A possible run for President would be a great way for Ron Paul to put the GOP back on the right track.
Given the popularity of President Bush, you might think it would be a few years before another Texan had the temerity to consider a run for president. If you did, you'd be overlooking Ron Paul who's about as different from President Bush as you can get and who just formed an exploratory committee for a run at the White House in 2008. That means he can start raising money in anticipation of launching a full-scale campaign for the Presidency.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - Eric Dondero
Rudy's a "liberal" huh? I guess that's why he cut taxes 26 times as Mayor of New York. I guess that's why the NY Times called Rudy a "budget slashing, privatizing Ayn Randian."
I guess that's why practically every major Conservative in the country is fawning over Giuliani these days: Bill Bennet, Sean Hannity, even Gingrich compared him to Ronald Reagan the other day.
If you think Giuliani is a "Liberal" you are obviously ignorant of American political labels.
Individuals who are conservative on economic issues, yet tolerant on social matters, and strong on defense are known as LIBERTARIANS, most certainly NOT Liberals.
77 - NH
Dave, so what good are you then?
Ron has more votes on MySpace than Hillary!
78 - NH
As for Paul being 'extreme' on immigration, what is so extreme about NOT having open borders? Some libertarians feed right into the New World Order thought that this is how things should be, no borders. It's ridiculous.
You need a sovereign country if you want a free republic.
To me open borders nonsense is what is extreme.
79 - Dave Nalle
If you think Giuliani is a "Liberal" you are obviously ignorant of American political labels.
Eric, this is a chronic problem. If we were using terms correctly, you and I would basically be liberals. Being liberal has nothing to do with our stand on fiscal policy, taxes and the size of government. On the things which define liberalism - mainly the desire for people to live a free life - we're liberals. And by extension, even opposition to excessive government is a liberal position, because government is by nature inclined to interfere with individual liberty.
The problem is that people have always understood the social aspects of liberalism and been a bit foggy on the other implications, so they've taken to applying the term liberal to the American left who most definitely are NOT liberals in any area except a small number of social policies. They're statist socialists in most other ways. And then conservatives started trying to make liberal into a 'dirty word' by using it as a perjorative and the proper meaning got buried in the rhetoric.
That's why we have the term 'libertarian' now, which essentially means the same thing as liberal used to mean, but doesn't have the same negative connotations. Of course now libertarian has become tainted by association with the Libertarian Party which is dominated by socialistic anarchists, which is also not what true liberalism is all about.
Maybe we need a new term. I wish we could just be Republicans, but that won't be true until we purge the theocrats and neo-stalinists from the party.
Dave
80 - Philly Dave
NH, I tend to see the immigration issue the same. Myrray Rothbard, considered one of the more radical libertarians, did not hold to the "open borders" view.
Rothbard reflected his views "the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors."
This however is not an endorsement of police state solutions to solve the immigration "problem" assuming of course you believe it is a problem.
As with all things, it seems that government intervention (NAFTA, loose credit leading to malinvestment in the housing and commercial building sectors, welfare) in the market has set in motion many of the underlying forces that currently encourage immigration.
My take is that Ron Pual has opted for the pragmatic answer of increasing the border patrol, while focusing on rolling back entitlements to illeagals and ending birth rite citizenship. He does however seem to be very concerned about doing so in a manner that grants additional police powers to the government.
On Rudy: He is a globalist and a war supporter. That is why the Republican world improvers and empire builders support him ... no other reason.
81 - Flo
On Rudy: He is a globalist and a war supporter. That is why the Republican world improvers and empire builders support him ... no other reason.
Ron Paul a Globalist? You must be smoking crack or totally ignorant of who he is and what he stands for. Ron Paul is not an isolationist or a globalist.
82 - NH
Thanks Flo. Ron is an anti-globalist. Rudy, Mitt and McCain are all part of the shadow gov't and are sanctioned by them, hence the media blackout on the REAL people like Ron.
83 - Dave Nalle
I'm curious to hear your basis for concluding that Rudy is a globalist, except in the sense that he has worked for multinational corporations as a security consultant. His rhetoric certainly isn't globalist and as mayor of NYC he had no discernable foreign policy.
Admit it, you just want to stick him with Bush and his New World Order because you don't think he's 'pure' enough for your rigid libertarianism, and he's a threat because he's libertarian enough to appeal to the more mainstream freedom lovers, but pragmatic enough to draw votes from the centrists so that he can actually win.
You'd rather lose with ideological purity than win with sensible compromise. Standard LP idiocy.
Dave
84 - Philly Dave
I am totally lost as to ehere the suggestion that ROn Paul is a globalist came from. I said Rudy was a globalist
Dave FWIW, I am a Republican albeit a (small l) libertarian one.
Check Rudy's dealings and that of the law firm which he has been a partner in since leaving the Mayors office. Then you tell me that as an occupant of the White house he will place the interests of the American People above that of his corporate donors.
Food for thought...
85 - Dave Nalle
The comment about Ron Paul being a globalist was clearly an error where someone put the wrong name in.
As for Rudy's law firm, yes they have multinationals as clients. They're a big corporate law firm. Corporations aren't the enemy.
There are two (really more, but basically two) kinds of globalism. There's global corporatism which benefits the US and our people in most cases and there's international socialism as manifested in the UN and the green movement and the International Criminal Court, etc. They are VERY different forms of globalism and pose different threats.
Global corporatism mainly poses the usual threats of indifferent megacorporations which neglect their responsibilities and think they can buy everything - the same threats domestic corporations or anyone with a lot of money poses. Rudy is at least somewhat on that team, but that team represents capitalism and free trade and that's a good thing so long as it doesn't get out of control.
International socialism - which manifests in far more ways than just the relatively useless Socialist International - poses a much more serious threat because they want to do away with national sovereignty, borders, property rights and other civil liberties which we enjoy. They are a genuine threat to our constitution and our way of life. They're the team which the Clintons and most of the prominent democrats play for.
Dave
86 - Image
I think globalists of any shade are bad. The corporate type and the socialist/communist type. Corporations are ran by men and you can do and say anything behind the scenes and make them happen. Anytime you have people worth more than Bill Gates in the world, they WILL have their voices heard in any government in the world. These big players control many corporations, media and people. I don't think its all a conspiracy, but they all look at us as underlings that need to be led by an elite class. We left Europe and are now trying to reestablish a ruling class here. To them a Republic is such a bother, especially elections, they set/prop up dictators and kings instead.
87 - Dave Nalle
Ah, but our ruling class is a meritocracy determined solely by money, and anyone has the potential to join.
Dave
88 - Image
I think it getting very hard to discern an oligarchy from a meritocracy, it's like the money people are the government. The type I am refering to are the ones who own central banks, not little billionaires who have new money. They are the ones who get invited by the real players to events that involve elites from every sector in society, like at Davos or places like that. Here's a quote: “PERMIT ME TO CONTROL THE CURRENCY OF A NATION AND I CARE NOT WHO MAKES ITS LAWS!”
Baron de Rothschild
89 - Marc Scott Emery
I ran as a Libertarian (in Canada) in 1980 and founded the libertarian Freedom Party of Ontario in 1984. 26 years in the libertarian movement and I'm pretty sure I understand what a libertarian is. Rudy Giuliani is no libertarian. He's an authoritarian with a very nasty police-state fascist streak.
My review of the Republican front runners vs. Ron Paul...
From Cannabis Culture Magazine.
Ron Paul, a family physician representing the Gulf Coast region of Texas around Galveston, is seeking the Republican nomination. Ron Paul was rated by Cannabis Culture Magazine as the #1 Congressman of the last decade, far and away the #1 Republican in the House of Representatives, and the highest score of all 435 Members of the House of Representatives in Cannabis Culture's Survey of the 109th Congress. Ron Paul voted against The Patriot Act, the Iraq War, every aspect of the Drug War. Ron Paul was one of only 5 Members of the House who voted against re-authorizing the budget of the Drug Czar John Walters office (ONDCP). Ron Paul co-sponsors many, many bills each year whose intent is to repeal the drug war, repeal the intrusions of Big Brother. Ron Paul is incorruptible. He votes against any and all expansion of government authority.
Ron Paul is a libertarian Republican who constantly enrages the GOP (Grand Old Party - The Republicans) because he actually believes in a small federal government and sound fiscal policies.He's anti-death penalty, anti-drug laws, anti-police state, anti-Patriot Act and anti-anything that's not authorized by the Constitution. I admire him for his "principled anti-war stance," while pro-abortion voters don't need to worry about the obstetrician/gynecologist's strong pro-life stance -- he knows the federal government has no right to get involved in such stuff.
Leading contenders for the 2008 Republican nomination are prohibitionist heavyweights like for New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Arizona Senator John McCain, and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.
Marijuana arrests rose from under 6,000 a year in New York City in the year before Giuliani became Mayor (1993) to over 62,000 arrests in 2001, the final year in his term-limited second administration. Giuliani was America's most rabid drug warrior and his views have not changed. In his eight years (1994-2001)Giuliani had over 400,000 New Yorkers arrested for marijuana only! Over 150,000 of those were jailed for at least one night, like I said, on a marijuana charge. By contrast, in the previous 8 years, (1986-1993), fewer than 100,000 New Yorkers were cited for marijuana 'offenses'.
John McCain's most recent job prior to becoming a politician in 1986 was as a brewery executive (his wife is the heir to Hensley & Co., the second largest Anhauser-Busch beer distributor in the USA). McCain has expressed the most hawkish positions on drug policy. On March 5, 2000, McCain told the Boston Globe he wants to increase penalties for selling drugs, supports the death penalty for drug kingpins, favors tightening security to stop the flow of drugs into the country, and wants to restrict availability of methadone for heroin addicts. He said he would push for more money and military assistance to drug-supplying nations such as Colombia.
McCain supports the following principles concerning illegal drugs:
*Source: Project Vote Smart, 1998, www.vote-smart.org Jul 2, 1998
Increase penalties for selling illegal drugs
Impose mandatory jail sentences for selling illegal drugs
Impose capital punishment for convicted international drug traffickers
Strengthen current laws dealing with non-controlled substances, including inhalants and commercially available pills
Increase funding for border security to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the US
John McCain has not moderated his views perceptibly.
Newt Gingrich was a pot head in his college years who advocated Congress pass the death penalty for pot smugglers while he was House Speaker (1995 - 1999). The 1994 Crime Act already mandated the death penalty for the biggest of marijuana growers (over 60,000 plants or 60,000 kilos, (18 USC 3591 (b)) but Gingrich wanted more.
"Gingrich Urges Death Penalty for Illegal Drug Smugglers," Washington Post, August 27, 1995, p. A16.
In a speech before a Republican National Committee, Gingrich said that increasing the number of offenses punishable by the death penalty would be a way to stop illegal drug smuggling. "You import commercial quantities of drugs in the United States for the purpose of destroying our children, we will kill you," he said.
Gingrich said that those who are caught possessing drugs should be sentenced to perform two days of community service every week. If a day is missed, the person would be subject to a five-year prison term. The Speaker came back to the issue of executions for drug smugglers at a speech at a football and cheerleading camp near Atlanta in late August, 1995. He said he would introduce a bill stipulating mandatory executions for drug dealers.
Death penalty for pot? No thanks. Why Newt, a draft dodger during the Vietnam War and an adulterer a year prior to becoming a Congressman, should be viewed favorably by fiscal or moral conservatives, I have no idea. Newt herded in the largest Congress of deficit spending Republicans the nation has ever seen. Newt's legacy is George W Bush. Newt's impeachment-obsessed Congress certainly paved the cynical road that Congressional Republicans have travelled in the 1994 -2006 period, before the big wake-up call for Republicans occurred on November 7, 2006. Republicans have, in the immediate past, shown a fondness for draft dodging scoundrels who become mean-spirited born-again war mongers, and Newt is the most pernicious and hypocritical of any up for the Presidential auction in 2008. What denomination of the Christian faith do Gingrich, McCain, Giuliani profess to adhere to? Perhaps the same one that came up with the Spanish Inquisition? More recently, Gingrich, on November 27, 2006, while giving a speech at the Nackey S. Loeb School of Communication in Manchester, New Hampshire advocated a government effort to curb free speech. He said, "We now should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren't for the scale of the (terrorist) threat," calling for a "serious debate about the First Amendment." And Newt campaigns on this stuff!
Are you frightened enough yet to want to act pre-emptively!?
There will be no better Republican seeking the GOP nomination than Ron Paul. And the contrast between Ron Paul and Republican front-runners Giuliani, McCain, and Gingrich is very stark. Very opposite worlds. Of the other 7 Republicans who have announced "exploratory committees", only Tom Tancredo, an iconoclast Representative from Colorado whose immigration policies have gotten him attention, supports state's rights to medical marijuana.
Among the Republican Party candidates for President, only Ron Paul has voted against both the 2002 Iraq War Resolution and the funding of the war in the annual Appropriations Bill.
Ron Paul is a wonderful idealist, a prolific and intelligent writer and columnist, a true Man of the People who is completely devoted to the ideals of free men and women in a free society of bodily autonomy and freedom of choice. Ron Paul was rated the only Congressman with a perfect record of voting for the cannabis culture and against big government, the drug war and the war in Iraq. We must support Ron Paul for the Republican nomination for President. If you are so inclined, register as a Republican so you can support, campaign, and lobby other Republicans to make Ron Paul their choice for President in the primaries next year. His website is: Ron Paul.
90 - Eric Dondero
We're virtually tied for Libertaian activism. I started in 1985: Libertarian National Committee member, Libertarian candidate for State House, Ron Paul, Libertarian for President Travel Aide, Libertarian Delegate to two National LP Conventions, Florida Chairman for the Libertarian Republican Organizing Comm., Founder - Republican Liberty Caucus, 1st RLC National Chairman and Director, Personal Aide to 1976 Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Roger MacBride for 5 years, 1996 Ron Paul for Congress Campaign Coordinator, Senior Aide to US Congressman Ron Paul from 1997-2003.
I'm pretty sure that I know what a Libertarian is, as well.
Yes, Ron Paul is quite libertarian on economic matters. Excellent as a matter of fact. On many social issues he's a little less libertarian. He's had some criticisms come his way on gay issues, most of them justified. He's uncomfortable with dealing with concerns of the Jewish community as well. He's more Pro-Life than you describe, above. I'm Pro-Choice. Ron and I would have serious, serious arguments for hours on end over abortion in the car driving from Houston to San Antonio for instance. Trust me, he's much more Pro-Life than Pro-Choicers would be comfortable with. He's not so good on other sexual matters either, such as legalized prostitution. In 1987 he famously made the comment that he'd be glad to run on the ticket with a VP, so long as that person "was not Norma Jean Almadovar" whom he despised (best selling Author of "Cop to Call Girl").
Ron is quite naiive on the issue of Islamo-Fascism. He thinks that if we just back off the Islamo-Fascists will leave us alone. He cares little about the threat that American libertarian culture advocates see that will come to our civil liberties if the Islamo-Fascists gain greater control here in the US. He cares very little, if at all, about the Islamo-Fascist rampage that's sweeping Europe right now, outlawing prostitution, marijuana, increasing intolerance of gays, burqa-clad women now in downtowns of major Euro-cities. Ron Paul simply does not see these events as a threat. He'd be perfectly fine with an America where Radical Muslims gaines control of city councils and started outlawing all sorts of sexual freedoms.
He also has a tendency to have two different personas: one for national consumption and quite another for his conservative south Texas District. Here in Texas he's Mr. Red, White and Blue - support the Troops, our Veterans, Star Spangled Banner and all. In the national media, RP is Mr. Leftwinger Republican; always oppose Bush, criticize the GOP at every opportunity, call for surrender in Iraq, ect...
Ironically, Ron Paul would not have gotten elected to Congress were it not for Bush. Bush and Carl Rove pulled out all the stops for him in 1996, when we faces a very, very tough and brutal Democrat general election candidate - Lefty Morris. Bush and his team got every prominent Republican and their mothers to come down to our District to campaign and raise money for RP, including Tom DeLay, Kay Hutchison, Carole Rylander, you name it.
So how does Ron Paul return the favor? By pretending that Bush never gave him support and years later criticizing him at every opportunity.
I was there folks. I was deep in the thick of it all.
Ron Paul is a good man, especially on economics. But he doesn't live by the Golden Rule of politics: "You dance with thems that brought you to the dance."
In other words he's the kinda guy who takes, takes, takes help from others, but hardly ever gives favors back in return.
He's a good Economic Libertarian, but a lousy friend and political colleague.
In Liberty,
Eric Dondero, Former Senior Aide
US Congressman Ron Paul 1997-2003
Angleton, Texas (Congressional Dist. 14)
91 - Clavos
OK, so now we know you guys are a couple of heavy duty, card carrying Libertarians.
Ron Paul isn't going to get elected President.
Cannabis Culture mag as an endorsement? Puleeze...
92 - Eric Dondero
And did you notice that Cannibas Culture Magazine is a Canadian publication? I wonder if this guy even lives in the United States?
93 - Dave Nalle
Ooh me too me too.
Chairman of Pennsylvanians for Clark 1980. Assistant National Director of Students for a Libertarian Society 1981. Editor of Liberty Magazine 1981-1982. Libertarian Candidate for State Representative 2002. Delegate to Texas GOP state convention 2004. Currently Advisory Board Director of Republican Liberty Caucus.
Ok, my libertarian penis isn't quite as long as Eric's, but it does hang proudly.
That said, I don't have the same personal knowledge of Ron Paul's shortcomings, but I sure am familiar with the failings of the Libertarian Party and the impossibility of running an ideologically inflexible libertarian for national office.
IMO while Paul has a lot of great ideas to offer and makes the field more interesting, only LP fanatics and a small number of Republicans and Independents will vote for him, and he has no chance of winning a national election. He couldn't even win a statewide office in Texas.
Dave
94 - Dave Nalle
Let me also add that Marc appears to represent the faction of drug-legalization above all else Libertarians who have come to dominate the LP. They're certainly dead right on that issue, but they don't realize that it's hardly the only important issue, and that in real world politics you sometimes have to compromise on one issue to earn the ability to pursue another which may be equally important.
Dave
95 - Clavos
Dave sez,
Let me also add that Marc appears to represent the faction of drug-legalization above all else Libertarians who have come to dominate the LP. They're certainly dead right on that issue, but they don't realize that it's hardly the only important issue...
...Not to mention how tough a sell it is...
96 - Marc Scott Emery
Eric responded to my comment with this outrageous little snit he sent me, it's bizarre. "Shut your trap"? Bizarre.
By the way, the American Presidential election is far too important to be left to Americans, they fuck it up year after year, that's why I am involved. That and your current Bush-appointed US Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales wants me to spend the rest of my life behind bars in a US federal prison, so my stake is alot more vital than any American in this forum, I would say.
I also assess the voting record of EACH & EVERY member of the House of Representatives each Congress. Here are my 435 reviews of the 109th Congress, where I analyze 10 votes over the course of the 109th Congress. It will take you 2 minutes to load because there is a map with each district.
Despite my substantial experience in studying the Congress, Eric wrote me this outrageous remark about my post above, his pettiness and arrogance is palpable:
From Eric:>>> Your are grossly ignorant about Ron Paul
Your naiivete is astounding. I worked for Ron Paul for 12 years. He's not anything like you paint him to be over at Blog Critics.
But you're a Canadian, not a Texan. What the hell would you know anyway.
For instance, you spew hatred for George W. Bush. Are you aware that Bush had his folks campaign their asses off to get RP elected to Congress in 1996? Are you aware that Bush (through Rove) raised tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars for Paul's general election effort? Are you aware that Tom DeLay, because of Bush, came down to Ron Paul's District and did 3 (!!!) big fundraisers for Ron Paul in 1996.
Do you know what the vote total was in that critical election? Ron Paul 51% to Left Morris 47.5%.
Yup, that close.
We most certainly would have lost that election were it not for Bush's help.
Now do you ever hear anyone, say LewRockwell.com, talk about this? Lew was there. He saw it all. That is until we forced Lew into the closet because of his idiotic remarks that hit the press during the campaign, like this doozy, "Black men are flat-footed, so they are able to avoid the cops in DC better than whites..."
No, the ingrates like Rockwell, are completely silent about Bush's support for RP in 1996. Instead, the ingrates bash Bush persistently and without shame.
That to me is the most disgusting way to act in politics; You accept someone's help and money, and then when you don't need it any more you turn on them.
If Bush wasn't such a nice man, he would have called Ron Paul up later on and said, "Hey Congressman, what gives?"
It's a classic case of Ron Paul saying to Bush, "you scratch my back, but I won't scratch yours."
Says a lot about the man's character, or more appropriately, lack thereof.
One other little factoid, not many people are aware of. Look at Ron Paul's Congressional District map. See that strange little "finger" that jettisons into Galveston County, carving out a healthy chunk that comes from Cong. District 22? Well, guess why that's like that? Tom DeLay masterminded the whole District Gerrymandering for the GOP in the late 1990s. He wanted to make his friend Ron Paul have a very safe District. So, DeLay took out a 98% Black Democrat area of Galveston from Ron's District and put it into his own. He took a hit for his ole pal Ron Paul to make sure that Ron had a 61% Republican voting strength District. DeLay's Republican voting strength for his District 22 dropped down to the mid-50s. Did Ron Paul ever return the favor? Nope! It's just a little factoid that's been swept under the rug and that nobody every talks about any more.
You see, so long as people do things for Ron Paul, he's your best buddy. But ask for a favor in return, and he's nowheres to be found, or he just entirely ignored your request. He's the classic One-wayer.
Anyway, you don't know the half of it. I'd advise you to keep your trap shut about stuff you know nothing about.
Eric Dondero,
Ron Paul, Libertarian for President Travel Aide, 1987/88
Ron Paul for President Exploratory Comm. Campaign Coordinator, 1992
Ron Paul for Congress, Campagin Coordinator, 1995/96
Senior Aide, US Congressman Ron Paul, 1997-2003
Libertarian Republicans
Fiscally Conservative, Socially Tolerant & Pro-Defense!
For the latest libertarian political news
Eric Dondero is a US Navy Veteran, former Libertarian Party National Committeeman, Founder of the Republican Liberty Caucus and fmr. Senior Aide to US Congressman Ron Paul R-TX. He is now a national Republican Political Consultant based in Houston, Texas.
97 - Marc Scott Emery
In regards to my fine magazine, Cannabis Culture, 82% of the 72,000 copies are sold in the US and we devote a fair amount of coverage to US politics. In fact, our latest issue, The Special Activist Issue, which is all about drug-war/drug-reform legislation throughout the US and the activists championing them, will be distributed to all 435 members of the Congress by aides in various Congressional offices who are sources/friends/allies of ours.
I would also note Eric's passionate defence of George Bush & Tom Delay and that he is now a Republican operative casts doubt on his ability to present any credible libertarian bona-fides today. In previous years, perhaps, but he is a bought n' paid for Republican statist these days.
98 - Dave Nalle
Despite my substantial experience in studying the Congress, Eric wrote me this outrageous remark about my post above, his pettiness and arrogance is palpable:
Despite your 'study' of Congress, both Eric and I have worked on Capitol Hill, so don't discount our first-hand opinions in favor of your second-hand ones.
And thanks for reprinting his entire comment. I didn't read it all the first time, but I read your quote of it and it makes perfect sense.
Dave
99 - Eric Dondero
Mr. Emery, I hereby challenge you to a public debate of the facts about Ron Paul's Presidential Campaign.
I have a radio show "Libertarian Politics Live" on BlogTalkRadio.com every Tuesday and Thursday night at 9:30 pm cst.
My Co-Host Andre Traversa of Chicago can Moderate. Are you game? Or has living in Canada turned you into a wuss?
Give me the go ahead, and I'll have Andre call you to set it up. The Podcast will be available afterwards for all to hear.
100 - Dave Nalle
Let me know if it goes off - I'll publicize it here on BC and elsewhere.
Dave
101 - Marc Scott Emery
Here's what I wrote Eric and I'll be glad to share it here: "Be glad to be on your show. I will post my full length editorial " For The Presidency of the United States of America" at your website by tonight.
I can't address the points that you brought up about Ron Paul
because you were there, so I have no reason to doubt your version, but its unimportant to me. I'm glad he turned on Delay and Bush. I don't think loyalty to politics trumps loyalty to principles. I think GWB has been an extreme disappointment to many conservatives. One might say you have turned on Ron Paul for political reasons, not because of his principles.
I studied Ron Paul's voting record right back to 1996 and no other
REP. comes close to the libertarian voting like Ron. In short, I
looked at his voting record, not at his political loyalties. I wish you could do the same.
Be glad to engage a debate on your websites."
Marc Emery
and a second note I wrote afterward: "Muslims are a big problem in Europe. No doubt about that.
I am impressed by your clarifications on your work with libertarians. The Colorado campaign under Mason Tvert (who is very well acquainted with me, he has a 7 page article in the current Activist issue of CC Mag) was the most brilliant thing.
On the thing about Muslims. Personally, I cannot say in my whole life that a Muslim has ever insulted me or harmed me or threatened me.
I have been arrested by white cops 22 times for pot alone, and my judges who sent me to jail (three months for one joint in 2004, DEA extradition in 2005) were whites and the Justice Minister who is willing to send me to a US gulag is white (and Jewish).
In my entire 49 years, it has been White Christians & Jews who were the capos for the state. Should I say Muslims are more my enemy than white Protestant descendents of Europeans? Hardly, the evidence of my criminal record and the persecution in North America of the pot people is almost exclusively by white European descendents.
No councils in Holland have even more than 2 muslims on any council, no laws that outlaw pot or prostitution have been passed. The biggest enemies of freedom in Europe are the conservatives who, on their own, are trying to dovetail their policies to mimic US policies.
MY brother's (an Anglican minister) son, Corporal Ben Emery, just returned from his third tour of duty in Afghanistan, where, alas, he is in special forces, a sniper, and killed up to 32 (suspected) Taliban. My Dad was in the Royal Navy for the entire WW2. I respect the committment and in the case of Afghanistan, the argument can effectively be made that the Taliban is where all our attention should be in regards to eliminating forces of 'terror'.
Your work on the Colorado campaign is admirable. I hope you will tell me of any other of those campaigns you might be involved with. If you give me an address, I will send you the Special Activist Issue of CC Mag, its all politics.
Marc Emery
102 - Philly Dave
***Ironically, Ron Paul would not have gotten elected to Congress were it not for Bush. Bush and Carl Rove pulled out all the stops for him in 1996, when we faces a very, very tough and brutal Democrat general election candidate - Lefty Morris. Bush and his team got every prominent Republican and their mothers to come down to our District to campaign and raise money for RP, including Tom DeLay, Kay Hutchison, Carole Rylander, you name it.***
So tell me Eric ... after Bush and the Republicans flipped Laughlin an dbacked him AGAINST Paul in the 1996 Primary ... they had a change of heart and all of a sudden were big Ron Paul supporters? Is that what you want us to believe?
How about this: The plan to buy a former Democrat turned Republican Party shill back fired. When their guy (Laughlin) lost THEN Bush and the party backed the lesser of 2 evils ... Ron Paul in the general to keep the seat R ... political self interest.
Have fun debating the Canadian, stoner straw man ;)
103 - Eric Dondero
Yes, that's precisly what happened. Ask anyone associated with the Ron Paul Campaign in 1996. I suggest Ron's current Chief of Staff Tom Lizardo.
It was kind of funny actually. At first, when we won the primary, the couple days after it was like a trickle of Republicans calling Ron up to offer their support.
Ironically, you want to know who the very first one was? Senator Kay B. Hutchison. Then, more and more Republicans started calling, until final it was like a tidal wave.
All the top Republicans, even some who had fought against us very hard for Laughlin, came on board with Ron Paul.
And we needed it. Cause it turned out that the Liberal Democrats came after Ron 10 times harder than Laughlin and the GOP Establishment in the General Election.
104 - Eric Dondero
We do have Mr. Emery scheduled for our BlogTalkRadio show "Libertarian Politics Live" on Tuesday night, 9:30 pm cst. We'll be debating Ron Paul for President. Callers are welcome at 646-915-9887.
To access the show simply go to www.mainstreamlibertarian.com and click on the link to BlogTalk.
It oughta be a doozy.
105 - NH
IT'S OFFICIAL!
March 10, 2007, 6:52PM Rep. Ron Paul to run for president By JOE STINEBAKER Associated Press Writer
© 2007 The Associated Press
HOUSTON -- U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, a strict constitutionalist and fierce anti-war critic, will formally declare his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination Monday when he appears as a guest on a C-SPAN call-in program. (7:30 Eastern Time)
106 - Eric Dondero
Watch of flood of Republicans now declare for his open House seat. Two have already hinted as such. We need to make sure that we preserve his Congressional seat for the GOP.
107 - Dave Nalle
Losing that House seat and no longer having a Libertarian voice in the House is probably going to cost us more than any benefit we could possibly get from Paul's egotistical run for the presidency, unless by some miracle he gets thrown a bone and someone makes him a VP candidate.
Dave
108 - Mr. T.
The level of discussion on this article seems to be dwindling. I have a few comments.
Eric, your issues with Ron Paul seem to be largely emotional and personal. If disagreement over abortion and "islamofacism" is the crux of your problems with Ron Paul, then I am afraid you discredit yourself with your own words. On the former issue, reasonable minds differ (although I have always felt natural law, basic theology and philosophy will inevitably lead to the conclusion that abortion is morally wrong, without further input from the Christian events), and on the second issue, it is never been vogue for liberatarians to so blithely and sloppily designate a great "enemy" and advocate total warfare as the only way to get rid of said enemy. This is because libertarians, relying on numerous traditions, all believe in the principle of self-defense, as carefully circumscribed by actions that only a reasonable mind could see as "legitimate defense." Legitimate self-defense has grey areas, for certain, but the principle remains thus: in self-defense one can ONLY use the minimal force necessary for the act of defending against PHYSICAL aggression. It is the difference between shooting a man in the knees versus going for his head, where it is reasonably safe to do so to an agressor.
Spending billions of dollars to go after a small group of "terrorists" (a sick politically charged word that is more applicable to those who coined it) by bombing countries and engaging in nation building is so far from self-defense that only 1) willful detachment from reality and 2) lunacy can justify believing otherwise.
Where is the physical threat of attack or invasion from Iraq, Iran, North Korea, or Japan? I mention Japan because there must be some great reason why we continue to store troops there that periodically rape young Japanese girls and get away with it? Moral law, and the liberatarian principle that rests atop that law, demands that we value life and not destroy it because some "threat" exists somewhere. If you are so concerned for your well-being, carry a gun. God did not create a world where we can guarantee safety from others by killing them before they get a chance to live--do not fall into the trap of using such perverse logic.
I won't go into the myriad hype you spew regarding Europe's great islamofacist problem. Other than the almost-certainly-Reichstag-fire-esque London Bombing (which I won't dissect here), Europe's problem with islamists is social; they immigrate and don't blend in, and it makes whiny libertines mad and they, having no understanding of basic economics, see said muslims as "taking their jobs." Of course, Europe needs these people, for their welfare state will collapse without the constant infusion of new young workers. European libertines don't like children, and they love abortion. To characterize islam as some kind of global threat is literally to act like Al Capone almost took over the world - at worse, small piss-poor uneducated pockets of muslims may cause some problems in a European neighborhood, no differnt from a group of home grown whites or mexicans in the great state of Texas.
Lastly, I do suggest that while you may not buy all conspiracy theories out there, please consider for a moment the remote idea that, in fact, Islam as an enemy is nothing but a straw man for elites at the top of government to pursue global domination and resource control. Any review of islamic literature for the last 40 years shows that their ire has always been focused on the invader into their land, Israel and not America. If and when an Islamic country ever posed a threat of invasion toward the U.S., one that was materially and physically obvious, and reasonably certain to happen, then, and only then, could the nation, from its own borders, defend itself against such agression with minimal force, all the while making overtures for peace to preserve life (a basic good).
109 - Man Fading
Although an admitted long-shot Ron Paul can win the election. Unity is the key. We must not allow corporate and elite plants among us to derail this grassroots effort. A divided people will certainly ensure our continued course of rendering our Constitution as a worthless piece of paper. To be Americans we must act like Americans. We must put away our petty differences and look at the issues that effect each and every one of us as a whole. Ron Paul addresses the issues that are near and dear to us with sound principles steeped in Constitutional Law. He has taken a stance in Congress on more issues than probably all the other candidates combined. Endorsing and voting Ron Paul will most likely be the most important patriotic thing any one citizen can ever do for this country. Great presidents are far and few between and at age 46 I'd love to see one in my lifetime.
110 - Eric Dondero
Mr. T, how sad. Sounds to me like you've completely forgotten about September 11, 2001. Many warned us this would happen. They warned us there'd be people like you, who just got passed it all, and even would try to pretend it never happened.
Sir, 3,000 of your fellow countrymen died mostly brutally horrific deaths on September 11, 2001.
You should be ashamed at yourself for disgracing their memory.
111 - Mark
Mr. T -- you nailed it, man. Excellent post. Pity the fool that has to argue against your well-reasoned defense of libertarianism.
Mr. D -- maybe if we didn't have troops posted in hundreds of bases around the world, creating ill-will toward the USA, and had instead been paying more attention to protecting our borders and applying our vast intelligence resources to the discovery and apprehension of 19 jihadists, the attacks of 9/11 might not have happened.
112 - Dave Nalle
maybe if we didn't have troops posted in hundreds of bases around the world, creating ill-will toward the USA,
The troops we have stationed around the world hardly create ill-will towards the USA. In most places they are a valued addition to the community and the economy. Towns have fought to get US bases located there and it has meant life of death for some of them economically. US soldiers are generally well behaved and great representatives of our country.
and had instead been paying more attention to protecting our borders and applying our vast intelligence resources to the discovery and apprehension of 19 jihadists, the attacks of 9/11 might not have happened.
This sounds good, but it's fundamentally untrue. No amount of redeployment of troops or redirecting of intelligence resources is going to be effective against terrorism unless we make changes in our laws to facilitate greater levels of intrusion into private communciations and monitoring of the activities of individuals. That's there the bottleneck is. I'm not alone in thinking that protecting the rights and privacy of our citizens is worth the occasional terrorist attack.
Dave
113 - Eric Dondero
Wrong! The Muslims hate us for who we are. They hate us for our culture. They hate us for Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Madonna, MTV, Hollywood, our Movies, Fast cars, and big breasted blonde woman.
You're a fool if you think this has to do with our foreign policy. Osama Bin Laden said so himself. In one of his most recent tirades he admitted it was all about our Western culture.
I've been stationed in the Middle East. I speak basic Arabic. I know these people. IT HAS VIRTUALLY NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR TROOPS BEING STATIONED IN THEIR LANDS.
They will tell you themselves. It's all about our culture. And unless you want to turn your country over to people who want Sharia Law, we MUST fight them.
Read the Bruce Bawer bestselling book "While the West Slept: The Rise of Radical Islam in Europe." Bawer is a Gay American who lives in the Netherlands.
Question for you. If this has everything to do with our foreign policy, then why is it that the Islamists are rioting all over Europe? The Euros are non-interventionists?
Why did they murder Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn?
114 - Eric Dondero
Dave is completely correct. And my guess would be that like me, Dave is a Military Veteran, and the poster above, is not.
Our Military Troops are fantastic ambassadors for Americanism across the world. They are well-behaved and amazingly good natured towards foreigners in whatever land.
We greatly undervalue their service to our country, particularly as goodwill ambassadors.
115 - Michael J. West
Oh, my God. You mean to tell me that Comment 114 has been up for 45 MINUTES and MCH hasn't zoomed past yet?
116 - Philly Dave
They hate us for Britney Spears, Paris Hilton...
Actually if you are going to hate us for something these aren't such bad reasons ;)
You're a fool if you think this has to do with our foreign policy.
Or perhaps you're a fool if you don't.
Question for you. If this has everything to do with our foreign policy, then why is it that the Islamists are rioting all over Europe? The Euros are non-interventionists?
First I would not say "Everything", I would say "much". They are rioting because they are malcontents with a sense of entitlement (one that is endorsed by the government).
As for the Hard Core fundamentalists, Sharia law and all that,(not neccesarily the same as the folks rioting) their problem is much more a matter of their mideival mindset rather than their religion (not that I am a fan of their religion).
Leaving these people alone, trading with them where we can and allowing Israel to be responsible for herself will go further toward some sort of progress with these people than expending all of our ordinance on them.
Suicide terrorism is a tactic used by groups with, relatively limited firepower primarily to end occupation. Statistics seem to show that far fewer folks even muslims can be radicalized to the point of volunteering for death missions when their is no external threat to galvanize them.
Sort of like here.
Now a question for you. Did the IRA hate Britain for their Parliment, Beatles and the BBC? What were all those terrorist attacks about?
The troops we have stationed around the world hardly create ill-will towards the USA.
And tell me did the Saudi people like our US bases there?
117 - Michael J. West
Why did they murder Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn?
Uhhh, Eric? If the "they" you refer to is the Islamists...they DIDN'T kill Pim Fortuyn. The assassin, Volkert van der Graaf, was an animal-rights extremist, he was not a Muslim, and not a single speck of evidence has yet surfaced--despite desperate attempts by the LPF to suggest al Qaeda ties--that he acted anything but alone.
118 - Dave Nalle
Eric, I'm not a vet, but I do come from a family with a long history of military service. Growing up overseas I had a lot of contact with our troops at foreign posts, and saw the role they played in the local community, and it was largely very positive and generally received very well.
The only time I ever saw any negative behavior towards soldiers overseas was during the 70s when there were some 'no nukes' protestors at a base in England, but they were protesting the US more than the soldiers as such.
Dave
119 - Dave Nalle
I mention Japan because there must be some great reason why we continue to store troops there that periodically rape young Japanese girls and get away with it?
You know, this is the kind of crap which discredits the bombastic fools of the left. US soldiers in Japan commit no more rapes per capita than young people of the same age anywhere else - in fact they rape somewhat less than a similar number of people would here in the US. Yes, there were some highly publicized cases a few years ago. But the reason they WERE highly publicized is that the soldiers did get prosecuted.
Dave
120 - Marc Scott Emery
Eric, along with 2,646 US citizens casualties, 327 foreign nationals also perished, 27 from Canada.
You will note that those countries also affected are the ones in Afghanistan, dealing with the problem incorrectly alas, but at least in the country where the extremely lucky 19 homicide pilots were trained, and who were permitted to accomplish their murderous mission by Bush/Cheney despite prior intelligence on Aug. 24 that Al Queda wanted to hit US targets. And those lucky 19 were all Egyptians and Saudi's, whose governments are well introduced to the Bush family, Halliburton, and the Pentagon.
Further, whoever ordered the NYC police & fire departments into those buildings bears some cuplability for sending hundreds into the building to meet their death. Whoever scrambled the air force so late is culpable.
Being on its Eric's radio show last night, I realized its all about spewing hate with these rather small (minded) libertarians. Alot of hateful name calling, yelling over guests, yelling at each other, focus on the trivial, and just downright obsessed with certain bogeymen and oblivious to so many other statists and statist actions.
And this dissing Ron Paul. On the radio, Eric said that Dennis Miller was America's greatest libertarian, and that Rudy Giuliani was preferable to Ron Paul.
Absurd. Miller has never performed a libertarian action in his life and has been a Bush apologist for 5 years running. Giuliani is another statist strong man cop character. But Eric thinks these two are libertarian heroes. What's the common denominator?
Eric, Rudy and islamo-baiter Miller all have 9/11 to run over in their head until they orgasm, feeding their hate-ons for the Muslims to the exclusion of all else, as if calling Muslims "third-world trash" (on last nights show) is some sacred tenet of libertarianism.
Eric calls his blog mainstreamlibertarian but there is nothing mainstream or particularly rational there, its all racist emotion like the worst of Republiclones like Limbaugh. It should be called fanboylibertarian because Eric gushes over celebrities if Eric believes they fit his weird libertarian paradigm while spending ceaseless energy denigrating Ron Paul.
121 - Michael J. West
Be nice, Dave. Not all of us on the left are bombastic fools. Some of us work very hard to be rational and reasonable, and to have our facts both straight and at our disposal.
Besides, the right is not without its discreditors. Those, for example, so intent on excising U.S. foreign policy from al Qaeda' motives that they blame them for a political murder in the Netherlands in which they had no involvement.
122 - Man Fading
News Flash......There is no rational argument against Ron Paul's ability or integrity. He is exactly what the doctor ordered. He has taken a stand on more issues than all the other candidates combined. His record plainly shows his commitment as well as his values. Mr. Dondero obviously has an ex-employee/employer bias.
123 - Clavos
They hate us for Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Madonna, MTV, Hollywood, our Movies, Fast cars, and big breasted blonde woman.
And, in that context, they are right...
124 - NH
To Eric and Dave,
Ron has no intention of not running for his seat, in fact in NH he said he could do both and would.
125 - Eric Dondero
To which I would reply, that this jeopardizes Congressional District 14 for us Republicans. We've already lost the neighboring seat in CD 22 due to Tom DeLay's idiotic political shenanigans. Losing Ron Paul's seat would be a huge dissaster.
He can't lose, you say?
I live right smack dab in the middle of Ron Paul's District in Angleton. These folks down here are hardworking blue collar patriotic American sorts.
They have little if any clue as to Ron Paul's national stances against the War. All they know is Dr. Paul is that nice man who hands out medals to our Veterans.
What do you think is going to happen once these nice folks here in South Texas start hearing about Ron Paul's real views against the War?