Real world politics is about hard choices, accepting reality and making compromises on the road to your goals.
The latest campaign from the Ron Paul movement seems to be going around to every forum and message base and blog comment area and posting a link to a letter which presents their version of a reasoned argument about why the Republican Party should reject John McCain and support Ron Paul instead. It's an interesting document, because it encapsulates in a nutshell a broad selection of the misinformation and delusion on which their campaign is based, and it also exposes some of the ways in which their John Birch Society inspired agenda deviates substantially from traditional libertarianism.…
Article comments
226 - Dave Nalle
Not to rain on Irene's parade even more, but Blackwater has no stockholders because it's not a publicly traded company. And Halliburton no longer runs mercs, they spun them off into a separate company (with an instant 17% profit for stockholders) called KBR.
Dave
227 - Ruvy
Irene,
I guess you won't have tome to read this for a while. A doctor, of all people, should be very aware of what is written over his signature (lawyers should too, but too many of them are very aware of the wrongs that get wrote over their signatures). Granted, he wasn't hearing strains of "Hail to the Chief" when telling those women to push and breathe deep, and "just one more for the west coast, and we're home, Mrs. Hofstetter" - but like a doctor writing a scrip, or a pharmacist filling one, he has to be aware. And Ron Paul was, even if he felt at times that he wasn't in control.
I don't buy his excuses, madame. Sorry. Mind you, this comes from someone who would have preferred that somebody very much outside the CFR/Rockefeller Foundation/Ford Foundation corporate circle got to power in the States, bearing in mind the little he would be able to accomplish with that power.
I'm responsible for the nasty things I write, the loans that I don't pay, the contracts over my signature that I breach, and the promises I do not keep.
A man of honor says that up-front: it's called taking responsibility before G-d and man.
228 - Baritone
Baronius,
A bit of a belated thanks for your comment regarding my knee surgery. Of course Monday was relatively painless owing to the residual effects of the surgical anesthesia and some numbing agent added by the doctor.
But by Tuesday morning all bets were off. It is now Thursday morning with little improvement. I'm not one of those guys who is going to grin and bear it. I've been taking Norco - a type of hydrocodone - every 6 hours or so. It keeps the pain within tolerable limits, but I have no range of motion, nor can I bear much weight on my left leg so far. On the up side, I've been sleeping great!
B-tone
229 - Baronius
Don't be testing that range of motion too much. Some of the biggest improvements in medical care have gone largely unnoticed, in the field of physical therapy. They hurt you just as much as they used to, but when they're done, they've actually restored the use of the limb.
230 - Baritone
Baronius,
Yeah, I'm supposed to get set up for physical therapy, but I'm presently being steered through some bureaucratic BS at the VA because the actual surgery was outsourced, and some of the VA people think that the PT should be outsourced as well. It makes little sense to me, I'd think the VA would rather keep it in-house if they can. But I know little of the workings and politics that goes on there. In the mean time, I guess I'll cancel my trampoline lessons.
Thanks again.
B-tone
231 - Jake in Salt Lake
Wow, where to begin on this one? This is an obvious hit-piece on Dr. Paul, but why does the author feel so compelled to try denigrate Dr. Paul if his supporters are so fringe?
I'm going to let the author in on a little secret, supporters of Dr. Paul are the new majority. There is nothing fringe about a candidate that gets more donations from active members of the military in one quarter than ALL other candidates combined.
I am a State and County delegage for the Republican Party in Utah and I can tell you that when party leaders were calling for "Unity" behind McCain, our delegates were booing. On the other hand, Dr. Paul's name was applauded. McCain will be the nominee, but he will not be the next president. The old brand of conservative, of which Dr. Paul is just one of many, will be there to rebuild the party in November when Obama is elected.
232 - Dave Nalle
There is nothing fringe about a candidate that gets more donations from active members of the military in one quarter than ALL other candidates combined.
You mean Obama, right?
Dave
233 - STM
Isn't it amazing that a group people supporting a candidate who was punted in the primaries because he just didn't get enough support can continue on with this nonsense.
I mean, if the majority of those who voted in the primaries had chosen Paul, there'd be nothing to argue about.
But they didn't, and it's part of the democratic process. Most people accept that those kinds of results are part of what a great country like the US is all about, and they move on.
But those who don't, and one can therefore only assume that they don't believe in the democratic process, keep whingeing about the raw deal Paul got, and how the man who was chosen (McCain), is only going to be a seat-warmer, etc.
That's obviously not a majority view among the party's voters. Get over it. It's an election. Everyone gets their chance in a fair fight, and Ron Paul lost. Too many people who thought some of his ideas were good were scared off by some of the others, and by some of the lunatic fringe supporting him.
Back to basics though: It's un-American not to accept that he lost.
Come on, this stuff's been happening for 200 years in the US.
And why, now that the dust has settled, wouldn't those Paul supporters who claim to love America back McCain in the interests of party unity?
Or is party unity, and a fair democratic process, actually not what they want at all??
234 - Rod Smith
As far as the Iraq war, Iranian war, or another, McCain would make Bush look like Ghandi by comparison. "Mr. 100 years in Iraq."
Furthermore, I would grant you are right about the fact that the Paulistas wouldn't know "A Republican value if it hit them in the ass." Who would? I've got it ... we will vote for ANYONE who supports a Neoconservative foriegn policy ...even if thier stated adgenda is "The jobs aren't comming back, the illegals aren't going home, big government is here to stay, we will be in Iraq for 100 years, but vote for us because we're not Democrats."
You're right ...the author of the letter should have written CONSERVATIVE.
235 - Tom deSabla
STM, your comments are inaccurate.
Paul was blacked out. It wasn't a fair fight at all. Most Americans only know what the MSM tells them, and if the MSM doesn't talk about a candidate, then to most people that candidate doesn't exist.
Anyone who's been paying attention knows what has been done to Ron Paul. However, his strategy of running as a Republican did get him into the debates, where millions of people heard ideas they'd never heard before.
Those people aren't going anywhere, and the only "un-American" happening in this country is that people are losing their freedom. It must be stopped. No one was doing a damn thing to stop it before Paul and his tards started making waves, so it's no wonder that all these phonies who have been sitting on their hands for 20 years are upset.
Too bad.
236 - Cindy D
Dear Irene,
I have learned enough about Ron Paul, by now, to write a book. Therefore, I am going to make only a few comments and give a link that pretty much sums up what I think about Ron Paul.
About the newsletters: Ron Paul owned up to the newsletters in his 1996 campaign for Congress. In fact, at that time, he defended what he wrote. "Old News"? "Rehashed for Over a Decade"?
Re#215, et al
Ron Paul lives in a world where a lot of things like civil rights abuses and racism occurred not because of their entrenchment in our society since its founding (as history shows) but, because the Federal Government overreached its limits.
Paul basically believes the federal government was limited by the framers and this is where he starts. Therefore every addition to the constitution giving federal law power over states, very likely, starting with the 14th amendment, is anathema to Paul.
Oh, with an exception. Paul tries to pass his Act to have human life recognized as starting at conception and writes language into the act to prevent any review by the judiciary. So, basically Paul is for federal intervention when it suits his fancy, as well as tossing out checks and balances.
His explanation of why the Civil Rights Act of 1964 failed to "achieve racial harmony", are nothing more than manufactured anecdote--"the world according to Paul." He also presumes to be able to read the minds of data collectors.
The Civil Rights Act, if not "achieving racial harmony", (whatever that actually means, as I'm not reading about daily lynchings) served to achieve justice for blacks. Thats all it needed to do in my opinion.
Anyone who would read history post-civil war and do a little uncovering of attitudes held toward black by both the north and the south would disagree with Paul's claims (unless of course they had their own agenda, which if anything is certain, Paul does). In fact, Douglas A. Blackmon, in Slavery by Another Name has written a well-documented account of how slaves were reinterred into slavery after the civil war and up until around 1940 through forced labor camps. The southern states eagerly arrested, tried and sold blacks into labor camps, because they could. Slavery was an economic force in the south long after the civil war.
Basically, Paul is a "paleoconservative", "american patriot", "New World Order" conspiracy theorist who has a lot of support from 1) average people who sense a problem and perhaps see some of his positions anti-war, limited federal government, etc. as appealing. And, 2) the most vile extremist groups in the nation. I have yet to find a single racist, bigoted, narrow-minded, paranoid, secessionist, organization that doesn't support Paul. Because, if Paul had any power at all he'd be the messiah to these people. Why do you think that is so?
For the record, my political views tend toward even less government than someone like Paul's. I believe in liberty, beyond what Paul conceives. But, since my politics are not likely to be popular in the near future, I'll take the protections that the American People fought to have the federal government institute, for now.
Paul supporters need to be reminded of the adage, "the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend."
237 - Cindy D
I'd like to qualify and add to one thing I said.
"Paul basically believes the federal government was limited by the framers and this is where he starts."
Which, of course is true. But, this is not only where Paul starts, it is where he ends. Or, better, it is his end. What I intended to point out, is that Ron Paul's beliefs about the effects of such additions (as the 14th amendment, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act) are handy constructions after-the-fact. In other words, Ron Paul doesn't object to the Civil Rights Act because it failed to promote racial harmony, rather, he sees it as an unconstitutional usurpation of state sovereignty and finds it flawed merely to serve that position.
So, it goes like this: the federal government has no enumerated right to create "do-gooder" laws which would usurp states' sovereignty to regulate themselves. Therefore, where the federal government has done this, the amendments are unconstitutional and prima facie void. Conveniently, Ron Paul constructs "other reasons" to "sell" his ideas to certain credulous, if well-meaning, potential supporters. So, if everything, including the 14th amendment (by the way "american patriots" consider the 13th amendment void for failure to be legally ratified) is unconstitutional according to one's "strict construction", then whose "liberty" is being violated in creating these amendments?
Ron Paul for all his "anti-collectivism" recognizes the "liberty" of two collective groups: property owners and Christians. The fact is that the original property owners were white, male Christians. All laws, in which, the federal government has usurped state sovereignty have been in violation of the "liberty" of these individuals and no one else's.
And, in saying this, I have answered my own rhetorical questions about whose "liberties" Ron Paul is aiming to protect and why racists adore him.
P.S. I meant to include this link to verify my assertion that Ron Paul is a New World Order conspiracy theorist.
238 - blakmira
I'm not a racist and I adore Ron Paul.
I'm curious, however, who assholes with lobotomies adore. As an obvious member of that group, please tell us which candidate *you* adore?
P.S. No personal attacks are allowed in comments, only in the article? That's hardly fair and balanced.
239 - Dave Nalle
Someone made a personal attack on you in the article, Blakmira? Where?
Dave
240 - Cindy D
I'm not a racist and I adore Ron Paul.
Then, you may want to inquire into the background of the next blue-eyed white guy you talk to at your next Ron Paul meet-up.
Interestingly, the Cult of Scientology seems to be targeting Ron Paul supporters for its advertising campaign.
The video The Road to Serfdom on the blog at Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty site ends in a Scientology commercial.
If I were you Blakmira, I wouldn't talk to anybody at a Ron Paul meet-up.
241 - Cindy D
I mean, you know, just to be safe.
242 - Dave Nalle
I was wondering how long it would be before the scientologists took advantage of the similarities between their beliefs and the philosophy of the Randians who are often attracted to the Ron Paul movement. Personally I find both despicable. Individualism without morality or any kind of conscience can only lead to anarchy or oppression.
Dave