I can't think of anything more annoying than the gravitas of the Ron Paul supporters (heirs to the Swiftboating shills of the 2004 election). These folks Google Ron Paul's name three times a day (this will help them find this piece: 'Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul') and they'll comment on every web site that mentions him. If what is said is critical (they see it as derogatory) they will instantly become venomous and launch ad hominem attacks on the writer: kind of like what neo-cons did not that far back to 'libs' and John Kerry supporters. They go to every Internet presidential poll and vote for him repeatedly and then insist that America is madly in love with the man, because he won a poll they rigged by mobbing it.
Paul is a congressman from Texas who calls himself a Republican but is more of a neo-libertarian. Libertarianism, in a nutshell, is basically an extreme form of right wing old-style, Herbert Hoover Republicanism. It is kind of an untenable anachroniusm given the complexities of today's society and it almost borders on anarchism. It is similar to pre-1960's isolationist, laissez-faire Republicanism a-la-'John Birch' in equating being 'constitutionalist' with being as reactionary as possible in a strict homegrown sense, without the frills of foreign interventionism or domestic government intervention in establishing a social safety net for levelling inequalities sufferred by the average worker, the poor, the vulnerable and the elderly. Libertarianism is insists on loosening of Federal Government regulation and placing most government in the hands of localities and states. However, this minimalist view of the Federal Government ignrores important historical lessons learned over the last 200 years in which LACK of Federal Government oversight led to all kinds of national crises and abuses by the rich and the powerful. Libertarians don't think through the consequences of their position. They just shrug their shoulders, and say in a knee-jerk fashion that all power should be returned to localities and that the country would basically have to trust everyone in society to behave on their scouts honor to do the right thing and make things work out.
Paul constantly refers to the Constitution and acts as if his interpretation were the only true interpretation. He has a rabid, growing following of mainly displaced right-wingers and a growing number of previously 'non-involveds' who have had a sudden conversion to politics, and these Paulies all call themselves "independents" but in reality, if they've thought about anything at all, they still subscribe to most of the credos of the archaic, pre-neocon right wing: slogans like government paying as it goes and not running up any debt (in spite of the fact that since the inception of our Republic the government has had to use debt as a tool to get important things done). Like the right wingers of Reagan and pre-Reagan vintage, Paulites are pretty fervent still about 'cutting off welfare bums, shrinking the size of government' (codeword for shrinking government assistance to the the poor but no restrictions on government giveaways to the rich) and in they (Paul supporters) mostly are anti-abortion, near secessionists who love to ape Paul's calls to "restore the Constitution" without even knowing what the Constitution exactly is or what in it they want to restore.
But let's look at Ron Paul on the issues. Let's start with national security:
Paul says "Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women...We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution (OK, so far, so good. I can agree with just about all of that). The last sentence, however, puzzles me because Congress DID vote to authorize the War in Iraq. The real issue was the lying President who sold Congress on a phony idea (WMD's in the hands of Saddam).
Congress went along because it was largely Republican and the Democrats that were in it were-and still are-- asleep at the wheel mentally)....so the real problem was a lying President who sold a gullible country a bill of goods, not the President unilaterally declaring war without congressional approval.
And the point about the draft is a little strange because the only one to ever call for or talk about a draft, besides Ron Paul, is Charles Rangel; and Rangel did it purely for political reasons to prove his point that the War in Iraq is a war largely fought on the backs of the poor, and that the rich and middle class don't share proportionately the sacrifice.
So, for the record, Congress did vote on the War and rubber stamped it. And I believe Paul was serving at the time.
Note also every one of Paul's answers has the word "Constitution" in it.
He's against the Patriot Act, but doesn't mention that the Patriot Act actually has been used successfully in some cases to track down and find potential terrorist activity, and so far, it has proved to be less intrusive than Paul and many liberals have said it is.
I do agree with Paul on several issues -- immigration reform, banking reform and getting out of Iraq and tax relief, provided that the tax relief is fair and not just an abandonment of government tax regulations so that the poor are even moreso than now at the tender mercies of the richest segments of society which have benefited most from the Bush's phony 'tax relief' (tax cuts for the rich). In other words, being a libertarian, Paul is for just eliminating the current tax system but I don't know how he proposes to make up for the government's need for revenue to do its business. I guess his answer is eliminate most or all government programs and let there be a return to the 1890's when needs simply were not met and the government essentially didn't exist except as an enforcer for wealthy businessmen. His stand on eliminating Federal 'involvement' in many programs like Social Security and the Department of Education and his stance against Federal provision of disaster relief are ones, for example, that I'll never get past. But anyway, in the current state of affairs, I think our current oligarchs have had enough loosening of government regulation and more than enough 'tax relief'. It is the rest of us who need some of it now.
Now, all this said, I will have to say that I saw Dr. Paul on NBC's Meet the Press, and I was favorably impressed by his quick intelligence, basic honesty and correctness in about half of what he said; above all, about the abuses of our current corporate oligarchy and ruling politicos, and about the need for major reforms. That much I laud him on and agree with him heartily about that part of what he said. However, I found his answers about addressing the shortfalls that mass elimination of government programs would cause to be lacking in substance and viability. He really didn't have any good ideas about how to pick up the pieces if such major downsizing of Federal programs were attempted. He was, however, correct about the money that would be saved by bringing our troops home from overseas and dismantiling out worldwide empire overseas. But that wasn't enough to explain away the inadequacy of his positions on the need for Federal regulation to protect public safety and not kick people out in the street. He was right also in how he said if we don't do something about our current economic mess, we'll all be out in the street.
So, in my view, Dr. Paul is a mixed bag and no matter how much his noisy internet following grows and collects money, he will probably, in any case. not be allowed by the Establishment elite to get the Republican nomination. His anti-globalist stance will probably trigger an all out Establishment attack on him similar to the one suffered by Ross Perot back in the 1990's when he tried to upset their globalist apple cart. Ron Paul is a sign of the times: people are SICK of being oppressed by heavy handed, unresponsive and corrupt government. Ron Paul is still a relatively small-time candidate who will maybe get as many votes as Ross Perot, at the outside, or possibly about like Ralph Nader in a good year. He has a bit of an Internet recognition thing going but ask 100 or so average Americans on the street what they think of Ron Paul and you'll get 98 blank stares and the positions of all the candidates, Paul or anyone else, will be an occasion for head scratching. Some might have common ground with some of his positions (or his ghost-writing staffers) that the War is to be curtailed, the borders be to be secured, the government to be 'restored' to local control (whatever that means) and possibly, at the outside, even, among some anti-semite fringers, a froth-mouthed insistence that the Israel lobby's wings be clipped and 'Israel not be allowed (supposedly) to run the U.S.'.
But Ron Paulers will say, all of them, "but he's won every major poll after the debates on MSNBC, CNN, blah, blah, blah.."
My reply is: "Yeah, so what? These polls mean nothing. Does anyone think that other candidates have an e-mail list which they send out to their supporters with information on these votes, urging their supporters to vote? Of course not, because it means nothing. Look at any of the polls: At present, Ron Paul is carrying less than 10 percent of the electorate, and he might grow to 15 % and is not even a key force in the Republican primaries. In other words, his campaign is generating huge amounts of noise on the internet due to his shills, but he is not going to get far enough to become the Republican candidate. The Establishment elite will see to that.
It's nice that he has automaton supporters who bristle at every cross word said about their hero (believe me, I'm glad they're occupying themselves on the net), but what they will likely do is split the conservative side of the "independent" vote so that the net effect will be to do for the Republicans what 'Ralph Nader' did in 2000 for the Democrats: put the opposite party candidate over the top and into office.
I am a disabled man living in northern California who cares more about the future of our country than about party affiliation. I am distressed over the downward spiral in our social and political culture.
But if Paul is such a non-factor in the election why are so many articles being written about how he's a non-factor? Seems an odd way of dealing with someone who apparently doesn't have a chance in hell. Why even have an election? Apparently we don't need the whole convoluted process of listening to candidates and putting them through the rigors of public scrutiny and policy debate. I just want MSNBC/Fox/CNN to tell me who is going to win and I'll make my zombie march down to the polls and do as I'm told. Is that the America you want?
by
John Lee (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 10:21:07 AM
The author of this column has zero credibility, when he says "the Patriot Act has stopped terror and minimally affected our lives."
What cave has this person been living in. If he did a tiny bit of research he'd find that Bush's "CLAIMS" of thwarting terrorism are non-existent. The so called "terrorists" were either set up by FBI agents, or tortured into saying whatever their torturers wanted to stop the pain.
All of our phone records have been spied on by this government.
If the powers that be hired someone to write an article to stop the Ron Paul revolution, they'd hire someone to write the above essay.
This is not even thinly veiled propaganda. This essay is beneath contempt and an insult to the reader's intelligence.
Join the Ron Paul revolution !! It is unstoppable, which is why Rove is now targeting Ron Paul. Remember Karl Rove, architect of this oil war policy, and the dissolution of our civil and human rights?
Wake up folks, Ron Paul is the real thing. The author claims Paul's supporters are dissaffected voters, as if that is an insult. Hello? Most Americans gave up on the Republicrats because they are both corporate shills.
The GOP are absolute prostitutes. With the Democrats you have a slim glimmer of hope that the candidate might be for real.
However, neither the GOP or DEMS have lifted one finger to investigate 9/11 in any meaningful way. All thinking people who've done the least bit of research now know 9/11 was an inside job, and that these two wars were war crimes of the highest order, designed to steal oil in the case of Iraq, and secure an oil pipeline in the case of Afghanistan. Does anyone know who Karzai is (President of Afghanistan)? He's a former Unocal executive. He wears those Afghan robes now, but wore Armani suits before we placed him in power, the way the Republican Supreme Court PLACED GW in power in 2000.
Ron Paul is our only hope. Keep hope alive!!
by
Bill Douglas (68 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 12:59:40 PM
Meet the Press today was like that scene in "V for Vendetta"
Meet the Press today was like that scene in "V for Vendetta" when the hero commandeered the national TV station to call the government terrorists.
Did you see Ron Paul on Meet the Press today?
I have been waiting most of their life to hear these things said on corporate TV, and never dreamed it would be a Republican who'd say them.Ron Paul makes the Democrats look like rabid Republicans in comparison!! Even Kucinich isn't as revolutionary as Paul when it comes to ending American militarism worldwide. I've been a professional and volunteer Democratic activist for 25 years, and all those candidates pale in comparison to what Paul is saying regarding militarism and the danger of creeping American facism.
It was like that scene in "V for Vendetta" when the hero commandeered the national TV network, to speak truth to the people.
You can view the entire NBC interview below at these 2 links, and find the other 2 of the 4 part series there:
Ron Paul might be just what we need. So might Dennis Kucinich, Gravel, even John Edwards, any one other than so-called front-runners corporate media is shoving down our throats would be better. There is a reason 50% of the populace gave-up on our government over 3 generations ago and if anyone can come along and get those people back involved - watch out!The elite, as the author, Mr. Lorenz points out, haven't really focused their immense power of destruction on Paul yet. Paul hasn't had his Howard Dean "Scream" moment. Or if becomes a real threat I suggest he forgo taking any small airplane flights. He might want to think bus. Wellstone was an early threat that was brutally made an example of.
But the real obstacle will be the election fraud. I don't care how many people this so-called "Ron Paul Revolution" garners if every vote isn't counted you can kiss your revolution good-bye. And as of to date our election system is bad and getting worse. So before you start getting too excited ...
There has always been some degree of election fraud, but never on the scale of what we're witnessing today. It wouldn't matter if 90% of the people cast their vote for Paul, Kucinick, or whomever might be better than any one we have representing us today - they won't win, unless of course a miracle happens and we fix what has been systematically destroyed over the pass 30-odd years and perfected in the past seven.
So, unless you can implement a solution to election fraud before the 08' elections, I wouldn't be chilling any champagne.
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1262 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 9:37:48 PM
What I found interesting about your logic in this article was that you referred to all the other polls you did not 'believe' then proceeded to refer to some other polls in order to justify some claim on his validity.
Authorization is very different than declaring war.
You clearly lack the fundamental understanding of property rights ( a corollary of the right to your life ) when you speak about the patriot act. Regardless of how successful it is, it is still a violation of these rights. In other words, you can't have your cake and eat it too. So, which do you want? If you choose the latter, I can think of some fine upstanding regimes in which you will fit in perfectly.
by
Nim Nim (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 10:40:02 AM
...and the same for all the other fine upstanding politicians who've been working hard in our best interest!!! WEEEEEEEE!!!! YIPEE!!!!! The resuls of their hard work is everywhere, just look around, but especially it's in the portfolios of the top 1% of Americans who own/control half of this country. After all, if you're shrewd you get what you pay for.
(Obviously, pretty soon the Neocons will be buying Pepcid in bulk from Canadian online pharmacies.)
Woof-woof!
Some things never change:
"The price of ignorance towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men" -- Plato
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." -- H.L. Mencken
by
Co6aka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 68 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 10:59:42 AM
Transferring the power to make war over to the president is not the same as a declaration of war. And it is blatantly unconstitutional.
It would be nice to see some intelligent discussion of things like Austrian Economics. However, I think criticizing his supporters and arguing about the polls are a more effective means generating traffic and burying the real issues.
"Eventually the masses come to understand the schemes of their rulers. Then the cleverly concocted plans of inflation collapse. Whatever compliant government economists may have said, inflationism is not a monetary policy that can be considered as an alternative to a sound-money policy. It is at best a temporary expedient. The main problem of an inflationary policy is how to stop it before the masses have seen through their rulers' artifices. It is a display of considerable naivety to recommend openly a monetary system that can work only if its essential features are ignored by the public."
-- Ludwig von Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit
by
Sam Liberty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 11:14:05 AM
This article reminds me of that bloke who made the youtube video about leaving Britney alone! Its really amusing to read, you can almost see him stomping his feet “Enough about Ron Paul, I don’t want to hear any more – la, la, la, la, la!”. I’d dissect his article one bit at a time, but to tell you the truth - it’s not worth it. I’ll address one little gem though: “Libertarianism, in a nutshell, is basically an extreme form of right wing almost anarchism”, he, he, he. You see what I mean? Laughable. As I read on another post on this site – “It is better sometimes to keep your mouth shut and have people think that you may be a fool, than to open it and confirm this”! Clearly something the author of this masterpiece should consider.
by
Hilton Gray (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 11:16:15 AM
If Libertarianism is, as you claim, not what the author makes it out to be why not enlighten those of us who see it in a very negative light. Or perhaps you are another in a seemingly long line of quasi political sorts who support Dr. Paul for his apparent honesty, his anti war stance and because the choices are abysmal.
You left a gaping hole in your post in this regard, why not fill it.....( I doubt this poster will be back).
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 6:21:32 PM
While I agree that the article is a bit over the top, it is correct in one important respect; Note the number of first time posters. Apparently the Paulista cult is a reality as the author suggests. The worst thing is that most havent the faintest notion of how damaging to this nation a Libertarian political agenda would be.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 6:28:28 PM
Comment is flagged and has been reviewed by the editors -
Reason: Ad hominem
Editor's Message: You called the writer an idiot. If you can't discuss disagreement without name calling, don't say anything. Or better, spell out your disagreement civilly and we'll be happy to publish your comments.
I could write a "War and Peace" sized book on all of the stupidity contained in your assessment of Ron Paul and his supporters. Instead, I'll focus on one simple issue. You said, "Paul constantly refers to the Constitution and acts as if his interpretation were the only true interpretation."
The Constitution is written at a six grade level. Regarding the Federal Government's powers, Article 1, Section 8 very clearly spells out its restricted powers. The 10th Amendment reserves all other powers to the States, and to the People, respectively. Any attempt to "interpret" these two portions of the Constitution is an attempt to obfuscate the fact that all of the federal programs exceeding these clear limits (for which we are taxed to the hilt) are illegal. Your attempt at obfuscation only works on those who are too apathetic to educate themselves about Constitutional government. But, because of the acceleration of the growth of unconstitutional government as well as the erosion of our rights, many, many Americans have lost their apathy. Your target audience is rapidly shrinking. The rest of us see you for the un-American fool that you are.
Yes, un-American... because you don't believe in the rule of law - that which is the distinction between a Republic (which our Constitution provides to us) and a Democracy (mob rule). You'd rather ignore law in favor of the socialistic programs that you, as an individual, feel are "good". If these programs you feel are truly "the will of the people", then why not propose and support an amendment to the Constitution? If your program has enough support to pass the approval / ratification muster, then so be it. If not, you should be "American enough" to accept its defeat. But no... you'd rather ignore that whole part of the Constitution and take shots at those who respect it as the Supreme Law of the Land.
That makes you un-American. ...and you wonder why idiots like you are attacked by Ron Paul supporters. Pathetic. Simply pathetic!
by
Dan Druck (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 11:26:15 AM
I can see that my message has been flagged for editor review on the accused basis of it being an ad hominem attack.
Wikipedia defines an ad hominem as an: "argument against the man" consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim.
I'll resist the urge to point out the numerous ad hominems in Lorenz's article and focus on the accusation against my response. My "attack" is clearly on Lorenz's philosophy. It is impossible to separate Lorenz and those who share his views from that philosophy. If one believes his philosophy to be "un-American", then the holder of that philosophy cannot escape the connection.
by
Dan Druck (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 11:45:45 AM
no need to get technical here. You called names-- called the write an idiot. That's unacceptable. You have an intellect to argue, state your case and debate. Use it.
by
Rob Kall (762 articles, 3850 quicklinks, 321 diaries, 1643 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 12:21:17 PM
After re-reading my comment, I agree... calling Lorenz an idiot went beyond the boundaries of civil exchange. I've eliminated it from my response as reposted below. In all fairness, Lorenz's article set the tone in his second sentence when he referred to supporters of Ron Paul as "fuzz-heads". Apparently, the rules against ad hominem attacks only apply to those who post comments and not to the original authors who post in OpEdNews... an inequity that will not be unnoticed by the readers who come here.
______________
I could write a "War and Peace" sized book on all of the stupidity contained in your assessment of Ron Paul and his supporters. Instead, I'll focus on one simple issue. You said, "Paul constantly refers to the Constitution and acts as if his interpretation were the only true interpretation."
The Constitution is written at a six grade level. Regarding the Federal Government's powers, Article 1, Section 8 very clearly spells out its restricted powers. The 10th Amendment reserves all other powers to the States, and to the People, respectively. Any attempt to "interpret" these two portions of the Constitution is an attempt to obfuscate the fact that all of the federal programs exceeding these clear limits (for which we are taxed to the hilt) are illegal. Your attempt at obfuscation only works on those who are too apathetic to educate themselves about Constitutional government. But, because of the acceleration of the growth of unconstitutional government as well as the erosion of our rights, many, many Americans have lost their apathy. Your target audience is rapidly shrinking. The rest of us see you for the un-American fool that you are.
Yes, un-American... because you don't believe in the rule of law - that which is the distinction between a Republic (which our Constitution provides to us) and a Democracy (mob rule). You'd rather ignore law in favor of the socialistic programs that you, as an individual, feel are "good". If these programs you feel are truly "the will of the people", then why not propose and support an amendment to the Constitution? If your program has enough support to pass the approval / ratification muster, then so be it. If not, you should be "American enough" to accept its defeat. But no... you'd rather ignore that whole part of the Constitution and take shots at those who respect it as the Supreme Law of the Land.
That makes you un-American. ...and you wonder why you are attacked by Ron Paul supporters. Pathetic. Simply pathetic!
by
Dan Druck (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 1:50:12 PM
Yes, but those are the rules-make sure everyone follows them
I completely concur with your assessment. But in the spirit of fairness we must now flag everyone's comments who have labeled Ron Paul "crazy" or some other attack word.
by
R3VOLUTION R3VOLUTION (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 1:14:58 PM
So.. This comment is under review for "name calling" when the article that it comments upon STARTS OFF by name calling a "growing" (article's word, not mine) group of Americans?
Viva Censorship. This shows that there is no credibility or dialogue on this site.
by
Andrew Morrow (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 2:57:19 PM
The ulginess of Ron Paul detraction pieces is a sharp contrast with the beauty of citizens around the country becoming leaders in their community and engaging the political system.
Aside, I've noticed a few negative articles using the "neo-liberatarian" terms, this is misleading.
Ron Paul is not a member of the liberatian party. He is a conservative Republican who has served as such for the last 10 years in the House of Representatives. The "neo" label is more appropriate for the other canidates which all expouse the "neo-conservative" philosophy of radical foreign intervention.
Has the republican party has become so corrupt, that its most ethical members are now accused of belonging to other political parties?
by
Frank Mulligan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 11:53:39 AM
I didn't agree with everything Goldwater stood for, but he was vastly better than the GOP we see today, on personal liberty issues, and fiscal responsibility.
by
Bill Douglas (68 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 1:08:33 PM
I have had just no interest in politics at all for the last two elections.I remember thinking the only choice was to vote for the best of the worst and for the upcoming election was fearful it would be more of the same.My concern was we would be offered candidates Clinton and McCain?
Then I heard Obama give a televised speech.I thought to myself here is a great communicator and potential leader and started researching his positions.I was disappointed and told my mom, I dislike Hillary but she has more substance backing her views than Obama.
Then I ran across Ron Paul.It was like a wake up call.Had I really forgotten that the government belongs to us?I don’t feel like as a middle class American I have any voice whatsoever.Washington has become a millionaires club that is out of touch with American lives and certainly doesn’t feel like it belongs to we the people.Moreover we have somehow allowed ourselves to slip into a welfare state.Remember “Ask not what you’re country can do for you?”?I’ll bet each and every one reading this is wondering what our government is going to do for us regarding health care.
This healthcare issue is the point that really hit home with me.I don’t know if Dr. Paul specifically speaks of healthcare but it falls within his general premise; get the federal government out of our business and let free enterprise take its course.No more lobbying by the insurance and pharmaceutical companies.Let them win over the consumer through fair competition.Who knows, we could buy our medication from Canada or at least open up some competition on pricing.Perhaps we could even be offered a healthcare plan from Google or an overseas company like SAP.The point is we can do better in this area and many others including education and we don’t need the government telling us how.
What a simple and powerful message: Respect the Constitution.Our founding fathers were some very smart, insightful, forward thinking men and I would like to thank Dr. Paul for reminding me of this and for the wake up call.
I will gladly support this revolution.
by
Michael Edelen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 11:55:00 AM
