Americans want a real political leader, a real change agent.Ron Paul has never been a change agent.He is a change-talker.His claim to fame is voting against legislation, not writing bold legislation to produce change that actually became law.
Ron Paul’s obnoxious supporters like more traditional political activists can spin and delude themselves about election results.But the Iowa caucus results could not be clearer: The vast national desire for political change is manifesting itself through support for both Democratic and Republican change-candidates.Despite Paul being flush with money and having a large number of workers in Iowa, he was solidly rejected as the leading change agent.
Even with a huge historic turnout of about 348,000 participants, Paul did not attract significant numbers of independents that could easily participate in the Republican caucuses.They went to Obama, Edwards and Huckabee.
On the Democratic side, of some 232,000 people that turned out for the caucuses, nearly doubling what it was four years ago, about 70 percent wanted change and went for Obama and Edwards, roughly 150,000 participants.
On the Republican side, of the 116,000 participants, about 40,000 change-voters went for Huckabee, compared to 11,600 that chose Paul, giving him fifth place.That 10 percent for Paul was very close to the 9 percent found in a Des Moines Register poll of likely caucus voters (margin of error 3.5 points).Interestingly, like Paul, Huckabee also wants to eliminate the federal income tax.
In both parties, change-voters totaled about 200,000.So Paul received just 6 percent of that large fraction, and just 3 percent of the total of all caucus participants in Iowa.Paul was first in only one county, Jefferson, with 36 percent.
Edwards was absolutely correct when he summed things up this way: “The one thing that is clear from the results in Iowa tonight is the status quo lost and change won.”With all the hoopla from Paul supporters about younger people being for Paul, that’s not what the Iowa results showed.Younger people seeking change and inspiration flocked to Obama, in particular.There was no demographic in Iowa that overwhelmingly went for Paul.Sure, Paul beat Giuliani, but Paul’s effort in Iowa was much bigger than Giuliani’s.
None of these results will impact Paul’s supporters nationwide.Earl Ofari Hutchinson wrote a great article on Alternet.org: “Ron Paul is Scary, But Those Who Cheer Him Are Even Scarier.”He was right when he said: “The scariest thing about GOP presidential contender Ron Paul is not his fringe, odd-ball racial views. It is that people take him seriously.”But now Iowa has thankfully shown that the vast majority of Americans, especially those seeking political change, reject Paul.
After losing badly in Iowa Paul said: “The other candidates talk about tinkering with the status quo.We don’t want to tinker; we want to change the status quo.”He said that his campaign is on the upswing and gaining support among independents, frustrated Republicans and unhappy Democrats.Just one very big problem: The Iowa results show that all these people are much more likely to vote for other Democratic and Republican change-candidates.
Paul’s supporters claim that he will do much better in New Hampshire where Libertarian Party members hold a number of offices.I don’t think so.Several polls taken before the Iowa results found Paul at just 5 to 9 percent.Will Paul get a big boost from Iowa?I don’t think so.Paul had predicted he could finish in third place in Iowa, and many of his supporters think he will do that in New Hampshire.I don’t think so.Paul will likely finish fifth in New Hampshire, in large part because more independents will go to Obama and McCain.
When Paul first ran for president as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988, he won just 0.54 percent of the vote. Iowa shows that his second presidential bid will not produce much better results.Paul is definitely not tapping in a major way into the national populist movement, major desire for political change, anti-status quo sentiment, or even the anti-Iraq war issue.Clearly, other Democratic and Republican change-candidates are doing much better.This reality will not affect Paul’s passionate, cult-like followers that are solidified like cement in their belief that Paul can and should be our next president, something that Paul himself probably never really believed.
Most Americans can appreciate what Paul’s supporters cannot see: Paul is a change talker who has never shown any capabilities to be a real leader and a real change agent.His supporters are too clouded by self-delusion to honestly question and understand why the vast majority of Americans seeking political change reject Paul.They want a revolution and so do I.Whether any of the current crop of presidential candidates can produce a much needed Second American Revolution is doubtful.Still, we must keep seeking it.
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.
Your questions about Paul's record of producing real change are quite valid; your childish attacks on his supporters are not. I am a somewhat reluctant supporter of Ron Paul because he represents my values better than other candidates. None of the more establishment-tethered candidates are even close, and they would never get my support. They're not even giving lip service to putting an end to the US military presence around the globe, to propping up bloody dictators, to the War on Terror (though they may disagree on details) and the War on Drugs.
I do not think that Ron Paul has a chance of winning the Republican nomination or the election. I *do* think that he can run an independent or third-party campaign that will poll the two or five or ten percent necessary to scare the heck out of both establishment parties and positively influence their priorities. And this is about the best I can hope for my vote to accomplish these days.
by
Mike Klein (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments)
on Saturday, January 5, 2008 at 8:36:16 AM
I think it's a stretch to characterize Huckabee voters as people who seek change. Quite the contrary... most of them are conservative Christians who want to extend their hold on the presidency and see him as the only candidate who promises to keep them in power.
by
Mike Klein (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments)
on Saturday, January 5, 2008 at 8:38:46 AM
I think anyone who can excite people to donate money to their campaign deserves more than a passing dismissal. Ron Paul has collected $20 million thus far. That is not insignificant. Ron Paul took 10% of the Republican caucus votes, period. Not a landslide for sure, but a significant amount. Moreover, the internet fund raising that has been done for Ron Paul has been done by independents, not the Ron Paul for President committee. No other candidate has excited independent voters to do anything like this before and I think that deserves notice. People are upset about Government and well they should be. People want less government because they don't feel it is responsive to their needs and because they believe it is inefficient. People want out of Iraq. On each point Ron Paul scores with a sizeable group of voters. Good for him. He has brought people back into the political process who felt no one was listening to them.
That said, Ron Paul's approach is the wrong one in my opinion. Cutting government doesn't solve the problems we face and will face in the future. Government hasn't grown because there has been some nefarious plan to have it run our lives. Government has grown because the population has increased 100 fold since this country was founded and as it has grown and matured social issues have arisen that needed to be answered. The cost of government has also grown, but the real problem has been the shifting of its cost from the wealthy who benefit the most from our social structure, to the poorest in society who benefit the least. People are also angry because not only are they paying more for the cost of government -- the wealthy and the special interests have had almost exclusive input into the decision making government process. Many of the disenfrachised would probably be less upset if the tax structure were fixed so those who benefit the most from our social structure paid their fair share and those who benefit little or not at all had their taxes reduced. They would also be a lot happier if government started addressing their concerns and embraced their values.
I believe Barack Obama has the right message and the traits that all outstanding leaders have: Intelligence, Vision, ability to delegate and Consensus building. I think he also has a far better understanding of the purpose of government and its functions, although I can understand why Ron Paul's supporters would be behind him. I think the real objective should be for everyone to recognize the "true underlying problems" and make sure the solutions we design solve the problems and don't create new ones in the process.
We need to start by fixing taxes. Even Warren Buffett will tell you, the wealthy aren't paying their share when people who make a portion what he does pay a far larger percent in taxes then he has to pay. Social Security for example was only suppose to pay a return to the retired workers who paid into it. It was originally set at 2% of wages up to the first $6,000. Over time, Social Security has paid for additional social issues, helped to balance the cost of government and the tax is now 15.3% on the first $97,000 of income. The rich say they won't benefit from social security so they should not have to pay into it after that $97,000 limit. But in truth this represents a 15.3% tax on the lowest wage earners in the country and the tax money is not used solely for retirement salary as originally proposed. Many of us now pay more in SS tax than income tax. If you are going to tax people, at least tax everyone. When Amendment 16 was originally passed in 1913, only the income of the top 1% of wage earners was taxed. Since that time the wealthy has succeeded in shifting the tax burden for operating government more and more to the middle class and poor who have benefitted far less than the wealthy. Everyone does need to help support government, but those who benefit the most should also pay the most. I get very tired to hearing wealthy and affluent conservatives talk as though, they are paying more than their fair share and suggest they are rich because they work hard and are more driven than poorer people. Talent and drive means very little without a social structure in which that ability can be applied. People don't get rich solely because of their talent and drive. They derive great benefit from our society. If they don't think so, let them go to Somalia and see how they fair.
Government accountability must also be changed. The ear marks on funding bills must stop and projects fairly considered and voted on rather than just inserted last minute into bills without the benefit of serious consideration. The Executive Branch must also be more open and accountable to Congress. The public needs to become more involved and aware of what is happening in Washington and why. We can make government more efficient by holding it more accountable to us. That would be a lot easier if more of the public became interested in what government was doing. By getting disenfranchised citizens interested in government, Ron Paul has actually encouraged that.
Conservatives like to say government is "too big" or "wants to tell you what to do" or "is too inefficient". The issue has never been size or cost of government. The issue is efficiency of government. I don't know any Congressman today who has a handle on every department in government and what it is doing or spending. Many independent eyes need to be looking at the Federal budget to identify waste, inefficiency and inappropriate expenditures. Big does not have to be synonomous with inefficient or wasteful, but those are certainly potential problems as anything operation becomes very large and no one is watching the hen house.
US foreign policy must change as well. We know how to work with people in the world. We can disagree with others positions without going to war over them. We need a set of foreign policy principles that don't change every 4-8 years that encourage: (1) consistency in the US position and views; (2) stability through treaties and agreements with other nations that define expectations and behavior; and (3) cooperation and focus on common interests instead of differences. If we worked toward stabilizing and promoting peace instead of our own self interests we probably wouldn't need US bases all over the world. If we led by "good example" instead of "selfish example" we might find it less necessary to be involved in foreign conflicts. People are sick of US involvements in foreign countries and particularly Iraq and who can blame them. Personally, I believe the Iraq war and subsequent actions by the US were designed to do one thing only -- get the US miliary and embassy set up there so US and British oil companies could be ensured protection against loss of oil resources like they experienced in Iran when the Shah of Iran was ousted. It isn't the first time the US military or CIA has facilitated turmoil in a country in order to put someone in power who will provide big business with something they want. This type of input and control of government by special interests comes at the detriment of the US public and people in other countries. Ron Paul pretty much wants to stop it by withdrawing US military from all countries. However, the problem is not our presence, it is our actions and behaviors and how transparent those actions and behaviors are to the US public. That is what needs to change. The US can and must provide some stabilizing presence in the world. We just don't need to exploit our power to inforce our will and self-interests on others.
I see Ron Paul as a refreshing viewpoint in Washington. I would hope the next Administration can address some of the issues his supporters feel strongly about right now. So much time is spent on the positions of candidates and how they differ, I think we miss the more important underlying issues that define both Ron Paul, Obama and others running this year.
Sorry for the long winded view of things. Some of these issues bother me as well.
Peter Wedlund
by
Peter Wedlund (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 119 comments)
on Saturday, January 5, 2008 at 8:41:26 AM
Ron Paul's 10 percent showing in Iowa illustrates the difficulty that will be faced by any candidate who advocates freedom and responsibility. The propensity of the electorate to try to vote for benefits to be paid out of other peoples' pockets and the propensity of candidates to pander to them reveals the U.S. to be a nation of beggars and thieves, willing to take benefits extracted from others by force, yet victimized themselves by the powers they grant to government.
Iowa is a corn state and the farming sector in Iowa is keeping pace with inflation because of interference in the market with ethanol subsidies, resulting in rapidly escalating prices for corn and consequently all other food products as more corn is planted to take advantage of the bubble. Small wonder that the people in this state vote to try and save their family farms by supporting candidates that meddle in the market for their benefit. Without these subsidies, these farmers would be getting crushed by rampant pricing inflation like the rest of us.
Fraud and force are the tools statists use to corner people into economic conditions that will encourage them to vote for ever more market manipulation. The fraudulence starts with the notion that you can use force in the marketplace for a good purpose without the negative effects overcoming whatever good intentions were originally put forth to justify it. The fraud is extended by politicians who frame these justifications in terms that sound noble, allowing the voters to evade guilt over the fact that their desire for the unearned makes them beggars, and their vote to take it from others by force makes them thieves.
As in other nations where this experiment has been tried, it will be too late to complain when the people wake up to find that the power they wanted to exercise over others is used to dominate and impoverish them, too. The power will be in place, their wealth and property gone or in jeopardy, and they will be powerless to resist as their assets are placed on the block to be grabbed by a different constituency.
The primaries in the rest of the country will be a test of the honesty, morality, and intelligence of the people. And it will be a test of whether the message has gotten out that freedom is the only sustainable and moral condition. Most people are decent at the core, and when they come to understand how freedom and responsibility translate into a peaceful and prosperous environment that rewards moral and honest behavior, they see that evil stems from desire for the unearned. They recognize the impoverishment, misery, and violence that politics based on pandering to the desire for the unearned causes.
So sure, if you are a statist, go ahead and celebrate the Iowa results. Maybe the remaining primaries will be a resounding defeat for the constitution, the right of a man to keep what he earns, and peace. When the next statist takes power, whether it be of communist or fascist persuasion, the decades of previous policies will already be taking effect; the loot that is at stake for buying votes and ruling over the people will wither in your hand even as you grasp it. The tipping point has been passed. The mixed economy has driven production out to the point where it can no longer sustain any further looting. Printing and borrowing money have made increasing the deficit a sure recipe for catastrophe. It's too late now, the government cannot stop borrowing no matter what the cost, and more taxation is inevitable but will only speed up capital flight from the productive sector that is already underway and accelerating, leaving the remaining producers far outnumbered by consumers of tax and printed money .
It will be a hollow victory for the beggars and thieves. Their sense of entitlement won't allow them to jump ahead of everyone else as we all stand in bread lines or qualify them to be the boss of the work camp on the collective farm.
And those of us who pay the way for this country will never forget. That's why there is such alarm at the way the freedom message is spreading despite all attempts by the old media to stop it. No mention is allowed in the press of the looming Depression and the crash of the dollar, in which banks will hold all of the worthless currency but more importantly, most of the assets and property of the nation. The candidates who want air time must all pretend that runaway debt and interest costs can't crash the entire economy. Anyone drawing attention to the currency crisis and the evil behind it must be shushed like a child in church. The hope is that perhaps if they can silence the message, the people will go along with plans for the continuation of power when everything crashes. They would like the people to be ready for a change, but not for a change to freedom and property rights. The bankers will finance politicians who promise to exercise even greater control to prevent a collapse from ever happening again. Too bad the cat is out of the bag, the dirty secret has been revealed, and ever greater numbers of people are onto the evil game. Even in Iowa, 10 percent of the people aren't going to go along with it.
by
John Danforth (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 84 comments)
on Saturday, January 5, 2008 at 10:03:00 AM
Because Paul has not been successful in his "NO" votes, does that mean he is wrong? Of course not, it just exemplifies how crooked the system is and how politicians serve their special interests that keep them in office. He doesn't pretend that he coud do all he really wants to do, that would take the support of Congress. He could, however, start turning the wheel of the Titanic. Anybody else and it's full steam ahead right into the iceberg.
by
BugMan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Saturday, January 5, 2008 at 10:30:22 AM
No matter what is said. Paulbots ARE scarier than the man they support. See them flock to attack the least of speculations? They should lose the chip on their shoulders... they are more than annoying these days.
by
C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 565 comments)
on Saturday, January 5, 2008 at 11:17:48 AM
It's annoying to contemplate oil at $100, foodstuffs zooming out of sight, metal prices headed for the stratosphere, unemployment rising, bankruptcies setting records, banks papering over bad paper with printed money and lots more of that to come, the world dumping dollars like rats jumping ship, corporations who can't cut deals with the government being driven offshore, and the only acceptable answer from the government/press/corporatism machine is more of the same medicine that got us here.
Put your fingers in your ears and say, "La La La La".
Maybe it'll all go away. Maybe we'll produce some more riches for you to tax. Or maybe we'll go into subsistence mode, annoyingly doing the minimum to survive and getting ready for the worst. It's bad when there is more freedom to make things in communist countries than in the United States of America. And it's worse when the most productive citizens are moving out of industrial areas, unable to continue. Keep causing capital flight, and see how annoying things get then.
by
John Danforth (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 84 comments)
on Saturday, January 5, 2008 at 11:35:58 AM
Member for 1 week six days. 24 comments all Ron Paul this Ron Paul that.
YOU are annoying. MOST Ron Paulbots are annoying. It's not the issues that are annoying... it's not HIM that's annoying -IT'S the MAJORITY of his supporters who flocked to THIS site and others, signed up, and NOW puke and preach their support for him on every thread. IT'S LIKE SPAM. And it's like that old GOP bullying BS that had them all trumpeting Bush and shouting down in unison anyone who would dare critique the scumbag or any of his administration's policies. I don't care how many of you Rontrons are out there or how much money he's got. I don't care that he's a doctor. I don't care about the cutesy little rePAULsive tag-lines his supporters come up with. I've read his stances on HIS website. I've heard all his SUPPORTERS' arguments. Waded through all of THEIR repetitive tripe and heralding of their false messiah. Witnessed the rabid responses, ridicule, and mob attacks perpetraited by his SUPPORTERS against anyone giving even the tiniest notion that they do not agree with his HERD'S mentality... Yeah, so I'd say, the majority of the Ronbot Paultrons that I've come across are downright lousy company and more than a little annoying.
I won't support a Libertarian. I won't support a Republican. I won't support an Independent who was formerly EITHER of those. And it's not my responsibility or obligation to give you a 'better than Dr. Paul candidate' just because I will not support him, don't agree with him on every issue, or choose not to throw blood in the water for his followers. His SUPPORTERS have shown time and again how they treat dissent, opposition, and other viewpoints...
I've seen that film before.
by
C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 565 comments)
on Saturday, January 5, 2008 at 1:02:15 PM
If only the Paul bearers would realize that they harm their man more than help him. As a frustrated Republican who's not terribly thrilled at the "top tier" candidates, I might have considered looking at Paul. However, honest questions about some of his more controversial stances have yielded irrational answers and name-calling.
Additionally, I think that change MUST come from the bottom up, not from the president down. Constitutional changes like Paul proposes have to start at the local/civic levels and move upward.
In many ways, Paul has done a fabulous service to this nation in that he's caused people to think and to become reacquainted with the Constitution. For that, I am thrilled.
At any rate, thank you both for your well-reasoned thoughts about the Paul "movement" and a swift kick in the shorts for the Paul bearers...reluctant supporters not included.
by
S. Ford (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Saturday, January 5, 2008 at 2:12:52 PM
This thread is practically a tea party compared to most where Dr. Paul is discussed... If you're not one of the guilty parties, I've no problem with you at all. But don't pretend I'm not correct. Mr. Hirschhorn is merely presenting his analysis of the Caucus and the numbers and the Paulites are inflamed and raging at him. Hell, if they'd do a little homework or pay attention they'd know that he advocates a BOYCOTT of the two-party electorial system. He hasn't even a dog in the whole Dr. Paul deathmatch you guys bring forth after the slightest criticism of your boy! Take a look at Mr. Wade's recent article about Ron Paul and see how his supporters (including Mr. Wade) treat the opposition -namely the assault upon Ardee over there!
Gimme a break.
by
C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 565 comments)
on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 5:18:41 AM
I heard you speak in Boston...your views on 9-11 were fantastic.
The next day, I returned to Faneuil Hall where I listened to the Ron Paul supporters rally behind their candidate for their Boston Tea party. I never heard anything that was scary. What I heard was the Boston Tea Party Mentality that you cited in your 9-11 Truth Manifesto. They were even more fired up about the burning of our Constitutional Rights than the 9-11 truth movement was the day before based on the lies contained in the 9-11 commission report and our need for a new investigation.
"Riot is the language of the unheard." As both a 9-11 truther and a Ron Paul supporter, I can appreciate the righteous indignation in both camps, but I question the wisdom of demonizing either...whether you like these causes or not.
Read Mark Sashine's article here on OpEdNews.com..."Blessed be the 9-11 Truthers and others like them." It is the rugged American spirit Sashine cites that can be found in both camps that I most admire --and you should too.
by
sherry clark (22 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 62 comments)
on Saturday, January 5, 2008 at 11:38:25 AM
My father used to tell me: “Son, half of Americans have below average intelligence and average isn’t too good to begin with.”
That is the problem with democracy. The least qualified people control society. That is why the founders abhorred democracy and saw it as the least desirable form of government....tyranny by the masses. The democratization of our nation has mutated our republic into a kakistocracy.
Mr. Hirschhorn’s notion of “change” is simply in the name of the occupant of the White House. He is totally disinterested in changing the fundamental relationship of government to people. He is totally against changing the nature of our kakistocracy and returning it to a republican form of government where the power of government is limited by the constitution. To progressives (a code word of old-world thinkers who want to have a benevolent leader control their lives and provide for their welfare) the idea of being responsible for ones own wellbeing is frightful. The Clintons, Bushes Obama, Huckabee, Edwards, McCain, Romney, Thompson, Giuliani and Hunter all play to that fear and promise the less intelligent members of society: “Vote for me and I’ll provide for your needs. I’ll ignore the constitution and do what I know is good regardless of whose rights I must trample to do so. I will be a good ‘Decider’”
Many find such promises appealing and support those who make them. This explains the large numbers of votes garnered for the old-world style government candidates in the Iowa caucuses.
Remember, Adolph Hitler was elected Chancellor in Germany by the majority of voters. Did that make him good? Did that help the people of Germany or of the world for that matter?
Regrettably, the most compelling reason to NOT do something is often because the majority wants it. Too many Americans want to elect a new dictator (Decider) here in the USA. That is why Bush has not been removed from office. The Democrats want to take control so that they too can wield dictatorial power. The democrat candidates want to become the new “Decider.”
The three candidates who really represent change are Kucinich, Gravel and Paul, with Paul advocating a wholesale return to a republican form of government. It is no surprise that the military industrial complex including the MSM has gone to such extreme efforts to torpedo these individual’s efforts.
No Mister Hirschhorn, you have totally misstated the situation. Your understanding of politics is of a meager and unsatisfactory nature.
The ONLY candidate running as either a Democrat or Republican who truly represents fundimental change and has the ability to make a difference is Doctor Ron Paul. That is the ultimate truth of this election cycle. A voter can either vote for a same-old, same-old big-government worshiping candidates C, O, E, H, R, G, M or T or they can support a man who truly represents change, Ron Paul.
Don’t simply switch “Deciders” but empower a leader.
Liberty
by
Mark Bennett (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 47 comments)
on Saturday, January 5, 2008 at 12:03:44 PM
It's evident that you have not done any investigating on your own. Your statements, "He is a change-talker." and "His claim to fame is voting against legislation, not writing bold legislation to produce change..." clearly illustrate that fact. You're all opinion and no facts. I suggest you go to www.ronpaullibrary.com....... What a blowhard.
by
Cap'n Stubbs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 7 comments)
on Saturday, January 5, 2008 at 1:00:28 PM
It's evident that you have not done any investigating on your own. Your statements, "He is a change-talker." and "His claim to fame is voting against legislation, not writing bold legislation to produce change..." clearly illustrate that fact. You're all opinion and no facts. I suggest you go to www.ronpaullibrary.com....... What a blowhard.
by
Cap'n Stubbs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 7 comments)
on Saturday, January 5, 2008 at 1:01:35 PM
THE SAME OLD POINT THE FINGER AND THERE THREE POINTING AT YOU, IF NOW WHERE IS YOUR HERO ON THE BIG WHITE HORSE THAT GOING TO FIX THE MESS THIS COUNTRY IN.( WHO ) TELL US ALL SO WE CAN VOTE FOR HIM, IF NOT RON PAUL HAS MY VOTE,
by
RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 459 comments)
on Saturday, January 5, 2008 at 1:08:46 PM
