Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Ron Paul is the Only One

Ron Paul is the Only One

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+3Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

It has become cliché for political pundits to proclaim every four years that the presidential election campaign is the most important in the nation’s history. Given that our economy is on the brink of collapse, we are currently engaged in five wars, and our civil liberties are under attack as never before, next year’s presidential election will truly rank right up there with the most important elections in our country’s history. Accepting that view, there is only one candidate in the race for the White House in 2012 who has what it takes to restore America to its previous greatness. That candidate is Congressman Ron Paul.

No other candidate saw the financial crisis of 2008 coming. As early as 2003, Congressman Paul predicted Federal Reserve and Bush administration policies would lead to the housing bubble and its inevitable collapse. He predicted this based on his understanding of free-market economics and the Austrian Business Cycle Theory.

Now, it is true that Newt Gingrich did allude to the corruption of the Federal Reserve in last week’s GOP debate in Ames, Iowa, but he and every other Republican on stage except Ron Paul does not understand the connection between Fed policies and our economic ills. All they can propose are more tax cuts to remedy the situation. Congressman Paul has been preaching about the need to restore sound money to our economy for over 35 years. He recognizes that the destruction of the middle class in America is primarily the result of the price inflation (over 450 percent since 1971) perpetrated on the American people by the Federal Reserve. He knows that spending our way out of our current crisis will not work. He is the only candidate for president who would take a holistic approach to getting our economy back on track, mal-investment liquidation, reining in out of control federal spending, responsible military budgets, and of course sound money.

But, Dr. Paul’s superiority over the other candidates for president doesn’t end with economics. He is far and away the only responsible candidate in the field regarding war and peace. He did not fall for the war propaganda launched by the Bush administration against Saddam Hussein. He voted against giving the president authority to invade Iraq. As president, he would end the eight year war in Iraq and the ten year war in Afghanistan, as well as our wars in Libya, Pakistan, and Yemen.

As was highlighted in the Iowa debate last week he is well read in international affairs. He knows the history of our troublesome relationship with Iran and understands that incendiary remarks and threats toward her are not going to make the world safer. As president, Dr. Paul would end American occupations in countries that surround Iran, thereby lessening tensions and opening the door to peaceful relations. Contrary to the positions of other candidates for president, Ron Paul knows that another war is not in our best interest.

Lastly, no other candidate for president has as strong a record on civil liberties as Congressman Paul. He has been a consistent opponent of Washington’s relentless assault on our civil liberties and constitutional rights. As president, the so-called Patriot Act would be priority one on his chopping block. Paul understands and is alarmed that this legislation has radically expanded the federal government’s ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight; has made it far easier for the government to monitor private internet usage; has authorized so-called sneak and peek warrants enabling federal authorities to search a person’s home, office, or personal property without that person’s knowledge; and has required libraries and bookstores to turn over records of books read by their patrons. The TSA’s grope fest at our airports would also end. As important as civil liberties are, none of the other candidates for president have shown any interest in protecting them.

The above comparison includes the current occupant of the Oval Office, Barack Obama. In two and a half years as president, Obama continues to support the same failed economic policies (spending and easy money) that got us into the mess in the first place and has only made matters worse since. He not only broke campaign promises by continuing Bush’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but has escalated another in Pakistan and started one of his own in Libya. And, as for civil liberties and constitutional rights, he has shown his true colors by signing a four year extension of expiring provisions of the Patriot Act, authorizing his Director of National Intelligence to notify Congress that the administration reserves the right to assassinate American citizens believed to be terrorists.

Yes, next year’s presidential contest will be truly one of the most important in American history. With more than 14 million Americans out of work and millions more involved in the administration’s war machine, what we need is a new president with an understanding of economics, knowledge of international affairs, and a complete dedication to civil liberties and constitutional rights. The only candidate who fits that profile is Congressman Ron Paul.

Powered by

About Kenn Jacobine

  • Tim

    You are right on. It is good to read that people are understanding Ron Paul and how much we need him. Thanks for the article.

  • Nick

    Thank you for this great article. Though some of his views may seem extreme the American people have to remember that a president doesnt get EVERYTHING he wants, Ron Paul is a firm believer of actually taking a vote and doing what is best for our country based on the vote, the way it should be !

  • DocDave

    Thank you for the awesome article!

  • Don

    Agreed. Excellent article! I was told about Ron Paul just last week, and after researching him, and then the other Republican candidates, and even Barrack Obama (yeah I know) I can definitely say that by far, by far, by far Ron Paul is the most worthy candidate this country stands a chance of electing.

    Go Ron!!!

  • Alex

    Well written. Thanks.

  • DocDave

    When fascism goes to sleep it looks under the bed for Ron Paul.

    He has never taken a government junket. 

    He does not participate in the lucrative Congressional Pension Program.

    He returns a portion of his annual Congressional Office Budget every
    year. 

    He has never voted to raise taxes. 

    He has never voted for an unbalanced budget. 

    He voted no to the bankster bailout.

    He voted no to raising the debt ceiling and warned us against the “Super Congress” part of the legislation that resembles both an “Enabling Act” and a “Politburo.”

    He has never voted to restrict gun ownership. 

    He has never voted to raise Congressional Pay. 

    He never voted to increase Executive Branch Power. 

    He will Reinstate The Constitution and Save The Republic 

    He will END the unconstitutional FED. 

    He will phase out the unconstitutional IRS beginning immediately 

    He will secure the borders 

    He will limit Big Government in your private affairs 

    He will stop Illegal immigration and no amnesty 

    He voted against regulating the Internet

    He is the only candidate for President in 2012 who actually served his country.

    He was a flight surgeon during Vietnam.

    Ron Paul’s popularity is so high among U.S. service members that the Texas  Congressman’s presidential campaign has received more money from U.S. soldiers than any other candidate in the 2012 presidential race.

    He voted against the Iraq War and warned us against going forward with
    an undeclared war. “Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberty and wealth are in Jeopardy”  July 10th, 2003

    He voted against the un-patriotic so called Patriot Act. 

    He supports a non-interventionist foreign policy yet a strong defense 

    He will end the inflation tax He is a true Constitutional Conservative 

    He would have soundly beat Obama in 2008 because Independents trust him and like him.

    We could have had a V8 instead of McCain’t in 08 

    Ron Paul for President 2012 

    Because no one else can be trusted to say what he means and do what he says like Ron Paul does.

    Ron Paul is the man of the hour. They used to laugh him for being way ahead of the others in his thinking and his warnings. Now, they are not laughing because what he predicted is coming to pass. Now, he is being called a prophet for having warned us and still calmly suffered through the barbs. “First they ignore you, then they fight you, then you win.” Gandhi

  • Rick Wilson

    Thank You Ken

    Hopefully, the young people, progressives and independents, who saw Obama as an agent of change, and were betrayed, have not been driven out of the process altogether, because the status Quo of both parties seem more than happy to continue down the dead-end road of mindless partisan bickering, while america crumbles.

    As a left-leaning independent, I whole-heartedly support Ron Paul

  • troll

    …any downsides?

    just askn’

  • Charles

    I agree with the compliments posted about Mr. Jacobine’s opinion article.

    I think the two articles available through the following links are worth sharing with our “left-leaning”/progressive citizens: Huff Po Truth Out.

    Regards,

    Charles

  • http://www.azizonomics.com azizonomics

    ron paul can win. the mainstream media ignore him, and the talking heads slate him, but he’s been right about everything: civil liberties, war, handouts to big business, bailouts, the military industrial complex. for me it’s ron paul or nobody.

  • Shannon Moon

    It time to drive a wedge to our two party system. And truely have a Goverment that works for the people! Ron Paul is the only option to save our Country from Big Bankers, Corperatizem, and Goverment, Ron Paul is the only Canidate in over 100 years that will abide and protect our Constitution, and our rights. No matter if you are R,D,I, Ron Paul have the values we all can agree with!

  • Andrew

    The only problem I have with Ron Paul is that he accepted donations in 2008 from White Supremacy groups. You can’t choose who donates to your campaign, but you can choose which donations to accept. Accepting those donations was in extremely bad taste and points to other issues that might not be being covered.

  • AndrewHater

    Andrew, you are wrong, 100%. You need to do some more fact checking before bringing up slanderous “information” that is questionable at best. RON PAUL 2012!

  • Travis

    @Andrew…
    Ron Paul has talked about this once or twice. He basically said that he didn’t go out and ask for their money. The money was just sent (as most campaign donations are, no politician will turn down your money). So, if these people that gave him the money are so bad, and he doesn’t owe them a thing in return, why give the money back? Isn’t it better to have that money in the hands of a sane man like Ron Paul as apposed to the morally questionable White Supremacist?

    Just remember this. Ron Paul is out to protect us all, even those with stupid views. Freedom and liberty are just as appealing to a supremacist as to a you or me… I just don’t understand how accepting freely given money is bad. Now, if he went out looking for money from these people and was making back room deals that would be another thing. But that is NOT what is happening.

    maybe the best way to spin that whole problem would have been to donate that money to a group like the NAACP. I don’t know what the law on campaign funds says about that though…

    Point is, that’s not a good reason to dislike him. Find a better one…

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Why do I dislike Ron Paul? People complain that every time someone speaks up about how good Ron Paul is, I point out that he’s a racist.

    And he is.

    Plainly racist articles were written in HIS name, under HIS byline, in HIS magazine, over a period of years. Paul’s excuse? “Oh, I didn’t know that guy was writing those horrible things in MY name, under MY byline, in MY magazine, over a period of years!” What a load of utter crap!

    The man is a racist. And that puts into a whole new light his claim that “as reprehensible as such things are”, he thinks that businesses that are open to the public have the right to deny serving anyone for any reason, including race, religion, whatever. His racism that HE wrote in HIS name under HIS byline in HIS magazine over a period of years shows without a doubt that he doesn’t think that such things are reprehensible – he wants to go back to the days of Jim Crow!

    Maybe none of you grew up in a town where the doctor had “white” and “colored” signs above the two entrances to his office. I did – and those signs were there as late as 1984, twenty years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act. I really don’t want to go back to those days. Do you? Do you really?

  • Andy

    Kenn,
    This is one of the best articles I have ever read. You really convey in a clear, precise and truthful manner. What a breath of fresh air!

  • Eve in Texas

    What will Ron Paul supporters do if RP doesn’t get the nomination? I can’t speak for others, but THIS RP supporter will either write him in or stay home!

    THIS is why Ron Paul has a MUCH better chance of beating Obama and Bachman, Perry, et al, don’t stand a chance…

    The progressives against the wars are colluding to vote for Ron Paul, whom would end the wars, and hope to get a progressive elected in 2016. They are already sick of Obama but would never vote for one of the other Republican candidates.

    Time people WAKE UP!

    Ron Paul is frightening to the establishment and their media prostitutes on both sides of the aisle but people are waking up.
    See: Progressives for Ron Paul or Huff Po

    Michelle Bachman gives out 6000 tickets (for Randy Travis concert) and gets 4823 votes. Ron Paul gives out 4000 tickets and gets 4671 votes. Priceless!

  • Shannon

    All canidates have taken money from questionable doners,even Obama! If Paul took money from a racist groop I shure the New Black Pathers threw cash Obamas way or at least they helped intmidate voters on his behalf,and when people complaned Obamas D.O.J looked the other way! So the race card can be played in anyones hands Andrew.

    It seems you want to sture that old pot of crap! Get over yourself and get on board with those who finnaly know who is the best person for President! I think the PC has to be layed to rest so we can move forward and repair the damage the current and past Presidents have done.

  • http://jeremymerriam.com Jeremy Merriam

    Some optimism

    Remember those 14 million of us we are unemployed have a lot of extra time on our hands to volunteer and learn about who is the honest person and best suited to get this economy and jobs back in our hands. In desperate times, people come around and change things. The first attempt at “change” with Obama was a lie. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

  • Kenn Jacobine

    Let’s see, one liberal posts on this thread and all he can do is play the race card. Glenn your allegations just aren’t true. Even the liberal media doesn’t think the newsletter story is worthy.

    As to the Civil Rights Act, Paul is correct in his defense of private property. No one has a legal right to use the property of another. Under the free market folks could picket or boycott a bigoted store owner. In the end why would anybody want to give money to a bigot, especially a person who has been discriminated against.

    In the final analysis, freedom has its costs. I disagree with and think you have foolish positions all the time, but I would defend your right to have them. That is a lot more than I can say for you.

  • Shannon

    Its funny how those who cry out racist seem to be the biggest racist there are. If you do not agree with anothers point of veiw and you are a differant race they call you a racist I call it objectioable. Its time to throw that card away

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Kenn –

    So you say that it’s not true that:

    1 – racist articles were written in the magazine that Ron Paul owned, and

    2 – the articles were written in Ron Paul’s name under his byline, and

    3 – this happened over a period of years.

    Before I continue, I want to hear if you categorically deny all of that.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    “Shannon” –

    Read the last paragraph of my comment #15. Do you really think life should be like that?

    And while you’re thinking about it, remember that Ron Paul said that in his opinion, businesses should be able to refuse service to those of different races or religions.

  • Jordon R Cox

    Ron Paul 2012 if he doesn’t get the nom i am writing him in. Watching the various debates and just looking at those politicians they all seem so dishonest and manufactured. What we need is a Theodore Roosevelt of today. Someone to take on Wall Street and Big Business the way the Republicans USED TO. Someone to use force only when necessary for our National interests the way Roosevelt did in Panama. Someone to force the Government to relinquish its Unconstitutional powers that it has continued to hold onto. Just examine the correlation between the amount of power Government creates for itself during a war or crisis. After said crisis passes, the power is never vested back onto the people. DEPRIVING LIBERTY IS NOT AMERICAN. The patriot act must go. Obama is a farce.

  • David

    Glenn, I have to say how mistaken you are about Congressman Ron Paul. Why don’t you talk with people that have known and worked for him for years and decades? These people will tell you that he is one of the most honest, kind, generous and gentle individuals they have ever known. He does not have a racist bone in his body or thought in his mind.

    Anyone who is an adherent of a libertarian philosophy finds racism to be totally abhorrent. Such people will only judge people as individuals and do so only on the basis of their character, without any consideration to their race, religion, ethnicity, etc. They believe every individual should be permitted to live their life as they see fit and to keep the fruits of their labor, and to do so without interference from their neighbors or the state. If Congressman Paul says he was unaware of what was being written under his name, I believe him. You are free to believe otherwise. However, I believe the life he has lived along with his actions and words should earn him the benefit of the doubt.

    I never have heard him change his message or his position on any issue to suit any audience or constituency. His message is and always has been the same, for decades, no matter to whom he may be speaking. I challenge you to find any other Congressman who has done the same.

    The mainstream media may ignore him and representatives of the political establishment disregard him, but the citizenry of this nation has been listening, and they are not the fools the so-called mainstream believes them to be. They know the real deal when they see and hear it, and Congressman Paul is the real deal.

  • Tyler Parrow

    Thanks for the great article!

  • Shannon

    In an open mind Glenn I will reserch your claim,but I will be hard swayed in my support for Paul.In the time of hope and change there arent any Canidates running that have any hope of changing the satus quoe.At best Perry could be VP to Paul.

  • Greg

    There is a dissection of those letters done on youtube. They were all in different styles and none looked to have been edited. Ron Paul does not flip flop or pander to the masses. If he was racist he would say he was racist. Just look at every other huge issue where he is criticized and laughed at, only to stay steadfast and ultimately proven correct. Even the NAACP came out and said he was not a racist.

    It is brought up in election times to smear his name in case the media lockout isn’t enough.

  • PETER ALAN

    RON PAUL IS THE FRONT RUNNER! THE ESTABLISHMENT IS SCARED TO DEATH!!1

  • Don

    To Glenn,

    I can’t add much more to David’s excellent post, but will debate you on the return to Jim Crow era society.

    Jim Crow laws helped continue segregation and Ron Paul has stated that they were clearly unconstitutional and should have been repealed. You also provide evidence that even 20 years after the Civil Rights Act, there were businesses still with that mindset. Yes, it’s evil and stupid to run a business like that, and to think society would return to those days if businesses were allowed to discriminate is pretty ridiculous. Simple bad PR and boycotts would pretty much end that business fairly quickly.

    The issue Ron Paul has with it is the issue of property rights, not racist desires. Can you even provide any direct evidence of a Ron Paul quote or any of his actions that can demonstrate he is a racist?

    Would you rule out Barack Obama since he has had good friends like Reverend Wright and William Ayers and claim he is a racist and a communist? I bet not.

    Also, if whites are so hateful of blacks and without government laws and force, would revert back to the “old days”; how did Obama get elected anyway since you can vote for whomever you want for whatever reason? Would you say it’s fair to claim that since 98% of African-Americans voted for Obama in the election, that at least some of them only voted for him because of the color of his skin?

    What I’m saying is that to make strong claims like those that someone is a certain way or believes so and so, you would need plenty of direct evidence and I would rather judge an individual on his actions and as a person, not someone belonging to a certain group.

  • Travis

    @Glenn…

    I can’t speak on Ron Paul’s heart as it regards to racism (though the has been given the okay by the former president of the NAACP, which seems to indicate he is not). But, I can show you what a system where people can discriminate would look like.

    It’s all about property rights. On your property, you are free to allow whoever, or deny whoever, entrance into your property (in this case a place of business).

    Lets say a business owner (lets call him Buck) is a racist. He owns his store and the land it is on. Buck decides that he doesn’t want to serve blacks any longer as he doesn’t like them.

    Now, lets pretend that we live in a country that functions the way Ron Paul has described.

    In this thought experiment, Buck is legally able to tell a person of color (or anyone for that matter) to leave his property (business). That sounds pretty bad right? And people can imagine this happening all over the country in backwater places. This is a justifiable fear, but I wouldn’t worry to much. This is why…

    Lets say that this makes you angry. Your friend perhaps was denied service (lets say this denial of service happened in SC and you live in NY, maybe your black friend was just passing through). What do you do? You can’t sue or pursue criminal charges in this situation, so what then? Well, lots of things can be done.

    Starters, contacting any national brands that the business sells (cocacola, frito-lay, etc) and let them know that you will be boycotting them until they no longer supply products to xyz business owned by Buck.

    I think that in this country, enough good people could force people to change. And if some people don’t change, well, at least we will know exactly who they are. And when you see a sign that says ‘no blacks’ or something (which I doubt you’d see anywhere) you’d know that they deserve none of your money. The market will punish those with stupid beliefs. Now, those peoples beliefs just fester under the surface.

    Do you really think there are so many racists that the county will segregate? I can only see that happening in the remotest of backwaters in the south. I have faith in my countrymen, you should too.

    This whole thing stems from comments made by Paul regarding the civil rights act. Which he has said, in principle (private property rights), the act is wrong. The press loves to bring this up, just as you have, and say “he’s against civil rights”, which is far from the truth. Ron Paul said we could have solved the problems another way. The problem wasn’t that people segregated, as that trend was being eliminated by the free market. In many places it was illegal to de-segregate (Jim Crow laws) aka FORCED segragation. Get rid of those, and the market would have put the bad ones out of business.

    This confusion stems from misunderstanding the position of Ron Paul and his views on the role of the Federal Government. Ron Paul believes it is not the purpose of government to coerce. This means no telling you that you can’t associate with one group or that you have to associate with one group.

  • Clavos

    I like much (but certainly not all ) of RP’s positions on the issues, but I am troubled by the illiteracy of so many of the RP supporters’ comments on this thread.

    With the notable exception of Kenn and a very few others, I don’t see much intelligence here.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    Charles, it’s not “left-leaning/progressive citizens” you need to worry about as they shouldn’t be deciding who gets the Repub nomination.

    Everyone should give up on Glenn. He’s too blinded by his guilt of being a racist growing up, which he has written about here, to understand the issue.

  • Truth7

    Read the articke b 4 u think hes racist he clearly is not.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    There is much that I’d love to say about your comment – but my reply would tend more towards an attempt to explain in sociological terms the reasons behind your objective observation, and as such probably would result in an old-school (in Internet time) flame-fest. You’re very good at reading between the lines, so I’m quite sure you know already what I would say and why. So it’s probably best that I leave it at that.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    My last comment was for Clavos

  • Glenn Contrarian

    El B –

    I’ll ask you the same question I asked Kenn – do you categorically deny that the following are true ?

    1 – racist articles were written in the magazine that Ron Paul owned, and

    2 – the articles were written in Ron Paul’s name under his byline, and

    3 – this happened over a period of years.

    Before I continue, I want to hear if you categorically deny all of that.

  • Truth7

    @glenn

    Google vicious ron paul hit piece scrapes the barrel of yellow journalism about 4 down read it ( dsnt let me post link) after reading it ull see he’s not racist. And im sure being a good man ull even acknowledge as much here and become a supporter hopefully

  • CharliePeters

    Audit the fed, support HR 459 Paul

  • Lisa Miles

    Wonderful article. It gave me chills. Thank you! Ron Paul 2012!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    For all –

    Racism is NOT the only reason I feel Ron Paul would not be someone in America’s best interest – far from it! After all, any historian would tell you that we’ve had racist presidents before.

    How many of you know that he wants to get rid of FEMA and the National Flood Insurance Program? I watched him in an interview earlier this year state that if someplace is likely to flood, then move away! Now that sounds REAL good and REAL sensible, doesn’t it?

    But the devil’s in the details.

    How many of you know that banks will NOT approve mortgages in a flood plain unless there’s flood insurance? How many of you know that nearly half of America – including the Mississippi River basin, most of Florida, and nearly all our coasts are considered flood plains? If (like the VAST majority of Americans) you live near a coastline or near a river or on a plain, you almost certainly live – at least in the eyes of the banks – on a flood plain.

    And what does that mean? It means that in nearly half of America, banks would stop approving mortgages…and the single biggest slice of our economy – our real estate market – would come to a screeching halt. Here’s the complete article here.

    So I suggest that all the Ron Paul supporters start doing their research – because while his RHETORIC sounds wonderful, the devil’s in the details, and Mr. Paul believes his ideology should trump the well-being of the single biggest part of our national economy.

    That’s NOT a good idea, and not in the best interests of America. Do your research, people!

  • Shane R.

    Absolutely correct, we need ron paul.

  • Shane R.

    Ron paul is not racist.

    He should get rid of fema and any unconstitutional programs

  • zingzing

    it’s probably been a while since kenn’s been cummed on this much.

    anyway, if any right winger ever brings up obama and the messiah again, any left winger can just point them to a ron paul article if they want to see real religious fervor and undying loyalty to the myth of a man, with nary a 76-year-old wrinkle in sight.

  • troll

    …I have a bit of a problem with the economic theory Paul applies

    if it turns out that one of our major malinvestments has been in labor and the surplus labor population then I worry about solutions that include the word ‘liquidation’

  • Igor

    IMO Glenns objections are objective, factual and documented. I´m afraid that Ron Paul is a dream, a fantasy, who will dissipate like smoke under the least test.

  • Antifed1791

    As to the ‘racist’ news letters:

    1.)They were not written by Dr. Paul but by a ghost writer.
    2.)I’ve never heard or read anything from Ron Paul that was remotely racist, other than the claimed NL.
    3.) Men like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. have been examples for him. He preaches PEACE and non-violence, not hate.
    4. He practices what he preaches and that is a demonstrable fact.

    Here is one of my favorite quotes of his about racism:
    “Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist. ” — Ron Paul

    Now some of you may need to study that quote to understand it. You might discover that it has been YOU all along that was racist.

  • matter

    Great article, but the truth is that the media coninues to sweep this great leader under the rug!

    Who do I have to screw in order for Ron Paul to get fair press coverage?

  • matter

    @Glenn, you need to do YOUR research.

    You refer to flood insurance. That is private sector and absolutely fine. It is not for FEMA or any other taxpayer funded body to protect people’s private property.

    Also, you simply illustrate your ignorance by calling Ron Paul a racist. Read the other factual post in response to yours.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    This orgy of hero-worship is all very well, but I have to be a wet blanket here.

    Even if Ron Paul did make it to the White House, he’d have an almost impossible task getting most of his policies past a hostile Congress – and it would be hostile, regardless of which party controlled it.

    A couple of other things Paul supporters have said concern me a bit. First, there’s the question of the donations from white supremacist groups. Paul apologists say that every candidate receives dubious donations, and he was under no moral obligation to return them. This explanation is unconvincing, because Dr Paul apparently has no problem returning a portion of his congressional allowance each year – on moral grounds, one presumes.

    Secondly there’s the proud boast of Dr Paul’s steadfastness: that he hasn’t changed his position on issues in decades. While in one sense this is admirable, one quality an effective politician does need is flexibility. As worthy as his ideals may be, I guarantee that in an unyielding standoff between Paul and the Establishment, it won’t be the Establishment that breaks first.

  • RPtwenty12

    Glenn

    So you believe that it is the taxpayers responsibility to pay for people to live in a flood plain? I bought a house and guess what, its not in a flood plain.

    You also believe that if someone barely associated with you writes something racist than you are a racist? Pretty weak argument if you ask me.

    I am always researching candidates, all my research tells me is that you are a fool.

  • RPtwenty12

    Glenn,

    O and a war monger poverty wanting fool at that. But you probable have a hand in Uncle Sam’s pocket. That would make you afraid of a president that doesn’t give handouts.

  • Travis

    @Dr Dreadful

    Returning money to the Federal Government every year is a good thing. The money is in good hands (as the fed represents the people). He does this to remove the burden on taxpayers and set a good example. This is a good thing.

    Now, lets compare that to returning money to a racist group. If he keeps the money, he can use it to positive ends (e.i. promoting liberty). If he were to give it back to the racists, they could use the money to further hate more effectively, or get drunk, or go to the movies or whatever. No matter what they do, they are racists, its better they don’t have the money.

    It is in no way morally dubious to keep the money from the racists while returning money to the budgetary office. Comparing returning money to racists and returning an unused budgetary surplus is absurd at best. Try again please

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Travis, that’s lame. It’s none of Dr Paul’s business what racist groups do with their money. Keeping their donations to prevent them from spending the cash on whatever they wish? Doesn’t sound very libertarian to me.

  • zingzing

    heh. paul fans will excuse anything paul does. he could have tea with the kkk and it would be all good.

  • Arch Conservative

    Glenn has spent an awful lot of time tearing down Ron Paul, a man who actually believes in liberty and the Constitution which is ironic since he’s spent so much time defending the empty suit community organizer from Chicago who’s presided over a 25% rise in unemployment, added 4 trillion to our national debt, and currently has an approval rating of 39%

  • Kenn Jacobine

    Arch,

    Your analysis is concise and spot on. I hope Dr. Paul can count on your support.

  • Gordon Trenchard

    What will Ron Paul supporters do if RP doesn’t get the nomination? I can’t speak for others, but THIS RP supporter will either write him in or stay home!

    And this is one of the reasons why so many people write off Ron Paul and his supporters, because they appear more like a cult than they do like a real movement. If you support liberty and smaller government and support Ron Paul because of that, then why would you not support another candidate with those same objectives if Ron Paul were out of the picture?

    Gordo

  • http://bit.ly/Votocracy Votocracy

    Not happy with all the candidates for President? Try supporting someone who you actually agree with and while you’re at it, chime in on our daily polls! More voices, more choices!

  • Kenn Jacobine

    Gordon,

    The problem is with the title of my article – “Ron Paul is the Only One”. Who are we going to vote for? Bachmann? She loves war and is clueless about economics.

  • Arch Conservative

    “If you support liberty and smaller government and support Ron Paul because of that, then why would you not support another candidate with those same objectives if Ron Paul were out of the picture?”

    No other candidate in the GOP has the same objectives as Ron Paul. For the most part they are all new world, order, globalist neocon freaks. However, due to my intense personal hatred of Barry Sotero, I will support whomever the GOP nominee is.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    So I take it that all the Paulbots here are looking forward to his zero tolerance for abortion except in cases of the health of the mother or for rape?

    So that’s what Paulbots believe in? A woman has a right to decide what goes on with her body…except for when the state says she can’t? That’s Ron Paul – state’s rights over human rights!

  • STM

    I love Ron Paul and his kooky idea of modern politics.

    Fantastic if he got in. I want to see what a modern president looks like in a three-cornered hat.

  • A casual observer

    The war-touting Zionist-controlled media gives no voice to Ron Paul. Now why is that?

  • STM

    Because most of what he says only makes sense if you don’t know anything about America and the global economy work.

    This, it should be pointed out, is what gives America the standard of living it currently enjoys, even while things are going bad for the time being.

    And any hiccup in the global economy means problems for America’s standard of living, as can be witnessed by the still-evident fall out from the GFC in 2008 – which was actually a product of poor or non-existent prudential regulation on the New York and London markets. Of course, if Ron came to power, I suspect there’d be no regulation as this is “unconstitutional”. Small government, in other words. There’s a case for that, though – until it gets too small and becomes in serious danger of disappearing up its own backside in a puff of smoke.

    If Ron ever came to power, America could probably kiss much of what it knows goodbye. A return to the gold standard is one of the things being touted, isn’t it? Does everyone know this was a major cause of the Great Depression and moving away from it opened the door for America’s revival?

    I suppose if you were living in a trailer it wouldn’t make a lot of difference, but it’d be a hell of a shock for everyone else.

    Although, the market for coonskin hats would probably take off like the space shuttle.

  • STM

    I also think Ron has a couple of good ideas and there’s no doubt he’s honest and his heart’s in the right place, but some of the ideas are outdated and have no place in a modern world that is, in effect, largely of America’s making.

    If you were American and worried about where the nation is going and how recent events have impacted on the American public, Ron’s not your man.

    It would be like turkeys voting for thanksgiving.

    Not sure who is your man – or woman – but let’s hope someone comes along between now and next year who can get this wounded beast back on its feet and doing what it does best.

    And lawfully …

  • Franklin D

    Good article, Kenn. I am forwarding it to a lot of folks. Everybody, especially you naysayers, buy Ron’s latest book, LIBERTY DEFINED, read his thoughts on 50 important current issues, and discover just what kind of President Dr. Paul will be. As Kenn so clearly points out, the good doctor is the ONLY candidate with the correct prescription to heal our nation. And, folks, he’s in it to WIN IT. With our help, RON PAUL WILL WIN. That’s what I call REAL HOPE!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Comment #64 – a Ron Paul support complains about “zionist control” of the media. Now why is that?

  • Bill Murphy

    Ron Paul has a bad habit of telling the truth. Any public official admitting that could find himself or herself forced to admit their own betrayal of public trust.

  • Arch Conservative

    “So that’s what Paulbots believe in? A woman has a right to decide what goes on with her body…except for when the state says she can’t?”

    If a woman who is not full term but late in her pregnancy were to deliver her baby and then kill it she would be charged with murder. If on that same day a doctor performed an abortion there would be no crime committed and according to the left nothing amoral has been done.

    Is that what you believe in Glenn?

    It’s either baby or it isn’t. I say it is.

  • Keith Wanless

    I’ve been reading BC for years, and was a fairly frequent writer and commenter here several years ago under a handle rather than my name. I find it odd that Tim, Nick, DocDave, Don, Alex and Charles all posted gushing comments about this article within about 50 minutes of its publication. Are these folks hired guns for Ron Paul, just waiting for an article to be published so they can jump in as cheerleaders for the congressman from Texas? In years of reading BC articles, I’ve never seen such a flash flood of praise for an article as this one received. I find it curious and somewhat suspicious.

    Are all the first-name-only commenters regulars here, or are they one-time drive-by supporters of Ron Paul?

    The only other topic I’ve seen that seems to get as quick a response is the posting of an article calling for some kind of control (registration, waiting period, etc.) of firearms – that gets the Second Amendment supporters out just as quickly and just as vocally.

    I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with comment-baiting, I just find it odd that it seems to have happened in an article with this particular subject.

  • Clavos

    Good call, Keith. They are all Paulbots. The first regular is comment #8.

  • Kenn Jacobine

    Is the site’s goal to increase readership or not? If it is then the article achieved that goal. Maybe once those folks got to the site they read more than just this article. I will also say that according to my adsense account on the first day the article was up on Blogcritics it got over 4600 hits. Clearly the key words in the title were “Ron Paul”. Perhaps there are a lot of Americans who are interested in finding out more about the anti-establishment Paul given how pissed off and hungry for honest leadership they are.

  • zingzing

    “Is the site’s goal to increase readership or not?”

    it’s a secondary goal.

  • Clavos

    Secondary to what, zing?

    I didn’t get that memo.

  • ConcernedAmerican

    Awesome article.

    “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds” – Samuel Adams

  • zingzing

    “Secondary to what, zing?”

    ad revenue. readership does have a certain relationship to that, but the material worth of each reader is a mercurial thing. i’m sure there’s some algorithm that decides such a thing, but it’s just someone’s best guess. really, i, a frequent visitor exposed to many ads on this site, should be worth more than the one-time visitors to this thread. i don’t know that i am, in the end, because i never click on ads. i’m sure i don’t have a full grasp on the economics of this site, but i do know that readership is a secondary goal. the real goal is making the money.

  • Purple Pundit

    The article seems incomplete. Great, you like Paul, but how is he going to leapfrog over the establishment?

  • Kenn Jacobine

    If Paul were to win no doubt he would have a mandate from the people. He would appeal directly to them. Also, as commander in chief he would have the power to immediately end the wars. For instance, he could veto spending bills. If Congress persisted he could instruct his departments to not spend the money. In other words, he could employ presidential nullification by not enforcing the laws/programs that Congress passes.

    What is the alternative – more of the same?

  • Purple Pundit

    You are looking way too far ahead. Maybe I should have been more specific. How is Paul going to leapfrog the party establishment? Before Obama 08, who was the last candidate that wasn’t the party’s man from the outset. Maybe Clinton? But when has it happened for the Republicans?

    Do I want more of the same, no. But you need to think big or maybe outside the system for some serious change to take place

  • zingzing

    so, kenn, you’re suggesting paul view his power as absolute?

  • Kenn Jacobine

    Purple,

    Congressman Paul is not running for reelection to the House. In polls done by Harris and Rasmussen he runs very well against Obama. He is in it to win the Republican nomination but if the Republican primary voters are still bent on nominating a neocon, clueless about economics candidate, my guess is that he will run as an independent (not having to worry about being a Republican for his House seat). In that scenario, his ideas are disseminated for the whole next year and as the economy continues to deteriorate they develop even more appeal. As an independent in the general election, he gets a pretty big chunk of the disaffected Republican voters plus huge chunks of independent voters and anti-war liberals. Obama and whoever the Republican is split the rest of the vote. If Romney is the nominee Paul could pull a significant portion of the evangelical vote as well. I think this scenario is quite plausible. With five wars and the economy in depression we live in interesting times. I think a lot of things are possible that were not in 2008. It wouldn’t surprise me if a Democrat ran against Obama – say Hillary?

  • Kenn Jacobine

    Zing,

    The powers I outlined are well within those granted the president under the Constitution. His power would not be absolute in that he would have to stand for reelection in four years.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    No Dem is going to run against Obama. Didn’t work with Carter and Kennedy, and won’t work now. When has an incumbent Pres been defeated in the primaries?

    As to Purp’s question, might it go all the way back to ’64 when Republicans were divided? Seems like Rockefeller would have been establishment candidate before Goldwater knocked him off. Anyone else want to weigh in?

  • zingzing

    kenn: “The powers I outlined are well within those granted the president under the Constitution.”

    sure they are. but obama says to stop prosecuting doma (an obviously unconsitutional law,) and there are people calling for his impeachment upon those grounds. so, things are not so simple.

    this “mandate from the people” rhetoric would be challenged at every move. if not, obama would have easily pushed health care “down america’s throat” without complaint. i don’t understand why paul would be afforded powers that obama wasn’t.

  • http://gay-headlines.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    84-EB… Franklin Pierce was the only president so far to not get the nomination for a second term by his own party.

    Pres. Pierce was considered one of the worst presidents ever to serve and is credited with hastening the Civil War.

    Barbra Pierce was a direct descendent of Pres. Pierce… of course she was later known after she married as…

    …wait for it!

    Barbara Bush… and who was her son?

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    very interesting. serious thanks for the history lesson, Jet. hen I am sure t

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Jet –

    My vote for worst president ever is Woodrow Wilson. Read “The Great Influenza” and you’ll see why. For instance, nearly a million Americans (out of a population of about 100M) died from the H1N1 flu in less than four months, yet he NEVER mentioned the flu epidemic in public – for fear that it might be demoralizing and would hurt the war effort. There’s a lot more – he was in many ways farther to the right than Rick Perry ever thought of being – but I’ll leave it at that.

  • STM

    Glenn, I go for a few, starting with Madison: Allowing himself to be sucked into a war with the British that he could neverwin, and alienating a fair proportion of the citizens of the fledgling US in the process and almost sending it broke;

    Closely followed by the lunacy of LBJ in bumping up the US commitment to Vietnam without thinking of the obvious risks of such a war and they it was waged by the administration.

    Wilson was a bit wishy-washy.

    Nixon, however, for all the good he did on the stuff up by Johnson, certainly blotted his copybook and must feature among the also-rans.

    Speaking of “blotting” … how about Bill Clinton for ruining one of the most successful US presidencies because he couldn’t keep his zipper done up. Sadly, and he must know this too, that is what he’s going to be remembered for.

    And despite not agreeing with his politics, I put Reagan among the front runners in the modern era, along with FDR, especially for his statemanship in a changing, modern world during the ending of the Cold War.

    Someone on BC once told me that their American grandmother kept pictures of FDR and Churchill on the mantlepiece.

    My British grandmother also kept a pic of Roosevelt.

    If that wasn’t one of the most important and pivotal partnerships of modern history, thus putting FDR at the top of the list, I’ll eat not only my hat, but also my coat.

    Harry Truman proved to be a great statesman too.

    And George W.Bush might have called his war on terror something stupid, but let’s give him credit for at least not allowing the US to keep its paper tiger status.

    He deserves a few brickbats for his handling of the Iraq invasion, but the opposite might be in order in ridding the world of a man and a regime that gets equal billing with those of Hitler and Stalin.

    Obama, BTW, is far from the worst IMO. He’s not doing much, granted, but I wonder what he can do – and he did inherit the mother of all messes courtesy of the previous administration and those wonderful, wonderful people on Wall Street.