Ron Paul for President

I just wanna add that i follow the whole thing from europe and I wish we had a politician of his caliber. Man he is consistent since 1974!!! Unbelievable

by Chris Schuman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 8:23:44 AM
 

Why choose Ron Paul?

I want to congratulate Caleb on a very well argued piece.

Let's focus on what's really important.

In the interest of fairness, I must disclose that I am an Australian and therefore beg your indulgence to comment on American affairs.

Like most Australians, I like and admire most Americans I meet. But American foreign policy is a nightmare. When travelling and living abroad I am often asked if I am American and people are always friendlier when I reply that I am Australian. It's not fair. Many many Americans are friendlier, kinder and more interesting than I am. It's only bewcause American foreign policy is so unpopular.

Getting back to the point. Ron Paul is an inspiration to me. He is so different from the usual crop of politicians. He is clearly a man of very strong principles and deep integrity. He is strong yet humble. He applies the Golden Rule. He is the only American politician who I have ever heard say, "Imagine how we would feel if they did that to us?"

America will be much safer from terrorists if it is no longer perceived as an international bully.

With Ron Paul as president, America will go back to being loved and admired around the world.

by John Haigh (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 106 comments) on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 9:50:24 AM
 

Yes, let's look at Ron Paul!

Let's look very carefully.  We may get all excited at his distaste for the Neo-Cons, for President Bush, and for the Iraq War which has devastated our national treasury and placed us in eternal debt.  Let's look at WHY he so despises these events.  Ron Paul is basically an isolationist from the original Rand conservatives.  If Bush made you uncomfortable with his stress on "individual responsibility", you ain't seen nothin' yet.  Paul wants to eliminate all the social progess that our country has made in the last century!  If you really entertain the idea of actually voting for this man, I have a few suggestions for you.  First, if you have any money, buy gold right now!  It won't take long before he institutes his own "fiscal reform" which will mean the end of paper money.  Then, if you don't have sufficient money to last for a couple of decades, take your still-useful credit card and run out to buy a tiller.  You're going to need it to plow up your back yard so you can grow all your food.  It will be the second coming of Herbert Hoover!

by Mary Pitt (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 169 comments) on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 11:40:51 AM
 

A Few Quick Curiosities

Having just worked on the Delegate process I had to find out the party affiliation of those who signed up to be Delegates.  MOST  --26 out of the 30 I was slated to fact check-- had just switched parties TO the Republican Party just to vote for Ron Paul. What does that say? It says that Ron Paul has changed the face of the Presidential Election process and we have yet to find out what it means. He's polling "low" they say...but who are they polling? Republicans who voted in the last election, right?  Well....guess what.....26 out of this 30 were NOT Republican's last time around!  Boy are they in for some surprises! 

 Thank you for this article!

Signed,

Former 30 year Democrat :)

Gigi*

by Gigi Bowman (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 12 comments) on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 11:58:05 AM
 

Talk about a superficial evaluation!

I would hope that Ron Paul could bercome the Republican candidate, which won't happen. But if it did, that would expose the sordid and dangerous underbelly of Paul's politics. The things that he likes to talk about publicly sound good, for the most part...if you focus on the anti-war stance, and the constitutional freedoms that we've been losing (which his Republican allies have endorsed), and a few other items.

But Paul's recent comments about the Civil War, and Lincoln, and his denial of evolution (amazing since he's a medical doctor), and his desire to eliminate -- rather than modernize -- most of the federal government, and his complete rejection of the progressive principles that lie beneath the handful of policies that the warmongers despise and we progressives like, make him an entertaining oddity, but a very dangerous character.

No, Ron Paul isn't, by any stretch of the imagination, a progressive! And he would never have my support.

by Ed Menken (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 1:15:10 PM
 

Oh please...

Just what we need a reactionary, anti-evolutionist.

No real progressive/liberal/sane person would even glance in Ron Paul's direction.

by fou (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 88 comments) on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 2:01:42 PM
 

actually

Ron Paul isn't ANTI-evolution. He doesn't fight it, or want the theory the blacked out of textbooks. He'd just rather not talk about it. If you read the FULL transcript of the heavily edited video that Andrew Sullivan referenced lately, you'll see.

Dr. Paul said he thinks we don't have enough evidence to prove OR disprove evolution.

I think it shows an open mind. Plenty of non-Christian scientists have been revisiting evolution; in light of missing, key pieces of information (like a "missing ink" between primates and man), curious scientists want to explore alternative theories or make corrections in the existing "dogma." It's not all driven by fundamentalism.

by Ingrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 114 comments) on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 at 5:10:34 PM
 

link not ink

sorry

by Ingrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 114 comments) on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 at 5:12:26 PM
 

NOT 'just what we need' BUT 'just what's happening!'

I think Dr. Paul is still a long, long shot to be the GOP nominee---but the fact is, he has touched a chord of response from citizens. Listen less to his supporters or his detractors and listen more to what he says himself.

I like and respect the guy. He doesn't put a finger to the wind or convene a focus group to decide which way to vote or how to "craft his message."

He speaks from conviction and adheres to his principles. I may not agree with him on everything---well, I DON'T agree on everything---but he intends to stop torture, withdraw troops, end the dictatorial executive practices of Bush/Cheney/Addington, restore habeas corpus, and de-throne the neo-cons.

I'd sure as hell settle for that! Would he do it? He's from the trigger-happy, macho state of Texas and he voted AGAINST the Iraq invasion and AGAINST the so-called "Patriot Act." That took guts, considering the inflammatory atmosphere when they rushed those atrocities through the Congress.

Minnesota's radical progressive Congressman, C. A. Lindbergh, said 90 years ago: "Of all the cowards, no other is so cowardly as the average politician."

Ron Paul is no coward. He is WAY above "average." He's got a groundswell behind him that gives him the resources (money and people) to run a national campaign. Whether he can turn this groundswell into enough actual votes remains to be seen. Even if he can't, I am excited that here is a guy who's got the megaphone to match the message.

The neo-cons expected resistance all along from the traditional liberals---and has found them all too easy to intimidate and steamroll---even after losing control of both Houses of Congress! The last thing they expected---and what they can't figure out how to quell---is a political insurrection led by a credentialed conservative. Well, behind the Ron Paul candidacy---IT'S HAPPENING.

We're in a Constitutional Crisis. Let's agree to disagree on many issues---and focus on fortifying Ron Paul's defiant political uprising!

p.s.: Congressman Lindbergh, a small-town lawyer and businessman who found much to admire in Socialism, was an early and outspoken foe of the Federal Reserve System, which he described as a tool of the Money Trust.   It's kind of neat to see Congressman Paul raising the Fed as an issue in this campaign---after 90 years of institutionalized financial jobbery.

by Oliver Steinberg (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 3:49:41 PM
 

THIS is what's important

The dollar slid across the board on Friday as data showing a 9 percent decline in sales of new U.S. homes last month heightened concern about the economy, putting the greenback on track for its worst week in more than a year.
The housing report, which was weaker than economists had expected, also bolstered the case for more Federal Reserve interest rate cuts in 2008. Earlier this week, the S&P/Case-Shiller index showed a record decline in U.S. home prices in October.

This is what's happening to YOUR house. All the 'money' and 'equity' you thought you had saved - eliminated! The equity through falling house prices - and the money because we are DEBASING OUR CURRENCY. That low fed rate you're reading about gets created by printing money  and lending it to people. With more money, the money YOU have is worth LESS. So your money is worth less and your property is worth less - where can you turn to keep ahead of inflation? I think  you BETTER turn to Dr. Paul. He's the ONLY one running that has a HOPE of being able to deal with this.

by Louis Nardozi (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments) on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 5:16:51 PM
 

Beware A "Means to an End"

If Ron Paul is anti-war it is because he is another doctrinaire Ayn Rand noodle-head, persuaded by that facticious author's silly fiction featuring comic-book characters like Howard Roark and Dagny Whats-Her-Name.

More to the point, Ron Paul has a history of writing racist, survivalist newsletters (see elsewhere on OpEdNews postings) with very explicit racially-biased culturally-insensitive comments about young, black U.S. citizens.

This "means to an end" could get us right back to the sort of Dept. of Justice that wanted to ignore Orval Faubus, George Wallace, et alia.

No thanks, Caleb Friz.  I'll take Dennis Kucinich (right the first time, every time) instead.

by R. Queisser (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 60 comments) on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 7:45:54 PM
 

Ron Paul would take Dennis Kucinich, too.

I don't know how to post a link, but I did see the video of Dr. Paul answering a question about which other candidate he could support if he didn't get nominated himself.  Ron ruled out the war candidates, I think he noted that Chuck Hagel isn't running, and then offered a very gracious compliment to Dennis Kucinich and noted that they were friends who had worked together in the House.

You see, your stereotype of Dr. Paul, based on cooked-up political attacks, is off the mark of who the man really is.   Listen to Congressman Paul speak for himself.   Then you may vehemently disagree with him, but I think you should be able to respect him as a principled participant in the political process---neither an ego-tripper, nor a neo-con cheerleader for the military-industrial imperialist interests, nor a front man for white supremacists, nor someone indifferent to the plight of the poor and dispossessed.

Most of all, he sees the peril of totalitarianism lurking in war hysteria and in things like the so-called "Patriot Act."   Why are you trashing a REPUBLICAN WHO DENOUNCES FASCISM---and who means by that, the direction this country is going---NOT the rhetorically bogus neo-con neologism "Islamofascism"?

Come on now---relax a little and enjoy what Dr. Paul is doing to the party of Bush, Cheney, Giuliani and Gonzales. 

by Oliver Steinberg (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 8:45:58 PM
 

Counterpoints to comments by posters Pitt and Menken:

1.  "Ron Paul is basically an isolationist ... If Bush made you uncomfortable with his stress on "individual responsibility", you ain't seen nothin' yet."
This is a mite confusing - "isolationism" has to do with inter-nation relationships, not with "individual responsibility."  Ron Paul is not an "isolationist" by the inter-nation definition - he believes in strong interaction in  diplomacy and commerce - but he does not want the US entangled in other countries' internal affairs as we have been for decades.
But yes, he does want people to take "individual responsibility" for their lives - this is a basic tenet of many philosophies, so it is not a weird idea.
2.  "if you have any money, buy gold right now!  It won't take long before he institutes his own "fiscal reform" which will mean the end of paper money."
Good idea, Mary!  Since our dollars are seriously devaluing daily (‘not worth the paper they're printed on' as the saying goes).  We are headed for a serious economic crisis.  Ron Paul has spent decades studying economics; that is why he speaks of this subject so often.  We Americans know squat about economics, so probably get confused, upset and frightened when we cannot understand everything he says.  
3.  "plow up your back yard so you can grow all your food."
Not a bad idea for everyone - much healthier than the store-bought poisoned corporate food!
4.  "I would hope that Ron Paul could bercome [sic] the Republican candidate, which won't happen."
Don't bet on it not happening - the LasVegas odds-makers are betting ON Ron Paul.  The MSM wants you to believe he will not become the candidate - they are scared that they will no longer be able to tell you who to vote for, so they marginalize or delete him from polls and lists of candidates, whenever possible.
5.  "if you focus on the anti-war stance, and the constitutional freedoms that we've been losing (which his Republican allies have endorsed)."
Note - most of the Democratic candidates (other than Kucinich & Gravel) have "endorsed" more war and increased surveillance and loss of liberties.
6.  "his denial of evolution (amazing since he's a medical doctor)."
Ron Paul has never "denied evolution" - he's stated it is a ‘theory' and like all theories must be continually studies and evaluated.  Newton made amazing strides in physics, but the quantum physicists studied and evaluated his theories and now have gone way past what he and others knew at the time.  It's called scientific inquiry by scientific minds.  It's what scientists - and yes, "medical doctors" - do.
7.  "No, Ron Paul isn't, by any stretch of the imagination, a progressive!"
He's never claimed to be.  And neither did the author.

by t quigly (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Monday, December 31, 2007 at 9:07:40 PM
 

Protest Rupert Murdoch's Exclusion of Ron Paul At Fox News F

 Protest Rupert Murdoch’s Exclusion of Ron Paul At Fox News ForumContact info for Rupert & Fox News personnel can be found at
http://www.ronaldholland.com/protestfox.htm  Let Rupert and his Neocon buddies know what you think of Fox “Not broadcasting in the public interest”. We also have link to national protest against Fox News Scheduled for January 3, 2008.

by Ron Holland (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments) on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 at 12:08:40 PM
 

Don't misunderstand Ron Paul !

I live in Japan and work in finance. I think Ron Paul is the best thing since sliced bread, and so do many Japanese who are following the U.S. presidential election. And so do many people who work in financial/securities fields.

Mary Pitt says Ron Paul will be the second coming of Herbert Hoover. WRONG. FDR was the "second coming of Herbert Hoover." The USA still had high double-digit unemployment all through the 1930s after going off the gold standard, and the rate of unemployment went up sharply in the late 1930s. Going off the gold standard did nothing to help the economy recover.

The current monetary system is quite possibly the greatest enemy of social justice going. It is a money machine for the privileged few, mercilessly transferring wealth from the weakest members of society to the wealthiest and most powerful.

By all appearances, the dollar's days as the world's reserve currency are numbered. If the vast ocean of dollars held outside the USA starts to flow back to the USA, the USA will experience very serious price inflation and will also see ownership of vast chunks of America's production infrastructure transferred into foreign ownership. (They have to spend their vast dollar holdings on something, and the USA is the one place where dollars are legal tender.) So Americans can look forward to being increasingly dispossessed in their own country. None of this is Ron Paul's fault. Rather, he is the sole presidential candidate who understands the problems and proposes workable solutions.

Ron Paul wants to eliminate the legal tender laws that hold Americans hostage to the Incredible Shrinking Dollar. He wants to allow competition from other currencies and from private mints. Give people the the freedom to contract for the means of settling debts that they prefer: competition among currencies will force the money to stay honest. Gresham's Law -- "Bad money drives out good" ONLY applies when there are legal tender laws. When there are no legal tender laws, good money drives out bad money. "Bad money" is bad because it is a form of theft. The current monetary system is destroying the value of your money even as it sits in your wallet. Hardest hit are people on fixed incomes -- retirees, poor people on welfare, etc. Now the baby boomers are starting to retire, and the government is going to be faced with corresponding expenses. Believe me, the government will keep its promises, even if it has to run the printing presses 24x7 to do so. Trouble is, in the process that money may end up being useful mainly as toilet paper.

The fact that as the world's reserve currency the USA has been exporting inflation for many decades really needs to be appreciated. When that stops, Americans are going to go through some very painful experiences. None of that is Ron Paul's fault.

People concerned about other issues can mope, groan, and grimace that Ron Paul does not harmonize well with their favorite song, but they need to keep things in the right perspective: without addressing the "slide into fascism" issue and the "destruction of the currency" issue -- which are really two sides of the same coin, since the empire is financed by fiat money -- in a few years there will be no America left to "lean to the left" or "lean to the right" on various social issues. The two big issues I referred to are THE social issues of the day, because without taking care of them, there will not be a milieu in which it is even possible to debate the other social issues. There will either be totalitarianism, or chaos, or both.

A few other comments are in order on those other issues, however.

Evolution: Ron Paul is in favor of promoting the free market of ideas. In a free market of ideas, good ideas will win out over bad ideas. Good science will win out over bad science. If an idea is true, it should not be necessary to impose it on other people by force. Ron Paul is in favor of not having a one-size-fits-all curriculum imposed on all people from above, because that amounts to censorship and social engineering. Another thing that needs to be said about evolution versus creation is that is possible to affirm both: a person could consistently say that God originally created the world as described in the Genesis creation account, but since then the creatures have been evolving. Such a person could affirm everything about how evolution works as an ongoing process, at least to the extent that science has been able to demonstrate those processes. What the creationist would reject are some of the inferences that are commonly made by evolutionists, e.g., that life originally came about without any divine intervention from non-life. Now THAT is something that the evolutionist can only hold as a matter of faith. Upon hearing that, the creationist might crack a smile and say, "Oh, so you believe in the theory of spontaneous generation, do you?"

Indeed, that is exactly what one famous evolutionist said: "There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose. Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God . . . There is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that just leaves us with only one other possibility . . . that life came as a supernatural act of creation by God, but I can't accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution." (Nobel Prize winner George Wald in "Origin, Life and Evolution" (Scientific American, 1978). 

Evolutionary theory does not have anything authoritative to say about the ultimate origins of either life or the cosmos, but rather only speculations. Even looking at the size of the cosmos and drawing inferences that the cosmos is X number of years old has to first assume all sorts of things, such as that the speed of light is actually constant and most importantly that God did not create distant celestial objects so that they could be visible from earth in the instant of their creation. My whole point here is simply to warn evolutionists not to assume that someone has been lobotomized simply because he disagrees. There are plenty of cogent and rational ways to disagree with evolution, as well as irrational. George Wald's position is ultimately no less religious than Huckabee's.

Paul as a "racist": This is another red herring, and totally false. Ron Paul has publicly indicated that he would be happy with someone like Walter Williams as his running mate for VP. Williams has also endorsed Ron Paul. And there are plenty of other prominent blacks who have come out in his support. The leading "evidence" of Ron Paul's racism is one issue of an old newsletter (1992) that was written by one of Paul's staffers and published under Ron Paul's name, discussing the Los Angeles riots after the police were found not guilty of brutality against Rodney King. Admittedly, that newsletter does sound like a rant. But Paul has distanced himself from it and insists that he did not write it. More importantly, however, Thomas Sowell and other conservative black writers have written very much that same sort of stuff as the content of that newsletter. Really, racism is the very LAST thing anyone needs to worry about with Ron Paul. It is a charge that does not stick. Ditto with anti-semitism, anti-hispanic, blah blah blah. He is for treating everyone fairly and equally, and he objects ONLY to ILLEGAL immigration. As someone big on the rule of law, what other position could he possibly take?

He's against the war on drugs, which is clogging our prisons with blacks and poor people disproportionately. He's pushing progressive buttons on a LOT of issues.

Abortion: Face it folks, with 50 million abortions since Roe v. Wade, the voter base of people who would tend to be in favor of legalized abortion is shrinking. Conservatives don't have abortions! They have babies instead. Legalized abortion is bringing about a demographic shift that is going to make abortion illegal again, sooner or later. It is not a question of if, but rather when. Adding to this is the growing popularity of homeschooling and other alternatives to the government schools. A liberal social agenda is not going to be promoted outside the government schools. My suggestion is that you not oppose Ron Paul because he personally opposes abortion. He has very good constitutional grounds for wanting to see this issue returned to the states. Some states will allow it and others won't. From the pro-choice perspective, that's the best that can be hoped for in the long run. What Ron Paul will be in favor of is encouraging pro-life Americans to put their money where their mouth is and provide financial support for pregnant single mothers and outlets for babies in need of adoptive parents. (These already exist, but Ron Paul would encourage the private sector to provide maximum help here, and I for one expect it would be forthcoming.)

These are all solutions that ought to be pushing the buttons of progressives. Maybe they are not all the modes of thinking that progressives have previously been accustomed to, but they are solutions nonetheless. And if the private sector can provide solutions that get the government off of our backs and out of our wallets, then we are all going to be winners in the end.

by Christopher Witmer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 at 6:06:13 PM
 

Troop withdrawl

CDWitner,

With your experience in Japan. How do you see Ron Paul's call to remove all US troops from Japan, presumably including shutting down the US bases there?

What would be the range of opinions and likely reactions from the Japanese people and their politicians?

 What would be the time frame considerations, Do it immediately, phase it, etc?

My biggest concern with Paul, is his lack of a cadre of experts who can bring more detail to his proposals. This is needed to manage the fear that his radical proposals evoke.

 Thanks for the informative post.

by rp haigh (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 at 10:13:23 PM