Ron Paul Rises, Rudy Slips
By Mona
.
Sez CNN. With two months to go before the New Hampshire primary, Thompson skids while Romney, Paul climb in N.H. poll:
Romney’s support grew from 25 percent to 33 percent … McCain held steady at 18 percent; and Giuliani dipped from 24 to 16 percent..Meanwhile, the percentage of support for Paul grew from 4 percent to 8 percent, putting him fourth among the GOP contenders in the Granite State.
If this holds, thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I’m no Romney fan and would probably vote for his Dem opponent, even (gag) Hillary Clinton. But Paul is sending a message to the GOP and reformulating the national political discussion. And little could be better for the country than that Rudy Giuliani does not become the next president.
Comment by Brian —
November 20, 2007 @ 2:45 am
According to Dave Neiwert, Ron Paul is the worstest most evilest most awfulest thing in the world! Yah gotta support someone with ties to the weapons industry inbstaed of the evil libertarians!
Comment by Vote for Hillary Online —
November 20, 2007 @ 2:50 am
Ron Paul is a nice guy and all, but if you want a real candidate with real values, then you want Hillary Clinton. We need some change in America and we need it now.
Comment by Ian —
November 20, 2007 @ 3:19 am
Dave Neiwert is building a plausible case that Ron Paul takes money from and associates with the craziest of the crazy on the right wing. That’s bad. It’s depressing that despite this he’s still a more attractive candidate than any other Republican and most Dems — his pledge not to invade or occupy foreign countries seems to make him the candidate least likely to kill people by the hundred thousand.
Comment by jimbo —
November 20, 2007 @ 6:42 am
“but if you want a real candidate with real values, then you want Hillary Clinton.”
Did the co-President support Bill’s air campaign that murdered Serb civillians during our Balkan bungles? If so, I can do without her “values”. My ballot goes to Ron Paul.
Jimbo, American Combat Veteran
Comment by ajay —
November 20, 2007 @ 9:19 am
Oh, right, Jimbo, and as an American Combat Veteran you are of course firmly opposed to killing civilians.
Comment by hf —
November 20, 2007 @ 9:46 am
What is this, ajay, some kind of Reverse Chickenhawk Meme, where you can only be antiwar if you’ve never served in combat?
Comment by norbizness —
November 20, 2007 @ 9:50 am
If he wants to form a third party, more power to him. I think I saw that he’s polling at 5% in Texas, his homestate. Every little bit helps to avoid Presidents Romney or Giuliani.
If not, then B to the F to the D.
Comment by Neel Krishnaswami —
November 20, 2007 @ 9:55 am
David Neiwert’s case is basically a very instructive example of how confirmation bias works, even when someone is making an effort to be intellectually honest and evidence-driven.
For example, he cites Ron Paul’s introduction of an anti-flag-burning amendment as evidence against. If you’re a civil libertarian, and you see that a conservative introduced an anti-flag-burning amendment, the inference is obvious. In Ron Paul’s case, it is also the wrong inference.
If you look at his actual speech, you’ll see that he introduced the amendment as a response to an anti-flag burning bill. He argued that such a bill would be unconstitutional, and that you needed to amend the Constitution. And then he basically dared those grandstanding on the flag to come out and explicitly vote against the First Amendment and the Bill of rights.
The whole thing has made me think a bit about cases where I might have made similar errors.
Comment by Eric Martin —
November 20, 2007 @ 10:17 am
I’m no Romney fan and would probably vote for his Dem opponent, even (gag) Hillary Clinton.
Probably? Even?
Jeez Mona, I’d have hoped those wouldn’t be caveated at this point.
Romney would be a disaster. You might not like Hillary all that much, but she’ll be leaps and bounds beyond Mitt. We should all realize that.
God, this just reminds me of Bush = Gore, Coke or Pepsi.
How’d that one turn out?
Comment by bbartlog —
November 20, 2007 @ 10:55 am
It’s looking more and more like Paul will be able to beat that narcissistic thug Giuliani in both Iowa and NH. Granted, I’m making some unflattering assumptions about the voter turnout for Rudy’s supporters. And unfortunately it still looks like a longshot for Paul to place first anywhere. But I’m happy with my earlier estimate of 18% for Paul in NH.
Comment by Gene Callahan —
November 20, 2007 @ 11:05 am
“Dave Neiwert is building a plausible case that Ron Paul takes money from and associates with the craziest of the crazy on the right wing.”
Ron Paul has made it his policy to take money from any donor. As far as “associates with,” cite a single case of him ever meeting with, speaking to, etc. one of these neo-Nazi groups.
Comment by ajay —
November 20, 2007 @ 11:16 am
What is this, ajay, some kind of Reverse Chickenhawk Meme, where you can only be antiwar if you’ve never served in combat?
Well, I think it’s a contrast that deserves explanation, yes.
Comment by bryan —
November 20, 2007 @ 11:24 am
this is the worst comment thread I’ve seen on this blog. I’m thinking you all deserve Rudy Giuliani not just as president but maybe as a crazy relative who lives next door and is always coming over to taser you.
Comment by Brian —
November 20, 2007 @ 11:30 am
Like I implied, the real problem I have with Dave Neiwert’s arguments (and I have participated in those 500-post name calling exercizes-boy that LWS needs to learn how to debate) is that a few loons and nuts that have no hope of ever exercizing any power precludes dave from recognizing the value of Ron Paul. Yet, all the other candidates are tied directly to war mongering corporations and interests who have objectively caused the death of thousands. Yet, somehow, that reality is not worthy of focus, but six skinheads in a Paul rally is the most important thing out there.
I still admire the site, but…. (on the other hand, Justin Raimondo was sounding pretty petulant…and that dangling cigarette IS pretty ridiculous.)
Comment by Hesiod —
November 20, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
Official Heroescommenting thread hijack comment:
Ummm….how can Jim NOT have a Heroesblogging post up after last night’s episode?
Way, cool. Probably the best one in the entire two seasons so far.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
November 20, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
Wow, that’s got to be the least convincing bit of rhetoric I’ve come across in a while.
Oops, OK, this wins.
Comment by mds —
November 20, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
Yeah, this isn’t the worst comment thread seen on this blog by a long way.
Comment by Mona —
November 20, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
Eric writes:
I’m just not so sure about that. She’s in AIPAC’s pocket and may well be as militaristic and delighted with continuing a national security state as Romney. There’s a reason she’s the neocon’s fave Dem front-runner.
I’d vote for Obama, and man the barricades for Dodd.
Comment by Eric Martin —
November 20, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
She’s in AIPAC’s pocket and may well be as militaristic and delighted with continuing a national security state as Romney.
This is a pretty serious exaggeration that is becoming conventional wisdom despite the dubious evidence.
She’s campaigning. She makes nice with AIPAC cause that’s what people that campaign in America do (incidentally, Edwards, Obama and all the rest make real pleasing sounds to AIPAC as well).
To think she’ll govern like Bush – or Romney (who says loud and clear that he’ll govern like Bush, only “double”) – is a stretch to put it mildly.
Seriously. So many people that I respect think that Hillary Clinton is some form of neocon akin to Joe Lieberman. Even though there are only slight rhetorical differences between Obama’s position and hers.
I don’t get it.
Comment by abb1 —
November 21, 2007 @ 4:51 am
I’m just not so sure about that.
Yeah, I’m with Mona here, I don’t see why Romney necessarily is so much worse than Clinton. He was a governor of MA, signed the universal healthcare bill, very similar to what Clinton proposes now. His positions on the war/surge are the same as hers. He’s a phony slick politician – she is a phony slick politician. Her only advantage (big one, though) AFAIC is that she is a Democrat.
Comment by Bill Woolsey —
November 21, 2007 @ 9:23 am
The “libertarian movement” mostly supports Ron Paul. About 2% of the voting population self-describes as libertarian (and about 1/4 of them identify with the Libertarian Party.) These people support increased individual liberty and and smaller government. The libertarian movement is split on many issues. Foreign policy and national defense is one of those issues. The minority “hawk” faction opposes Paul.
I know the libertarian movement best, having been part of it for decades now. The “patriot movement” advocates strict Constitutionalism. Generally, they have some kind of “originalist” interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. “Conspiracy theory” plays an important role in the Patriot movement. One theory is that the IRS tricks people into paying the income tax, which is illegal because of the Constitution. Another is that the private owners of the Federal Reserve make huge incomes from the issue of currency. Perhaps most importantly, the UN, NAFTA, and WTO are all feet in the door to creating a world government that will supercede the U.S. Constitution and undermine the Constitutional limits on government. Like the libertarian movement, the partiot movement is disorganized and fractured.
There is substantial overlap between the libertarian and patrtiot movements. Most libertarians prefer some kind of originalist strict Constitutionalism to the status quo, and many see this as key to their political views. And, there are many libertarians who believe in one or more of the conspiracy theories common in Patriot circles.
And some “patriots” are libertarian. That is, they favor less government than the US constitution allows, especially at the state and local level. However, many “patriots” are conservatives, supporting, for example, government enforcement of traditional Christian morality at the state or local level.
Ron Paul stands in the intersection of these two movements. He is a libertarian, a bit of a disciple to Austrian economist and classical liberal Ludwig Von Mises. But, of course, he emphasizes reverence for the U.S. Constitution (original intent version.) It is not clear to me, what, if any “conspiracy theories,” Ron Paul believes, but he emphasizes reforms that “solve” the problems perceived by the conspiracy theories common in the Patriot movement. Abolish the IRS, the Fed, NAFTA, etc. His explanation as to why (regarding the IRS and the Fed, certainly) are different from the conspiracy theorists.
Finally, there is a racist movement in the U.S. I am less familiar with this movement, but I think that its key element is understanding politicis in ethnic terms. Further, you will never understand them unless you understant that they perceive “white people” as being under seige. Not only are they been damaged by blacks and hispanics, they are also being damanged by Jewish conspiracies. Like the libertarian and patriot movements, the racists are disorganized and fractured.
Some of the racists support original intent Constitutionalism. Others advocate National Socialism. (How can there be a movement like that? Hard for me to imagine.)
Anyway, there is an overlap between the Patriot Movement and the racist movement. While many in the “patriot movement” are not racists and more an not more racist than most people, some are very much concerned with the threat to the white race. Thankfully, I suppose, they see the solution to the problem as a return to limited government.
Ron Paul’s policies are exactly what that group of racists would like to see done. From their perspective, (I guess,) Ron Paul doesn’t understand the real problem, but he will do the right things anyway–abolish the IRS, the Fed, get out of the WTO, etc.
It is hard to see how the neo-Nazi’s would have much in common with Paul. But then, they are trying to work with (and recruit?) the racists in the Patriot movement.
If anything, Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign is promoting his non-racist understanding of the problems facing the U.S.
My experience as someone very atively involved in Paul’s campaign in South Carolina, is that racists are not important. Most of the key activists are people from the intersection of the libertarian and patriot movements (few of whom are racists.) As the movement has grown, new people tend to be focused on Ron Paul’s actual campaign message, which is more libertarian and not focused on conspiracy theory.
Comment by Eric Martin —
November 21, 2007 @ 10:21 am
Yeah, I’m with Mona here, I don’t see why Romney necessarily is so much worse than Clinton.
Well, Mitt says he want to double Gitmo, Hillary says she wants to close it down.
Mitt claims that the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization akin to al-Qaeda, Hillary doesn’t.
Mitt is an enthusiastic supporter of torture, Hillary wants to end it.
That’s just for starters – in the realm of foreign policy.
Other differences abound.
This is so Gore-Bush it hurts my head. I need a drink.
Comment by Brian —
November 21, 2007 @ 11:50 am
Why would Hillary want to end torture? Her husband certainly used rendition, as well as starting un-necessary wars, etc. etc. There is certainly a bit of the “victimhood” paranoia in her personalisty as well-not that she is entirely wrong about the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Color me unconvinced that Hillary would be a major improvement. I honestly beleive the American ruling class is so corrupt, insulated, self-interested, and parochial that her administration might not even be that much more competent, believe it or not. The Bush crew is a systemic problem, not unique to W. After all, these people have been involved in questionable perfidy for decades now.
Bill Woolsey: Thanks for that very interesting summary of the big picture.
I would not consider myself as a libertarian, especially as I am an evil government bureaucrat, but I am sympathetic-especially to the foreign policy minimilaism of Paul.
Comment by mds —
November 21, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
Like Ron Paul on abortion*, gay rights, general regulation of sexual behavior, separation of church and state, etc. Presumably that’s the intersection to which you refer, and part of my discomfort, since I think this clashes too much with a civil libertarian POV.
*(Oh, wait, no, scrap abortion. He’s in favor of federal enforcement of “traditional” Christian morality on that one, though with federal judicial oversight stripped.)
And I do see Mr. Martin’s point. President Romney, among other things, might start more “preemptive” wars under false pretenses than President H. Clinton would, since she’d probably stop with Iran.
This is so Gore-Bush it hurts my head.
Mr. Gore was on the right side on the Iraq War. How about Senator Clinton? Mr. Edwards and Senator Dodd have beaten their breasts over how wrong they were about their Iraq vote. How about Senator Clinton? It’s not necessarily that there’s not a “dime’s worth of difference” between Democrats and Republicans per se, it’s that there’s much less daylight than there should be between particular Republican Mitt Romney and particular Democrat Hillary Clinton. And I’ve heard a whole hell of a lot more about rolling back out-of-control executive powers from Dodd than I have from Clinton.
Now, I still might vote for her in a Clinton-Romney matchup, not least because Romney wears magic underpants, and Clinton wears none (or so I’ve heard). But I can certainly understand the libertarian aversion.
Comment by Eric Martin —
November 21, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
Mr. Gore was on the right side on the Iraq War. How about Senator Clinton? Mr. Edwards and Senator Dodd have beaten their breasts over how wrong they were about their Iraq vote.
Actually, at the time of the run-up (when the Senate vote was taken), Gore wasn’t quite so anti-war. And if he had been in the Senate, with an eye on future office, he would have likely done what people like John Kerry did: vote to authorize (he voted in favor of the first Gulf war after all, when more Dems opposed it).
That doesn’t mean that if Kerry, Gore or Hillary were President at the time, they would have launched a massive PR campaign to invade Iraq like the Bush team did.
I don’t see how Hillary’s vote(s) in the Senate mean that she would actually start a preemptive war with Iran. That is overly cynical and presumptive.
Remarkable how many people can’t differentiate between votes in the senate and supremely large policy undertakings as president.
I think she could do more to distance herself from that vote, but she’s not trying to win the Dem primary, she’s trying to win the general election. She thinks that improves her chances.
Comment by Thoreau —
November 21, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
Eric-
If she believes that standing by her vote for the war is the best way to satisfy the general electorate, what does that say about how she’ll evaluate possible courses of action once in office?
Sure, it doesn’t guarantee that she’ll go that way in office, but neither does it offer any assurances to the contrary.
Comment by Bill Woolsey —
November 21, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
Ron Paul is a libertarian Republican
In general, he opposes having any level of government enforce traditional moral values.
This includes sexual behavior, gay marriage, recreational drug use, gambling, etc.
Abortion, however, is different, in his view. It is murder and so, he favors having state governments outlaw it.
On the other hand, he believes that the Federal government should not interfere in state regulation of any of these matters.
So, some states could allow abortion and others outlaw it.
The same is true of gay marriage, prostitution, sodomy, etc. Some states could permit it, and others outlaw it.
He would be among those who would advocate having any particular state outlaw abortion and not prohibit these other things.
It is not that difficult to understand.
Prostitution– sinful, people should not do this. But government shouldn’t be prohibiting it, no fine or jails for those who commit this sin. But if state governments choose to do the wrong thing and outlaw it, the Federal government should not stop them. The Federal govenrment should not outlaw it either.
Gay marriage — people associating is a good thing. Government should not be prohibiting (or regulating) this sort of thing. But if a state government chooses to regulate or prohibit it, the Federal government should not stop them.
The Federal government should not outlaw gay marriage.
Abortion– sinful, people should not do this. And government should be prohibiting it. Fines or jail for people who commit abortion. But if a state government chooses to allow abortion, the Federal government should not force them to prohibit it. The Federal government should not outlaw it.
As a member of Congress, Paul has tried to keep the Federal judiciary from prohibting states from doing things that he believes the states should be able to do, even if he personally disagrees with what the states are doing.
Conservatives in the Patriot movement (that is, the Constitutionalist sort) generally believe that the state governments should be outlawing prostitution, gay marriage, drug use, and so on.
Social conservatives these days are promoting Federal action to outlaw abortion and gay marriage. Ron Paul opposes this.
He tells social conservatives that we should stick with the Constitutional approach, which is that they can outlaw these things on a state by state basis. He will help prevent the Federal governemnt from interfering.
He personally will aplaud their efforts to outlaw abortion in each state. I think he has suggested he would be unhappy if they were to outlaw gay marriage in any state.
Ron Paul’s view on abortion is controversial among libertarians. His strong version of federalism is also controversial.
Personally, I disagree with him on both. But Harry Browne, the Libertarian Party candidate for President in 1996 and 2000 agreed with Paul on these things. (Though when pressed, he did
say that he didn’t personally think that states should outlaw abortion, even though it is murder.)
Comment by Brian —
November 21, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
I think that may be the challenge to me with Paul’s kind of federalism-if a State chooses to violate fundamental rights, there is no redress at the federal level-the federal government has no right to step in.
Should Missisippi be allowed to reinstitute Jim Crow? Or, for that matter, slavery (since he seems to feel, if I recall, that the post-Civil War amendments are suspect)? Miscegenation laws? Do we have to effectively eliminate cross-state civil rights to kill the federal government’s War Machine? That is the challenge.
Comment by Brian —
November 21, 2007 @ 5:58 pm
Plus: isn’t Ron Paul being somewhat disingenuous? If he firmly believes, based on his religious beliefs, that abortion is murder. Then, of course, he HAS to advocate making it illegal. Is it murder, or is it not? It can’t logically be both.
Comment by Brian —
November 21, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
Oops. I was confusing the positions of Ron Paul and Harry Browne. Never mind.
Comment by bob mcmanus —
November 21, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
I have voted libertarian down ticket all my life, and at least three times for President. I may do so again this year. But I can’t vote for Ron Paul.
Comment by Eric Martin —
November 21, 2007 @ 8:04 pm
Thoreau,
When candidates run in the general election, they try to present a more moderate front. Bush, if you recall, decried nation building and promised a humble foreign policy. He also promised to be a compassionate conservative. He was softening his image, and it worked. But he didn’t govern within a lick of his moderate facade.
Hillary is in a unique position in that her lead in Dem circles has been so solid, for so long, that she has generally played more moderate than a normal primary campaign would demand. She has been positioning herself for the general election for a long time. Clintons know how to win.
In that vein, to a certain extent, she likes being attacked from the Left. If she makes it out of the primary, then she will have done much to shed the “liberal” label that she has been branded with. She will appear as the most moderate Dem candidate, and thus tolerable to the coveted center reaches.
But anyone who thinks that Hillary Clinton would actually start a war with Iran is fooling themselves. No Democrat outside of Lieberman would. Nor would any have started a war with Iraq.
The Bush team wanted war with Iraq since Bill Clinton’s administration, but he refused (Hillary, I’m sure was pissed). It was the subject of the Bush administration’s first – and many subsequent – cabinet meetings. As the towers were falling, they were licking their chops. They manipulated evidence, used scare tactics and ginned up war fever in order to get their war. They even timed the war votes around the midterm elections – and tied 9/11 to Saddam – to intimidate Dems into supporting the invasion.
The Dems, Hillary included, mostly went along with the show for craven political reasons (some were actually pragmatic and, perhaps, necessary). But if in power themselves, they would not have been producing the show in the first place!
Big, big difference.
Romney, Giuliani, McCain – those are producers. Failing to distinguish between the two is a large part of how we ended up with President George W. Bush.
Please don’t let it happen again!!!!!
Comment by Thoreau —
November 21, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
Eric-
Everything that you say makes sense, and is plausible. Still, I’m very reluctant to simply trust somebody to steer a more sensible course than they’re letting on.
You bring up the example of Bush. You are correct to note that his foreign policy once in office was 180 degrees opposite what he said in the campaign. However, on other issues he basically lived up to his promises. He came in promising lots of spending, and some fiscal conservatives insisted that it was just the sort of talk that he needed in order to get elected. Well, we know how that turned out.
I’m not suggesting that we should elevate fiscal issues above war and foreign policy. (Although I would note that peace and sensible foreign policy generally has a lower price tag than war and insane foreign policy.) Rather, I’m suggesting that we should be careful what we assume on the question of which promises a politician will violate once in office. Oh, many promises will be broken, to be sure. But it’s dangerous to make assumptions about which ones will be broken, and in what way they’ll be broken.
I’m not here to say “not a dime’s worth of difference.” I’m here to ask for some sort of evidence regarding the difference and it’s magnitude.
Comment by Bill Woolsey —
November 22, 2007 @ 8:25 am
I don’t believe Ron Paul likes the post-civil war amendments, but I don’t know that he considers them “suspect.” Anyway, he is strongly against slavery and it is currently unconstitutional.
I think the 14th amendment is all about civil rights for african americans. I am not sure exactly what Paul thinks it allows the Federal government (Congress or the courts) to do regarding state legislation.
I remain puzzled by those who just seem unable to understand. Ron Paul does believe that abortion is murder (well, I think he does,) but he doesn’t think it is the Federal governments role to outlaw murder of any sort.
It is just a nonsequitor to claim that if something is important, of course the Federal government (or Federal courts) must guarantee it. Hey, eating is important, but I think it is just fine that families prepare food and the market system handles growing and distributing food to families.
Anyway, Paul has made it reasonably clear that he doesn’t anticipate revolutionizing American society overnight.
He won’t be starting any pre-emptive wars and he will be withdrawing from Iraq within months.
He won’t be violating the bill of rights
as part of the war against Al Quaeda.
While he favors much less Federal spending, he does not propose cutting off people who depend on federal support right away.
He favors abolishing the income tax and the IRS, but he also says that this will require that people accept a smaller role for government. (Less government spending.) Perhaps it is my imagination, but it doesn’t sound to me like he is proposing doing away with the IRS overnight.
He doesn’t favor implementing a gold standard right away. He supports ending capital gains taxes on gold and silver, so that people can use them as money parallel to fiat curreny if they want.
I am not sure I understand what exactly he entends to do about the Federal Reserve in the next four years. If a fiat currency is going to remain, why get rid of the Federal Reserve? It would, of course, be possible to have currency issued by the treasury rather than the Federal Reserve. The treasury could use open market operations to manage the money supply, but I suppose a President Paul could insist that the stock of currency be frozen.
There are libertarian monetary eoonomists who advocate freezing the stock of government fiat currency while allowing ordinary banks to issue redeemable paper currency as they wish. Milton Friedman once spoke favorably of that approach as well. But I have never heard Ron Paul say anthing about it.
I think it is clear that Ron Paul believes that excessive increases in the money supply are causing inflation right now and that it should stop. Returning the gold standard, however, is more of a long term goal.
Imagining that Ron Paul will win and then immediately implement every policy that he has supported over the years is absurd.
I would expect him to work to implement a limited number of changes in policy. And that he would count himself lucky to implement some of them over the next four years.
And, of course, he would be vetoing proposals to do things he doesn’t support– which would be just about any new federal program.
So, I don’t anticipate an effort to reform civil rights in the U.S.
But, certainly, an effort to allow states to outlaw abortion if they choose. But no effort to force states to outlaw abortion.
Efforts to stop illegal immigration. That is, more people guarding the border. Efforts to allow hospitals and schools and the like to cut off social services to illegal aliens and their children. I may be wrong, but I wouldn’t expect federal action against Americans who hire or choose to provide commercial or other services to illegal aliens.
Leaving NAFTA, the UN, WTO, etc. But while that would end treaty obligations not to raise tariffs or impose quotas on foreign goods, Paul wouldn’t support efforts to do that (and I guess he would veto efforts)
Go to Paul’s website, and you can see his priorities. There aren’t a whole lot of details, so one can only surmise.
But the notion that he imagines that he will be able to implement his vision of a limited Federal government all at once is inconsistent with his statements.
I don’t share all of Dr. Paul’s priorities. I don’t agree with him on some issues. But he is good on the issue most important to me.. the war.
Comment by William Newman —
November 22, 2007 @ 10:01 am
How hard do we try to get other candidates to renounce loathesome fringe supporters? Such folk have donated to campaigns before, and in all the criticism I have never seen a reference to how some other campaign actually did manage to handle it better, as opposed to calls for Paul to handle it better somehow. There are also some pretty loathesome apologists for the Khmer Rouge, Mao, and Stalin out there sometimes making contributions to campaigns. As far as I ever knew, a small fraction of loathesome donors has generally just been a very minor embarrassment to the campaigns they support, not anything that calls for public renunciation. My nonexpert impression is that if Paul’s campaign isn’t willing to maintain a detailed blacklist of (at least) thousands of names to check for toxic donations, it’s not that he’s making special excuses for skinheads, he’s doing the normal thing, and perhaps the only practical thing.
If Paul supports their fundraising or gives them authority in his campaign, or if it turns out that a significant fraction of his campaign funds comes from such a horrid source, then I will duly freak out. (And I heard of some things in Paul’s policy statements that sounded disturbing, and I think those are fair game for critics: I am specifically defending him on the donations thing, not volunteering to defend him on everything.) But for the toxic donations thing, until someone brings up the details of how most other campaigns routinely cope with the gritty details of screening out donations from horrid sources, I will wonder whether it’s just an unreasonable double standard. When I try to imagine how to do it in practice, I start with the difficulty of maintaining the long blacklist, and tend to fall back to wondering whether other campaigns actually do it or whether they just get a free pass that isn’t being given to Paul.
Comment by Eric Martin —
November 26, 2007 @ 11:22 am
Thoreau,
Hillary is not promising to bomb Iran, or attack Iran. We don’t have to hope she violates that promise because…it’s not, you know, a promise!!!!
It is the speculation of a too cynical, too suspicious electorate that, in my opinion, consistently gives her the worst possible shading while giving others a pass.
Her position vis-a-vis Iran is indistinguishable in every respect from Obama and Edwards. Yet people think she’s the neocon!!!
Comment by Carole —
November 27, 2007 @ 6:01 pm
Fortunately for Dr. Paul, his freedom message brings people together.
For nearly a century, the agenda has been to divide and conquer, mainly through the collectivist mentality and constant waging of wars and sustaining fear and chaos in our society. When people are separated into thousands of collectivist groups, it is easy to subdue them and manipulate them by pandering to and flip-flopping among groups, and with absolutely no intention of following through on promises made, whereas when people think as individuals, it is more difficult to control them and in fact, people/individuals who have a number of differences politically, morally, ethically and other ways, can come together for a just cause when they are united behind a valid philosophy because there is something important, and indeed valuable, to be gained for all of them.
That is what we are seeing in this movement behind Dr. Paul. Have you noticed the myriad kinds of people who are thinking for the most part as One, even with their differences? Of course, the many “labeled†individuals can do this, but only for the right cause and we have our cause. We are indefinable as a demographic, but we are united for a powerful message.That message is bigger than its many parts; that message is the sum of all its parts-liberty and justice for all, insofar as it is humanly possible to achieve. When it happens we no longer resent our fellow man, but we embrace him as a brother and look forward to every man’s success in achieving his life’s ambition to grasp happiness. We do not wish him ill, only good.
That is what the status quo candidates do not understand, or those that do, have no answer to challenge it other than the routine ignore, deride, smear, and destroy strategy. That is why grassroots works and that is why the other candidates cannot galvanize their own grassroots efforts, because they have no genuine philosophy upon which to build their campaigns, only snippets of ideas regardless of party affiliation to rearrange the constraining ideologies under which we are already living. They wish like many doctors today to treat the symptoms rather than address the root causes of our problems. With some of them, it is all about attaining and holding power. The sound consistent philosophy of Dr. Paul is what they fear because it forces us to think, to look for and address these root causes. They become frightened when they realize that we are thinking, rather than allowing them to do our thinking for us and spoon-feeding their not-so-great wisdom to us.
We can only self-actuate and achieve liberty and justice for all by confronting the truth, confronting the root causes of our country’s troubles and acting upon those ills. It is inevitable that we find some of those causes ugly or repugnant, but truth is truth and denial is a sure road to failure. The power of the individuals when they decide to come together is a scary thing to the usual politicians. Their dilemma is that none of their usual strategies for winning, the most important thing to them, work when millions of Individuals come together as One.- “E Pluribus Unum†Out of many-One.
The intent to dumb us all down has not yet completely worked and America is waking up to truths that have long been hiding behind the flawed ideologies of our leaders for many, many years. I have not abandoned my search for the truth and to my wondrous surprise, neither have millions of Americans who want their country back.
Of all the other candidates, perhaps Kucinich and Obama might be somewhat for freedom and the Constitution. Obama is not quite ready for prime time, but perhaps in the future he could be viable if the establishment does not get to him. Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton is part of the problem as are the others for the most part. I may be overlooking one or two potential ones by accident, but I think not.
For now I believe Dr. Paul is our best and possibly last chance to bring our country back to its senses and save our economy, our self-respect, and our honor. It is not about party and that is why many will cross party lines to vote for him. With Dr. Paul, the reason he resonates and makes so much sense is that his platform is based on a strong philosophy, not a premeditated plan to achieve power and position.
I believe if he had thought there was any hope of achieving his goal of freedom, justice, and a sound economy for as many people as possible in any other manner, and a return to the rule of law as provided by our Constitution, he would have chosen that other manner rather than run for President. It cannot be easy for him and for that I honor him with my everlasting respect and love. He is a genuine patriot and American and human being. He is putting America first.
We simply cannot continue to allow our foes to destroy us from within by our waging endless wars on inanimate vague enemies. The war on “poverty†failed, the war on “drugs†failed, and the war on “terror†is doomed to failure because they are all indefinable, intangible, and destined to be endless, draining our already weak economy of the last vestiges of stability. When our economy fails, we are ripe for fascism and totalitarianism, because our country can no longer endure. The war on Americans, to this point, has been working very well, especially against the poor and the shrinking middle class. I saw the beginnings of this forty years ago and now it has nearly completely come to fruition. We must take back our country now before it is too late. I believe we have the Desire and Will to do so. We Must do so.
Thank you for reading this.