Ron Paul?
By Carl
I get the appeal of Ron Paul. It seems to transcend party lines... hell, in my liberal bastion of New York, it seems you can't spit for hitting a Ron Paul sign.
I admit, I am intrigued with some of his positions: For example, he's long been an advocate of repealing the income tax since, in his opinion, it's illegal (the 16th Amendment did not bestow upon Congress any new taxing abilities, according the the US Supreme Court, and the Constitution specifically forbids the direct taxation...you know what? It's Sunday. You don't need a policy wonk. If you want, read it here), and he favors the abolition of the Federal Reserve with a return to the gold standard, arguing that only the government should have the power to issue currency.
The Federal Reserve, true, is a quasi-private corporation.
He did vote against the invasion of Iraq, too.
The libertarian in me likes much of what he talks about. The liberal in me thinks the guy is a straw away from a broken camel. He's anti-choice, anti-UN, anti-NATO, anti-immigration, anti-gun control.
In other words, a libertarian of the Ayn Rand school, which makes him basically a nutcase.
I mean, the guy's chief of staff in Congress for a while, Lew Rockwell, argued AGAINST US participation in World War II...sixty years after the war ended!
What also makes me very leery of Paul's honesty is that, in his 1996 campaign for Congress, he raised the third highest amount of funds, behind Newt Gingrich and Bob Dornan, neither of whom had second thoughts about the ethics of selling themselves out for public office.
And it's pretty clear from some of the comments in his past newsletters that Ron Paul endorses racism. Given American's attention span, I'd be willing to bet that an awful lot of people who are fervently, full-throated Paul supporters might not remember these issues.
But here's the telling point:
Ron Paul is about Ron Paul. He won't be Republican party candidate. While he could be a Libertarian candidate, and has not ruled out an independent run, this all appears to be an ego-grab. Granted, in the course of that ego-boost, he's promoting a dialogue this country needs to have, one about our Constitution and our power structure.
But make no mistake about it: Ron Paul is not the answer to those problems.
(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)
I get the appeal of Ron Paul. It seems to transcend party lines... hell, in my liberal bastion of New York, it seems you can't spit for hitting a Ron Paul sign.
I admit, I am intrigued with some of his positions: For example, he's long been an advocate of repealing the income tax since, in his opinion, it's illegal (the 16th Amendment did not bestow upon Congress any new taxing abilities, according the the US Supreme Court, and the Constitution specifically forbids the direct taxation...you know what? It's Sunday. You don't need a policy wonk. If you want, read it here), and he favors the abolition of the Federal Reserve with a return to the gold standard, arguing that only the government should have the power to issue currency.
The Federal Reserve, true, is a quasi-private corporation.
He did vote against the invasion of Iraq, too.
The libertarian in me likes much of what he talks about. The liberal in me thinks the guy is a straw away from a broken camel. He's anti-choice, anti-UN, anti-NATO, anti-immigration, anti-gun control.
In other words, a libertarian of the Ayn Rand school, which makes him basically a nutcase.
I mean, the guy's chief of staff in Congress for a while, Lew Rockwell, argued AGAINST US participation in World War II...sixty years after the war ended!
What also makes me very leery of Paul's honesty is that, in his 1996 campaign for Congress, he raised the third highest amount of funds, behind Newt Gingrich and Bob Dornan, neither of whom had second thoughts about the ethics of selling themselves out for public office.
And it's pretty clear from some of the comments in his past newsletters that Ron Paul endorses racism. Given American's attention span, I'd be willing to bet that an awful lot of people who are fervently, full-throated Paul supporters might not remember these issues.
But here's the telling point:
How much the Paul campaign had snowballed on the Internet became evident last week when supporters independent of the campaign raised $4 million online and an additional $200,000 over the phone in a single day, a record among this year’s Republican candidates. There is even talk that Mr. Paul could influence the primary in New Hampshire, where he could draw votes from Senator John McCain of Arizona, who is trying to revive the independent persona that helped him win the state’s primary in 2000.
In an interview on Friday, Mr. Paul, 72, a retired physician and a grandfather, acknowledged that the influence of the Internet had surprised even him.
“We always knew it was supposed to be important,” he said of the Internet. “My idea was you had to have someone who was a super expert, who knew how to find people. But they found us.”
As for the record one-day fund-raising, he said, “I had nothing to do with it,” adding that he had so far neglected to thank the people responsible. (James Sugra, 28, of Huntington Beach, Calif., acting on his own, posted an online video proposing one big day of fund-raising; Trevor Lyman, 37, of Miami Beach, then independently created a site, www.thisnovember5th.com, that featured the video.)
Mr. Paul estimated that the one-day haul had brought “$10 million worth of free publicity.”
Ron Paul is about Ron Paul. He won't be Republican party candidate. While he could be a Libertarian candidate, and has not ruled out an independent run, this all appears to be an ego-grab. Granted, in the course of that ego-boost, he's promoting a dialogue this country needs to have, one about our Constitution and our power structure.
But make no mistake about it: Ron Paul is not the answer to those problems.
(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)
Labels: 2008 elections, Ron Paul
22 Comments:
Ron Paul is not a racist. Please do your homework, this has been debunked as the work of an aide for weeks, where have you been?
Better yet, listen to what Ron Paul actually has to say.
"ego-grab"? Ron Paul is the most humble public servant we have. Ron Paul is all about the Constitution, and his record proves it.
So my question for you is: Are you really this ignorant, or are you deliberately lying?
By FreedomJoyAdventure, at 9:27 AM
Wow.. another smear campaign with no basis in fact. You guys must really be desperate. Are you really that afraid that he might win? Hmmm...?
If you really want to know about Ron Paul and not all the smearing to try to falsely debase him, go to http://www.ronpaullibrary.org or the campaign site http://www.ronpaul2008.com and get the real FACTS.
By Anonymous, at 9:31 AM
Ron Paul "may cater to special intersts," "infringe on individual rights," and "raise taxes," eh?
Michael, have you done any research at all into this candidate?
Lobbyists don't even knock on his congressional office door because they know he can't be bought. He is the strongest defender of individual liberty in the House, and arguably the strongest congressman on this issue of the 20th and 21st centuries. And he has NEVER voted to raise taxes, not one time.
Remember, Michael: Google first, then blog. Not the other way around.
By Anonymous, at 11:42 AM
The racist articles were ghostwritten by a racist friend of Ron Paul. He did not reveal the ghostwriting until recently partly because he wanted to stick to the agreement of letting him write for him and also to protect his confidence. The writing is clearly not in his writing style anyways.
By Anonymous, at 1:03 PM
yeah man.. I have to agree. You're a dumbass alright.
By Anonymous, at 2:41 PM
I don't know if the man is racist or not, but I keep seeing this charge brought in various blogs with little to no concrete evidence. The link you provide doesn't provide that evidence.
I have read of some racial remarks he has made in the past, and they trouble me, but no more than the offensive remarks of most of the Republicans worry me.
The other issue I have is with the words "insane" and "crazy" being bandied about. I agree that I think many of his positions are unworkable, or would not be in our countries best interest, but if you subscribe to a strict constructionist ideology, then these positions are pretty much logical and consistent to that philosophy. I disagree with that philosophy, but I don't think insane is an appropriate word to describe it. I think "unwise" might work better.
I hope that Ron Paul at least comes in third in the primaries, if for no other reason than this will force the Republican Party (and to a lesser extent the Dems to) to face the fact that a large portion of the voting populace doesn't want the Iraq war to continue, doesn't want us continually sticking our nose in other country's business, and does want our civil liberties protected in deed and not just in word.
By Chance, at 3:23 PM
Those comments aren't even racist. They are politically-incorrect. Statistics actually back up the point of the comments.
White men cause a higher percentage of white collar crime. Oops, I must hate white people.
By Curtis, at 7:26 PM
Racist? Ah ha! I get it! You are playing the old "race card" trick -- Well now, no need to stop at that, how about labeling Paul an "anti-semitic white supremacist fascist Stalinist crazy loony anarchistic wierdo,etc." You know what, people like you make me more than ever determined to vote for Ron Paul.
By steppo, at 10:55 PM
The ghost writer for those comments made by Paul was his former Chief of Staff Lew Rockwell. We got in a heap of trouble because of those comments in Ron's 1996 Congressional Campaign. The liberal Austin and Houston media tore Ron up over those comments, as did his Democrat opponent Lefty Morris.
Is Ron a rascist? As his only Jewish staffer, I can say without equivocation, that personally I believe he is, but politically he's smart enough to know how to nuance his words, most of the time, to avoid that accusation straight out.
I think he's more motivated by anti-Semitism than anti-African Americanism. And oddly, he's seems somewhat anti-Hispanic, as well. (Even though his South Texas District has a very large Hispanic population, Paul has appointed only 1 Hispanic staffer in 8 years in office.)
But the main problem with Paul is that since 9/11 he's gone over to the dark side. He's become some sort of leftwinger populist America-hating non-interventionist. In the 1990s he ran as a basic South Texas George W. Bush Republican. Nowadays, he's closer to Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore.
He's an embarrassment to libertarians.
Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
1997-2003
CEO, MainstreamLibertarian.com
By Eric Dondero, at 8:15 AM
Ron Paul is not a racist. Please do your homework, this has been debunked as the work of an aide for weeks, where have you been?
Ten years after the fact. It's not like he didn't know this stuff was out there, Rich.
4Freedom said...
Wow.. another smear campaign with no basis in fact.
All of it sourced. If you don't like what your candidate did, then don't blame me, blame him.
Chance said...
I don't know if the man is racist or not, but I keep seeing this charge brought in various blogs with little to no concrete evidence. The link you provide doesn't provide that evidence.
Words said on someone's behalf that the person does not repudiate automatically count as coming from that person himself, particular when, ghostwritten or not, they were made over his signature.
Eric Dondero said...
The ghost writer for those comments made by Paul was his former Chief of Staff Lew Rockwell. We got in a heap of trouble because of those comments in Ron's 1996 Congressional Campaign. The liberal Austin and Houston media tore Ron up over those comments, as did his Democrat opponent Lefty Morris.
Ericm perhaps you can answer this: why did it take him until 2001 to repudiate the comments, half-heartedly, and only until a few weeks ago to come out full voice against them?
By Carl, at 8:54 AM
Ayn Rand is not a libertarian. She was fully against them from day one:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians
Don't associate nutjobs like Ron Paul with Ayn Rand. He himself knows that Ayn Rand is against him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjwuGHPilwI
By The Objectivist Club at UCI, at 2:37 PM
OC,
Like it or not, Objectivism is generally viewed as Libertarian. I get the distinction, but it's clear that Ron Paul incorporated a lot of Rand into his thinking.
By Carl, at 5:14 PM
Hahaha more Ron Paul haters. Go do some real research and you will see that Ron Paul is the only way to restore liberty in this country.
Ron Paul!! Ron Paul!!!
By Anonymous, at 5:18 PM
You conclude that Ron Paul accepts money from special interests because he raised a lot of money in 1996, but you do not question the broad-based support that allowed him to receive over 4m in a day. The same forces were acting in both cases.
You declare him a nutcase based on simplified or deliberately altered versions of his views: he is not anti-choice, he would allow states to set abortion rules; he is not anti-gun control, he would allow states to set gun laws; he is not anti-immigration, he would implement fairer immigration quotas- but in order for immigration quotas to mean anything, the entry points into the country must be secure. He is rational and realistic about these views and does not expect to implement them without compromise.
You conclude by declaiming Paul's campaign an 'ego-grab.' You seem to have concluded that because there is no possibility of Paul winning, he must be running to stroke his own ego. Putting aside the untrue notion that Paul cannot win, you at least concede that he is promoting a dialogue that this country is in dire need of.
While the notion of promoting this dialogue is admirable, you are wrong here. Paul is running to become president and address these issues directly, not to use a campaign platform to talk about them.
First they ignore you.
Then, they laugh at you.
Then, they fight you.
Then you win.
By Anonymous, at 3:57 PM
wow, you really have no clue. please do some research next time before writing an article.
By Anonymous, at 5:10 PM
If you want to convince people that Ron Paul is not a viable candidate, then you will have to do better than insult him by calling him a nut case. And you will have to do far better than make a claim (anti-choice, anti-gun control, etc) without backing it up with some hard facts.
By Anonymous, at 9:49 AM
You conclude that Ron Paul accepts money from special interests because he raised a lot of money in 1996, but you do not question the broad-based support that allowed him to receive over 4m in a day.
PT Barnum said it best: There's a sucker born every minute.
Suckers!
By Carl, at 5:04 PM
http://lamented.createmyboard.com/catharticlament-forum-f1/who-is-ron-paul-t6.htm
By Anonymous, at 11:59 PM
Yep. Ron Paul-still racist:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/4/151735/850/188/417817
By Anonymous, at 4:25 AM
I'm sure you've gotten plenty of comments about this already, but I just want to weigh in myself and tell you (with all due respect) that I don't believe your characterization of Ron Paul is fair. In fact, the caption on the image above seems to describe the exact *opposite* of Ron Paul! Please do some research on Ron Paul if you don't understand his positions. If you do, I think you will see how absurd it is to assert that Ron Paul caters to special interests or that he wants to take away individual liberties. He is the only candidate (running in either party) who wants to return our civil liberties to us, protect our country, turn away the special interests and work for the american people, and withdraw our troops from Iraq, Afghanistan, and every other country that we are currently occupying. Please don't accuse Ron Paul of doing the very same things that he has stood up bravely against. He has taken all sorts of insults and abuse because of his principled stance against all the things you accuse him of doing himself!
By Nate Glenn, at 11:13 PM
Check out this new Christian band that just released their first album.
From what I heard on the samples site, they sound really good.
Introducing the new Christian National Anthem: Guns & Jesus.
http://ccrg.info/cas.htm
Tell All!!!
By Anonymous, at 11:18 PM
sorry sir but he may be pro-life but he will not abolish abortion
he is a libertarian in republican's clothing
By Marjan, at 11:03 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home