It’s as if a whole lot of people have caught a virus that I have escaped.People that I thought had correctly rejected the current corrupt two-party controlled political system have flocked to Paul.So I went back and re-read most of his published columns and examined in detail his voting record.I can understand why such a maverick politician is so attractive to people fed up with the current system.But I consistently have seen so many problems with Paul that I cannot support his candidacy and I still maintain that he never stood a chance of getting the Republican nomination.
First, Paul’s minimalist view of what the federal government should do would wreck the country.Sure, I understand why so many people love his proposal to eliminate the federal income tax.And his response to what would follow such a loss of huge revenues is to cut spending.That means cutting a vast array of programs that the vast majority of Americans like and want, and that the states could not afford to take over without increasing their taxes.And if anything characterizes Paul it is his glibness.What would happen to the millions of Americans who would lose their jobs from the IRS, military and many other cuts, and the inevitable cascading economic impacts on the nation?Paul has never been big on details; he has spent his whole glib career spouting the same few principles.Paul has no depth.He had never run any program or had any executive experience.
Even worse is that his entire congressional career has been marked by a complete absence of any actual successful lawmaking or oversight.Though he has been a loyal Republican when votes were important (and often did not vote on bills that his party wanted passed but that he did not support) he has accomplished nothing in Congress.Talk about experience and a track record.All Paul has had is rhetoric, but no legislative accomplishments either when Democrats or Republicans controlled Congress.It boggles my mind how so many politically engaged people could possibly support a man with so little proven capabilities.Do most of his supporters really understand all the things that Paul has been for or against?I think not.How many of his supporters shared his opposition to increasing the minimum wage?
Paul’s clear anti-Iraq war position is admirable, but if he has so much independence and integrity, then why has he not explicitly spoken out against his rivals for the Republican nomination?Why has he not said very publicly that if the Republican Party does not give him the nomination, then he wants all of his supporters to NOT vote for anyone else who gets the nomination simply because they have supported the war?
And all I hear from his supporters is the usual garbage justification for all the earmark, pork spending that Paul consistently gets for his district, as if pork spending is anything other than the currency of corruption in Congress.He probably has diverted several billion dollars of federal spending to his district so he could keep getting elected.And what crap it is for him to justify it by saying he votes against the spending bills that contain his earmarks.And why is it so hard for his supporters to understand that the way things work in Congress, Paul has had to trade his votes to get those earmarks placed in spending bills?Pork spending does increase federal spending, contrary to what Paul says.Finally, the great irony is that most of his pork dollars would be cut if he actually ever had the power to shrink the federal government.But he rationalizes why he should get his fair share of awful, unjustified federal spending for his district.I don’t see this as integrity.I respect the very few members of Congress who refuse to play politics as usual and get earmarks for their district.
And last but not least, this self-professed champion of the Constitution, who supposedly believes in trusting the actual language in it, has behaved like every other member of Congress.He has refused to honor the provision in Article V for a convention to propose constitutional amendments.This makes no sense for Paul for several reasons.An Article V convention was created by the Founders exactly because they anticipated the day when the public would rightfully lose trust in the federal government.Is there any more obvious aspect to Paul’s entire political mindset other than the failure of the federal government?Also, Paul believes in the constitutional rights that states have.Yet the whole basis of the Article V convention option is to place power back in the hands of the states by creating an alternative to Congress holding all the power for federal lawmaking and proposing constitutional amendments.So, on the basis of fixing what is wrong with the federal government and on restoring the balance with the states, Paul should have been fighting for many years to get the nation’s first Article V convention.But he has not.That behavior is totally and shockingly inconsistent with his entire political belief system.
So now, when this is published, the army of Kool-Aid drinking Paul supporters will have yet another opportunity to flood any site that publishes this with their usual passionate screams justifying their cult-like adoration for Paul.This is what I most look forward to in coming weeks and months: Enough sanity among Americans so that Paul does not win any caucus or primary and never gets close to winning the Republican nomination.And what then?Exactly, what then?What will Paul do and say?How will he channel all the righteous political unhappiness and anger among his supporters so that something positive is actually accomplished?
www.delusionaldemocracy.com
Joel S. Hirschhorn is the author of Delusional Democracy - Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government (www.delusionaldemocracy.com). His current political writings have been greatly influenced by working as a senior staffer for the U.S. Congress and for the National Governors Association. He advocates a Second American Revolution, beginning with an Article V Convention to propose constitutional amendments.
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
-
by
Leon Kassab (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 24 comments)
on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 1:49:29 PM
The Convention Alternative .--Because it has never successfully been invoked, the convention method of amendment is sur rounded by a lengthy list of questions. 21 When and how is a convention to be convened? Must the applications of the requisite number of States be identical or ask for substantially the same amendment or merely deal with the same subject matter? Must the requisite number of petitions be contemporaneous with each other, substantially contemporaneous, or strung out over several years? Could a convention be limited to consideration of the amendment or the subject matter which it is called to consider? These are only a few of the obvious questions and others lurk to be revealed on deeper consideration. 22 This method has been close to utilization several times. Only one State was lacking when the Senate finally permitted passage of an amendment providing for the direct election of Senators. 23 Two States were lacking in a petition drive for a constitutional limitation on income tax rates. 24 The drive for an amendment to limit the Supreme Court's legislative apportionment decisions came within one State of the required number, and a proposal for a balanced budget amendment has been but two States short of the requisite number for some time. 25 Arguments existed in each instance against counting all the petitions, but the political realities no doubt are that if there is an authentic national movement underlying a petitioning by two-thirds of the States there will be a response by Congress.
Mr. Kassab presents as his argument as to why the Constitution should not be obeyed quotes from Findlaw regarding their interpretation of an Article V Convention. First, I commend Mr. Kassab for at least having the integrity to have attempted to research the subject, to have referenced his belief with at least what appears at first to be a credible source of reference and to have presented that material fully and without bias of editing. Most people who discuss the subject do so out of fear, ignorance and most especially with a total lack of factual reference.
Still Mr. Kassab does advocate the Constitution not be obeyed. Further his reference to Findlaw is old and out of date. If you click on his links inside his reference you will see all refer to references which are nearly a half century old, mostly from congressional hearings held in the 1960's. Mr. Kassab, with all due respect to your efforts, things change over a half century and it would do you credit in the future to seek more modern references such as can be found at www.foavc.org.
There you would find that in 2006 in a federal lawsuit, Walker v Members of Congress, the government officially and formally conceeded that (1) a convention call is "peremptory" on the part of Congress (2) that Congress must call such a convention based on the numeric count of applying states (3) that the Constitution does not require the applications be on the same subject nor is Congress in any way given any discretion regarding such a call (4) that all 50 states have submitted a total of 567 application for such a convention (5) that even if same subject were the basis of a convention call (which it is not) several amendment subjects have received enough individual support to cause a convention call each on their own merits. These include: income tax (39); Apportionment (36); Direct Election of Senator 31 (there were only 46 states in the Union when the applications for direction election was submitted, two-thirds of 46 is 30.66 or 31); Right to Life: 32; Revenue Sharing 27; Defense of Marriage 26.
Of course Mr. Kassab you look at my last three and say to yourself "Ah ha! He made a mistake. These are under the 34 needed!" Wrong. In 1919 the Supreme Court ruled in Missouri Pacific Railway v State of Kansas, 248 U.S. 276, that the meaning of the word "two-thirds" as applied in Article V was to be based on a quorum rather than a full count of members. Thus, the two-thirds applications for a convention is based on 26 states rather than 34 as 26 states constitutes a quorum of the states. Two thirds of that number is 19. Obviously the applications noted exceed that number.
Reference to the above case can be found in the faq section at www.foavc.org.
I am concerned that so many citizens apparently have, for whatever personal reasons they may be, no issue with establishing the government has a "right" to veto the law of the Constitution which is what Mr. Kassab advocates. For whatever reason he or anyone else presents, his advocation is that the law of the Constitution be ignored, vetoed or rejected by the government thus stating whether he uses the words or not, that the government be empowered to be able to break the law of the Constitution whenever it pleases. In this I am disappointed in many of the citizens of this country who take it for granted a government so empowered will not take upon itself to disobey other provisions of the Constitution.
Frankly I find no logic in those who, on the basis of the law of the Constitution, advocate with full vigor that George Bush has violated the same and should be impeached (using the law of the Constitution which is the only place impeachment exists) or that rights granted by the law of the Constitution have been violated by the government and then, in the same breath without any hesitation whatsoever that the government be given the right to veto the law of the Constitution by being able to refuse to obey it if they choose simply because another provision of the Constitution (Article V) is the subject of the discussion.
In sum, these people view the Constitution not as a law but as a convenience. If so, then can it not be argued that George Bush as a citizen has the same right as everyone else? Assuming that he has done the deeds he is accused of, does he not also have the right to simply view the Constitution merely as a convenience which may be suffled off as one might get rid of a piece of uncomfortable clothing?
Loyal, patriotic Americans believe in the Constitution. All the Constitution. That means they believe the law of the Constitution, all of it, must be obeyed. If an American holds otherwise he cannot claim to be either loyal or patriotic to this country and certainly not to its form of government.
The facts are plain and have been admitted to as a matter of public record by the government. To deny or assert to the contrary simply flies in the face of those facts to which the government has already stated. In sum citizens are now advocating something that even the government itself has rejected. The states have applied for a convention. The Constitution demands a convention call on the part of Congress. The questions now loyal, patriotic Americans should be addressing is (1) on what basis does Congress have the right to disobey the law of the Constitution (2) is the disobedience legal or have members of Congress, of which Mr. Paul is one, violated federal law by refusing to obey the Constitution and (3) assuming the Constitution must be obeyed what issues must be addressed so as to allow such a convention to occur and what solutions will loyal, patriotic Americans present so as to allow this matter to legally and constitutionally occur.
As to the rest of Joel's article regarding Mr. Paul. It is a matter of public record that Mr. Paul has been contacted on this issue several times and ignored it. It is a matter of public record that Mr. Paul joined a federal lawsuit to establish a "right" to veto the law of the Constitution along with every other member of Congress in criminal violation of his oath of office. It is a matter of public record that the government officially and formally conceeded in open public court for the purposes of public record and admitted the above statements were true as to fact and law.
Now whether or not people wish to elect someone to the office of President who has as a matter of public record advocated that he as an office holder has the right to disobey the law of the Constitution, must be made by the individual citizen but I think it is reasonable to suggest it should be carefully considered.
Joel has advocated many concerns over the years. For example he has discussed a new investigation of 9/11. While Joel and I may digress on exactly who besides the actual terrorists were involved in the bringing down of the towers, I fully support this movement provided of course it is intended to bring all facts, history and other matters to light and to lead to punishment of those indivduals who were accessories before the fact to this crime. To my knowledge Mr. Paul has either not expressed an opinion on this or has ignored the matter. Again, I would say that such a position must be taken into account in deciding support for such a candidate.
While Mr. Paul has the reputation for supporting the Constitution, it is inescapable that closer inspection reveals this reputation is not that well deserved. All Joel has done is present the closer inspection.
by
Bill Walker (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments)
on Saturday, December 29, 2007 at 8:53:43 AM
"Here is some irony: With our thoroughly corrupt and rigged political system Ron Paul has absolutely zero chance of becoming the Republican presidential nominee, regardless of his high level of grassroots support. This is the most delusional aspect of his supporters: Their inability to see just how corrupt the current system is."
"This is what I most look forward to in coming weeks and months: Enough sanity among Americans so that Paul does not win any caucus or primary and never gets close to winning the Republican nomination."
"First, Paul’s minimalist view of what the federal government should do would wreck the country."
LOL! In case you haven't noticed, your country's already wrecked. If it has any chance to survive in any kind of recognizable form whatsoever, your country right now needs emergency medicine.
Dr. Paul offers that medicine. Not all his apparent views on every aspect of government may suit your fancy, but if you're in the emergency room bleeding to death, you don't tell the only Doctor around to get lost because he has bad breath.
BTW, what you apparently fail to understand, or disingenuously pretend to fail to understand, is the fact that Paul cannot single-handedly change every important aspect our government and society, for better or for worse. Rather, what he can do and immediately needs to do, is to reverse the self-destructive foreign policy that not only threatens the U.S., but the very existence of humanity itself.
by
Harold Smith (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 384 comments)
on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 2:18:02 PM
Nice try at a smear article, but your lies about being a 'former supporter who has seen the light' are shattered when you begin namecalling and insulting his supporters. Had you been one of us, you would have sympathy and your article ultimately would suggest a superior alternative. Most Ron Paul supporters will admit that he is not perfect and its a mixed bag about which of his policies each supporter likes and dislikes. We all realize he is a longshot and our choices boil down to Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Romney, Huckabee, Guiliani, or McCain as alternatives. Who do you feel is superior and why? If you had really been a former supporter that is the point you would be trying to make, but ultimately you have exposed yourself as a liar trying to hurt Paul's support base with the same weak reasons we've all heard many times before. Quit wasting your time, Paul has our trust and you don't. He has proven it with 20 years of unyielding, uncompromising integrity, so when he gives his explanation for the earmarks we are going to believe an honest man's informed explanation over a stranger's uninformed opinion about his motives (this article).
by
Bill B. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 2:18:07 PM
And would even consider him as VP if he were to be nominated. How about you explain that one? is it that kucinich after years of working with him somehow doesn't him as well as you do or does he just not quite get the whole "government/politics" thing after running the city of cleveland and being a member of congress? Or is it just that... you're talking out of your ass?
here's kucinich's endorsement of Ron Paul on video:
Thank you Joel for your erudite dire forecast of what a Ron Paul presidency would be like. Your assertion "Ron Paul's view would wreck the country" is alarming. So now, not only am I scared of evil-doers converting my dog, I should also be scared of Ron Paul's quixotic agenda and his rabid sentinels. Correction, his succinctly articulated approach would be to cut spending FIRST then phase out the income tax, maybe if you weren't so myopic and biased you would have caught that. In any event, your article is characterized by seemily vacuous unreferenced statements aimed at diminuting Paul's politic and economic acumen. Fine. But what I find so disappointing, is your lack of substance, abundance of nescience and your snide baleful assumptions and prognostications i.e. the majority loves government programs, uncertainty to loss of bureaucratic jobs, lack of a prolific bill spending record (accomplishments), etc. All of those things you laud are why the fellow man and I are taxed to the hilt. The difference between people like you and me is I respect small government and personal accountability while you support spendthrifty government programs, bureaucratic jobs, glamorized congressional machinations, etc. Also, your snarky pontifications on why he hasn't tactlessly addressed inane hypotheticals is quite shallow. Furthermore, you claim to elucidate the irony of pork excising upon reform--sorry to inform you, I've already heard Paul vocalize his support for that. So if the government steals my money, my representative shouldn't try and recover it from appropriations, in the rare event (HA!) his spending veto is nullified? Lastly, your Article V position is just so lame. So we really want a Constitutional convention during a time when the people are so undereducated about our liberties and the government is so adamant about taking them from us. You sir, are a bona fide intellectual lilliputian. Where do you stand on anything...no vision, no guts and no balls. Pass the kool-aid please.
by
Rich Lake (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 3:18:27 PM
This Editorial is So ill-Informed I don't know where to begi
Ron Paul has already said he couldn't support the other GOP candidates in the general election.
Regarding this author's concern of US military and overseas covert operators losing their jobs . . . is devoid of soul.
Our overseas military operations have caused untold misery worldwide. If we can't find better productive work with some humanity for them . . . we are wholly and completely morally bankrupt as a nation.
This author bemoans Ron Paul's lack of support for minimum wage laws. Why is the US standard of living falling? Because our workers have to compete with slave labor markets worldwide. Helloooo? Has he heard about the Walmartization of America.
Now why do so many nations have such slave labor markets for corporations to exploit? Because our CIA militarist globalist machine crushes leaders in nations who want to do right by their people, and elevates ones who are corporate whores (see the movie Syrianna, written by an ex CIA agent.)
Over 50% of US discretionary spending is military, used to promote dictatorial corporate prostitutes in nations worldwide.
A President Ron Paul would bring hundreds of billions of dollars BACK INTO OUR ECONOMY, but ending the US / CIA militarist global empire. That money means jobs. It means the end of cruel US manipulation of poor people worldwide.
This author has definitely drank some CIA/Militarist koolaid, but he transfers his lack of vision onto those of us who see the light Ron Paul offers.
by
Bill Douglas (68 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments)
on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 3:28:43 PM
Hey, thanks for the tears you shed over the 3,000,000 manufacturing jobs already permanently lost because of insane taxes and regulations, due to the fact that government employees and other recipients are choking close to 50 percent of GDP out of the productive sector of the economy. And the bleeding continues; as the banking sector wobbles and tightens credit, bankruptcies soar, housing values fall, and sales of everything go down while prices go up. Those lost sales will mean more lost jobs. The unemployed will buy less, and sales will drop further, while the fed pumps fiat money into the system to save the banks. The extra money will degrade the already plummeting value of the dollar, which will be reflected in increased prices for commodities -- food, fuel, manufactured goods.
In the face of all of this, you claim the country will be wrecked because people in the public sector will have to get productive jobs instead, and people in the productive sector will be able to keep their money to save and invest in new and better capacity instead of having it taken from them and used to further their ruination?
Sorry, after what I've already been through and what is coming, I won't feel sorry about anybody who lives off tax dollars losing their job. Unless it is a police or fireman. And then, I will hire him.
Nobody rues the downfall of a greedy capitalist small businessman. Except his customers, suppliers, and employees. But not the media, academics, or practically anyone on government payroll.
by
John Danforth (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 87 comments)
on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 5:37:27 PM
Your "analysis" is a load of silly hot air. It doesn't even
sound like you've read (or understood) the article you're responding to.
In your first sentence, you speak of 3 million manufacturing jobs lost "due to the fact that government employees and other recipients are choking close to 50 percent of GDP out of the productive sector of the economy."
This says absolutely nothing. "Government employees and other recipients"? Oh, please. Could you possibly be any more vague? Why not just accuse "some people" of choking the economy? It would say just as little as you managed to.
And what is your source for this "fact" about these mysterious "other recipients" choking 50% of the economy? Do you mean that 50% of GDP is accounted for by "government employees and other recipients"? What definition are you using for "the productive sector" of the economy? Is it just your own private opinion about what is or is not "productive"? The phrase has no widely-accepted meaning. Consequently, your whole point also has no meaning.
In your second paragraph, you continue, "In the face of all of this, you claim the country will be wrecked because people in the public sector will have to get productive jobs instead..."
- Actually, the writer said nothing of the sort. But don't let that stop you. You're standing on a soapbox, ranting angrily about.... er, something or other. Clearly, what's important for you is just venting some anger -- not whether what you're saying makes any sense, or whether it bears any relationship to points raised by the article.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1025 comments)
on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 7:58:57 PM
Vague assertions, appeals to popular prejudices, half truths, etc. are why I frequently use the word "Demagoguery" to describe Paulites and their positions. They are the Demagoguery Kings and Queens.
I am pleased to be in complete agreement with RichM and Joel Hirschorn on this score.
by
Steven Leser (189 articles, 35 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1263 comments)
on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 9:29:17 PM
"Government employees and other recipients" = People who get their sustenance off other peoples' taxes.
"Productive sector of the economy" = People who grow or dig things up from the ground and apply human thought and effort to them in order to make them valuable for other humans. In recognition of the fact that wealth is created and consumed.
And services, whether voluntarily purchased or coercively extorted, are overhead. While they may be necessary for production, even for survival, they must be paid for out of surplus from production. When the production is no longer able to sustain costs, it stops, and so does the money to pay for services. Including the services necessary for survival.
Right now our 'services' are being paid for with a decrease in our standard of living. No new investment is being made in the manufacturing base, and assets are being mortgaged, sold or moved out of the country.
The numbers are slow to roll in, but they are beginning to reflect this process. Will it just result in a recession, or will it spiral into a depression and possibly a currency collapse?
If the government prints and borrows money it cannot collect from surplus because there is a decreasing tax base, the second two possibilities become a real risk. And there is no sign of any change in policy. The fed is lowering rates in a frantic attempt to save the banking system in the face of a tanking dollar. Usually a tanking dollar requires high rates and a contraction of lending. Remember interest rates at 21 percent? If they save the banking system from their bad paper with fiat currency, they will immediately have to whipsaw the economy with rapid increases in the rates. See 1929 for what happened the last time this was done.
Whether changes happen purposely or accidentally, not even government payroll is secure. Scaling back government expenditures won't wreck the economy. The economy has been grievously wounded by those very expenditures, and it may not recover.
by
John Danforth (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 87 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 9:41:27 AM
But I have been over all of this before. I have read Joel's book so I do not feel he is purposefully being misleading, i will assume he is simply wrong. Some of this article is factually inaccurate and the rest is the same tired old misunderstanding of how our government actually works. What is more distrubing is the lack of vision from the anti-Paul crown for what they would recommend. The only name ever mentioned is Kucinich, who has absolutely zero chance.
So who Joel would you recommend we throw our wieght behind that is better than Dr. Paul? Most do not have any "executive" experience, one of your points in this article. Most are completely owned by the machine and would continue to the slide to fascism.
I am sorry Joel, but i am afraid this article was more delusional than understanding democracy. Be well.
by
Anthony Wade (135 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 434 comments)
on Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 11:43:45 PM
So are you a masochist? Is it that you enjoy pushing needles into overinflated balloons?
I counted the number of posts from those who "suddenly appear" to object to any and all critique of Saint Paul, lots of onesees and twosies there, folks who haunt the search engines torches alit and stakes sharpened, ideological "purity" their banner, ignorance the fuel that keeps them going.
If you think George Bush was harmful to this nation, envision a Paul Presidency and know well that the damage to our citizenry would rival the harm Bush has wrought in Iraq and in New Orleans.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Friday, December 28, 2007 at 8:00:43 AM
Your demagogeury is showing. My anger is directed at Libertariansim and never at Ron Paul, though you persist in the big lie. Do you post wearing a new Paulista armband now? Cant stand the heat then get the hell over to a wacko Libertarian website and you folks can all talk to yourselves.
Posing before an American flag is more than a bit obvious, but where is the shiny Sam Browne belt and high black boots?
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 at 4:44:09 PM
After reading the name-calling and other non sequiturs from the anti-Ron Paul crowd, I am of the view that their hostility arises less from his opposition to war, or the direction American foreign policy has taken for decades, or any of the other specific programs he has criticized. What troubles them the most is that Paul has a philosophically-principled integrity in what he advocates and that, to challenge him, one must be prepared to deal with him at that higher level.
But modern political discourse long ago gave up on principles, in favor of the pursuit of power as a sufficient
