Viva the Ron Paul Revolution!
Guest Post by Morbo
Like noxious bugs swarming over a crumbling tenement, followers of Ron Paul have invaded the blogosphere.
Their target is anyone who dares to criticize their hero. Bloggers have dealt with them in various ways. Some have tried banning them outright. Others allow readers to engage them in back-and-forth debates that can easily take a thread to several hundred responses.
I used to find the Paulites annoying, but recently I had a revelation: Far from being scorned, Paul’s rabid fans should be welcomed and encouraged. We should do everything we can to make certain they keep pushing their man, sending him money and moving Paul from the second tier into the first.
Here’s why: While I’m not one to believe Zogby “interactive” polls that show Hillary Clinton losing to the likes of Fred Thompson, I do believe she has some electability issues. But there’s one Republican candidate I know Clinton would make complete and utter mincemeat of even with one arm of her pantsuit tied behind her back. That candidate is Ron Paul.
Far from trying to stop Paul from getting the Republican nomination, we should be doing all we can to bring it on. Think of it: The GOP nominates a dumpy, uncharismatic paleo-con who wants to abolish Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the Postal Service, public education and numerous other public services, a guy who is lousy on the stump (yes, I’ve heard him), whose economic theory comes straight out of the 19th Century and who flirts with “Christian nation” claptrap to boot.
Imagine how much fun we’ll have when Clinton points out that “Dr. No,” who supposedly takes the bold stand of opposing government spending, is really just a hypocrite who immediately becomes “Dr. Yes” when it comes to funneling federal pork to his own district.
Visualize Clinton and Paul in a one-on-one debate. Imagine Clinton outlining the complexities of the United States finding its place in the modern global economy while Paul demands a return to the gold standard.
Imagine listening to him explain how a doctor should be sent to prison for performing an abortion. Imagine Paul trying to explain how the United States will lead the world once it has left the United Nations. Enjoy Clinton’s response when Paul asserts, as his website states, that federal environmental protection laws should be pushed aside because “individuals, businesses, localities, and states must be free to negotiate environmental standards.” (We all know pollution scrupulously respects geographic boundaries.)
And if Clinton does not get the nomination, I’m confident that Barack Obama, John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, et al could easily demolish Paul in a blowout the likes of which this nation has not seen since the Reagan-Mondale race. Heck, I think even Dennis Kucinich could flatten Paul — that is, if they’re not on the same ticket.
So to all you Paulites out there, I can only say keep at it. Keep sending your man big checks. Keep passing out that literature. Get your people to those caucuses and primaries. Stick him up on You Tube and tell all your Republican friends to climb aboard the Ron Paul Express.
And don’t say it’s impossible, that Paul will never get the Republican nomination. That’s defeatist talk. This race is wide open, and Paul has recently shown an impressive ability to raise lots of money. Remember, as recently as three weeks ago people were saying Mike Huckabee was finished. And if the GOP won’t give Paul the nod, the only principled thing for him to do is run as an independent.
So go, Ron, go! We progressives are excited about the possibility of regaining the White House (not to mention the possibility of electing the first woman or African-American president). To elect that president by a landslide would make it all the more special. Please, Ron Paul supporters, do what you can to help us.
Although I am sorely tempted to accuse you of utter madness, Morbo (with, perhaps, a healthy dose of blasphemous heresy on the side), the idea of the “quasi-libertarian fringe” blowing their entire fiduciary wad on a run at the GOPer primary leaves me with the warm-&-fuzzy knowledge that they’d be absolutely broke—and, quite likely, forever-and-a-day in debt up to their protolithic, deeply-recessed foreheads—and completely unable to mount a credible independent run.
Be careful of what you wish for, Morbo.
Repubs:Paul 08 :: Dems:Nader 00
They’re still annoying especially when all their arguments are Manchurian Candidate style brainwashing responses to reasonsed questions (”Gold Standard! No income taxes! Superhighway to Hell! etc.)
The only reason I mildly liked Ron Paul was because of his anti-war stance.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” — Mahatma Gandhi
Ron Paul is so wacky, we don’t need him having a national mouthpiece to spout his ideas to the country (and a mainstrean media, which will claim it’s trying to be “fair,” speaking about those ideas in a tone, and without thoughtful criticism, as if it’s all well and good), even as a losing candidate.
I don’t think the guy is really anti-war, either; I think he’s a really right-wing person who is trying to trade on a gimmick (for him) issue, to gain some national notoriety.
Fuck, I’ll take a “Manchurian Candidate” as you call Dr. Paul, Former Dan, over the insanity of the likes of those candidates who cast their vote in favor of the brainwashing of the “Patriot” Act.
Who knew that “progressives” were such staunch supporters of the “Patriot” Act and the Global War On a Psychological State.
Vote Kucinich or Paul if you oppose the “Patriot” Act.
let’s go for it, pal. great plan!
I don’t think the guy is really anti-war, either; I think he’s a really right-wing person who is trying to trade on a gimmick (for him) issue, to gain some national notoriety.
What a retarded conspiracy theory, Swan. In his ten years in Congress, Dr. Paul has a consistent record of non-interventionism.
But believe whatever you want if it makes you more comfortable casting your vote for a pro-Patriot Act candidate.
Morbo -
You hurt your cause by posting something like this. You’ll soon have Paul supporters swarming the post to rebut you when they could be doing more useful things like donating money to Paul. Or posting signs on the highway. Or whatever else Paul supporters might be doing to help their Messiah on his road to victory.
Trolling the Paul supporters only distracts them from their mission.
JKap: And every TV preacher who bilks poor old ladies out of millions has a consistent record of saying he’s a believer in God.
Just sayin.’
No JKAP, his supporters are the mindless brainwashed Manchurian Candidates. And no I’m no fan of the Patriot act either. This is what pisses me off. Why do you Paultards (tm Wonkette) assume that if you’re against Ron Paul that you love the Patriot act?
The ideal world for Ron Paul supporters is Somalia. No regs. Free market. No gun control. And a weak central gov. Look at how successful Somalia is.
Now that you have seen the light,
we have passed the message not to torment you any further.
So Long and Thanks for All the FIche!
Ron Paul rEVOLution
Whaaaa! Sorry if the people trying to save the country are making your internet experience unpleasant. It must be horrible. You are either stupid or a liar mojo. Get used to it, Ron Paul supporters are everywhere even outside your crumbling tenement.
Ron Paul=limits and dirt
Other Candidates=power and poop
. . . They both suck.
He’s just a bit better than the power-hungry, ego-centric individuals scrambling like rats to office. All the candidates are creepy as hell, but Paul knows of limits and understanding. The “ding ding ding” sound effect goes to him.
Hi Morbo,
Why wait? Why not encourage the “Progressives” to support a one on one debate with Dr. Ron Paul now? I feel certain Clinton’s duplicit nature would lack the wisdom or understanding to debate Ron Paul with nearly 65% of the topics our nation faces. Her answer to health care was defeated years ago, yet she seeks a new round in the ring. No, Clinton would prefer a more equal to oppose her someone like McCain who has a near equal record as Clinton does regarding the war. Rudy will easily be beat by Hillary and so will Mitt.
I would agree the recent Zogby polls are incorrect in regard to most of the GOP beating Clinton. Poll’s can be very manipulative I think to study the real issues we would want to find out how Zogby obtained the data. If we can’t trust electronic voting machines then why should we trust blind numbers without data to support polls? It’s been proven and confirmed by Zogby that they have a special pool of participates with can be used for various reasons. It would also be valuable to note who paid for the poll and if it wasn’t paid by a second party then was it somehow a special favor for the GOP?
In a recent blind Poll it clearly shows Ron Paul in first place when accounting all votes but they stated Rudy won as the headlines but if you read the last paragraph it clearly stated Paul won by the largest margin with combined parties.
Take a moment to review this link at zogby:
http://www.zogby.com/News/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1391
It clearly states:
Ron Paul 33%
Giulianai 19%
Romney 15%
Thompson 13%
According to this poll and the fact that Ron Paul has won the largest number of GOP sponsored straw polls clearly shows he can obtain the nomination.
May I suggest that every citizen and political party member actual read the Constitution and find out what is allowed and not allowed by our government. Both parties have failed the constitution. Our nation will only flourish when we return to the rule of law and abolish undefined departments without hurting the current generation of recipients of Social Security and other departments. Paul never supported hurting the poor but rather changes to effect over time. Of course we can all benefit without next paycheck’s with the elimination of the IRS righ away. Paul’s understanding of the “Inflation tax” is supported by the left and the right.
As a long term member of the GOP I will only support a limited government president and oppose the current GOP movement to police the world while at the same time hurting our nations future.
Is it possible the “Progressives” have studied the issues and discovered that Ron Paul is the greatest threat of beating Hillary or any other democratic candidate? I would confirm many have. We only need to notice the increase attacks from the left against Ron Paul to conclude the answer.
Again take the time to support a pre-debate with Ron Paul vs. Hillary. I’m sure Ron would accept the challenge will Hillary? I doubt it!
“Why do you Paultards (tm Wonkette) assume that if you’re against Ron Paul that you love the Patriot act?”
Duh, because all the other candidates are in favor of the patriot act.
Invaded the blogosphere? Haha. If we just now invaded, how come all your base are belong to us? Anti-RP pieces rarely leave a blogroll that consists of maybe two dozen crap sites. It’s you fools who are late to the party.
Dr. Paul is probably the only Republican who can flatten Clinton. He was right on the war while Hillary is still wrong. Only leftist-socialists would be turned off by Dr. Paul’s small government pro-Constitution message and no Republican would get them anyway.
Former Dan,
I see that you took the liberty to personally insult me (”Paultard”). That speaks volumes about the relevance of your arguments.
I hear “progressives” everyday complaining about the proto-fascist dictatorship in America. Yet, most, it would seem, have given their support to Pro-Patriot Act candidates.
The “Democratic” majority in Congreess continues to stand idly by as fascism is enthroned in America. But I’m still told that there is a mysterious difference today between D and R that reaffirms the integrity of our Constitutional Republic.
Well, I REFUSE to stand idly by while fascism is enthroned. I will not support a candidate who has favor(s)(ed) the unconstitutional Patriot Act or the continuation of the immoral, unconstitutional military “conflicts” (undeclared wars) in Iraq/n and Afghanistan, American Imperialism (such as the 100,000 troops stationed in Japan and South Korea), the Global War of Orwellian Truth, or the Plenipotentiary Executive.
Are these considered “conspiracy theories” here in 1984?
As I’ve said before, I voted for Nader. So, somehow this is all of my fault.
And if you believe that the free exercise of our representative democracy is the cause of fascism in America, then I guess you and I have different loyalties.
I think you should check your facts along with your drug intake. Polls show Paul is the only one who can beat Clinton. I find it a shame that anyone can spread lies and not be held accountable. Maybe you’ll see the light after you research what Ron Paul stand for.
I would like to help explain why Paul polls are constantly lower than what his fundraising and supporters would expect.
Most of the media and polling companies get their list of people they call from previous voting years’ voter registrations. And if youve been to these meetups, youll notice almost none of Ron Pauls supporters were registered voting republicans last voting cycle. We are in for a big suprise soon as these early states’ results come in.
“So to all you Paulites out there, I can only say keep at it. Keep sending your man big checks. Keep passing out that literature. Get your people to those caucuses and primaries. Stick him up on You Tube and tell all your Republican friends to climb aboard the Ron Paul Express.”
Don’t worry, we will. The only way we can win the GOP nomination is to attract lots of different people to our candidate of choice We’ll keep on getting military members, independents, and even Democrats to support our man Ron Paul. When he gets the nomination, we’ll then use those same supporters, plus the Republican base (who would rather die than elect anyone with the last name Clinton) to destroy Hillary Clinton.
As for a debate between the two, I can just hear Dr. Paul “Absolutely I accept a debate with Hillary.”
Please make your plan a reality.
Ron Paul would beat Hillary in the general election so badly it would be shameful for Hillary.
Ron Paul has a much stronger stance on the war than Hillary does.
Hillary is completely out-classed by Ron Paul when it comes to economics.
Ron Paul has integrity, honesty, and consistency. Hillary has pandering, scandal, lies, and no integrity. Hillary is a junkyard dog of a politician. This is why people hate her.
Personal libery, economic liberty, individual rights, personal responsibility, financial soundness, and privacy are the message given by Congressman Paul.
Freedom is popular. Thank you for helping us in the primary. Would suck to be you in the general election.
Correction: Congressman Paul has served ten terms in the House.
Ron Paul will not be nominated by the GOP. If he runs as a third-party candidate, he’ll do about as well as John Anderson in 1980. Republicans will then claim they lost only because of his candidacy and that the country’s Democratic president is “accidental.” (They’ll say this even if the Democrat actually won 50% plus of the vote. Such is the way of these things.) By the time of the next election, Paul will be forgotten.
Fools, the revolution will take out both the neo-cons and the progressives. Both parties have become too full of themselves and no longer resonate with the larger society. The Silenced Majority is finding its voice and its shouting for life, liberty, and freedom to pursue their own lives without government interference or meddling. Get out of our wallets, get off our land, get out of our homes, get out of our bedrooms, and mind your own business as we will ours.
I endorse this plan.
Everyone that wants a Democrat to win should do everything in their power to make sure Ron Paul gets the Republican nomination.
They should put up signs, donate money to the blimp fund, and give on December 16th to boost his moneybomb numbers. They should even vote for him in the primary if they live in an open primary state.
I can not see how this could possibly backfire.
Guess Who:
They voted to give Bush a blank cheque to do the people of Iraq.
They voted for the Patriot Act, aka. a blank cheque to do the people of America.
They have promised to keep troops in Iraq past 2013.
One more important question……Which one is more likely to bomb IRAN, Hillary Clinton or Ron Paul?? Tell the truth now.
I find it interesting to see all the jabs back and forth. First a disclaimer: I am not a Ron Paul supporter. Having said that, doesn’t mean that everything Ron Paul says is automatically wrong.
Every candidate has something I support and every candidate has certain things I disagree with. Certain candidates have a certain stance that would not allow me to vote for them on principal, and certain candidates have certain traits, I do not like but am willing to overlook because of the big picture.
As a progressive I ‘try’ to keep an open mind. I’m not perfect, and certainly admit to having opinions and being biased on a variety of topics, hence the word ‘trying’ to keep an open mind.
Everybody seems to be laughing off Ron Paul’s “return to the gold standard” I went and read one of his transcribed speeches, when he claims that the US dollar is losing its value, I think he is exactly right. Now does that mean that I agree with him to return to the gold standard? No… but it sure is nice to see someone bringing up the fact that the US dollar value in relation to other currencies is at its lowest in the history of the United States. As a country (courtesy of the Bush administration) we have given our power to other countries. Several countries hold enough debt in US dollars that they theoretically could buy several of the largest companies in the US. The Euro may not have the world volume usage compared to the dollar, but rest assured that it is growing rather rapidly. What will happen when OPEC decides to couple their oil sales to Euro’s instead of the almighty dollar? When Ron Paul starts including those points in stump speeches, about the dollar weakness, more people will start paying attention. The solution is that we need to strengthen the US dollar by addressing our budget deficit, to avoid the dire consequences of a collapsing dollar. According to Ron Paul, coupling the dollar to gold would solve that problem. I tend to disagree, but at least he’s bringing up the subject, and I applaud him for that.
Maybe the progressive candidates can build upon some of Ron Paul’s ideas by expanding on them instead of attacking them, or dismissing them outright.
The back and forth regarding Ron Paul being anti war or pro war. Ron Paul strictly looks at it from a constitutional perspective. Congress has the authority to declare war, not the president. –> Ron Paul is against the Iraq war for different reasons than the Democrats are.
I could use several other Ron Paul ideas as examples, but I would urge everybody to at least go and read what he says before dismissing it out right.
JKap,
If I disagree with you, it means I support fascism? Isn’t that like “if you don’t support Bush and the war, you support the islamic terrorists?” I know you have more nuance than that. We’re all angry, we’re all frustrated, and we all want habeas corpus restored.
Yes, us crazy [Paulbots / Ronulans / Paultards / whatever idiotic label you guys come up with] are far too irrationally defensive and not open to other viewpoints when we don’t openly embrace the average Ron Paul hit piece, that seems to revolve around the central premise “Ron Paul is a crazy neo-nazi!”
70% of American citizens want us out of Iraq.
Dr. Paul was one of the very few in Washington to realize the folly of invading Iraq and had the courage to speak out. So maybe we should be listening to him now:
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com
Video a Liberal Re-Thinks Ron Paul:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DueIGWpXjrU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA
Jen F, don’t bother debating with JKap. He somehow got the notion that the best way to win people over for Paul is to insult them.
Which is actually ashame, because Ron Paul has at least one very important point to make–and we as progressives should be intellectually honest enough to observe that he makes it more clearly than any of our candidates.
That point: it’s untenable, if not impossible, to preserve a Republican at home while pursuing Empire abroad. I think Obama and some of the Dems get this, but for whatever reason are too cowed to say so. I respect Paul for his bravery and clarity on this point–wrong though he is about so many other things.
I’ve taken shots at Paul largely because his cult followers, like JKap, are so intensely annoying–though I also think Libertarianism is the the Never-neverland of political philosophy, and Paul is Peter Pan. You can’t build a better America by dismantling the government–whether it’s Paul, who’s probably well intentioned about doing this, or Grover Norquist, who clearly isn’t.
Rather, you need to reassert democratic control and managerial competence over that government. I support Obama, and I’d be almost as happy to see Edwards or Dodd somehow win, because I think that’s their idea too. I deplore Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation because she seems to think Government by Interest Group is just swell, and merely seeks to replace one gang of crony capitalists wearing Elephant pins with another wearing Donkeys.
Dammit–I meant to write “to preserve a Republic at home while pursuing Empire abroad.” I apologize for not Previewing.
It’s still a pretty damn strong point
Imagine an intelligent man with 8 years Vice Presidential experience debates some guy who needs all his lines fed to him? What could go wrong?
Ron Paul - The $20 Million Man
http://ronpaulnewsblg.blogspot.com/2007/12/ron-paul-20-million-man-by-alex-hammer.html
no one from the left even dared to attack my earlier statement….. It only confirms the far left is afraid of Ron Paul and not afraid of any other GOP member. If not review my earlier post.
Interesting that for some the desire to return America to the lawful Constitutional Republic of the pre-Clinton/Bush regimes equals a return to “Somalia” like conditions. I suppose a return to middle-class American values represents a total hell for someone like yourself.
Do you realize that the vote was denied women for many years with a main reason being fear that their inferior minds would force them to only vote for charismatic and attractive candidates? In your shallow sound-bite world I guess this problem affects both sexes.
Ron Paul has given these news blogs a gift horse in web traffic. The more intellectually dishonest the article, the more traffic they get. Lots of trolls popping up out there.
The Dept of Education doesn’t equal public education. Paul was taking about very late term abortions. About funneling federal pork you should read your own links or at least honestly represent them. Paul is a student of economics, perhaps his view is over your head. Pollution is a property rights issues, polluters now have government blessings.
“(not to mention the possibility of electing the first woman or African-American president).”
You’re a racist and a sexist as well or at least value color and gender over qualification.
“a guy who is lousy on the stump (yes, I’ve heard him),”
Paul is brilliant on the stump when allowed to express his ideas. If you’re waiting for him to promise government treats on the backs of your fellow free persons you’ll be waiting a long time.
Why do so many of these “progressives” yearn for the status quo? Perhaps they consider the nanny state “progress”.
“Ron Paul strictly looks at it from a constitutional perspective. Congress has the authority to declare war, not the president.
An an economical perspective, a moral perspective and a foreign policy perspective.
I am wallowing in your mud and drowning in your shallowness.
Re: Kyle @ #25
Ron Paul will not be nominated by the GOP.
There ya have it. You just saved us all a lot of trouble, Kyle. Thanks.
Now, we can simply rely on political “observers” like The Carpetbagger and yourself who can articulate which candidates are worthy of our votes and which candidates are not “mainstream.”
Of course, we’ll also rely on, and political observers may put a great deal of trust in, our quasi-representative democracy, which has been completely corrupted and circumvented by our Corporate Military Industrial Media , the SCLM that many of you in the “Reality-Based Community” place so much faith in to tell you even half of the truth and to tell us all who to vote for (except for the 50% of Americans who do not vote, that is).
That on average 50% of Americans do not vote should cast serious doubts in the minds of rational, thinking people about the legitimacy and solvency of the two-party system that is portrayed as a representative democracy. But to suggest that the alleged incrementalism of the two-party system that Rudolf W. Giuliani says “has served us well” is to acquiesce, somehow, to the notion that doing the same thing over and over again will consistently yield different results. Many knowledgeable people call that insanity.
The Patriot Act is what I call “insanity” and “nutty” and “kooky” and “fringe,” but apparently it is not much of an insult to the Liberty of “progressives” who continue to put ideology and political solidarity ahead of the integrity of what constitutes the American Way of Life, the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and the Constitutional Republic that is meant to protect our Liberty and Freedoms above all other interests.
It is apparently more important to castigate and denigrate me, because I maintain a diverging and dissenting viewpoint from what is labeled as mainstream and for believing passionately in the principles and standards that I do not refrain from expressing, than to have an open, honest and respectful discourse about the concerns of myself and in fact many of you and how they relate in an intrinsic and real way to the election of the office of the Presidency and to the role of the U.S. President. Instead the same logic is not always applied with regard to the mere democratic exchange of ideas as opposed to the adherence to ideology and political solidarity and political calculation.
I’ll just call it Fractionalized Ideological Solidarity and Trigonometry (FIST) in honor of the Orwellian “Fractional Reserve Banking” of the “quasi” private Federal Reserve Banking cartel. One need not a degree in Political Science to recognize the marketplace place of lies that has replaced the marketplace of ideas by the likes of the Fourth Estate, Fourth Branch Cheney, and what is only not in name, the Fourth Reich.
Like I say, too bad there wasn’t an opposition party in Congress to put a check on the First American Dictatorship. But that requires that our elected representatives acted as stewards of The People. Nevermind.
Like the Carpetbagger says, Hillary is “a tremendous candidate.”
According to this poll and the fact that Ron Paul has won the largest number of GOP sponsored straw polls clearly shows he can obtain the nomination. — Darel
Straw polls are all about who can stuff them the best, and Ron Paul fans have been rabidly stuffing every poll they can find.
You use straw polls and “bio survey polls” which do not paint an accurate picture of reality to pretend that Paul is doing well.
no one from the left even dared to attack my earlier statement….. It only confirms the far left is afraid of Ron Paul and not afraid of any other GOP member. If not review my earlier post. — Darel
You’re so full of yourself it’s breathtaking.
Morbo is right on the money, a Ron Paul nomination is the best thing imaginable that could happen for the democrats, and though it’ll never happen, I’ll still hope it does.
Oh it would be a blowout. Ron Paul would win huge. Ron Paul the only true ant-war canddiate who voted against the Iraq war. He knew then what Hillary didn’t. And would leave Iraq now where Hillary would stay. Would get the far left & far right since he voted against the Patriot Act and Hillary voted for it. Would get the Pro-Life group. Would get the anti-amnesty demographic which is large. Ron Paul is really the only Republican that could beat the Democrats since he stands for the Constitution and freedom and the others stand for the staus quo.
You probably would vote for Ron Paul too because you must be smoking something to write that article and Ron Paul would legalize it for you so you wouldn’t have to hide behind closed doors to practice your favorite freedom of expression.
Paul’s merits or lack thereof aside, the point I think everyone is missing here is that *anyone* the Republicans could conceivably nominate probably would run a competitive race against Hillary Clinton. She’s sufficiently detested in this country that the corpse of Strom Thurmond could get 45 percent against her.
That said, the two candidates on the Republican side whom I think would have the most potential to either peel off or demobilize liberals in a race against Clinton are Paul–who is, like it or not, a huge longshot to win the Republican nomination (his online followers are about as different from the faith-based, war-fetishizing “base” of the Republican Party as can be)–and Huckabee, if he could somehow muzzle his own theocratic inclinations (a big “if,” admittedly, since Christianism is the only horse he can ride to the nomination in the first place).
Wow. It looks like JKAP is getting upset.
What makes people think that America is a true democracy? There is nothing democratic about a 2-party system that has the 2 parties bickering with each other and ONLY agreeing to one thing: do not allow any other parties to emerge and challenge either one of us.
Here in Oregon we had Senator Westlund considering a run for governor. Granted he was a registered republican before declaring himself an independent. After dropping his bid for the governor he became a democrat.
What made it hard for him is the fact that the legislators passed a bi-partisan bill dictating that you could not sign the petition in order to get Westlund on the ballot if you intended to vote in the primaries. In effect, the Democrats, as well as the Republicans wanted to make it as hard as possible for an independent to be able to get on the ballot. A lot of people signed his petition, but didn’t realize their signature was void simply for sending in their ballot when voting for their party candidate in the primaries.
What are Democrats and Republicans afraid of? Why do they mount numerous roadblocks to make it pretty near impossible for an candidate not associated to the D’s or R’s to make a valid run?
Before we start ’spreading’ democracy all over the world, we should look inward. In Europe they have true democratic elections, with multiple parties to chose from, and coalitions to be formed.
The Bush administrations idea of democracy has worked out great:
USA: Supreme Court picks president despite popular vote against the candidate.
and they wonder why the following countries followed their lead….
Lebanon: Hizbollah victory
Palestine: Hamas victory
Iraq: Sunni tribalism
Afghanistan: Kabul city state surrounded by warlords.
Pakistan: don’t like the results, declare martial law.
All perfect examples of how the Bush administration feels democracy should work.
The 2-party system restriction is the reason why you see:
Ron Paul, as a libertarian, running in the Republican primary.
Rudy, as a fascist, running in the Republican primary.
Huckabee, as a christian mullah, running in the Republican primary.
Tancredo, as an isolationist, running in the Republican primary.
Brownback, as a christian conservative, formerly running in the Republican primary.
Fred, as a lazy lobbyist, running in the Republican primary.
Romney, as a liberal corporatist, running in the Republican primary.
McCain, as a Republican, running in the Republican primary.
You get the idea…. It would be so much better if the ‘BIG tent’ was split up in their representative parties, and then after the elections they can form an alliance to work together, or not, but at least everybody would know where they stand.
All the above candidates hide behind the old true republican ideals without actually believing in them. Talk about being confusing for the uneducated ‘das base’
I guess politics is a rough game, and I really don’t agree with everything Ron Paul believes, but the comments on this site astound me. I’m an American, I can read the Constitution, I can see what’s been happening the last six years (and even before) and it scares me. I’m scared because I don’t want to live in New Europe, I don’t want to live in Amexica, and I don’t want to live in New Rome. I want to live in a Freedom-loving Republic called America. Where do you want to live Mr. Carpetbagger?
You may not think he’s great at the stump because you’re used to being entertained by lies.
Hillary Clinton is not progressive because she is part of the status quo that we have all grown to distrust. Neo-Liberals want a wellfare state while the Neo-Conservatives want a warfare state. Both of those paths will bankrupt us. Neither are for National Sovereignty.
Ron Paul is the equivalent of a modern day Thomas Jefferson and the American People are flocking to him and his message (Freedom, Prosperity & PEACE) like no other. By the time he wins the Republican nomination he will steamroll over the Democratic nominee.
Oh and Public Education (along with most other public services) is funded on the local level so please do your research better.
Bo writes: Ron Paul Would get the Pro-Life group
Doesn’t that go against Ron Paul’s stance about the government not interfering in personal rights of an individual? Or does Ron Paul arbitrarily believes that the right of an embryo / fetus, supersedes any rights of the woman, just because he says so as a doctor?
You can’t pick and choose which personal rights the ’small’ government Ron Paul intends to run. You either respect all of them, no exceptions, or if you decide to pick and choose, according to your personal beliefs, then do not run on that premise.
In my book it would be no different than any Republican running on family values and being found out to be gay or having extra marital sex, or being caught with doing something that does not fit the family value ideal.
Incidentally, the reason the dollar is tanking is because the Federal Reserve is printing money (simplification) like its paper. Oh wait, it is. Dollars are a commodity. When there is a greater supply then demand, the value goes down. It’s simple. Because Nixon took us off a gold standard (a quasi-standard at that), the dollar is no longer tied to a real monetary unit. The smart money is buying gold (and other real stuff like wheat and oil) and selling dollars. This is one main reason Paul wants to return to the gold standard (although he actually advocates legalizing competing currencies and removing capital gains from gold sales). If you’d like to educate yourselves, read “What has government done to our money” by Murray N Rothbard. http://www.mises.org/money.asp
If you’re one of the 97% of Americans that don’t read books, you can even download the audio book.
It’s amazing that most people don’t have any clue what the Federal Reserve is or does, yet they are positive that gold is an ancient relic of days of yore and has no place in modern society. The value of their dollars has dropped 97% since 1913 and they wonder why their Social Security declines in purchasing power every year. Move along please, nothing to see here…
JKap @ 41 -
I think your arguments would be stronger if you acknowledged realism. I don’t think Kyle was trying to tell you who you should like or who you can or cant vote for with the snippet you quoted. I favor Dodd because he has made the Consitution a key issue in his campaign. Do I take offense when people point out he likely wont be viable at my caucus? No - that simply is the truth. For all of the times you praise Dr. Paul as the only truth-teller, you seem to want to avoid the truth yourself. The odds of Paul being nominated are less than 100:1. That is not an insult; it is equally true of Kucinich, Biden, Dodd, Hunter, and Tancredo. There is a reality to how nomination processes work. I’ve been active in a lot of them now; counting state and federal races probably over a dozen. Not everyone has an equal chance of winning, fair or not.
Where you seem to take offense is that when someone points this out you take it as saying Paul shouldn’t win, or you shouldn’t support him. But those are totally different issues (kind of like when you say if someone doesn’t support Paul they must support the Patriot Act, which is silly because someone may agree with Paul on that issue but disagree on 20 others and therefore support someone else). No one is “shilling for the two-party system” or trying to take away the election by saying Paul wont win. Saying anything else is failing to account for observable facts: money figures, number of offices, size of staff, polling results, endorsements — all the things that have proven year after year after year to be decent indicators of who has a chance. Support who you want, but it undermines your credibility to make what amount to entirely “faith based” arguments about the likely outcomes.
Edward says: ‘If you’re one of the 97% of Americans that don’t read books, you can even download the audio book.’
Although you are making a good point in regards to the Dollar and its value, try not to diminish it by using a wrong quote….
Although latest research claims that less Americans read books, it still is in the range for 51-52% down from 61% who read at least 1 book per year. Your mention of 97% makes it look like you’re taking a hint from the Rudy page by exaggerating.
Bruno, the abortion issue is a life/death issue, not a privacy issue. I do not have the right to kill my child in the privacy of my home, in the name of privacy. You could argue that the fetus is not alive, well that is a state issue to decide. According to constitution states decide most all life and death issues such as when life begins and when life ends (when a coma patient is legally dead, euthanasia, etc.)
Basically a libertarian believes you are free to do anything in the world you want to do as long as you are not harming another person or their property. Killing a baby is harming. Or at least it is up to each state to decide when a baby’s life legally begins.
In any case, no worries. There is no way a democratic congress would ever ratify any judge who would overturn Roe v. Wade. So abortion issue is a non-issue anyway.
Hint to Steve @ carpetbagger. Next time there is a poll on the most popular blogs on the internet, I suggest you mention Ron Paul in more of your postings, that would assure a LOT of activity, because Ron Paul does have a LOT of supports wanting to put their 2-cents in on everything being discussed.
To Ron Paul supporters: there is nothing wrong with your comments, makes for a lively conversation. But there is nothing wrong with Steve getting some credit from the extra attention.
Ron Paul is the equivalent of a modern day Thomas Jefferson and the American People are flocking to him and his message (Freedom, Prosperity & PEACE) like no other. By the time he wins the Republican nomination he will steamroll over the Democratic nominee.
I would respectfully suggest that this is the sort of drooling nonsense that makes it impoosible for many of us, even if we’re at least a little sympathetic to some of Paul’s message, to take him seriously.
Your listserv does not equate to “the American People.” Take it from someone who really, really thought that Kerry was going to win in ‘04 and deliver us from the Bush nightmare: wishing don’t make it so.
Yes sir, you said it. You are a brilliant person with a wonderful plan and idea. All your supporters should go to www.ronpaul2008.com and donate money to his campaign. Also, they should vote for him in the Republican primary if their state allows.
Thanks!
Most Startling Admission in the CNN YouTube Presidential Debates
30 seconds says it all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mALpnSTGAQs
To ‘Joy’ who wrote: ‘So abortion issue is a non-issue anyway.’
Thanks for the clarification of Ron Paul’s stance on abortion, being a life/death issue instead of a privacy issue.
Now, if you could only convince the Republican Party that Abortion is a non-issue, the country would be better off.
That’s a great theory you have there, but the only problem with it is that given the choice, people will choose freedom over tyranny every time.
Crraig @ 58 said:
… given the choice, people will choose freedom over tyranny every time.
You really need to bone up on yer history.
Craig, you’re absolutely right, people, when given a choice will choose freedom over tyranny every time.
Then again… the people who voted for Bush, especially the ones who voted for Bush twice have no concept about what true freedom is. They think that as long as there are worse dictators in the world, Bush can’t be all that bad. They figure that as long as we’re ‘kicking butt’ we must be a free country, because we’re kicking the bad guy’s butt.
Following your reasoning, I think it will be highly probably that a Democratic candidate will be elected president in 2008, because all of the current Democratic candidates choose freedom over tyranny, including Gravel and Kucinish. Of course the same can’t be said about the Republican field of candidates, regardless of the fact that Ron Paul chooses freedom over tyranny every time.
I’m gonna have to go with Bruno on this one as the voice of reason, as well as Edward @ #49. A suggestion that America somehow - gold standard or otherwise - return to a monetary system backed by something more than how many paper rectangles you can make in a day should be welcomed as sound advice. If a devalued dollar is nothing to get upset about, why does the U.S. government regularly get in a sweat at China for tying it’s yuan to the dollar’s value, rather than letting it float? If the perceived value of the dollar is not a big deal, why the value of the yuan which, if I remember correctly, has no value outside the country (actually, last time I was there, there were two - the Reminbi Yuan was valueless outside China, and the FEC, for Foreign Exchange Certificate Yuan could be exchanged at the bank for foreign currency)?
Still, as I noted in the previous Ron Paul fist-fight, the subject brings out an unbecoming meanness in people. JKap has been a well-reasoned and objective commenter on this blog for some time, with a similar sense of humour and political savvy to the majority. He’s certainly entitled to his opinion without it inviting the implication that he’s retarded, and Ron Paul’s take on many issues is no crazier than Bush’s crazed thrashings in foreign policy. I don’t think Ron Paul has much chance of being president, but that’s not up to me, and I can promise you he wouldn’t invite the hatred of America Bush does.
True progressives listen for useful ideas in everyone’s conversation, and sarcasm is the refuge of the unimaginative.
Ron Paul can be very good on the stump. Here’s a great example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yjEbx7Lezw
All of your base are belong to us.
reality check, when push comes to shove, half of your readers will vote for the anti-war pro-civil liberties candidate, to their credit.
I’ll give you a hint, that’s not Hillary.
I hear there are more than a few Democrats who are taking your advise to heart. They are re-registering as Republicans just to vote for RP in the primary. Only the several I know actually believe in what he says. We know RP will get the libertarian and independent vote. We know he’ll get the Republican vote in the general election. We know he’ll get the Democratic vote who previously only voted for the Dems on the lesser of two evils theory. That leaves the true progressives to vote for Hillary. I’m sure it’ll be a landslide…
*YAWN*
This is great advice. All Democrats should send their support to Ron Paul. Don’t send Hillary any money; she has plenty. Send it to Ron. With him as the nominee the American people will see his positions and laugh. They will laugh at Hillary that is. They will laugh as she tries to explain that she voted for the war because Bush fooled her. They will laugh as she tries to explain why she voted for the PATRIOT Act and the Military Commisions Act. They will laugh at her as she tries to explain why she wants to keep troops in Iraq and expand the war into Iran despite her claim that she is anti-war. Oh it will be a great time for all. Ron versus Hilllary.
This site might be better than The Onion. The Onion writers don’t make their satire subtle enough so you always know they’re joking. This piece is just subtle enough to get some people thinking the author is serious. Of course, if you pay attention to the absurdity of what the author writes, it’s easily discernable from a serious blog post. In fact, the only way Hillary loses is if she is the staunch pro-war candidate… and against Paul, she is Bush 3.
“The odds of Paul being nominated are less than 100:1. That is not an insult; it is equally true of Kucinich, Biden, Dodd, Hunter, and Tancredo.” - zeitgeist
Actually…it’s 15:1 at the moment…=) And, a hearty Thank You to ALL of you for helping to spread the word about Ron Paul. No such thing as bad press and all…
AMG! The Oddsmakers know things and stuff…
Aaron, if the progressives would watch these videos, then they too would vote for Ron Paul.
Talk by Naomi Wolf - The End of America (liberal writer)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc
Ron Paul Republican Bruce Fein supports impeachment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ymlViJ7DvI
Napolitano - Unconstitutional Patriot Act
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SU0zuUzrSg
a liberal re-thinks Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DueIGWpXjrU
Look, I’m a realist. I supported Ron Paul back in 1988. I have voted Libertarian for twenty years, and support Ron Paul now even though he can occasionally sound like a socialist when he talks about families addicted to welfare like it was some kind of drug. There’s a few other areas where he’s more “moderate” than I would like, but I think Paul has a real chance at the Presidency for the reasons I set out below. Here’s what we know:
1. The majority of the country sees the war as the leading issue facing the nation
2. About 70% of the likely voting population is in favor of winding up actions in Iraq (unless polled by Frank Luntz), and a larger number are opposed to expanding the war into Iran
3. Economic issues are the second most prominent in voters minds
In the event that Paul is not elected on the Republican side due to a consensus by the religious right on a candidate, he could very effectively run as a Independent against what would be two pro-war candidates (Clinton and Huckabee will be the nominees in the end).
This scenario would make the crucial war issue one that Paul would be best positioned to capture, requiring Hillary and Huckabee to split the pro-war vote, and perhaps also a share of those who think the war is not the prominent issue. If this happens, expect Hillary to shift her stance in the general election to be more anti-war to pander to the 70% anti-war base. Mike Huckabee is a religious statist, and very much like Bush in terms of the certitude of his convictions and view on executive power. He is already practicing the Bush 2000 humble, personal, and compassionate rhetoric that will be required against Hillary. He does not want to be seen as Bush III, even though he would be quite close to it. Paul would capture almost none of the kind of support going to Huckabee in the end.
What will tip the balance to Paul?
In the end, Ron Paul’s best chances are as an Independent against pro-war Republican and Democratic opposition. A hastened economic crisis could be the event that pushes an independent Paul candidacy over the top. Here’s how that plays out:
- Much of the nation is not ready to hear the message that we are broke and cannot possibly afford what we are doing in terms of entitlement, foreign aid, and military spending
- The man on the street has no idea how large the debts are, and if told would think that 9 trillion in debt is some kind of accounting challenge that bankers are equipped to solve. After all, they’ve always solved it before!
- This denial will continue until the world stops lending us money as it becomes clear to foreign nations that the US has every intention of inflating our way out of existing debts by printing money to repay them. Just this week Bernanke announced that he is ready to cut rates again (lowering the US dollar value further), and requiring money to be printed to meet demand for increasing borrowing at lower rates
- China seems to be waking up to this in the last year, and may become the catalyst for the crisis by dumping up to a trillion dollars of government debt instruments onto the world markets in short order. What wait? We’re making their holdings worth less every day by printing money to repay them, and then asking to borrow ever more. Japan may do the same.
- This dumping (which would quickly build in weeks into a total loss of confidence in the dollar) will crush the dollar, strangle our ability to borrow, spike interest rates, and create a massive run up in inflation. The government will be broke and unable to borrow. Remember war bonds? It will make the Great Depression seem quaint in terms of scale and duration.
- This crisis played out in the spring and summer of 2008 may shock the collective conscience enough to elect Ron Paul, much like a John Anderson or Ross Perot candidacy would have been helped by world events happening at the right time
Even if you don’t believe in Ron Paul’s message, I would suggest to anyone still reading to protect any 401K or IRA savings by moving into non-dollar denominated savings (like putting mutual funds that invest overseas with holdings priced in Euros or other world currencies, and perhaps a portion in gold). The dollar is cooked unless we stop spending almost immediately. Inflation is much higher than the government is reporting. Both of these will kill the purchasing power of what you have accumulated. This is my reading of Ron Paul’s core message, even though no one wants to hear it.
I understand that Pat Buchanan released a book this week with largely the same premise, entitled “Day of Reckoning.” I may disagree with Pat’s view on how much immigration and the culture wars are contributing to the overall entitlement problem, but I am hoping that he will help to get the message out. We have a huge, nation-threatening issue before us, and only Ron Paul is talking about it. To the extent that voters still want to believe in Santa Claus, we have a problem. Some are starting to waking up, and this awakening may yet elect Ron Paul.
Even Alan Greenspan agrees wtih Ron Paul’s position on monetary policy:
“In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.
This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists’ antagonism toward the gold standard.”
http://www.constitution.org/mon/greenspan_gold.htm
Congress has a 10% approval rate and a 90% incumbent reelection rate. The Republic is off the table.
I think your idea is absolutely brilliant! What better way to get Hillary into the the White House and make it an absolute land slide then to pit her against Ron Paul. I am going to take it one step further. I am from Florida, which is not getting any delegates because the Primary date was moved, so why should I basically waste my vote by voting in the Democratic Primary? I am going to switch to Republican just for the primary and vote for Ron Paul! If I can’t have a vote for Hillary that counts at least I can vote for the person I want her to run against and have some fun messing with the already messed up Republican Party. Think about this, if we can start a movement to get enough supporters in Florida and Michigan, which both do not have delegates this year at the Democratic convention, we could really muck with Republican Party. A strong showing by Ron Paul before Super Tuesday would make a mess for the rest of the Republicans and insure that any Candidate they pick will be weak against Hillary. Divide and Conquer!!!
Thanks for the clarification Bruno. I forgot that many Americans still read the Bible.
Ron Paul is in good shape and exercises regularly. Look at Hillary’s fat ass if you want to see “dumpy”.
If you’re a Democrat in Florida, please go ahead and vote for Ron Paul if you think it will help you elect Hillary. We Ron Paul supporters would appreciate that.
Mark, China stopped using FECs 10 years ago. The only value they have is as a curiosity. I still have a couple.
Kerry,
That could be a pretty funny thing. I’m seriously liking your idea. I’m in Michigan and so I wouldn’t even need to register republican (no restrictions). It sure would be fun election. Let’s do it!!!
Plus I have to be honest, if something horrible happened to Hillary (like got sick or car accident or whatever), then I really would rather have Ron Paul instead of some psychopath torture-loving fascist like Giuliani.
Ha ha - I will be voting for Ron Paul in the primary!
Good idea. Everyone should donate all the money they can to Paul and vote for him in their primary, changing parties if need be. It’s the perfect plan. It’s foolproof. Don’t worry, there won’t be any big surprises come November. Just get him nominated and everything will be fine, and everyone will vote for Hillary.
(Don’t forget about donating the money, though.)
Startin’ with Morbo in the OP, and runnin’ through many of the comments in the rest of the thread, is the flawed assumption that Clinton’s gonna receive the Democratic Party’s nomination. Funny, that all of you Paulists who claim that the MS is gamin’ the GOP primaries and caucuses aren’t sayin’ they’re doin’ the samein the Democratic primaries and caucuses.
Why is that?
As it is currently, Clinton is losin’ traction in Iowa, and, iirc, New Hampshire, too. Obama, otoh, is closin’ rapidly and Dodd looks to be pickin’ up steam. And Edwards will stay in the race ’til Super Tuesday, when he thinks he can pick up a lot of delegates in the south.
The way I see it, Clinton’s the easiest candidate to beat if Paul gets nominated, and not because of Paul’s positions. Hillary is polarizin’ enough that if Paul were to pull the rabbit out of the hat and win the GOP’s nomination, and Clinton the Democratic, the Republicans would stand behind Paul if only too keep Clinton outta the White House. And if Paul defeated Clinton he’d still be facin’ a hostile Congress, no matter whether Democrats or Republicans win control there- or is there a movement inside of the GOP to get Paul-friendly candidates on the House and Senatorial ballots, too?
They’re not “Paulites”, they’re “Paulies,” and as their semi-literate posts here demonstrate, infantilizing their name accurately describes their infantile political awareness. These are the morons who were too dumb be be enchanged by Ayn Rand. Permanent political 12 year olds.
So Swan said this about Ron Paul:
“I don’t think the guy is really anti-war, either; I think he’s a really right-wing person who is trying to trade on a gimmick (for him) issue, to gain some national notoriety.”
Sigh. I can understand why you would think that about a Republican. Really, I get it. Look at Rudy and Romney and they are doing exactly what you describe: just telling people what they want to hear to get into office. Just like Dubya did.
The reason Ron Paul has become so popular (and such a “nuisance”) is that he is DIFFERENT than those snakes: he says what he means. He is strident to a fault sometimes - he speaks plainly about every issue and this is why some people brand him as a kook.
I really find it refreshing that Paul speaks his mind and is CONSISTENT in his views. Swan, I know you’re not going to do what I am about to ask of you, but I’ll propose it anyway: research Ron Paul’s voting record and his anti-war stance. It is well documented throughout his career that he has been against the Iraq war from day one.
Ron Paul is the only candidate that you can count on saying the same thing about every issue no matter when you ask him. Whether you agree with those stances is another thing entirely; but you can count on him to be honest 100% of the time.
philr8 @ 82 said:
The reason Ron Paul has become so popular (and such a “nuisance”) is that he is DIFFERENT than those snakes: he says what he means. He is strident to a fault sometimes - he speaks plainly about every issue and this is why some people brand him as a kook.
Then explain to me why he’s runnin’ fer the Republican’s nomination. Which Republican values- new or old- does he embody? Is he a federalist in the mode of Lincoln? A conservationist or a supporter of worker protection like Teddy Roosevelt? Do his economic priorities remind anyone of Taft? Does his philosophy of foreign relations remind anyone of Eisenhower?
This nation is DONE with Neo-Con Facsists that call themselver Republicans. Any Dem will easily defeat them. The thing is that Ron Paul will crush the Neo-Cons like the bugs that they are. He will get the GOP nomination and he is the only Republican capable of deating the Dems.
Voting for a Democrat will not fix this nation. We must restore our republic and that is not something that Hillary or Obama will do. Only Ron Paul will do what is needed to change the direction of our country.
Ron Paul can no longer be labeled a “long shot” candidate as he absolutely dominates in the Straw Polls, Debate Polls, Fund Raising, Web Traffic and Grass Roots Networking and is clearly a “top tier” candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination. I have created a website to support this statement.
Please visit www.thecaseforronpaul.com and judge for yourself.
FYI Dr. Paul’s district doesn’t get pork. The people love him because he is NOT a “Politics as Usual” fixture on the hill. If people really want to get out of Iraq and get our foreign policy an spending under control they MUST vote for Dr. Paul.
Lucas Minton @ 85 said:
FYI Dr. Paul’s district doesn’t get pork.
Does his district receive less money back from the Federal government than it pays in? If so, I’d say he’s not doin’ a good job fer his constituency.
If the district gets more back than it pays in, it’s pork.
Or are ya gonna have us believe that his district gets back exactly what it pays in?
Cleane44 @ 84 said:
Ron Paul can no longer be labeled a “long shot” candidate as he absolutely dominates in the Straw Polls, Debate Polls…
Links, please, with the methodology of those polls. Thank you.
John,
Glad you like my idea! Now how do we get the word out and make it happen?
They Said It: Thompson Social Security Plan Applauded as ‘Courageous,’ ‘Honest,’ and ‘Substantive’
Courage & Honesty
Republican presidential contender Fred Thompson’s plan to save Social Security and protect seniors, which he introduced Friday afternoon in a Washington, D.C., hotel, differs starkly from standard election year pablum on the subject in one key way: He’s actually treating voters like adults. (ABC, 11/9)
Thompson…is seeking to show he is willing to take on tough issues if elected in November 2008, telling a news conference in Washington he was the only candidate to offer an extensive Social Security plan. (Reuters, 11/10)
“You certainly have to admire his courage for putting this out,” said Alan Viard with the American Enterprise Institute. (Tennessean, 11/10)
Supporters contend that Thompson’s willingness to take on the so-called third rail of politics will impress voters. (Bloomberg, 11/10)
Conservative economic experts applauded Thompson for offering specifics on an issue considered to be politically dangerous. (Tennessean, 11/10)
“He’s not afraid to be brutally honest with the American people about the challenges that lie ahead,” said Representative Zach Wamp, a Tennessee Republican who is working to recruit supporters for Thompson. “People can tell the difference between a strong leader telling the truth and a weak leader talking politics.” (Bloomberg, 11/10)
Substance
[Thompson is] the first candidate of either party to offer a detailed proposal to fix the nation’s retirement system. (WP, 11/10)
The Republican candidate laid out a detailed, four-page proposal (WSJ, 11/10)
Mr. Thompson’s plan…was more specific than what the Bush White House put on the table when it sought to overhaul the system. It also varied substantially from the traditional conservative approach of focusing primarily on personal investment accounts. (NYT, 11/10)
Economist Jason Furman said Thompson deserves credit for offering a detailed plan to address the projected Social Security shortfall…(Bloomberg, 11/10)
In discussing policy, Thompson was in his element. (Politico, 11/9)
He’d prefer to talk about substance. (Politico, 11/9)
Thompson’s plan draws on ideas favored by conservatives: a reduction in benefits, rather than an increase in payroll taxes; and a shift toward private accounts, rather than government-provided payments. (WP, 11/10)
Rivals
[Thompson] ventured Friday into an area few rivals have tread: advocacy of a fundamental overhaul of Social Security. (WSJ, 11/10)
Although all of the presidential candidates have spoken, when asked, about the need to fix the Social Security system, none has offered such a detailed plan nor talked so eagerly and often about the issue. (WSJ, 11/10)
Among Republicans, former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney have talked in general terms … but none has offered a specific plan. (WP, 11/10)
Mr. Thompson is the only one of the Republicans running for the White House who has made Social Security a central theme of his campaign. (NYT, 11/10)
He is the only presidential candidate so far to make Social Security an anchor of his campaign. (WSJ, 11/10)
But with less than two months before the 2008 voting begins, candidates have generally been reluctant to confront the Social Security issue. (WP, 11/10)
——————————————————————————–
Saving and Protecting Social Security
A Plan to Ensure Retirement Security for All Americans
http://www.fred08.com/virtual/socialsecurity.aspx
Dude! Google Ron Paul! He’s the only one talking about 420, hemp products, amnesty, pulling out of Iraq, the neocon snow job, Kerry losing in 2000, 9/11 truth, Ohio 2004, gold, and all that shit! Met him at a meet-up, it was whacked! Going door-to-ddor, cleaned up and everything, to help the dude!
Tom Cleaver:
You are wrong, too. The are either “Paulestinians”, “Paulbearers” or “Rontards” so please make a note of it!
Morbo, you think Hillary stands her best chance against the Republican candidate with the MOST Democrat and Independent support??? LOL! You better hope Dr. Paul does win, so that he can legalize whatever you’re smoking.
The Clintons want Huckabee in the general election. Bill practically endorsed the Huckster back in June.
Paul guys, that’s how I address you supporters of Dr. Paul.
Look, getting out of Iraq is good, the PATRIOT Act is bad, getting rid of bad laws (i.e. criminalization of Marijuana) is good, stabilizinfg the currency is a good idea.
Re-criminalizing abotion is bad (sorry, Joy, you are wrong), complete isolation is bad, and none of you Paul guys have answered this:
“The ideal world for Ron Paul supporters is Somalia. No regs. Free market. No gun control. And a weak central gov. Look at how successful Somalia is.” (former Dan @ #11)
Dr. Ron Paul loses credibility when some supporter of his calls someone or something “socialist.” The first thing that comes to my mind after reading that is “What an ignorant fool. Ron Paul is supported by fools.” We live in a mixed economy, because both centralized socialism and unrestrained capialism collapses. Witness the Soviet block collapse and the mentioned Somalia. Or remember the Great Depression for another lesson in pure capitalism. We need government, grow up.
Finally, I cannot support Ron Paul because he has stayed in the corrupt and class warfare-riddled Republican party. I feel that many of you Paul guys know that the Republican party is rotten to the core, but you hate the Democrats so much (stop watching Fox, you fools) you can’t even give Dennis Kunicinch his due as being as anti-war as your chosen candidate.
As a former Republican, I support the Democrats as the party of reality and realists. Ron Paul will not be the Republican candidate, but he will get many more votes than the pundits expect.
Alabama Loves You Ron Paul!
Cathy Romine
Alabama
The truth is that Ron Paul would destroy Senator Clinton. Her voting record is so self serving that she will have very little credibility.
The country can not continue on the spending path that it is currently on. Face the facts…the country is close to ruin and the main stream media plays the music (by not dealing with the true issues) while the dumbed down populous (doesn’t read or can’t) arrange the deck chairs on the titanic.
The spending has to get in line with the income…that means huge cuts in services and YES large increases in taxes. We are currently dumping all of the debts on our kids and grand kids….this is insane….He is the only candidate that is addressing these issues.
Every democratic government in history has failed when the populous learns that they can vote in candidates that will empty the national treasury. Well guys…the treasury is empty….but the powers that be keep printing new money to keep the band playing….but when the music stops and it will stop…
Amen to Billy Budd…I love how so many these days simply call themselves “progressive” because it sounds great and then turn around and support stagnant policy.
I’ll say it again:
For the past twenty years now what have we had?
BUSH…CLINTON…CLINTON…BUSH…BUSH……….
If anyone out there truly believes that voting for “CLINTON” at this point- thus confirming our modern sociopolitical dialogue as a childish and superficial pissing match between two parties of crooks determined to uphold the status quo by sheepishly selecting from the SAME TWO IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS FOR TWO DECADES STRAIGHT- then I have news for you; you ARE NOT by any stretch of the imagination a “progressive.” You are representing “stagnation” at best and “regression” at worst.
You are also demonstrating in exacting detail Einstein’s definition of the word “insanity,” since that seems to be a popular label to throw around when discussing Ron Paul’s candidacy.
Anyone who really believes Hillary Clinton would be some profound change from Bush or a real “alternative” to someone like Giuliani or Romney truly baffles me. Apparently you havent figured out that these people are all determined to defend the same status quo to the death; the only difference is that Republicans entice you with bigger(!) scraps from your own paycheck and warped views on “honor” and “look how big our guns are” military adventurism while Democrats entice you with better(!) utopian social programs which our economy cant afford and that- upon the slightest consideration of actual fact and the government’s track record of curing social ills- consistently dont work and end up acting as ineffective corrupt money pits from which slimy politicians and bureaucrats skim lots of your tax dollars.
Its almost funny (if it werent so pathetic, gutless and sad) that so many self-described “progressives” and “people for change” run screaming for cover when truly different ideas are explored and the status quo is openly challenged. Their only response is to shout the loudest and condemn it all as “crazy” or “part of that loony group over there,” eliminating the normal responsibility in debating to address each view and challenge it with factual, reasoned rebuttal.
People really seem so shellshocked by Bush’s bumbling disastrous administration that they forget completely what crooks and blatant liars the Clintons have proven themselves to be time and time again. Indeed, they forget to the point that they automatically and usually without factual basis turn around to attack someone who- IF NOTHING ELSE- has shown for over 20 years that they are impeccably honest and stick firmly to their stated principles. Hillary is SORELY lacking in this basic department of honesty, character, reliability, conviction, and consistency. Ron Paul’s record, on the other hand, is very hard to tarnish.
The War?
Both say they are against it.
- Ron Paul voted against it and stated in Congress what a disaster it would likely degenerate into. He is not a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He wants us out of Iraq as soon as possible.
- Hillary Clinton voted for it, and made a speech assuring her colleagues that such a vote “is not a rush to war,” that she had carefully and deliberately considered and made this decision…and now literally states the exact opposite. HIllary is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Hillary wants to stay in Iraq for another 5 years.
The Economy?
- Ron Paul cracks inside-jokes with economist brainiacs and number-crunchers on CNBC almost every appearance he makes. He’s the only one insisting that the $9 trillion dollar national debt must be addressed, and offering the only feasible alternatives for HOW. His “goofy return to the gold standard” in reality amounts to the threat of allowing competing currencies, not a “crazy” idea at all but one that was arguably ensured as a right in the Constitution.
- Hillary Clinton, as if in complete disregard of our obscene debt and plunging dollar, continues to make economic promises the government’s wallet(aka, OURS) cant keep. Universal healthcare? If anything is “crazy” its promising to insure 300 million people when your country is going broke, has a debt apporaching 10 trillion, and your currency is nosediving. This is where those who glance over Paul’s ideas then pass them off as “good-natured/nice…but not realistic or feasible” suddenly withdraw their criticism and opt for utopian promises (as long as theyre promised by someone on your favorite Republican or Democrat team) that fly in the face of reality.
Qualifications/Credibility?
- Ron Paul is a ten-term Congressman, an OB/GYN, M.D., former Air Force flight surgeon, and former member of the gold commission and house banking committee. He takes a sack-lunch to work with him, rejects his Congressional pension, and has returned to his medical practice intermittently between congressional terms to make money…also rejecting medicaid and medicare payments on principle.
- Hillary Clinton is a two-term Senator (of a state she never lived in and used taxpayer money to buy a house in during her first campaign), a lawyer, and the wife of Bill Clinton.
Not sure how pitting Ron Paul against Hillary would be such a certain “slam-dunk” for her in a general election…but if thats who you guys want to prop up as her punching bag, I can only express encouragement.
Um, Julian, last time a Clinton was in the White House, we had an operating budget surplus. Deficit is not inherent in the two major parties, just the Rethugs.
And while we’re at it, the idea that government does a poor job of solving social problems is an unsupported myth. Poverty in old age? Used to be common, virtually eliminated by Social Security. Kids going to school too hungry to learn, malnourished, unready? Head Start and various school lunch and breakfast programs have virtually eliminated that problem. Potentially fatal childhood illnesses? Government research and government promoted (and sometimes government mandated) childhood vaccinations have virtually eliminated polio, small pox, and others. Race, gender and disability discrimination — which all stubbonly remained when the government stayed out of it and left majorities to their own tyranny — sharply declined within a couple of generations once laws were passed to address the problem.
On the other hand, there is not a single large-scale social problem that has been solved in this country without government assistance in some form. None.
The libertarian worldview is based on this myth that government is the problem and the free market is the solution. That is a myth that simply cannot stand scrutiny — and the current-day purveyors of “free market” theory would have Adam Smith apoplectic. He wouldn’t recognize it - his theories have been distorted by a pseudo-religious fervor that is not grounded in any actual objective knowledge, just a selfish desire to be told you dont have to worry about anyone else and better still dont have to feel