Ron Paul’s baggage

As a Virginian, my only choices in the Republican primary are Mitt Romney and Ron Paul–the other candidates having failed to get on the ballot–so I am studying these candidates closely.  There would be a certain coolness factor in voting for Paul.  But I’ve got to figure out what I think about his newsletters of a couple of decades ago, with their racist and anti-semitic vibe, as well as his associations with the off-the-wall right.

I know some of you have been discussing this on the “Why I Can’t Vote for Gingrich or Perry” thread, but it deserves its own post.  Paul and his fans have been dismissing the issue as “old news” brought up and answered a long time ago, but lots of us are new to the Ron Paul world, and he had better believe this will be an issue throughout the election.  Here is a summary of what’s out there:

Ron Paul reiterated Tuesday that he did not write a series of newsletters that appeared under his name in the 1980s and 1990s that included controversial comments about African-Americans, including a claim that “[o]rder was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.”

Asked by CBS News and National Journal if the newsletters are fair game on Tuesday in New Hampshire, Paul responded, “I don’t know whether fair is the right word.”

“I mean, it’s politics,” he continued. “Nobody talked about it for 20 years until they found out that the message of liberty was making progress. And everybody knows I didn’t write them, and it’s not my sentiment, so it’s sort of politics as usual.”

Writing in The New Republic in 2008, reporter James Kirchick revealed some particularly incendiary passages from the monthly newsletters, which carried names like “Ron Paul’s Freedom Report” and the “Ron Paul Political Report.” Many of the newsletters, which were mostly written in the first person and usually didn’t otherwise carry a byline, were reportedly being held in collections of extreme-right political literature.

The newsletters included a criticism of Ronald Reagan for legislation creating a federal holiday in honor of Martin Luther King Jr., who is described as a “world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours” and “seduced underage girls and boys.”

“We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day,” one newsletter said of Reagan, according to Kirchick. The newsletters also claimed that AIDS sufferers “enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick,” expressed support for and offered advice to the “local militias now training to defend liberty” shortly before the Oklahoma City bombing, and questioned whether the 1993 World Trade Center bombing “was a setup by the Israeli Mossad.”

Kirchick revisited the newsletters in the Weekly Standard on Tuesday, writing that “Paul’s lucrative and decades-long promotion of bigotry and conspiracy theories, for which he has yet to account fully, and his continuing espousal of extremist views…should make him unwelcome at any respectable forum.”

Kirchick tied the newsletters to Paul’s willingness to appear on the radio program of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who has reportedly accused the government of encouraging “homosexuality with chemicals so that people don’t have children.” He noted that Paul seemed open to Jones’ suggestion that the military’s NORTHCOM combatant command is “taking over” the nation.

Paul denied his involvement with the newsletters back in 2008, saying the controversial comments “are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed.”

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product,” he said. “For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

via Ron Paul disavows racist newsletters under his name – Political Hotsheet – CBS News.

Paul disavows this kind of talk today, so good for him.  His claim that he didn’t know what was going into his newsletters, though, strains credulity.   It reminds me of the NBA star (I think it was Charles Barkley) who complained about how he was portrayed in the media, referring to his own autobiography.  At the best it would be an outlandish use of ghostwriters, something else I don’t approve of.  But even if he weren’t paying attention, as he claims, I would think that his readers would rise up if the newsletters they had subscribed to under the Ron Paul brand were misrepresenting what they assume he stood for.  (“But we know Dr. Paul admires Martin Luther King [as he now says], so how could he say such things about him?”)  Perhaps he could say that he used to classify people unfairly, but now he has learned to apply the principles of liberty to people of all races and ethnicity.  Something like that.

Then there is his giving a speech to the John Birch Society, the organization that during the cold war interpreted everything in terms of a vast communist conspiracy and that William F. Buckley read out of the conservative movement.  And those kind words for right-wing militias.

The question is, is Ron Paul a right wing extremist?  Now, normally there is a big difference between libertarianism and right wing extremism.  The latter tends to be highly nationalistic.  Libertarians tend to be tolerant of things like flag burning and joining the communist party, expressions of liberty that true rightwingers would be glad to outlaw.

Again, Paul denies that he holds those views in the newsletters.  But then again, John Birchers in their heyday believed that even seemingly good leaders were actually communist infiltrators.  Since they think like that, don’t we need to make sure that they aren’t foisting off a Manchurian candidate of their own?  Sorry–all these conspiracy theories have got me thinking like that!

At any rate, my mind needs to be put at rest about these issues.  I am open to persuasion.  You Paul supporters, help me out here.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Eric Brown

    20 years is a long time… I’d wager most of us have some slightly different political approaches today than we did back then. What I think remains consistent is that Paul has been more willing to play to the fringes and interact with them… it might just be more that the fringe 20 years ago had much more of a right-wing extremist tinge to it… and as Paul tends to like to be the outsider/maverick there would be more discussions that way — or more invites from that way.

    And let’s face it – most libertarian-leaning folks are pretty harsh on command economies… so if I didn’t like Communism, Ron Paul would probably talk right up my alley.

  • Eric Brown

    20 years is a long time… I’d wager most of us have some slightly different political approaches today than we did back then. What I think remains consistent is that Paul has been more willing to play to the fringes and interact with them… it might just be more that the fringe 20 years ago had much more of a right-wing extremist tinge to it… and as Paul tends to like to be the outsider/maverick there would be more discussions that way — or more invites from that way.

    And let’s face it – most libertarian-leaning folks are pretty harsh on command economies… so if I didn’t like Communism, Ron Paul would probably talk right up my alley.

  • Fr. Gregory Hogg

    It is, perhaps, for this reason that King David said, “Let me fall into the Lord’s hands, and not into the hands of men; for with the Lord there is mercy.”

    As your citations note, Paul has taken moral responsibility for not supervising more closely things that were sent out under his name. He does not take responsibility for having held the views. Now either he is covering his tracks, or he never held those views but was careless. If it were anyone else, I’d tend to believe the former. But Paul’s record is nothing if not consistent, even when his views are unpopular. So I lean toward the second.

    There is no perfect candidate. As we say in the Orthodox funeral liturgy (paraphrasing from memory), “There is no man who does what is right on earth and does not sin.”

    What I like about Paul is that he alone is addressing the underlying philosophical question of what the role of the federal government ought to be. The rest of the candidates, Democrat and Republican alike, make the election to be a matter of policy (how shall we continue to expand the government’s role–by social programs or expansive militarism?) rather than of philosophy. If one favors an ever-expanding government, vote for someone else. If one thinks that government is too big, both in terms of social programs and military spending, there is only one candidate to vote for.

  • Fr. Gregory Hogg

    It is, perhaps, for this reason that King David said, “Let me fall into the Lord’s hands, and not into the hands of men; for with the Lord there is mercy.”

    As your citations note, Paul has taken moral responsibility for not supervising more closely things that were sent out under his name. He does not take responsibility for having held the views. Now either he is covering his tracks, or he never held those views but was careless. If it were anyone else, I’d tend to believe the former. But Paul’s record is nothing if not consistent, even when his views are unpopular. So I lean toward the second.

    There is no perfect candidate. As we say in the Orthodox funeral liturgy (paraphrasing from memory), “There is no man who does what is right on earth and does not sin.”

    What I like about Paul is that he alone is addressing the underlying philosophical question of what the role of the federal government ought to be. The rest of the candidates, Democrat and Republican alike, make the election to be a matter of policy (how shall we continue to expand the government’s role–by social programs or expansive militarism?) rather than of philosophy. If one favors an ever-expanding government, vote for someone else. If one thinks that government is too big, both in terms of social programs and military spending, there is only one candidate to vote for.

  • http://www.roundunvarnishedtale.blogspot.com Cheryl

    What concerns me more than the 20-year-old newsletters is his current refusal to repudiate the ridiculous beliefs of 9/11 Truthers. In this video he tells a Truther that the reason he won’t “come out about the truth about 9/11″ is that he can’t handle the controversy. He knows who he is talking to. Why not respond that he does not buy the Truthers’ conspiracy theories? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yrQVaiFYmcg

  • http://www.roundunvarnishedtale.blogspot.com Cheryl

    What concerns me more than the 20-year-old newsletters is his current refusal to repudiate the ridiculous beliefs of 9/11 Truthers. In this video he tells a Truther that the reason he won’t “come out about the truth about 9/11″ is that he can’t handle the controversy. He knows who he is talking to. Why not respond that he does not buy the Truthers’ conspiracy theories? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yrQVaiFYmcg

  • SKPeterson

    Most of the apoplexy is from the HuffPo crowd, who think Obama is a center-right politician. If you look at what Paul actually said to those “extremists” at the JBS, you come away with a pretty standard conservative platform. Ipso facto, for the HuffPo crowd that equals racism. Throw around the “neo-confederate” charge a little as well; questioning Lincoln and the wisdom of the Civil War is apparently anathema, even if you recognize the inherent flaws and moral failings of the Confederacy at the same time. If you depart from the standard left-liberal reading of history, you are “extreme,” even though the left-liberal reading of history is the aberrancy.

    Here is Paul’s JBS platform. Now each one of these could be debated, and I’ve left in the HuffPo commenter (Andrew Reinbach)’s comments:

    1) Allow anybody to mint money by passing the “…Free Competition in Currency Act, which repeals legal tender laws and all taxes on gold and silver.”;
    2)Force the FDA and the FTC to allow any dietary supplement onto the market “…unless they have clear evidence that the manufacturer’s clams are not true.” This is a prescription for endless lawsuits.
    3)Kill Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid for future generations;
    4)End Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits for people getting them now –but giving them “…time to prepare for the day when responsibility for providing aide is returned to those organizations best able to administer compassionate and effective help–churches and private charities.”
    5) Fire up to 800,000 federal workers through attrition, not filling vacancies for “non-essential” jobs.
    6) Veto budgets he didn’t like;
    7) Substantially defund federal education programs;
    8) Likewise, defund the Byrne Grants that help local police fight interstate crime; something even the conservative Heritage Foundation opposes.

    Each one of these has particular arguments pro and con, but they are legitimate positions, most of which are standard, conservative political policy positions. Almost all of these have been endorsed and advanced not by the JBS, but by places like Cato Institute, Reason, and other libertarian/libertarian-leaning conservative magazines and foundations.

    I myself am on board with almost everything on this list, the main issue being the devilish details of 3) and 4).

    But, 1) addresses the penchant for monetary mischief on the part of big government lovers left and right – those who advocate paying off the national debt by printing money and raising taxes, 2) simply removes the requirement for “efficacy” and retains only the “safety” provision in FDA regulations and in FTC. The idea is to prevent fraud, but is actually pro-choice in medical treatment, i.e. it allows for alternative medicine to be a valid option, something one would think the HuffPo left would be in favor of (but, hey, if you’ve got to slam somebody, why be consistent). 3) and 4) I’ll leave aside – such a conundrum of who, what, how, and for what time, they deserve their own separate thread. But, for 3) yeah kill it. Younger people will get far better returns investing their own money. Study after study has shown this. On 4) I’m not sure what Reinbach’s cross-outs are for. If he’d accept 4) by adding the crossed-out section, then I’m all for it. As to 5), this would seem to be an absolutely sensible policy proposition, opposition to which is so irresponsible that I question Reinbach’s sanity. Does he truly believe that every federal job is sacrosanct, that once created it must always be retained? Objection to allowing reduction in the federal payroll by attrition is so blinkered as to beggar belief. A position held by those who think that government must always expand. 6) Uhhh, yeah. It’s what President’s do. Separation of powers and all that. Reinbach seems to think that if Congress appropriates, say, an additional $15 trillion in national debt, the President shouldn’t use a veto. Have to keep that government growing, growing, growing! 7) Yes. The Dept. of Education is one of the most worthless, yet intrusive, federal agencies we have. Education should not ever be a federal issue, and this department was created entirely as a sop to the NEA. Protection of this agency has nothing to do with “the children” or “the future” but is simply special interest pandering. 8) Interstate crime. Interesting issue. If one eliminates most federal, i.e. interstate, crimes (like drugs) then one doesn’t need a lot of money for enforcing interstate law enforcement and it can be done by interstate law enforcement agencies like the FBI. My local sheriff’s department doesn’t need to be enforcing interstate laws – it needs to be out arresting local criminals threatening local lives and property. Also, I’ll note the irony of those states that have sought to enforce “interstate” laws like illegal immigration to the shock and horror of the HuffPo crowd. Again, the lack of consistency is telling.

  • SKPeterson

    Most of the apoplexy is from the HuffPo crowd, who think Obama is a center-right politician. If you look at what Paul actually said to those “extremists” at the JBS, you come away with a pretty standard conservative platform. Ipso facto, for the HuffPo crowd that equals racism. Throw around the “neo-confederate” charge a little as well; questioning Lincoln and the wisdom of the Civil War is apparently anathema, even if you recognize the inherent flaws and moral failings of the Confederacy at the same time. If you depart from the standard left-liberal reading of history, you are “extreme,” even though the left-liberal reading of history is the aberrancy.

    Here is Paul’s JBS platform. Now each one of these could be debated, and I’ve left in the HuffPo commenter (Andrew Reinbach)’s comments:

    1) Allow anybody to mint money by passing the “…Free Competition in Currency Act, which repeals legal tender laws and all taxes on gold and silver.”;
    2)Force the FDA and the FTC to allow any dietary supplement onto the market “…unless they have clear evidence that the manufacturer’s clams are not true.” This is a prescription for endless lawsuits.
    3)Kill Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid for future generations;
    4)End Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits for people getting them now –but giving them “…time to prepare for the day when responsibility for providing aide is returned to those organizations best able to administer compassionate and effective help–churches and private charities.”
    5) Fire up to 800,000 federal workers through attrition, not filling vacancies for “non-essential” jobs.
    6) Veto budgets he didn’t like;
    7) Substantially defund federal education programs;
    8) Likewise, defund the Byrne Grants that help local police fight interstate crime; something even the conservative Heritage Foundation opposes.

    Each one of these has particular arguments pro and con, but they are legitimate positions, most of which are standard, conservative political policy positions. Almost all of these have been endorsed and advanced not by the JBS, but by places like Cato Institute, Reason, and other libertarian/libertarian-leaning conservative magazines and foundations.

    I myself am on board with almost everything on this list, the main issue being the devilish details of 3) and 4).

    But, 1) addresses the penchant for monetary mischief on the part of big government lovers left and right – those who advocate paying off the national debt by printing money and raising taxes, 2) simply removes the requirement for “efficacy” and retains only the “safety” provision in FDA regulations and in FTC. The idea is to prevent fraud, but is actually pro-choice in medical treatment, i.e. it allows for alternative medicine to be a valid option, something one would think the HuffPo left would be in favor of (but, hey, if you’ve got to slam somebody, why be consistent). 3) and 4) I’ll leave aside – such a conundrum of who, what, how, and for what time, they deserve their own separate thread. But, for 3) yeah kill it. Younger people will get far better returns investing their own money. Study after study has shown this. On 4) I’m not sure what Reinbach’s cross-outs are for. If he’d accept 4) by adding the crossed-out section, then I’m all for it. As to 5), this would seem to be an absolutely sensible policy proposition, opposition to which is so irresponsible that I question Reinbach’s sanity. Does he truly believe that every federal job is sacrosanct, that once created it must always be retained? Objection to allowing reduction in the federal payroll by attrition is so blinkered as to beggar belief. A position held by those who think that government must always expand. 6) Uhhh, yeah. It’s what President’s do. Separation of powers and all that. Reinbach seems to think that if Congress appropriates, say, an additional $15 trillion in national debt, the President shouldn’t use a veto. Have to keep that government growing, growing, growing! 7) Yes. The Dept. of Education is one of the most worthless, yet intrusive, federal agencies we have. Education should not ever be a federal issue, and this department was created entirely as a sop to the NEA. Protection of this agency has nothing to do with “the children” or “the future” but is simply special interest pandering. 8) Interstate crime. Interesting issue. If one eliminates most federal, i.e. interstate, crimes (like drugs) then one doesn’t need a lot of money for enforcing interstate law enforcement and it can be done by interstate law enforcement agencies like the FBI. My local sheriff’s department doesn’t need to be enforcing interstate laws – it needs to be out arresting local criminals threatening local lives and property. Also, I’ll note the irony of those states that have sought to enforce “interstate” laws like illegal immigration to the shock and horror of the HuffPo crowd. Again, the lack of consistency is telling.

  • ivykid

    Watch this video from 1999 and remember how much hate Dr. Paul received for saying that our foreign policies let to 9/11/2001. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XguvMUUtTtI

  • ivykid

    Watch this video from 1999 and remember how much hate Dr. Paul received for saying that our foreign policies let to 9/11/2001. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XguvMUUtTtI

  • Steve Billingsley

    I made my point of view regarding Paul pretty well known on the previous comment thread (if you don’t want to read those comments, I am not a Paul supporter), so I don’t really want to rehearse all of that here.

    But I do want to note that in my opinion, a fair amount of Paul’s support is less about Paul himself than it is about disappointment with the rest of the slate of Republican candidates. Paul’s support isn’t all from fringe characters (racists, 9/11 truthers, etc.) but includes a lot of pretty mainstream Republican voters. To me this indicates that there is a genuine desire for a more careful constitutionalism, a more modest American foreign policy and genuine reform of our tax, financial and entitlement systems. I completely understand that desire and wish that there was a candidate who effectively advocated these points of view without bringing Paul’s “baggage” (nice euphemism) along for the ride. I just think that the baggage outweighs the rest of the package. Obviously, there are many others who disagree. What I don’t understand, however, is the stubborn denial that the baggage exists. That, to me, just seems to be willful blindness.

  • Steve Billingsley

    I made my point of view regarding Paul pretty well known on the previous comment thread (if you don’t want to read those comments, I am not a Paul supporter), so I don’t really want to rehearse all of that here.

    But I do want to note that in my opinion, a fair amount of Paul’s support is less about Paul himself than it is about disappointment with the rest of the slate of Republican candidates. Paul’s support isn’t all from fringe characters (racists, 9/11 truthers, etc.) but includes a lot of pretty mainstream Republican voters. To me this indicates that there is a genuine desire for a more careful constitutionalism, a more modest American foreign policy and genuine reform of our tax, financial and entitlement systems. I completely understand that desire and wish that there was a candidate who effectively advocated these points of view without bringing Paul’s “baggage” (nice euphemism) along for the ride. I just think that the baggage outweighs the rest of the package. Obviously, there are many others who disagree. What I don’t understand, however, is the stubborn denial that the baggage exists. That, to me, just seems to be willful blindness.

  • Tom Hering

    SK, there’s a difference between an attack on Paul’s critics, and a defense of Paul. I think Dr. Veith was asking for the latter.

  • Tom Hering

    SK, there’s a difference between an attack on Paul’s critics, and a defense of Paul. I think Dr. Veith was asking for the latter.

  • SKPeterson

    Tom – My response was a defense of Paul’s speech to the John Birch Society. Nothing in there that I’d find objectionable, as I said it is fairly standard conservative fare. I guess I’m too young – I don’t care what William F. Buckley said about them, and I don’t understand the fear of the group. I understand the fear exists, I just don’t understand the panic of their opponents. I also don’t get the Nazi aspersions. Like Inigo Montoya, I have to say to those fond of flinging the pejorative, “I don’t think the word means what you think it means.”

    Now, how one goes about making a defense of Paul without addressing the critics, I don’t know. If there aren’t critics, what is to defend? If one cannot address the critics, how can one defend? One merely states policy propositions.

  • SKPeterson

    Tom – My response was a defense of Paul’s speech to the John Birch Society. Nothing in there that I’d find objectionable, as I said it is fairly standard conservative fare. I guess I’m too young – I don’t care what William F. Buckley said about them, and I don’t understand the fear of the group. I understand the fear exists, I just don’t understand the panic of their opponents. I also don’t get the Nazi aspersions. Like Inigo Montoya, I have to say to those fond of flinging the pejorative, “I don’t think the word means what you think it means.”

    Now, how one goes about making a defense of Paul without addressing the critics, I don’t know. If there aren’t critics, what is to defend? If one cannot address the critics, how can one defend? One merely states policy propositions.

  • Tom Hering

    SK, the question asked in today’s post was, “is Ron Paul a right wing extremist?” Any defense that says he’s not, it seems to me, has to address two things. (1.) Are his disavowals of his own newsletters believable? Specifically, is his confession of negligence believable, as there were lots of newsletters for lots of years? (2.) Is his acceptance of support from right wing extremists tantamount to support of right wing extremists? Does his reasoning, “Just because they support what I say doesn’t mean I support what they say,” pass the smell test? When he’s accepting their money (most people rightly assume that a politician is beholden to his contributors), and contributing to their credibility by showing up at their gatherings?

  • Tom Hering

    SK, the question asked in today’s post was, “is Ron Paul a right wing extremist?” Any defense that says he’s not, it seems to me, has to address two things. (1.) Are his disavowals of his own newsletters believable? Specifically, is his confession of negligence believable, as there were lots of newsletters for lots of years? (2.) Is his acceptance of support from right wing extremists tantamount to support of right wing extremists? Does his reasoning, “Just because they support what I say doesn’t mean I support what they say,” pass the smell test? When he’s accepting their money (most people rightly assume that a politician is beholden to his contributors), and contributing to their credibility by showing up at their gatherings?

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@9: What does it even mean to be a “right wing extremist”? Could we clarify our terms first? Personally, when I think of right-wing extremists, I envision neo-Nazi skinheads grumbling about race war from their compounds in Idaho. Ron Paul, whatever you may think about him otherwise, certainly does not conform to this image.

    Steve Billingsley: Tom has rightly noted that you’re too busy critiquing certain Paul supporters to engage with Paul himself. But you claim that you made your “view of Paul clear elsewhere.” Did you? I only noticed vacuous name-calling. Unless I missed something, not once did you commence any sort of substantive analysis of Paul or his policies.

    Also, is anyone denying that Paul has baggage? Neither I nor SKPeterson nor anyone else in these threads has denied that Paul has “issues” from his past that he needs to confront and, if possible, dismiss. No candidate–indeed, no human being–is devoid of baggage. The question is whether such baggage constitutes a legitimate source of doubt as to his fitness for the office of President.

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@9: What does it even mean to be a “right wing extremist”? Could we clarify our terms first? Personally, when I think of right-wing extremists, I envision neo-Nazi skinheads grumbling about race war from their compounds in Idaho. Ron Paul, whatever you may think about him otherwise, certainly does not conform to this image.

    Steve Billingsley: Tom has rightly noted that you’re too busy critiquing certain Paul supporters to engage with Paul himself. But you claim that you made your “view of Paul clear elsewhere.” Did you? I only noticed vacuous name-calling. Unless I missed something, not once did you commence any sort of substantive analysis of Paul or his policies.

    Also, is anyone denying that Paul has baggage? Neither I nor SKPeterson nor anyone else in these threads has denied that Paul has “issues” from his past that he needs to confront and, if possible, dismiss. No candidate–indeed, no human being–is devoid of baggage. The question is whether such baggage constitutes a legitimate source of doubt as to his fitness for the office of President.

  • JH

    regarding taking contributions from “extremists”. I like RPs response. “I can put that money to better use than they can.”

    Secondly, does anyone know the relative proportion of “extremist” messages in that newsletter? 50% of the editions? or just 2%?

    In any case, I’m voting for RP simply because the other candidates offer no change. And I’m kinda in the mood for change. I guess I thought most people would also be ready for something different.

  • JH

    regarding taking contributions from “extremists”. I like RPs response. “I can put that money to better use than they can.”

    Secondly, does anyone know the relative proportion of “extremist” messages in that newsletter? 50% of the editions? or just 2%?

    In any case, I’m voting for RP simply because the other candidates offer no change. And I’m kinda in the mood for change. I guess I thought most people would also be ready for something different.

  • Cincinnatus

    JH@11: Don’t be silly. We’d rather debate Paul’s “open racism,” even though absolutely noting in his policies or legislative actions would convey the slightest hint of racism, than view him as any kind of refreshing alternative to the status quo.

  • Cincinnatus

    JH@11: Don’t be silly. We’d rather debate Paul’s “open racism,” even though absolutely noting in his policies or legislative actions would convey the slightest hint of racism, than view him as any kind of refreshing alternative to the status quo.

  • Tom Hering

    “The question is whether such baggage constitutes a legitimate source of doubt as to his fitness for the office of President.”

    Indeed, Cincinnatus. My own legitimate doubts center (surprise!) on the newsletters published by the company Paul co-founded and ran (as its president). But wait, he didn’t actually run it, because he was, instead, being negligent – or so he confesses. Now, if he really was negligent, he was severely negligent, because (again) there were lots of newsletters for lots of years. Indicating a level of negligence tantamount to a constant, long-running state of mind, during the years when he was out of Congress and had returned to his medical practice. Now, I would think Paul would have been hit with a flood of malpractice suits in the 2000s, if he really had been in a constantly negligent state of mind in the 1980s and ’90s. But he wasn’t, so it’s highly unlikely that his past state of mind was what he says it was. So I can only conclude that he was a competent doctor and publisher – fully aware of what was in his own newsletters. And approving them.

  • Tom Hering

    “The question is whether such baggage constitutes a legitimate source of doubt as to his fitness for the office of President.”

    Indeed, Cincinnatus. My own legitimate doubts center (surprise!) on the newsletters published by the company Paul co-founded and ran (as its president). But wait, he didn’t actually run it, because he was, instead, being negligent – or so he confesses. Now, if he really was negligent, he was severely negligent, because (again) there were lots of newsletters for lots of years. Indicating a level of negligence tantamount to a constant, long-running state of mind, during the years when he was out of Congress and had returned to his medical practice. Now, I would think Paul would have been hit with a flood of malpractice suits in the 2000s, if he really had been in a constantly negligent state of mind in the 1980s and ’90s. But he wasn’t, so it’s highly unlikely that his past state of mind was what he says it was. So I can only conclude that he was a competent doctor and publisher – fully aware of what was in his own newsletters. And approving them.

  • Patrick Kyle

    A newsletter, from 20 years ago that he has addressed repeatedly, a speech to the John Birch society, and a few (very few) campaign donations from fringe groups or unsavory characters is all they’ve got on Ron Paul?

    Really?

    Why don’t we subject these other frontrunners to the same level of scrutiny going back 20 years or so and see what turns up?

    As to him not knowing what was in the news letter, that is far more plausible than Barney Frank’s denial that he knew anything about the gay prostitution ring his significant other was running out of the basement of their shared townhouse. Just sayin…..

  • Patrick Kyle

    A newsletter, from 20 years ago that he has addressed repeatedly, a speech to the John Birch society, and a few (very few) campaign donations from fringe groups or unsavory characters is all they’ve got on Ron Paul?

    Really?

    Why don’t we subject these other frontrunners to the same level of scrutiny going back 20 years or so and see what turns up?

    As to him not knowing what was in the news letter, that is far more plausible than Barney Frank’s denial that he knew anything about the gay prostitution ring his significant other was running out of the basement of their shared townhouse. Just sayin…..

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@13: That’s a stupid argument, and quite a convoluted effort to justify your distaste for Paul.

    In the end, I agree that the newsletters constitute a legitimate concern. On the other hand, I actually believe Paul’s denials. Why? Because nothing he has ever said, published, or proposed (while in Congress, while running for office, or while constructing his public platform) comports with the “racist” remarks in the newsletters. They aren’t even written in a style that resembles Paul’s verified writings. Thus, the benefits Paul offers far outweigh his alleged lack of newsletter oversight.

    By the way, you overstate Paul’s involvement in the newsletter operation: he didn’t “run” it; he was a minority stakeholder. The newsletter was using his name. Assuming that one believes him when he claims not to have written them–and even Paul’s enemies typically concede this point–his worst fault came in carelessly allowing his “brand” to be used by apparently unscrupulous characters.

    I’ll go out on a limb though and be honest: I wouldn’t care even if he had written them. Most of the statements in question are actually true, if crudely put. It’s not like Paul has openly worried that Guam might capsize or suggested that the United States is composed of 57 members or claimed that he can see Russia from his window. Whether one finds them politically correct or not, the statements are serious and deal with serious concerns of public interest.

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@13: That’s a stupid argument, and quite a convoluted effort to justify your distaste for Paul.

    In the end, I agree that the newsletters constitute a legitimate concern. On the other hand, I actually believe Paul’s denials. Why? Because nothing he has ever said, published, or proposed (while in Congress, while running for office, or while constructing his public platform) comports with the “racist” remarks in the newsletters. They aren’t even written in a style that resembles Paul’s verified writings. Thus, the benefits Paul offers far outweigh his alleged lack of newsletter oversight.

    By the way, you overstate Paul’s involvement in the newsletter operation: he didn’t “run” it; he was a minority stakeholder. The newsletter was using his name. Assuming that one believes him when he claims not to have written them–and even Paul’s enemies typically concede this point–his worst fault came in carelessly allowing his “brand” to be used by apparently unscrupulous characters.

    I’ll go out on a limb though and be honest: I wouldn’t care even if he had written them. Most of the statements in question are actually true, if crudely put. It’s not like Paul has openly worried that Guam might capsize or suggested that the United States is composed of 57 members or claimed that he can see Russia from his window. Whether one finds them politically correct or not, the statements are serious and deal with serious concerns of public interest.

  • Cincinnatus

    In other words, what Patrick Kyle@14 said.

  • Cincinnatus

    In other words, what Patrick Kyle@14 said.

  • Cincinnatus

    Also, Tom, Obama’s past associations were far sketchier, problematic, and unscrupulous than anything that has been uncovered in relation to Ron Paul. I mean, Obama knowingly associated with actual racists, terrorists, and quasi-Marxists. Why, then, are past associations suddenly so relevant to your assessment of a candidate? Apparently, you are willing to disregard Ron Paul as a candidate simply and only because you disapprove of the John Birch Society and some guy with whom Paul once appeared in a photo. You aren’t even willing to discuss his policies, because every time one of us pushed you in that direction you revert back to inane name-calling and “six-degrees-from-known-racist” games.

    Presumably, you were able to overcome what I must assume to have been distaste for Obama’s past affiliations by evaluating his policies. Can we maybe just maybe do the same for Paul? Especially since Paul’s choices of friends are far less controversial than those of Obama.

  • Cincinnatus

    Also, Tom, Obama’s past associations were far sketchier, problematic, and unscrupulous than anything that has been uncovered in relation to Ron Paul. I mean, Obama knowingly associated with actual racists, terrorists, and quasi-Marxists. Why, then, are past associations suddenly so relevant to your assessment of a candidate? Apparently, you are willing to disregard Ron Paul as a candidate simply and only because you disapprove of the John Birch Society and some guy with whom Paul once appeared in a photo. You aren’t even willing to discuss his policies, because every time one of us pushed you in that direction you revert back to inane name-calling and “six-degrees-from-known-racist” games.

    Presumably, you were able to overcome what I must assume to have been distaste for Obama’s past affiliations by evaluating his policies. Can we maybe just maybe do the same for Paul? Especially since Paul’s choices of friends are far less controversial than those of Obama.

  • Steve Billingsley

    My doubts are the same as Tom Hering’s, but why are you guys arguing with he and I? Dr. Veith asked the question. He said he is open to be persuaded and he brought up the newsletters in his post. Go ahead, convince him. Why do you care if you are convincing me?

    Make your case as to why Dr. Paul is the right candidate for Dr. Veith to support in the Virginia Republican primary. Address his concerns. I already know where I stand. I think that the newsletters and the content therein, along with Dr. Paul’s association with those newsletters and his failure to convince me that he didn’t write or have knowledge of those newsletters are in and of themselves disqualifiers as to his candidacy for the Presidency. If you disagree with my opinion, fine. But I think it is pretty clear. If it isn’t substantive enough for you, again disagree with me, it’s certainly you’re prerogative.
    But I don’t see anyone in the comment thread trying to convince Dr. Veith. Make your case. If it’s enough to convince him, maybe it’s enough to convince me.

  • Steve Billingsley

    My doubts are the same as Tom Hering’s, but why are you guys arguing with he and I? Dr. Veith asked the question. He said he is open to be persuaded and he brought up the newsletters in his post. Go ahead, convince him. Why do you care if you are convincing me?

    Make your case as to why Dr. Paul is the right candidate for Dr. Veith to support in the Virginia Republican primary. Address his concerns. I already know where I stand. I think that the newsletters and the content therein, along with Dr. Paul’s association with those newsletters and his failure to convince me that he didn’t write or have knowledge of those newsletters are in and of themselves disqualifiers as to his candidacy for the Presidency. If you disagree with my opinion, fine. But I think it is pretty clear. If it isn’t substantive enough for you, again disagree with me, it’s certainly you’re prerogative.
    But I don’t see anyone in the comment thread trying to convince Dr. Veith. Make your case. If it’s enough to convince him, maybe it’s enough to convince me.

  • Steve Billingsley

    And as for Obama’s past associations are concerned, I didn’t vote for him either. I think that the 20 year association with Jeremiah Wright should have been a disqualifier. Obviously it wasn’t for enough voters to defeat him in 2008. But I don’t see the Lew Rockwell/Murray Rothbard associations as a positive, either. Ron Paul doesn’t have my vote and I really doubt he is going to get it.

  • Steve Billingsley

    And as for Obama’s past associations are concerned, I didn’t vote for him either. I think that the 20 year association with Jeremiah Wright should have been a disqualifier. Obviously it wasn’t for enough voters to defeat him in 2008. But I don’t see the Lew Rockwell/Murray Rothbard associations as a positive, either. Ron Paul doesn’t have my vote and I really doubt he is going to get it.

  • Steve Billingsley

    That should read, “and as far as Obama’s past associations are concerned”….bad typing.

  • Steve Billingsley

    That should read, “and as far as Obama’s past associations are concerned”….bad typing.

  • Patrick Kyle

    Tom,

    How many editions of the newsletter actually carried the offending incendiary comments? For how many years was it published, and how many installments or editions were printed?

    I have only ever seen the same two or three quotes from his newsletter used over and over to assault his reputation. Are these the only offending statements from a large corpus of work, or were there just a few news letters that consisted mostly of this crap? Or were many, many of the letters full of this stuff?

    It seems like his opponents have only been able to dig up a paltry few quotes attributed to a man who has lived in the public eye for the better part of 35 years.

    My verdict: a manufactured tempest in a tea cup.

  • Patrick Kyle

    Tom,

    How many editions of the newsletter actually carried the offending incendiary comments? For how many years was it published, and how many installments or editions were printed?

    I have only ever seen the same two or three quotes from his newsletter used over and over to assault his reputation. Are these the only offending statements from a large corpus of work, or were there just a few news letters that consisted mostly of this crap? Or were many, many of the letters full of this stuff?

    It seems like his opponents have only been able to dig up a paltry few quotes attributed to a man who has lived in the public eye for the better part of 35 years.

    My verdict: a manufactured tempest in a tea cup.

  • SKPeterson

    One of the problems I have is that the contents of the newsletters themselves is never published. We have no idea of the context of these comments; are they out and out racist, are they vicious satire directed at particular social elements, are they simply rude and foolish comments that could</i. be viewed as racist or imprecatory commentary directed at racial minorities. I don't know. I've never seen them. I'd wager most of the people commenting haven't read them either, or have read only edited summaries or a few isolated sentences devoid of context.

    I do know that Kirchick, the writer who brought much of this up, has his own anti-Paul axes to grind. He's a neo-con chickenhawk, employed at the time by The New Republic, an occasionally decent magazine, but one that is decidedly, even militantly, pro-Israel. In fact, so pro-Israel that any politician who strays from the 51st State reservation, is automatically branded "anti-semitic" "kooky" "racist" "fascist" and just plain mean to little old ladies.

  • SKPeterson

    One of the problems I have is that the contents of the newsletters themselves is never published. We have no idea of the context of these comments; are they out and out racist, are they vicious satire directed at particular social elements, are they simply rude and foolish comments that could</i. be viewed as racist or imprecatory commentary directed at racial minorities. I don't know. I've never seen them. I'd wager most of the people commenting haven't read them either, or have read only edited summaries or a few isolated sentences devoid of context.

    I do know that Kirchick, the writer who brought much of this up, has his own anti-Paul axes to grind. He's a neo-con chickenhawk, employed at the time by The New Republic, an occasionally decent magazine, but one that is decidedly, even militantly, pro-Israel. In fact, so pro-Israel that any politician who strays from the 51st State reservation, is automatically branded "anti-semitic" "kooky" "racist" "fascist" and just plain mean to little old ladies.

  • Tom Hering

    So, my arguments suck, I won’t talk about what Paul’s supporters want me to talk about, and Obama and Barney Frank are naughty people. Plus, there’s really nothing wrong with Paul’s newsletters, anyways.

    Wowee. :=D

  • Tom Hering

    So, my arguments suck, I won’t talk about what Paul’s supporters want me to talk about, and Obama and Barney Frank are naughty people. Plus, there’s really nothing wrong with Paul’s newsletters, anyways.

    Wowee. :=D

  • Steve Billingsley

    “I do know that Kirchick, the writer who brought much of this up, has his own anti-Paul axes to grind. He’s a neo-con chickenhawk, employed at the time by The New Republic, an occasionally decent magazine, but one that is decidedly, even militantly, pro-Israel. In fact, so pro-Israel that any politician who strays from the 51st State reservation, is automatically branded “anti-semitic” “kooky” “racist” “fascist” and just plain mean to little old ladies.”

    And I am getting grief for name-calling and lack of substantive analysis? OK.

  • Steve Billingsley

    “I do know that Kirchick, the writer who brought much of this up, has his own anti-Paul axes to grind. He’s a neo-con chickenhawk, employed at the time by The New Republic, an occasionally decent magazine, but one that is decidedly, even militantly, pro-Israel. In fact, so pro-Israel that any politician who strays from the 51st State reservation, is automatically branded “anti-semitic” “kooky” “racist” “fascist” and just plain mean to little old ladies.”

    And I am getting grief for name-calling and lack of substantive analysis? OK.

  • Tom Hering

    Patrick Kyle @ 21, here’s scans of over 50 newsletters for ya:

    http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/game-over-scans-of-over-50-ron-paul.html

    Enjoy. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    Patrick Kyle @ 21, here’s scans of over 50 newsletters for ya:

    http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/game-over-scans-of-over-50-ron-paul.html

    Enjoy. :-D

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@23:

    “I won’t talk about what Paul’s supporters want me to talk about.”

    No, you won’t talk about what anyone (except Steve) wants you to talk about it–that is, actual policies and issues. You’ll notice that one of your most vociferous critics in other threads is tODD, who is a registered Democrat, left of center, who I can only assume is not a rabid Paul supporter. Can we move on?

    And yeah, Obama and Barney Frank are fairly “naughty people” with regards to their past (and, in some cases, current) associations. Does that bother you? If not, why not? More to the point, if not, why do Paul’s associations apparently disqualify him from serious consideration? The problem isn’t that Obama and Frank are “naughty” but your apparent inconsistency: why does Obama get a pass while this obviously thin charge against Paul (cf. SKPeterson@22) is enough to render him unfit for discussion?

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@23:

    “I won’t talk about what Paul’s supporters want me to talk about.”

    No, you won’t talk about what anyone (except Steve) wants you to talk about it–that is, actual policies and issues. You’ll notice that one of your most vociferous critics in other threads is tODD, who is a registered Democrat, left of center, who I can only assume is not a rabid Paul supporter. Can we move on?

    And yeah, Obama and Barney Frank are fairly “naughty people” with regards to their past (and, in some cases, current) associations. Does that bother you? If not, why not? More to the point, if not, why do Paul’s associations apparently disqualify him from serious consideration? The problem isn’t that Obama and Frank are “naughty” but your apparent inconsistency: why does Obama get a pass while this obviously thin charge against Paul (cf. SKPeterson@22) is enough to render him unfit for discussion?

  • Jonathan

    Rep. Paul can’t be credited enough for denouncing America’s use of torture and its perpetual-motion war machine. Further, I’m glad to hear that he renounced these vile newsletters. But he needs to clarify (for me) his views on civil rights.

  • Jonathan

    Rep. Paul can’t be credited enough for denouncing America’s use of torture and its perpetual-motion war machine. Further, I’m glad to hear that he renounced these vile newsletters. But he needs to clarify (for me) his views on civil rights.

  • SKPeterson

    Steve – Do you deny that Kirchick is the one who aired these articles most widely and recently? Do you deny that he is/was employed by TNR? Do you deny that TNR is a magazine that has repeatedly and vociferously lobbied for the US government to be actively pro-Isreal? Do you deny that they have attacked others who have questioned the “pro-Israel” arguments for intervention in Iraq, agitation against Iran, encourage intervention in Syria and encouraged active intervention in Egypt and Libya? Do you deny that Paul has been accused of being or described as “anti-semitic” “racist” “kooky” or “fascist”? Do you argue that these are unrelated, or related, but irrelevant? What is your substantive criticism, beyond accepting accusations at face value?

    Now, several of us have been offering substantive analysis for weeks and months on this site. And again, if one cannot question the motives of critics, how exactly is one to make a substantive defense of someone’s positions? That’s like saying – “These guys think you’re a rat fink. Provide a substantive rebuttal, but don’t bring up any personal motivations those guys over there might have to call you a rat fink, or you’re a rat fink, you rat fink.”

  • SKPeterson

    Steve – Do you deny that Kirchick is the one who aired these articles most widely and recently? Do you deny that he is/was employed by TNR? Do you deny that TNR is a magazine that has repeatedly and vociferously lobbied for the US government to be actively pro-Isreal? Do you deny that they have attacked others who have questioned the “pro-Israel” arguments for intervention in Iraq, agitation against Iran, encourage intervention in Syria and encouraged active intervention in Egypt and Libya? Do you deny that Paul has been accused of being or described as “anti-semitic” “racist” “kooky” or “fascist”? Do you argue that these are unrelated, or related, but irrelevant? What is your substantive criticism, beyond accepting accusations at face value?

    Now, several of us have been offering substantive analysis for weeks and months on this site. And again, if one cannot question the motives of critics, how exactly is one to make a substantive defense of someone’s positions? That’s like saying – “These guys think you’re a rat fink. Provide a substantive rebuttal, but don’t bring up any personal motivations those guys over there might have to call you a rat fink, or you’re a rat fink, you rat fink.”

  • Jonathan

    http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/why-arent-the-gays-attacking-paul.html

    Paul’s supporters, especially, (and Gene Veith) might want to read this observation, posted by a gay Christian (Sullivan) who endorsed Paul. I’d love to hear comments.

  • Jonathan

    http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/why-arent-the-gays-attacking-paul.html

    Paul’s supporters, especially, (and Gene Veith) might want to read this observation, posted by a gay Christian (Sullivan) who endorsed Paul. I’d love to hear comments.

  • SKPeterson

    Now, here’s an interesting story on Paul and hist supporters. In disclosure, I’m not a Paul supporter (I haven’t donated money or time), but will readily admit that his viewpoints most closely match mine.

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/28/tech/web/paulbots-ron-paul-sifry/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

    I also have noticed this amongst Paul supporters, but what is galling about this article, is that I notice just as much amongst on-line Obama supporters. They are ugly, mean-spiritied, dismissive and rude in spades, which is probably more indicative of internet anonymity than anything else. But, for Obama, all we heard about was how wonderful his internet following was, how this was such a great way to engage the youth, how it shows the great support Obama has amongst web users etc., etc. Yet, for Paul, it’s constant complaints that this is a small group of web savvy individuals, almost like some secret group of cyber terrorists, and couldn’t possibly be indicative of a groundswell of popular support. It’s just a very interesting parallel in looking at the same phenomena played out across two different groups, yet the explanations are completely at odds.

  • SKPeterson

    Now, here’s an interesting story on Paul and hist supporters. In disclosure, I’m not a Paul supporter (I haven’t donated money or time), but will readily admit that his viewpoints most closely match mine.

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/28/tech/web/paulbots-ron-paul-sifry/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

    I also have noticed this amongst Paul supporters, but what is galling about this article, is that I notice just as much amongst on-line Obama supporters. They are ugly, mean-spiritied, dismissive and rude in spades, which is probably more indicative of internet anonymity than anything else. But, for Obama, all we heard about was how wonderful his internet following was, how this was such a great way to engage the youth, how it shows the great support Obama has amongst web users etc., etc. Yet, for Paul, it’s constant complaints that this is a small group of web savvy individuals, almost like some secret group of cyber terrorists, and couldn’t possibly be indicative of a groundswell of popular support. It’s just a very interesting parallel in looking at the same phenomena played out across two different groups, yet the explanations are completely at odds.

  • Pingback: Ron Paul’s baggage | Whitey Arrested

  • Pingback: Ron Paul’s baggage | Whitey Arrested

  • Tom Hering

    In related news, Ron Paul campaign headquarters in Des Moines, Iowa had five OWS protestors arrested today – for peacefully gathering outside the headquarters building. But not until staff locked the entrance doors, first.

    Oh champions of liberty! Oh voice of the common man! Be still, my beating, freedom-loving heart! :-D

  • Tom Hering

    In related news, Ron Paul campaign headquarters in Des Moines, Iowa had five OWS protestors arrested today – for peacefully gathering outside the headquarters building. But not until staff locked the entrance doors, first.

    Oh champions of liberty! Oh voice of the common man! Be still, my beating, freedom-loving heart! :-D

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@31: Oh brother. The five were trespassing on private property and blocking the entrance to the campaign headquarters. Not that Ron Paul was even there or issued to direct order to stifle “liberty.” Come on, Tom. Enough with the mindless non-sequiturs.

    After all (trying to bring substantive policy in here…), Ron Paul is the only candidate from either major party who has maintained a credible and consistent stance against Wall Street banks that are “too big to fail” and that exert a dangerous influence upon both the American political process and the American economy. The real dummies here are the protesters, who were attempting to undermine the only candidate who is anything close to their natural friend. Indeed, Paul has explicitly endorsed OWS and its grievances (if not its methods).

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@31: Oh brother. The five were trespassing on private property and blocking the entrance to the campaign headquarters. Not that Ron Paul was even there or issued to direct order to stifle “liberty.” Come on, Tom. Enough with the mindless non-sequiturs.

    After all (trying to bring substantive policy in here…), Ron Paul is the only candidate from either major party who has maintained a credible and consistent stance against Wall Street banks that are “too big to fail” and that exert a dangerous influence upon both the American political process and the American economy. The real dummies here are the protesters, who were attempting to undermine the only candidate who is anything close to their natural friend. Indeed, Paul has explicitly endorsed OWS and its grievances (if not its methods).

  • Tom Hering

    Who said Ron Paul himself was involved, Cincinnatus? I only spoke of his supporters – people like you. And how big were those five protestors? And how small was the entrance? I’ve read nothing that says they were stopping people from going in and out.

  • Tom Hering

    Who said Ron Paul himself was involved, Cincinnatus? I only spoke of his supporters – people like you. And how big were those five protestors? And how small was the entrance? I’ve read nothing that says they were stopping people from going in and out.

  • SKPeterson

    Tom – From the photo it appears they were blocking the entrance and trespassing, which is what they were arrested for. They can speak all they want and say whatever they want, but they don’t get to trespass in order to do so.

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/occupy-protesters-arrested-outside-ron-paul-campaign-headquarters-in-iowa/

    It also doesn’t say who locked the doors or who called the police. Maybe the campaign workers decided not to let the OWS people in, since they seem to have a “once we’re in, we’ll never leave” mentality.

  • SKPeterson

    Tom – From the photo it appears they were blocking the entrance and trespassing, which is what they were arrested for. They can speak all they want and say whatever they want, but they don’t get to trespass in order to do so.

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/occupy-protesters-arrested-outside-ron-paul-campaign-headquarters-in-iowa/

    It also doesn’t say who locked the doors or who called the police. Maybe the campaign workers decided not to let the OWS people in, since they seem to have a “once we’re in, we’ll never leave” mentality.

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@33: Who cares? How is this event related in the least to the topic at hand?

    I’m not a Paul supporter in the sense that a) I don’t agree with him on all issues of significance, b) I haven’t and won’t donate time or money to his campaign, and c) I won’t be voting in the primaries. But even if I were, I would call the police if a group of protesters refused to leave my front stoop.

    I have no idea what you’re aiming for with this latest irrelevancy, Tom. It sheds no light on Paul’s policies or upon the newsletter issue. Obligatory as well: Obama supporters–people like you–were involved in voter intimidation at the polls in the 2008 election (events that Attorney General Holder refuses to investigate and prosecute). What’s my point? I don’t have one. Do you just want to play the “Oh yeah? Your candidate did X!” game all day?

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@33: Who cares? How is this event related in the least to the topic at hand?

    I’m not a Paul supporter in the sense that a) I don’t agree with him on all issues of significance, b) I haven’t and won’t donate time or money to his campaign, and c) I won’t be voting in the primaries. But even if I were, I would call the police if a group of protesters refused to leave my front stoop.

    I have no idea what you’re aiming for with this latest irrelevancy, Tom. It sheds no light on Paul’s policies or upon the newsletter issue. Obligatory as well: Obama supporters–people like you–were involved in voter intimidation at the polls in the 2008 election (events that Attorney General Holder refuses to investigate and prosecute). What’s my point? I don’t have one. Do you just want to play the “Oh yeah? Your candidate did X!” game all day?

  • SKPeterson

    Here’s another take.

  • SKPeterson

    Here’s another take.

  • Tom Hering

    Woopsies! I was wrong. They were, indeed, blocking the entrance. See a picture of them, and a video of the arrests, here:

    http://www.dailypaul.com/197444/5-arrested-at-ron-paul-s-office-in-ankeny-with-photo-videos

    Thank God law and order – and property rights – were preserved.

  • Tom Hering

    Woopsies! I was wrong. They were, indeed, blocking the entrance. See a picture of them, and a video of the arrests, here:

    http://www.dailypaul.com/197444/5-arrested-at-ron-paul-s-office-in-ankeny-with-photo-videos

    Thank God law and order – and property rights – were preserved.

  • Cincinnatus

    Well, that was a waste of time. Thanks, Tom!

    Still haven’t mentioned a single policy of his.

  • Cincinnatus

    Well, that was a waste of time. Thanks, Tom!

    Still haven’t mentioned a single policy of his.

  • Tom Hering

    Policy of his? No. Police of his? Yes. (Don’t worry. The grammar police will swing into action next. :-D )

  • Tom Hering

    Policy of his? No. Police of his? Yes. (Don’t worry. The grammar police will swing into action next. :-D )

  • SKPeterson

    And another (from the Ed Show of all places):

    http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-ed-show/45810580#45810580

  • SKPeterson

    And another (from the Ed Show of all places):

    http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-ed-show/45810580#45810580

  • SKPeterson

    Tom – are you implying that for Paul to be consistent, he should hold that free speech trumps property rights? I’m trying to follow your line of argument here.

  • SKPeterson

    Tom – are you implying that for Paul to be consistent, he should hold that free speech trumps property rights? I’m trying to follow your line of argument here.

  • Cincinnatus

    Does Tom actually have an argument in this case? I thought he was merely making vague insinuations about…well, I’m not really sure what. Apparently Paul’s staffers should have allowed these kids to camp out in front of their door indefinitely…for some reason. Apparently this is relevant to Paul’s campaign and his policies. Somehow.

  • Cincinnatus

    Does Tom actually have an argument in this case? I thought he was merely making vague insinuations about…well, I’m not really sure what. Apparently Paul’s staffers should have allowed these kids to camp out in front of their door indefinitely…for some reason. Apparently this is relevant to Paul’s campaign and his policies. Somehow.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Been away for awhile, just checked back in to see if anyone is actually trying to convince Dr. Veith that Paul is the right candidate for him to support in the Virginia primary or address his questions about the newsletters or the John Birch society. Since comment #4 tried to address the Bircher part of the equation, looks like the question is no.

    A lot of arguing with Tom Hering, however. I think this proves 2 things fairly well.

    1. If you want a lot of comments on a particular blog post thread, bring up Ron Paul and say something at least mildly negative about him.
    2. Be prepared for that thread to jump the shark pretty quickly.

    Other than that, apparently there isn’t much to learn.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Been away for awhile, just checked back in to see if anyone is actually trying to convince Dr. Veith that Paul is the right candidate for him to support in the Virginia primary or address his questions about the newsletters or the John Birch society. Since comment #4 tried to address the Bircher part of the equation, looks like the question is no.

    A lot of arguing with Tom Hering, however. I think this proves 2 things fairly well.

    1. If you want a lot of comments on a particular blog post thread, bring up Ron Paul and say something at least mildly negative about him.
    2. Be prepared for that thread to jump the shark pretty quickly.

    Other than that, apparently there isn’t much to learn.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @29 It should be noted that Ron Paul, tends to be a constitutional libertarian (yes there are brands of libertarians). This means he is not necessarily a friend of a particular group if he doesn’t support legislation at the Federal level. Likely it means he believes the states should be the one to make their own decisions on a particular issue, because the constitution has not given the Federal government the prevue over a particular issue.

    The following link does a good job of explaining Ron Paul’s position.

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ron-paul-personally-opposed-to-same-sex-marriage-but/

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    @29 It should be noted that Ron Paul, tends to be a constitutional libertarian (yes there are brands of libertarians). This means he is not necessarily a friend of a particular group if he doesn’t support legislation at the Federal level. Likely it means he believes the states should be the one to make their own decisions on a particular issue, because the constitution has not given the Federal government the prevue over a particular issue.

    The following link does a good job of explaining Ron Paul’s position.

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ron-paul-personally-opposed-to-same-sex-marriage-but/

  • Cincinnatus

    Steve@43: I like how you’re mounting the high horse here, pretending to be the stalwart voice of reason in a noisy crowd of chatterers and idle talk. Until this very comment, however, you were merely repeating pointless tropes about Paul’s more rabid supporters, etc., and insisting that you can’t/won’t vote for Paul due to the newsletter issue, even after various attempts either to justify, explain, mitigate, or otherwise minimize the importance of the newsletters in the face of Paul’s superior policies, etc.

    So about what do you wish to be convinced? No one, SKPeterson included I am certain, has the time or inclination to dissect and defend each aspect of Paul’s rather extensive platform (the fact that his platform is extensive, however, might be reason enough to vote for him over Romney, who is famously cagey about everything). Furthermore, most of us here defending Paul aren’t really dogmatic Paul supporters, so we have no interest in campaigning for him. The newsletter issue came up (thanks, Tom et al.). We’ve been trying to defend that and move on to more substantive issues.

    So let’s talk about substantive issues. But which one(s)? Federalism? Gay rights? Immigration? Free trade? Monetary policy? Fiscal policy? Defense budgets? Foreign policy? Steve, you may not have noticed that, on other threads (to which Veith has presumably been party, at least silently), we’ve had extensive discussions about these issues. Shall I cut and paste? As one of the worst offenders with regards to deflecting discussion of Ron Paul towards superficial inanities, what exactly do you want?

  • Cincinnatus

    Steve@43: I like how you’re mounting the high horse here, pretending to be the stalwart voice of reason in a noisy crowd of chatterers and idle talk. Until this very comment, however, you were merely repeating pointless tropes about Paul’s more rabid supporters, etc., and insisting that you can’t/won’t vote for Paul due to the newsletter issue, even after various attempts either to justify, explain, mitigate, or otherwise minimize the importance of the newsletters in the face of Paul’s superior policies, etc.

    So about what do you wish to be convinced? No one, SKPeterson included I am certain, has the time or inclination to dissect and defend each aspect of Paul’s rather extensive platform (the fact that his platform is extensive, however, might be reason enough to vote for him over Romney, who is famously cagey about everything). Furthermore, most of us here defending Paul aren’t really dogmatic Paul supporters, so we have no interest in campaigning for him. The newsletter issue came up (thanks, Tom et al.). We’ve been trying to defend that and move on to more substantive issues.

    So let’s talk about substantive issues. But which one(s)? Federalism? Gay rights? Immigration? Free trade? Monetary policy? Fiscal policy? Defense budgets? Foreign policy? Steve, you may not have noticed that, on other threads (to which Veith has presumably been party, at least silently), we’ve had extensive discussions about these issues. Shall I cut and paste? As one of the worst offenders with regards to deflecting discussion of Ron Paul towards superficial inanities, what exactly do you want?

  • Cincinnatus

    Steve, in other words, all I know about you in this thread is that you’re flatly refusing to support or vote for Paul or even “give him the time of day” due to the newsletter issue. Other than that, I know nothing about your opinion regarding his policies, etc.–if you have any opinion at all. So what am I supposed to say?

  • Cincinnatus

    Steve, in other words, all I know about you in this thread is that you’re flatly refusing to support or vote for Paul or even “give him the time of day” due to the newsletter issue. Other than that, I know nothing about your opinion regarding his policies, etc.–if you have any opinion at all. So what am I supposed to say?

  • Cincinnatus

    By the way, I think this is a good little editorial on the newsletter problem:

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/2011/12/27/ron-paul-and-the-flake-factor/

    It’s very critical of Paul, and yet written by a Paul sympathizer. Folks on both sides of the issue will find something to like within. While I disagree with Dreher on the seriousness of the problem (I really don’t think the newsletters are as racist and loathsome as he insists they are), but it’s thoughtful nonetheless.

  • Cincinnatus

    By the way, I think this is a good little editorial on the newsletter problem:

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/2011/12/27/ron-paul-and-the-flake-factor/

    It’s very critical of Paul, and yet written by a Paul sympathizer. Folks on both sides of the issue will find something to like within. While I disagree with Dreher on the seriousness of the problem (I really don’t think the newsletters are as racist and loathsome as he insists they are), but it’s thoughtful nonetheless.

  • Cincinnatus

    This is even better:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/grappling-with-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/250206/

    Money quote:

    “Unlike his typical sympathizers, I’d feel conflicted about voting for him. He’s a flawed candidate in many ways. How is it — some of you might ask — that I’d even consider a vote for a candidate who, at best, negligently lent his name to a racist publication, profited from the deal, and either never bothered to find out who wrote the offending material or lied about being ignorant of it? (To be clear, if I thought he actually wrote the newsletters I certainly would not vote for him.) I’d answer that none of the policies he advocates makes me morally uncomfortable — unlike his competition. And that he has a long history of doing what he says when elected, and no more.

    ‘How could you vote for someone who…’

    Isn’t that a thorny formulation? I’m sometimes drawn to it. And yet. We’re all choosing among a deeply compromised pool of candidates, at least when the field is narrowed to folks who poll above 5 percent. Put it this way. How can you vote for someone who wages an undeclared drone war that kills scores of Pakistani children? Or someone who righteously insisted that indefinite detention is an illegitimate transgression against our civilizational values, and proceeded to support that very practice once he was elected? How can you vote for someone who has claimed to be deeply convicted about abortion on both sides of the issue, constantly misrepresents his record, and demagogues important matters of foreign policy at every opportunity? Or someone who suggests a religious minority group should be discriminated against? Or who insists that even given the benefit of hindsight, the Iraq War was a just and prudent one?

    And yet many of you, Republicans and Democrats, will do just that — just as you and I have voted for a long line of past presidents who’ve deliberately pursued policies of questionable-at-best morality. “

  • Cincinnatus

    This is even better:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/grappling-with-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/250206/

    Money quote:

    “Unlike his typical sympathizers, I’d feel conflicted about voting for him. He’s a flawed candidate in many ways. How is it — some of you might ask — that I’d even consider a vote for a candidate who, at best, negligently lent his name to a racist publication, profited from the deal, and either never bothered to find out who wrote the offending material or lied about being ignorant of it? (To be clear, if I thought he actually wrote the newsletters I certainly would not vote for him.) I’d answer that none of the policies he advocates makes me morally uncomfortable — unlike his competition. And that he has a long history of doing what he says when elected, and no more.

    ‘How could you vote for someone who…’

    Isn’t that a thorny formulation? I’m sometimes drawn to it. And yet. We’re all choosing among a deeply compromised pool of candidates, at least when the field is narrowed to folks who poll above 5 percent. Put it this way. How can you vote for someone who wages an undeclared drone war that kills scores of Pakistani children? Or someone who righteously insisted that indefinite detention is an illegitimate transgression against our civilizational values, and proceeded to support that very practice once he was elected? How can you vote for someone who has claimed to be deeply convicted about abortion on both sides of the issue, constantly misrepresents his record, and demagogues important matters of foreign policy at every opportunity? Or someone who suggests a religious minority group should be discriminated against? Or who insists that even given the benefit of hindsight, the Iraq War was a just and prudent one?

    And yet many of you, Republicans and Democrats, will do just that — just as you and I have voted for a long line of past presidents who’ve deliberately pursued policies of questionable-at-best morality. “

  • Patrick Kyle

    Tom@25,

    Read about half so far and still don’t see what you are talking about. He apparently did not like MLK and appeals to documentation outlining MLK’s plagiarism and sexual predilections. So what. He was not in favor of a federal holiday honoring the man, in keeping with his views of the constitutional authority of government.
    I have heard minorities spout ant-white racism on National Public Radio. Again, so what.

    I must attend to my vocation, but I will read the rest later. So far it is still much ado about nothing.

  • Patrick Kyle

    Tom@25,

    Read about half so far and still don’t see what you are talking about. He apparently did not like MLK and appeals to documentation outlining MLK’s plagiarism and sexual predilections. So what. He was not in favor of a federal holiday honoring the man, in keeping with his views of the constitutional authority of government.
    I have heard minorities spout ant-white racism on National Public Radio. Again, so what.

    I must attend to my vocation, but I will read the rest later. So far it is still much ado about nothing.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    I think Ron Paul would be a terrifc world leader, along the lines of a Neville Chamberlain.

    The WHOLE WORLD reslizes the Iran (a sworn enemy of the U.S.) is working towards nuclear weapons. But Ron Paul is sure that they are not.

    He didn’t agree with what was in his own newsletters and isn’t sure who wrote them.

    I think I’d like to gamble the safety of my children and grandchilden on just this sort of a reality denier.

    What have we got to lose?

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    I think Ron Paul would be a terrifc world leader, along the lines of a Neville Chamberlain.

    The WHOLE WORLD reslizes the Iran (a sworn enemy of the U.S.) is working towards nuclear weapons. But Ron Paul is sure that they are not.

    He didn’t agree with what was in his own newsletters and isn’t sure who wrote them.

    I think I’d like to gamble the safety of my children and grandchilden on just this sort of a reality denier.

    What have we got to lose?

  • Cincinnatus

    Steve@50: The Neville Chamberlain trope is spurious and slanderous–and stupid to boot. What evidence have you that Ron Paul bears any resemblance to the feckless Chamberlain? If anything, Chamberlain failed to recognize Paul’s main lesson: that indiscreet foreign interventionism can have destructive unintended consequences (interfering in the affairs of Germany and Czechoslovakia didn’t turn out well).

    Anyway, Paul doesn’t deny that Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons. In fact, he’s quite explicit in noting that they are–and that they have a huge incentive to do so, due to Israel’s “secret” nuclear arsenal (which, of course was developed with “secret” American knowledge and assistance). He also believes, however, that economic sanctions, rhetorical belligerence, and the like on our part are only fanning the flames in Iran. How is that Chamberlainian? He’s not proposing to slice up Israel to “appease” Iran. Nor is he proposing that we suck up to Iran and attempt to forge a friendship. His position on Iran is merely a sensible recognition that our policy towards that nation–and, indeed, towards the entire Middle East–is incendiary and generally ill-advised.

    But yes, yes, this sort of truth-telling (or, at the very least, counter-establishment thinking) is endangering your grandchildren. You would have made a great ad man for LBJ.

  • Cincinnatus

    Steve@50: The Neville Chamberlain trope is spurious and slanderous–and stupid to boot. What evidence have you that Ron Paul bears any resemblance to the feckless Chamberlain? If anything, Chamberlain failed to recognize Paul’s main lesson: that indiscreet foreign interventionism can have destructive unintended consequences (interfering in the affairs of Germany and Czechoslovakia didn’t turn out well).

    Anyway, Paul doesn’t deny that Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons. In fact, he’s quite explicit in noting that they are–and that they have a huge incentive to do so, due to Israel’s “secret” nuclear arsenal (which, of course was developed with “secret” American knowledge and assistance). He also believes, however, that economic sanctions, rhetorical belligerence, and the like on our part are only fanning the flames in Iran. How is that Chamberlainian? He’s not proposing to slice up Israel to “appease” Iran. Nor is he proposing that we suck up to Iran and attempt to forge a friendship. His position on Iran is merely a sensible recognition that our policy towards that nation–and, indeed, towards the entire Middle East–is incendiary and generally ill-advised.

    But yes, yes, this sort of truth-telling (or, at the very least, counter-establishment thinking) is endangering your grandchildren. You would have made a great ad man for LBJ.

  • SKPeterson

    Steve -

    Bircher issue addressed, I trust. Open question on the newsletters. What do they really say? No one knows. Apparently talking heads, columnists and reporters know, but all we get are vague summaries and decontextualized quotes. So, yeah. Nothing much to change anyone’s mind, but also nothing much to go on one way or the other – it comes down to whether or not you agree with his policy prescriptions. If so, these accusations are not likely to be an issue. If you’re looking for a reason to be opposed to Paul then these may be enough to sway you. Maybe not. If you’re a neo-con who doesn’t like Paul’s foreign policy or a Democrat who cannot bear the thought of restricting government in any way you were probably already opposed to Paul, so again these accusations become irrelevant.

    It is for the undecided voter that these things become important. Hopefully, as I showed in #4, above, Paul’s policy positions are pretty standard conservative prescriptions and it would be interesting to see how the other candidates stand on these issues and how they’d differ. In contrast to the others, though, it appears that Paul is more likely to actually believe in these policies.

    For me, when I see that the “Republican Establishment” is lining up behind Romney, I automatically remind myself that these are the same guys who gave us McCain and the same guys that excused and encouraged the profligacy of the Bush years. The unfolding disaster of the Obama administration was birthed by these people during the Bush years – and they want to perpetuate it, just with an “R” in power. I find that far more damning than the evidence against Paul.

  • SKPeterson

    Steve -

    Bircher issue addressed, I trust. Open question on the newsletters. What do they really say? No one knows. Apparently talking heads, columnists and reporters know, but all we get are vague summaries and decontextualized quotes. So, yeah. Nothing much to change anyone’s mind, but also nothing much to go on one way or the other – it comes down to whether or not you agree with his policy prescriptions. If so, these accusations are not likely to be an issue. If you’re looking for a reason to be opposed to Paul then these may be enough to sway you. Maybe not. If you’re a neo-con who doesn’t like Paul’s foreign policy or a Democrat who cannot bear the thought of restricting government in any way you were probably already opposed to Paul, so again these accusations become irrelevant.

    It is for the undecided voter that these things become important. Hopefully, as I showed in #4, above, Paul’s policy positions are pretty standard conservative prescriptions and it would be interesting to see how the other candidates stand on these issues and how they’d differ. In contrast to the others, though, it appears that Paul is more likely to actually believe in these policies.

    For me, when I see that the “Republican Establishment” is lining up behind Romney, I automatically remind myself that these are the same guys who gave us McCain and the same guys that excused and encouraged the profligacy of the Bush years. The unfolding disaster of the Obama administration was birthed by these people during the Bush years – and they want to perpetuate it, just with an “R” in power. I find that far more damning than the evidence against Paul.

  • Cincinnatus

    Steve@50: Clarification, Steve. Obviously, you’re free to disagree with Paul’s position on Iran in an informed manner. But yours is the sort of name-calling the afflicts and essentially stymies all discussion of Paul. Oh, Paul doesn’t agree that we should bomb Iran like Israel and the necons dictate? Chamberlain. Nazis. Anti-semitism. Think of the children. Discussion over.

    How does that help? How is that remotely charitable?

  • Cincinnatus

    Steve@50: Clarification, Steve. Obviously, you’re free to disagree with Paul’s position on Iran in an informed manner. But yours is the sort of name-calling the afflicts and essentially stymies all discussion of Paul. Oh, Paul doesn’t agree that we should bomb Iran like Israel and the necons dictate? Chamberlain. Nazis. Anti-semitism. Think of the children. Discussion over.

    How does that help? How is that remotely charitable?

  • Steve Billingsley

    Fine, short version

    1. Sympathetic to most of the domestic policy – the government spends way too much and does many things that the constitution never warranted. I am not sure about his monetary policy stance, mainly because I don’t consider myself well versed in monetary policy. I do think that the Greenspan/Bernanke policy of holding interest rates too low were the biggest reason for the housing bubble/subsequent economic collapse.
    2. Less sympathetic to his foreign policy. I agree that we have stretched ourselves too thin with military commitments. I think Afghanistan was initially the correct move, more dubious about Iraq but especially the extended nation-building component (that really demands a longer response). Where I really part ways with Paul is regarding Israel. I think it is in the U.S.’s best interests to strongly ally with Israel. They are the only liberal democracy in the Middle East and the Palestinian people are led by a kleptocratic, death cult that isn’t interested in peace in the slightest. (notice I didn’t say that makes Paul anti-Semitic, I think it is possible to have a different point of view than I do regarding Israel without being anti-Semitic).
    In short, I should be relatively low-hanging fruit for someone with Paul’s policy views. But associations matter to me, and I think Paul’s supposed distancing from the unsavory past associations are no more convincing than Obama’s “that’s not the Jeremiah Wright I knew” speech throwing him under the bus when it was politically advantageous to do so. I think that Paul was happy to rub shoulders with some bad characters when it was to his advantage and then distance himself when it became a liability. In short, I think he’s a politician and don’t buy the “consistent, principled” image that he sells. That’s why I also think his pork barrel earmarking matters as well. He’s happy to do it to keep himself in office while he protests about everyone else’s spending. I don’t expect politicians to be saints, but when you add the newsletters, the associations with unsavory elements (including the 9/11 truthers, the Alex Jones conspiracy theory crowd and the white supremacist StromFront types) add in pork barrel spending and the general cultishness of many of his supporters – I just can’t go there. I am not enthusiastic about any of the other candidates, but I can stomach Romney and Santorum better than I can Paul. If that makes me a RINO or neo-con chickenhawk warmonger or whatever – fine.
    But I haven’t seen anyone make a convincing argument to me why the newsletters or the past associations don’t matter. As to the pork barrel portion, “everyone else does it” isn’t a good argument to me.
    In short, I plan on voting Republican and none of the other candidates enthuse me, but Paul can’t close the sale with me. If a candidate like him wants to win the nomination, I am exactly the kind of voter he needs to convince.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Fine, short version

    1. Sympathetic to most of the domestic policy – the government spends way too much and does many things that the constitution never warranted. I am not sure about his monetary policy stance, mainly because I don’t consider myself well versed in monetary policy. I do think that the Greenspan/Bernanke policy of holding interest rates too low were the biggest reason for the housing bubble/subsequent economic collapse.
    2. Less sympathetic to his foreign policy. I agree that we have stretched ourselves too thin with military commitments. I think Afghanistan was initially the correct move, more dubious about Iraq but especially the extended nation-building component (that really demands a longer response). Where I really part ways with Paul is regarding Israel. I think it is in the U.S.’s best interests to strongly ally with Israel. They are the only liberal democracy in the Middle East and the Palestinian people are led by a kleptocratic, death cult that isn’t interested in peace in the slightest. (notice I didn’t say that makes Paul anti-Semitic, I think it is possible to have a different point of view than I do regarding Israel without being anti-Semitic).
    In short, I should be relatively low-hanging fruit for someone with Paul’s policy views. But associations matter to me, and I think Paul’s supposed distancing from the unsavory past associations are no more convincing than Obama’s “that’s not the Jeremiah Wright I knew” speech throwing him under the bus when it was politically advantageous to do so. I think that Paul was happy to rub shoulders with some bad characters when it was to his advantage and then distance himself when it became a liability. In short, I think he’s a politician and don’t buy the “consistent, principled” image that he sells. That’s why I also think his pork barrel earmarking matters as well. He’s happy to do it to keep himself in office while he protests about everyone else’s spending. I don’t expect politicians to be saints, but when you add the newsletters, the associations with unsavory elements (including the 9/11 truthers, the Alex Jones conspiracy theory crowd and the white supremacist StromFront types) add in pork barrel spending and the general cultishness of many of his supporters – I just can’t go there. I am not enthusiastic about any of the other candidates, but I can stomach Romney and Santorum better than I can Paul. If that makes me a RINO or neo-con chickenhawk warmonger or whatever – fine.
    But I haven’t seen anyone make a convincing argument to me why the newsletters or the past associations don’t matter. As to the pork barrel portion, “everyone else does it” isn’t a good argument to me.
    In short, I plan on voting Republican and none of the other candidates enthuse me, but Paul can’t close the sale with me. If a candidate like him wants to win the nomination, I am exactly the kind of voter he needs to convince.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    Cinncinatus,

    It is fair to compare Paul to Chamberlain. Paul looks for the best scenario…so did Chamberlain.

    A real leader needs to expect the worst and head it off. Not live in a dreamworld with a faulty anthropology of the human creature.

    Too much is at stake.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    Cinncinatus,

    It is fair to compare Paul to Chamberlain. Paul looks for the best scenario…so did Chamberlain.

    A real leader needs to expect the worst and head it off. Not live in a dreamworld with a faulty anthropology of the human creature.

    Too much is at stake.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    Partly because of Chamberlain’s timidity and refusal to act, tens of millions of people died.

    I’d bet that Ron Paul (from everything that he has said) would act in a similar fashion, and let evil run wild. Maybe finally doing something when the horse was already out of the barn.

    We can’t take a chance with a man like that. Not in this world.

    There are REAL hostile governments and religionists who would love to kill as many Americans as possible.

    If you don’t believe that you are kidding yourself.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    Partly because of Chamberlain’s timidity and refusal to act, tens of millions of people died.

    I’d bet that Ron Paul (from everything that he has said) would act in a similar fashion, and let evil run wild. Maybe finally doing something when the horse was already out of the barn.

    We can’t take a chance with a man like that. Not in this world.

    There are REAL hostile governments and religionists who would love to kill as many Americans as possible.

    If you don’t believe that you are kidding yourself.

  • Sam

    Ron Paul walks out of CNN interview.

  • Sam

    Ron Paul walks out of CNN interview.

  • Cincinnatus

    Steve,

    I sympathize with your concern over associations in general and the newsletters in particular, whether or not Paul had any direct involvement in their publication.

    But beyond that, I’m confused as to your position. Bracketing all concerns of policy–which, oddly, you seem to be doing in your assessment of the Republican candidates–are you really determined to vote for Romney or Santorum willy-nilly as a rejection of Paul simply because he appeared on the Alex Jones show and was supported by some 9/11 truthers (a theory Paul explicitly denies)? Let’s think about a few things:

    1) Apparently, you believe Romney and Santorum to be “purer” than Paul with regards to their past management of professional affairs and personal associations. You mean the same Romney who knowingly hires illegal immigrants and hired an aide that impersonated a police officer to intimidate reporters during his campaign? Not to mention his, erm, suspect campaign finance practices: http://rt.com/usa/news/cain-romney-campaign-scandal-157/ This isn’t even to mention the various outright lies Romney has promulgated to gain support (apparently, he’s an “avid hunter”) and, well, his inconsistency on matters of policy. I could go on, but you get the idea.

    Santorum? He seems fairly clean, as long as you don’t mind intimate associations with the Moral Majority and its more extreme elements (I do), barring a bit of a tax scandal with regards to his primary residence. But some of us actually take policy seriously when evaluating primary candidates. The superiority of Paul’s policies over those of Santorum–discussed elsewhere on this blog–more than outweigh a few suspect associations by Paul. And Romney has no policies, so Paul wins there.

    In short, no one is arguing that the newsletter doesn’t matter at all. As SKPeterson notes, of course, it’s unclear whether the newsletter issue is actually an issue that should harm Paul’s image (i.e., are these quotes really that bad, etc.?). But if it is, the question is whether they are bad enough to make you choose Romney over Paul. Honestly, if your only concern is public image and personal ethics, I find it hard to believe that you would find Romney more appealing on any level than Paul.

    2) I really don’t get the pork barrel thing. There are no congressmen, Santorum definitely included (and Romney in his role as governor, for that matter), who do not seek to funnel money, most of it wasteful to their districts. So your only concern is that Paul is actually critical of this practice? It should be noted that the amount of pork-barrel money Paul has managed to secure for his district in his thirty-year tenure is paltry in comparison with the average prize. But I just don’t understand your concern here. The current “system” is structured such that pork-barrel projects are basically unavoidable; Paul claims that this system should be abolished/adjusted. Are you suggesting that he would continue to indulge in such spending if it were “illegal” or impossible? And you’re willing to support a candidate who flagrantly engages in the practice so long as he doesn’t criticize it (that would be hypocrisy, apparently) over someone who practices it grudgingly but is willing to critique the practice openly and pledges to eliminate it were he given the authority to do so?

    Meanwhile, you’re trying to have it both ways. You’re put off by Paul supporters because they insist upon a candidate who is ideologically “pure” (as you rightly note, no such candidate exists). And yet you’re put off by Paul because, in accordance with your own predictions, he makes certain decisions, like all politicians, primarily in order to win over voters and supporters. At least Paul attempts to be consistent–and he largely succeeds. Apparently the fact that Romney does everything seemingly with the sole intent to win voters? He has no principles, and he demagogues every issue put to him. This doesn’t both you in Romney but it does in Paul?

    Look, I understand if the newsletter issue bothers you (though I don’t think it’s damning). I definitely understand if you disagree with Paul’s policies. I would even understand if you rejected Paul solely on the ground that he has associated with unsavory characters in the past–so long as you applied that standard to all candidates. But you don’t. And your terrible inconsistency on this point is frustrating and speaks to a sort of knee-jerk reaction to “crazy old Ron” than it does to a thoughtful consideration of him as a serious candidate.

  • Cincinnatus

    Steve,

    I sympathize with your concern over associations in general and the newsletters in particular, whether or not Paul had any direct involvement in their publication.

    But beyond that, I’m confused as to your position. Bracketing all concerns of policy–which, oddly, you seem to be doing in your assessment of the Republican candidates–are you really determined to vote for Romney or Santorum willy-nilly as a rejection of Paul simply because he appeared on the Alex Jones show and was supported by some 9/11 truthers (a theory Paul explicitly denies)? Let’s think about a few things:

    1) Apparently, you believe Romney and Santorum to be “purer” than Paul with regards to their past management of professional affairs and personal associations. You mean the same Romney who knowingly hires illegal immigrants and hired an aide that impersonated a police officer to intimidate reporters during his campaign? Not to mention his, erm, suspect campaign finance practices: http://rt.com/usa/news/cain-romney-campaign-scandal-157/ This isn’t even to mention the various outright lies Romney has promulgated to gain support (apparently, he’s an “avid hunter”) and, well, his inconsistency on matters of policy. I could go on, but you get the idea.

    Santorum? He seems fairly clean, as long as you don’t mind intimate associations with the Moral Majority and its more extreme elements (I do), barring a bit of a tax scandal with regards to his primary residence. But some of us actually take policy seriously when evaluating primary candidates. The superiority of Paul’s policies over those of Santorum–discussed elsewhere on this blog–more than outweigh a few suspect associations by Paul. And Romney has no policies, so Paul wins there.

    In short, no one is arguing that the newsletter doesn’t matter at all. As SKPeterson notes, of course, it’s unclear whether the newsletter issue is actually an issue that should harm Paul’s image (i.e., are these quotes really that bad, etc.?). But if it is, the question is whether they are bad enough to make you choose Romney over Paul. Honestly, if your only concern is public image and personal ethics, I find it hard to believe that you would find Romney more appealing on any level than Paul.

    2) I really don’t get the pork barrel thing. There are no congressmen, Santorum definitely included (and Romney in his role as governor, for that matter), who do not seek to funnel money, most of it wasteful to their districts. So your only concern is that Paul is actually critical of this practice? It should be noted that the amount of pork-barrel money Paul has managed to secure for his district in his thirty-year tenure is paltry in comparison with the average prize. But I just don’t understand your concern here. The current “system” is structured such that pork-barrel projects are basically unavoidable; Paul claims that this system should be abolished/adjusted. Are you suggesting that he would continue to indulge in such spending if it were “illegal” or impossible? And you’re willing to support a candidate who flagrantly engages in the practice so long as he doesn’t criticize it (that would be hypocrisy, apparently) over someone who practices it grudgingly but is willing to critique the practice openly and pledges to eliminate it were he given the authority to do so?

    Meanwhile, you’re trying to have it both ways. You’re put off by Paul supporters because they insist upon a candidate who is ideologically “pure” (as you rightly note, no such candidate exists). And yet you’re put off by Paul because, in accordance with your own predictions, he makes certain decisions, like all politicians, primarily in order to win over voters and supporters. At least Paul attempts to be consistent–and he largely succeeds. Apparently the fact that Romney does everything seemingly with the sole intent to win voters? He has no principles, and he demagogues every issue put to him. This doesn’t both you in Romney but it does in Paul?

    Look, I understand if the newsletter issue bothers you (though I don’t think it’s damning). I definitely understand if you disagree with Paul’s policies. I would even understand if you rejected Paul solely on the ground that he has associated with unsavory characters in the past–so long as you applied that standard to all candidates. But you don’t. And your terrible inconsistency on this point is frustrating and speaks to a sort of knee-jerk reaction to “crazy old Ron” than it does to a thoughtful consideration of him as a serious candidate.

  • Cincinnatus

    This doesn’t bothER* you in Romney…?

  • Cincinnatus

    This doesn’t bothER* you in Romney…?

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    Isolationists in this era makes no sense to me, whatsoever.

    It costs something to remain free and safe. We need to be involved the world over to keep on top of this stuff and keep our enemies on the defensive.

    If the other candidates believe in sticking their heads in the sand, also, then I would say the same things about them.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    Isolationists in this era makes no sense to me, whatsoever.

    It costs something to remain free and safe. We need to be involved the world over to keep on top of this stuff and keep our enemies on the defensive.

    If the other candidates believe in sticking their heads in the sand, also, then I would say the same things about them.

  • Steve Billingsley

    One last comment on this.

    Romney and Santorum definitely have aspects about me that bother them. But neither of them is running a “I’m the last honest man in Washington” campaign. That’s what Paul is doing. And his associations and pork barrel spending undercut the very heart of his appeal. Romney and Santorum are pretty standard issue politicians and like all politicians, like to talk up their accomplishments and what they are going to do. But Paul is running the same kind of pseudo-messianic kind of campaign that Obama ran in 2008. It’s just the photo negative. It’s the “I’m going to shake up the status quo” kind of talk that frankly raises up my radar. I think we have serious problems and need real change, but what I think that what we should reasonably hope for is someone that can be fairly competent and not screw things up too much. I want the trajectory on spending changed, but if you think we are going to lop trillions off of spending in the short term you’re crazy. To me, our bigger problems are cultural and spiritual and I am not looking to Washington to solve them.
    Every candidate promises to change some things, but the law of unintended consequences tells me that even if Paul could get elected and start shutting down federal departments, it wouldn’t necessarily work out the way he or his supporters expect. Romney is a managerial progressive, bland and boring. But I think he would be cautious and prudent. The one thing he has in his record that does appeal to me is a record of financial turnarounds. He has actually governed and turned a deficit into a surplus. Romneycare is horrible, but if he is elected he will have a Republican congress that isn’t all that anxious to head that direction.
    Santorum is earnest about social concerns, a bit too gung-ho about national security, but I don’t think after the last 10 years either party is in a big hurry to plunge ahead into a war. They may rattle sabers on the campaign trail, but I don’t think anyone is eager to start bombing Iran (or whoever). By the way, I do think Iran is more dangerous than Paul seems to think.
    Finally, Paul hasn’t ever run anything bigger than a campaign. Haven’t we learned anything from the last election? A lack of executive experience matters. Santorum doesn’t have it either, but he did have some leadership responsibility in the Senate and helped shepherd welfare reform and the partial-birth abortion ban through the Senate. Thin, but not as thin as a House representative that has never even chaired a committee.
    I am not so “anti-establishment” if you can’t tell.

  • Steve Billingsley

    One last comment on this.

    Romney and Santorum definitely have aspects about me that bother them. But neither of them is running a “I’m the last honest man in Washington” campaign. That’s what Paul is doing. And his associations and pork barrel spending undercut the very heart of his appeal. Romney and Santorum are pretty standard issue politicians and like all politicians, like to talk up their accomplishments and what they are going to do. But Paul is running the same kind of pseudo-messianic kind of campaign that Obama ran in 2008. It’s just the photo negative. It’s the “I’m going to shake up the status quo” kind of talk that frankly raises up my radar. I think we have serious problems and need real change, but what I think that what we should reasonably hope for is someone that can be fairly competent and not screw things up too much. I want the trajectory on spending changed, but if you think we are going to lop trillions off of spending in the short term you’re crazy. To me, our bigger problems are cultural and spiritual and I am not looking to Washington to solve them.
    Every candidate promises to change some things, but the law of unintended consequences tells me that even if Paul could get elected and start shutting down federal departments, it wouldn’t necessarily work out the way he or his supporters expect. Romney is a managerial progressive, bland and boring. But I think he would be cautious and prudent. The one thing he has in his record that does appeal to me is a record of financial turnarounds. He has actually governed and turned a deficit into a surplus. Romneycare is horrible, but if he is elected he will have a Republican congress that isn’t all that anxious to head that direction.
    Santorum is earnest about social concerns, a bit too gung-ho about national security, but I don’t think after the last 10 years either party is in a big hurry to plunge ahead into a war. They may rattle sabers on the campaign trail, but I don’t think anyone is eager to start bombing Iran (or whoever). By the way, I do think Iran is more dangerous than Paul seems to think.
    Finally, Paul hasn’t ever run anything bigger than a campaign. Haven’t we learned anything from the last election? A lack of executive experience matters. Santorum doesn’t have it either, but he did have some leadership responsibility in the Senate and helped shepherd welfare reform and the partial-birth abortion ban through the Senate. Thin, but not as thin as a House representative that has never even chaired a committee.
    I am not so “anti-establishment” if you can’t tell.

  • steve

    Bah! 60 comments already. I guess I missed the party.

  • steve

    Bah! 60 comments already. I guess I missed the party.

  • Patrick Kyle

    Steve@60,

    RP is not an isolationist. That is a misrepresentation. North Korea is isolationist.

    Do you really believe we need 900 military bases in 130 countries to keep the US safe? Do you believe that we should continue to spend as much as the next five largest countries PUT TOGETHER every year to maintain control and safety? And do you think we can afford it?

    I am interested to know what you think it takes to insure our safety.

  • Patrick Kyle

    Steve@60,

    RP is not an isolationist. That is a misrepresentation. North Korea is isolationist.

    Do you really believe we need 900 military bases in 130 countries to keep the US safe? Do you believe that we should continue to spend as much as the next five largest countries PUT TOGETHER every year to maintain control and safety? And do you think we can afford it?

    I am interested to know what you think it takes to insure our safety.

  • Patrick Kyle

    Steve@60,

    Do you think that we need to have military bases on foreign soil?

  • Patrick Kyle

    Steve@60,

    Do you think that we need to have military bases on foreign soil?

  • Patrick Kyle

    RP’s latest ad.

  • Patrick Kyle

    RP’s latest ad.

  • Tom Hering

    Did Cincinnatus go to bed yet? Testing …

  • Tom Hering

    Did Cincinnatus go to bed yet? Testing …

  • Tom Hering

    Okay, good. I’m loving this portion of a radio talk show that Ron Paul was on today.

    CALLER: But Dr. Paul, many of the newsletters are filled with conspiracies. You had one newsletter from start to finish with fear that the $50 bill, because it was going to be made pink, and it was gonna have all kinds of things that can track us down, so we should all be afraid that maybe tomorrow they’re gonna require us to turn in all of our old money.

    PAUL: The paper money now is pink, you know?

    And all that that implies. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    Okay, good. I’m loving this portion of a radio talk show that Ron Paul was on today.

    CALLER: But Dr. Paul, many of the newsletters are filled with conspiracies. You had one newsletter from start to finish with fear that the $50 bill, because it was going to be made pink, and it was gonna have all kinds of things that can track us down, so we should all be afraid that maybe tomorrow they’re gonna require us to turn in all of our old money.

    PAUL: The paper money now is pink, you know?

    And all that that implies. :-D

  • Patrick Kyle

    Hey Tom, why don’t you go and vote for one of those shades of the status quo clowns the republocrats have trotted out and really, really hope deep down in your heart that they will really, really, make a difference this time. Then we’ll see how that’s workin’ for all of us come 2013.

  • Patrick Kyle

    Hey Tom, why don’t you go and vote for one of those shades of the status quo clowns the republocrats have trotted out and really, really hope deep down in your heart that they will really, really, make a difference this time. Then we’ll see how that’s workin’ for all of us come 2013.

  • Abby

    Still Romney. Or you could pass on voting in the primary. In my state you can only vote either Republican or Democrat. You cannot vote as an Independent. I don’t know why the privacy booths when you’re identified upfront. They say the Independents are going to determine the election anyway.

  • Abby

    Still Romney. Or you could pass on voting in the primary. In my state you can only vote either Republican or Democrat. You cannot vote as an Independent. I don’t know why the privacy booths when you’re identified upfront. They say the Independents are going to determine the election anyway.

  • Tom Hering

    Patrick Kyle, I’m pretty sure I’ll be voting for Obama, and I won’t have to hold my nose to do it. I’ll have to plug both nostrils with epoxy. But it won’t be because he’ll run the country according to his conspiracy theories, or because he once made racist statements connected to his conspiracy theories.

    Let the games begin anew. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    Patrick Kyle, I’m pretty sure I’ll be voting for Obama, and I won’t have to hold my nose to do it. I’ll have to plug both nostrils with epoxy. But it won’t be because he’ll run the country according to his conspiracy theories, or because he once made racist statements connected to his conspiracy theories.

    Let the games begin anew. :-D

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@70 (and Steve Billingsley, if you’re still around):

    As I’ve repeated several times, I understand completely if you find Paul’s associations and newsletters, whether he was directly involved in their publication or not, to be problematic–even to the point that he won’t earn your vote. And, really, I’m tired of attempting to convince you that these issues aren’t all that important.

    What really baffles me, though, is that this is your only reason for rejecting Paul. Neither of you are remotely willing to touch Paul’s policies. Tom simply refuses to discuss Paul’s ideas, philosophy, and policies. Steve claims to agree with all/most of them, but has no interest in discussing them. Nope, past associations are apparently enough for you to reject Paul wholesale.

    Fine. But why aren’t you applying the same standards to Obama, in Tom’s case (or Romney, in Steve’s)? I’ve already noted obliquely that Obama has several highly questionable past associations (and, for that matter, has been involved with those who advance conspiracy theories: that the CIA invented cocaine to eliminate black people, etc.). Both Romney and Obama have, putting the best construction on it, been involved in some shady practices and associations. And yet, just like Paul’s policies, you are unwilling to discuss these matters at all. Paul was, either directly or indirectly, implicated in the publication of certain statements crudely (but, as it happens, fairly accurately) noting black crime rates; Obama actually associated with known, “open” racists who advocated race war and black nationalism. Paul has appeared on the Alex Jones show and, apparently, received money from neo-Nazis (who must have been really dumb, because Paul doesn’t advance their agenda); Obama has actually associated with convicted domestic terrorists. Paul critiques the practice of pork-barrel spending, even though he (openly) indulges the practice himself occasionally; Obama (and Romney et al.) openly embrace pork-barrel spending and have no plans whatsoever to tame federal spending.

    In short, why does Obama (or Romney) get a pass while Paul does not, even though, arguably, Paul’s indiscretions are more paltry and insignificant than, for example, Obama’s? Again, I understand that you claim to want a candidate free of the sorts of skeletons Paul (again, arguably) has in his closet–but then you turn around and embrace Obama (or Romney) like he’s a virginal Arthur come to cleanse the kingdom. I don’t understand. This leads me to believe that you actually have no coherent reason for rejecting Paul but are, as usual, repeating Fox News tropes, etc.

    Maybe Obama’s policies are appealing enough to outweigh his suspect history? If so, why do you (esp. Tom) refuse to engage this discussion with Paul to see if his policies outweigh his suspect history? Knowing you, Tom, I don’t expect you to agree with Paul’s policies in the end, but it would be nice if you would do him/us the courtesy of at least having the discussion.

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@70 (and Steve Billingsley, if you’re still around):

    As I’ve repeated several times, I understand completely if you find Paul’s associations and newsletters, whether he was directly involved in their publication or not, to be problematic–even to the point that he won’t earn your vote. And, really, I’m tired of attempting to convince you that these issues aren’t all that important.

    What really baffles me, though, is that this is your only reason for rejecting Paul. Neither of you are remotely willing to touch Paul’s policies. Tom simply refuses to discuss Paul’s ideas, philosophy, and policies. Steve claims to agree with all/most of them, but has no interest in discussing them. Nope, past associations are apparently enough for you to reject Paul wholesale.

    Fine. But why aren’t you applying the same standards to Obama, in Tom’s case (or Romney, in Steve’s)? I’ve already noted obliquely that Obama has several highly questionable past associations (and, for that matter, has been involved with those who advance conspiracy theories: that the CIA invented cocaine to eliminate black people, etc.). Both Romney and Obama have, putting the best construction on it, been involved in some shady practices and associations. And yet, just like Paul’s policies, you are unwilling to discuss these matters at all. Paul was, either directly or indirectly, implicated in the publication of certain statements crudely (but, as it happens, fairly accurately) noting black crime rates; Obama actually associated with known, “open” racists who advocated race war and black nationalism. Paul has appeared on the Alex Jones show and, apparently, received money from neo-Nazis (who must have been really dumb, because Paul doesn’t advance their agenda); Obama has actually associated with convicted domestic terrorists. Paul critiques the practice of pork-barrel spending, even though he (openly) indulges the practice himself occasionally; Obama (and Romney et al.) openly embrace pork-barrel spending and have no plans whatsoever to tame federal spending.

    In short, why does Obama (or Romney) get a pass while Paul does not, even though, arguably, Paul’s indiscretions are more paltry and insignificant than, for example, Obama’s? Again, I understand that you claim to want a candidate free of the sorts of skeletons Paul (again, arguably) has in his closet–but then you turn around and embrace Obama (or Romney) like he’s a virginal Arthur come to cleanse the kingdom. I don’t understand. This leads me to believe that you actually have no coherent reason for rejecting Paul but are, as usual, repeating Fox News tropes, etc.

    Maybe Obama’s policies are appealing enough to outweigh his suspect history? If so, why do you (esp. Tom) refuse to engage this discussion with Paul to see if his policies outweigh his suspect history? Knowing you, Tom, I don’t expect you to agree with Paul’s policies in the end, but it would be nice if you would do him/us the courtesy of at least having the discussion.

  • Tom Hering

    “… but then you turn around and embrace Obama … like he’s a virginal Arthur come to cleanse the kingdom.”

    Read my comment @ 70 again.

    “… why do you (esp. Tom) refuse to engage this discussion with Paul to see if his policies outweigh his suspect history?”

    Because that isn’t the discussion. It’s supposed to be about giving Dr. Veith good reasons to consider Ron Paul. And we’re all still waiting for his defenders to do just that.

  • Tom Hering

    “… but then you turn around and embrace Obama … like he’s a virginal Arthur come to cleanse the kingdom.”

    Read my comment @ 70 again.

    “… why do you (esp. Tom) refuse to engage this discussion with Paul to see if his policies outweigh his suspect history?”

    Because that isn’t the discussion. It’s supposed to be about giving Dr. Veith good reasons to consider Ron Paul. And we’re all still waiting for his defenders to do just that.

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@72: Stop trying to derail the conversation. The discussion has moved on, obviously, and we’re interested in why you and other Paul-haters apply an inconsistent standard in your assessment of political candidates. To wit, you are willing to reject Paul according to a metric you do not apply to Obama (or Romney or Gingrich or Santorum as the case may be).

    You’ve been around. You know that Patrick Kyle, SKPeterson, myself, and others have provided various arguments for the superiority of Paul’s policies in other threads. In this thread, we’ve attempted to discard the notion that Paul is a racist, a right-wing-extremist, and a conspiracy theorist–successfully or not. These are the issues that specifically concern Dr. Veith.

    But you’re not satisfied. And I want to know why because, for the life of me, I cannot figure out your political logic. Perhaps you have none! Why are Dr. Veith and others like me supposed to reject Paul in favor of Romney or Obama when they easily come out looking worse than Paul according to your own metrics?

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@72: Stop trying to derail the conversation. The discussion has moved on, obviously, and we’re interested in why you and other Paul-haters apply an inconsistent standard in your assessment of political candidates. To wit, you are willing to reject Paul according to a metric you do not apply to Obama (or Romney or Gingrich or Santorum as the case may be).

    You’ve been around. You know that Patrick Kyle, SKPeterson, myself, and others have provided various arguments for the superiority of Paul’s policies in other threads. In this thread, we’ve attempted to discard the notion that Paul is a racist, a right-wing-extremist, and a conspiracy theorist–successfully or not. These are the issues that specifically concern Dr. Veith.

    But you’re not satisfied. And I want to know why because, for the life of me, I cannot figure out your political logic. Perhaps you have none! Why are Dr. Veith and others like me supposed to reject Paul in favor of Romney or Obama when they easily come out looking worse than Paul according to your own metrics?

  • Tom Hering

    When did I argue Paul should be rejected in favor of someone else?

  • Tom Hering

    When did I argue Paul should be rejected in favor of someone else?

  • Cincinnatus

    When you stated that you’re unapologetically embracing Obama again in 2012?

    I have no interest in convincing you to change your vote. The problem–I repeat for the umpteenth time–is that you are rejecting Paul (whether in favor of someone else or not is rather beside the point) according to a standard that you obviously do not apply to other candidates, including but not limited to Obama. Why? Can you explain this inconsistency?

  • Cincinnatus

    When you stated that you’re unapologetically embracing Obama again in 2012?

    I have no interest in convincing you to change your vote. The problem–I repeat for the umpteenth time–is that you are rejecting Paul (whether in favor of someone else or not is rather beside the point) according to a standard that you obviously do not apply to other candidates, including but not limited to Obama. Why? Can you explain this inconsistency?

  • Tom Hering

    Unapologetically? Embracing? Read my comment @ 70 yet again.

    “… you are rejecting Paul … according to a standard that you obviously do not apply to other candidates …”

    I’m rejecting Paul because he’s Paul. Period. No other candidate has given me good reason to ask if he/she is a conspiracy nut.

  • Tom Hering

    Unapologetically? Embracing? Read my comment @ 70 yet again.

    “… you are rejecting Paul … according to a standard that you obviously do not apply to other candidates …”

    I’m rejecting Paul because he’s Paul. Period. No other candidate has given me good reason to ask if he/she is a conspiracy nut.

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@76:

    Re-reading your comment@70 hasn’t enlightened me further. You claim you’ll be voting for Obama without holding your nose–i.e., unapologetically–even though his past associations are, in my opinion, far more questionable than Paul’s. Maybe I’m missing something.

    Meanwhile, you’re begging the question. Yet again. You’re “rejecting Paul because he’s Paul.” What does that even mean? Are you referring to Paul’s policies? Or, again, to his past associations? This comment of your doesn’t clarify a thing for any of your readers.

    And what conspiracies are you talking about? Appearing on the radio show of a conspiracy nut (Alex Jones) does not make one a conspiracy nut oneself. Are you referring, for example, to his distaste for the Federal Reserve’s rather secretive manipulation of the (global) economy? That’s the only “conspiracy theory” with which I am aware Paul associates explicitly. Even if he is a conspiracy nut (he’s not, but I’ll work with you), this is still a standard you’re applying inconsistently. Remember that part about Obama hanging out with Jeremiah Wright and members of the Weather Underground among others, who suggested, among fantastical flights of fancy, that the federal government invented cocaine to suppress black people? Not to mention all the terrorism, black separatism, anti-government ideals, overt Marxism, etc. I mean, if past associations, conspiracy theories, and bad decisions are your rubric for evaluating the fitness of political candidates, Obama is really low-hanging fruit here, Tom.

    Let me clarify: at this point, Obama’s past associations aren’t a big deal for me, nor is his past trafficking in conspiracy theories and the like. They apparently aren’t a matter of concern for you either, Tom. And yet, because you read somewhere once that Paul said something fishy about American currency, “Paul is Paul,” which apparently means you could never support him–according to ambiguous standards you refuse to apply to any other candidates.

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@76:

    Re-reading your comment@70 hasn’t enlightened me further. You claim you’ll be voting for Obama without holding your nose–i.e., unapologetically–even though his past associations are, in my opinion, far more questionable than Paul’s. Maybe I’m missing something.

    Meanwhile, you’re begging the question. Yet again. You’re “rejecting Paul because he’s Paul.” What does that even mean? Are you referring to Paul’s policies? Or, again, to his past associations? This comment of your doesn’t clarify a thing for any of your readers.

    And what conspiracies are you talking about? Appearing on the radio show of a conspiracy nut (Alex Jones) does not make one a conspiracy nut oneself. Are you referring, for example, to his distaste for the Federal Reserve’s rather secretive manipulation of the (global) economy? That’s the only “conspiracy theory” with which I am aware Paul associates explicitly. Even if he is a conspiracy nut (he’s not, but I’ll work with you), this is still a standard you’re applying inconsistently. Remember that part about Obama hanging out with Jeremiah Wright and members of the Weather Underground among others, who suggested, among fantastical flights of fancy, that the federal government invented cocaine to suppress black people? Not to mention all the terrorism, black separatism, anti-government ideals, overt Marxism, etc. I mean, if past associations, conspiracy theories, and bad decisions are your rubric for evaluating the fitness of political candidates, Obama is really low-hanging fruit here, Tom.

    Let me clarify: at this point, Obama’s past associations aren’t a big deal for me, nor is his past trafficking in conspiracy theories and the like. They apparently aren’t a matter of concern for you either, Tom. And yet, because you read somewhere once that Paul said something fishy about American currency, “Paul is Paul,” which apparently means you could never support him–according to ambiguous standards you refuse to apply to any other candidates.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Really? Are you not reading my comments? Associations, temperament and experience are all addressed. To me, these are just as important elements of leadership as policies are. I have real policy concerns with Romney, but I like his temperament and experience more than Paul and my policy concerns with him aren’t as big as my concerns regarding temperament, experience and associations with Paul. It’s called prudential judgment and if you disagree with my conclusion, fine. But to say I haven’t considered or addressed Paul’s policies is incorrect. I have weighed them in a manner that I believe is appropriate and at the end of the day do not feel that I can support him. His negatives outweigh his positives to me. It isn’t that difficult to understand. You obviously don’t give as much weight to his negatives as I do. OK, that’s your choice.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Really? Are you not reading my comments? Associations, temperament and experience are all addressed. To me, these are just as important elements of leadership as policies are. I have real policy concerns with Romney, but I like his temperament and experience more than Paul and my policy concerns with him aren’t as big as my concerns regarding temperament, experience and associations with Paul. It’s called prudential judgment and if you disagree with my conclusion, fine. But to say I haven’t considered or addressed Paul’s policies is incorrect. I have weighed them in a manner that I believe is appropriate and at the end of the day do not feel that I can support him. His negatives outweigh his positives to me. It isn’t that difficult to understand. You obviously don’t give as much weight to his negatives as I do. OK, that’s your choice.

  • Tom Hering

    “You claim you’ll be voting for Obama without holding your nose–i.e., unapologetically–even though his past associations are, in my opinion, far more questionable than Paul’s. Maybe I’m missing something.”

    Like, maybe the sentence that follows that one?

  • Tom Hering

    “You claim you’ll be voting for Obama without holding your nose–i.e., unapologetically–even though his past associations are, in my opinion, far more questionable than Paul’s. Maybe I’m missing something.”

    Like, maybe the sentence that follows that one?

  • Cincinnatus

    Sorry, missed that.

    So why will you have to plug your nose with epoxy to vote for Obama? Now’s your chance to demonstrate that you’re not actually applying inconsistent standards.

  • Cincinnatus

    Sorry, missed that.

    So why will you have to plug your nose with epoxy to vote for Obama? Now’s your chance to demonstrate that you’re not actually applying inconsistent standards.

  • Tom Hering

    One doesn’t have to be consistent to be right in a particular case. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    One doesn’t have to be consistent to be right in a particular case. :-D

  • Cincinnatus

    Huh.

    Well thanks, Tom, for reminding me why discussions with you are generally a waste of time.

  • Cincinnatus

    Huh.

    Well thanks, Tom, for reminding me why discussions with you are generally a waste of time.

  • Tom Hering

    But seriously, Cincinnatus, because Obama is a believer in American exceptionalism, which always leads to the misuse/overuse of American military power. I’m actually with Paul on the military bases and foreign intervention. It’s just the rest of his stuff I don’t like, which I think would prove far more disastrous than Obama’s war making.

  • Tom Hering

    But seriously, Cincinnatus, because Obama is a believer in American exceptionalism, which always leads to the misuse/overuse of American military power. I’m actually with Paul on the military bases and foreign intervention. It’s just the rest of his stuff I don’t like, which I think would prove far more disastrous than Obama’s war making.

  • Tom Hering

    I agree that your discussions with me are a waste of time, Cincinnatus. But you can’t resist engaging me anyways, can you? Because I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggone it, people like me! :-D

  • Tom Hering

    I agree that your discussions with me are a waste of time, Cincinnatus. But you can’t resist engaging me anyways, can you? Because I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggone it, people like me! :-D

  • Tom Hering

    @ 83 I should have said, “… which I think would prove far more disastrous domestically than Obama’s war making.” Obama’s war making is pretty disastrous for civilian populations overseas.

  • Tom Hering

    @ 83 I should have said, “… which I think would prove far more disastrous domestically than Obama’s war making.” Obama’s war making is pretty disastrous for civilian populations overseas.

  • SKPeterson

    Steve @ 78 – I follow you, but have to disagree vehemently about Romney. I find almost nothing attractive about his experience at all, and as to temperament, I still think he comes across as the Republican version of John Kerry, i.e. he’s a somniferous bore. I’m somewhat surprised that you think he might actually make good decisions for the long term good of the US. I’ll recognized the possibility, but I see the probability as remote. If he wins the nomination, and if he wins the election, I only hope he’s half as good as … well, I can’t think of any recent presidents I’d like him to emulate and the pickings are pretty slim from 1928 on, so … Coolidge. But, I really, really doubt he’s got the mettle. He just communicates “Not as weak as Obama, but close enough for comfort!”

  • SKPeterson

    Steve @ 78 – I follow you, but have to disagree vehemently about Romney. I find almost nothing attractive about his experience at all, and as to temperament, I still think he comes across as the Republican version of John Kerry, i.e. he’s a somniferous bore. I’m somewhat surprised that you think he might actually make good decisions for the long term good of the US. I’ll recognized the possibility, but I see the probability as remote. If he wins the nomination, and if he wins the election, I only hope he’s half as good as … well, I can’t think of any recent presidents I’d like him to emulate and the pickings are pretty slim from 1928 on, so … Coolidge. But, I really, really doubt he’s got the mettle. He just communicates “Not as weak as Obama, but close enough for comfort!”

  • JunkerGeorg

    @Fr. Gregory, #2

    “If one favors an ever-expanding government, vote for someone else. If one thinks that government is too big, both in terms of social programs and military spending, there is only one candidate to vote for.”

    ———-

    This is it in a nutshell.

    And for those worried about foreign policy or social issues, the future existence let alone improvement of our economy IS both a foreign policy and social/domestic issue. $15 trill debt and counting, and with the present and continued devaluation of the dollar, we’re on the verge of a major international war on alternative currencies to the US dollar. Besides, to all our Wilsonian neocons, if we don’t fundamentally change how we’ve been doing things (arguably since 1913), we won’t be able to afford a substantial military for national defense at home, let alone a continued international “offense” abroad for you who want to spread democracy worldwide no matter how many soldier’s lives are taken because of such adventurism (or was it, “Shuv it down everyone else’s throats since we’re the ‘exceptional USA’ who knows whats best for everyone else”?)

    As for RP’s newsletters, written by OTHERS and publihed under his name, one can accuse him of carelessness for sure, but to accuse him of outright racism? Show me in his personal actual RECORD either as a congressman or a physician where this is so? He can show us his career as an obstetrician, of how many deliveries he performed for free for low-income mothers, whether they were white, black, hispanic, etc. Does one who is consciously, intentionally prejudiced do something like that?

    Btw, I tend to distinguish “prejudice” from “racism” myself, as due to sinful nature everyone is prone at one point or another in their life to be wrongly prejudiced in their mind/heart, whether it be against people or something else. We as sinners have all been guilty of that, regardless of our color, even if it pray be unintentionally. So I do assert that Ron Paul has been guilty of prejudice like every other fallen human being to walk the planet.

    But is Ron Paul guilty of “racism”? To consciously, intentionally, purposefully act out on such prejudice against another person, whether they be black, white, red, yellow, green, etc., that to me is “racism”. The fact that many do not distinguish “prejudice” from “racism” is why people of various color walk on pins and needles around each other for fear of unintentionally saying/doing something in the wrong way and then being accused of being a racist by the other/s.

    On that score I think it is quite a stretch to assert with any certainty that Ron Paul is a racist. He’s answered this issue of his newsletters thousands of times by now since 2008, and if this issue is the worst thing that the corporate-run MSM can come up with to counter Ron Paul’s campaign, then I think he’s sitting pretty good, although it undeniably also distracts people away from learning/understanding his viewpoints on the fundamental issues, which are quite illuminating and liberating for those who have done so. Any who wish to do so, buy a used copy of one his books, like his recent books “Liberty Defined” or “End the Fed”. They are simply written for the average joe (and Fox News junkies who refuse to admit they really never were taught very much in school about Constitutional principles, Macro-economic theories, monetary policies, etc.) Heck, even Rick Perry made the shocking acknowledgement to Ron Paul in the Sioux City, IA debate last month that he appreciated learning about monetary policy from reading one of his books a COUPLE years ago. Does it not shock anyone else that a 10 yr. Governor of a state like Texas is just now learning about monetary policy? If that is the case with him, what about all the rest in Washington D.C., let alone the voting public?

  • JunkerGeorg

    @Fr. Gregory, #2

    “If one favors an ever-expanding government, vote for someone else. If one thinks that government is too big, both in terms of social programs and military spending, there is only one candidate to vote for.”

    ———-

    This is it in a nutshell.

    And for those worried about foreign policy or social issues, the future existence let alone improvement of our economy IS both a foreign policy and social/domestic issue. $15 trill debt and counting, and with the present and continued devaluation of the dollar, we’re on the verge of a major international war on alternative currencies to the US dollar. Besides, to all our Wilsonian neocons, if we don’t fundamentally change how we’ve been doing things (arguably since 1913), we won’t be able to afford a substantial military for national defense at home, let alone a continued international “offense” abroad for you who want to spread democracy worldwide no matter how many soldier’s lives are taken because of such adventurism (or was it, “Shuv it down everyone else’s throats since we’re the ‘exceptional USA’ who knows whats best for everyone else”?)

    As for RP’s newsletters, written by OTHERS and publihed under his name, one can accuse him of carelessness for sure, but to accuse him of outright racism? Show me in his personal actual RECORD either as a congressman or a physician where this is so? He can show us his career as an obstetrician, of how many deliveries he performed for free for low-income mothers, whether they were white, black, hispanic, etc. Does one who is consciously, intentionally prejudiced do something like that?

    Btw, I tend to distinguish “prejudice” from “racism” myself, as due to sinful nature everyone is prone at one point or another in their life to be wrongly prejudiced in their mind/heart, whether it be against people or something else. We as sinners have all been guilty of that, regardless of our color, even if it pray be unintentionally. So I do assert that Ron Paul has been guilty of prejudice like every other fallen human being to walk the planet.

    But is Ron Paul guilty of “racism”? To consciously, intentionally, purposefully act out on such prejudice against another person, whether they be black, white, red, yellow, green, etc., that to me is “racism”. The fact that many do not distinguish “prejudice” from “racism” is why people of various color walk on pins and needles around each other for fear of unintentionally saying/doing something in the wrong way and then being accused of being a racist by the other/s.

    On that score I think it is quite a stretch to assert with any certainty that Ron Paul is a racist. He’s answered this issue of his newsletters thousands of times by now since 2008, and if this issue is the worst thing that the corporate-run MSM can come up with to counter Ron Paul’s campaign, then I think he’s sitting pretty good, although it undeniably also distracts people away from learning/understanding his viewpoints on the fundamental issues, which are quite illuminating and liberating for those who have done so. Any who wish to do so, buy a used copy of one his books, like his recent books “Liberty Defined” or “End the Fed”. They are simply written for the average joe (and Fox News junkies who refuse to admit they really never were taught very much in school about Constitutional principles, Macro-economic theories, monetary policies, etc.) Heck, even Rick Perry made the shocking acknowledgement to Ron Paul in the Sioux City, IA debate last month that he appreciated learning about monetary policy from reading one of his books a COUPLE years ago. Does it not shock anyone else that a 10 yr. Governor of a state like Texas is just now learning about monetary policy? If that is the case with him, what about all the rest in Washington D.C., let alone the voting public?

  • moallen

    I am not really a Ron Paul supporter, but interestingly I may be the only person on here who has actually voted for him in his current role as a U.S. Rep. I used to live in his Texas district and voted for him more than once. While I appreciate his strong pro-life record (both as a Physician and a Rep), I have to agree with Steve Martin – he goes too far toward isolationism. Didn’t he claim that our entering WWII was a mistake? Correct me if I am wrong – it seems there is some question about this.

    The newsletters are troubling too. If Dr. Veith had a newsletter on Lutheran Reformation Christianity – and it had all kinds of articles about Satanic Death Metal and how everyone should worship the Devil, written by those he put in charge, I would think he would step in at some point and shut it down – maybe the minute he saw the press check copy. That there are apparently a number of these bizzare newsletters indicates (to me at least) that Ron Paul is/was fine with death metal and Satanic worship (or whatever is in these newsletters). Was Paul so disconnected from these newsletters that he never bothered to take a look at a copy? I have to agree that Paul’s past associations are no worse than Obama’s (perhaps not as bad as Obama’s), but still his denial is a little hard to fathom for me.

    I hope Ron Paul can overcome these obstacles, because his pro-life stand and his views on U.S. limited government appeal to me. Actually, his views on the U.S. not being the world police and pulling back from that unsustainable and improper role appeal to me to a degree as well – I just fear he takes it too far. We are not the economic powerhouse of post-war 1950s and 60s America any more – we can’t afford to act like we are either. The U.S. is bankrupt – and our role in the world must by necessity scale back, just like the United Kingdom did in the last century.

  • moallen

    I am not really a Ron Paul supporter, but interestingly I may be the only person on here who has actually voted for him in his current role as a U.S. Rep. I used to live in his Texas district and voted for him more than once. While I appreciate his strong pro-life record (both as a Physician and a Rep), I have to agree with Steve Martin – he goes too far toward isolationism. Didn’t he claim that our entering WWII was a mistake? Correct me if I am wrong – it seems there is some question about this.

    The newsletters are troubling too. If Dr. Veith had a newsletter on Lutheran Reformation Christianity – and it had all kinds of articles about Satanic Death Metal and how everyone should worship the Devil, written by those he put in charge, I would think he would step in at some point and shut it down – maybe the minute he saw the press check copy. That there are apparently a number of these bizzare newsletters indicates (to me at least) that Ron Paul is/was fine with death metal and Satanic worship (or whatever is in these newsletters). Was Paul so disconnected from these newsletters that he never bothered to take a look at a copy? I have to agree that Paul’s past associations are no worse than Obama’s (perhaps not as bad as Obama’s), but still his denial is a little hard to fathom for me.

    I hope Ron Paul can overcome these obstacles, because his pro-life stand and his views on U.S. limited government appeal to me. Actually, his views on the U.S. not being the world police and pulling back from that unsustainable and improper role appeal to me to a degree as well – I just fear he takes it too far. We are not the economic powerhouse of post-war 1950s and 60s America any more – we can’t afford to act like we are either. The U.S. is bankrupt – and our role in the world must by necessity scale back, just like the United Kingdom did in the last century.

  • SKPeterson

    Mo – I don’t know specifically about his stance on WW2. I’ll make a grand and sweeping generalization and say that he probably believes that WW2 is a direct outcome of WW1, where we blundered in and arguably made things worse. In effect, we created the conditions that allowed Hitler to come to power.

    However, (read this through, it may sound odd at first) I’ve seen somewhere that Paul would have supported the war against Germany, but that he would not have supported the war against Japan. There is a considerable historical argument that has been made in recent decades and relying on declassified documentation, that indicates FDR maneuvered the US into war with Japan through a system of diplomatic isolation, sanction, embargo and implicit threat. Now, this is not to say that the guys in Japan were Niceness, Inc., but that the US did not need to bully Japan. And that’s what it came down to – Japan felt bullied and lashed out. Now, why Paul would have supported war against Germany (my guess is that it would be because Germany declared war on us, but would they have if the Japanese had not? Open question.) I would say that, right now, the case of Japan provides an eerie parallel with our current situation in Iran. To our benefit today, the Japanese were a far more formidable foe, even if Iran should develop a nuclear weapon. But, the lesson is that continually harassing and threatening other nations occasionally leads to war. Which apparently is just fine with most of the Republican contenders and the Obama administration.

    One other thing regarding the newsletters that just occurred to me. Mo, you and others have asked the question, “How could Paul be so disconnected from the newsletters so as not to know what was going on?” An understandable question. Now ask it of many CEO’s, Presidents and Chairmen of large companies. “How could they be so disconnected from their advertising and product development that they allowed campaign X to happen?” New Coke, anyone? Every year there are lists published of the worst advert campaigns, product launches and needed retractions by some of the largest and most sophisticated companies in the world. And many of them are repeat offenders. How do these executives do it? How could you ever trust these companies or their products again?

  • SKPeterson

    Mo – I don’t know specifically about his stance on WW2. I’ll make a grand and sweeping generalization and say that he probably believes that WW2 is a direct outcome of WW1, where we blundered in and arguably made things worse. In effect, we created the conditions that allowed Hitler to come to power.

    However, (read this through, it may sound odd at first) I’ve seen somewhere that Paul would have supported the war against Germany, but that he would not have supported the war against Japan. There is a considerable historical argument that has been made in recent decades and relying on declassified documentation, that indicates FDR maneuvered the US into war with Japan through a system of diplomatic isolation, sanction, embargo and implicit threat. Now, this is not to say that the guys in Japan were Niceness, Inc., but that the US did not need to bully Japan. And that’s what it came down to – Japan felt bullied and lashed out. Now, why Paul would have supported war against Germany (my guess is that it would be because Germany declared war on us, but would they have if the Japanese had not? Open question.) I would say that, right now, the case of Japan provides an eerie parallel with our current situation in Iran. To our benefit today, the Japanese were a far more formidable foe, even if Iran should develop a nuclear weapon. But, the lesson is that continually harassing and threatening other nations occasionally leads to war. Which apparently is just fine with most of the Republican contenders and the Obama administration.

    One other thing regarding the newsletters that just occurred to me. Mo, you and others have asked the question, “How could Paul be so disconnected from the newsletters so as not to know what was going on?” An understandable question. Now ask it of many CEO’s, Presidents and Chairmen of large companies. “How could they be so disconnected from their advertising and product development that they allowed campaign X to happen?” New Coke, anyone? Every year there are lists published of the worst advert campaigns, product launches and needed retractions by some of the largest and most sophisticated companies in the world. And many of them are repeat offenders. How do these executives do it? How could you ever trust these companies or their products again?

  • Tom Hering

    “Now ask it of many CEO’s, Presidents and Chairmen of large companies.” – SK @ 89.

    But Ron Paul & Associates Inc. wasn’t a large company in terms of personnel, as far as we can discover.

    Ron Paul: President
    Ron Paul’s daughter: treasurer
    Ron Paul’s wife: secretary
    Lew Rockwell: Vice President

    Though it had revenues of $900,000+ in 1993 according to tax documents.

    There’s the “million dollars” that makes it hard to believe that Paul had no interest in what his company was doing, or how it was doing it.

  • Tom Hering

    “Now ask it of many CEO’s, Presidents and Chairmen of large companies.” – SK @ 89.

    But Ron Paul & Associates Inc. wasn’t a large company in terms of personnel, as far as we can discover.

    Ron Paul: President
    Ron Paul’s daughter: treasurer
    Ron Paul’s wife: secretary
    Lew Rockwell: Vice President

    Though it had revenues of $900,000+ in 1993 according to tax documents.

    There’s the “million dollars” that makes it hard to believe that Paul had no interest in what his company was doing, or how it was doing it.

  • Craig

    When RP talks about Iran he sounds like an American hating kook. And then his minions cheer with wild enthusiasm. Sorry I don’t get it? That little, old, angry man will never win.

  • Craig

    When RP talks about Iran he sounds like an American hating kook. And then his minions cheer with wild enthusiasm. Sorry I don’t get it? That little, old, angry man will never win.

  • Patrick Kyle

    Craig@92

    “When RP talks about Iran he sounds like an American hating kook”

    Just what do you suppose Iran’s allies China and Russia are going to do when (not if) we take unilateral action against them? Is that something you are willing to gamble on? Can we afford it financially or otherwise?

    On another note entirely, this discussion has enlightened me on how few people give a rip about personal and economic freedom, and a government that truly has limits.

    Weigh out what all of the other candidates are offering. It is all shades of the same thing. Cut expenditures and increase income, all the while avoiding any fiscal pain. Each one offers this same remedy, just varying the proportions of spending cuts and tax increases. Its way too late for those remedies to work, and even these guys know it. They are just trying to sell us on handing them the keys to the most powerful nation on earth.

    I realize that RP won’t win the election, but as one prominent blogger has said, ‘Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.’
    I won’t ever do that again

  • Patrick Kyle

    Craig@92

    “When RP talks about Iran he sounds like an American hating kook”

    Just what do you suppose Iran’s allies China and Russia are going to do when (not if) we take unilateral action against them? Is that something you are willing to gamble on? Can we afford it financially or otherwise?

    On another note entirely, this discussion has enlightened me on how few people give a rip about personal and economic freedom, and a government that truly has limits.

    Weigh out what all of the other candidates are offering. It is all shades of the same thing. Cut expenditures and increase income, all the while avoiding any fiscal pain. Each one offers this same remedy, just varying the proportions of spending cuts and tax increases. Its way too late for those remedies to work, and even these guys know it. They are just trying to sell us on handing them the keys to the most powerful nation on earth.

    I realize that RP won’t win the election, but as one prominent blogger has said, ‘Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.’
    I won’t ever do that again

  • Cincinnatus

    Patrick@92:

    Hear hear!

  • Cincinnatus

    Patrick@92:

    Hear hear!

  • Tom Hering

    “‘Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.’ I won’t ever do that again.”

    So you’re saying you’re voting for the greater of two evils? :-D

  • Tom Hering

    “‘Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.’ I won’t ever do that again.”

    So you’re saying you’re voting for the greater of two evils? :-D


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X