I long ago endorsed Ron Paul despite strong disagreements with his foreign policy. Now, with Iraq looking more and more like less and less of an issue for the next election, that disagreement is fading in importance.
Meanwhile my distaste for ‘security measures’ taken in the name of ‘defense of the homeland’ has reached a point of utter disgust. On the issues which matter to me there is probably not the light of day between a Clinton or a Guliani Presidency. Neither is likely to ask for congress to kill off ‘Real Id’. Neither is likely to put Presidential authority behind removal of even some of the more obnoxious sections of the un-Patriot Act or any of the other wildly misnamed acts of Congress.
Over my many years as a libertarian I have come to feel like someone alone in the wilderness. People who believe as I do simply do not get elected. I assumed that a Ron Paul run for the Republican Party slot would be the same, with the very positive upside that he would gain more publicity for the ideas of liberty and individualism than decades of efforts by thousands of dedicated libertarians.
I am beginning to wonder if I might have been wrong. I was rather pleasantly surprised to read that Ron is picking up more money and attention on the web than any other Republican hopeful. While this does not translate into as much attention off web as I would like to see, it is nonetheless a surprise. Ron is still very definitely in this race and it is beginning to look like he will still be in it come the Republican convention.
I would really look forward to that happening. I have not bothered to watch convention coverage in many years because the people running did not even vaguely represent me.
I could rub my hands with glee at Just imagining the horror in the eyes of media and politicos alike if someone were to stand on the podium at that convention and not just mouth words about Liberty and Individualism… but really mean them!
Sorry, Dale, but Paul is dead in the water. Enthusiasm doesn’t mean support — the same 100,000 people still believe in him, and spend money on his campaign, but that’s about as far as it goes.
Every time he opens his mouth in a debate, conservatives and Republicans (note the difference) both cringe, and ask, “What’s he doing in a Republican debate, or even in the Republican Party?”
He’s a Truther*, an Arabist and an isolationist with unbelievably strange ideas about economics.
His espousal of many libertarian principles doesn’t outweight his lunacy on other issues.
Sorry, but he has no chance. The only good thing is that he siphons as many Moonbat antiwar types out of the Left as he does extremist anarchists out of… well, wherever they come from (Mars, would be my guess).
*Truthers: people who believe either that 9/11 was staged, or that “we had it coming” — Paul is most notably one of the latter.
Come on. Saying U.S. foreign policy caused something is not the same as saying the U.S. population deserved it.
Even if you (as I am) are skeptical of the idea, this seems like a simple enough distinction.
I used to think the same thing about his chances, but he does seem to be picking up momentum.
If nothing else it does feel like the guy is honest, though I don’t know how many of his supporters know more than one or two of his positions.
Yeah… Paul also believes that Pearl Harbor was a result of our meddling in Asian affairs.
It’s the same logic as telling someone it’s his own fault when he’s bitten by an enraged dog, when he was pulling the dog off his kid.
Kim, what would your choice for the next election be? Stay home and just grumble that there is no one running who is even vaguely close to our beliefs?
Besides which, do not forget that I actually worked for the 1988 Ron Paul Campaign. I’ve sat down with the guy and talked to him face to face. Yes, he may be a bit more Rothbardian than I am, but I am not going to split hairs and say I’d not support him because he’s the ‘wrong’ wing of libertarian.
I want him out there getting the word out as long as possible. I’m not going to even imagine him winning the nomination so after the Republican Convention I’ll simply see who the LP is running and back them.
I have only once since the founding of the LP ever voted for a non-Libertarian for President, and that was when I voted against John Kerry in 2004.
The Republican Libertarian Caucus has made noises for decades about working inside. Well, this is their chance. I have long doubted them but I am happy to give them an opportunity to shine.
I will be backing Ron to the best of my ability.
We will all be waiting for you to deal with the recent revelations of support for Paul from the neo-Nazi community. I’m a libertarian too, but this is a bit too much, it seems to me and will likely seem to lots of other folks of goodwill too.
I’m backing him.
Duncan
(note: I’m not a neo-nazi)
The U.S gov’t doesn’t have any kind of parental obligation to the rest of the world. Of course it has a right to self-defense, but that doesn’t mean that unintended consequences aren’t worth considering.
That said it annoys the hell out of me when people try to extrapolate some kind of moral deficiency from those consequences.
everyman,
The fact neo-nazis support Paul doesn’t make him one. His opponents will no doubt sling mud at him over it.
So the US had no involvement in Asia that precipitated tensions with Japan that led up to Pearl Harbor? That’s news to me. The notion that the US was innocently going about its business and got a brutal, unforseen attack for no reason sells in the streets but it is far from the truth.
Japan was an imperialist ally of both the US and Britain to “open” the area for trade. But it was of the old anglo-sphere sort, not too harsh for the most part, comparitively (at least that’s what the press clippings say) at least within the then current era. I will gloss over the late 1800’s so as not to be too antagonistic. In the 1920’s Japan started to get the notion to be a bit more brutal in old style fashion and the US and Britain shrank back. That is when Japan began its ties with Germany (even the Weimer version which itself was running afoul of the agreements ending WWI).
So as the US was fighting a de facto war in the Atlantic and decidedly taking a provocative position (against the wishes of the Republicans and Old Rightists) against Germany, and negotiations were breaking down between the US and Japanese, they decided to ally themselves and strike the first blow in the Pacific. Was the US in the wrong? No. Were they completely and utterly in the right? No. But understanding the repercussions of imperialism definitely plays a huge role in understanding what led up to Pearl Harbor and the US involvement in WWII in general.
Put simply, Ron Paul is an Old Rightist, before the cultural shift brought many conservatives into the militaristic fold. Once upon a time there was a goodly number of people in the US who simply wanted free market, peace, defensive protection, and NOT isolationism but anti-imperialism – by and large coined by the founder’s notion of staying out of foreign entanglements. Trade is one thing, but bolstering X over Y will only lead to ill will from Y. It could recognize ANY form of socialism as bad, whether its the Reds or Imperialists. Unfortunately since WWII and the Cold War the first was accentuated and the latter was ignored. We needed to have troops stationed around the world and be the policman thereof to protect the sanctity of hot dogs and apple pie. I realize that doesn’t sell well here, but that’s how some libertarians see it.
As far as I see it, Ron Paul doesn’t say that portions, even large portions, of the middle east and Asia don’t pose a threat. He voted for action in Afghanistan and as far as I know hasn’t said he shouldn’t have. He may have had something to say about how successful it was, but as a part of protecting the US under the Constitution it was needed. He simply sees action in Iraq as being fought for the WRONG reason, by folks who carry on the son of Imperialism, Dollar Diplomacy. Paul has no problem triangulating an enemy and declaring war Constitutionally. Personally I figured that 9/11 was going to bring about a reckoning with the elements in the Middle East that threaten us. But all we got was moving piles of rubble in Afghanistan around, and allowing the guys to get shaves, while in Iraq we have a protracted fight on our hands while several of the other countries who have elements contrary to our interests go about their business. This sort of policy has only led to more problems, the kind that are then labeled “blow back” or we deserved it. If we don’t declare a clear enemy and prosecute action against them until they are no longer a threat, and go about attacking lessor threats as far as attacking the US (but are of greater economic importance), and define this as a nonsensical War On Terrorism, we won’t have support at home or relevant support abroad.
The adage “walk softly and carry a big stick” should be our foreign policy. So far we’ve been stomping loudly and carrying a pea-shooter. That’s about what we should expect when our government is run by self serving bureaucrats. Our wars of the last half century have been more public relation moves with muscle and NOT about protecting our shores from attack. It’s sad that when our shores HAVE been attacked our government falls back on its half assed measures, telling everyone to not worry their pretty little heads about this, just go out shop and keep digging your salt. We’ll take care of everything. Thus far we have a clear majority against our involvement in Iraq, questionable success against threatening elements overall and endless growth of government interface bringing many elements of civil life to a dirge pace including the bending of many honored liberties.
At the end of the day, I find it interesting that many like Ron Paul for his anti-Statist stance but deplore his misguided foreign policies, but don’t see a problem with the complementary stance by many here, the State is fucked up with everything it executes, but prosecuting this War has been impeccable. Ron Paul merely points out the obvious that the same ass hats that have led us to the brink of economic collapse are the same ass hats who are fighting the wrong war for the wrong reasons, meanwhile letting the bulk of the threat go unchallenged.
Paul took $500 from Don Black, the guy who apparently runs the Stormfront website. Now all the establishment shitbags are denouncing him for taking the money. They did not however make such a din when Black and the Stormfront gang acted as Bush stooges in 2000.
As this blog says(Link) (and yes, I’m aware this blogger is also a Ron Paul hater too):
So when neo-Nazis are used as a mob for a neocon candidate, that’s okay in the book of the GOP and their media gulls. When a non neocon republican merely accepts $500 from a neo-Nazi, that must mean he’s a Nazi!
Wasn’t the be-sainted Al Gore involved with Fred Phelps at some point?
What I find most interesting that is in this era where personal assasination and muck-raking is considered a replacement for issues and discussion, someone thinks Ron Paul is important enough that it is worth trying to ‘get something’ on him.
Fascinating Captain…
du Toit’s just pissed that the National Party can’t run for election in the US.
At some point you have to make a decision not just about your conception of ideological purity but on the candidates capacity to adequately administer the 3 million plus USG employees and thousands of separate entities. Paul shows no capacity to carry out that task. Further, there are many aspects of the Paul candidacy that are troubling, particularly his orthodox Libertarian view on foreign policy (the best foreign policy is no foreign policy). I strongly recommend that the blog author and all commenters visit and read the essay, along with the massive number of links, at American Thinker, http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html Sometimes the something you get on somebody is both true and scary.
3 MILLION? I assure you, good sir, the number would be considerably smaller by the end of a Paul Presidency.
I might add that I do not find his orthodox libertarian ideas the least bit troubling. They are, for the most part, the very reason I am backing him.
The 3 million government employees? Simple. Fire the swines!
Here is the Ron Paul stand on the 2nd Amendment.
Ron Paul’s attitude to taking money from anybody is: you know what you’re buying. He’s not about to give Nazi money back but neither is he about to budge one angstrom from his foreordained path. He figures that if Nazis want to support him, there must be something about liberty they like, because that’s what he intends to deliver.
First post here – great blog.
Paul supporters need to pass the word about the next Paul funding “money bomb”, scheduled for 12/16.
Go to Tea Party ’07 for details.
Next: “…adequately administer the 3 million plus USG emplyees and thousands of separate entities..”???
Holy cow.
That’s really simple:
1) Is this position and/or agency authorized by the US Constitution as written? If no, then dismiss the jobsworth and/or dissolve the agency. Immediately.
If civil service reform is needed, propose it in Congress and hold everything else, save for national defense, hostage to passage. Send ’em home (Congress and .gov employees alike) if they don’t want to play nicely. Eff ’em.
2) Even if the position and/or agency is authorized by the USC, determine if the position and/or agency would be better placed wholly in the private sector (e.g, Postal Service). If so, do so.
The Nazi guilt by association plot perpetrated by Michael Medved appears to me to more related to Paul’s stated intention to cut off foreign aid (and Israel is the #2 recipient of US aid) than Paul’s preference for fascist policies. This explains why Nazi’s might like him (he’s the only candidate with this plank) and why some people don’t – they want to continue foreign aid to Israel. From a neo-Nazi policy perspective there is a ton NOT to like about Paul’s policy positions (I’m doing my best guess here). Let’s take gun control for one. The real Nazi’s registered all the guns in Germany. The non-Nazi Ron Paul wants to do away with gun control laws. The real Nazis in Germany created a big government with a powerful dictator. The non-Nazi Ron Paul wants a constitutional republic with limited powers. And so on.
Follow the money on this one. That’s why the stink. And it smells like black propaganda to me. I’m not a Pauliac, as his foreign policy platform does not seem realistic to me. That said, on a domestic policy basis, he’s got at least some important things right.
Yes I agree as the foreign policy question starts to fade I am giving him serious consideration. I have writen the fllowing about the Ron Paul, the gold standard, and the left.
http://anglosphereunionnow.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-paul-gold-and-left.html
Sounds like we vote the same way. Except that I voted for Badnarik in 2004 (because Indiana seemed unlikely, to say the least, to send its 11 electors to vote for Kerry, so I put my number in the Libertarian pot for that one too).
I am considering registering Republican this time around to vote for Paul in the primary.. I suspect, however, that he will end up the Libertarian candidate after getting trounced shortly after the primary starts, and I won’t have to break my perfect LP voting record. 😉
You want a foreign policy? Here’s a foreign policy.
1) If your nation attacks us, we will do whatever it take to destroy it’s ability to make war, up to and including nuking the whole damn country off the bloody map. I don’t care who you are, and I don’t care why you did it, that’s all there is.
2) If you don’t, we won’t.
3) If there are non-state terrorist attacks against us, we will hunt down and kill those non-state terrorists. We will not go the way of George “I am easily distracted by shiny things” Bush, and go attack some neighbor of the country you are in, and forget all about you.
4) No matter what we have to do in order to deal with points 1, 2, or 3, we will not — repeat WILL NOT engage in any sort of nation building. We may destroy your government. If so, tough. Try to build a better one next time. We may destroy your ability to make war. If so, tough. Try not to use it offensively next time. Otherwise, we’ll come back and do it again.
There’s a foreign policy. It’s plenty.
If I ever have a kid, and he gets bitten teasing some dog, sure, I will pull the dog off. Then I will tell the kid ‘When you go to the doctor and say “it hurts when I do that”, the doctor says “don’t do that”‘. Dogs aren’t smart, and even if you have the best of intentions, they might not know that, and they might attack you. Therefore, don’t mess with strange dogs. Leave them alone, and they’ll probably leave you alone. If they don’t leave you alone, shoot them. But whatever you do, don’t try to occupy them and build them into a democracy, it won’t work.
All this arguing about Mr Paul’s ideas and campaigning is very nice, but the only question that really matters is “Can he defeat the Democratic candidate?” If you think the other Republican candidates are not “pure” enough, just take a look at what the Democrats want to do (and try not to puke on the keyboard). I doubt Ron Paul has the wide-enough appeal to win the election, so for me he would be a non-starter; but since I cannot vote in the USA, it is not my call.
Londoners will remember when the choice for Mayor of London was Frank Dobson (an old Labour carthorse), Ken Livingstone (the evil incumbent, still, now received into the New Labour fold), and the appalling liar Jeffrey Archer (Conservative, since convicted of perjury). Given the option of two exceptionally nasty populists, I was nearly in the position of voting for the honest socialist. So were many others. We were saved by Lord Archer’s sacking following a further scandal. But I would have voted for Dobson.
I’d respectfully suggest that anyone who values liberty in the US who has to choose between Hillary and Giuliani should do the right thing, forget their atavistic hatred, and press the Democratic button. Or do you want government “management” of your identity and the extinction of habeas corpus, there too?
To explain slightly. Clinton might not be likely to stop the snowballing security-state. But the expansion of the security-state is Giuliani’s prime interest, just as it is Bush-Brown-Blair’s. He is guaranteed to add to its momentum.
Julian:
How do you know this? Does it really not matter who do you take money from? Would it still be OK if they were communists, rather than Nazis?
Nazis like liberty? Isn’t that an oxymoron? (Again, feel free to substitute “communists” for “Nazis”).
I am not an American Citizen, so first my apologies for my butting into your domestic political affairs.
Ron Paul would get my vote due to his stance on many things, such as debt, firearms, education, drugs. He has his own view which has been pretty consistent for a long time . Of course, it has been held out of office, free from the pressures of expediency!
p.s. it is amazing that now in the UK we are hearing good news from the US surge now that the UK withdrawal is causing the opposite in Basra – there is one thing the UK self-loathers hate more that the US, and that is the UK!
Roger,
I can assure you that the self-loathers over here hate the USA more than the UK. The UK is merely misguided by the thoroughly evil USA.
Alisa,
Good point but wasn’t this just a cheque for $500 – the sort of thing that would pass unnoticed through the system. Of course if Dr Paul doesn’t hand it back…
Lets not play the moonbat’s game. I have no idea who this person is or anything about their purported organization or whether it is really a group with pictures of Shicklegrubber on the wall. Nazi, like the word racist, has simply become a perjorative tossed about by the left (and in the case of nazi, by everyone) that is about as meaningful as ‘arsehole’ or ‘asshole’ depending on your side of the Atlantic.
Even if the guy were a card carrying goose-stepper, if he is a citizen of the USA he has every right to donate his money any way he sees fit. If he wants to buy libertarian rope to hang himself by, then all the better.
So I would ask, is the guy the real thing or just someone the left doesn’t like?
It is without a doubt that the wild eyed fanatics of the left will be slinging the labels of ‘racist’ and ‘nazi’ and anything else they can think of at us in hopes their pet media can make some of the implied lies stick. So lets not play their game for them.
And hey, take the money and run I say.
“To explain slightly. Clinton might not be likely to stop the snowballing security-state. But the expansion of the security-state is Giuliani’s prime interest, just as it is Bush-Brown-Blair’s. He is guaranteed to add to its momentum.”
So is she. That’s because it’s impossible to erect the welfare hot-house that she wants without every accoutrement of “national security”, but only put to a slightly different purpose. Think about it. In order to manage your affairs, they have to know everything about you.
Look: this next election is going to be a goddamned disaster, no matter who wins.
While ideologically I am drawn to Paul, there are some matters of practicality in regards to his actual election to the office of the presidency. It would be totally dysfunctional, as his style is completely unable to form any sort of coalition to pass any legislation. He could strip down the size of the Executive Branch, but not much else; that would require cooperation and allies in the House and Senate, and frankly I don’t see how Paul could make any progress on those fronts given his style.
I think it’s worthwhile, in races with a foregone conclusion, to vote for the libertarian candidate (be it a local position or voting Paul in the primary) because it registers support for certain ideas and ideology, hopefully to be noticed by those who actually have the where-withall to enact change. While I’d like many of Paul’s ideas to be in the mainstream, he’s simply not the person who can get them enacted. That is to say, I don’t want a President Paul in ’08, but I hope he has a strong showing through the primary process to make Republicans and Democrats alike aware of the support for libertarian ideals.
Nick: point taken, but I would return it even it was 5 cents.
Dale:
I would agree if the money was for personal use: if I were starving, for example, I would take money from the devil himself. Not so for campaign contributions, especially for a libertarian candidate. BTW, I agree with you that this is perfectly legal, as it should be, I am just saying that I personally don’t like the smell of it. And, of course, as you rightly point out, all of the above only stands if the contributor is a “white nationalist”, as Wikipedia describes him.
David: good point. If there is someone other than Ron Paul, I would be willing to consider this approach.
Joshua Holmes: Perhaps you are unaware that I was arrested (twice) in S. Africa for my opposition to apartheid, and my phone was tapped by the Security Police (BOSS) for seven years? Fuck you.
Sorry about that, Samizdatians, but calumny must be dealt with promptly and firmly.
As for the Paullists: Mona Charen does an excellent job of dissecting why Paul is not a serious candidate.
Myself, I’ll be voting for Fred Thompson, because he’s by far the most conservative candidate: small government, low taxes, pro-2A, free trade, anti-govt. subsidies. None of his other stands concern me enough to change my vote.
Personally, I disagree with Ron Paul on immigration and abortion. I would rather he was more open border and less pro-life. Still, he would get my vote. Even if there are some parts you don’t like there are plenty of libertarian reasons to vote for him: Ending the drug war, elimination of income tax, privatisation of the education system, free trade, reduction of the welfare state.
unbelievably strange ideas about economics
I think he follows a fairly standard Austrian School approach to economics. If there’s something you find strange, can you specify it and perhaps we can discuss?
Billy, by your terms, every U.S. election since Coolidge’s has been a disaster.
Not that you are altogether wrong, mind you.
;=)
Kim: I’m sure Fred is a very fine candidate if you are a Conservative. That does not help me very much though because I’m not. I share a certain intersection with Conservatives just as I share a certain intersection with New Liberals (NeoLibs?) *
* As opposed to Old Liberals who were actually much closer to what Libertarians are all about. But that was before redefinition for Dialectic warfare became a popular sport of the Educated at the turn of the century.
Simon: Exactly! If I were to rate Ron on a scale of 100, I’d say I agree with him on 60-70% and strongly disagree on perhaps 10%. But in the case of Gulliani and Clinton, I probably agree on 40-50% and strongly disagree on perhaps 20-25% of their policies.
If I wanted a candidate who fit my principles at the 100% level, I’d have to run for President myself and that would be such a bother I’d not get another thing useful done until well after November next year.
Kim:
Holmes is a fucking waterhead. Believe me. I almost jumped his ass over that yesterday — and I should have — but I’ve been around the mulberry bush with him enough to make me bone-tired at the very thought of it.
“Billy, by your terms, every U.S. election since Coolidge’s has been a disaster.”
Oh, I go a lot deeper than that, but I know that you don’t want to hear it.
“The pace of this thing is picking up.” I’ve been saying it for many years, and nobody wants to hear it.
Fine. You’re all going to see for yourselves.
I was reading that Ronald Reagan got hounded because he took money off members of the John Birch Society. Reagan brushed this off, saying: ‘I didn’t accept their money because I support them, I accepted their money because they support me.’
That is all Ron Paul has to say quite frankly. The smearbund that are trying to tar him as a Nazi can go to hell.
Dale and others:
See my comments on Brian’s “Ron Paul Making Mischief” thread. I see no point in typing the same comments on two threads.
As for Congressman Paul:
Logically Ron Paul will leave the race after the New Hampshire Primary (unless he does very well there).
Hopefully he will then concentrate on his work in the House of Representatives – voting against the sort of government spending he has been voting in favour of for the last year, but used to oppose.
Also I hope Ron Paul will fire certain members of his staff – such as the people who send his articles to the antisemitic journals.
As for the “truthers” who follow Ron Paul about waving banners in his support – hopefully Ron Paul will then use Cynic’s words and tell them to “go to Hell”.
I certainly hope he will.
If he had done such things during the campaign (and not come out with things fed to him like “we gave him the gas” in relation to Saddam) perhaps he might have been a serious candidate.
What spending bill did he vote for? This is new … never heard of it.
As for truthers, who cares? They have an opinion. They probably believe it. I don’t. I don’t feel the need to give them a hard time about it, however, since it’s pretty harmless. It’s not like they’re trying to impose something on me — like the Big Government Democrats, and their identical twins, the Big Government Republicans. Some people believe in God … I don’t bother arguing with them, either.
Actually, I think it would be interesting to watch Paul running against Clinton: an anti-war Republican, and not a Big Government “Compassionate Conservative” NeoCon RINO, but a real free market conservative, running against Hillary “never saw a military intervention I didn’t like” Clinton! My money would be on Paul.
Of course you guys don’t remember when Clinton was running around the world intervening and nation building, but if you were anything like the “Conservatives” in America, you were very much opposed to it when it was a Democrat doing it. I’m sure that you’ll remember that nation building is a bad thing, once you see it done by somebody you don’t like.
If and when that happens, please try to consider that an act is good or bad based not on the identity of the actor, but on the nature of the act, and try to think rationally about the level of threat the Third World is actually able to muster against the greatest military and economic powers in history.
I consider myself a Ron Paul supporter because, like Dale, I am concerned about our ever increasing “security” state. Paul isn’t perfect, and I can understand why some people think he is crazy. If I hadn’t heard him speak to a couple of different groups a few years ago (I live in Texas, though not in Paul’s district), I might think he was crazy myself. I wish he were more cosmopolitan—more of a Cato Institute libertarian—but you have to fight for liberty with the politicians that you have.
He is a long shot for the Republican nomination, but I think his candidacy is a good thing. He is the only one who has talked about repealing the PATRIOT Act and ending the war on drugs. If nothing else, he has awakened some previously apathetic voters and is helping to create a “liberty constituency” for the long haul.
Dale: You may already know this, but, according to Wikipedia, 18 states have passed legislation opposing the creation of Real ID and another 21 states, including Wyoming, have similar legislation pending. If you have a chance, you might consider writing a short letter (letters, preferably handwritten, stand out more then e-mails) to your state rep/senators about it.
FYI: One of Paul’s supporters has apparently placed a full-page ad in USA Today which will run the day before Thanksgiving (the biggest travel day of the year). http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=37965
Rich Paul.
Check out the Club for Growth report on Ron Paul (in fact their reports on each of the candidates is worth reading).
Congressman Paul’s position on trade treaties came as no shock to me (and I am sure no shock to you either) – but the switch on spending was a shock.
It must be stressed that this is not just pork for his own district – it is a matter of projects as far away as San Francisco.
My own guess is that running for President has distracted Ron Paul and he is voting the way his staff tell him do (rather than checking things out personally).
As for “Ron Paul versus H. Clinton”.
Your words here are the sort of thing that led me to my mistake of thinking you very young.
The truth is a bitter thing, but one must face it.
In a general election Senator Clinton’s people would dig up Ron Paul’s old opposition to the Welfare State (to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and so on). Certainly he has not stressed that (to put it mildly) during this campaign – but Senator Clinton’s people do not have to look back very far in the record.
Senator Clinton’s people would not even have to lie (although they might anyway – out of force of habit) they could tell the truth and still destroy Ron Paul.
The United States has changed – and not for the better.
In 1936 and 1964 forty percent of voters voted against such a conception of government.
IT WOULD BE NOTHING LIKE THAT NOW.
Not only would Ron Paul not win – he would not even get the 40% that Alfred Landon and Barry Goldwater got.
He would not get anything close to 40% of the vote – by the time Senator Clinton’s people (with their unlimited ad budget and the help of the main stream media) were finished with him I doubt that he would get 4% of the vote.
The best that can be hoped for is some very careful questioning of the Welfare State – stressing future financial problems and so on.
Fred Thompson stuff – not Ron Paul (or Tom Tancredo) “these programs are unconstitutional” stuff.
Actually I suspect that even Fred Thompson is too much to hope for.
“What do you know – you are British”.
Sadly most Americans are British (in the bad sense) these days.
The old idea of strictly limited government (still supported by 40% of the population as recently as 1964) is now the belief of a few freaks – no offence meant (I am a freak myself).
If Colonel Robert McCormack of the Chicago Trubune returned to this life he would not recognise the United States.
He would just see another European style country.
Almost (but not quite) needless to say.
What will matter in November 2008 will be the position of the voters and the candidates on domestic economic issues.
Taxes and government Welfare State programs – such as whether there should be “universal health care” or not.
Neither war or civil liberties will decide the election.
The Republican candidate (whoever that turns out to be) must hammer away every day from now till next November.
The message should be “higher tax rates will hurt the economy” and “yet more Welfare State programs will so undermine the economy that they will threaten the ability to pay for the existing ones”.
If the candidate is Fred Thompson he might even say that reform is needed in the existing programs – or they will bankrupt themselves over the next few years.
However, I doubt the more likely Republican candidates would say that.
And it is “candidates” not just one candidate.
There are strong insider elements against Thompson -for example Robert Novak (the ultimate insider) clearly hates him.
And Fox News (with a few exceptions) treates him in a way that it would never treat say Rudy G. or Mitt Romney. Media bias is a given against Republicans – but not Fox News bias. A Republican can not prosper if even FNC is against him.
This indicates to me that Fred Thompson is going to lose – the forces against him are just too strong.
Still Senator Thompson could try and counter attack – for example go on the O’Reilly Factor.
As Ron Paul’s supporters would be quick to point out – Ron Paul knew that he would get a hostile reception, but went on anyway.
Most people who vote in Republican Caucus and Primary elections watch shows like the O’Reilly Factor.
A candidate must go on and, if the reception is going to be hostile, fight back.
Not going on does not mean you will not be talked about – it just means you will not be there to reply.
It would be interested in whether the current crop of “conservatives” would choose Socialism, in order to continue their much loved bloodletting in the Middle East, or if they would choose small government, in spite their knowledge that a Paul presidency would not allow them to continue. That is the question …. which way would Faux News go?
It says that he voted against some “anti-pork bills”. My guess is, from what I know of his record, that these were attempts to monkey with the legislative process which he considered to be unconstitutional. My guess is the same on the line item veto issue. Of course I don’t speak for the campaign, but only from my knowledge of Paul.
As for those “earmarks” he submitted, yes, he did. If he did not, that money would still flow out of his district, it would just flow somewhere else in America instead. Note that these “earmarks” do not increase the net budget of any agency, nor that of the government as a whole … they direct an agency to spend some of it’s already allocated budget on a particular item or items. The alternatives are to cut the budget of the agencies (which Paul has tried on numerous occasions to do, and an option he will continue to pursue), or to allow the bureaucracy of the agency to choose projects to fund, once they have their budget. I would suspect that the items Paul submitted were less destructive to the economy than what he believed the bureaucrats would do if left to their own devices.
This last is paragraph paraphrased from a Ron Paul interview, but please find it in his words so as to avoid imperfections in my memory from clouding your view of what Paul thinks. Of course, I am a Paul, but I’m not that Paul, nor am I related.
Rich Paul – as I said, Ron Paul’s voting behaviour has changed over the last year.
It is not just pork for his district – it is projects as far away as San Francisco.
Do the Republican candidates for President favour socialism? No they do not.
They are not as free market as I would like – but to call them “socialist” is just silly.
By they way what has that got to do with the “blood letting in the Middle East”?
The vast majority of civilians killed in Iraq (if that is what you are talking about) are killed by radical Sunni and Shia (pro Iranian regime) groups – not Imperialist Americans.
Come on Rich Paul, your name is not Murry – everything is the fault of the United States – Rothbard, so do not talk as if this was your name.
You many have not have noticed, but it is not 2003 anymore.
The queation is NOT “do we go into Iraq” (like you my reply to that question was “no we should not go in”) the matter now at hand is WIN THE WAR.
That is the only way to “stop the bloodletting” – running away would not “stop the bloodletting”.
If you think you would be a better commander than the General now in command (or you know of someone who would be better) then fine.
But “surrender and hope there is no knock of effect in Afghanistan and the rest of the world” ( which is really the Ron Paul position) is absurd.
“Pulling out” (i.e. surrender) in Iraq would mean that the struggle in Afghanistan became a farce – as enemy spirits would be boosted to certain victory point (and a lot of Muslims now fighting against the Taliban in Afghanistan would switch over to fighting FOR them).
All over the world it would be clearly seen that when radical Islam clashes with the United States it is the United States that looses.
“All over the world” includes the United States, remember there half a million Muslims in the L.A. area alone. What are their theological beliefs – what interpretations of Islam is the younger generation going for.
Victory for the radicals in Iraq would mean that the radical interpretation of Islam (the interpretation that holds that all non Muslims and moderate Muslims, all over the world, must be crushed) would be seen to be correct.
Do you have any idea how many millions of Muslims there are in Western Europe already? And most of them are in the young and fertile part of life.
Do you really want them to be convinced that the West is weak and helpless and that God has given the radicals victory?
Defeat in Iraq would make war in large areas of (for example) Western Europe inevitable – perhaps not for a few years, but the ethnic war would come.
The radical interpretations of Islam are military ones – they must be defeated in battle if they are to be discredited (theological debate is of no use).
For example, the Iranian regime (not just the President, but the Supreme Leader and the Council of Guardians also) believe that if they kill enough infidels all over the world they will impress the 12th, or hidden, Imam – and he will lead them to world conquest.
In short, in their minds, they do not need a practical world battle plan – if they can just kill enough infidels (around the world) the hidden Imam will be impressed and he will come out and solve all the military problems for them.
Talking about the removing of a pro Soviet Prime Minister in 1953 (the Ron Paul approach to Iran) is of no help what-so-ever in dealing with such regime. Nor is just waiting till they have their followers plant an atomic bomb in London, New York or Washington D.C. (or some other city).
Again I agree with you that there should have be no intervention in 2003 (although this means that Saddam would have been left to kill as many of his fellow Muslims as he felt like killing), but again this is NOT 2003.
The fight is on now – the question is how to win.
Unless you have a time machine of course.
Still all the above is beside the point.
The 2008 election will be faught on domestic economic issues – not the struggle with radical Islam or civil liberties.
And a candidate who has said (often) that the basic Welfare State programs are unconstitutional would have NO CHANCE WHATEVER.
“But these programs are unconstitutional”.
I know.
I also would like the people to be radically different than they are – but they are not.
One might win them over with an argument about long term financial problems with such things as Social Security and Medicare – “in order to help the people who depend on these programs we must reform them by…..”
But even this is a lot to hope for.
In short, even Fred Thompson would be an unlikely win.
As for Ron Paul – his chances would be the same as a snowball in Hell.
Richard Nixon wasn’t a socialist, but it didn’t stop him imposing price and wage controls, extensive environmental controls, declaring the war on drugs, and devaluing the dollar.
Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr weren’t socialists, yet the size of their budgets made Jimmy Carter’s look prudent.
George Bush Jnr isn’t a socialist, but his budgets make me almost nostalgic for Bill Clinton.
‘Every time the Republican Party, which has the look of a scared gang of WASP placeholders, tries to reach out, it continues to weaken our already eroded constitutional liberties. Unlike the Democrats, who are multicultural, big-government maniacs but who know what they are, the Republicans are merely greasy operators. They pretend to be interested in “getting government off our backs” but expand the welfare state and federal control over education while unleashing costly wars of choice. And they would sell their mothers into slavery to receive the endorsement of the NAACP or to elicit a compliment from Abe Foxman. Although I could not conceive of the Democrats courting Phyllis Schlafly or Burt Blumert, I could easily imagine the big-tent Republicans at Heritage groveling before the ADL. They did it last month.‘- Paul Gottfried
Good points Cynic – I was too easy on the Republicans. For example, Mike Huckabee has one of the worst records of any Governor in the United States, including the Democrats (“but Time magazine rated him one of the best Governors” say his supporters – yes EXACTLY) – so the spirit of Nixon and Bush 41 and Bush 43 is still about.
Although Ronald Reagan did cut some progams and actually got rid of some progams (yes I know his increase in military spending more than counter balanced this – but it is still true).
Gabrial.
Islam is flexible (at least in practice).
Actually we are lucky (in a mad sort of way) that the President of Iran (and other people in regime) is such an economic dunce that he makes George Walker Bush look like Ludwig Von Mises.
It would be possible (at least in theory) for a radical Islamic regime, dedicated to our extermination or enslavement, to be fairly free market in its economic policy.
Still if only all the oil (and so on) had been in nations like Norway. Then neither the Islamic radicals, or the Latin American nut jobs, or K.G.B. Putin would have the money to be a problem to the outside world.
How to Whip This Ron Paul Character and All His Whacky Followers.
Ron Paul can be defeated by ignorance. Ignore him if you can.
By lies. Misrepresent his positions whenever possible.
By word gaming. As Lenin advised, “First, confuse the vocabulary.”
By contempt. Dismiss him as amusing and pathetic.
By smearing his supporters. Find the worst and spotlight them. Call them a cult.
By consensus. Dismiss him with peer-pressure ridicule.
By false accusations. Spread them quickly and far.
By never discussing his policies. Change the subject to his person.
By the polls. Ask the right people the right questions and get the answer you want.
By reporting his most unpopular votes. But don’t report his reasoning.
By rudeness. Wreck any debate where his ideas are winning.
With all these tools, he can be easily defeated. Use them generously.
But Ron Paul cannot be defeated by refuting him in an honest and courteous technical debate. Avoid that.
– Moderno Machiavelli
I am surprised that so many people on this blog are not supporting Ron Paul’s campaign for US President.
I thought this was a libertarian or conservative blog.
What is wrong with peaceful relations and commerce with all nations and the avoidance of entangling alliances,
allowing competing currencies, and allowing people to opt out of social security?
There is so much misinformation around, and those who dismiss Ron Paul as “strange” or “lunatic” should better consider
learning about his actual positions (e.g. by searching youtube or http://ronpaullibrary.com) instead of just parroting the memes of the big old irrelevant media.
His chances of winning are better than you think. Nowadays mudslinging and misinformation can be effectively countered by using the internet.
Here are some recent articles:
Zogby: Ron Paul currently at 13% among Republicans and 33% among general electorate, still relatively low name recognition:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1391
Jesse Benton’s answer to Mona Charen’s hit piece:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTJmOWM2ZGQzNzAzOTQwYWJlMDg4YjJiMjE4MWRlZTY=
Aaron Zelman (JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION
OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP) defends Ron Paul against ADL smear:
http://www.jpfo.org/alerts/alert20071120.htm
Ron Paul Should be the Zionist Choice for US President
by Shmuel Ben-Gad:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/7552
President Ron Paul: Pro-National Defense:
http://noelgibeson.townhall.com/g/5fbb2d80-95b3-49d7-90e8-bdcd89d4b323
Morken: the link next to the last one is interesting, and as a Zionist, I tend to agree with Ben-Gad. Still, if I were a Paul supporter, YouTube would be the last place I would direct people to, because this is precisely where I got the impression of him being a lunatic.
Thank you Alisa.
Here is another one from Arutz Sheva (audio mp3 format)