smells like Lyndon LaRouche around here.
Again, were it not for the debate stoked by Neiwert, I would never have looked at Ron Paul. But having looked, I am now suddenly awar of the wacky, reactionary "leftists", i.e., New Deal Stalinists that inhabit this end of the blogosphere. It is scary.
JJ | 11.14.07 - 4:50 am |
Really? You use the term "New Deal Stalinists", yet you credit your new found interest in Paul to Orcinus?
You have just suddenly become aware that the blogosphere has "wacky, reactionary leftists" and are frightened by your discovery?
I will give you credit for trolling in waters as yet unfished by the Rondanistas in this thread.
An observation here. This political season, I find American's as a group, as well as here, to be horribly ignorant of so many facts and so awash in political dogma as to be worse than useless to an intelligent political process. I find no education evident among the majority, in the basic ideas of the founding fathers of this country, to the point of being disturbing.
Modern "facts" are lifted right off the propaganda news without any outside support. Case in point: those who claim Paul is supported by the radical white supremacists. This a a blatant distortion, as there are many white supremacists who turn there backs on Ron Paul because he has PLAINLY stated his opposition to racial bias in the public arena. Whatever support he does get from some in that area, is from his views on limited government, NOT on his mainstream racial views! This is just one example of the smear campaign against Paul by those who either use it as an attempt to lure the ignorant masses to turn on him with lies or used by those to stupid or lazy to find out the truth.
Either way, it bodes very ill for the future of this country.
The majority of people are unaware that some white supremacists don't support Ron Paul?
Wow, that really does mean the country is in the crapper.
Does Balko sound alot like Greenwald?
Dude,
If thinking Greenwald supports your boy is floating your boat, have at it. You have no clue about my politics like I have about yours. I'm a gun carrying, fascist stomping, hardcore social democrat, like Orwell. A libertarian socialist just like Noam Chomsky. I may share some opinions on civil liberties and drug policies with Balko but after that he would be wise to stay on his side of the street.
This guy must write Merkin Patriot's material.
Priceless.
An observation here. This political season, I find American's as a group, as well as here, to be horribly ignorant of so many facts and so awash in political dogma as to be worse than useless to an intelligent political process. I find no education evident among the majority, in the basic ideas of the founding fathers of this country, to the point of being disturbing.
Modern "facts" are lifted right off the propaganda news without any outside support. Case in point: those who claim Paul is supported by the radical white supremacists. This a a blatant distortion, as there are many white supremacists who turn there backs on Ron Paul because he has PLAINLY stated his opposition to racial bias in the public arena. Whatever support he does get from some in that area, is from his views on limited government, NOT on his mainstream racial views! This is just one example of the smear campaign against Paul by those who either use it as an attempt to lure the ignorant masses to turn on him with lies or used by those to stupid or lazy to find out the truth.
Either way, it bodes very ill for the future of this country.
Wes
Based on all this additional research into his ideas, I think Paul's been selling himself wrong.
I think his new campaign slogan should be "Free porn 24/7, with only partial white supremacist support!"
The point remains unanswered. Why is Ron Paul receiving so much support from the ultra right in America? Is it important? What does it mean about Paul or his ideas?
Glenn hasn't really answered that except to say that it is not important, only the constitutionalist agenda is important with Paul.
I'm not convinced. It is troubling and it does merit pause.
Ron Paul: Will End The War, Get Us Free Porn?
What people admire about Ron Paul is his ideological consistency. As one of the comments put it, he believes in the Constitution of 1799. It appears to me that this is among the reasons he attracts the support of the David Dukes of the world. Regardless of whether Paul is himself a racist, his views on states' rights coincide closely with those of John C. Calhoun rather than those of, say, Abraham Lincoln. (It's instructive in this respect to note that on Bill Maher's show, Paul said he thought Lincoln was wrong to fight the Civl War, and that the South should have been permitted to secede). Under Paul's constitutional theories, much of the US Code, including not only civil rights legislation but almost all of the New Deal, would be unconstitutional.
Of course, there are a lot of conservatives who believe these things, and that is the basis of the argument between those who believe in "original intent" (or better, "original meaning")--e.g., the Federalist Society-- and those who believe the Constitution has be interpreted in light of developments in law, society, etc.--the "living document" approach of the Great Chief Justice, John Marshall and the "moderate" or "liberal" jurists and scholars who are his ideological successors. Paul, on the other hand, seems to go even further in that he ignores the results of the Civil War and the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. In particular, he appears to object to modern jurisprudence which holds that the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws means that the Bill of Rights applies to the states and not only Congress. Under such an approach, for instance, Congress could not make the Southern Baptist faith the official religion of the US, but the state legislature of Texas could do so for the state.
Thus Paul's opposition to the Iraq War is based on the fact that the executive cannot fight a war without a Congressional declaration of war. Many liberals, moderates and conservatives would agree with this particular point without accepting Paul's entire ideology. I am certainly among them. Paul is right on Iraq, but in general I'll align myself with John Marshall and Abraham Lincoln rather than John C. Calhoun. I think history shows who's right.
Sadly, Ron Paul is even making inroads in the nerdcore hip hop community.
GLENN GREENWALD HAS NOT SUPPORTED OR ENDORSED RON PAUL FOR THE PRESIDENCY. PLEASE LEARN HOW TO READ.
Jesus. Irony squared - GG has pointed out a zillion times how it's possible to defend a point someone is making without agreeing with them in other ways. He's even made this point about Paul.
Kindergarten example:
George Bush eats a pear for breakfast.
Bob says "George Bush ate an orange".
George Bush says "no, it was a pear".
I say "Bush is right, he ate a pear, not an orange".
[Far too many] Orcinus readers say: "Oh my god, you like George Bush, he's the worst person ever, he's a racist, mysognist, war-mongering, torture-supporting scion despot!"
I say "My point is that he ate a pear, not an orange - that's what the topic was".
GG is completely correct. His personal preferences are irrelevant. He did not endorse Paul, he said Paul was the only known candidate who had a long, consistent record of supporting Constitutional principles.
Now I'm not GG, and I'm perfectly willing to state my own opinions: Ron Paul is a person I would never vote for because of the myriad of flaws (from my perspective) that have been pointed out here and elsewhere. And yet I still completely agree with what Greenwald wrote...
[Far too many] Orcinus readers say: No, that's unpossible! You are defending GG you must love Paul! Oh no, our heads they hurts!
P.S. - "Far too many" is not necessarily that big a number. Presumably most people can distinguish between defending a position and supporting anyone who takes that position. I sure hope so. And for those who can't, _please_ reread what Glenn wrote, and when arguing with it cut and paste the specific paragraphs you are disagreeing with.
- Ice
Ice, I believe it has only been the Paulians who are claiming that Greenwald supports or endorses Paul. Are they the ones you're talking to?
Why don't you Ron Paul haters out there admit it....Just stop trying to put a cute twist on it and come out with it .You hate traditional America and everything it was built upon, (including the evil white men who made it) and you want to build a new foreign political system more in line with your more modern, socialistic and globalist viewpoints. One where you can blame all of society's problems on some other group and distort any facts that don't pass though your filters to help you and your friends ostracize your opposition.
It's become the American way, if you can't buy them off, then destroy their reputation with lies and innuendo. Judged by those standards, perhaps we Ron Paul supporters are the odd balls in society now. I'm proudly, NOT part of the sheep pen!
>>You hate traditional America and everything it was built upon, (including the evil white men who made it) and you want to build a new foreign political system more in line with your more modern, socialistic and globalist viewpoints.
Hint: if you want to discredit attacks on your boy as a cryptofascist, going in and spouting standard fascist apologia about rebirth of the nation, traditional values and red-baiting isn't the best way to go about it.
including the evil white men who made the blacks and Chinese make it
fixed your typo, wes
I'm proudly, NOT part of the sheep pen!
Wes | 11.14.07 - 11:15 am |
But I thought sheep shagging was a time honored activity in traditional rural America.
Seriously, if the best you can do is to pull a Limbaugh and equate the absence of support for Paul with hating "traditional" America then you are wasting your time here.
It begs the question, though, that since slavery was once considered traditional then is that a tradition that we should honour and respect?
Gregory, on the issue of slavery, I think Ron Paul would say "let the states decide." I don't see why he would treat the 13th Amendment any differently than the 1st. To do so would violate his endlessly hyped consistent "constitutionalism."
Wes, haven't you got it yet? *We can't go back*. There's no way to return us to the conditions of the 19th century, however much you wish it. The attempt is destroying us: that is Iraq, that is Homeland "Security". That's the whole story here; the big one which underlies fascism everywhere. *We can't go back*. All we can do is try to coerce the present into your image of the past, with ever increasing violence, until finally there is only horror and failure. Why not go forward instead? I can't promise you your dreams, but at least there's something there.
Rusty,
It seems to me that the Paulistas yearn for a mythical Golden Age in 'Mur-ka when the coin was gold, the wife was in the kitchen and the black man was happily picking cotton in the field while singing spirituals. It must have been a great time to be a white man with money. How the 21st century must suck for them...
Randolph Fritz is forward looking. It takes bravery to be a visionary and look into the future, to go there. Wes and Ron Paul look into the past, and istare into their own behinds.
It seems to me that the Paulistas yearn for a mythical Golden Age in 'Mur-ka when the coin was gold, the wife was in the kitchen and the black man was happily picking cotton in the field while singing spirituals. It must have been a great time to be a white man with money. How the 21st century must suck for them...
Indeed. One of the commenters on Greenwald's original post nailed it by observing that what Ron Paul really is is a Confederate. I think that's correct.
I don't get? Sorry...........I didn't know there was anything left to get besides the Constitution. You know, limited government, the bill of rights, keep the government out of my business and pocketbook. That "stuff". I know from reading your posts that it's not important to you people. Do what you like. I wonder though, did you ever take any basic history class in school covering the basics of American Government, not written by an ebonics instructor?
Thanks for the update, Wes. There was still a shred of doubt about your racism.
Wes | 11.14.07 - 11:52 am |
Yes, it is obvious from the extensive use of ebonics on this thread that we are clearly commie socialists intent on destroying America by corrupting the youth.
Ebonics, Wes? That is classic. Up next, "Dittoheads Gone Wild".
Oh no! You called me a racist!!!!!!
Stop!!!!! You're giving me chills!
As a matter of fact, your personal attacks have done nothing but prove my points. Personally I don't care what color you are....I think you are wrong and ignorant of the facts. Just my .02 cents worth.
I have the feeling, Wes, that you're the kind of guy who thinks that anything anybody says "proves your points," whatever they are.
Yeah Rusty.....some of us are blessed that way. Well I'm off to spread the message to others while there is still time. Keep the faith! Chow BABY!
Wes,
Please continue to spread the Paul message. I cannot think of a better spokesman.
I agree with Gregory.
Wes, from the bottom of my heart, thank you for being the public face of Ron Paul's supporters.
Awww, our new Paul troll is so cuuuute *hugs Wes* can I keep him? Can I??
Ho-kay, so hear we are and I'm still convinced of one thing: Ron Paul's positions can be seen, let us say, from several angles.
It's his anti-war position which gives him any credibility. look, how about this: Ron Paul's position + pro-war= just another RWA, with militia-blackhelicopter tendencies.
Ron Pauls positions + anti-war stance= something new and delightfully consitutional!
So what would you get if the equasion was: The liberal social policies (Health Care, Social Security, action on Global Warming and energy, etc.)+ anti-war,anti-torture, bring the troops home pledge= Sure Fire Landslide Winner and a Changed Political Landscape?
I would think, but it would take a Democrat with a lot of integrity and courage to do it.
Mooser, how do Richardson and Kucinich not fit your criteria?
what Ron Paul really is is a Confederate.
States Rights, baby!
Wow.
The social fascists and fabian new dealers run rampant here.
To those who can not grasp the commonalities of Marx -- not marxISTs -- and Jefferson, and by extension the advocacy of liberty and small government by Ron Paul, I say: READ a BOOK or two, sometime.
The US state of DC is a STALINIST exercise, and its defenders, so prominent on this allegedly "leftist" blog site, are in fact a tiny minority, still fighting the Cold War not from the faded conservatie side, but from the utterly collapsed communist one.
Again, were it not for the debate stoked by Neiwert, I would never have looked at Ron Paul. But having looked, I am now suddenly awar of the wacky, reactionary "leftists", i.e., New Deal Stalinists that inhabit this end of the blogosphere. It is scary.
And all this clap trap about the absence of Big Government somehow being a formula for a racist regime: good gawd, kiddies, I AM 3/4 BLACK, and it was the STATE that INSTITUTIONALIZED SLAVERY. All you suburban whiteboy anti-racist poseurs are a disgrace.
JJ | 11.14.07 - 4:50 am | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Thank you. Over the last few months I have been reading non stop. I do belive you are correct. It seems to me that we have a european problem where America is being fought over by people who have no interest in OUR constitution. Fascism and communism/socialism are FOREIGN ideas that have no place here. You tell me, why are so many Canadians and europeans so hell bent on keeping ME down? What is their interest in the destruction of MY country?
The Canadians are trying to destroy America?
Please, Keesha, tell us more.
Rusty, have you forgoten the menace posed by Terrence and Phillip?
I know why Terrence and Phillip would want to keep somebody down.
"The Canadians" has no more meaning than "the blacks". I said "so many Canadians and europeans". I mean bringing their political fight to to the US. The constitution is not communist or fascist, but we have communists and fascists trying to hijack OUR system? Why is that? We are struggling to get our REPUBLIC back.
So it's NOT the Canadians? Who is it?
You said "the Canadians". I did said "so many...". I am not interested in your games. JJ called it.
JJ called it.
Keesha | 11.14.07 - 2:18 pm |
Riiiight. Next, please.
You tell me, why are so many Canadians and europeans so hell bent on keeping ME down? What is their interest in the destruction of MY country?
Keesha | 11.14.07 - 2:04 pm | #
It's okay. You've been reading non-stop for months. Your eyes and brain must be exhausted.
Mooser, how do Richardson and Kucinich not fit your criteria?
Rusty Shackleford
Sorry, pooter choose that moment to need a re-boot.
I'm very dissapointed that a hard anti-War On Iraq position is not common to all the Democratic candidates. Look what it did for Mr. Paul (It gave credibility to a guy who by all rights should have his own salon) Imagine what a hard anti-War On Iraq position could do for Hilary!
And have you ever had his wife's fish-sticks? They're not bad, if you like that kind of thing. Lotta tarter sauce, baby!
"All you suburban whiteboy anti-racist poseurs are a disgrace."
and it was the STATE that INSTITUTIONALIZED SLAVERY.
And it was the state that proscribed it, too! Your point would be?
Besides, when insitutionalising slavery, the state was only giving in to an established evil. In proscribing it the state was trying to reach beyond that, to establish at least basic level of equality, against institutionalised interests, and what was at the time conmsidered "human nature". Which is more laudable? Notice: Slavery exists with or without the state, but only the state can prohibit, and enforce the prohibition on slavery.
Keesha | 11.14.07 - 2:27 pm |
An amusing non sequitor but relevant to what?
The bit about the fish-sticks was just a stupid joke.
I like fish sticks, Mooser. Groton's is my brand.
As for slavery, JJ and Keesha seem woefully ignorant of the fact that STATES made slavery legal, and the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ultimately outlawed it.
Ron Paul wants to "shift power" from the federal government to the states. From the outlawer of slavery to the folks who thought, hey, this slavery thing has its advantages.
I guess, as a moneyed white man who lives in Mississippi, I should be excited. Washing my own car and doing my own laundry is getting a little tiresome.
Aw shucks, Rusty, they weren't thinkin of bringin back slavery fer chrissakes!
But when we give the rights back to the states and they can run the elections the way we want to, and make laws based on race or religion, like that pesky federal constitution says we can't, and run the economy the way we like it in this state, well, let's just say they'll wish for the ol' Ante Bellum days. At least they fed ya.
Dave and Sara,
I'll try to explain the flag-burning thing again for your benefit. And for "Bolo" who left the comment you quoted.
Ron Paul introduced a flag burning Amendment because he didn't think the Congress could constitutionally pass a law to do so without first amending the Constitution. And he voted against that because he's opposed to it.
Ron Paul also believes in Federalism. Which means the Federal Government isn't supreme over the States in all things. The Federal Government has a seperate role and seperate powers from the States.
1) The Feds are allowed to do the stuff listed in the Constitution
2) the States are forbidden to do the things they're explicity forbidden to do in the Constitution (like issue paper money, for instance)
3) The States and People retain all other rights and powers
This is paraphrasing the 10th Amendment in that largely discarded Bill of Rights.
Whether it should be illegal for my neighbor, Bob Smith,
1) to burn the flag,
2) get married to my other neighbor, Steve,
3) or take his girlfriend to Planned Parenthood for an abortion,
According to a person who believes in Federalism should be up to the individual states.
Ron Paul wasn't in favor of banning flag burning (which is a "mainstream" position that the so-called frontrunners are in favor of, btw), he was in favor of taking away the Federal government's power to prohibit it.
He's also in favor of taking away the Fed's power to legalize or prohibit abortion and to legalize or prohibit gay marriage. He's also stated he's against a gay marriage ban by constitutional amendment.
As he's said in the debates if they don't prohibit it in Washington, they subsidize it. That's pretty close to the opposite of a decetralist, federalist position.
Greenwald makes a fair point that these cryto-nazi and guilt-by-association attacks are smears. Calling someone a "wacko", a "fringe candidate", a "fruitcake", etc, aren't critiques of a person's views or policy they're just ad hominem.
Just: Or just run a third-party Paul candidacy so that Giuliani will lose: I will bow to your patriotism for the next 30 years.
If Paul doesn't get the nomination, I sure hope he runs a third-party campaign, precisely for the reason you mention. I'll take a Dem any day over the rest of the Republican lot.
In fact, I expect that Mme. Clinton will win - in which case we can expect better fiscal government, a more moderate foreign policy and slightly less paranoia/slightly more openness. But the fundamental dynamics of a Congress uninterested in governing and struggle over the pork spigots by two big government parties will not change, nor can we expect a turn away from wag-the-dog saber-rattling and toward open markets. The rancid dynamics Greenwald speaks of will continue - the shaking up of which seems to be his primary purpose.
Rusty: You make it sound like he's not advocating anything different from the status quo, which he most definitely is. He wants states to have powers over individual liberties that, at the moment, NO GOVERNMENT ENTITY AT ANY LEVEL HAS.
You misread me. Paul is definitely anti-status quo, and for rolling back government. This is why he attracts interest from people from all parts of the spectrum who are fed up with the corruption and parasitism that is Washington. Your last statement puzzles me - what case can you make for it?
Rusty, I think his new campaign slogan should be "Free porn 24/7, with only partial white supremacist support!"
Can you perceive why Paul's rather simple, principled positions that would get the federal government off our backs and out of our houses and emails find support from a wide range of groups, even as he is NOT pandering to any of them? How well do you suppose his free speech position resonates with Christians and social conservatives?
As for the concerns you and others express for "white supremacists", the intrusive federal government that brought us Ruby Ridge and Waco is the same one that prevents states from legalizing marijuana and farmers from growing hemp, and prosecutes a drug war that undermines urban communities and produces corruption across the world.
I presume that you are aware that Jim Webb comes from the same government-hating, "red-neck", "white supremacist" stock? Heaven forbid liberals ever make common cause with the likes of him (or his ilk)!
http://www.jameswebb.com/
article...ornfighting.htm
http://www.jameswebb.com/
article...tsirishvote.htm
TT
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ultimately outlawed [slavery]
And here I thought it was a Constitutional amendment. So if Paul were to be elected, just how is it that we would have to worry about the re-institutino of slavery?
TT
"Lewrockwell.com is hate!"
Well that's all I needed to know on the matter, I guess I'll just move on, better not look at that site or a couple of "anti-fa" ninjas might "shut me down".
Hmm, lets go to the kosher right wing website littlegreenfootballs.com for their opinion on the matter...
"Lewrockwell.com is hate!", "It's dangerous, their moonbats!"
Looks like they researched it a little further. Now I definitely won't look at this +2 hatesite.
The B'nai B'rith SPLC and ADL feed the government their agenda which includes international wars for Israel.
You know, my boyfriend is a pretty big flag waving Greenwald fan, but you're like... my favourite blogger... so this hurts. =(
This Black Guy must be a racist too: (Based on your idea of guilt by association.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7...h?
v=7ji_Ft23BDw
What other candidate is for ending the Racist War on Drugs?
Hillary has crooks supporting her campaign. Not to even mention special interests from Israel and Pakistan. But you worry about some fringe groups caught up in the movement of liberty. The only reason they are still around is the top down pressure from the Know-it-all statists.
I see you are now actively bashing him. Rather than just bringing in his congressional records without context. You are no different than Fox "news":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o...h?
v=oGqPxn7njqM
Smash Zionazis? That's a revealing name if I ever heard one...
TT:
I'm not going to repeat my arguments over and over again while you pretend (I assume, since you seem intelligent) not to understand them.
How well do you suppose his free speech position resonates with Christians and social conservatives?
Just fine, actually, because he has no problem with states banning free speech.
I suspect he wouldn't mind states implementing their own version of the PATRIOT act, either. At least, I see no reason to think he WOULD mind that. He doesn't mind excessive govt power so long as it's state govt rather than federal.
Except in the matter of women's freedom, of course. In that case, he wants a federal law declaring that a zygote is the same as a newborn baby.
Shhh, Leia... the Paulians would prefer you not look at the things their boy has actually supported.
He wants the states to decide on abortion, which means it would be legal in most states, except maybe Alabama.
He wants the states to decide on abortion, which means it would be legal in most states, except maybe Alabama.
Lightbringer | 11.15.07 - 7:08 am | #
So why should Alabamians give up their constitutional rights?
>>So why should Alabamians give up their constitutional rights?
Don't you know only New York and California women deserve rights?
Well gee whiz guys, unless I missed it, there is no constitutional right to an abortion. There is a judicial mandate as to it's legality in the land but that is not the same as being a Constitutional right. Not any more than it is biblically wrong. It ain't in there boys and for the record, I am strongly pro choice. If you want that as a constitutional right, then there is a process called a constitutional amendment, which doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of ever seeing the light of day in this country. Strictly speaking, abortion is a privilege granted to you by the state. A privilege that can be taken away from you as easily as it was given. Just as so many "rights" have been and are being taken away today. Seems like there are many here who have a very loose understanding of the Constitution and it's perceived blanket umbrella to do whatever they feel like..Well technically they are right. It does state quite clearly that any powers not explicitly given to the state by the document are reserved for the people. I'm afraid though, that our keepers do not read it that way. ................If they bother to read it at all.
Rusty, sorry, but I hadn't seen your specific arguments.
On the flag I think you've misinterpreted Paul. As Wiki notes, he specifically introduced a "Constitutional amendment giving states the power to prohibit the destruction of the flag of the United States [in order] to make the point that banning flag burning is unconstitutional" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Pol...ons_of_Ron_Paul. That is, he DOES think that the First and 14th Amendments apply to the states, and is NOT in favor of allowing states to ban political speech flag burning, even as he does point out that the Constitutional way to do ban flag burning would be to amend the Constitution to allow states to so act.
On slavery, it seems you are suggesting that Paul would leave interpretation of the 13th Amendment - which clearly prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude within the US - to the states, without federal oversight. Can you articulate a basis for your fear, Rusty?
Wes: the Constitution itself is not the entirety of constitutional law. It also includes Supreme Court decisions. If you want to learn more, I suggest law school.
TT: RP said in his speech supporting his "joke" flag amendment that states should have "more prerogatives" - that is, more than the current ZERO - to restrict free speech. Unless his speech was just a joke too.
As for slavery, if he is truly consistent in his views of state vs. federal power, he would leave the question of slavery to the states. He has a pre-1865 view of the Constitution, as displayed by his endless blabber about "state's rights." Why would the 13th Amendment be any different to him?
Unless of course he's not really so ideologically pure as his followers make him out to be.
You see Rusty, that is the problem right there. We as a people have been conditioned to accept that 9 old men and women who have been appointed by another old (and rich) man and approved by 51 other old rich men and women can totally twist our Constitution around and make it something it was never intended. I don't need law school to read the Constitution and understand it's clear meaning. I KNOW this: the founders intended that no change to the Constitution would occur without the people's consent, via an Amendment passed by the required majority of states. No one, I don't care who they are can change that. They can use their power to force the issue but it is not legitimate Constitutional law. It is quite frankly variations of a deepening police state. The supreme court was put in place to judge the Constitutionality of laws passed by Congress. Thats it, full stop. They have usurped power over time, much as the presidency has, and that was not originally intended. I may not have a law degree but I do have a degree in American Political Science and I can tell you that what we have today is a deformity of what was intended. It is a government that has been stolen by the rich and the special interests in order to virtually enslave us to their goals and aspirations. If you don't like that, thats OK but you have no right to ridicule that stance. You do have a right to counter argue it with facts but all I ever see you doing here is hurling personal insults. I am educated, informed and motivated. Ron Paul may or may not stand a chance to be elected but that does not ultimately matter. I will stand beside him because it is the right thing to do, because he is the right man, with the the right message. He cares for our way of life, not whatever petty special interest group is important to you or is throwing money around today.
I came here by a link and know very little of what is going on here. I originally thought that this was a place for free and open political expression but I see now after several visits that it is not. It is a place to bash Ron Paul and anyone who sees him or his message in a positive light. I don't know what your agenda is, whether it be feminism, homosexuality, minority rights, big government, big corporations or on and on, until we cover the vast machine that rules America these days. What I do know is that the responses that you Rusty and some others are putting on here smack of intimidation and attempted censorship and I don't need a law degree to know that that is not AMERICAN and nothing you say will change that.
..I don't know what your agenda is, whether it be feminism, homosexuality, minority rights, big government, big corporations or on and on, until we cover the vast machine that rules America these days. ..Wes | 11.16.07 - 5:59 pm
Wes,
You forgot one of your favorites, ebonics. What's a good rant without that?
Gregory,
I make no apology for my recognition, of the failed educational attempts of those who have tried unsuccessfully to bring everyone in this country up to the same educational level, by pandering to the cultural deficits within certain population groups . Ebonics was all the rage at one time. It was going to raise the inner city minority up to the performance levels of other American youths. It was such a failure that now, the same social liberals who championed it, are ashamed of it and label anyone who uses the term as racist. Anyone but them.
I think people who defend these programs are the most racist of all. You don't think blacks can cut it on their own in the open arena with whites, so you hide them in your special ed programs. Hey, the truth hurts, I know. Me? I think that if we are going to have a diverse society, that we should all be on the same field. To deny that, means you really think that minorities aren't good enough to compete. Humm....
Ebonics doesn't belong to anyone. I feel that I do have the right to use it, refer to it and even draw attention to it's failures. I did after all help to pay for it. Despite my lack of approval of it, from start to end. If we are all equal, we should all be capable of achieving the same basic educational standards, using the same educational methods. Anything else, really isn't equal.....is it? Now if you'd like to argue that fact, then fire away or perhaps you or your buddies would rather fall back on ridicule again?
Wes,
Save your pennies and go out and buy a clue. Engaging a crank like you beyond the level of ridicule is a waste of time.
"Foreign Policy experts"? Now that's a hoot, LWM. Your life seems to be dominated by experts, policy wanks, and lawyers. Nice one.
In regard to a previous Dave post. Of all the hundreds of homemade, grassroots videos, he decided to post the one with the girl taking her clothes off. If that's not smear tactic, I don't know what is.
To hell with the authority-worshipping, moralistic Left. You are just as bad as the neocons.
Rusty, Paul says specifically in the sppech you`ve quoted from that NO federal action is warranted with respect flag burning, any such action would do more harm than good, and the only way to prohibit flag burning under the Constitution (1st Amendment) is to pass another amendment allowing STATES to pass laws against it - expressly recognizing that cannot do so now. What more do you want? He MIGHT be in favor of such an an amendment (Wiki says not), but it`s not like he could do it himself now, is it?
On slavery, haven`t you clearly shown that your fear is a fantasy and not based on anything Paul has said? The 13th Amendment says what it says, and it can`t be changed without further amendment - though Paul has stated that he thinks a draft is unconstitutional under the 13th Amendment.
TT
endless blabber about "state's rights.
Greg,
I suspect you haven't got enough dough in your oven to engage a chipmunk. It disappoints me that I have to stoop to your sad and sorry level but you leave me nothing but the path of the childlike and ignorant in response. I had hoped to hear some informed opinion or educated facts, of which , you obviously have none. Whatever you are, I bid you peace in your self delusion and comfort in the company of your fellows.
Now you boys go play nice and don't bother the neighbors! Go Ron Paul!
Dave loves a little Stalinist purge.
Go Ron Paul!
Wes | 11.18.07 - 5:05 am |
Wes,
I will repeat myself and urge you to continue your work for RP. You are an excellent spokesman for the good Congressman. While you are at it, send him more money.
Here's a letter from the Ron Paul Campaign to the neocon smearbund National Review. The Authoritarian Left Bund can surely benefit from it as well:
To the Editor
I read Mona Charen’s column on Friday and I had to clear a few things up. Outside of the name-calling (“kook,” as I’m sure you remember, was the attack word of choice used by critics of Barry Goldwater), Charen was way off base.
1. Dr. Paul’s commitment to principle is second to none, so to attack him, Charen twists the understanding of what a presidential pardon really is. A pardon is a constitutional check by the executive branch on the judiciary to protect against cruel or unusual punishment. When considering a pardon, a president examines extenuating circumstances to decide whether a punishment for a conviction under the law was unjust. Scooter Libby was convicted of a crime; that is not the issue here. Dr. Paul is not sympathetic to issuing him a pardon because he finds Libby an unsympathetic character. There is nothing inconsistent here. President Bush, who has issued the fewest pardons of any president since World War II, hasn’t pardoned Libby either, by the way.
2. If Charen paid much attention to the campaign, she would know that Dr. Paul never utters the word “isolationist” except to explain why he is not one. He believes in the foreign policy of the founders: peace, commerce, and open friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none. When he references Nixon and Eisenhower, he is clearly talking about past successful Republican campaign strategies, not what they did in office. Eisenhower campaigned to end the Korean War, Nixon to get us out of Vietnam. Dr. Paul argues that the GOP can only win in 2008 with a candidate who will bring hope troops form Iraq. Last I checked, many National Review readers cared a thing or two about Republicans winning elections.
3. Ron Paul is dead serious and very sober about what it will take to reform things like our oppressive tax system. Clearly, a Paul administration cannot end the IRS on January 29, 2009. Ending the income tax, a goal all real conservatives should share, would take major cooperation with the Congress. But, with honest communication and a lot of hard work, Dr. Paul knows that we can end the end the income tax over the course of just a few years. Over half of federal government revenue presently comes from sources other than the income tax. The United States could end the IRS and still fund the same level of big government we had less than ten years ago. There is nothing “unserious” about that.
4. Dr. Paul is a modest man with a sparkling record and unimpeachable personal integrity. I understand why you need to attack him by linking him to less-than-savory individuals (there is simply nothing else to use), but it is just not going to work. Some of your charges are silly. Dr. Paul’s “Texas Straight Talk Column,” for example, is public record and anyone, from the American Free Press to Cat Fancy, has the right to reprint it.
Yes, Ron appears on the Alex Jones radio program. But you know who else talks to Alex Jones? People like Judge Anthony Napolitano. Guess who hosts Alex Jones? FOX’s John Gibson and National Public Radio. Dr. Paul has said time and again that he does not believe 9/11 was an inside job. He does, however, think we should always question authority. When, by the way, were conservatives supposed to become trusting of big government?
Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity, and the protection of inalienable individual rights. He knows that liberty is the antidote for racism, anti-Semitism, and other small minded ideologies. Dr. Paul has focused all of his energy on winning the presidency so he can cut the size of government and protect the freedom of every American. Neither he nor his staff is going to waste time screening donors. If a handful of individuals with views anathema to Dr. Paul’s send in checks, then they have wasted their money. I cannot profess to understand the motivations of Don Black as neither Dr. Paul nor I know who he is, but a simple Google search shows that his $500 contribution has netted him at least 88 news hits, including Charen’s column. Perhaps a better explanation for his “contribution” is not support for Ron, but the attention he knew he would receive.
Mona, I can not expect everyone to support Dr. Paul, especially those who have sunk so much of their own credibility into supporting the Iraq war. In fact, Dr. Paul welcomes open and spirited discussions, and even legitimate criticism. But, I had to get a few things off my chest.
Jesse Benton
Communications Director
Ron Paul 2008 PCC
Arlington, Va.
Yes, Ron appears on the Alex Jones radio program. But you know who else talks to Alex Jones? People like Judge Anthony Napolitano. Guess who hosts Alex Jones? FOX’s John Gibson and National Public Radio. ..
Jesse Benton
Communications Director
Ron Paul 2008 PCC
Arlington, Va.
Bill Chen | 11.20.07 - 7:34 pm |
Wow, other nutbars talk to AJ as well? Colour me surprised. /snark.
Perhaps Nappy and Gibson are credible to some, especially if you watch Bill O, but to the rest of the thinking world they are hardly a ringing endorsement. As for "National Public Radio", what? They interviewed him? They interview all kinds of people. Wow.
Thanks, Bill, for once again showing us that Rondanistas are delusional.
Here are some sensible words from "the rest of the thinking world":
http://www.truthdig.com/report/i..._does_the_math/
...and this:
http://www.americanfreedomcampaign.org/
Reasoning power is not the forte of those who see the world in black and white, Liberal vs Conservative or Left vs Right.
Wes, You incredible putz. Listen to Rusty. Go to law school or STFU!
Rusty,
If he did go to law school, he'd just end up in some joke like Liberty University and then some sewer like the FedSoc.
Here are some sensible words from "the rest of the thinking world":
http://www.truthdig.com/report/i..._does_the_math/
Bill Chen
You know what, Bill Chen? Screw you. And screw Ron Paul. And screw Robert Scheer.
You want to know why? Screw you. You'll here it whether you want to or not.
Because you are an idiot and I don't like you very much. Because Ron Paul is hardly the first guy to point this stuff out. There were millions progressive social democrats down through the years saying this before he ever open his proto-fascist mouth. And shame on Robert Scheer for not pointing that out. Another journalist I thought I could count on to tell the truth goes into the shitcan.
L;W;M:
I still love you.
"Progressive Social Democrat"? You mean people who are only against wars...started by Republicans? Who would make a good Regressive Social Democrat? Ron Silver? Tony Blair?
I know, I know, it must be hard to see your comfortable little world becoming smaller and smaller. A good Social Democrat would suggest intense therapy. I'm not a Social Democrat, so I'd say just deal with it the best you can.
I love you, too......just the way you are.
Bill, you forgot Christopher Hitchens. Yesterday's Progressive Social Democrats are today's neocons. I love this Ron Paul quote:
"War, and the threat of war, are big government's best friend. Liberals support big government social programs, and conservatives support big government war policies, thus satisfying two major special interest groups. And when push comes to shove, the two groups cooperate and support big government across the board-always at the expense of personal liberty. Both sides pay lip service to freedom, but neither stands against the welfare/warfare state and its promises of unlimited enttitlements and endless war."
A government that's big enough to give you everything you like is also big enough to give you everything you hate.
runescape moneyrunescape gold wow power levelinggsdf
Nice of Greenwald to update his post 5 times, including mention of a single commenter here, but never mention that the authors of this blog posted a detailed response to him.
What a precious prick he turned out to be.
it is very rare to find 1 person whose views one shares totally and completely. one of the main arguing points that is very frequently overlooked is that Rep Paul advocates using the consitution, the founding law of the nation. he consistently argues that if the federal governemnt wants a new power it must go through the amendment process to gain the deisred power through earning the necessary majorities in the Congress and the state legislatures and it must meet SC approval. there are many people too wrapped up in their own opinion to study and understand the history of this nation and its laws.
I do not share all of Paul's views but his take on the role of government is in the best interests of all people wanting to be free. sadly there are many with external loci of control who feel they need a socialist government to care for them craddle to grave. even worse is these people exist in both "main" political parties. I wish people would take some time to stop blogging about their opinions and get some facts straight. slandering Paul as a racist or kook is a sign that you are too weak minded to create a logical argument.
Commenting by HaloScan
