tagged w/ Ron Paul Sucks
It’s no secret that Ralph Nader has held the Democratic Party establishment in low regard for decades now: the marginally more palatable alternative in an ugly duopoly, he claims, is still quite ugly. But lately Nader’s disdain has reached a new high. “It’s gotten so bad,” he tells me, “that you can actually say a Republican president—with a Democratic Senate—would produce less bad results than the present situation. That’s how bollixed stuff has gone.”
Not that he was ever particularly optimistic about the Obama administration, especially its potential to make headway on curtailing corporate welfare, now Nader’s signature policy objective. But in that, as with so many aspects of Obama’s presidency, the adjectives “disappointing” or “inadequate” don’t even begin to capture the depths of progressive disillusionment. Looking ahead to the 2012 presidential race, one might assume that Nader has little to be cheerful about.
Yet he says there is one candidate who sticks out—who even gives him hope: Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.
That might sound counterintuitive. Nader, of course, is known as a stalwart of the independent left, having first gained notoriety for his 1960s campaign to impose greater regulatory requirements on automakers—a policy act that would seem to contravene the libertarian understanding of justified governmental power. So I had to ask: how could he profess hope in Ron Paul, who almost certainly would have opposed the very regulations on which Nader built his career?
“Look at the latitude,” Nader says, referring to the potential for cooperation between libertarians and the left. “Military budget, foreign wars, empire, Patriot Act, corporate welfare—for starters. When you add those all up, that’s a foundational convergence. Progressives should do so good.”
I thought I’d bring up the subject of Ron Paul with Nader after seeing the two jointly interviewed on Fox Business Channel in January. Nader had caught me off guard when he identified an emergent left-libertarian alliance as “today’s most exciting new political dynamic.” It was easy to foresee objections that the left might raise: if progressives are in favor of expanding the welfare state, how well can they really get along with folks who go around quoting the likes of Hayek and Rothbard?
“That’s strategic sabotage,” Nader responds, sharply. “It’s an intellectual indulgence. … If they’re on your side, and you don’t compromise your positions, what do you care who they quote? Franklin Delano Roosevelt sided with Stalin against Hitler. Not to draw that analogy, I’m just saying—why did he side with Stalin? Because Stalin went along with everything FDR wanted.”
There may be an insurmountable impasse between the camps on social-safety-net spending. “But,” Nader says, “you could get together on corporate entitlements, subsidies, handouts, giveaways, bailouts. Ron Paul is dead set against all that. So are a lot of libertarian-conservatives. In fact, it’s almost a mark of being a libertarian-conservative—in contrast to being a corporatist-conservative.”
“Do you read all these right-wing theoreticians?” he goes on. “Almost every one of them warned about excessive corporate concentration. Hayek did, [Frank] Meyer did, even Adam Smith did in his own way.” He leaves the mechanics of a left-libertarian political coalition to be sussed out later.
If the issues around which progressives and libertarians can coalesce, I ask Nader, are the most intractable, deeply entrenched problems, is he proposing that such a coalition would be more tenable than the one currently cobbling together the Democratic Party, with its many Blue Dogs and neoliberals?
“Exactly,” Nader says. “Libertarians like Ron Paul are on our side on civil liberties. They’re on our side against the military-industrial complex. They’re on our side against Wall Street. They’re on our side for investor rights. That’s a foundational convergence,” he exhorts. “It’s not just itty-bitty stuff.”
Nader cites opposition to “the self-defeating, boomeranging drug war” as another source of common ground, in the face of both parties’ indifference—with the scant exceptions of a few House Democrats who favor decriminalizing marijuana—to drug prohibition’s many ills. Ron Paul’s rejection of the very notion that personal drug use should be a criminal offense is something that has resonated with younger supporters, often catalyzing their first moment of political consciousness.
More at linkIt’s no secret that Ralph Nader has held the Democratic Party establishment in... more
Seriously there are 6 posts about him on here. All we are asking is for 24 hours with no new Ron Paul Stories...#24hourRonPaulBLACKOUTSeriously there are 6 posts about him on here. All we are asking is for 24 hours with... more
Weigel wonders why the homophobia in the newsletters hasn't gotten much attention. Wise words from Dan Savage:
There is no comparing Paul and Santorum, said Savage, because Paul is a leave-us-alone libertarian. "Ron is older than my father, far less toxic than Santorum, and, as he isn't beloved of religious conservatives, he isn't out there stoking the hatreds of our social and political enemies," he explained. "And Ron may not like gay people, and may not want to hang out with us or use our toilets, but he's content to leave us the fuck alone and recognizes that gay citizens are entitled to the same rights as all other citizens. Santorum, on the other hand, believes that his bigotry must be given the force of law. That's an important difference."
Agreed. The attempt by the left and the neocon right to make Paul out to be the real bigot in this race is gob-smacking. Maybe one reason the gays are not so upset is because they have a better idea of what is threatening to them than Dave Weigel. (The exception is Jamie Kirchick, but he is as motivated by Israeli issues as gay ones). But Jim Burroway complicates the story:
It’s notable that the most prominent pastor in Iowa to endorse Ron Paul (an endorsement featured on Paul’s web site) is Rev. Phil Kayser, who has deep reconstructionist (also known as theonomist) ties. At Biblical Blueprints, a reconstrucitonist web site, Kaiser posted a book (PDF: 4.1MB/60 pages) in which he justifies the death penalty for homosexuality:
(page 24): ...[I]n a society that was being converted, homosexuals could continue to be converted as they were in the church of Corinth. Even after a society implemented Biblical law and made homosexuality a crime, there are many checks and balances that would be in place. (See Appendix A page 40 for specifics.) The civil government could not round them up. Only those who were prosecuted by citizens could be punished, and the punishment could take a number of forms, including death. This would have a tendency of driving homosexuals back into their closets.
I think I have demonstrated how even capital punishment can be restorative. Other aspects of penology such as restitution, indentured servitude, etc. are certainly restorative.
I should think that those who accuse Biblicists of a theology that would cause a holocaust should be happy since we advocate standing law, not the Herem principle, and since standing law could be implemented even in a society like ours without the need for massive bloodshed. After a few speedy executions of non-repentant criminals, others would think twice before despising God’s law.
Keep trying. But remind me: which of all the candidates has refused to sign the anti-gay Marriage Pledge? Ah, yes, the real homophobe of the bunch.Weigel wonders why the homophobia in the newsletters hasn't gotten much... more
By Stephen C. Webster
Thursday, December 29, 2011
As part of their promise to “go big,” protesters with the 99 Percent movement have been interrupting campaign-related events all over Iowa in the week leading up to the nation’s first major presidential candidate selection contest, and Texas Congressman Ron Paul was not given an exception.
During a rally with veterans last night, candidate Paul saw his speech interrupted by a group of about 20 occupiers, who began shouting as Paul was mid-sentence. After a few seconds, the crowd responded with a boisterous chant of the candidate’s name, over and over again.
“Why do you hate gays?” one of the protesters shouted. “Why do you hate the 99 percent?” Another reportedly asked why he wants to repeal Roe v. Wade and “control a woman’s reproductive decisions.”
“Freedom of speech, ain’t it wonderful?” Paul responded.
As the candidate’s supporters pushed them out of the hall, one woman kept audibly insisting that she’s a veteran, as is much of her family. Others with the group tried to explain that they supported Paul as well.
Paul has been by far the most friendly toward the 99 Percent movement out of all the Republican presidential candidates, calling it a “healthy” expression and a “legitimate effort,” although he’s also said that he’s not quite sure what they are protesting.
He’s further said that if the occupiers favor going after “crony capitalism,” he’s all for it.
This video is from C-SPAN, broadcast Wednesday, Dec. 28, 2011.
"D'OH!!!!"By Stephen C. Webster
Thursday, December 29, 2011
As part of their promise to... more
Ron Paul has developed a “live and let live” approach to same-sex marriage and gay rights on the campaign trail, but his efforts to attract Evangelical voters ahead of the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses have revealed, a darker social conservative side to the libertarian Republican from Texas. For instance, earlier this week, the Paul campaign touted the endorsement of Reverend Phillip Kayser, pastor of Dominion Covenant Church in Omaha, Nebraska, for the “enlightening statements he makes on how Ron Paul’s approach to government is consistent with Christian beliefs.” Kayser has previously argued that the Bible justifies capital punishment against gay people — and still stands by this belief:
“Difficulty in implementing Biblical law does not make non-Biblical penology just,” he argued. “But as we have seen, while many homosexuals would be executed, the threat of capital punishment can be restorative. Biblical law would recognize as a matter of justice that even if this law could be enforced today, homosexuals could not be prosecuted for something that was done before.”
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/12/29/395688/paul-campaign-touts-endorsement-of-preacher-who-advocates-death-penalty-for-gays/Ron Paul has developed a “live and let live” approach to same-sex marriage... more
Here you see him laughing at a black woman in a wheel chair, one of his favorite things to do with his spare time. As an OBGYN, he only offered free medical care to African American women who couldn't afford to pay so he would know where the fleet-footed black youth would be living 15 years later and could avoid those parts of town.
And a few other clear photo examples of his "racism"..... (you guys do know he spent years treating minorities for free in his medical practice? Of course not, the media doesn't tell you that....)
http://www.5k.com/Here you see him laughing at a black woman in a wheel chair, one of his favorite... more
This article pretty much sums it up!
Libertarian candidate tries to duck responsibility for racist, homophobic and conspiratorial writings that bore his name
by Thomas Schaller
To look at him, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul seems harmless. He's cute and contrarian. He wears poorly fitting suits. He's decidedly un-slick. You almost want to pat him on the head.
So we're not supposed to criticize Dr. Paul as a nutjob who subscribes to some rather wacky ideas. And subscribe is the operative word here, folks: The newsletters Dr. Paul published for nearly two decades during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s are chock full of racist, homophobic and anti-new world order rants.
From Dr. Paul now comes the nuttiest claim of all. He wants us to believe newsletters published with the titles Ron Paul's Freedom Report; Ron Paul Political Report; and, weirdest of all, The Ron Paul Survival Report do not reflect the views of, um, Ron Paul. He says he never wrote them, never even read them, and now disavows them. (Question: Why disavow words you neither wrote nor read?)
Nice try, congressman. There's his name in giant, bold letters at the top of each issue. On some editions his face appears at the top, or his signature at the bottom. The lack of bylines attached to specific articles, his defenders say, means Dr. Paul can't be held accountable for the words they contain. But the newsletters include first-person, biographical mentions like "my wife Carol" and "my youngest son … starting his fourth year of medical school." His wife's name is Carol; his youngest son, Robert, is a physician.
Even if surrogates actually wrote the material for Dr. Paul, so what? When politicians authorize press secretaries and ghostwriters to pen their statements, speeches and books, it is universally understood that the politician whose name appears atop the stationery or on the jacket cover is accountable. Once those newsletters went in the mail, Dr. Paul owned every word they contained — period.
What's in them? Four years ago, during Dr. Paul's first bid for the Republican presidential nomination, The New Republic's James Kirchick dug through state libraries, found old copies and took an inventory. "What [the newsletters] reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays," Mr. Kirchick concluded. "In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing — but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics."
Is Dr. Paul also not responsible for his votes in the House of Representatives, like the one he cast in 2004 on a resolution commemorating the 40th anniversary of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 that guaranteed equal access to the ballot and public facilities for all Americans? The final roll call was 414 ayes, one nay. A free subscription to The Ron Paul Survival Report for anyone who can guess the name of the lone dissenter.
None of Dr. Paul's radical beliefs would really matter if the Texas congressman were slogging around in fifth or sixth place in the Republican primary. But he isn't. His poll numbers are rising. He might win the Iowa caucuses next week.
Dr. Paul projects a mild manner and policy humility. He wants to reign in federal spending. He wants the government, and in particular its military industrial complex, to control its imperialist impulses. He'd like America to protect its core civil liberties. (Unless, of course, you happen to be pregnant.)
But don't let Dr. Paul's impish, avuncular and professorial style fool you. He's arguably the most megalomaniacal candidate in a 2012 Republican field that includes Newt Gingrich. And he's trying to squirm out of taking responsibility for his writings.
I now brace myself for the torrent of emails from Dr. Paul's vigilant supporters. When those emails arrive, I shall adopt the Ron Paul Defense: Despite my name and picture at the top of this column, I'm so busy lately I can't remember for sure whether I wrote all the words in this column, nor did I read them before or after the column went to press. So I can't be held responsible for calling their guy the racist, anti-gay conspiracist he is.This article pretty much sums it up!
Libertarian candidate tries to duck... more
This video is exhibit A in why millions and millions of people support Ron Paul in his quest to become the 45'th President of the United States.This video is exhibit A in why millions and millions of people support Ron Paul in his... more
By Megan Carpentier
Monday, December 26, 2011
Former Ron Paul campaign and Congressional staffer Eric Dondero issued a statement to Right Wing News today denying that his former boss is racist, homophobic or anti-Semitic as part of a larger attack on what Dondero terms Paul’s “isolationism” and his position on the war in Afghanistan and the state of Israel.
Though Dondero stresses that Paul isn’t an anti-Semite, referring to everything from his own Jewish ancestry to Paul’s political courtship of “a few Jews” in Paul’s Congressional district as evidence, Dondero does state unequivocally that Paul is opposed to the existence of the state of Israel.
He is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.
But despite Dondero’s insistence that Paul is not anti-Semitic, he confirms a local paper’s account of a opponent’s press conference to discuss Paul’s supposed anti-Semitism, in which Dondero was pressed to attend “dressed in a Jewish yarlmuke [sic], and other Jewish adornments.” And, perhaps most problematically, Dondero recounts conversations in which Paul asserted that “the United States had [no] business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWI”‘ because “‘saving the Jews’ was absolutely none of our business.”
Read More: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/26/former-staffer-ron-paul-wishes-the-israeli-state-did-not-exist/
"Ouch!!! That's gonna Hurt Ron Paul in the worst way!!!"By Megan Carpentier
Monday, December 26, 2011
Former Ron Paul campaign and... more
Paul warned that the National Defense Authorization Act, which was passed by Congress this month, will accelerate the country’s “slip into tyranny” and virtually assures “our descent into totalitarianism.”
“The founders wanted to set a high bar for the government to overcome in order to deprive an individual of life or liberty,” Paul, the libertarian congressman, said Monday in a weekly phone message to supporters. “To lower that bar is to endanger everyone. When the bar is low enough to include political enemies, our descent into totalitarianism is virtually assured. The Patriot Act, as bad as its violations against the Fourth Amendment was, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act continues that slip into tyranny, and in fact, accelerates it significantly.”
The NDAA is the nearly $670 billion defense spending bill that covers the military budget and funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
One controversial provision mandates the detention of terror suspects and reaffirms the administration’s authority to detain those suspected of having ties to terrorist organizations.
“The Fifth Amendment is about much more than the right to remain silent in the face of government questioning,” Paul continued. “It contains very basic and very critical stipulations about the due process of law. The government cannot imprison a person for no reason and with no evidence presented and without access to legal council. The danger of the NDAA is its alarmingly vague, undefined criteria for who can be indefinitely detained by the U.S. government without trial.”
“It is no longer limited to members of Al Qaeda or the Taliban, but anyone accused of substantially supporting such groups or associated forces,” Paul continued. “How closely associated, and what constitutes substantial support? What if it was discovered that someone who committed a terrorist act was once involved with a charity? Or suppose a political candidate? Are all donors of that candidate or supporters of that candidate now suspects and subject to indefinite detainment? Is that charity now an associated force?”
The White House initially threatened to veto the NDAA because of the detainee language, saying it would tie the hands of law enforcement officials. But the administration dropped the veto threat before the bill passed the House, as the bill’s supporters argued that there were sufficient waivers.
“The president’s widely expanded view of his own authority to detain Americans indefinitely even on American soil is for the first time in this legislation codified in law,” Paul said. “That should chill all of us to our cores.”
“The Bill of Rights has no exceptions for really bad people or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. That is not a weakness in our legal system, it is the very strength of our legal system. The NDAA attempts to justify abridging the Bill of Rights on the theory that rights are suspended in a time of war, and the entire United States is a battlefield in the war on terror. This is a very dangerous development, indeed. Beware.”
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/201335-rep-paul-says-defense-bill-assures-descent-into-totalitarianismPaul warned that the National Defense Authorization Act, which was passed by Congress... more
And on top of that, the letter also claims that the U.S. moved toward coloured money not to make money more difficult to counterfeit, but because it was a plot to make it easier for the U.S. government to track people.
Make no mistake, there is NO QUESTION that Ron Paul wrote this letter in 1993. His signature is on it. He wrote it as a fundraising letter to get people to donate to his newsletter.
This has been the top story on Reuters for several hours now.
From the article:
"The letter promoting Paul's newsletters claims that Paul - through what he describes as a network of "extraordinary sources" in Congress, the White House, the Treasury and Justice departments, the Federal Reserve and the Internal Revenue Service - had acquired unique insider information that would his subscribers to "neutralize" the plans of "powerbrokers."
Paul's letter went on to describe various plots and schemes that he had "unmasked," including a "plot for world government, world money and world central banking." He also claimed to have exposed a plan by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to "suspend the Constitution" in a falsely declared national emergency.
Despite being "told not to talk," Paul wrote that his newsletters also "laid bare" the "Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica," and a "federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS."
Paul claimed that his "training as a physician" helped him "see through" this alleged cover-up.
Paul also suggested that a planned U.S. currency with new notes designed to curb counterfeiting and money laundering would result in the distribution of "totalitarian bills" that "were tinted pink and blue and brown, and blighted with holograms, diffraction gratings, metal and plastic threads and chemical alarms."
Paul said the money was designed to allow authorities to "keep track of American cash and American citizens."
Here is a PDF of the letter:
http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/11/12/Solicitation2.pdfAnd on top of that, the letter also claims that the U.S. moved toward coloured money... more
So much for the “racist” smear
While the establishment media continues to hype a 15-year-old story concerning decades old newsletters as part of a dirty tricks campaign to smear Ron Paul as a racist, the latest CNN poll shows that Paul has the most support from non-whites out of all the Republican candidates.
The latest CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday finds that Congressman Paul scores highest amongst minorities when matched up against Barack Obama in a hypothetical election head to head.
Paul scores 25% of the vote amongst non-whites, whereas Romney polls at 20% and Gingrich gets 15%.
Ron Paul is clearly the most popular GOP contender amongst non-whites out of the entire field, suggesting that the “racist” smear, which was heavily pushed back in 2008, has had very little impact whatsoever on the views of those who presumably would be the most likely to be offended by it.
Indeed, it’s a remarkable coincidence that those who seem to be most offended by the non-controversy are well to do, white, establishment Republican cheerleaders, Paul’s foremost political adversaries.
The establishment media has predictably launched a second round of smear concerning the “racist newsletter” controversy that was first reported in 1996 and firmly debunked when it cropped up again in 2008.
Unsurprisingly, the hit piece was originated by a hardened anti-Paul neo-con who enjoys membership of the same shadowy billionaire-financed lobbying group (Foundation for Defense of Democracies) as Paul’s election rival Newt Gingrich.
CNN Poll: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/12/20/rel20c.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fyRVa4lzRo&feature=player_embeddedSo much for the “racist” smear
While the establishment media continues... more
1 year ago
By Jackie Kucinich, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – Rep. Ron Paul has tried since 2001 to disavow racist and incendiary language published in Texas newsletters that bore his name, denying he wrote them and even walking out of an interview on CNN Wednesday. But he vouched for the accuracy of the writings and admitted writing at least some of the passages when first asked about them in an interview in 1996.
Some issues of the newsletters included racist, anti-Israel or anti-gay comments, including a 1992 newsletter in which he said 95% of black men in Washington "are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
Paul told TheDallas Morning News in 1996 that the contents of his newsletters were accurate but needed to be taken in context. Wednesday, he told CNN he didn't write the newsletters and didn't know what was in them.
Paul, who leads polls in Iowa leading up to the caucuses there on Jan. 3, published a series of newsletters while he was out of Congress in the 1980s and 1990s called The Ron Paul Political Report, Ron Paul's Freedom Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report and The Ron Paul Investment Letter.
In 1996, Paul told TheDallas Morning News that his comment about black men in Washington came while writing about a 1992 study by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank in Virginia.
Paul cited the study and wrote: "Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
"These aren't my figures," Paul told the Morning News. "That is the assumption you can gather from the report."
Nor did Paul dispute in 1996 his 1992 newsletter statement that said,"If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be."
'I didn't write them.'
Now, Paul says he had nothing to do with the contents of the newsletters published in his name.
"Why don't you go back and look at what I said yesterday on CNN and what I've said for 20-something years, 22 years ago?" Paul said on CNN Wednesday. "I didn't write them. I disavow them. That's it." Paul then removed his microphone and abruptly ended the interview.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-21/ron-paul-racist-newsletters/52147878/1By Jackie Kucinich, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – Rep. Ron Paul has tried since 2001... more
Following the fatal shooting of a toddler in a crime ridden New Orleans housing project, a Louisiana state representative has called for what amounts to martial law.
Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the Constitution, the National Guard – considered a state militia – is authorized to “execute the laws of the Union and suppress Insurrections and repel Invasion.” The Constitution says nothing about dispatching the military to fight domestic crime, a task usually undertaken by local law enforcement.
Since the National Defense Act (or Militia Act) of 1903, the federal government has worked to absorb the National Guard and take control of it away from the states. In 2007, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act moved to remove state governors as sole commanders in chief of their state’s National Guard during emergencies within the state.
On December 18, presidential candidate Ron Paul warned (see video below) that the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed recently by the House and now under consideration in the Senate will be used by the government to implement martial law. The bill would allow the military to detain Americans and prevent them from exercising their right to due process under the Sixth Amendment.
Deploying federally controlled troops in post-Katrina New Orleans is another attempt to circumvent Posse Comitatus and acclimate citizens to the presence of armed troops on the streets.
In August of 2005, New Orleans served as a beta test for FEMA command and control over state and local jurisdiction and autonomy. It was also used for gun confiscation. FEMA, as we have documented, is primarily concerned with “civil disturbance” and martial law, not disaster relief.
“This should be the biggest news going right now,” Ron Paul told Alex Jones as the House prepared to pass the NDAA bill. “It is literally legalizing martial law.” He pointed out that the NDAA’s violations of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are remarkably not even discussed in the GOP presidential “debates” conducted by the establishment media.Following the fatal shooting of a toddler in a crime ridden New Orleans housing... more
Blow up the department of education.... It's garbage, the only good education to be had (when it can be had) is private.... Not end public schools just the dysfunctional "department" hindering them....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8EwKLAuSywBlow up the department of education.... It's garbage, the only good education to... more
With Ron Paul ascending in Iowa, winning the hearts of independents, and even the endorsement of Andrew Sullivan, it’s worth pointing something out: Ron Paul is not a kindly old libertarian who just wants everybody to be free. He’s a really creepy bigot.
Around four years ago, James Kirchick reported a lengthy story delving into Paul’s worldview. As Kirchick writes, Paul comes out of an intellectual tradition called “paleolibertarianism,” which is a version of libertarianism heavily tinged with far-right cultural views. The gist is that Paul is tied in deep and extensive ways to neo-Confederates, and somewhat less tightly to the right-wing militia movement. His newsletter, which he wrote and edited for years, was a constant organ of vile racism and homophobia. This is not just picking out a phrase here and there. Fear and hatred of blacks and gays, along with a somewhat less pronounced paranoia about Jewish dual loyalty, are fundamental elements of his thinking. The most comparable figure to Paul is Pat Buchanan, the main differences being that Paul emphasizes economic issues more, and has more dogmatically pro-market views.
How, then, has Paul become a figure of admiration among social liberals?
One reason is that nobody is attacking him. Paul is (correctly) considered to have no chance to actually win the GOP nomination, so debate moderators have not bothered to research his past, instead tossing off generalized questions that allow him to portray himself on his preferred terms. The Republican Establishment is focusing all its fire on Newt Gingrich, and indeed, Paul’s rise in Iowa would greatly aid Mitt Romney’s campaign by preventing an acceptable alternative from emerging from the state with momentum.
Story continues at link.With Ron Paul ascending in Iowa, winning the hearts of independents, and even the... more
The libertarian presidential candidate is a true friend of the 1 percent
To me, the epiphany of the most dreadful presidential campaign in history took place in Keene, New Hampshire, last week, when a Ron Paul town meeting was interrupted by some Occupy Wall Street hecklers.
“Let me address that for a minute,” the Republican presidential candidate said, “because if you listen carefully, I’m very much involved with the 99. I’ve been condemning that 1 percent because they’ve been ripping us off –” He was interrupted again, this time by cheers, almost drowning him out.
After the usual chants of “We are the 99 percent” and “There are criminals on Wall Street who walk free,” Paul quickly took back the audience, not that he had ever lost it. “Do you feel better?” he asked, to laughter.
“We need to sort that out, but the people on Wall Street got the bailouts, and you guys got stuck with the bills, and I think that’s where the problem is.”
It was a masterful performance. Ron Paul — fraudulent populist, friend of the oligarchy, sworn enemy of every social program since Theodore Roosevelt — had won the day, again.
Why shouldn’t he? Frauds win, whether they are in finance or politics. Bernie Madoff proved that, and so did Ronald Reagan. The success of the Ron Paul campaign with young voters, which David Sirota pointed out in Salon Monday, is but the latest example of how Americans can be persuaded to support the most reactionary politicians in America when they’re suitably manipulated, even if they aren’t reactionary and, sometimes, even when they identify themselves as progressive.
There’s little doubt that aspects of his message are both appealing and sincere. There is a definite “yay factor” in some of his oratory, and his denunciations of Dick Cheney are the kind of thing that gets yays on “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart.”
Paul has been consistent in opposing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in opposing American military adventures in general. He has staked out a lonely position as the only presidential candidate to oppose aid to Israel (until Rick Perry more or less aped him on that), and his distinctly non-aggressive posture on Iran is indistinguishable from that of dovish Democrats like Dennis Kucinich.
So there’s no question that there’s a lot to like in Paul’s foreign policy positions, if you’re leaning to the left. The problem is that Paul is less of a 21st century dove than he is a throwback to the isolationism of the early to mid-20th century, in which fear of foreign entanglements was embraced by the hard right — with all that came with it. Paul emerges from that mold as about as far right as they come, further right than Ronald Reagan ever was, more of an enemy of the poor and middle class, and an even warmer friend of the ultra-wealthy. A Ron Paul America would make the Reagan Revolution look like the New Deal.
(click on the link for the full article and to access the in-text links)The libertarian presidential candidate is a true friend of the 1 percent
To me, the... more