FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Beinart writes: "Washington Republicans and political pundits keep depicting Paul as some kind of ideological mutation, the conservative equivalent of a black swan. They're wrong."

Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, speaks during a campaign stop in Dubuque, Iowa, 12/22/11. (photo: Charlie Riedel/AP)
Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, speaks during a campaign stop in Dubuque, Iowa, 12/22/11. (photo: Charlie Riedel/AP)



Why Ron Paul Terrifies the GOP

By Peter Beinart, The Daily Beast

27 December 11

 

The libertarian upstart isn't just stirring controversy; he's threatening to expose profound divisions within the GOP. Peter Beinart on how Paul will change the Republican Party in 2012.

e haven't even said goodbye to 2011, but I want to be first in line with my person of the year prediction for 2012: Ron Paul. I don't think Paul is going to win the presidency, or even win the Republican nomination. But he's going to come close enough to change the GOP forever.

Washington Republicans and political pundits keep depicting Paul as some kind of ideological mutation, the conservative equivalent of a black swan. They're wrong. Ask any historically-minded conservative who the most conservative president of the 20th Century was, and they'll likely say Calvin Coolidge. No president tried as hard to make the federal government irrelevant. It's said that Coolidge was so terrified of actually doing something as president that he tried his best not even to speak. But in 1925, Silent Cal did open his mouth long enough to spell out his foreign policy vision, and what he said could be emblazoned on a Ron Paul for President poster: "The people have had all the war, all the taxation, and all the military service they want."

Small government conservatism, the kind to which today's Republicans swear fealty, was born in the 1920s not only in reaction to the progressive movement's efforts to use government to regulate business, but in reaction to World War I, which conservatives rightly saw as a crucial element of the government expansion they feared. To be a small government conservative in the 1920s and 1930s was, for the most part, to vehemently oppose military spending while insisting that the US never, ever get mired in another European war.

Even after World War II, Mr. Republican-Robert Taft-opposed the creation of NATO and called the Korean War unconstitutional. Dwight Eisenhower worked feverishly to scale back the Truman-era defense spending that he feared would bankrupt America and rob it of its civil liberties. Even conservative luminaries like William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater who embraced the global anti-communist struggle made it clear that they were doing so with a heavy heart. Global military commitments, they explained, represented a tragic departure from small government conservatism, a departure justified only by the uniquely satanic nature of the Soviet threat.

The cold war lasted half a century, but isolationism never left the conservative DNA. And when the Soviet Union collapsed, some of America's most prominent conservative intellectuals-people like Irving Kristol, Jeane Kirkpatrick and Pat Buchanan-argued that the GOP should become the party of Coolidge and Taft once again. The Republican Congress of the 1990s bitterly opposed Bill Clinton's wars in the Balkans, and Buchanan, running on an isolationist platform, briefly led the GOP presidential field in 1996. Even the pre-9/11 Bush administration was so hostile to increased military spending that the Weekly Standard called on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign.

Given this history, it's entirely predictable that in the wake of two disillusioning wars, a diminishing al Qaeda threat and mounting debt, someone like Ron Paul would come along. In Washington, Republican elites are enmeshed in a defense-industrial complex with a commercial interest in America's global military footprint. But listen to Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh and see how often you hear them demanding that America keep fighting in Afghanistan, or even attack Iran. According to a November CBS News poll, as many Republicans said the U.S. should decrease its troop presence in Afghanistan as said America should increase it or keep it the same. In the same survey, only 22 percent of Republicans called Iran's nuclear program "a threat that requires military action now" compared to more than fifty percent who said it "can be contained with diplomacy." Almost three-quarters of Republicans said the U.S. should not try to change dictatorships to democracies.

There are certainly Republicans out there who support the Bush-Cheney neo-imperialist foreign policy vision. But they're split among the top tier presidential candidates. Paul has the isolationists all to himself. Moreover, his two top opponents-Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich-not only back a big-government foreign policy agenda, but have periodically backed a big-government domestic agenda as well. In other words, they personify the argument at the heart of Paul's campaign: that if you love a powerful Pentagon, you'll end up loving other parts of the government bureaucracy as well.

Since the Iowa caucuses generally reward organization and passion, I suspect Paul will win them easily. That would likely propel him to a strong showing in libertarian New Hampshire. Somehow, I think Romney and the Republican establishment will find a way to defeat him in the vicious and expensive struggle that follows. But the dominant storyline at the Republican convention will be figuring out how to appease Paul sufficiently to ensure that he doesn't launch a third party bid. And in so doing, the GOP will legitimize its isolationist wing in a way it hasn't since 9/11.

In truth, the modern Republican Party has always been a house divided, pulled between its desire to crusade against evil abroad and its fear that that crusade will empower the evil of big government at home. In 2012, I suspect, Ron Paul will expose that division in a way it has not been exposed in a long time. And Republicans will not soon paper it over again.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+139 # Richard Raznikov 2011-12-27 13:02
It's not necessary to be an 'isolationist' –– a pretty charged term, actually –– to oppose U.S. expansionism and imperialism abroad. Paul appeals to a great many people of all areas of the traditional spectrum who see through the lies fueling the Bush/Obama foreign policy. Using American military to take over the world on behalf of the banks and multinationals is against the interest of any thinking American, and despite the mass media brainwashing many people are beginning to think. That's why Paul's appeal transcends party lines and ideological divisions.
 
 
+34 # Carolyn 2011-12-27 13:38
Quoting Richard Raznikov:
It's not necessary to be an 'isolationist' –– a pretty charged term, actually –– to oppose U.S. expansionism and imperialism abroad. Paul appeals to a great many people of all areas of the traditional spectrum who see through the lies fueling the Bush/Obama foreign policy. Using American military to take over the world on behalf of the banks and multinationals is against the interest of any thinking American, and despite the mass media brainwashing many people are beginning to think. That's why Paul's appeal transcends party lines and ideological divisions.

I so admire the clarity and freshness of these observations and the brilliance of its conclusion.. thank you.
 
 
+14 # freeportguy 2011-12-27 21:40
"Using American military to take over the world on behalf of the banks and multinationals is against the interest of any thinking American"...

...unless that thinking American gains by such AND has the means to influence policies...
 
 
+8 # kyzipster 2011-12-28 05:44
That's true, but those Americans probably make up less than 1%.
 
 
+142 # lcarrier 2011-12-27 13:57
The one and only thing Paul has going for him is his opposition to foreign wars. All the rest portends misery for the 99%.
 
 
+2 # wrodwell 2011-12-27 17:18
What about Ron Paul's stand on legalizing Marijuana? If it happens and the economy tanks even further as the income disparity gap widens, millions of 99%ers will at least be able to get some kind of temporary relief (except for those in New York City while Michael Bloomburg remains mayor). My concern is this: isn't the country dopey enough already??
 
 
+42 # feloneouscat 2011-12-27 19:39
Ron Paul only has one thing in mind (you can hear it when you hear him talk): How much will this cost me?

See, Ron Paul doesn't like to pay taxes. In fact, the one thing the Ron Paul HATES worse than taxes is people who depend on those taxes to live. You know, people who have no jobs, people who have no food, peoples whose homes and lives have been devastated by natural disasters - Ron Paul HATES those kind of people... So his solution is to avoid dealing with them.

After all, 2012 is the year of Ron Paul's wallet.

P.S. Ron Paul is NOT a 99% in case anyone wonders.
 
 
+46 # freeportguy 2011-12-27 21:42
The more I hear libertarians, the more I realize that these people are gung-ho backers of the "law of the jungle", or "social Darwinism" where it's every man for himself and only the strong survive.

Isn't it ironic that such people want to run a government supposed to be "by the people, for the people"?
 
 
+2 # Capn Canard 2011-12-28 11:42
freeportguy, I believe your interpretation is a bit of a cliche. A dusty old impotent cliche. Personally I will not vote for Ron Paul and that is because the typical Libertatian ideas are not real developed. Near to Social-Darwinis m, but what about Anarchy? or are most people the law and order types who believe in the strong fist of power to control the starving masses? Paul's libertarian ideas are not necessarily that far from my own Anarcho-Sociali sm ideals though he is lost(like most Americans) in the old paradigm of "money as wealth". Authority seems to be the enemy, not these simple ideologies. I believe that the best thing we can do is to completely get rid of money and base our society on quality of outcomes rather than on the quantity of money.
 
 
+21 # Activista 2011-12-27 14:09
As US militarism goes USA is out of sync with the World/Reality. Close to mentality of the Korean chubby "military leader".
Analyze Obama/Clinton/L ieberman invasion/destru ction of Libya/Africa - is the same (or worse) as "Bush-Cheney neo-imperialist foreign policy vision.
 
 
+19 # William Bjornson 2011-12-27 21:04
"despite the mass media brainwashing many people are beginning to think"

You mean "a few more are beginning to think". Below the 1st standard deviation in America, 'thought' is computing odds on the next football pool or guessing which 'celebrity' will cheat next, or wishing they weren't trapped in a fat suit, or almost anything other than politics. Politics is sound bites from o'reilly or hannity, not study or thought as you may know it. Remember the oft repeated "Hope" of 2008? It was the magic word of a failing world. It will be interesting to see what the next hook will be to fish in all of us, although with all of the effort the elite is putting into electing BHO again while making a lame attempt at pretense with these repub unelectables who will chew each other up and leave BHO largely untouched until shortly before the election, such a hook may not be necessary.
 
 
+178 # Barkingcarpet 2011-12-27 13:05
We are all jabbering monkeys with no clear intention.
All the wars, killing, and waste, are done in our names, with our money, and with our complacency.

Shame on us. We are the power, but we prefer to be entertained, and drive around consuming.

Eiesenhower nailed it with "every warship and bomb is a theft from the future and a failure."

What are we waiting for folks? It is all being done with our money, and with the blood of the future.
 
 
+17 # Erdajean 2011-12-27 14:21
I love this response as it is so tragically insightful and true. Because these very idiocies and crimes against humanity that have frolicked largely unmolested through the current administration, I will say flatly that I will vote for the candidate whom I BELIEVE intends to stop more useless wars, and the assaults on civil liberties, who pays no allegiance to the sickeningly rich and who will NOT tuck his tail and bow to the GOP. If that man is Ron Paul, welcome and God bless. A lengthy, candid meeting with him, in 2004, told me there is more practical intellect and real humane concern there than in any politician I'd encountered, in many years as a careful reporter. It was in fashion to adore Ayn Rand in his youth -- but most victims lived to become human, anyway. Which, of course, earns no points from the GOP.
 
 
+83 # PaineRad 2011-12-27 15:47
If you want to vote for a candidate who is anti-war and, like Ron Paul, no capability to end ours or offer a serious challenge to the status-quo because of no power base within Congress, look into Buddy Roemer on the GOP side and Rocky Anderson running on the newly created Justice Party ticket. Ron Paul's policies are what got us into this economic mess. He is anti-regulation , anti-taxation, anti-abortion, anti-women, anti-LGBT, anti-diversity, anti-labor. Ron Paul has seduced a whole lot of folks who ought to know better with two attractive positions: his isolationism hiding behind an anti-war message and his anti-regulation ism hiding behind an anti-drug war message.

But his facile and popular anti-war messages are mere smokescreens for his vast majority of policies which are bordering on the lunatic and the neo-con hogwash of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Alan Greespan, Grover Norqist, Jack Abramoff, the Chicago School, the Austrian School, Disaster Capitalism and the shock doctrine, and all the rest of the failed deregulatory policies of the GOP that created this mess.
 
 
+21 # feloneouscat 2011-12-27 19:40
You forgot that he wants government the size that you could drown it in a bathtub.
 
 
+12 # dorianb@fuse.net 2011-12-27 21:39
Paine Red: .this comment is so sane, it should be read and reflected on by the posters who thnk an anti-war candidate is a panacea for the multiple issues a POTUS needs to deal with at this time. We need a brilliant, compassionate, caring candidate. Ron Paul is a myopic BIGOT. It is insane to ignore the fact.
 
 
0 # E-Mon 2011-12-31 02:53
Ron Paul's policies are what got us into this economic mess.
Really! What policies would those be? He's the only one who's willing to go up against the real cause of our economic mess, the privately owned (for profit) Federal Reserve. I'd suggest at very least watching "The Money Masters" on Youtube as a good primer on the history of money and the true nature of fractional reserve banking. (essentially making us all debt slaves) If that piques your interest then read "The Creature From Jekyll Island" (A second look at the Federal Reserve) by G. Edward Griffin. It will change your life.... Guaranteed! Ron Paul has been pushing to audit the FED (it's never been audited since it's creation in 1913) and managed to get a partial audit pushed through. The results were quite staggering..... Literally trillions of "our" taxpayer dollars sent to foreign banks to bail them out. I guess it just depends on your perspective. After "studying up" I've come to see that the single biggest threat to our "way of life" in the USA is the Federal Reserve. For that reason I whole heartedly support Ron Paul even if I don't agree 100% with everything he's about.
 
 
+5 # kyzipster 2011-12-28 05:52
More than likely the only way to vote for Ron Paul would be as a write-in candidate and that would be a vote for Romney if he gets the nomination which is likely, assuming that your second choice is Obama.

I can respect this choice but it serves no useful purpose. What's important here is the divisiveness that Ron Paul is stirring up in the debates. Presidential debates can help to form policy after an election. As the article points out, it's exposing how little support there is for more war and expansion of the military industrial complex. I support him running for this reason but on domestic policy, he would attempt to destroy the country. His ideology is deeply flawed, I could never cast a vote for him.
 
 
+79 # hd70642 2011-12-27 15:12
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60.000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fishter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a sinele destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
 
 
+36 # hd70642 2011-12-27 15:13
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-indust rial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together
 
 
+20 # minkdumink 2011-12-27 16:35
but what would we celebrate around our BBQs on memorial day if we didnt have a phony war that some one elses unemployed kid is fighting for corporate greed? Wars and weapons are not part of the economy,they are the mainstay of it. The budget is the Pentagon and then whatever is left over for the rest of us.BOTH parties can only agree on war and defense spending.Big money in death,its not going to go away anytime soon.
 
 
+57 # BradFromSalem 2011-12-27 13:25
This divide can only end up with Obama being victorious. That is, unless he is challenged by either a true Progressive 3rd Party candidate or another Democrat. At this (its way too early for) late date, the Democratic challenge is very unlikely, but not another Party.

But since the dissatisfaction on the Right far outstrip[s the dissatisfaction on the Left, it is very likely that a 3rd Party will arise to represent dissatisfied Republicans. The real challenge for the Progressive Democrats is to take control of the Democratic Party and win back the House while expanding the Senate majority, with Progressive minded winning candidates.

Right after the election is when the 2 party realignment starts, and the election results will have an impact on America for generations.
 
 
+40 # wsh 2011-12-27 14:57
Lib Lib, I agree with your assessment, and I, for one, will be voting for Obama and hoping in the second term he becomes the President of his rhetoric and not what he has been to date. It's far too late to run a true progressive against him now.

But the progressives must start thinking of the future NOW. If the Dem.s in Congress aren't going to act for the 99%, then we need to run Liberal Party candidates in traditionally Dem. districts...in 2014. And again in 2016.

And a Warren/Sanders/ Feingold type for President from the Liberal Party.

It's time for the Dem. Party to wake up and realise that we progressives won't be there for them in 2014 if they don't move much further to the left over the next two years.
 
 
+18 # ericlipps 2011-12-27 15:51
Quoting LiberalLibertarian:
This divide can only end up with Obama being victorious. That is, unless he is challenged by either a true Progressive 3rd Party candidate or another Democrat. At this (its way too early for) late date, the Democratic challenge is very unlikely, but not another Party.

A third party will get nowhere as long as the Electoral College exists and winning the presidency requires an absolute majority of electoral votes. Its only role can be as a spoiler, as in 2000--unless one of the two major parties becomes so weak it can be brushed aside, as happened to the Whigs in the 1850s. I don't see that happening anytime soon.
 
 
+3 # BradFromSalem 2011-12-29 10:06
The Electoral College is not blocking other parties from emerging. First roadblock is that NOBODY ever explains that the 2 Party system is not Constitutionall y mandated, nor was it intended. Second the current 2 parties have monopolized the entire media in the country both main stream and fringe stream. Next roadblock is the financial wall a candidate from parties other than the Big 2. Look at Ron Paul, did he get the kind of coverage that he got in the last election when he ran as a Libertarian? And last of all, is ourselves. Any alternates to the Big 2 are called 3rd parties. Really? All of them? They are all just Political Parties and until every candidate legally on the ballot has access to media or enough people force the issue for a single alternative candidate we are stuck with a de facto 2 Party stranglehold on Democracy
 
 
+57 # dorianb@fuse.net 2011-12-27 13:25
The idea that Ron Paul is running in a presidential campaign is frightening.
He's a racist, a bigot & an anti-semite. How UNAmerican is this? He cares nothing for the poor and will deny HC to people in need and he'll do away with SS, MC and Medicaid. Why would anyone but a John Bircher vote for him?
 
 
+12 # kelly 2011-12-27 15:45
I think these people who are praising these anti-war foreign policy words ought to consider the divisive national situations that might arise if this inflammatory little man gets the nomination.
 
 
-2 # Martintfre 2011-12-28 10:59
//He's a racist, a bigot & an anti-semite. //

False - if that was what he was about he would not have my support nor would any one else be supporting him.

The rest of your statement and projections are false as well - when Dr Paul was practicing medicine every one got treated - ability to pay was irrelevant.
 
 
-3 # Billy Bob 2011-12-28 21:43
"//He's a racist, a bigot & an anti-semite. //

False - if that was what he was about he would not have my support nor would any one else be supporting him."

That might be the most naîve thing I've heard from you in over a week.
 
 
+1 # feloneouscat 2011-12-29 07:06
Quoting Martintfre:
False - if that was what he was about he would not have my support nor would any one else be supporting him.


Okay, how about he is too lazy to read his own publications that have HIS NAME ON THEM?

I'm not sure I want a lazy man as a President.
 
 
+36 # Don Thomann 2011-12-27 13:56
Ron Paul's success only underlines the deep schism in American thought. His high ratings are not due to his "persona" but rather to the fact that many Americans agree with him. Paul may "go away" - those Americans won't - their vision will resurface!
 
 
+13 # jwb110 2011-12-27 15:41
Quoting Don Thomann:
Ron Paul's success only underlines the deep schism in American thought. His high ratings are not due to his "persona" but rather to the fact that many Americans agree with him. Paul may "go away" - those Americans won't - their vision will resurface!

I think the real schism that he represents is the Ol' Union/Confedera cy Divide. Scary!
 
 
-12 # PeterAttwood 2011-12-27 14:03
I will vote for Paul if I get the chance because I'm opposed to torture, arbitrary murders and kidnapping, secrecy, aggressive war all over the world, and a full commitment to the insurance companies, banks, war contractors, pharma, and every other rich bastard that Obama belongs to heart and soul - just like all the other Republican candidates. I don't have to be a Bircher or a racist to be dead against the Bush-Obama regime, and nobody but Ron Paul is.
 
 
-8 # bugbuster 2011-12-27 14:15
Enter PeterAttwood in the Romney column.
 
 
+32 # Smiley 2011-12-27 14:50
I'm going to vote for someone I can really believe in, like Rocky Anderson. His foreign policy is similar to Ron Paul's, but he also believes in the commons and that we are responsible for each other...like single payer health care and a social safety net.
 
 
+9 # PaineRad 2011-12-27 15:51
Peter, You are wrong that Ron Paul is the only one opposed to those things. While he may be the only Republican who SEEMS to be against those things, his is not opposed to all those things, himself. Why not look into Buddy Roemer or Rocky Anderson?
 
 
-10 # Martintfre 2011-12-28 10:56
Wow Peter so because you oppose government sponsored torture, arbitrary murders, kidnapping,secr ecy agressive wars and all the rich bastards that support Obama (the 1% that wants to keep Obombya in office) your racking up huge negative score with this liberal site.

I did not suspect there were so many lovers of Big brother and his 1% fan club
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2011-12-28 21:42
You just have to be a bircher to actually agree with paul's philosophy.
 
 
-1 # RICHARDKANEpa 2011-12-27 14:39
I cant see why Paul's comments from long ago are more important than Santorum saying he want's to cut food stamps to fight obesity.

I don't believe Obama is playing but really believes in compromise until he is put in such a corner that he needs to fight. I want to see Obama compromising with Ron Paul,

More on this is at,
http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/28-28/9125-house-of-horrors-is-the-solution-punishment-or-better-service

Unfortunately some of my progressive friends are terrified of him as well
 
 
+2 # feloneouscat 2011-12-29 07:04
Quoting RICHARDKANEpa:
Unfortunately some of my progressive friends are terrified of him as well


Ron Paul was my Texas Congressman. Ron Paul is too lazy to read his own newsletter citing he was "busy". Bush ignored a PDB and we had 9/11. What will be Paul's excuse? He was busy?

Frankly, Paul is scary because he worries more about his wallet than the American people. That is not a good quality in a President.
 
 
+8 # Mark1969 2011-12-27 14:42
Good grief, Mr. Beinart. Maybe you check Silent Cal's quite wordy explanation for invading and occupying Nicaragua (again).

This is it: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/cc101.htm

Some people haven't noticed that Buchanan, Kirkpatrick and suchlike are quite bloody mass murderers, and/or supporters thereof, when it comes to ruling Latin America. I suspect the same is true with Ron Paul.
 
 
+14 # Douglas Jack 2011-12-27 14:46
dorian, Palestinians are semites. Paul is not anti-Palestinia n. Your other points have merit except for the undiscussed problem of government bureaucracy which is leaving all these good programs open to debate. Democrats aren't going deep enough into their truth bag and leaving all the innovative public discussion to Repugs. Those who capture the discussion are electable. The system can't go on as it is.
 
 
+3 # William Bjornson 2011-12-27 17:38
dorian, Palestinians are semites. Paul is not anti-Palestinian.

Isn't it odd that to be anti-zionist in America is to be 'anti-semitic' when, as you point out, the Palestinians are semitic and the zionists are not, never were, never will be? As Bernays codified and Goebbels and murdock have clearly demonstrated, propaganda is the only reality for most of us.
 
 
+3 # stannadel 2011-12-28 08:06
Playing with words again. Antisemitism means hating Jews, not Semites--and last time I checked Zionists were Jews and Palestinians were not.
 
 
-3 # William Bjornson 2011-12-28 09:51
"The Thirteenth Tribe", Arthur Koestler (look him up). A Eurasian people forced into Judaism in the 9th Century by their king for political reasons called the Khazari (~ashkenazi) whose capitol was Kiev and who were forced West by the Mongols. Not a drop of the 'covenant' genepool in any of them, or you. The 'Semitic' Peoples, as you may know, arose in the Mideast, not in what is now the land of the Rus. History is such a bitch when its alternative is just propaganda. zionists are caucasions. Or as you may call them: Goyim.
 
 
+4 # dorianb@fuse.net 2011-12-28 11:10
William: Zionists are NOT Goyim. Where did you get this?
 
 
+2 # Capn Canard 2011-12-28 11:59
a quick check will show you that semites speak semitic languagea, starting with the Chaldeans, Assryians, Babylonians, Canaanites, Akkadians, Ugarites, Eblaites Hebrews/Israeli tes, Samaritans, Phoenicians , Moabites... et al

And that is just a quick sample. Hebrews are a small part of this group. The term Anti-semitic was hijacked by European Jewery after WW1 and then ramped up after WW2 and the Holocaust. Calling some Anti-Jewish bigot an Anti-Semtic was percieved to make it sound less acceptable to be bigoted toward Jews, than calling that same bigot Anti-Jewish. It is just a game of propaganda and it worked! Now, I don't see Paul's bigoted beliefs per Jews, he does believe that we need to defund Israel. I think that is fair. Israel is a very successful nation so why are we funding their military? In case you haven't noticed we have big problems in America.
 
 
+1 # stannadel 2011-12-28 08:05
Once again the red herring about Arabs are Semites so if you are Arab or aren't against some Arabs you aren't an Antisemite. The word Antisemite was invented to give a non-religious basis for old fashioned Jew hatred. It meant Jews and not any others so Arabs and their friends are more than capable of being Antisemites. Jack Douglas and his ilk need to face up to reality and stop playing word games to defend Antisemites.
August Bebel famously said "Antisemitism is the socialism of fools" and it seems there are still too many fools around here.
 
 
+5 # Capn Canard 2011-12-28 12:06
Your hubris is shocking! Jews and Arabs are both Semitic. Their cultures developed in the very same lands: THE MIDDLE EAST. The languages are very similar because they are both semitic languages. Don't be so arrogant to exclude only those who you personally approve of, presumably it is a family fuel of titanic proportions between Jews and Palestinians all being fought over Palestine. Shalom is Salaam and Salaam is Shalom. Hard to deny a connection. Not my problem and don't make it my problem.
 
 
+12 # Douglas Jack 2011-12-27 14:47
Ron Paul is stimulating a dialogue on foreign intervention which the self-righteous propaganda fed Democratic party has fallen short on. Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader both have spoken articulately against Libyan regime change and war everywhere, but without the fervor which Paul has reached out with. Paul is reaching out to the disaffected veteran quite successfully on both sides of the political divide. As such the Democrat has a president who spoke eloquently of his admiration for Gandhi but is so weak intellectually that he doesn't know what this means in terms of implementation. Obama has become the assassination and war president. This leaves the large antiwar column of the Democratic party disaffected since Vietnam without a Democratic voice. Paul is speaking our language consistently. Barack would have to expose the lies of government corporate puppeteers in order to reestablish his broken credibility. A third party Democratic leaning peace candidate such as Kucinich or Nader will divide the vote as before and give the theatrically ignorant Repubs a chance to come up the middle as George Bush did over Nader. Will peace voters vote for Paul? With the emotion of injured war veterans and the unattended issue of depleted uranium, It sounds like quite a divided field. Those who capture the discussion are electable.
 
 
+8 # MidwestTom 2011-12-27 18:03
The "lets Rule the World" Democrats, who rin the party will not giver Dennis Kucinich the time of day, even though a lot of voters like his ideas. Shame on them.
 
 
+8 # rondd5 2011-12-27 14:49
I believe he's a Bircher ...is this how desperate we've become?
 
 
+7 # dorianb@fuse.net 2011-12-27 22:02
Rondd5: I s everyone on this post asleep but you not to reinforce your statement?

To support a John Bircher is lunacy. what happened to the liberals in the 60's who fought the hard fight for Civil Rights in the 60's and got laws passed to stop segegation in schools, etc. Are we going to throw that ideology away?

..."is this how despeerate we've become?"
 
 
+13 # Virginia 2011-12-27 14:58
It's the Senate stupid. Concentrate on the Senate. We're all so worried about Republicans and Democrats and the ones we have to choose from are all the same. The only good thing a Ron Paul candidate would bring is to audit and maybe even Abolish the Fed... But nothing will be accomplished without a competent Senate... Whether for good or evil.
 
 
+4 # Fraenkel.1 2011-12-27 15:09
Paul has rightly pointed out that we lost our last few wars, some for incompetence and ignorance.
US military power does make the world safe for corporate America. After he does away with government we shall be left to the tender mercies of our unregulated, uncompetitive,i ncompetent corporations and banks. His economics are delusional. On a personal basis he practices all purpose racial hatred. If people are stupid enough to support him I suppose they deserve what's coming to them. I just hope I will not be around to see it.
 
 
+3 # William Bjornson 2011-12-27 20:45
"Paul has rightly pointed out that we lost our last few wars, some for incompetence and ignorance."

You might want to add hubris and arrogance to that short list. The 'next' war will start with the loss of over a hundred thousand of our best young people because those so expensive 'battlegroups', relics of World War II thinking, will be evaporated in the first hour. In fact, it's how we'll know we're in a war... And all of those schools and homes and highways and hospitals (see hd70642 above) will be at the bottom of the ocean with a significant chunk of an entire generation of our children entombed in them. Many more of these young will die of the smallpox (read 1491) that will simultaneously make appearance in all major cities with all available vaccine going to the rich... Yep, the next big one won't start with any phony Pearl Harbor or 9/11, and we'll lose that one too because it will be us against the whole rest of the world and our elite will give us to them and go live wherever money allows them. Wonder where the zionists will be when that happens. Dying for us as we have been dying for them in Iraq and Afghanistan? B'wah hah hah.

If Paul were somehow elected, let's hope his VP is a worthy person because Ron will have a very short Presidency due to acute 'health' problems. It might even happen sooner if he gains too much popularity. It's the American way...
 
 
+5 # reiverpacific 2011-12-27 15:13
"some of America's most prominent conservative intellectuals-p eople like Irving Kristol, Jeane Kirkpatrick and Pat Buchanan-argued that the GOP should become the party of Coolidge and Taft once again"
If that shower are considered "intellectuals" , then the GOP was definitely scraping the bottom of the conservative barrel!
Buckley and Goldwater yes but Kirkpatrick and Buchanan (shame they have good ol' Scottish names!) were and in Buchanan's case still are, bullies and bombastic numbskulls who use the "shout 'em down the loudest" technique in debate. Younger B' reportedly formerly physically attacked people who disagreed with him or had got the better of him in debate, one of his heroes being by his own admission that old medievalist Francisco Franco.
Krystol just wears the mask of an intellectual and is a shadowy coward pushing others from the sidelines and yapping on any misguided TV pundit show that will have him.
At least R.P., love him or hate him, stands by what he believes in and speaks his truth from the shoulder to the parcel of reactionary-cor rect candidates he shares the stage with. Personally I can't stand to listen to or watch the Republican debates: if I want a laugh or a cry, I'll watch Looney-Tunes or read a good book. At least there's some life and substance there!
Not sure what the point of this article is otherwise; historical precedents are everywhere -and hysterical ones.
 
 
+16 # wfalco 2011-12-27 15:18
I never understood the appeal that so many (even some liberal Democrats) have for Paul. Some liberals declare admiration based on his stand against the war hawks. But this stand he takes appears so grounded in dollars and cents economic policy-it has nothing to do with actual compassion.Our military causes mass murder- which is the unspoken result of any imperialist venture.I don't hear Paul getting emotional over the real death and destruction.In fact he appears devoid of any real emotion-not exactly a positive trait.
Paul is nothing but another economic Libertarian. The philosophy is based on exagerrated simplicity. Deregulation at all costs. Does this include dismantling the EPA and other agencies that exist only for the benefit and protection of the citizens? His political brand is to privatize every service-includi ng schools and Social Security.It is all about pure, unadulterated greed.
Paul is nothing more than another flim flam man-looking out only for the wealth of the richest of the rich. And besides all of that..he's old as dirt and has zero charisma. This fascination will end in a matter of weeks.
 
 
+5 # feloneouscat 2011-12-29 07:15
Quoting wfalco:
Paul is nothing but another economic Libertarian. The philosophy is based on exagerrated simplicity. Deregulation at all costs. Does this include dismantling the EPA and other agencies that exist only for the benefit and protection of the citizens? His political brand is to privatize every service-including schools and Social Security.It is all about pure, unadulterated greed.


From my short exchange with him as my Congressman you are 100% correct. His mantra is "what does this cost me".

You are also correct that he would push to dismantle every government agency - including reductions in the military (yes, it is so - he is no fan of taxes).

People have made a lot of assertions of belief, but they ignore the inconvenient truth that the man is purely one who worries about his wallet, not the American people.

Seriously. If he can't bother to read HIS OWN NEWSLETTER how can we expect him to read the Presidential Daily Briefing?

He's already argued that he is incompetent. Why would I want him for a President?
 
 
+34 # karenvista 2011-12-27 15:38
Ron Paul gave the 2008 keynote speech at the John Birch Society convention. Does that tell you anything?

The person who probably wrote the racist and anti-semitic articles on the Ron Paul website is a long time friend and staffer, Lew Rockwell. His father-in law started a far right political/relig ious group called the Christian Reconstructiona lists. They are extremely conservative Calvinists who believe that they should rule the country and that democracy cannot exist with their Christian Reconstructiona list rule, so democracy will be done away with.

They believe that all children should be homeschooled so that they will be inculcated with their beliefs. Check out Ron Paul's website on homeschooling.

He is against all government and would return us to the 18th. century. So would they. Amazing coincidence.... ..
 
 
+12 # reiverpacific 2011-12-27 16:08
Quoting karenvista:
Ron Paul gave the 2008 keynote speech at the John Birch Society convention. Does that tell you anything?

The person who probably wrote the racist and anti-semitic articles on the Ron Paul website is a long time friend and staffer, Lew Rockwell. His father-in law started a far right political/religious group called the Christian Reconstructionalists. They are extremely conservative Calvinists who believe that they should rule the country and that democracy cannot exist with their Christian Reconstructionalist rule, so democracy will be done away with.

They believe that all children should be homeschooled so that they will be inculcated with their beliefs. Check out Ron Paul's website on homeschooling.

I had no idea that the John Birch Society still existed and thought they'd passed their banner on the the Koch bro's Mellon Scaife and co! Thanks for the info' and update on these medievalists.
 
 
+14 # reiverpacific 2011-12-27 17:47
My Quoting reiverpacific:
Quoting karenvista:
Ron Paul gave the 2008 keynote speech at the John Birch Society convention. Does that tell you anything?

The person who probably wrote the racist and anti-semitic articles on the Ron Paul website is a long time friend and staffer, Lew Rockwell. His father-in law started a far right political/religious group called the Christian Reconstructionalists. They are extremely conservative Calvinists who believe that they should rule the country and that democracy cannot exist with their Christian Reconstructionalist rule, so democracy will be done away with.

They believe that all children should be homeschooled so that they will be inculcated with their beliefs. Check out Ron Paul's website on homeschooling.

I had no idea that the John Birch Society still existed and thought they'd passed their banner on the the Koch bro's Mellon Scaife and co! Thanks for the info' and update on these medievalists.

My Gawd, I just went to jbs.org and they are still here indeed!
Flush 'em out folks; this is a very valuable bit of information (And I thought I kept myself current!).
Watch yer backs!
 
 
+15 # anarchteacher 2011-12-27 20:17
In your haste to post you got your facts slightly jumbled. Lew Rockwell is a Roman Catholic and Rothbardian anarchocapitali st, about the farthest thing from a "Christian Reconstructioni st". Gary North's father-in-law, Rousas John Rushdoony, started the Christian Reconstructioni sts. North, a historian and economist, was an early staff member of Congressman Ron Paul back in the 1970s, while Lew Rockwell was Paul's first chief of his congressional staff. North is a prolific writer, and has had over 1000 articles appear on LewRockwell.com , one of the Internet's top political/econo mic commentary sites. The Koch brothers do not fit in anywhere in this picture. They are long time adversaries of Paul, Rockwell, and North. The Kochs, in fact, were tied up in the aborted candidacy of Herman Cain. Do a little more research before posting.
 
 
-3 # Martintfre 2011-12-28 10:38
you and your facts ;)
 
 
+3 # kelly 2011-12-28 10:45
Whoa...subtract the Koch and everything else is true. C'mon Paulites. Is that the best defense you all can come up with ? Oh, that and the frightfully monotonous "Ron Paul never gets any press". He gets lots of press but says very little and when he gets pressed on issues he runs away to his supporters soft underbellies to nurse at. He's an obnoxious little coward who can't or won't own up to his shortcomings and a supreme egoist with the most incredible delusions of grandeur fed by devoted blurry-eyed worshippers.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2011-12-28 21:38
Contrary to the posts by the paulistas (I borrowed your nickname), YOU seem to be "speaking truth to power" here. Thank you for seeing through the phony veneer.
 
 
+11 # PaineRad 2011-12-27 15:59
We progressives, radicals, liberals or progressive liberals need to move our sights further into the future. We need to build our base of candidates and get them into elective office to see how they will stand up to scrutiny and to bribery. Meanwhile at the national level, we need to play defense until we can start bringing these candidates who pass muster onto the national stage.

2016 is the earliest national campaign we should be agressively seeking to make our presence a threat to the insiders corrupted by campaign cash and the various styles of conservatives.
 
 
-14 # anarchteacher 2011-12-27 16:03
This is a very perceptive and cogent article on Ron Paul's challenge to the American empire.

Ron Paul is not afraid to speak truth to power, which is why he is greatly admired by stalwart GOP conservatives, grass-roots tea party activists, independents, and disillusioned Obama Democrats.

Accordingly the veteran Air Force flight surgeon Ron Paul receives more financial contributions and support from present active duty military personnel than all other Republicans candidates combined.

They know he has seen first-hand the ravages and toil of combat and as presidential commander-in-ch ief will not carelessly place them in harm’s way in no-win wars.

President Paul will only commit combat troops with the proper constitutional declaration of war and the full support of the American people.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/burris/burris17.1.html

The above piece, "Our Establishment Church," outlines what all of us are up against. The Establishment has used the myth of "isolationism" as a club to beat down domestic dissent since the days of the Spanish-America n War and the Anti-Imperialis t League.

http://lewrockwell.com/burris/burris20.1.html

While this second brief article puts forth the case why an independent or third party candidacy (by Ron Paul or whomever) would be a futile and painstaking effort.

Ron Paul 2012. Right Then. Right Now. Right For America.
 
 
+2 # dorianb@fuse.net 2011-12-28 10:45
Right for White Supremists and KKK. Ron Paul is grooming his son Dr. Rand Paul politically. Lke father-like son, Ron and Rand both are John Birchers and will take our country backward in time morally and politically.

ANARCHTEACHER, HOW CAN POLITICIANS WHO ESPOUSE MORALLY CORRUPT VIEWS BE "RIGHT fOR AMERICA?

Are you for libety and justice for all?
 
 
-2 # Martintfre 2011-12-28 11:22
Quoting dorianb@fuse.net:
Right for White Supremists and KKK. Ron Paul is grooming his son Dr. Rand Paul politically. Lke father-like son, Ron and Rand both are John Birchers and will take our country backward in time morally and politically.

ANARCHTEACHER, HOW CAN POLITICIANS WHO ESPOUSE MORALLY CORRUPT VIEWS BE "RIGHT fOR AMERICA?

Are you for libety and justice for all?


This simply is false.

If you actually care about liberty and justice for all - then it would be appropriate to understand the meaning of those ideas.

Dr Paul's ideas are rights are inherent in the individual. One of the people who inspires Ron Paul urged the nation to progress into a future when all people would be judged individually by the content of their character.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2011-12-28 21:33
Does ron paul even cast a shadow or a reflection in a mirror?

It seems that you're projecting ON to the chosen one the buzz phrases you'd like to believe he stands for.
 
 
+3 # Martintfre 2011-12-28 11:25
Hey Dorain .. name one candidate other then Dr Paul who wants to end the racist war on drugs?
 
 
+1 # feloneouscat 2011-12-29 06:57
Name any other candidate who had racist comments published in his name?
 
 
0 # hasapiko 2011-12-28 11:01
If Paul was nominated I would vote for him in spite of his libertarian domestic agenda. Why? Because he is the only pol out there who has committed to ending the endless wars. All the others -dems and repugs - are controlled by the military-indust rial complex. Militarism is the single greatest threat to the Republic.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2011-12-28 21:36
Where does this, "Ron Paul is not afraid to speak truth to power" phrase keep coming from? It seems that every time his name pops up, I read the EXACT VERBATIM quote. Did you copy and paste it from his web site? We're you told to write that as part of your script - ala phone sales representatives?

Ron Paul 10,000 B.C.
 
 
+2 # feloneouscat 2011-12-29 06:56
Quoting Billy Bob:
"Ron Paul is not afraid to speak truth to power"


They confuse Ron Paul's anti-war stance with the fact he was more concerned about his wallet than the fact people would die.

This is entirely consistent with much of Ron Paul's belief: government is better when it is small and ineffectual. Unfortunately, history seems to point out that when government is ineffectual we have economic disasters. Although I'm sure he has managed to spin that into "economic opportunities" (doesn't everyone want to live and work like the Chinese?)
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2011-12-29 22:06
The problem is that even THAT is a lie. Paul has absolutely NO interest in the size of the government. He just wants to make sure the federal government can't tell STATE governments what to do. The individual STATE governments can be an 800 lb. gorilla telling you who to marry, what to do with your own body, or whether or not you're the right skin color to drink from a fountain. He has NO problem with HUGE government at the state level. He just doesn't want the entire United States to tell Mississippi how to treat its minorities.
 
 
+1 # KittatinyHawk 2011-12-27 16:30
As much as I do believe he may still have an ounce of Humanity in him, it would be erradicated as soon as he was nominated.
I must say that as I travel about I see the Ron Paul signs up in the absence of Trump signs so he has a enamored audience, who are easily led perhaps because they want to believe GOP has a Conscience but because they are GOP they still do not realize, that is a losing battle. If they want a Candidate to represent the better part of us, than perhaps they should get their butts out of their recliners and start rethinking what it is that makes a good Candidate, Good Human start from there.
Sorry I have yet to see anyone to divide my vote for, I find both parties repulsive by now.
Only way a Third Party could win is if everyone democratic, independent, green voted them in with every vote they can get, then the electoral bs can go to He__ in a handbasket.
Beware World, USA is trying to get control of all of you. Watch who our Allies are, getting more Nazified every day.
 
 
+4 # dorianb@fuse.net 2011-12-28 10:47
Some of the comments on this Post are "Nazified" as well.
 
 
+6 # karenvista 2011-12-27 16:39
Yes, I know both Jews and Palestinians are Semites. Sorry, I used the word in the sense it has been used in the news.
 
 
+5 # bobby t. 2011-12-27 17:12
with all these lying crazy people running out there, do you feel safe? these people could have their hand on a red telephone? are there any sane people who run for office out there. seems there are a few in the senate, but holy moly...i know there are bright political scientists out there, leaders of america, like warren. can't the republican party put up a sane alturnative who is not constantly lying their guts out? my faith in this country gets weaker and weaker with each passing year. i know no president will make a big move against climate change if it deeply affects the economy. the economy is god around here. the true and only god of most people. it's the money honey.so what the hell do we have to look forward to? home prices going up? you wish. today there was a report they are going down again! the bottom in the middle of next year perhaps?
 
 
-6 # MylesJ 2011-12-27 17:39
If only Ron Paul would run as a Libertarian. I'm a registered Libertarian but the party has never run a national candidate I could vote for. Last time around we had B-1 Bob who recanted a long list of beliefs to run as a Libertarian.
 
 
+7 # karenvista 2011-12-27 18:45
Quoting MylesJ:
If only Ron Paul would run as a Libertarian. I'm a registered Libertarian but the party has never run a national candidate I could vote for. Last time around we had B-1 Bob who recanted a long list of beliefs to run as a Libertarian.


I'm always amazed by the Paulistas I meet who don't know anything about Ron Paul and refuse! to read his official website including his "Issues" and Budgets. They always tell me they know everything he believes and they trust him implicitly-but, still- they refuse to read his website.

Since you are a registered Libertarian, Myles, I thought you might be interested to know: "In the 1988 presidential election, Paul was on the ballot in 46 States as the Libertarian Party candidate."

You are well on your way to becoming a Paulista since you vow to vote for him but don't know anything about him.

See my previous post. It would scare the s**t out of a normal person!
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2011-12-28 21:31
Karen, You've just pinpointed his target demographic.
 
 
+4 # anarchteacher 2011-12-27 20:28
Please get your facts straight before posting.

It was former California Congressman Bob Dornan who was known as "B-1 Bob." A boisterous former actor and television talk show host, Dornan had a flair for the dramatic that drew him supporters and detractors well beyond his congressional districts. Though never a major power in Washington, he became one of the most well-known members of the House of Representatives and has been described as "one of the leading firebrands among American politicians". Dornan has remained a Republican neocon.

The 2008 Libertarian presidential candidate was former Georgia Republican Congressman Bob Barr. Barr has endorsed Mitt Romney for 2012.
 
 
0 # Martintfre 2011-12-28 10:43
Again anarchteacher - you and your facts.

How in the hell are people to cling to their myths and prejudices if you keep that up?
 
 
+1 # dorianb@fuse.net 2011-12-28 10:59
MylesJ: What exactly does a
"Libertarian" such as you believe in regard to racism, bigotry and anti- semetism. I do not anti-Palestinia n but in a more generic sense (ie), hatred of Jews)? Are Libertarians John Birchers?White Supremists? Please educate me! Is there a difference between a Libertarian and a Liberal?
 
 
-8 # Edgardo 2011-12-27 19:37
Where do all the government give-aways, the corporate welfare, the power grabbing grants to the states, the endless borrowing and debt, the endless and growing dependency of the dependent class end. And where does the militarism and war and the stealing of America's birthright of freedom end.
Answer: It can start to end when Ron Paul becomes President
 
 
+2 # feloneouscat 2011-12-29 06:51
Quoting Edgardo:
Answer: It can start to end when Ron Paul becomes President


Because... Ron Paul would become a dictator?

Ron Paul is making an assumption that he would have a Congress that would work with him to destroy the current foundation of this country.

Sure your taxes might be reduced, but can you sleep at night knowing that children now go hungry? That veterans no longer receive medical care? That the aged, who were screwed out of their savings and their homes under the Bush administration now are on the streets?

Nothing is more sobering than walking by a homeless shelter on Christmas.
 
 
+6 # Cappucino 2011-12-27 20:21
I don't care what Ron Paul says or doesn't say-- the more support he gets from people who would otherwise vote for the Republican candidates who have any chance of actually winning, the better. Yay for the right-wing spoiler candidate!
 
 
-7 # Martintfre 2011-12-28 12:54
//I don't care what Ron Paul says or doesn't say-- //

Lol - now there is an open minded liberal.. maybe not,
but at least a honest one.
 
 
+7 # kitster 2011-12-27 21:07
the size of the government will and should expand for the good of the nation as we become a bigger nation. since we are the government, despite the perversion that currently prevades, the government should expand for the benefit of we the citizen drivers.

the biggest problem now is that it, to a large extent, does not benefit us. and it has been purloined by the financial-milit ary-industrial complex which has bought our elected officials.

however, ron paul would bring us down even faster and further with his dangerous hayekian ecoomic views. it would truly be our final "road to surfdom" to embrace ron paul.

he entices us with his diatribes against the wars and imperialism...b ut loses us, frankly, with his ruinous flights of fancy on economics.

i do not want to wake up one morning in a paul-induced pinochet chile. there's nothing libertarian or freedom-loving about that.
 
 
+2 # feloneouscat 2011-12-29 07:18
Quoting kitster:
"road to surfdom"


I'm guessing you mean "serfdom" and not that everyone would get the chance to go surfing.
 
 
+2 # JohnWayne 2011-12-28 04:12
I say a lot of stuff in the bars that make a lot of sense. The guy sitting on the stool next to me? Yep. The guy is intelligent, well-read, concerned, and deeply involved in America's future. But we are NOT - repeat NOT! - POTUS material. Neither is/was Ralph Nader, despite his clear vision of how America evolved/devolve d. Nader is too looney to be put in charge of anything but his own organization. Yet, I admire a lot of things that he says. Paul-pulists of America: Grow up! It's not about you and besides you'll be dead soon enough. And before you die, make one last effort at being an adult. Resist the high-schoolish temptation to embrace any old guy who comes along and spouts stuff that gets you all excited and hip-hip horray! Your emotions are noting but neurochemicals that pour out of the amygdala. Nothing more. Nothing less. All mammals have amygdalas (the reptilian part of the brain) Try using the cerebral cortex, the highly evolved structure that makes us human. Grow up! Think! As Archie used to say: "Edith! Stifle those emotions." Become an adult and search for that high-quality person with rare leadership qualities who shares your beliefs, is a visionary, and isn't a looney two-legged time bomb like Nader and Paul. Time to grow up. It's not about you.
 
 
0 # William Bjornson 2011-12-28 10:17
There's only one problem with your analysis there, Marion, although I'm your solitary upthumb at this time. That guy, the visionary, you're talking about is not only too smart to get involved in American politics, our limbic-based system would mash him down before ever he could hold ANY political orifice. And, if somehow this rara avis did manage to convince a significant segment of Americans that sanity actually had a lot to offer, we'd figure out a way to kill them before any change could happen. This is my own rationalization and self-justifying denial for voting for BHO, that maybe rahm or some other scumbag whispered in his ear at the inaugeration "Remenber JFK..." But, in reality, I'm just another tool like so many of the rest of us. sigh...
 
 
+5 # RMDC 2011-12-28 07:32
You need to stop using the term "isolationism." It only shows that you are so deep into the disinformation of standard american history that you'll never be able to say anything worthwhile.

What Ron Paul is against is American Aggressions, against wars of aggression. Wars of aggression are also a violation of all international law. The US is the greatest criminal nation on earth because of its wars of aggressions and its regime change wars in places like Libya and Syria.

None of this has anything to do with isolationism.
 
 
+2 # Fraenkel.1 2011-12-28 07:34
There are two possibilities for Paul's behavior. He is either stupid and deluded or maybe a hypocrite doing all this to get into power. For the latter he might be bright enough to see reason and change his mind. For the former, God help us.
 
 
-1 # Martintfre 2011-12-28 10:49
Quoting Fraenkel.1:
There are two possibilities for Paul's behavior. He is either stupid and deluded or maybe a hypocrite doing all this to get into power. For the latter he might be bright enough to see reason and change his mind. For the former, God help us.


Actually there are more the two possibilities even if that is all you chose to comprehend -

What must honestly be considered is the possibility that Ron Paul actually understands the difference between legitimate and illegitimate government and is fighting to weaken the illegitimate actions taken by our government due to the high moral and economic cost.
 
 
+3 # feloneouscat 2011-12-29 07:36
Quoting Martintfre:
What must honestly be considered is the possibility that Ron Paul actually understands the difference between legitimate and illegitimate government and is fighting to weaken the illegitimate actions taken by our government due to the high moral and economic cost.


OR the fact that he really just care more about taxes than the American people. Ron Paul doesn't understand that income taxes are part of the Constitution (for some reason he thinks he can "get rid of them").

Then there is the startling stupidity of Ron Paul: "Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism." - funny, I have two businesses and seem to be able to set my rates without state intervention. This seems to agree with everyone else's definition of capitalism. So why does Ron Paul not understand it? Could it be that he is operating under a misunderstandin g?

Ron Paul: 'It's not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensibl e rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, and stock sales..." OH, YES, that's right, the rules that were set into place after the economic meltdown humorously noted as "The Great Depression" - when 1% controlled 40% of the wealth (sound familiar?). See, the problem is Ron Paul doesn't understand the meaning of words - instead he wants to make his own meanings.

Paul is myopic. He only sees as far as his own wallet.
 
 
+6 # Swamib 2011-12-28 09:21
Here is the primary reason for Ron Paul's popularity. He is the only one in the entire Presidential panoply who is addressing the elephant (and for that matter, the donkey) in the living room -- the use of the 9/11 "emergency" to initiate a permanent warfare state that can only lead to totalitarianism . Here is the article: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/201335-rep-paul-says-defense-bill-assures-descent-into-totalitarianism

All of this other fuss about isolationism, blah blah blah doesn't explain his popularity NOW. People are waking up "left and right" to this clear and present danger. Where are the Democrats willing to take a stand to help us "overgrow" the warfare state?
 
 
+2 # feloneouscat 2011-12-29 08:00
Quoting Swamib:
the use of the 9/11 "emergency" to initiate a permanent warfare state that can only lead to totalitarianism.


Paul has been talking about everything being "totalitarian" since the 90's. Clinton, Bush, didn't matter who was President or what was going on in the world. Everything that even smells like a tax or regulation is leading us down the road to totalitarianism.

It is a childish argument based on nothing but pure speculation. Heck he even said "conscription is a totalitarian notion . . . a threat to freedom." - well, oddly enough we were a Republic during Vietnam. So perhaps he isn't right about everything (or even most things).

I am NOT a fan of people repeating things enough that it "appears to be true". I am someone who want facts. Paul is lacking in facts - and when some damning ones appear regarding him, he runs away... sometimes literally.
 
 
+4 # Travlinlight 2011-12-28 10:27
Ever since Sen. Beveridge's "manifest destiny" statement in the early 1900s, the US has had an expansionist capitalist system that has economically colonized large sectors of the world, and it was doing so long before the threat of the USSR and China developed. The communist threat was used as an excuse to covertly intervene in or occupy many countries.

The Republican isolationist, small goverment philosophy has always been in conflict with the desire to do extractive offshore investment, especially in recent times when vital natural resources have been revealed to be in short supply. Resource competition in hostile regions has led to military intervention.

What seems not to have been recognized by some small gov't advocates is that small public gov't. is not possible when there is a de facto private gov't. that controls most of the decisions made by Congress and the executive branch. Economic expansion has driven governmental interventions ovrseas, and that has required a substantial military presence in a number of foreign countries. That is not going to change, at least any time soon.

For better or worse we live in a global economy that makes absolute isolationism a practical impossibilty. What the US can do is close many of its offshore military bases and begin to scale back on some exrtractive investments.
 
 
+4 # Martintfre 2011-12-28 11:38
Ron Paul does terrify the entrenched GOP - and it is about time.

For to long the whole contest has been the phony left vs right theater for fools where the pro war party fights the pro welfare party and no matter who wins we get more of both and Sadly ignored is that is that either in excess will bankrupt the nation and indeed because we have both we are.

Ron Paul changes the debate from Left vs Right to the real debate .. Freedom vs Tyranny.
 
 
+5 # Billy Bob 2011-12-28 21:29
"...the debate from Left vs Right to the real debate .. Freedom vs Tyranny"

-respectively
 
 
+1 # feloneouscat 2011-12-29 06:46
No.

Ron Paul changes the debate to the same one the Republicans have had for the last 30 years - "How much does the U.S. Gov take from my wallet in the form of taxes". If you believe anything else, you don't know Ron Paul, merely the spin.

Ron Paul was my Congressman. I've had exchanges with Ron Paul. I've read what he has said as a Congressman. Ron Paul is nothing but self-serving. His denials about his own news letters show that he is either ignorant of his own publications or a liar.

Either way, he doesn't deserve to be President.
 
 
-2 # dorianb@fuse.net 2011-12-29 11:23
There is tyranny in what Ron Paul calls freedom Martinfre and this also applies to you.
 
 
+3 # fresnoman4man 2011-12-28 13:24
# karenvista 2011-12-27 16:39
Yes, I know both Jews and Palestinians are Semites. Sorry, I used the word in the sense it has been used in the news.
Zionists concocted this racist myth from their earliest days. Most Jews (culturally or religiously) are not Semitic. This is especially true of the Ashkenazi of Europe who are primarily Germanic, Slavic, and Khazar (Turkic). This canard is used to purge Palestine of its indigenous people many of whom are genetically descended from the Hebrews of 2,000 years ago. Read The Invention of the Jewish People by Shlomo Sand.
 
 
0 # Rarocker 2011-12-28 13:32
If Ron Paul were to miraculously be nominated and elected to actually take an official executive stand on stopping the endless wars and closing down the Fed Res ... both huge cash cows for the military/indust rial/media/bank ing coalition ... he'd get about as far as JFK did. I presume the same protections are in place today for those who really make things happen for themselves (and only themselves) in this world.
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2011-12-28 21:28
Ron Paul terrifies me too, and not JUST because he exposes the obvious hypocricy and circular logic of the repugnant party. In fact, he's guilty of his own hypocricy and circular logic. His brand of repugnantism isn't any more logically consistent or morally defensible than the standard brand.

He's a novelty, and a purely manipulative one at that. I remember 20 years ago when, the same kinds of "moderates" (read, people not paying attention) and self-described "progressives" were jumping on the NEWT bandwagon. One theory I've had is that it's often kids with liberal tendencies but an inability to justify it with their conservative parents, who jump on these bandwagons. They'd rather go out of their way to find SOME repugnican who is sort of palatable than just "come out of the closet" and admit they're a liberal.

Otherwise, I can't imagine anyone who's paying attention falling for the ron paul deception.
 
 
-1 # dorianb@fuse.net 2011-12-29 11:28
Billy Bob; Your ideas are innovative and your logic is right on the mark.
 
 
0 # karenvista 2011-12-28 21:35
Anarchteacher,

Sorry, I did grt the relationship of Rushdoony, the Christian Reconstructiona list founder offset to Rockwell rather than Gary North.
They were both long-time advisors to Ron Paul and they are both nuts. Wouldn't keep someone as a long-time advisor if 8 didn'agree with him on basic principles, nor would you.

These guys are theocrats and so is Ron Paul.

Look up Christian Reconstructiona lism an Gary Notrh.
 
 
-1 # scallywag 2011-12-28 21:56
I like Paul's stances on social libertarianism and foreign policy. I like the fact that he's the only candidate courageous enough to say that the US was partly responsible for 9/11. I like the fact that he wants to end fundamentalist and corporate influence in government. I like that he wants to end the Fed.
I'm not a big fan of most of his economic stances though. We tried this whole no regulations, social Darwinism thing in the 1800s and ended up with an aristocracy and a horribly uneven playing field. His stance on health care makes little sense. He wants to return to unmanaged care, which basically means doctors will start to abuse autonomy as opposed to insurance companies. Paul oftentimes sounds like he's waxing nostalgic as opposed to analyzing history. He's the only GOP candidate I'd ever consider voting for, but I doubt he's not the answer to most of this country's most dire ills. Then again, neither is Obama. Rocky Anderson and Dennis Kucinich sound swell, but probably don't have a chance in hell. Regardless of the Presidential hype, Congress is arguably more important. The Tea Party crowd has got to go.
 
 
+2 # Travlinlight 2011-12-30 07:13
Folks, I hate to tell you this, but all the rhetoric about who is left, right, middle of the road, libertarian, liberal, conservative, etc. etc., is just a lot of useless gasbagging that may make some of you feel smart or wise but in the final analysis means nothing. I say this not as an exhausted and defeated cynic (although all the posturing and bombast makes me very tired)but as one who sees what IS.

What is? The United States is a neo-mercantile imperial system based on a faux notion of endless growth and endless capital expansion. Most of the citizenry is in a state of delusion about what the US is really all about. We are fed sound bite analysis and wasted discussions about which contender is ahead or behind, or whether Obama can win or lose against this one or that one.

It is all a lot of useless crap.The only winner--in the short term--is the great college of capital, as the Jensen character in NETWORK said. Money makes the world go 'round, although the obsession with frogskins, as the native aboriginals called greenbacks, has put the planet into a deadly spin.

In the not too distant future--no one can say for sure when--the whole sick system will collapse. All the junk food, junk trinkets and junk gadgets and junk thinking will be over, and most of us will be in serious withdrawal without any junk fix left. Junkie America will be done. Who will be able to pick up the pieces and find a new way to be? I have no idea.
 
 
+2 # Edwardc 2011-12-30 13:40
It’s hard to believe all the unsupported nonsense stated on this thread about Ron Paul. How is it that this thread could go no this long without anyone once mentioning the central theme of Ron Paul’s political philosophy?!! A philosophy that he has fervently defended with every vote in Congress for the last 30 years! Ron Paul is a Constitutionali st!! He opposes undeclared wars because the Constitution opposes them.
He favors freedom (even to do stupid things like smoking pot) because the Constitution favors freedom. He favors States rights because the Constitution favors them. He favors sound money based on gold and silver because the Constitution demands it. His every political stand is grounded in the Constitution as clearly understood by the founding fathers and set forth in the Federalist papers. If you don’t like Ron Paul it is because you don’t like the form of Government that our founding fathers gave us. The government that the Democrats and Republicans have been trashing since before any of us were born.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN