« November 2007 | Main | February 2008 »
January 30, 2008
I lied...
But I'm not going to really say anything. I don't have to, because this pretty much ends the debate.
Posted by Rob at 03:39 PM | Comments (3)
January 29, 2008
Just This, Then I'm Done. Really.
See, I tend to write these things when I'm not supposed to be, so time is limited and I don't always get to include everything I'd like.
One of my points in all my Ron Paul rantings is that I don't think everyone sees past his views on the Iraq war. I've heard from a lot of people who looked a bit further and realized that he really just wasn't the candidate for them.
I avoided talking about the issues at first, because for once in politics, I didn't think it was relevant to the more important problem that his newsletters presented. But my ranting is not just about the newsletters, but it's about taking the narrow view and buying into something without really knowing what's on the list of ingredients.
How to do that? It's easy to look at what Paul or his opponents say he's about. It's somewhat illuminating to see how he voted on certain measures. It's much more informative to look at bills he sponsored or co-sponsored.
A smattering:
Paul says abortion is a matter that should be left to the states. He has said he's pro-life, though he dodges the issue a bit. That's OK, I can respect that. But some strongly pro-choice folks should know where he really stands, and it's also interesting that he's not been real consistent with his stance.
It's one thing to propose legislation to prohibit the use of federal funds for family planning activities or abortions - he doesn't want to use federal funds for anything, so he's just being consistent.
So, what's up with the three bills (HR 2597, HR1094, and HR776, all introduced "To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception"? Or, House Resolution 392, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States "guaranteeing the right to life."
Much to the chagrin of my pro-choice friends, I do have some pro-life friends with views I respect. But for all of us, it goes downhill from here...
There's the multiple attempts (H.R.300, H.R.4379, H.R.5739, H.R.3893)to enact the "We the People Act", seeking to prevent the Supreme and lower federal courts from adjudicating:
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation;
The Act would also prevent the courts from relying on any judicial decision on these issues. Why? Because
Supreme Court and lower Federal court decisions striking down local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion have wrested from State and local governments issues reserved to the States and the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.The Supreme Court and lower Federal courts threaten the republican government of the individual States by replacing elected government with rule by unelected judges.
He also takes the odd stance for a libertarian on flag-burning, though I'll grant that it's via a Constitutional amendment empowering the states to prohibit it. While this looks like the usual states' rights thing, it's actually removing the federal government from being in a position from declaring such laws unconstitutional, which is the current state of affairs. In other words, by changing the status quo, he's clearly defining a preference. This is the case with a lot of his proposed legislation that masquerades under the guise of simply removing federal influence.
He's also twice tried to repeal the Occupational Safety and Health Act. While OSHA can be a hassle for employers, it has provided workplace standards that have protected workers for over thirty years.
Again, no doubt this is a states' rights/federal government messes everything up issue. The thing is, laws like this get enacted for two reasons: 1) there's a problem, and states have not all been handling it themselves (see: slavery), and 2) if some states handle the issues themselves, and others are lax, where will the unscrupulous employers go? Laissez-faire economics of the Von Mies variety that Paul admires says that once things get too bad, the market will insist on change, making regulation unnecessary and even counterproductive. But really, how well has that worked out in history?
Let's see... he's also tried to "repeal all authority of the Federal Government to regulate wages in private employment (i.e. eliminate minimum wage laws)," repeal the National Voter Registration Act, and tried to specifically make Iranian students ineligible for any federal financial aid (this during the hostage crisis in 1979).
Wow, this is getting long. But let's just hit some more fun highlights:
H.J.RES.42: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.
H.R.7079: A bill to repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977.
H.R.4639: A bill to repeal all Federal regulations and taxes on the production of fuel.
H.R.6936: A bill to prohibit the Secretary of Energy from promulgating any federal emergency energy conservation plan which would restrict recreational boating. (Uhhh... what?)
H.R.2415: To reduce the price of gasoline by allowing for offshore drilling, eliminating Federal obstacles to constructing refineries and providing incentives for investment in refineries, suspending Federal fuel taxes when gasoline prices reach a benchmark amount, and promoting free trade. (One of the "obstacles" explicitly being those pesky environmental regulations.)
And those of us who thought we should have let the U.N. do more with the Iraq situation, and that railed against the installation of Bolton as our amb-ass-ador to the UN?
H.R.1146: To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.H.R.1146: To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.
H.AMDT.285 (A038): An amendment numbered 11 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit use of funds in the bill to pay any United States contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated agency of the United Nations
H.R.1146: To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.
H.AMDT.190 (A024): Amendment sought to prohibit use of funds for any U.S. contribution to the UN or any affiliated agency of the UN.
H.AMDT.191 (A025): Amendment sought to prohibit use of funds for use toward any U.S. contribution for UN peacekeeping operations.
H.R.1146: To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.
H.AMDT.306 (A006): Amendment sought to eliminate the authorization of funding for any United Nations program.
H.R.1146: To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.
H.AMDT.138 (A010): Amendment sought to provide for the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations.
H.R.1146: To provide for complete withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations.
H.R.3890: A bill to limit United States contributions to the United Nations.
H.R.3891: A bill to terminate all participation by the United States in the United Nations, and to remove all privileges, exemptions, and immunities of the United Nations.
H.R.6358: A bill to limit United States contributions to the United Nations.
H.R.14788: A bill to limit U.S. contributions to the United Nations.
Oh, also, we'd like the Panama Canal back:
H.CON.RES.231: Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Panama Canal and the Panama Canal Zone should be considered to be the sovereign territory of the United States.H.RES.1410: A resolution in support of continued undiluted U.S. sovereignty and jurisdiction over the U.S.-owned Canal Zone on the Isthmus of Panama.
H.R.2522: A bill to prohibit the use of any United States funds to implement the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 unless the use of those funds for that purpose is hereafter expressly provided for by the Congress and to prohibit the transfer to the Republic of Panama any territory or other property of the United States in the Canal Zone unless the Congress hereafter enacts legislation which expressly authorizes such transfer.
This is rich: H.R.2779: "To repeal section 5103 of title 31, United States Code."
And what, exactly, does Section 5103 say?
United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.
Huh? Maybe there's some companion legislation that will clear this up...
H.R.3931: A bill to amend the Coinage Act of 1965 to provide that coins and currencies of the United States, including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations, shall be legal tender only for the payment of Federal taxes, duties and dues.
Oh. Ah. Well, here ya go.
Gee, there's so much more, and I'm out of time.
You can certainly do this with all of the significant candidates, and in fact, a lot of it has done for them. But the even the essential details get glossed over a bit in the ReLOVEution. In fact, of all the incredible things pulled off by his campaign, the concealment of the sheer nuttiness of his views is the most amazing...
Posted by Rob at 02:04 PM | Comments (0)
Ron Paul, Part Deux
I have to say, I was disappointed at the lack of outrage and retaliation over my last post. Any time Ron Paul is spoken of in less than glowing terms on any other site, that site is swarmed with rabid supporters. On top of that, I called Mac fanatics the "Aggies of the computer world." I get nothing. Clearly, I have vastly underestimated how unstimulating and dull I am, and I really thought I already had a pretty fair idea of that. That, and most people were probably able to determine that either I, or a dying campaign, was not worth their time.
Then Kathy came along and posted a comment to that post, showing some much-needed fire, making some good points, and raising some of the questions that this whole mess has engendered over the last couple of weeks. So, I want to look at those points. Kathy, I hope you don't take the responses personally.
"Are you mad that people aren't writing 'rudy' all over the place, or painting 'I love huck' on the back of their cars?"
OK, you got off to a bad start - how does that follow logically from what I said? I was pretty clear that I don't think it's right for anyone to do, for any candidate. To be clearer, I don't care if people are spray painting "Ron Paul", "Huckleberry Hound", "Obama", or "RUSH" on the side of bridges and walkways - I don't like it. It's ugly, it's vandalism, and it's faux extremism that I've only seen exercised by the supporters of one candidate around here.
I have no problems with what people stick and paint on their cars - the mention of that was to illustrate that he has a very broad appeal, which is surprising given the content of his newsletters and, as far as liberal Paul supporters go, is surprising given his voting record. As bumper stickers go, I'm far more likely to rant and wage a campaign against the ones that have a horribly infringed Calvin engaging in everything from kneeling before the cross to urinating on any number of automotive marquees.
"What I see is people finally giving a crap about politics. I'll bet many people are voting for the first time in many years. There is finally some passion about somebody. People are learning and getting out there, voicing their opinions. What's wrong with that?"
I didn't say anything was wrong with that. In fact, I'm encouraging people to inform themselves. Props to Paul and his supporters - they have used the Internet more effectively than any candidate ever has, for information, fundraising, and advertising. He and his supporters saw the possibilities, manifested them, and have changed the game forever. Does that make him the best candidate?
I'm also glad to see so many people motivated, I truly am. This is not the first presidential campaign I've followed closely, and this one is different. We have needed hope, and he's stirring hope in people. For the first time in 16 years, though, "hope" is a central factor in almost all the campaigns, even in the GOP. He has seized this moment, and I believe he genuinely wants change. But at this point, for most of us, even for a lot of Republicans, the needs for change and hope are no-brainers. There has to be more.
Do you agree with his libertarian principles? Do you agree that most federal agencies and institutions are unconstitutional and should be abolished? Whichever side you fall on, do you agree that issues like abortion and gay marriage should be strictly for the states to decide? Do you believe we were only justified in entering World War II because of Pearl Harbor? Do you believe the Civil War was wrong, and that the Trilateral Commission is trying to dominate the world? Sorry, I guess those don't really matter, I just find it funny.
I don't disagree with everything the guy says. But then, I don't disagree with everything that any of the candidates say. I do disagree with enough of Paul's issues to keep me from voting for him. But as importantly, I think his newsletters should not be so easily disregarded.
"That newsletter was published over ten years ago." Actually, let's look at the timeline. If this was over the span of a few months, then maybe his story is viable. How early do the problematic comments start? Well, there's the June 1990 edition, when it said, "I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."
Wow, I don't even know where to start with the December 1989 edition of the Ron Paul Political Report. Check it out yourself and see if it meshes with your values.
Let's see, July 1994, quotes "criminoligist" Jared Taylor as saying, "if you subtract the crimes committed by blacks from the overall U.S. crime rate, we have no more crime proportionately than Western Europe, and less than Britain." Now, if this is true, then let's talk about it. Of course, Jared Taylor is the founder of American Renaissance magazine, which promotes eugenics and white supremacy. Back in 1991, the Ron Paul Political Report published subscription information for it.
Let's not even get into the fact that the paranoid survivalist tone is consistent with his Senate campaign fundraising letters dating back to 1984. That would take us from 1984 to his pro-militia newsletters into 1995, at least.
Instead, let's ignore that entire 11-year period, and just stick with the newsletter's comments on race and sexual preference, which I think, given the articles cited above and all the ones from the intervening years, we can agree run at least from December 1989 through July 1994.
So, let's really think about this. Let's be charitable and say that his "people", his employees, were printing this kind of stuff in the selection of newsletters that bore his name, that often represented themselves to be written by him, on a consistent basis for almost five years. If these comments are so un-Paul, can you even acknowledge that it's odd that he never read these newsletters, that no friend or acquaintance ever read these and said, "Hey, Ron, uhh... what the hell is all this about?" Can you really even begin to believe that?
And, so, if you can and do believe that, then what is the reality that such a belief requires? That he was surrounded by people that weren't bothered by this? That he was so insulated from everything that he had no way of knowing? That he was never curious about what his newsletters said?
For that matter, do you think something called The Ron Paul Survival Report lends itself more to the way you see the world, or to the kind of sentiments Paul denies having? Maybe he was not even aware of the titles of his newsletters? This is circumstantial evidence, at best, but it is yet another piece of reality that is consistent with the things that and his other newsletters had to say.
The Texas Monthly article that your comment cites also says that when the newsletters were brought up by an opponent in 1996, that Paul said "his written comments about blacks were in the context of 'current events and statistical reports of the time.'" the very next paragraph, however, quotes him as saying, "those words weren't really written by me."
The Texas Monthly article is worth reading - I really do have a measure of respect for Paul, not bowing to his own Republican party or special interests. But, I don't agree with the unblinking strict Constitutional constructionist ideal that underlies most of his votes and actions. It's easy to look at some of his votes and see virtue, when really, they're based solidly in his views on the Constitution and states rights, and not necessarily a moral argument.
You were eloquent enough and doing well enough on your own - you didn't need the commenter. He doesn't really help. The commenter you quote accuses people of trying to smear Ron Paul by perpetuiating "this lie." Even if you are able to concoct a reality in which Ron Paul is completely innocent of any real responsibility for what was printed by his people under his name for at least half a decade, it's not really correct to call reprinting the newsletter's "a lie". I suppose you could call it "perpetuating only half of the story, the other half being almost completely ludicrous."
The commenter says that Paul "has delivered 4,000 babies and MANY of them were non-white, and he clearly gave them and their mothers his caring medical expertise."
Wow. Of course, no racists work with, help, or are ever kind to people of color. In fact, I'm pretty sure they're all armed with Lugers, and shoot on sight.
"He has spoken out against institutionalized racism for his entire political career. Those quotes don't match up with anything else he says!"
Actually, we've mainly seen him speak out against institutionalized racism in response to what was printed in his newsletters (I'm sorry, I feel bad calling them "his" newsletters. Am I perpetuating "a lie"?) I have yet to see, and no one has pointed out, anything contradictory in his newsletters. But yes, I'll give you that what his newsletters say don't match up at all with his denials or what he's said in his campaign.
You started by asking what my point was. I'll try to make several of them much clearer.
The guy has to take more than "moral responsibility" for this. Maybe you accept his explanation, and think it's enough for a guy that wants to be our president. I don't. But at least you and I have both asked the question and determined an answer. A lot of people don't get that far.
People need to know more about ALL their candidates. We can't trust the mainstream media. Maybe you missed it, but I don't have that much good to say about them, either. The candidates pretty much all have things we should be concerned about. I went a little too easy on the Republican candidates as a whole, because it's all relative to what we've had for the last eight years. None of them are as clearly part of the same Bush establishment - can you imagine if we had Cheney or Perry running?
Some things are unacceptable. Bigotry and lying about it are up there near the top of the list.
"I see after all that complaining you do, you don't have a better solution."
Here's a concise list of solutions:
1. Inform yourself, about all the choices.
2. Don't be blinded by someone's position on a single issue.
3. Demand that people be responsible for their actions.
4. Don't wrap your beliefs in your ego so much that truth can no longer sway you.
5. Don't let the genuine need for hope and change be used as a political tool to blind you.
Look, I will definitely acknowledge that I agree with many things he has to say, particularly about our policy in the Middle East. I agree that he says things other people are afraid to say. I acknowledge that there's a chance that the guy is not a bigot, is not as loopy as Alex Jones. I'd like to believe these things, but common sense tells me otherwise. And, I don't believe that many of his supporters are OK with what his newsletter makes him appear to stand for.
In our anger, in our need for hope, and in our fervor for change, it is too easy to move from mob apathy to mob blindness. If we allow that to happen, then we go further down the same road that we're struggling to leave, following a new strain of the same sort of virulent leader we're rebelling against. History has shown us time and again how dangerous that can be. We think as American's we're beyond that, but we're not. We're as human as ever, as easily led, as easily lost, and as easily blinded as ever. It hurts to be disappointed in something you believed in, but sometimes, just sometimes, truth is more important than faith.
Posted by Rob at 08:43 AM | Comments (4)
January 02, 2008
ReLOVEution My Ass
I started putting this together in my head weeks ago, then last week I finally got most of it written, but didn't have time to finish it. Now it's old news, thanks to the New Republic waking up the mainstream media about it.
I usually try to stay away from talking or ranting about particular political issues or candidates. I'm often far more concerned with how we conduct our discourse than the actual topics, because I think it says more about who we are as a party, a movement, a country, or hell, a species.
Ron Paul has changed all that.
Look, I was suckered initially, too. I remember fairly early last year, seeing a shirtless guy in his thirties, wearing a battered straw cowboy hat, walking down South Lamar near the Horseshoe Lounge with a "Ron Paul: ReLOVEution" sign. Here's a good old redneck liberal pushing for this guy, and anyone that's got the political balls to prominently push for love in his campaign sounded pretty refreshing.
A couple of months ago, I still had yet to start really doing the work on investigating the candidates, but I ran across an article in Wired magazine online that was fairly funny, comparing rabid Mac fans (who, God love 'em, are the Aggies of the personal computer world) to Ron Paul enthusiasts.
The article piqued my interest, as did the flame war it incited in the comments area. Paul supporters were pouring forth from every dank orifice of the Internet, like a bunch of angry, slightly rabid rats. Yes, that's a horrible metaphor to use. But at the time, I believed it to be just a small, angry, rabid subset of Paul supporters, and I believed that Paul himself couldn't be held responsible. Every campaign has its nutbags.
A few days later, after my running group's workout, I made the mistake of mentioning the article. I joked about the nutty people, but made clear that I didn't know anything about the candidate himself, and didn't blame him for the nuttiness. A runner's boyfriend, however, is apparently an ardent Paul supporter, and while he was polite, he was not so amused.
I began to wonder what was up.
In the last month, I've seen Ron Paul's name spray-painted on the Pfluger Pedestrian Bridge (the one next to Lamar), and in huge letters on the side of a bridge on Mopac. Fortunately, the latter grafitti was painted over within days, and I imagine Ron Paul would probably be enraged that the removal of the blight was paid for with Federal highway funds.
I'm sure a supporter would say that we're in a critical period that calls for extreme measures. Right on. I'm with ya. Political grafitti is perfectly acceptable and effective - when there is no other means to communicate to the populace. And don't give me some crap about CNN and Fox being run by the government. CNN will report on whatever will grab attention, and Fox is simply capitalizing on the evil genius idea that they can more easily sell news that a certain demographic
wants to hear.
We've got YouTube, the internet, talk radio, free public speech areas. We're not to the spray painting stage yet. I'd be in a down vest spray painting "WOLVERINES!" down the side of the Frost Bank if we were at that point, but we're not. You want to take extreme measures? Influence voters.
Driving and running around the blue enclave that is Austin, Ron Paul is everywhere, in the yards of blue collar South Austin homes, Tarrytown McMansions, and older Westlake neighborhoods. His name adorns the bumpers of students' '97 Nissans, the back camper windows of battered Toyota trucks driven by people coming home from Wheatsville Co-Op, and the back of Lexus SUV's.
He had seemed to bridge all the gaps, to be the Everyman Candidate, at least for those who knew just a little about him. But why?
For one thing, advertising your campaign as some sort of revolution based on love is brilliant. It makes it sound like John Lennon has been reincarnated and is running for office, something that would even suck in some Republicans. But this guy is no Lennon. Let's take a look at some Ron Paul love:
Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.
If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.
Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics.The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn't ask their Congressmen to arrange the transfer.
This nugget of love is from the June 15, 1992 Ron Paul Report, one of the several newsletters published by Paul from about 1978, including Ron Paul's Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Investment Letter, and The Ron Paul Survival Letter.
My coworker, Ted, and I were talking about Ron Paul a month ago, and his Google search turned up an interesting May 2007 post discussing the newsletters on a blog site called the Daily Kos. It's written by a former member of our armed forces, and a former Republican.
At the time, the content of the small-production newsletters could only be found on the Internet in a few locations, including some Google newsgroups and, as you might imagine, some white supremacist websites.
Now to be fair, back in the 1990's, first in a Texas Monthly article, Ron Paul denied personally writing this stuff, even though most of describes "his experience" in the first person. In fact, take a look at the way this bit in the October 1992 edition of the Report, about the carjacking threat, which is described as "the hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos", is written:
An ex-cop I know advises that if you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example).I frankly don't know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming. (emphasis added.)
Aha! A clue to who might have written this stuff... Let's see, who lived in Lake Jackson that might have been involved with the Ron Paul newsletters, produced and paid for by his foundation, that are written in the first person? Well, Ron Paul lived in Lake Jackson... hmm.
So, perhaps he's not a racist, but just a liar who doesn't know what his racist staff members are saying under his byline. Fair enough. The failure to take responsibility for things done in his name would certainly make for a more painless transition from the current administration.
Now, the newsletters have been revealed in all their original glory, scanned, and made available on the Internet.
Yet, faced with all this information in black and white, the nuttier Ron Paul supporters are defending him with a variety of time-worn tactics of the desperate and lunatic - denial, misdirection, and counter-attack.
A commenter from the CNN website:
This is a terrific example of the US media attempting to discredit Ron Paul for no real reason. He has been nothing but a patriot and a gentleman his entire career yet CNN publishes this garbage to make him look bad! Shame on CNN! By publishing nonsense like this you're proving to be no better than Fox News.
Yes, publishing this garbage, his garbage, to make him look bad! Shame indeed, for actually acting like journalists for once, even though you're waaaayyy behind the times.
People are screaming slander. I hate to be an attorney about this, or really, just someone with half a brain, but when something is printed, it's libel, not slander, and when someone republishes your own writing, and it's uncomfortable for you, it's, well, nothing, except illuminating about you.
So, why are people behind this guy? Well, certainly, his previous rantings, I'm sorry, the rantings in the newsletter bearing his name that he held the copyright for published by his foundation that was written in the first person by someone from Lake Jackson, Texas, were not widely known outside the circles of people with swastikas carved into their skulls from their time in prison, where they learned to build websites.
It's most likely his stance on the war - even the editor of the Daily Kos says that his "forceful, eloquent anti-war rhetoric sticks out like a sore thumb from the undifferentiated conservative yammerings of the other candidates."
In fact, I agree with a lot of what he has to say about the war.
Unfortunately, "pull out of Iraq now" has an almost Pavlovian effect on people, particularly liberals. Someone could say "I will bring all our troops home now to defend us from the 3-eyed black aliens who will be invading on February 31, 2008," and people opposed to the war will immediately begin drooling. That, combined with the whole apparently false love and hope schtick, is a powerful combination.
For liberals, though, Iraq is where the love and hope affair would end. The guy is pro-life, but is somewhat successfully hiding behind the old "it should be a state, not a federal issue" canard. This would amount, ironically, to a de facto Federal subsidization of Trailways, Greyhound, and other interstate transportation that would see a boost from pregnant riders seeking what their neighboring states might have to offer.
I'm not saying this to advocate a contrary view, but because I know of strongly pro-choice people who were, until learning more about him, Ron Paul supporters.
And it's one thing to oppose a particular war, and to philosophically oppose war altogether. But in his interviews with John Stossel, he also says we had no business being involved in the Korean War (my Korean mother, relatives and I feel a bit differently), and our entry into World War II was only justified by the attack on Pearl Harbor. Never mind that whole genocide thing Hitler had going. Perhaps he doesn't want to alienate some of his paying constituency.
I stupidly allowed myself to get drawn into a flame war online today with some Paul supporters, who claimed I was saying unsubstantiated things about Paul by posting links to his own newsletters. The responses I got?
Furthermore, there is no evidence in any of those links that Ron Paul ever said or believed any such thing. That quote appears to be just a timely smear against an honest and decent person. I wonder if, perhaps, McCarthy was a relative of yours....
Nice. And:
And, yes, I have read the materials the New Repulibic posted as well as the comments concerning those materials...there is simply nothing to connect the quote you posted directly to what Ron Paul believes and as you have already stated, Ron Paul has stated he does not believe it.You have lightly choosen to believe and post that Ron Paul is a liar without any evidence to the contrary.
Of course, I hadn't yet called Paul a liar, and I never said that Ron Paul denied believing such things. But that's the methods nuts use to build their case. Whatever.
Eventually, they posted his official response. I thanked them, and pointed out that now people had both sides, and there was nothing to do but make a choice about what to believe.
Here's the thing: Ron Paul is not a threat in this campaign. Despite his record-breaking internet money-raising, despite the fact that he has a blimp (which I do find kinda cool), and despite his supporters tech savvy, he's not going to win anything. Republicans should definitely be worried that he might take primary votes away from their candidates, and I have to say I think the Republicans have some quite capable and sane candidates this time around. Come on, Democrats, you know it's true.
My concern, as usual, comes back not what choices we, the people, are making, but how we're making them. I have to think that the average Bubba in South Austin, the Tarrytown socialite, the sociology freshman, the aging vegan hippie, and the veteran state employee aren't really down with considering militias "heroic movements", and "communities of internal protection" that are collectively "an encouraging sign that the end of government as we know it may be near." I don't want to think that even the most conservative of them are comfortable with what he's said about gays, blacks, or even Jeanne Kirkpatrick. I don't want to think that any of them really believe what he said in a letter soliciting subscribers to his newsletters: in IRS agents with AK-47's, that revised currency was intended to track innocent American citizens ("I held the ugly new bills in my hand... they made my skin crawl!"). And, I don't believe for a second that, regardless of how they feel about the issues themselves, any of them truly believe that this guy had nothing to do with the things said in his newsletters.
No, all those things are only for the truly nutso, and for Mr. Paul.
Oh, incidentally, just a bit below where the letter says "Send your check today" is the signature of Ron Paul.
Posted by Rob at 01:40 PM | Comments (3)