The case against Ron Paul

Conservative blogger Michael Gerson accuses Ron Paul of trying to completely undo the legacy of the Republican party and gives a litany of reasons to oppose him:

No other recent candidate hailing from the party of Lincoln has accused Abraham Lincoln of causing a “senseless” war and ruling with an “iron fist.” Or regarded Ronald Reagan’s presidency a “dramatic failure.” Or proposed the legalization of prostitution and heroin use. Or called America the most “aggressive, extended and expansionist” empire in world history. Or promised to abolish the CIA, depart NATO and withdraw military protection from South Korea. Or blamed terrorism on American militarism, since “they’re terrorists because we’re occupiers.” Or accused the American government of a Sept. 11 “coverup” and called for an investigation headed by Dennis Kucinich. Or described the killing of Osama bin Laden as “absolutely not necessary.” Or affirmed that he would not have sent American troops to Europe to end the Holocaust. Or excused Iranian nuclear ambitions as “natural,” while dismissing evidence of those ambitions as “war propaganda.” Or published a newsletter stating that the 1993 World Trade Center attack might have been “a setup by the Israeli Mossad,” and defending former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke and criticizing the “evil of forced integration.”

Each of these is a disqualifying scandal. Taken together, a kind of grandeur creeps in. The ambition of Paul and his supporters is breathtaking. They wish to erase 158 years of Republican Party history in a single political season, substituting a platform that is isolationist, libertarian, conspiratorial and tinged with racism. It won’t happen. But some conservatives seem paradoxically drawn to the radicalism of Paul’s project. They prefer their poison pill covered in glass and washed down with battery acid. It proves their ideological manhood.

via Ron Paul’s quest to undo the party of Lincoln – The Washington Post.

Those of you who support Paul, is it true that he holds these positions?  (I don’t think they are all  from his ghostwritten newsletters.)  If so, do you agree with them?

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.

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

    I went to the link, Larry.

    I didn’t agree with much of that piece at all.

    Ron Paul lives in a dreamworld, and no the real world. It is (to me) frighteneing in this day and age of advanced weaponry that a man like this is even considered to be Commander in Chief.

    Ron Paul, the man who said that Ronal Reagan’s Presidency was a failure.

    He is out there, that’s for sure.

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

    I went to the link, Larry.

    I didn’t agree with much of that piece at all.

    Ron Paul lives in a dreamworld, and no the real world. It is (to me) frighteneing in this day and age of advanced weaponry that a man like this is even considered to be Commander in Chief.

    Ron Paul, the man who said that Ronal Reagan’s Presidency was a failure.

    He is out there, that’s for sure.

  • Booklover
  • Booklover
  • Fr. Gregory Hogg

    Gerson certainly proves himself to be a master of rhetoric–not to say of sophistry. Dr. Veith, you are an academic. You understand the importance of research, and how important it is to place words in proper context.

    Let me take just one line of Gerson’s piece, and talk about it. Gerson claims that Ron Paul “proposed the legalization of prostitution and heroin use.” Watch carefully this excerpt from the 5 May debate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EupRuxwuMLE What’s missing from critics’ assertions is that Paul wants to make it a matter for the states to decide.

    No one I know questions the conservative bona fides of William F. Buckley. But he, like Paul, argued that drugs should be legalized. See this interview: http://www.archive.org/details/openmind_ep181.

    In this election cycle, we need to move away from rhetoric and begin to do a rational analysis of our situation.

    1. We are broke. Indeed, we’re more than $14 trillion dollars in the hole.

    2. We are engaged around the world, acting as if we can enforce our will wherever and whenever we wish. And this is making the world a less safe place to be. To cite but one example of many: we supported the forces that overthrew Quadaffi. Oops! Thousands of shoulder-fired surface to air missiles have gone missing. And those who took over in Libya are more radical Muslims than Quadaffi. Hmm…wonder what’ll happen next?

    3. Our federal government is growing in power: states like Michigan send far more money in gasoline taxes to the federal government than they get back in return. Why should the citizens of Michigan have to come to Washington, cap in hand, to get back some of their own money, for their own roads and bridges!?

    4. Constitutionally-guaranteed rights are now being taken away. American citizens can now be held indefinitely, without trial or representation, if the government deems them to be ‘enemy combatants.” Just a few days ago, President Obama said, “I have that power, but I will not use it.”

    Our freedoms are gradually being taken away. And we’re ok with that, as long as the freedoms that are taken concern the other guy’s beliefs and practices. (Some folks, for example, want to have raw milk. They know the risks, but they want it anyway. But the government says “no”.) But some day a leader will arise who disagrees with *our* beliefs and practices. And we will have no intellectually honest way of defending them, because we have acquiesced in an ever-increasing government control of personal freedom.

    Ron Paul is in favor of returning most of the controversial issues of our day to the oversight of state and local governments. And there’s a good reason for doing this. When issues are brought back to a more local level, people can practice the almost-forgotten art of reasoned debate and discussion. Already in the ’60s, Simon and Garfunkel sang, “…going to the candidates’ debate. Laugh about it, shout about it, when you get to choose–any way you look at it, you lose.” And that’s right–as long as we support the ever-expanding role of Washington over the strength of local government. We have almost forgotten, now, how to have civil discussion on issues that divide us. And that will inevitably lead, one day, to tyranny.

    Now, which of the Republican (or Democrat) candidates is addressing these issues? Just one.

  • Fr. Gregory Hogg

    Gerson certainly proves himself to be a master of rhetoric–not to say of sophistry. Dr. Veith, you are an academic. You understand the importance of research, and how important it is to place words in proper context.

    Let me take just one line of Gerson’s piece, and talk about it. Gerson claims that Ron Paul “proposed the legalization of prostitution and heroin use.” Watch carefully this excerpt from the 5 May debate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EupRuxwuMLE What’s missing from critics’ assertions is that Paul wants to make it a matter for the states to decide.

    No one I know questions the conservative bona fides of William F. Buckley. But he, like Paul, argued that drugs should be legalized. See this interview: http://www.archive.org/details/openmind_ep181.

    In this election cycle, we need to move away from rhetoric and begin to do a rational analysis of our situation.

    1. We are broke. Indeed, we’re more than $14 trillion dollars in the hole.

    2. We are engaged around the world, acting as if we can enforce our will wherever and whenever we wish. And this is making the world a less safe place to be. To cite but one example of many: we supported the forces that overthrew Quadaffi. Oops! Thousands of shoulder-fired surface to air missiles have gone missing. And those who took over in Libya are more radical Muslims than Quadaffi. Hmm…wonder what’ll happen next?

    3. Our federal government is growing in power: states like Michigan send far more money in gasoline taxes to the federal government than they get back in return. Why should the citizens of Michigan have to come to Washington, cap in hand, to get back some of their own money, for their own roads and bridges!?

    4. Constitutionally-guaranteed rights are now being taken away. American citizens can now be held indefinitely, without trial or representation, if the government deems them to be ‘enemy combatants.” Just a few days ago, President Obama said, “I have that power, but I will not use it.”

    Our freedoms are gradually being taken away. And we’re ok with that, as long as the freedoms that are taken concern the other guy’s beliefs and practices. (Some folks, for example, want to have raw milk. They know the risks, but they want it anyway. But the government says “no”.) But some day a leader will arise who disagrees with *our* beliefs and practices. And we will have no intellectually honest way of defending them, because we have acquiesced in an ever-increasing government control of personal freedom.

    Ron Paul is in favor of returning most of the controversial issues of our day to the oversight of state and local governments. And there’s a good reason for doing this. When issues are brought back to a more local level, people can practice the almost-forgotten art of reasoned debate and discussion. Already in the ’60s, Simon and Garfunkel sang, “…going to the candidates’ debate. Laugh about it, shout about it, when you get to choose–any way you look at it, you lose.” And that’s right–as long as we support the ever-expanding role of Washington over the strength of local government. We have almost forgotten, now, how to have civil discussion on issues that divide us. And that will inevitably lead, one day, to tyranny.

    Now, which of the Republican (or Democrat) candidates is addressing these issues? Just one.

  • Fr. Gregory Hogg

    Oops–I wrote $14 trillion dollars. I should have just written $14 trillion.

  • Fr. Gregory Hogg

    Oops–I wrote $14 trillion dollars. I should have just written $14 trillion.

  • SKPeterson

    Steve @ 2 – By out there, you mean willing to make a rational, realistic assessment and not rely upon party hagiography?

    Reagan was the great Republican hope, and he did do much good. This Paul would agree on, but he would also say that much of the promise of the Reagan years was frittered away in increased deficit spending and no major reductions in government spending or regulation. In fact, to be honest, most of the successes of the Reagan years came about as the result of policies passed in the waning days of the Carter administration. Also, the hardline stance of Volcker at the Fed ended the stagflation of the 70′s and ushered in the “Reagan Boom” quite independently of Reagan himself. Paul’s notion of “dramatic failure” is the failure of Reagan’s reality to live up to the hype.

    For a quick take on “they’re terrorists because we’re occupiers” view this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY

    As to the other quotes and comments, I’ll write more later when I have time.

  • SKPeterson

    Steve @ 2 – By out there, you mean willing to make a rational, realistic assessment and not rely upon party hagiography?

    Reagan was the great Republican hope, and he did do much good. This Paul would agree on, but he would also say that much of the promise of the Reagan years was frittered away in increased deficit spending and no major reductions in government spending or regulation. In fact, to be honest, most of the successes of the Reagan years came about as the result of policies passed in the waning days of the Carter administration. Also, the hardline stance of Volcker at the Fed ended the stagflation of the 70′s and ushered in the “Reagan Boom” quite independently of Reagan himself. Paul’s notion of “dramatic failure” is the failure of Reagan’s reality to live up to the hype.

    For a quick take on “they’re terrorists because we’re occupiers” view this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY

    As to the other quotes and comments, I’ll write more later when I have time.

  • Tom Hering

    “American citizens can now be held indefinitely, without trial or representation, if the government deems them to be ‘enemy combatants.’ Just a few days ago, President Obama said, ‘I have that power, but I will not use it.’” – @ 4.

    Christian Science Monitor, 1/1/2012:

    The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision [in the National Defense Authorization Act] that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents. “My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens,” Obama said in the signing statement.

  • Tom Hering

    “American citizens can now be held indefinitely, without trial or representation, if the government deems them to be ‘enemy combatants.’ Just a few days ago, President Obama said, ‘I have that power, but I will not use it.’” – @ 4.

    Christian Science Monitor, 1/1/2012:

    The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision [in the National Defense Authorization Act] that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents. “My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens,” Obama said in the signing statement.

  • SKPeterson

    Oh, the Sept. 11 “cover up” that Gerson criticizes is not a “Truther” cover up, but rather, Paul believes the government glossed over its own failures of communication, response and investigation. He’s basically saying the government did a lousy job of doing its primary function – protecting the lives and property of Americans (and resident aliens).

    And Steyn is an unthinking neo-con mouthpiece who believes in the American military as a way to maintain the legitimacy of the failed adventurism of the British Empire. Of course, he thinks Paul is wrong, Steyn’s wedded to an inveterate, asinine policy of foreign military blunderism as the operating mission statement of the U.S. government.

  • SKPeterson

    Oh, the Sept. 11 “cover up” that Gerson criticizes is not a “Truther” cover up, but rather, Paul believes the government glossed over its own failures of communication, response and investigation. He’s basically saying the government did a lousy job of doing its primary function – protecting the lives and property of Americans (and resident aliens).

    And Steyn is an unthinking neo-con mouthpiece who believes in the American military as a way to maintain the legitimacy of the failed adventurism of the British Empire. Of course, he thinks Paul is wrong, Steyn’s wedded to an inveterate, asinine policy of foreign military blunderism as the operating mission statement of the U.S. government.

  • SKPeterson

    The problem, Tom is that Obama signed into law, something he said he won’t enforce, but left it wide open for other, future Presidents to use. That is a HUGE error in judgment and bespeaks a definite lack of foresight and fitness for office. It is a precursor to tyranny in the guise of protecting national security without really having to protect national security. In fact, it’s almost Lincolnian in its denial of habeas corpus, just to jab at one of the legit criticisms against old St. Abe.

  • SKPeterson

    The problem, Tom is that Obama signed into law, something he said he won’t enforce, but left it wide open for other, future Presidents to use. That is a HUGE error in judgment and bespeaks a definite lack of foresight and fitness for office. It is a precursor to tyranny in the guise of protecting national security without really having to protect national security. In fact, it’s almost Lincolnian in its denial of habeas corpus, just to jab at one of the legit criticisms against old St. Abe.

  • Tom Hering

    No, SK @ 9, Obama’s administration insisted that the provision be removed from the law before he would sign it (read the CSM excerpt again, very carefully). It’s a good example of checks and balances – of the Executive Branch stopping a threat to liberty that came from Congress, i.e., from the representatives of the states. Which goes to Gerson’s point:

    [The] confusion at the heart of libertarianism. Government can be an enemy of liberty. But the achievement of a free society can also be the result of government action — the protection of individual liberty against corrupt state governments or corrupt business practices or corrupt local laws.

    … or corrupt representatives of the states, i.e., smaller entities. Maybe it isn’t size that matters most. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    No, SK @ 9, Obama’s administration insisted that the provision be removed from the law before he would sign it (read the CSM excerpt again, very carefully). It’s a good example of checks and balances – of the Executive Branch stopping a threat to liberty that came from Congress, i.e., from the representatives of the states. Which goes to Gerson’s point:

    [The] confusion at the heart of libertarianism. Government can be an enemy of liberty. But the achievement of a free society can also be the result of government action — the protection of individual liberty against corrupt state governments or corrupt business practices or corrupt local laws.

    … or corrupt representatives of the states, i.e., smaller entities. Maybe it isn’t size that matters most. :-D

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Father Hogg & SK,

    I’m open to persuasion. Paul & Romney are the only two choices I’ll have on my ballot as a Virginian, so I’m trying to decide between the two of them. (Though I won’t take the loyalty oath to vote for whoever the Republican nominee is, so I probably won’t be allowed to vote in our primary come Super Tuesday.) Raising these charges for you Paul supporters to respond to is my way of doing research.

    So do you agree with Paul’s contention that we should eliminate the CIA? (Surely that’s a function that can’t be taken on by state and local governments.) Or that we shouldn’t have gotten involved against the Germans in World War II?

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Father Hogg & SK,

    I’m open to persuasion. Paul & Romney are the only two choices I’ll have on my ballot as a Virginian, so I’m trying to decide between the two of them. (Though I won’t take the loyalty oath to vote for whoever the Republican nominee is, so I probably won’t be allowed to vote in our primary come Super Tuesday.) Raising these charges for you Paul supporters to respond to is my way of doing research.

    So do you agree with Paul’s contention that we should eliminate the CIA? (Surely that’s a function that can’t be taken on by state and local governments.) Or that we shouldn’t have gotten involved against the Germans in World War II?

  • Aaron

    I’m astonished at Gerson’s willingness to slander. I’m not astonished that he disagrees with Ron Paul, but I’m shocked at how he assigns such strong and charged language based on 3-word quotes from Paul rather than a substantive portion of Paul’s writings on a given topic (or voting record for that matter). The most hilarious thing about this is that Gerson mentions nothing about the Constitutionality of Paul’s positions and suggests no reasoning for why Paul believes these things (at least on the issues that he’s correct about assigning to Paul). Gerson could make George Washington look like Hitler with the way he presents his case. Oddly enough, Ron Paul’s positions mirror those of Washington and Jefferson more than any other candidate in office…it might serve Mr. Gerson to consider our responsibility as citizens is not with the President or especially the “Party of Lincoln” that he worships, but rather the ruling document that these public servants swear to protect and honor (only to turn around and disobey for 2 or 4 years, normally). It is not journalism you read here. This is textbook “smear”, plain and simple.

  • Aaron

    I’m astonished at Gerson’s willingness to slander. I’m not astonished that he disagrees with Ron Paul, but I’m shocked at how he assigns such strong and charged language based on 3-word quotes from Paul rather than a substantive portion of Paul’s writings on a given topic (or voting record for that matter). The most hilarious thing about this is that Gerson mentions nothing about the Constitutionality of Paul’s positions and suggests no reasoning for why Paul believes these things (at least on the issues that he’s correct about assigning to Paul). Gerson could make George Washington look like Hitler with the way he presents his case. Oddly enough, Ron Paul’s positions mirror those of Washington and Jefferson more than any other candidate in office…it might serve Mr. Gerson to consider our responsibility as citizens is not with the President or especially the “Party of Lincoln” that he worships, but rather the ruling document that these public servants swear to protect and honor (only to turn around and disobey for 2 or 4 years, normally). It is not journalism you read here. This is textbook “smear”, plain and simple.

  • Tom Hering

    Oh, and SK @ 9, Paul spoke out against the NDAA because (among other reasons) it included the provision for the military to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without a trial. But Paul didn’t, in the end, bother to vote against the law, because he was busy campaigning. Some defender of liberty, eh?

  • Tom Hering

    Oh, and SK @ 9, Paul spoke out against the NDAA because (among other reasons) it included the provision for the military to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without a trial. But Paul didn’t, in the end, bother to vote against the law, because he was busy campaigning. Some defender of liberty, eh?

  • Abby

    Doesn’t “statism” give too much Federal power to states? So that a state can opt out of the “union” if an issue arrises that it doesn’t agree with? Muslims live in Michigan in the greatest number of the country. So if Michigan want to acquiese and let them govern by Sharia Law- and the Supreme Court says ‘no’–does that mean Michigan has Sharia Law? Does that make it “legal” for Muslim dads to kill their daughters for leaviing the Muslim faith as a point of family “honor?” How do you ever reconcile the parts with the whole?

    Even Justin Amash (of Michigan), a Palestinian, (also of the U.S. House of Rep.) says the Federal gov’t should not tell Israel to go back to pre-1967 borders. (Another case of breaking up into “state” control. Yes, the Palestinians are there in great number. How did they come to have that occupation in the first place? The land was Israel’s before that. If Detroit wants to cecede from Michigan–to have their own “state”–what then? Where does it stop?)

    Fr. Hogg @4: Your number 1 consideration is that we’re broke. I agree and it’s going to get worse. I do not believe Paul can save us from that especially if Congress goes to Democrat control.

    Still Romney (if Dr Veith wants to vote). Whoever wins can appoint Paul to fix the economy. Leave him out of the rest of the decisions regarding the UNITED States.

  • Abby

    Doesn’t “statism” give too much Federal power to states? So that a state can opt out of the “union” if an issue arrises that it doesn’t agree with? Muslims live in Michigan in the greatest number of the country. So if Michigan want to acquiese and let them govern by Sharia Law- and the Supreme Court says ‘no’–does that mean Michigan has Sharia Law? Does that make it “legal” for Muslim dads to kill their daughters for leaviing the Muslim faith as a point of family “honor?” How do you ever reconcile the parts with the whole?

    Even Justin Amash (of Michigan), a Palestinian, (also of the U.S. House of Rep.) says the Federal gov’t should not tell Israel to go back to pre-1967 borders. (Another case of breaking up into “state” control. Yes, the Palestinians are there in great number. How did they come to have that occupation in the first place? The land was Israel’s before that. If Detroit wants to cecede from Michigan–to have their own “state”–what then? Where does it stop?)

    Fr. Hogg @4: Your number 1 consideration is that we’re broke. I agree and it’s going to get worse. I do not believe Paul can save us from that especially if Congress goes to Democrat control.

    Still Romney (if Dr Veith wants to vote). Whoever wins can appoint Paul to fix the economy. Leave him out of the rest of the decisions regarding the UNITED States.

  • ChazC

    Might I just suggest that there may be a better way of building a perspective on a given candidate than trying to compare the negative things said about them, and decide which one has less negatives. You will be able to find aweful things said about any person who’s ever lived…and it becomes much worse when they are a politician!!! My suggestion is to look at the positive “job-related” voting records and stances. Since you mention Ron Paul and Mitt Romney it is much easier to narrow down the positions and strengths:

    Paul on the economy: Cut unconstitutional departments and end wars not declared by Congress to return to a balanced budget. Create an environment for businesses to develop by decreasing regulation and easing corporate and small business taxation.

    Romney on the economy: Create jobs by utilizing current structures (Department of Energy, Infrastructure etc). Supports federal solutions such as quantitative easing and bailouts. (Same as Obama)
    ——

    Paul on Abortion: All abortion is wrong. All other violent acts are resolved with state laws and therefore this is a state’s issue. Paul was an OBGYN who delivered over 4,000 babies himself. He will fight to overturn the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade, and protect life and has done so consistently for his entire medical career.

    Romney on Abortion: Abortion is wrong in most cases. His position has gradually changed over the span of his political career based on the location.
    —–

    Paul on Foreign Policy: Paul believes the constitution does not grant permission for any politician to use American funds or personnel to govern or support any other government. He agrees with Jefferson and Washington that there should be “no entangling alliances”, but that through peace, trade and a powerful national defense America is able to lead. As a veteran, Paul rejects the idea of protecting another sovereign nation with American taxpayers money and American lives. He has received the single most donations from American military personnel.

    Romney on Foreign Policy: Romney believes that diplomacy and trade are an important part of our foreign policy but also supports economic sanctions and preemptive strikes against sovereign nations before a declaration of war through congressional approval. Romney supports bases to protect other sovereign nations. (Same as Obama)

    These three issues alone are more than enough for me to decide on who I will vote for. The list can go on and on, and I wrote as objectively as possible, but even on this small sampling – I would strongly endorse Ron Paul. Oddly enough, this is my “quick” reply to your question :)

  • ChazC

    Might I just suggest that there may be a better way of building a perspective on a given candidate than trying to compare the negative things said about them, and decide which one has less negatives. You will be able to find aweful things said about any person who’s ever lived…and it becomes much worse when they are a politician!!! My suggestion is to look at the positive “job-related” voting records and stances. Since you mention Ron Paul and Mitt Romney it is much easier to narrow down the positions and strengths:

    Paul on the economy: Cut unconstitutional departments and end wars not declared by Congress to return to a balanced budget. Create an environment for businesses to develop by decreasing regulation and easing corporate and small business taxation.

    Romney on the economy: Create jobs by utilizing current structures (Department of Energy, Infrastructure etc). Supports federal solutions such as quantitative easing and bailouts. (Same as Obama)
    ——

    Paul on Abortion: All abortion is wrong. All other violent acts are resolved with state laws and therefore this is a state’s issue. Paul was an OBGYN who delivered over 4,000 babies himself. He will fight to overturn the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade, and protect life and has done so consistently for his entire medical career.

    Romney on Abortion: Abortion is wrong in most cases. His position has gradually changed over the span of his political career based on the location.
    —–

    Paul on Foreign Policy: Paul believes the constitution does not grant permission for any politician to use American funds or personnel to govern or support any other government. He agrees with Jefferson and Washington that there should be “no entangling alliances”, but that through peace, trade and a powerful national defense America is able to lead. As a veteran, Paul rejects the idea of protecting another sovereign nation with American taxpayers money and American lives. He has received the single most donations from American military personnel.

    Romney on Foreign Policy: Romney believes that diplomacy and trade are an important part of our foreign policy but also supports economic sanctions and preemptive strikes against sovereign nations before a declaration of war through congressional approval. Romney supports bases to protect other sovereign nations. (Same as Obama)

    These three issues alone are more than enough for me to decide on who I will vote for. The list can go on and on, and I wrote as objectively as possible, but even on this small sampling – I would strongly endorse Ron Paul. Oddly enough, this is my “quick” reply to your question :)

  • Cincinnatus

    All this silly little article claims is that Paul isn’t a National Republican in the progressive, big-government, pro-(big-)business sense. I’m okay with that. Paul is indeed undermining the party of Lincoln. High time, too.

    Veith@11: I tend to agree with Paul about World War II, but that may be a discussion for another venue, and, after all, it has nothing to do with his present policy proposals since it is more of an academic debate than anything else.

    As for eliminating the CIA, that seems to be a policy discussion rather than one of principle. Paul obviously believes that one of the few roles of the national government is to ensure national security, and, moreover, he has been one of the few statesmen who has continued to insist that it would have been better had the “war on terror” been carried out via limited police action and covert engagements rather than outright military campaigns. I continue to agree with Paul on this. The problem with the CIA is that, since its inception, it has been largely a failure, and its various secretive operations have arguably done far more harm than good to America’s security interests, not to mention its global image. Indeed, the CIA, perhaps even more than the military, is responsible for what Paul hates most: pointless, disruptive interventionism. If there is a country that hates us now–think Africa, Latin America, Middle East, and South and Central Asia–chances are that the CIA has been deeply involved there at some point in the past thirty or forty years. I don’t think this correlation is coincidental. I think Paul’s position would be that the legitimate functions of the CIA could be more effectively folded into the military, etc. Obviously, the existence of a massive agency with very limited oversight but nearly unlimited budgets and prerogatives is constitutionally suspect.

  • Cincinnatus

    All this silly little article claims is that Paul isn’t a National Republican in the progressive, big-government, pro-(big-)business sense. I’m okay with that. Paul is indeed undermining the party of Lincoln. High time, too.

    Veith@11: I tend to agree with Paul about World War II, but that may be a discussion for another venue, and, after all, it has nothing to do with his present policy proposals since it is more of an academic debate than anything else.

    As for eliminating the CIA, that seems to be a policy discussion rather than one of principle. Paul obviously believes that one of the few roles of the national government is to ensure national security, and, moreover, he has been one of the few statesmen who has continued to insist that it would have been better had the “war on terror” been carried out via limited police action and covert engagements rather than outright military campaigns. I continue to agree with Paul on this. The problem with the CIA is that, since its inception, it has been largely a failure, and its various secretive operations have arguably done far more harm than good to America’s security interests, not to mention its global image. Indeed, the CIA, perhaps even more than the military, is responsible for what Paul hates most: pointless, disruptive interventionism. If there is a country that hates us now–think Africa, Latin America, Middle East, and South and Central Asia–chances are that the CIA has been deeply involved there at some point in the past thirty or forty years. I don’t think this correlation is coincidental. I think Paul’s position would be that the legitimate functions of the CIA could be more effectively folded into the military, etc. Obviously, the existence of a massive agency with very limited oversight but nearly unlimited budgets and prerogatives is constitutionally suspect.

  • Fr. Gregory Hogg

    Dr. Veith,

    I haven’t formed a position on whether there should be a CIA; I assume that issue, as all the other ones Dr. Paul espouses, would be the subject of vigorous debate.

    That raises another thought, by the way. The doom-and-gloom sayers against Ron Paul seem to assume that whatever position he holds, will become the law of the land. Paul himself would point out that it’s Congress that passes laws, not the President. As power concentrates in Washington, and Washington power concentrates in the President, we move toward tyranny. (I’d like to see a Calvin Coolidge type of president; and I, for one, was *happy* at the thought of Reagan napping during Cabinet meetings.) We need a President who pushes power *away* from himself and *away* from Washington. And that is Ron Paul.

    If we ask, “Should we have gotten involved in WWII?” we should also ask the causes of that conflict. According to Churchill, the war was made inevitable by the crushing burdens the allies placed on Germany after WWI. Given the circumstances in the late 30′s, we probably had to get involved. But the pendulum has swung completely to the opposite direction. No longer do we debate “foreign entanglements” (Washington’s phrase); now we try to tell Russia to mind its own business as we plan to install missiles on its neighbors’ territory, and we bomb Serbs from 50,000 feet as we inject ourselves into the middle of a 500 year old conflict without any appreciation for the underlying issues.

    Mr. Hering @13–you may not be a red herring, but you’re a little on the pink side. One need not do *everything* in a cause, to do *something*–even the most important thing. And right now, Dr. Paul does more good for liberty by stumping and campaigning for President, than he would have done traveling to Washington to cast a vote that, in the face of the Republocrat statists, was doomed to fail. At the very least, it’s a judgment call.

  • Fr. Gregory Hogg

    Dr. Veith,

    I haven’t formed a position on whether there should be a CIA; I assume that issue, as all the other ones Dr. Paul espouses, would be the subject of vigorous debate.

    That raises another thought, by the way. The doom-and-gloom sayers against Ron Paul seem to assume that whatever position he holds, will become the law of the land. Paul himself would point out that it’s Congress that passes laws, not the President. As power concentrates in Washington, and Washington power concentrates in the President, we move toward tyranny. (I’d like to see a Calvin Coolidge type of president; and I, for one, was *happy* at the thought of Reagan napping during Cabinet meetings.) We need a President who pushes power *away* from himself and *away* from Washington. And that is Ron Paul.

    If we ask, “Should we have gotten involved in WWII?” we should also ask the causes of that conflict. According to Churchill, the war was made inevitable by the crushing burdens the allies placed on Germany after WWI. Given the circumstances in the late 30′s, we probably had to get involved. But the pendulum has swung completely to the opposite direction. No longer do we debate “foreign entanglements” (Washington’s phrase); now we try to tell Russia to mind its own business as we plan to install missiles on its neighbors’ territory, and we bomb Serbs from 50,000 feet as we inject ourselves into the middle of a 500 year old conflict without any appreciation for the underlying issues.

    Mr. Hering @13–you may not be a red herring, but you’re a little on the pink side. One need not do *everything* in a cause, to do *something*–even the most important thing. And right now, Dr. Paul does more good for liberty by stumping and campaigning for President, than he would have done traveling to Washington to cast a vote that, in the face of the Republocrat statists, was doomed to fail. At the very least, it’s a judgment call.

  • SKPeterson

    Well, cutting back the CIA or the intelligence community involves some goring of my own ox, so I’m not too sure about that. ;)

    However, I believe that what Paul is advocating is curtailing the ability of the CIA to involve itself in the domestic affairs of foreign governments and engaging in covert warfare, not the gathering of intelligence per se. The most glaring or timely example would be the CIA’s involvement in the overthrow of a legitimate, democratically elected government in Iran and engineering the installation of the Shah in power. Now, many Republicans don’t seem to believe in “blowback” but the reason why the Islamists were able to come to power in Iran was a direct result of our interference. I don’t see the CIA coming to an end under a Paul administration, but it would be scaled back, in line with our lessening of our military commitments overseas under a noninterventionist foreign policy. This could also mean a shift of intelligence assets away from the CIA and to agencies like the NSA, the NGA, and State.

  • SKPeterson

    Well, cutting back the CIA or the intelligence community involves some goring of my own ox, so I’m not too sure about that. ;)

    However, I believe that what Paul is advocating is curtailing the ability of the CIA to involve itself in the domestic affairs of foreign governments and engaging in covert warfare, not the gathering of intelligence per se. The most glaring or timely example would be the CIA’s involvement in the overthrow of a legitimate, democratically elected government in Iran and engineering the installation of the Shah in power. Now, many Republicans don’t seem to believe in “blowback” but the reason why the Islamists were able to come to power in Iran was a direct result of our interference. I don’t see the CIA coming to an end under a Paul administration, but it would be scaled back, in line with our lessening of our military commitments overseas under a noninterventionist foreign policy. This could also mean a shift of intelligence assets away from the CIA and to agencies like the NSA, the NGA, and State.

  • Fr. Gregory Hogg

    Abby @14: “Statism” doesn’t mean power to the 50 states; it means the centralization of all decision-making in the State (in this case, mainly federal but also state governments).

  • Fr. Gregory Hogg

    Abby @14: “Statism” doesn’t mean power to the 50 states; it means the centralization of all decision-making in the State (in this case, mainly federal but also state governments).

  • Fr. Gregory Hogg

    Tom Hering,

    Forgive my ignorance of html. In my response to you, before the first sentence I had put in brackets [Humor mode on] and after it, [Humor mode off]. I wasn’t trying to engage in ad hominems. Again, forgive me.

  • Fr. Gregory Hogg

    Tom Hering,

    Forgive my ignorance of html. In my response to you, before the first sentence I had put in brackets [Humor mode on] and after it, [Humor mode off]. I wasn’t trying to engage in ad hominems. Again, forgive me.

  • Tom Hering

    No worries, Fr. Hogg @ 20. Others try to turn me into creamed herring, too. It’s depressing. I think I’ll go get pickled.

  • Tom Hering

    No worries, Fr. Hogg @ 20. Others try to turn me into creamed herring, too. It’s depressing. I think I’ll go get pickled.

  • Fr. Gregory Hogg

    Well, you can imagine what they do with my name, Tom. :-)

  • Fr. Gregory Hogg

    Well, you can imagine what they do with my name, Tom. :-)

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

    SK Peterson,

    “Out there”.

    He (Paul) wants hearings to see what role our government played in blowing up our own World Trade Center. Many R. Paul supporters believe we blew up our own buildings, or were complicit in it.

    That’s… out there.

    And Reagan was an awesome President, in my opinion. If we could get one half as good we be alright.

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

    SK Peterson,

    “Out there”.

    He (Paul) wants hearings to see what role our government played in blowing up our own World Trade Center. Many R. Paul supporters believe we blew up our own buildings, or were complicit in it.

    That’s… out there.

    And Reagan was an awesome President, in my opinion. If we could get one half as good we be alright.

  • Cincinnatus

    Steve Martin@23:

    No. Just no. Paul has repeatedly and strenuously disclaimed any notion that the United States government had anything directly to do with 9/11. What Paul does argue is that 9/11 could have been prevented easily if our intelligence community and defense systems operated efficiently–which, incidentally, was the same conclusion of the 9/11 commission. So there is a sense in which the government was “responsible” for 9/11 (much as FDR apparently had advance warning of Pearl Harbor), but that hardly amounts to a conspiratorial complicity like the “truthers” assert. Paul does not condone the views of “truthers.” Get it?

    “And Reagan was an awesome President.” Maybe, but he sure wasn’t very conservative.

  • Cincinnatus

    Steve Martin@23:

    No. Just no. Paul has repeatedly and strenuously disclaimed any notion that the United States government had anything directly to do with 9/11. What Paul does argue is that 9/11 could have been prevented easily if our intelligence community and defense systems operated efficiently–which, incidentally, was the same conclusion of the 9/11 commission. So there is a sense in which the government was “responsible” for 9/11 (much as FDR apparently had advance warning of Pearl Harbor), but that hardly amounts to a conspiratorial complicity like the “truthers” assert. Paul does not condone the views of “truthers.” Get it?

    “And Reagan was an awesome President.” Maybe, but he sure wasn’t very conservative.

  • Abby

    Fr Hogg @19: What is the difference between “centralization” and “power?”

  • Abby

    Fr Hogg @19: What is the difference between “centralization” and “power?”

  • Cincinnatus

    Abby@25: Power can be dispersed–among different levels of government (local, state, and national) or among different branches of government (legislative, executive, judicial) or among different people (king, lords, commons), for example.

  • Cincinnatus

    Abby@25: Power can be dispersed–among different levels of government (local, state, and national) or among different branches of government (legislative, executive, judicial) or among different people (king, lords, commons), for example.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    So I’m hearing that Gerson is slandering Ron Paul. But I’m also hearing people defend each of the positions that Gerson said Paul believes.

    I’m also hearing Paul defended by saying that he won’t be able to implement everything that he wants to do. That’s an odd reason for supporting someone (though in the case of the CIA, that organization falls under the Executive Branch, and the president could easily withhold its funding, not appoint leadership, and do other things to destroy it).

    And if you are really trying to win me over, keep in mind that I don’t find angry personal attacks on his critics very persuasive. (And that’s holds true if this is what Gerson is doing.) I don’t care if Mark Steyn is an inveterate asinine neo-con, and I don’t care what his “mission statement” is. I want to know whether he is right or wrong.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    So I’m hearing that Gerson is slandering Ron Paul. But I’m also hearing people defend each of the positions that Gerson said Paul believes.

    I’m also hearing Paul defended by saying that he won’t be able to implement everything that he wants to do. That’s an odd reason for supporting someone (though in the case of the CIA, that organization falls under the Executive Branch, and the president could easily withhold its funding, not appoint leadership, and do other things to destroy it).

    And if you are really trying to win me over, keep in mind that I don’t find angry personal attacks on his critics very persuasive. (And that’s holds true if this is what Gerson is doing.) I don’t care if Mark Steyn is an inveterate asinine neo-con, and I don’t care what his “mission statement” is. I want to know whether he is right or wrong.

  • kerner

    Cincinnatus @16: you said:

    If there is a country that hates us now–think Africa, Latin America, Middle East, and South and Central Asia–chances are that the CIA has been deeply involved there at some point in the past thirty or forty years. I don’t think this correlation is coincidental.

    I don’t know whether you have taken into account that the CIA’s involvement in those places was largely a reaction to the already existing intervention of the Russian and Chinese Communists, which was the most vicious, determined and well organized international conspiracy against liberty in the 20th century (maybe ever).

    One common feature of this conspiracy was to deny that it existed. During the 1950′s, it was routine for the political left to claim that (for instance) Fidel Castro was not a Communist; he was simply an agrarian reformer who was trying to right the wrongs perpitrated by the Batista regime. Then Castro won, and we had Russian missles pointed at us from Cuba. The so-called “indiginous” revolutionaries from all over Africa, Latin America, and Asia were trained in Moscow and Beijing.

    The published strategies of Saul Alinski:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals

    Were not unique to him. They were the way that socialist statists attacked and eroded liberty all over the world. The United States resisted this, to varying degrees, throughout the Cold War, and we would not have prevailed had we not used resources like the CIA.

    Reagan called the Communists an “evil empire” and he was right. That empire operated on an international level and needed to be opposed on an international level. Had that opposition not been pursued by our government, the USA would have been surrounded from without and weakened from within and we would not have the liberty we enjoy today (such as it is).

    I do not mean that we have to become just like our enemies to defeat them. But I do mean that we cannot pretend that, when we have an aggressive international enemy that uses covert tactics to attack us or our interests, that just ignoring them will make them go away. On some level, we have to fight an international struggle, well, internationally.

    Having said that, I do not believe that there are perfect parallels between international Communism and Radical Islamism. But there are some.

    SK@18 complains of this:

    The most glaring or timely example would be the CIA’s involvement in the overthrow of a legitimate, democratically elected government in Iran and engineering the installation of the Shah in power

    Why is it that everybody seems to love the democratic process when it elects out enemies, but nobody cares about it if it elects our friends? And besides, I thought that “those people” weren’t capable of maintaining a democracy. That’s all I hear whenever the USA decides to support (or God help us) help create one. If we are going to take a complete “hands off” position as to who governs foreign “sovereign” states and how, does it not undercut that principle to appeal for sympathy for the governments who come into being by one particular means? Or if the democratic system really and legitimately evokes sympathy and some sort of support, then why is it wrong for us to support the democracies who support us?

    And how does all this apply to “failed states” where nobody governs evectively and warlords are fighting among themselves? Is it really a bad thing to help such a failed state get organized? Of course, when we inevitably tend to “help” organize those failed states who have some resource we would like to buy, we will be accused of building empires.

    But all this is just not a simple as Ron Paul makes it out to be.

  • kerner

    Cincinnatus @16: you said:

    If there is a country that hates us now–think Africa, Latin America, Middle East, and South and Central Asia–chances are that the CIA has been deeply involved there at some point in the past thirty or forty years. I don’t think this correlation is coincidental.

    I don’t know whether you have taken into account that the CIA’s involvement in those places was largely a reaction to the already existing intervention of the Russian and Chinese Communists, which was the most vicious, determined and well organized international conspiracy against liberty in the 20th century (maybe ever).

    One common feature of this conspiracy was to deny that it existed. During the 1950′s, it was routine for the political left to claim that (for instance) Fidel Castro was not a Communist; he was simply an agrarian reformer who was trying to right the wrongs perpitrated by the Batista regime. Then Castro won, and we had Russian missles pointed at us from Cuba. The so-called “indiginous” revolutionaries from all over Africa, Latin America, and Asia were trained in Moscow and Beijing.

    The published strategies of Saul Alinski:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals

    Were not unique to him. They were the way that socialist statists attacked and eroded liberty all over the world. The United States resisted this, to varying degrees, throughout the Cold War, and we would not have prevailed had we not used resources like the CIA.

    Reagan called the Communists an “evil empire” and he was right. That empire operated on an international level and needed to be opposed on an international level. Had that opposition not been pursued by our government, the USA would have been surrounded from without and weakened from within and we would not have the liberty we enjoy today (such as it is).

    I do not mean that we have to become just like our enemies to defeat them. But I do mean that we cannot pretend that, when we have an aggressive international enemy that uses covert tactics to attack us or our interests, that just ignoring them will make them go away. On some level, we have to fight an international struggle, well, internationally.

    Having said that, I do not believe that there are perfect parallels between international Communism and Radical Islamism. But there are some.

    SK@18 complains of this:

    The most glaring or timely example would be the CIA’s involvement in the overthrow of a legitimate, democratically elected government in Iran and engineering the installation of the Shah in power

    Why is it that everybody seems to love the democratic process when it elects out enemies, but nobody cares about it if it elects our friends? And besides, I thought that “those people” weren’t capable of maintaining a democracy. That’s all I hear whenever the USA decides to support (or God help us) help create one. If we are going to take a complete “hands off” position as to who governs foreign “sovereign” states and how, does it not undercut that principle to appeal for sympathy for the governments who come into being by one particular means? Or if the democratic system really and legitimately evokes sympathy and some sort of support, then why is it wrong for us to support the democracies who support us?

    And how does all this apply to “failed states” where nobody governs evectively and warlords are fighting among themselves? Is it really a bad thing to help such a failed state get organized? Of course, when we inevitably tend to “help” organize those failed states who have some resource we would like to buy, we will be accused of building empires.

    But all this is just not a simple as Ron Paul makes it out to be.

  • Cincinnatus

    @27: Yes, I’m defending most of the positions that Gerson associates with Paul. I happen to agree with them.

    Except for the bit about a “9/11 coverup”: that’s slander, and Paul preaches about no such thing, as clarified above.

    At the moment, it’s interesting, dear host, that you keep demanding that we justify Ron Paul to you. Perhaps you should justify Romney to us! On all accounts, a mere cursory glance at the Virginia ballot tells me that Romney should be the one defending his fitness for office as a conservative. Sure, Paul has his problems, and they’ve been rehashed repeatedly on this blog and elsewhere. And yet, as @15 notes, Romney, on paper, is by far the more unappealing option for an “authentic” conservative.

  • Cincinnatus

    @27: Yes, I’m defending most of the positions that Gerson associates with Paul. I happen to agree with them.

    Except for the bit about a “9/11 coverup”: that’s slander, and Paul preaches about no such thing, as clarified above.

    At the moment, it’s interesting, dear host, that you keep demanding that we justify Ron Paul to you. Perhaps you should justify Romney to us! On all accounts, a mere cursory glance at the Virginia ballot tells me that Romney should be the one defending his fitness for office as a conservative. Sure, Paul has his problems, and they’ve been rehashed repeatedly on this blog and elsewhere. And yet, as @15 notes, Romney, on paper, is by far the more unappealing option for an “authentic” conservative.

  • Cincinnatus

    In other words, an exercise: if we remove the names from the ballot, which candidate should be more immediately appealing to a traditional conservative?

    Candidate A: Supports continued Keynesian intervention in the economy and inflationary monetary/fiscal policies; supports continued intervention in global affairs; willing to attack Iran imminently if “necessary”; ambiguously pro-choice; in favor of greater government involvement in the provision of healthcare; in favor of the national security apparatus constructed since 9/11; in favor of bailouts of giant banks and corporations

    Candidate B: against inflationary policies and quantitative easing, etc.; supports a more modest foreign policy and reduced intervention in foreign affairs; solidly pro-life; against Obama’s healthcare reform; opposed to the dramatic limitations against basic civil rights established since 9/11; opposed to “corporate welfare”; in favor of returning more power to the individual states

    Candidate A may as well be Obama himself, and this is just a general sampling of broad policy positions.

  • Cincinnatus

    In other words, an exercise: if we remove the names from the ballot, which candidate should be more immediately appealing to a traditional conservative?

    Candidate A: Supports continued Keynesian intervention in the economy and inflationary monetary/fiscal policies; supports continued intervention in global affairs; willing to attack Iran imminently if “necessary”; ambiguously pro-choice; in favor of greater government involvement in the provision of healthcare; in favor of the national security apparatus constructed since 9/11; in favor of bailouts of giant banks and corporations

    Candidate B: against inflationary policies and quantitative easing, etc.; supports a more modest foreign policy and reduced intervention in foreign affairs; solidly pro-life; against Obama’s healthcare reform; opposed to the dramatic limitations against basic civil rights established since 9/11; opposed to “corporate welfare”; in favor of returning more power to the individual states

    Candidate A may as well be Obama himself, and this is just a general sampling of broad policy positions.

  • kerner

    Cincinnatus @ 29: you said:

    At the moment, it’s interesting, dear host, that you keep demanding that we justify Ron Paul to you. Perhaps you should justify Romney to us! On all accounts, a mere cursory glance at the Virginia ballot tells me that Romney should be the one defending his fitness for office as a conservative. Sure, Paul has his problems, and they’ve been rehashed repeatedly on this blog and elsewhere. And yet, as @15 notes, Romney, on paper, is by far the more unappealing option for an “authentic” conservative.

    Therein lies the rub for any liberty loving American. I don’t know how we are going to justify voting for any of these people.

  • kerner

    Cincinnatus @ 29: you said:

    At the moment, it’s interesting, dear host, that you keep demanding that we justify Ron Paul to you. Perhaps you should justify Romney to us! On all accounts, a mere cursory glance at the Virginia ballot tells me that Romney should be the one defending his fitness for office as a conservative. Sure, Paul has his problems, and they’ve been rehashed repeatedly on this blog and elsewhere. And yet, as @15 notes, Romney, on paper, is by far the more unappealing option for an “authentic” conservative.

    Therein lies the rub for any liberty loving American. I don’t know how we are going to justify voting for any of these people.

  • Cincinnatus

    kerner@28: What exactly is your point? The Soviet Union imploded over twenty years ago, along with its empire. We’re still living with the consequences of our ill-advised anti-Soviet policies of the time.

    I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have opposed the Soviet Union, but doing so by innumerable proxy wars and meddling in the sovereign affairs of other nations. The fact that the USSR was doing the same is hardly a justification for our intervention. But even if you don’t agree with my admittedly controversial stance on this rather broad question, surely you would concede that our expansive, militaristic Cold War foreign policy is both unsustainable and inappropriate today. It makes no sense to continue acting as if we are still fighting Soviet influence, as it were.

  • Cincinnatus

    kerner@28: What exactly is your point? The Soviet Union imploded over twenty years ago, along with its empire. We’re still living with the consequences of our ill-advised anti-Soviet policies of the time.

    I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have opposed the Soviet Union, but doing so by innumerable proxy wars and meddling in the sovereign affairs of other nations. The fact that the USSR was doing the same is hardly a justification for our intervention. But even if you don’t agree with my admittedly controversial stance on this rather broad question, surely you would concede that our expansive, militaristic Cold War foreign policy is both unsustainable and inappropriate today. It makes no sense to continue acting as if we are still fighting Soviet influence, as it were.

  • Cincinnatus

    but doing so by innumerable proxy wars…was probably not the best way of doing so.*

  • Cincinnatus

    but doing so by innumerable proxy wars…was probably not the best way of doing so.*

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Why should the citizens of Michigan have to come to Washington, cap in hand, to get back some of their own money, for their own roads and bridges!?”

    Because we stupidly amended the Constitution to directly elect senators instead of allowing our republic to be a republic and have state legislatures elect senators.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Why should the citizens of Michigan have to come to Washington, cap in hand, to get back some of their own money, for their own roads and bridges!?”

    Because we stupidly amended the Constitution to directly elect senators instead of allowing our republic to be a republic and have state legislatures elect senators.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Cincinnatus, you say, “At the moment, it’s interesting, dear host, that you keep demanding that we justify Ron Paul to you. Perhaps you should justify Romney to us!”

    What are you talking about? I’ll never justify Ron Paul to anyone. Do you think I am for him, just because I am raising questions about Paul?

    My problem is that I’m not sold on ANY of the presidential candidates.

    Something in me would love to support Ron Paul. Are you denying my statement that I’m open to persuasion? Are you calling me a liar, thinking I’m some kind of secret Romney supporter? That’s not worthy of you.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Cincinnatus, you say, “At the moment, it’s interesting, dear host, that you keep demanding that we justify Ron Paul to you. Perhaps you should justify Romney to us!”

    What are you talking about? I’ll never justify Ron Paul to anyone. Do you think I am for him, just because I am raising questions about Paul?

    My problem is that I’m not sold on ANY of the presidential candidates.

    Something in me would love to support Ron Paul. Are you denying my statement that I’m open to persuasion? Are you calling me a liar, thinking I’m some kind of secret Romney supporter? That’s not worthy of you.

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

    Thank you, Booklover!

    Got this from the Steyn piece:

    “So we’re getting here into what is the problem with Ron Paul, which is the sheer stupid half-witted parochialism of his view of what’s going on out on the planet,” he said. “And that’s why this is — this is a kind of utopian isolationism that fantasists on the right have embraced and at its darkest side, it meets the left coming around the other way in 9/11 truther conspiracy theories.”

    .

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

    Thank you, Booklover!

    Got this from the Steyn piece:

    “So we’re getting here into what is the problem with Ron Paul, which is the sheer stupid half-witted parochialism of his view of what’s going on out on the planet,” he said. “And that’s why this is — this is a kind of utopian isolationism that fantasists on the right have embraced and at its darkest side, it meets the left coming around the other way in 9/11 truther conspiracy theories.”

    .

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    OK, sorry for being all hurt. Let me ask a question about where Paul stands, one that I don’t know the answer to. Does he believe in free trade? (I would assume that libertarians do, since they affirm free market economics as opposed to government controlled Kenseyan economics.) I’ve heard him, though, complain about industries moving overseas. But is there anything wrong with that according to free market principles? Or does he advocate a Pat Buchanan-style protectionism?

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    OK, sorry for being all hurt. Let me ask a question about where Paul stands, one that I don’t know the answer to. Does he believe in free trade? (I would assume that libertarians do, since they affirm free market economics as opposed to government controlled Kenseyan economics.) I’ve heard him, though, complain about industries moving overseas. But is there anything wrong with that according to free market principles? Or does he advocate a Pat Buchanan-style protectionism?

  • Cincinnatus

    Dr. Veith@35: Of course I don’t accuse you of deceit! My point was that Romney seems to be the anointed Republican candidate–he has been proclaimed so by the media, by those who oppose “crazy old Ron,” by establishment Republicans, and by Democrat observers. And yet on this blog (and elsewhere, really) we’re being asked to defend and justify Ron Paul. Romney is never asked to explain, defend, or otherwise clarify himself, even though, as I noted above, he’s basically a clone of Obama, insofar as it’s even possible to discern where he stands on anything. Why is Romney the default against which Paul must distinguish himself? Can’t we reverse the discussion? Assuming you plan to vote in the Virginia primary, why shouldn’t you vote for Paul in favor of Romney?

    As for your inquiry @37, Paul is indeed a strenuous advocate of free trade. Personally, this is a point at which he and I significantly diverge, being as I am increasingly fond of “Buchanan-style protectionism.” I would also argue that Paul’s taste for free trade conflicts somewhat with his distaste for foreign intervention.

  • Cincinnatus

    Dr. Veith@35: Of course I don’t accuse you of deceit! My point was that Romney seems to be the anointed Republican candidate–he has been proclaimed so by the media, by those who oppose “crazy old Ron,” by establishment Republicans, and by Democrat observers. And yet on this blog (and elsewhere, really) we’re being asked to defend and justify Ron Paul. Romney is never asked to explain, defend, or otherwise clarify himself, even though, as I noted above, he’s basically a clone of Obama, insofar as it’s even possible to discern where he stands on anything. Why is Romney the default against which Paul must distinguish himself? Can’t we reverse the discussion? Assuming you plan to vote in the Virginia primary, why shouldn’t you vote for Paul in favor of Romney?

    As for your inquiry @37, Paul is indeed a strenuous advocate of free trade. Personally, this is a point at which he and I significantly diverge, being as I am increasingly fond of “Buchanan-style protectionism.” I would also argue that Paul’s taste for free trade conflicts somewhat with his distaste for foreign intervention.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Conservatives, by temperament and by definition, dislike change. That can indeed be a fault. Ron Paul comes across as a revolutionary. So conservatives may well prefer more of the same to someone radically different. They will often come around to being pro-change when conditions are dire enough, but they need to be reassured that the changes will not be catastrophic.

    This blog has presented the case for and against each of the rising candidates in turn. (You might recall my post about Ron Paul as potentially the great “uniter” of our country.) Many of the posts on various candidates have been in the nature of mental experiments. I assure you that we will have lots of posts about and critical of Romney.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Conservatives, by temperament and by definition, dislike change. That can indeed be a fault. Ron Paul comes across as a revolutionary. So conservatives may well prefer more of the same to someone radically different. They will often come around to being pro-change when conditions are dire enough, but they need to be reassured that the changes will not be catastrophic.

    This blog has presented the case for and against each of the rising candidates in turn. (You might recall my post about Ron Paul as potentially the great “uniter” of our country.) Many of the posts on various candidates have been in the nature of mental experiments. I assure you that we will have lots of posts about and critical of Romney.

  • kerner

    Cincinnatus @32:

    One of my points is that innumerable proxy wars and meddling in the sovereign affairs of other nathions was probably the ONLY way to effectively oppose the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union imploded largely because it could no afford to spend enough on its military to keep up with ours.

    And Soviet Communism was not simply a nationalist movement. Maoism was an equally dangerous threat. We avoided that by convincing them to give up Communism as an economic system, which is fine with me.

    But Communism as a force was not confined to any nation, nor were its agents tied to any particular place. Take. for example, Che Guevara. He was an Argentine, yet he fought guerilla campaigns in Cuba, the Congo, Bolivia, and provided organizational advice all over Latin America and Africa.

    I concede that the stategy of the Cold war is not completely useful in fighting our enemies today. But there are similarities. One similarity is the our present enemies are part of an international movement (like the Communists before them) who regard their cause as greater than any particular nation. Therefore, they take advantage of concepts that Ron Paul holds dear to avoid reprisals from us.

    While I, again, concede that our old “Cold War” strategies are outmoded to a degree, I think you must concede that Ron Paul’s concept of “national sovereignty” is outmoded to an even greater degree. What even constitutes a “sovereign nation” these days, anyway? Why is Iraq a “sovereign nation”, but not Tibet? Or for that matter, why not Kurdistan? And, why do we consider a place like Somalia “sovereign”? Who, exactly, is in charge there? Why should the colonial boundaries of long collapsed European empires have any validity at all?

    Ron Paul keeps talking about “declarations of war” as though such a thing even exists in this century. Tell me, can you name one nation, anyone at all, that has “declared war” on any other nation since 1945?

    Ron Paul says a lot of things, from a libertarian point of view, that make a lot of sense to me. Even some of his references to our founding fathers and to our internal institutions of the past make sense. It would be great to re-adopt some of the good ideas we have abandonned.

    But internationally, for us to pretend that the world, and the forces who threaten us now, are as they were 100 years ago is just delusional. The rest of the world will not become what it was just because we wish it so.

  • kerner

    Cincinnatus @32:

    One of my points is that innumerable proxy wars and meddling in the sovereign affairs of other nathions was probably the ONLY way to effectively oppose the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union imploded largely because it could no afford to spend enough on its military to keep up with ours.

    And Soviet Communism was not simply a nationalist movement. Maoism was an equally dangerous threat. We avoided that by convincing them to give up Communism as an economic system, which is fine with me.

    But Communism as a force was not confined to any nation, nor were its agents tied to any particular place. Take. for example, Che Guevara. He was an Argentine, yet he fought guerilla campaigns in Cuba, the Congo, Bolivia, and provided organizational advice all over Latin America and Africa.

    I concede that the stategy of the Cold war is not completely useful in fighting our enemies today. But there are similarities. One similarity is the our present enemies are part of an international movement (like the Communists before them) who regard their cause as greater than any particular nation. Therefore, they take advantage of concepts that Ron Paul holds dear to avoid reprisals from us.

    While I, again, concede that our old “Cold War” strategies are outmoded to a degree, I think you must concede that Ron Paul’s concept of “national sovereignty” is outmoded to an even greater degree. What even constitutes a “sovereign nation” these days, anyway? Why is Iraq a “sovereign nation”, but not Tibet? Or for that matter, why not Kurdistan? And, why do we consider a place like Somalia “sovereign”? Who, exactly, is in charge there? Why should the colonial boundaries of long collapsed European empires have any validity at all?

    Ron Paul keeps talking about “declarations of war” as though such a thing even exists in this century. Tell me, can you name one nation, anyone at all, that has “declared war” on any other nation since 1945?

    Ron Paul says a lot of things, from a libertarian point of view, that make a lot of sense to me. Even some of his references to our founding fathers and to our internal institutions of the past make sense. It would be great to re-adopt some of the good ideas we have abandonned.

    But internationally, for us to pretend that the world, and the forces who threaten us now, are as they were 100 years ago is just delusional. The rest of the world will not become what it was just because we wish it so.

  • Cincinnatus

    That’s a valid argument against Paul, I think–certainly more valid than anything Steyn and Gerson have to say–though I would prefer the term counter-revolutionary: Paul is opposing the New Deal coalition and its policies, a coalition which one could argue is the truly revolutionary imposition.

    It’s also worth noting that essentially all the prominent views Paul maintains were perfectly typical of mainstream, Old Right republicans up through the 1980s. Nothing he says about defense, interventionism, state’s rights, etc., would have appeared strange, “crazy,” or “revolutionary” only twenty-five years ago. It’s a shame that neoconservatives have so co-opted the Republican Party that it’s members now regard classic Republicanism as heretical and “dangerous.”

    Anyway, Romney is the self-proclaimed frontrunner. And he absolutely should not be. Why aren’t we attacking him first? We can attack Paul when we’re satisfied that Romney has been destroyed.

  • Cincinnatus

    That’s a valid argument against Paul, I think–certainly more valid than anything Steyn and Gerson have to say–though I would prefer the term counter-revolutionary: Paul is opposing the New Deal coalition and its policies, a coalition which one could argue is the truly revolutionary imposition.

    It’s also worth noting that essentially all the prominent views Paul maintains were perfectly typical of mainstream, Old Right republicans up through the 1980s. Nothing he says about defense, interventionism, state’s rights, etc., would have appeared strange, “crazy,” or “revolutionary” only twenty-five years ago. It’s a shame that neoconservatives have so co-opted the Republican Party that it’s members now regard classic Republicanism as heretical and “dangerous.”

    Anyway, Romney is the self-proclaimed frontrunner. And he absolutely should not be. Why aren’t we attacking him first? We can attack Paul when we’re satisfied that Romney has been destroyed.

  • SKPeterson

    Cincinnatus – Free trade is the antidote to foreign intervention; the idea is to trade goods and services with other people, not bullets or bombs.

    Free trade is also behind his ideas on eliminating foreign aid, as tiny as that amount is in our overall budget. The notion is that allowing for free trade with other countries, especially poorer nations, will provide more benefits to those societies than the aid, which is often used to line the pockets of corrupt officials or as a form of corporate welfare kickbacks to well-placed US construction and development consultancy firms.

    Free trade goes hand-in-hand with eliminating corporate favoritism, particularly that embodied in “Too Big to Fail.”

    kerner @ 28 – I’m not sure I follow your objection. Are you saying that legitimately elected democratic foreign governments that don’t toe the US line are candidates for US intervention? That only democracies we approve of should be allowed? So, we should invade France then, or Switzerland? I mean the Swiss never follow our lead, the ungrateful bastards. And what does “support” consist of? Guarantees of military intervention? Access to US markets? Agreements to repatriate criminals?

    And what exactly constitutes a “failed” state? Maybe we need more of them, if North Korea or Cuba or Zimbabwe are viewed as “passing.”

    I have to laugh at Steyn’s derision of noninterventionism. Neo-con’s never use the proper term, they always say “isolationism,” as if the only alternative to global military empire is to shrink back from the world. Steyn seems to think that the only proper way to confront the world is at the point of a gun, preferably shoved well down the other’s throat, after a few quick body blows and breaking the other guys kneecaps for failing to avert his eyes as we pass. Steyn would define that as a foreign policy of prudent restraint and that it couldn’t possibly lead to feelings of resentment. After all, breaking the guys kneecaps were for his own good.

  • SKPeterson

    Cincinnatus – Free trade is the antidote to foreign intervention; the idea is to trade goods and services with other people, not bullets or bombs.

    Free trade is also behind his ideas on eliminating foreign aid, as tiny as that amount is in our overall budget. The notion is that allowing for free trade with other countries, especially poorer nations, will provide more benefits to those societies than the aid, which is often used to line the pockets of corrupt officials or as a form of corporate welfare kickbacks to well-placed US construction and development consultancy firms.

    Free trade goes hand-in-hand with eliminating corporate favoritism, particularly that embodied in “Too Big to Fail.”

    kerner @ 28 – I’m not sure I follow your objection. Are you saying that legitimately elected democratic foreign governments that don’t toe the US line are candidates for US intervention? That only democracies we approve of should be allowed? So, we should invade France then, or Switzerland? I mean the Swiss never follow our lead, the ungrateful bastards. And what does “support” consist of? Guarantees of military intervention? Access to US markets? Agreements to repatriate criminals?

    And what exactly constitutes a “failed” state? Maybe we need more of them, if North Korea or Cuba or Zimbabwe are viewed as “passing.”

    I have to laugh at Steyn’s derision of noninterventionism. Neo-con’s never use the proper term, they always say “isolationism,” as if the only alternative to global military empire is to shrink back from the world. Steyn seems to think that the only proper way to confront the world is at the point of a gun, preferably shoved well down the other’s throat, after a few quick body blows and breaking the other guys kneecaps for failing to avert his eyes as we pass. Steyn would define that as a foreign policy of prudent restraint and that it couldn’t possibly lead to feelings of resentment. After all, breaking the guys kneecaps were for his own good.

  • Abby

    Kerner @40: Amen. Let Paul take over the Fed.

  • Abby

    Kerner @40: Amen. Let Paul take over the Fed.

  • Cincinnatus

    My comment @41, by the way, was directed at Veith@39.

    Kerner@40: I don’t think this is the setting in which to debate the propriety of our Cold War foreign policy. I’ll merely respond thusly: while it may be “delusional” for us to pretend that the world, and the forces who threaten us now, are as they were 100 years ago [I'd be curious to know what, exactly, you think are our valid threats today], I think it’s at least as delusional to pretend that the world, and the forces who threaten as now, as as they were 60 and even 20 years ago. Indeed, yours is a gigantic exercise in missing the point. No statements I’ve seen of Paul’s indicate a nostalgia for the foreign policy of 1911 (since, you know, this was the heyday of entangling global engagements); what I’ve seen is a lot of much-needed critique of our foreign policy of 1951 and 1981 which, whether it was useful at those times or not, is certainly not helping us today. Neoconservatives of Gerson’s ilk seem to be the only ones blind to this fact, as both conservatives and progressives have caught on to the idea that our foreign policy is in dire need of adjustment.

  • Cincinnatus

    My comment @41, by the way, was directed at Veith@39.

    Kerner@40: I don’t think this is the setting in which to debate the propriety of our Cold War foreign policy. I’ll merely respond thusly: while it may be “delusional” for us to pretend that the world, and the forces who threaten us now, are as they were 100 years ago [I'd be curious to know what, exactly, you think are our valid threats today], I think it’s at least as delusional to pretend that the world, and the forces who threaten as now, as as they were 60 and even 20 years ago. Indeed, yours is a gigantic exercise in missing the point. No statements I’ve seen of Paul’s indicate a nostalgia for the foreign policy of 1911 (since, you know, this was the heyday of entangling global engagements); what I’ve seen is a lot of much-needed critique of our foreign policy of 1951 and 1981 which, whether it was useful at those times or not, is certainly not helping us today. Neoconservatives of Gerson’s ilk seem to be the only ones blind to this fact, as both conservatives and progressives have caught on to the idea that our foreign policy is in dire need of adjustment.

  • SKPeterson

    kerner – just read your post @ 40 as I’m on and off and my response above was partially written before your post.

    So, you do make a valid point on Cold War proxy conflict. Like Cincinnatus I think this is something that should be argued over in public debate. I’ve argued in this forum for quite a while that I’d like someone, anyone to define what our national interests are that require foreign military intervention. We just hear about interests, but no rational explanation follows about what they are, and any requests for those interests to be debated or defined is dismissed as coming from naive, isolationists, or even anti-American haters.

  • SKPeterson

    kerner – just read your post @ 40 as I’m on and off and my response above was partially written before your post.

    So, you do make a valid point on Cold War proxy conflict. Like Cincinnatus I think this is something that should be argued over in public debate. I’ve argued in this forum for quite a while that I’d like someone, anyone to define what our national interests are that require foreign military intervention. We just hear about interests, but no rational explanation follows about what they are, and any requests for those interests to be debated or defined is dismissed as coming from naive, isolationists, or even anti-American haters.

  • Cincinnatus

    SKPeterson: Let’s agree to disagree on the matter of free trade for now ;-)

  • Cincinnatus

    SKPeterson: Let’s agree to disagree on the matter of free trade for now ;-)

  • SKPeterson

    Cincinnatus – Cease fire agreed. :)

  • SKPeterson

    Cincinnatus – Cease fire agreed. :)

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Conservatives, by temperament and by definition, dislike change.”

    dunno. I think they just dislike expensive stupid ideas that haven’t stood the test of time. I mean, when you have to pay for someone else’s experiment and the result is that you then have to clean up the even bigger mess. Well, it just doesn’t leave you hungry for more.
    ya know?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Conservatives, by temperament and by definition, dislike change.”

    dunno. I think they just dislike expensive stupid ideas that haven’t stood the test of time. I mean, when you have to pay for someone else’s experiment and the result is that you then have to clean up the even bigger mess. Well, it just doesn’t leave you hungry for more.
    ya know?

  • Grace

    Cincinnatus @41

    “Anyway, Romney is the self-proclaimed frontrunner. And he absolutely should not be. Why aren’t we attacking him first? We can attack Paul when we’re satisfied that Romney has been destroyed.”

    I agree. Ron Paul doesn’t have a chance, it’s all hype, just as it was in the last election. Ron Paul is a detour, which the Democrats would love to see us waste valuable time on, a man the country as a whole, will never accept or elect as president. Prostitution, heroin, WW2, etc., are reason enough to discard Paul as a potential candidate.

    Romney as you suggest, is the one we should be “attacking him first” — Romney’s itinerary is far more important to understand, although just like Obama, we would never KNOW, until the man actually took office, and then the veil would fall, shortly after – too late, just it did with Obama.

    Dr. Veith @ 39

    Many of the posts on various candidates have been in the nature of mental experiments. I assure you that we will have lots of posts about and critical of Romney.”

    “Mental experiments” ? — Ron Paul is divisive. Pseudo intellectuals, find this type of individual interesting, perhaps for the very fact that he’s so controversial as to give then endless material.

    All the wasted falderal over Ron Paul is a joke. Our country stands at a crossroads at this time, we need to use our time wisely. I don’t believe this is an ‘arm chair moment in history.

    Now lets look back fours years ago. Mike Huckabee won – John McCain came in forth, but later won the presidential nomination.

    The Iowa caucuses are ‘OVERRATED.

    Results of the January 2008 caucuses

    January 4, 2008, with 100% of the votes reported, the results were:

    Candidate Votes
    100% of precincts reporting

    Mike Huckabee 40,954
    Mitt Romney 30,021

    Fred Thompson 15,960
    John McCain 15,536
    Ron Paul 11,841
    Rudy Giuliani 4,099
    Duncan Hunter 506
    Alan Keyes 247
    John Cox* 10
    Hugh Cort 5
    Tom Tancredo* 5
    Vern Wuensche 2
    Sam Brownback* 1
    Cap Fendig 1
    Total 119,188

  • Grace

    Cincinnatus @41

    “Anyway, Romney is the self-proclaimed frontrunner. And he absolutely should not be. Why aren’t we attacking him first? We can attack Paul when we’re satisfied that Romney has been destroyed.”

    I agree. Ron Paul doesn’t have a chance, it’s all hype, just as it was in the last election. Ron Paul is a detour, which the Democrats would love to see us waste valuable time on, a man the country as a whole, will never accept or elect as president. Prostitution, heroin, WW2, etc., are reason enough to discard Paul as a potential candidate.

    Romney as you suggest, is the one we should be “attacking him first” — Romney’s itinerary is far more important to understand, although just like Obama, we would never KNOW, until the man actually took office, and then the veil would fall, shortly after – too late, just it did with Obama.

    Dr. Veith @ 39

    Many of the posts on various candidates have been in the nature of mental experiments. I assure you that we will have lots of posts about and critical of Romney.”

    “Mental experiments” ? — Ron Paul is divisive. Pseudo intellectuals, find this type of individual interesting, perhaps for the very fact that he’s so controversial as to give then endless material.

    All the wasted falderal over Ron Paul is a joke. Our country stands at a crossroads at this time, we need to use our time wisely. I don’t believe this is an ‘arm chair moment in history.

    Now lets look back fours years ago. Mike Huckabee won – John McCain came in forth, but later won the presidential nomination.

    The Iowa caucuses are ‘OVERRATED.

    Results of the January 2008 caucuses

    January 4, 2008, with 100% of the votes reported, the results were:

    Candidate Votes
    100% of precincts reporting

    Mike Huckabee 40,954
    Mitt Romney 30,021

    Fred Thompson 15,960
    John McCain 15,536
    Ron Paul 11,841
    Rudy Giuliani 4,099
    Duncan Hunter 506
    Alan Keyes 247
    John Cox* 10
    Hugh Cort 5
    Tom Tancredo* 5
    Vern Wuensche 2
    Sam Brownback* 1
    Cap Fendig 1
    Total 119,188

  • Tom Hering

    “Paul is opposing the New Deal coalition and its policies, a coalition which one could argue is the truly revolutionary imposition.”

    Well, yeah, if you’re still living in the 1930s. But at some point you have to stop revisiting the battles of 75 years ago. And build on reality.

  • Tom Hering

    “Paul is opposing the New Deal coalition and its policies, a coalition which one could argue is the truly revolutionary imposition.”

    Well, yeah, if you’re still living in the 1930s. But at some point you have to stop revisiting the battles of 75 years ago. And build on reality.

  • SKPeterson

    The reality is that policies enacted 75 years ago are bankrupting us and that people who don’t want to “revisit” the past want to pretend everything is peachy keen in Welfare State Land.

  • SKPeterson

    The reality is that policies enacted 75 years ago are bankrupting us and that people who don’t want to “revisit” the past want to pretend everything is peachy keen in Welfare State Land.

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom and SKPeterson@50 and 51: Or, as a professor of mine once noted, “In many ways, we are still trying to dig ourselves out of the mess FDR created with the New Deal in the 1930′s.”

    The New Deal paradigm is hardly ancient history, Tom. It’s the dominant governing philosophy, and most of the problems against which Paul and others rail are rooted in New Deal policies and politics. Conversely, most major policies crafted in the last 70+ years–from the Great Society to the bank bailouts–are merely extensions of New Deal practices.

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom and SKPeterson@50 and 51: Or, as a professor of mine once noted, “In many ways, we are still trying to dig ourselves out of the mess FDR created with the New Deal in the 1930′s.”

    The New Deal paradigm is hardly ancient history, Tom. It’s the dominant governing philosophy, and most of the problems against which Paul and others rail are rooted in New Deal policies and politics. Conversely, most major policies crafted in the last 70+ years–from the Great Society to the bank bailouts–are merely extensions of New Deal practices.

  • SKPeterson

    Grace – What exactly about Paul’s positions on prostitution and heroin haven’t been explained to you in detail, yet you keep insisting that something is true that has been shown over and over again to be erroneous? We understand that you think these things are bad; we agree with you. But. You have yet to say why these are matters for the federal government to address.

    And what exactly do you disagree with Paul about WW2? Do you agree more with Pat Buchanan’s analysis?

    You may be right that Paul doesn’t have a chance. Yet, if Paul doesn’t have a chance, Romney doesn’t either. Nor does Gingrich, nor Santorum, nor Perry, nor Bachmann. Which of these other candidates is not also divisive? Which one is a uniter (other than having us all unite in loathing and disappointment)? What you are saying is that we can expect 4 more years of Obama and the prospect of national bankruptcy: fiscally, economically, politically and socially.

  • SKPeterson

    Grace – What exactly about Paul’s positions on prostitution and heroin haven’t been explained to you in detail, yet you keep insisting that something is true that has been shown over and over again to be erroneous? We understand that you think these things are bad; we agree with you. But. You have yet to say why these are matters for the federal government to address.

    And what exactly do you disagree with Paul about WW2? Do you agree more with Pat Buchanan’s analysis?

    You may be right that Paul doesn’t have a chance. Yet, if Paul doesn’t have a chance, Romney doesn’t either. Nor does Gingrich, nor Santorum, nor Perry, nor Bachmann. Which of these other candidates is not also divisive? Which one is a uniter (other than having us all unite in loathing and disappointment)? What you are saying is that we can expect 4 more years of Obama and the prospect of national bankruptcy: fiscally, economically, politically and socially.

  • Pingback: Seriously, Iowa? Ron Paul? – The Washington Post « Ye Olde Soapbox

  • Pingback: Seriously, Iowa? Ron Paul? – The Washington Post « Ye Olde Soapbox

  • Abby

    The Iowa caucus: Candidates spend years in Iowa to try to win first place. It is a testing ground. However, at election time: of the 2,000,000 registered Republicans only 100,000 actually show up to vote (minus 1000 if the weather is bad). So how is this system worth all that time and money — when 2,000,000 Republicans are letting 100,000 pick the winner?

  • Abby

    The Iowa caucus: Candidates spend years in Iowa to try to win first place. It is a testing ground. However, at election time: of the 2,000,000 registered Republicans only 100,000 actually show up to vote (minus 1000 if the weather is bad). So how is this system worth all that time and money — when 2,000,000 Republicans are letting 100,000 pick the winner?

  • Cincinnatus

    Abby@54:

    Is that better or worse than the time before primary elections when maybe a few dozen Republicans (or Democrats) were responsible for their party’s candidate?

    I prefer the old system, actually, but the new system is far more “democratic” than the old one, even in terms of sheer numbers of folks involved, regardless of low turnout.

  • Cincinnatus

    Abby@54:

    Is that better or worse than the time before primary elections when maybe a few dozen Republicans (or Democrats) were responsible for their party’s candidate?

    I prefer the old system, actually, but the new system is far more “democratic” than the old one, even in terms of sheer numbers of folks involved, regardless of low turnout.

  • Grace

    SKPeterson @ 53

    YOU WROTE: “What exactly about Paul’s positions on prostitution and heroin haven’t been explained to you in detail, yet you keep insisting that something is true that has been shown over and over again to be erroneous?”

    Your so called ‘explanation is not valid in my view. Both of the above are ‘windows into Ron Paul’s attitude towards drugs and prostitution. Again,….. they are both WINDOWS into this mans inability to govern.

    We have horrendous drug problems in this country, making it easier for anyone, through legalizing them, is unconscionable. As for prostitution, all one needs to look at is Las Vegas, it’s nothing but a flashy dump.

    Ron Paul on Drugs
    We don’t need laws to tell us to not use heroin

    Q: You say that the federal government should stay out of people’s personal habits, including marijuana, cocaine, even heroin.
    A: It’s an issue of protecting liberty across the board. If you have the inconsistency, then you’re really not defending liberty. We want freedom [including] when it comes to our personal habits.

    Q: Are you suggesting that heroin and prostitution are an exercise of liberty?

    A: Yes, in essence, if we leave it to the states. For over 100 years, they WERE legal. You’re implying if we legalize heroin tomorrow, everyone’s gonna use heroin.

    How many people here are going to use heroin if it were legal? I bet nobody! “Oh yeah, I need the government to take care of me. I don’t want to use heroin, so I need these laws!”

    A: I never thought heroin would get applause!

    Source: 2011 GOP primary debate in South Carolina , May 5, 2011

  • Grace

    SKPeterson @ 53

    YOU WROTE: “What exactly about Paul’s positions on prostitution and heroin haven’t been explained to you in detail, yet you keep insisting that something is true that has been shown over and over again to be erroneous?”

    Your so called ‘explanation is not valid in my view. Both of the above are ‘windows into Ron Paul’s attitude towards drugs and prostitution. Again,….. they are both WINDOWS into this mans inability to govern.

    We have horrendous drug problems in this country, making it easier for anyone, through legalizing them, is unconscionable. As for prostitution, all one needs to look at is Las Vegas, it’s nothing but a flashy dump.

    Ron Paul on Drugs
    We don’t need laws to tell us to not use heroin

    Q: You say that the federal government should stay out of people’s personal habits, including marijuana, cocaine, even heroin.
    A: It’s an issue of protecting liberty across the board. If you have the inconsistency, then you’re really not defending liberty. We want freedom [including] when it comes to our personal habits.

    Q: Are you suggesting that heroin and prostitution are an exercise of liberty?

    A: Yes, in essence, if we leave it to the states. For over 100 years, they WERE legal. You’re implying if we legalize heroin tomorrow, everyone’s gonna use heroin.

    How many people here are going to use heroin if it were legal? I bet nobody! “Oh yeah, I need the government to take care of me. I don’t want to use heroin, so I need these laws!”

    A: I never thought heroin would get applause!

    Source: 2011 GOP primary debate in South Carolina , May 5, 2011

  • Sam

    From the Heritage Foundation:

    “Entitlements are the greatest domestic challenge the nation faces. The middle class retirement programs, Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, will cause federal spending to jump by half, from the historical average of twenty percent of the economy to thirty percent by 2033. This tsunami of spending is a major threat to limited government because it runs on auto-pilot with automatic increases locked in by each program’s governing laws.”

    In other words, Entitlements are by far the biggest driver out our debt.

    Mark Steyn writes:

    “The entitlement state is the single biggest deformation to the Founders’ republic, and it downgrades not only America’s finances but its citizenry. Yet Paul has no serious proposal for dealing with it, and indeed promises voters that we won’t have to as long as we cut “overseas spending”.

    This is hooey. As I point out in my book, well before the end of this decade interest payments on the debt will consume more of the federal budget than military spending. So you could abolish the Pentagon, sell off the fleet to Beijing and the nukes to Tehran and Khartoum and anybody else who wants ‘em, and we’d still be heading off the cliff. If a candidate isn’t talking about entitlement transformation, he’s unserious.

    And, before the Ronulans start jeering “Neocon!”, I part company with many friends on the right who argue that defense spending can’t be cut. I wrote a cover story for NR a couple of months back arguing that the military’s bloated size (and budget) is increasingly an impediment to its effectiveness: When you’re responsible for 43 per cent of global military expenditure, it’s hardly surprising that you start acting like the world’s most lavishly funded transnational-outreach non-profit rather than the sharp end of America’s national interest. In Afghanistan, the problem is not that we haven’t spent enough money but that so much of it has been utterly wasted – and mostly in predictable ways. I am in favor of a leaner, meaner military, with the emphasis on both adjectives.

    But Ron Paul, with his breezy indifference to the entitlement question, is peddling the same illusion Obama sold a gullible electorate in 2008 – that, if only America retreats from “Bush’s wars”, life can go on, and we’ll be fat and happy with literally not a care in the world. Big Government parochialism is an appealing fantasy because it suggests America’s fortunes can be restored without pain. But they can’t – and when Ron Paul tells you otherwise he’s talking hogwash.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/287066/ignorance-bliss-mark-steyn

    That is the primary reason I don’t support Ron Paul.

  • Sam

    From the Heritage Foundation:

    “Entitlements are the greatest domestic challenge the nation faces. The middle class retirement programs, Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, will cause federal spending to jump by half, from the historical average of twenty percent of the economy to thirty percent by 2033. This tsunami of spending is a major threat to limited government because it runs on auto-pilot with automatic increases locked in by each program’s governing laws.”

    In other words, Entitlements are by far the biggest driver out our debt.

    Mark Steyn writes:

    “The entitlement state is the single biggest deformation to the Founders’ republic, and it downgrades not only America’s finances but its citizenry. Yet Paul has no serious proposal for dealing with it, and indeed promises voters that we won’t have to as long as we cut “overseas spending”.

    This is hooey. As I point out in my book, well before the end of this decade interest payments on the debt will consume more of the federal budget than military spending. So you could abolish the Pentagon, sell off the fleet to Beijing and the nukes to Tehran and Khartoum and anybody else who wants ‘em, and we’d still be heading off the cliff. If a candidate isn’t talking about entitlement transformation, he’s unserious.

    And, before the Ronulans start jeering “Neocon!”, I part company with many friends on the right who argue that defense spending can’t be cut. I wrote a cover story for NR a couple of months back arguing that the military’s bloated size (and budget) is increasingly an impediment to its effectiveness: When you’re responsible for 43 per cent of global military expenditure, it’s hardly surprising that you start acting like the world’s most lavishly funded transnational-outreach non-profit rather than the sharp end of America’s national interest. In Afghanistan, the problem is not that we haven’t spent enough money but that so much of it has been utterly wasted – and mostly in predictable ways. I am in favor of a leaner, meaner military, with the emphasis on both adjectives.

    But Ron Paul, with his breezy indifference to the entitlement question, is peddling the same illusion Obama sold a gullible electorate in 2008 – that, if only America retreats from “Bush’s wars”, life can go on, and we’ll be fat and happy with literally not a care in the world. Big Government parochialism is an appealing fantasy because it suggests America’s fortunes can be restored without pain. But they can’t – and when Ron Paul tells you otherwise he’s talking hogwash.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/287066/ignorance-bliss-mark-steyn

    That is the primary reason I don’t support Ron Paul.

  • Abby

    Cinncinatus @55: I don’t know which is better. The risk in the old system would be cronyism. But on the other side of that would be more intimate knowledge of the person. The platform itself could weed candidates out.

    The non-participating voters should be ashamed. In countries which have just gotten to vote, they are anxious to exercise that right and privilege–even under adverse circumstances. And yet people complain about the government all the time–who don’t go to vote.

  • Abby

    Cinncinatus @55: I don’t know which is better. The risk in the old system would be cronyism. But on the other side of that would be more intimate knowledge of the person. The platform itself could weed candidates out.

    The non-participating voters should be ashamed. In countries which have just gotten to vote, they are anxious to exercise that right and privilege–even under adverse circumstances. And yet people complain about the government all the time–who don’t go to vote.

  • Cincinnatus

    Sam@57:

    That right there borders on libel. I usually like Mark Steyn in the sense that his diagnoses of Western decline are entertaining, and sometimes even accurate.

    But this is just wrong. Steyn claims that “Paul has no serious proposal for dealing with [entitlement spending], and indeed promises voters that we won’t have to as long as we cut “overseas spending.” Did Steyn even look at Paul’s campaign website–you know, the one where Paul sketches his platform? And did he look at the section entitled “Entitlements”? The part where Ron Paul states, among other things, the following?

    “[re.: Social Security] Honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out. Block grants Medicaid and other welfare programs to allow States the flexibility and ingenuity they need to solve their own unique problems without harming those currently relying on the programs.”

    This plan, impressionistic as it is, is 100% more descriptive than anything on Mitt Romney’s website, which includes no plans whatsoever to address Social Security, Medicare, or any other entitlement–there isn’t even a word spoken about government spending or the national debt, unless I’m missing something. Paul’s plan, by the way, is hardly radical: he’s not proposing to abolish either program immediately (as he’s been accused by some of proposing); this is a standard, Paul-Ryan-esque proposal to render the programs sustainable for those who have paid into them while gradually phasing them out for the future.

    I frankly expect better of Steyn and you, Sam. Not Romney, though. He’s a gasbag. Read some stuff, Sam. You don’t have to agree with Paul, but at least get him right. You make yourself look silly when you spread what are apparently outright lies about Paul from third-hand sources.

  • Cincinnatus

    Sam@57:

    That right there borders on libel. I usually like Mark Steyn in the sense that his diagnoses of Western decline are entertaining, and sometimes even accurate.

    But this is just wrong. Steyn claims that “Paul has no serious proposal for dealing with [entitlement spending], and indeed promises voters that we won’t have to as long as we cut “overseas spending.” Did Steyn even look at Paul’s campaign website–you know, the one where Paul sketches his platform? And did he look at the section entitled “Entitlements”? The part where Ron Paul states, among other things, the following?

    “[re.: Social Security] Honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out. Block grants Medicaid and other welfare programs to allow States the flexibility and ingenuity they need to solve their own unique problems without harming those currently relying on the programs.”

    This plan, impressionistic as it is, is 100% more descriptive than anything on Mitt Romney’s website, which includes no plans whatsoever to address Social Security, Medicare, or any other entitlement–there isn’t even a word spoken about government spending or the national debt, unless I’m missing something. Paul’s plan, by the way, is hardly radical: he’s not proposing to abolish either program immediately (as he’s been accused by some of proposing); this is a standard, Paul-Ryan-esque proposal to render the programs sustainable for those who have paid into them while gradually phasing them out for the future.

    I frankly expect better of Steyn and you, Sam. Not Romney, though. He’s a gasbag. Read some stuff, Sam. You don’t have to agree with Paul, but at least get him right. You make yourself look silly when you spread what are apparently outright lies about Paul from third-hand sources.

  • Cincinnatus

    Oh wait, Mitt Romney promises the following (took me several minutes to find this):

    “Reform entitlement programs to keep them solvent and put America on a path to prosperity.”

    He spends several paragraphs rephrasing this sentence but provides not one shred of evidence that he has any specific policies in mind for “reforming entitlement programs” (God knows which ones) and “keeping them solvent.”

  • Cincinnatus

    Oh wait, Mitt Romney promises the following (took me several minutes to find this):

    “Reform entitlement programs to keep them solvent and put America on a path to prosperity.”

    He spends several paragraphs rephrasing this sentence but provides not one shred of evidence that he has any specific policies in mind for “reforming entitlement programs” (God knows which ones) and “keeping them solvent.”

  • SKPeterson

    Grace – you missed this in your quote, which you have done consistently:

    if we leave it to the states.

    You disqualify Paul because he wants to turn matters over to the states and remove them from the least competent element to handle these issues, the federal government.

    I have to love Steyn’s “I’m not a neo-con” defense: make absurd claims about Paul’s foreign policy “sell the fleet to China”? Really? Maybe it’ll just get repossessed, instead. The guy makes some outlandish, cartoonish statements denigrating Paul and then has the affrontery to say, “Oh, you can’t criticize me. I think defense spending can be cut.” Maybe by all those savings from selling the fleet to China? This sort of craptastic commentary is precisely one of the things that is driving me more into the Paul campaign. The casual smears and dismissive put downs are coming so fast and furious that they’ve gotten outrageously sloppy and, Cincinnatus observes, borderline slanderous, But before you Steyniacs accuse me of being against free speech, I disagree with many of my friends and think even slander should be legal (though I guess it wouldn’t be slander then).

  • SKPeterson

    Grace – you missed this in your quote, which you have done consistently:

    if we leave it to the states.

    You disqualify Paul because he wants to turn matters over to the states and remove them from the least competent element to handle these issues, the federal government.

    I have to love Steyn’s “I’m not a neo-con” defense: make absurd claims about Paul’s foreign policy “sell the fleet to China”? Really? Maybe it’ll just get repossessed, instead. The guy makes some outlandish, cartoonish statements denigrating Paul and then has the affrontery to say, “Oh, you can’t criticize me. I think defense spending can be cut.” Maybe by all those savings from selling the fleet to China? This sort of craptastic commentary is precisely one of the things that is driving me more into the Paul campaign. The casual smears and dismissive put downs are coming so fast and furious that they’ve gotten outrageously sloppy and, Cincinnatus observes, borderline slanderous, But before you Steyniacs accuse me of being against free speech, I disagree with many of my friends and think even slander should be legal (though I guess it wouldn’t be slander then).

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    Considering the positions of some of the other candidates, and also considering that I suspect that some of Mr. Gerson’s criticism needs to be taken with a grain of salt, I can hardly see why voting for Ron Paul could be any worse than a less-than-conservative Republican, or even letting Jimmy Carter Jr. (Obama) back into office.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    Considering the positions of some of the other candidates, and also considering that I suspect that some of Mr. Gerson’s criticism needs to be taken with a grain of salt, I can hardly see why voting for Ron Paul could be any worse than a less-than-conservative Republican, or even letting Jimmy Carter Jr. (Obama) back into office.

  • kerner

    SK and Cincinnatus @51 and 52:

    Now you guys are talking. I’m the first to admit that FDR and the New Deal have largely led us to the mess where we are today.

    But if you think that 81 year old mistakes like economic protectionism decrease the chances of military adventures abroad, you might want to consider this:

    http://www.economist.com/node/12798595?story_id=12798595

    (I know, unlike Michele Bachmann, that Smoot-Hawley was enacted before the New Deal, but it was a problem that remained in place throughout the New Deal years and contibuted to the depth of the Depression, even if it didn’t cause it.)

    I don’t think I’ve “missed the point” in any gigantic way. I think the point is that Ron Paul is no different that any of the other Republican candidates in this respect. There are a lot of good reasons to not vote for him. I can’t for a moment deny that there are plenty of excellent reasons to not vote for Romney. Maybe derailing Romney is one good reason for voting for Paul in a primary. But then what?

    Paul himself ain’t the answer. He says some things that sound good in theory. And I agree that many old line Conservative Republicans would have agreed with a lot of his general principles even on foreign policy (George W. Bush would have agreed with him in 2000).

    And maybe our foreign/military policy does need some serious reform. But it’s not that simple. So much of the world we see today is the product of mistakes that we, and other nations, made decades ago. If WWI had not been fought, or ended differently, maybe WWII would not have been necessary. Maybe if the US had not supported Zionism in 1948 and before we wouldn’t be facing an antagonistic movement among Muslims, as we are now. But one point I have not missed is that it will be much easier for the US to reform it’s internal institutions (as excruciatingly difficult as that is) than it would be to try to undo the last 100 years of geopolitical “entanglements” in which we are involved, because changing our own policies will not get people who hate us now to start loving us. There is sort of a momentum to all this. We can’t, today, simply quote Washington about avoiding foreign entanglements. We are already entangled. How do we disentangle ourselves now?

    And SK, I concede that “American interests” is a much used but too rarely defined term. But I think that is because Americans are sharply divided on what our interests are. One interest we have is to not have our office buildings full of people destroyed by terrorists. And 9/11 didn’t happen in response to Bush-ian neo-conservativism. They attacked us because of things we did or ways they perceived us long before Bush was elected. So, what, in 2001, could have been done to prevent that attack? I’m generally interested to know.

  • kerner

    SK and Cincinnatus @51 and 52:

    Now you guys are talking. I’m the first to admit that FDR and the New Deal have largely led us to the mess where we are today.

    But if you think that 81 year old mistakes like economic protectionism decrease the chances of military adventures abroad, you might want to consider this:

    http://www.economist.com/node/12798595?story_id=12798595

    (I know, unlike Michele Bachmann, that Smoot-Hawley was enacted before the New Deal, but it was a problem that remained in place throughout the New Deal years and contibuted to the depth of the Depression, even if it didn’t cause it.)

    I don’t think I’ve “missed the point” in any gigantic way. I think the point is that Ron Paul is no different that any of the other Republican candidates in this respect. There are a lot of good reasons to not vote for him. I can’t for a moment deny that there are plenty of excellent reasons to not vote for Romney. Maybe derailing Romney is one good reason for voting for Paul in a primary. But then what?

    Paul himself ain’t the answer. He says some things that sound good in theory. And I agree that many old line Conservative Republicans would have agreed with a lot of his general principles even on foreign policy (George W. Bush would have agreed with him in 2000).

    And maybe our foreign/military policy does need some serious reform. But it’s not that simple. So much of the world we see today is the product of mistakes that we, and other nations, made decades ago. If WWI had not been fought, or ended differently, maybe WWII would not have been necessary. Maybe if the US had not supported Zionism in 1948 and before we wouldn’t be facing an antagonistic movement among Muslims, as we are now. But one point I have not missed is that it will be much easier for the US to reform it’s internal institutions (as excruciatingly difficult as that is) than it would be to try to undo the last 100 years of geopolitical “entanglements” in which we are involved, because changing our own policies will not get people who hate us now to start loving us. There is sort of a momentum to all this. We can’t, today, simply quote Washington about avoiding foreign entanglements. We are already entangled. How do we disentangle ourselves now?

    And SK, I concede that “American interests” is a much used but too rarely defined term. But I think that is because Americans are sharply divided on what our interests are. One interest we have is to not have our office buildings full of people destroyed by terrorists. And 9/11 didn’t happen in response to Bush-ian neo-conservativism. They attacked us because of things we did or ways they perceived us long before Bush was elected. So, what, in 2001, could have been done to prevent that attack? I’m generally interested to know.

  • kerner

    oops. I mean Im genuinely interested to know.

  • kerner

    oops. I mean Im genuinely interested to know.

  • Grace

    61 SKPeterson @ 61

    YOU POSTED: “Grace – you missed this in your quote, which you have done consistently:

    “if we leave it to the states.:

    No I did not – check out post #56, it’s right there!

    RE: “if we leave it to the states.:

  • Grace

    61 SKPeterson @ 61

    YOU POSTED: “Grace – you missed this in your quote, which you have done consistently:

    “if we leave it to the states.:

    No I did not – check out post #56, it’s right there!

    RE: “if we leave it to the states.:

  • Grace

    SKPeterson @ 61

    “you missed this in your quote, which you have done consistently:

    This little tune you ‘try to sing to, when you don’t agree with what I post, is childish.

  • Grace

    SKPeterson @ 61

    “you missed this in your quote, which you have done consistently:

    This little tune you ‘try to sing to, when you don’t agree with what I post, is childish.

  • SKPeterson

    Yes, Grace. You win. I can only point out that you emphasize one aspect and ignore an extremely important part of the very quote you are citing as evidence. Apparently leaving things up to the individual states is un-American and has no historical precedent whatsoever. I bow before your dissimulous mastery of the facts.

  • SKPeterson

    Yes, Grace. You win. I can only point out that you emphasize one aspect and ignore an extremely important part of the very quote you are citing as evidence. Apparently leaving things up to the individual states is un-American and has no historical precedent whatsoever. I bow before your dissimulous mastery of the facts.

  • SKPeterson

    kerner – I agree with almost all of your post @ 63.

    As to 9/11, I’m not sure how we would have prevented it, or the attempt, based upon previous history. The best way to have avoided it was to have avoided it by making different choices 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago.

    In many respects I think this might have been prevented if the airlines themselves had more control over their security, not less. Airlines could have competed on security and safety amongst other aspects of service to attract customers. Perhaps an inadequate fix, but so was what we had in place.

  • SKPeterson

    kerner – I agree with almost all of your post @ 63.

    As to 9/11, I’m not sure how we would have prevented it, or the attempt, based upon previous history. The best way to have avoided it was to have avoided it by making different choices 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago.

    In many respects I think this might have been prevented if the airlines themselves had more control over their security, not less. Airlines could have competed on security and safety amongst other aspects of service to attract customers. Perhaps an inadequate fix, but so was what we had in place.

  • Grace

    SKPeterson @67

    “Yes, Grace. You win.

    It’s not a matter of “win” – It was there all the time for you to read, I had nothing to lose.

    “I can only point out that you emphasize one aspect and ignore an extremely important part of the very quote you are citing as evidence. Apparently leaving things up to the individual states is un-American and has no historical precedent whatsoever. I bow before your dissimulous mastery of the facts.

    There is is no “apparently” about it, I didn’t state it was “un-American” YOU DID, and then tried to voice it through my post.

    dissimulate – definition

    To disguise (one’s intentions, for example) under a feigned appearance.
    To conceal one’s true feelings or intentions.

    SKPeterson, twisting what I say, not being able to read what is posted, and now giving a go at trying to ‘convince me and others that I’m trying to ‘disguise the facts. :lol: the facts are there regarding Ron Paul.

  • Grace

    SKPeterson @67

    “Yes, Grace. You win.

    It’s not a matter of “win” – It was there all the time for you to read, I had nothing to lose.

    “I can only point out that you emphasize one aspect and ignore an extremely important part of the very quote you are citing as evidence. Apparently leaving things up to the individual states is un-American and has no historical precedent whatsoever. I bow before your dissimulous mastery of the facts.

    There is is no “apparently” about it, I didn’t state it was “un-American” YOU DID, and then tried to voice it through my post.

    dissimulate – definition

    To disguise (one’s intentions, for example) under a feigned appearance.
    To conceal one’s true feelings or intentions.

    SKPeterson, twisting what I say, not being able to read what is posted, and now giving a go at trying to ‘convince me and others that I’m trying to ‘disguise the facts. :lol: the facts are there regarding Ron Paul.

  • JunkerGeorg

    @Abby, #14,
    “Whoever wins can appoint Paul to fix the economy. Leave him out of the rest of the decisions regarding the UNITED States.”
    And #43,
    “Kerner @40: Amen. Let Paul take over the Fed.”
    —–
    I’m astonished by your utter naivete. To think that Romney or any other GOP candidate would ever appoint Ron Paul to any position having to do with the economy is simply laughable. Goldman Sachs, Romney’s biggest benefactor (owner), would never have it. Turn off Fox News. Please.

  • JunkerGeorg

    @Abby, #14,
    “Whoever wins can appoint Paul to fix the economy. Leave him out of the rest of the decisions regarding the UNITED States.”
    And #43,
    “Kerner @40: Amen. Let Paul take over the Fed.”
    —–
    I’m astonished by your utter naivete. To think that Romney or any other GOP candidate would ever appoint Ron Paul to any position having to do with the economy is simply laughable. Goldman Sachs, Romney’s biggest benefactor (owner), would never have it. Turn off Fox News. Please.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Sigh. I’ve been watching this discussion (should that be “discussion”) take place and … sigh. I don’t claim that this is the best line of thinking, but nothing makes me support Paul more than to see him so unfairly and/or ridiculously attacked.

    If Paul’s political opponents — and their supporters in the media and on the Internet — could merely take down his policy proposals in a clear, logical fashion (and I’m sure there are more than a few of his ideas that deserve such treatment), I’d listen. Heck, I’d listen and likely agree.

    But no. We just get screeds like Gerson’s.

    It’s like he looked at his calendar (“Holy cow, the Iowa caucus!”), checked some polls (“What the …? Paul’s within reach?!”) and decided to take action (“What I need is a quick hit-piece that appears to overwhelm with facts”).

    I’ll be honest. It smells like fear to me. Why do a hatchet job like Gerson’s if the man is truly a nut-case? And when I see people behaving as irrationally as does Gerson (et al.), my gut instinct is not to pay attention to their misdirection, but to look for the sleight-of-hand they’re inevitably trying to pull off.

    I’ll so some minor fisking of Gerson’s columnn, but I could do much, much more.

    No other recent candidate hailing from the party of Lincoln has accused Abraham Lincoln of causing a “senseless” war and ruling with an “iron fist.” Or regarded Ronald Reagan’s presidency a “dramatic failure.”

    You see what the real complaint is? Not about the ideas behind these claims; rather, Gerson suggests that it is beyond the pale to even think such thoughts! Why does Paul consider “Reagan’s presidency a ‘dramatic failure’”? Who cares — you have to venerate St. Ronald!!!

    I mean, I get it’s a column, but if you’re going to give space to airing these complaints, why not actually give space to looking into the reasons such things were said? Wait, no time! Must! Continue! Hacheting!

    Or proposed the legalization of prostitution and heroin use.

    As others have already discussed, this appears to be a flagrant attempt at lying. Either that, or Gerson completely fails to understand the federalism which is spelled out in our Constitution. Which is the best construction? Either way, the intended impact is clear: Hide your kids, hide your wife, Ron Paul wants McDonald’s to sell hookers and opiates!

    Or described the killing of Osama bin Laden as “absolutely not necessary.”

    I guess you’re not allowed to think that, either? Because it self-obviously was necessary? Even though a search of Google News in the days before Bin Laden was killed don’t exactly reveal a lot of angst about the man or his whereabouts?

    Blah blah blah. I get it. I’m supposed to be scared by Paul, not actually look into the claims his decriers toss out (with frequent, wild abandon, and not a small amount of glee?).

    Whatever. All this tells me is what I already know — Paul is a truly different candidate, not Yet Another Candidate who will propagate the system that we find ourselves in today. If you like the current system, vote for one of the other guys (Obama, Romney, whoever). If you want to at least change the system (maybe for the worse, maybe for the better; but to figure out which, you’d actually have to consider Paul’s positions) in a significant fashion, vote for Paul.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Sigh. I’ve been watching this discussion (should that be “discussion”) take place and … sigh. I don’t claim that this is the best line of thinking, but nothing makes me support Paul more than to see him so unfairly and/or ridiculously attacked.

    If Paul’s political opponents — and their supporters in the media and on the Internet — could merely take down his policy proposals in a clear, logical fashion (and I’m sure there are more than a few of his ideas that deserve such treatment), I’d listen. Heck, I’d listen and likely agree.

    But no. We just get screeds like Gerson’s.

    It’s like he looked at his calendar (“Holy cow, the Iowa caucus!”), checked some polls (“What the …? Paul’s within reach?!”) and decided to take action (“What I need is a quick hit-piece that appears to overwhelm with facts”).

    I’ll be honest. It smells like fear to me. Why do a hatchet job like Gerson’s if the man is truly a nut-case? And when I see people behaving as irrationally as does Gerson (et al.), my gut instinct is not to pay attention to their misdirection, but to look for the sleight-of-hand they’re inevitably trying to pull off.

    I’ll so some minor fisking of Gerson’s columnn, but I could do much, much more.

    No other recent candidate hailing from the party of Lincoln has accused Abraham Lincoln of causing a “senseless” war and ruling with an “iron fist.” Or regarded Ronald Reagan’s presidency a “dramatic failure.”

    You see what the real complaint is? Not about the ideas behind these claims; rather, Gerson suggests that it is beyond the pale to even think such thoughts! Why does Paul consider “Reagan’s presidency a ‘dramatic failure’”? Who cares — you have to venerate St. Ronald!!!

    I mean, I get it’s a column, but if you’re going to give space to airing these complaints, why not actually give space to looking into the reasons such things were said? Wait, no time! Must! Continue! Hacheting!

    Or proposed the legalization of prostitution and heroin use.

    As others have already discussed, this appears to be a flagrant attempt at lying. Either that, or Gerson completely fails to understand the federalism which is spelled out in our Constitution. Which is the best construction? Either way, the intended impact is clear: Hide your kids, hide your wife, Ron Paul wants McDonald’s to sell hookers and opiates!

    Or described the killing of Osama bin Laden as “absolutely not necessary.”

    I guess you’re not allowed to think that, either? Because it self-obviously was necessary? Even though a search of Google News in the days before Bin Laden was killed don’t exactly reveal a lot of angst about the man or his whereabouts?

    Blah blah blah. I get it. I’m supposed to be scared by Paul, not actually look into the claims his decriers toss out (with frequent, wild abandon, and not a small amount of glee?).

    Whatever. All this tells me is what I already know — Paul is a truly different candidate, not Yet Another Candidate who will propagate the system that we find ourselves in today. If you like the current system, vote for one of the other guys (Obama, Romney, whoever). If you want to at least change the system (maybe for the worse, maybe for the better; but to figure out which, you’d actually have to consider Paul’s positions) in a significant fashion, vote for Paul.

  • SKPeterson

    Grace – No, you’re just plain ignoring evidence when it’s right in front of you and saying otherwise. That is either dissimulation or wanton disregard for facts, even “twisting” as it were. You are deliberately mischaracterizing Paul’s statements and you know it. Stop it and please make a serious attempt at a serious answer.

    In none of your posts do you make any acknowledgment of Paul’s contention that drug use and prostitution should be handled at the local level. You construe his opposition to federal legislation as equivalent to endorsement of these practices. So, I will ask again the question you so studiously avoid in answering with your deliberate non-answer answers – What limits will you put on the federal government and what actions should be properly addressed by the states?

    If you do not want to be called dissimulous, quit avoiding, redirecting, shifting and dissimulating quit doing it and answer the question: what is the justification for federal drug laws and what is your basis for holding that prostitution is a matter of federal law?

  • SKPeterson

    Grace – No, you’re just plain ignoring evidence when it’s right in front of you and saying otherwise. That is either dissimulation or wanton disregard for facts, even “twisting” as it were. You are deliberately mischaracterizing Paul’s statements and you know it. Stop it and please make a serious attempt at a serious answer.

    In none of your posts do you make any acknowledgment of Paul’s contention that drug use and prostitution should be handled at the local level. You construe his opposition to federal legislation as equivalent to endorsement of these practices. So, I will ask again the question you so studiously avoid in answering with your deliberate non-answer answers – What limits will you put on the federal government and what actions should be properly addressed by the states?

    If you do not want to be called dissimulous, quit avoiding, redirecting, shifting and dissimulating quit doing it and answer the question: what is the justification for federal drug laws and what is your basis for holding that prostitution is a matter of federal law?

  • Abby

    JunkerGeorg @70: Actually I don’t watch/listen to much news. I listen to a lot of online sermons by several different preachers. Maybe there is some subliminal messaging going on :)! But I doubt it. I read a little newspaper — Wall Street Journal as one. I read blogs like this one for the discussion between people much more educated than myself. I’ve just heard (and read here) that his economic views are considered “right.” (I’m far from being an economist myself.) So I’m basing my c omments on heresay. When I have personally heard Ron Paul for any length of time, I would not vote for him. As with the last election I’m having a hard time getting fired up over any one of the candidates.

    You are right. I am naiive many times.

  • Abby

    JunkerGeorg @70: Actually I don’t watch/listen to much news. I listen to a lot of online sermons by several different preachers. Maybe there is some subliminal messaging going on :)! But I doubt it. I read a little newspaper — Wall Street Journal as one. I read blogs like this one for the discussion between people much more educated than myself. I’ve just heard (and read here) that his economic views are considered “right.” (I’m far from being an economist myself.) So I’m basing my c omments on heresay. When I have personally heard Ron Paul for any length of time, I would not vote for him. As with the last election I’m having a hard time getting fired up over any one of the candidates.

    You are right. I am naiive many times.

  • JunkerGeorg

    @Todd, #71

    “If Paul’s political opponents — and their supporters in the media and on the Internet — could merely take down his policy proposals in a clear, logical fashion (and I’m sure there are more than a few of his ideas that deserve such treatment), I’d listen. ”
    ——

    Todd, you are asking alot, at least for the MSM. Having said that, you’re post #71 overall was as eloquently passionate as it was convincing, hitting the nail on the head. I hope Gene Veith hears you. I sure did.

    @SKPeterson, #72

    “Grace….You are deliberately mischaracterizing Paul’s statements and you know it. Stop it and please make a serious attempt at a serious answer.”
    ———

    SK, if Todd is asking alot, I think you might be asking the impossible, but I hope I’m wrong. :)

  • JunkerGeorg

    @Todd, #71

    “If Paul’s political opponents — and their supporters in the media and on the Internet — could merely take down his policy proposals in a clear, logical fashion (and I’m sure there are more than a few of his ideas that deserve such treatment), I’d listen. ”
    ——

    Todd, you are asking alot, at least for the MSM. Having said that, you’re post #71 overall was as eloquently passionate as it was convincing, hitting the nail on the head. I hope Gene Veith hears you. I sure did.

    @SKPeterson, #72

    “Grace….You are deliberately mischaracterizing Paul’s statements and you know it. Stop it and please make a serious attempt at a serious answer.”
    ———

    SK, if Todd is asking alot, I think you might be asking the impossible, but I hope I’m wrong. :)

  • SKPeterson

    Todd – I’ll see if I can come up with some criticisms of Paul’s policy positions, or at least some argumentative points.

    Monetary policy. Paul has in the past advocated a gold standard or competing currencies with a repeal of the existing legal tender laws. Some associated policies advocated by some in the Paul camp would also outlaw or severely diminish the right and ability of banks to create credit by keeping some minimal reserve and lending out the rest; they would advocate a 100% reserve system.

    Now, the criticism here lies in how you transition to a gold, other commodity or competing currency system without severe economic dislocation and financial hardship. This spills over into the reserve requirements – how do you form capital for real investment and lend it out efficiently. While this is attractive theoretically, the transition away from a fiat currency to a real money is potentially frought with danger and not to be undertaken lightly. Paul may have the right idea for the long run, but he’s probably too old to see it through successfully.

    Regulatory policy. Paul would advocate the repeal of most environmental legislation and transition enforcement over to the courts as common law torts. The problem – we don’t really have any case law built up in property law to address this. Likely this would be a state by state issue, but how exactly one addresses cross-border pollution and property rights enforcement is unclear. I like this in theory as well, but our current regulatory structure is a powerful obstacle to a quick resolution of this problem. Maybe it could be started, but we’re talking 10+ years for minimal realization of the basics of what the tort structure would be and for common law to be up to speed. Maybe reform would need to start with existing law and with restraining the EPA, but it is unclear how this would proceed in practice.

    Free trade. (Here I’ll take Cincinnatus’s position, I think.) We face an increasingly globalized, competitive economy in which the openness of the US is proving detrimental to our long term economic prosperity. We need to look out for our own best interests here and not allow a China or India or other nation unfairly use our laws to gain competitive advantages in our markets at the expense of US firms and employees and then turn around and refuse to allow US firms to compete in those markets under the same conditions. Trade needs to be made more fair, not so much in our domestic market, but in foreign markets, and we should be prepared to act against countries that don’t adhere to these commonsense rules.

    Paul, in contrast, advocates a free trade agenda that would open our markets to foreign competition. While he advocates withdrawing from NAFTA, he does so not to protect American firms, but because he thinks they are “managed trade” agreements and not free trade agreements.

    We’ve pretty much hashed out, or at least outlined most of the foreign policy aspects, so I’ll leave those for now.

    So, that leaves me with a quick final argument as I don’t want to type forever and I’m ready to log off for the evening. Paul will legalize everything. Heroin, prostitution, gambling, liquor, adultery, promiscuity, highway robbery, and theft by banking. Civilization will come to an abrupt and brutal end if Paul is elected; all semblance of law and order will break down and soon it will be nothing but cannibalism and people having sex with dogs (HT: Dave Barry). Then the terrorists will have won. And we’ll have Jim Crow reestablished, if not outright slavery reimposed, but those gays will be allowed to do their evil unopposed.

    Okay, so the last argument was pretty satirical but seems to be what most of the anti-Paul arguments boil down to.

  • SKPeterson

    Todd – I’ll see if I can come up with some criticisms of Paul’s policy positions, or at least some argumentative points.

    Monetary policy. Paul has in the past advocated a gold standard or competing currencies with a repeal of the existing legal tender laws. Some associated policies advocated by some in the Paul camp would also outlaw or severely diminish the right and ability of banks to create credit by keeping some minimal reserve and lending out the rest; they would advocate a 100% reserve system.

    Now, the criticism here lies in how you transition to a gold, other commodity or competing currency system without severe economic dislocation and financial hardship. This spills over into the reserve requirements – how do you form capital for real investment and lend it out efficiently. While this is attractive theoretically, the transition away from a fiat currency to a real money is potentially frought with danger and not to be undertaken lightly. Paul may have the right idea for the long run, but he’s probably too old to see it through successfully.

    Regulatory policy. Paul would advocate the repeal of most environmental legislation and transition enforcement over to the courts as common law torts. The problem – we don’t really have any case law built up in property law to address this. Likely this would be a state by state issue, but how exactly one addresses cross-border pollution and property rights enforcement is unclear. I like this in theory as well, but our current regulatory structure is a powerful obstacle to a quick resolution of this problem. Maybe it could be started, but we’re talking 10+ years for minimal realization of the basics of what the tort structure would be and for common law to be up to speed. Maybe reform would need to start with existing law and with restraining the EPA, but it is unclear how this would proceed in practice.

    Free trade. (Here I’ll take Cincinnatus’s position, I think.) We face an increasingly globalized, competitive economy in which the openness of the US is proving detrimental to our long term economic prosperity. We need to look out for our own best interests here and not allow a China or India or other nation unfairly use our laws to gain competitive advantages in our markets at the expense of US firms and employees and then turn around and refuse to allow US firms to compete in those markets under the same conditions. Trade needs to be made more fair, not so much in our domestic market, but in foreign markets, and we should be prepared to act against countries that don’t adhere to these commonsense rules.

    Paul, in contrast, advocates a free trade agenda that would open our markets to foreign competition. While he advocates withdrawing from NAFTA, he does so not to protect American firms, but because he thinks they are “managed trade” agreements and not free trade agreements.

    We’ve pretty much hashed out, or at least outlined most of the foreign policy aspects, so I’ll leave those for now.

    So, that leaves me with a quick final argument as I don’t want to type forever and I’m ready to log off for the evening. Paul will legalize everything. Heroin, prostitution, gambling, liquor, adultery, promiscuity, highway robbery, and theft by banking. Civilization will come to an abrupt and brutal end if Paul is elected; all semblance of law and order will break down and soon it will be nothing but cannibalism and people having sex with dogs (HT: Dave Barry). Then the terrorists will have won. And we’ll have Jim Crow reestablished, if not outright slavery reimposed, but those gays will be allowed to do their evil unopposed.

    Okay, so the last argument was pretty satirical but seems to be what most of the anti-Paul arguments boil down to.

  • Grace

    SKPeterson @ 72

    You will just have to live with the fact that Ron Paul is not going to sit in the Oval office, he’s a guy who wants everyone to do pretty much what they want to .. drugs .. prostitution, all legalized, the list goes on.

    Nevada did exactly what they wanted, they legalized prostitution, it’s now a flashy legalized dump. We certainly don’t want ‘more of that per Ron Paul, because he’s to spinless to stand against such trash, state by state.

    As for drugs, one only has to look at the devastation of cocaine, marijuana, and heroin. If it was legal, state by state, we would have more young people addicted to legalized drugs.

    You cannot see this SKPeterson, that’s because you live in a wannabe isolationist land. No laws to protect people from themselves.

  • Grace

    SKPeterson @ 72

    You will just have to live with the fact that Ron Paul is not going to sit in the Oval office, he’s a guy who wants everyone to do pretty much what they want to .. drugs .. prostitution, all legalized, the list goes on.

    Nevada did exactly what they wanted, they legalized prostitution, it’s now a flashy legalized dump. We certainly don’t want ‘more of that per Ron Paul, because he’s to spinless to stand against such trash, state by state.

    As for drugs, one only has to look at the devastation of cocaine, marijuana, and heroin. If it was legal, state by state, we would have more young people addicted to legalized drugs.

    You cannot see this SKPeterson, that’s because you live in a wannabe isolationist land. No laws to protect people from themselves.

  • Grace

    SKPeterson @ 72

    There are times when FEDERAL LAW is the best choice, ATF laws, bank robbery, mail fraud – the use of drugs such as cocaine, marijuana, and heroin, laws the prohibit prostitution on the Federal level are needed. As Nevada proves, the states don’t always do the right thing.

    Would you like drug shops in your local mall? – how about a prostitution venue in your local mall, or next to your grocery store, maybe a 5 blocks from your local high school or university? How does that sound to you?

    Abortion isn’t against the law – look at the millions of lives that has taken – and you want to add more, like drugs and prostitution?

  • Grace

    SKPeterson @ 72

    There are times when FEDERAL LAW is the best choice, ATF laws, bank robbery, mail fraud – the use of drugs such as cocaine, marijuana, and heroin, laws the prohibit prostitution on the Federal level are needed. As Nevada proves, the states don’t always do the right thing.

    Would you like drug shops in your local mall? – how about a prostitution venue in your local mall, or next to your grocery store, maybe a 5 blocks from your local high school or university? How does that sound to you?

    Abortion isn’t against the law – look at the millions of lives that has taken – and you want to add more, like drugs and prostitution?

  • Pingback: Former CIA Agent in Charge of bin Laden Unit Endorses Ron Paul « Trutherator's Weblog

  • Pingback: Former CIA Agent in Charge of bin Laden Unit Endorses Ron Paul « Trutherator's Weblog

  • Grace

    Ron Paul

    Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids.

    Vote to adopt the conference report on the bill that would assign a national coordinator for AMBER alerts. AMBER alerts is an alert system for missing Vote Vote to adopt the conference report on the bill that would assign a national coordinator for AMBER alerts. AMBER alerts is an alert system for missing children, make available additional protections children, make available additional protections for children and set stricter punishments for sex offenders. Two-time child sex offenders would be subjected to mandatory life sentence. The measure would make it a crime to pander visual illustrations of children as child pornography. It would increase maximum sentences for a number of specified crimes against children. It would also make it a crime to take a trip to foreign countries and engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor. It also would enlarge law enforcement’s wiretap and electronic surveillance abilities in investigations of child pornography.

    Reference: Child Abduction Prevention Act; Bill S 151 ; vote number 2003-127 on Apr 10, 2003

    U.S. Departement of Justice
    Office of Justice Programs

    How effective has it been?

    AMBER Alert has been very effective. AMBER Alert programs have helped save the lives of 540 children nationwide. Over 90 percent of those recoveries have occurred since October 2002 when President Bush called for the appointment of an AMBER Alert Coordinator at the first-ever White House Conference on Missing, Exploited and Runaway Children. AMBER Alerts serve as deterrents to those who would prey upon our children. AMBER Alert cases have shown that some perpetrators release the abducted child after hearing the AMBER Alert on the radio or seeing it on television.

    Have there been any successes or failures of the AMBER Alert system?

    Everyone from law enforcement to government to broadcasters has worked very hard to make the AMBER Alert program a success. Although there is much work left to do, the progress made has been significant. All 50 states, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands now have AMBER Alert plans and 540 children have been recovered because of the AMBER Alert.

    http://www.amberalert.gov/faqs.htm#faq6

    Think about it – 540 children are alive – the AMBER Alert works.

  • Grace

    Ron Paul

    Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids.

    Vote to adopt the conference report on the bill that would assign a national coordinator for AMBER alerts. AMBER alerts is an alert system for missing Vote Vote to adopt the conference report on the bill that would assign a national coordinator for AMBER alerts. AMBER alerts is an alert system for missing children, make available additional protections children, make available additional protections for children and set stricter punishments for sex offenders. Two-time child sex offenders would be subjected to mandatory life sentence. The measure would make it a crime to pander visual illustrations of children as child pornography. It would increase maximum sentences for a number of specified crimes against children. It would also make it a crime to take a trip to foreign countries and engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor. It also would enlarge law enforcement’s wiretap and electronic surveillance abilities in investigations of child pornography.

    Reference: Child Abduction Prevention Act; Bill S 151 ; vote number 2003-127 on Apr 10, 2003

    U.S. Departement of Justice
    Office of Justice Programs

    How effective has it been?

    AMBER Alert has been very effective. AMBER Alert programs have helped save the lives of 540 children nationwide. Over 90 percent of those recoveries have occurred since October 2002 when President Bush called for the appointment of an AMBER Alert Coordinator at the first-ever White House Conference on Missing, Exploited and Runaway Children. AMBER Alerts serve as deterrents to those who would prey upon our children. AMBER Alert cases have shown that some perpetrators release the abducted child after hearing the AMBER Alert on the radio or seeing it on television.

    Have there been any successes or failures of the AMBER Alert system?

    Everyone from law enforcement to government to broadcasters has worked very hard to make the AMBER Alert program a success. Although there is much work left to do, the progress made has been significant. All 50 states, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands now have AMBER Alert plans and 540 children have been recovered because of the AMBER Alert.

    http://www.amberalert.gov/faqs.htm#faq6

    Think about it – 540 children are alive – the AMBER Alert works.

  • JunkerGeorg

    @Gene Veith, #39

    Conservatives, by temperament and by definition, dislike change. That can indeed be a fault. Ron Paul comes across as a revolutionary. So conservatives may well prefer more of the same to someone radically different. They will often come around to being pro-change when conditions are dire enough, but they need to be reassured that the changes will not be catastrophic.
    ————

    Is such change revolutionary as in something completely “new”? Or is it rather reformation in terms of restoration to something done before??? I mean, as far as I can tell, Ron Paul is no more libertarian and no less Republican than Barry Goldwater was ( “Mr. Conservative”). Ron Paul’s domestic policies relating to State’s Rights are the same of Goldwater’s. For sure, Ron Paul is more socially conservative than Goldwater was (who was very pro-choice for example) and less interventionist by a tad, but both held for the most part that such social conservatism and foreign intervention must be held within Constitutional restraints as far as what can be imposed on all. Goldwater too wanted to see the eventual abolishment of the unconstitutional Income tax.

    But given I am skeptical that Republicans really give a hoot about the Constitution as they claim when convenient, it is understandable why Ron Paul’s “constitutionalist” views are misunderstood as being radical, or purposefully misconstrued as “liberaltarian” by certain authoritarian social conservatives, even the typical ones on this thread, who, based on their comments, seem to imply they would suddenly become heroine addicted dominatrixes in their local mall were it not for the Federal government protecting them from themselves. :) Yes, a change to strictly Constitutionally-based policies is perhaps too radical for the Republican party these days, but such a change is not to something new, but a reform, a restoration back to something many lost their lives fighting for in this country.

    Interestingly too, Goldwater was the anti-establishment candidate within the Republican party, as was the case with Reagan, Goldwater’s protege, over/against George Bush Sr. (And we know by now that Ron Paul was one of only 4 congressman to back Ronald Reagan in his run for president in 79-90, over/against the establishment candidate, George Bush, Sr.) But alas, Reagan ceased to be the Goldwater conservative he had been during his 2nd term as president. Of course, few Republicans, other than Ron Paul who was heartbroken over that, really have ever cared about THAT change!!

  • JunkerGeorg

    @Gene Veith, #39

    Conservatives, by temperament and by definition, dislike change. That can indeed be a fault. Ron Paul comes across as a revolutionary. So conservatives may well prefer more of the same to someone radically different. They will often come around to being pro-change when conditions are dire enough, but they need to be reassured that the changes will not be catastrophic.
    ————

    Is such change revolutionary as in something completely “new”? Or is it rather reformation in terms of restoration to something done before??? I mean, as far as I can tell, Ron Paul is no more libertarian and no less Republican than Barry Goldwater was ( “Mr. Conservative”). Ron Paul’s domestic policies relating to State’s Rights are the same of Goldwater’s. For sure, Ron Paul is more socially conservative than Goldwater was (who was very pro-choice for example) and less interventionist by a tad, but both held for the most part that such social conservatism and foreign intervention must be held within Constitutional restraints as far as what can be imposed on all. Goldwater too wanted to see the eventual abolishment of the unconstitutional Income tax.

    But given I am skeptical that Republicans really give a hoot about the Constitution as they claim when convenient, it is understandable why Ron Paul’s “constitutionalist” views are misunderstood as being radical, or purposefully misconstrued as “liberaltarian” by certain authoritarian social conservatives, even the typical ones on this thread, who, based on their comments, seem to imply they would suddenly become heroine addicted dominatrixes in their local mall were it not for the Federal government protecting them from themselves. :) Yes, a change to strictly Constitutionally-based policies is perhaps too radical for the Republican party these days, but such a change is not to something new, but a reform, a restoration back to something many lost their lives fighting for in this country.

    Interestingly too, Goldwater was the anti-establishment candidate within the Republican party, as was the case with Reagan, Goldwater’s protege, over/against George Bush Sr. (And we know by now that Ron Paul was one of only 4 congressman to back Ronald Reagan in his run for president in 79-90, over/against the establishment candidate, George Bush, Sr.) But alas, Reagan ceased to be the Goldwater conservative he had been during his 2nd term as president. Of course, few Republicans, other than Ron Paul who was heartbroken over that, really have ever cared about THAT change!!

  • JunkerGeorg

    One last thing….

    Ron Paul claims to base all of his views on the Constitutional grounds. He claims to be the constitutional conservative, which, for others who harbor other definitions of “conservative”, makes him a “libertarian” (as if there were only one definition of “libertarian” by the way!)

    So, wouldn’t it be great to see people who disagree with his views to state such on constitutional grounds? (Show how his views are unconstitutional). Or alternatively, to simply be honest and state they don’t really care if policies fully abide by that “dusty old document” or not.

  • JunkerGeorg

    One last thing….

    Ron Paul claims to base all of his views on the Constitutional grounds. He claims to be the constitutional conservative, which, for others who harbor other definitions of “conservative”, makes him a “libertarian” (as if there were only one definition of “libertarian” by the way!)

    So, wouldn’t it be great to see people who disagree with his views to state such on constitutional grounds? (Show how his views are unconstitutional). Or alternatively, to simply be honest and state they don’t really care if policies fully abide by that “dusty old document” or not.

  • Grace

    Rick Santorum gave a tremendous speech, right from his heart. Thoughtful, kind, with pauses of genuine love and concern for the office of which he seeks. He was humble and thoughtful.

    Then we have Romney:

    Romney on the other hand, flipped through memorized musings. Memorization in rapid speech, as he blew through numerous memorized memories. What a surprise, have you ever had a Mormon visit your entery, blither thourgh a plethora (excess) of those things which has been taught?

  • Grace

    Rick Santorum gave a tremendous speech, right from his heart. Thoughtful, kind, with pauses of genuine love and concern for the office of which he seeks. He was humble and thoughtful.

    Then we have Romney:

    Romney on the other hand, flipped through memorized musings. Memorization in rapid speech, as he blew through numerous memorized memories. What a surprise, have you ever had a Mormon visit your entery, blither thourgh a plethora (excess) of those things which has been taught?

  • Grace

    This just in from CNN:

    “Arizona Sen. John McCain, who was the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, will endorse Mitt Romney on Wednesday in New Hampshire. “

    Timely, just timely – McCain is going to endorse Romney. That’s a hoot. That should help Romney’s campaign? Some things never change.

  • Grace

    This just in from CNN:

    “Arizona Sen. John McCain, who was the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, will endorse Mitt Romney on Wednesday in New Hampshire. “

    Timely, just timely – McCain is going to endorse Romney. That’s a hoot. That should help Romney’s campaign? Some things never change.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Sorry Grace (@76, 77, 78), but that schtick was funnier when SKPeterson did it (@75). When you do it, it almost seems like you believe what you’re saying.

    Please leave comedy to the professionals, Grace.

    That said, I was wondering if you had any insight on Mormonism that you could share with us, so that we could understand Romney’s positions better. Where do you stand on Mormonism: completely in favor, or only somewhat in favor?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Sorry Grace (@76, 77, 78), but that schtick was funnier when SKPeterson did it (@75). When you do it, it almost seems like you believe what you’re saying.

    Please leave comedy to the professionals, Grace.

    That said, I was wondering if you had any insight on Mormonism that you could share with us, so that we could understand Romney’s positions better. Where do you stand on Mormonism: completely in favor, or only somewhat in favor?

  • Grace

    tODD @ 83

    “but that schtick was funnier when SKPeterson did it (@75). When you do it, it almost seems like you believe what you’re saying.”

    Please leave comedy to the professionals, Grace.

    “Schtick” – :lol: ….. you wouldn’t understand it, if I spend two days trying to explain it.

    SKPeterson didn’t do anything, except to play his ‘crystal ball game.

    “That said, I was wondering if you had any insight on Mormonism that you could share with us, so that we could understand Romney’s positions better. Where do you stand on Mormonism: completely in favor, or only somewhat in favor?

    Ahhhh that you come to me for a better understanding of “Mormonism” –

    I’m honored that you would even ask!

  • Grace

    tODD @ 83

    “but that schtick was funnier when SKPeterson did it (@75). When you do it, it almost seems like you believe what you’re saying.”

    Please leave comedy to the professionals, Grace.

    “Schtick” – :lol: ….. you wouldn’t understand it, if I spend two days trying to explain it.

    SKPeterson didn’t do anything, except to play his ‘crystal ball game.

    “That said, I was wondering if you had any insight on Mormonism that you could share with us, so that we could understand Romney’s positions better. Where do you stand on Mormonism: completely in favor, or only somewhat in favor?

    Ahhhh that you come to me for a better understanding of “Mormonism” –

    I’m honored that you would even ask!

  • Bob

    Well, Democrats have to be smiling big tonight.

    The winner of tonight’s primary: Barack Obama.

    What a circus.

    Paul can’t win the nomination, and neither can Ricky. Everyone else is done.

    That leaves Romney.

    Tee hee.

  • Bob

    Well, Democrats have to be smiling big tonight.

    The winner of tonight’s primary: Barack Obama.

    What a circus.

    Paul can’t win the nomination, and neither can Ricky. Everyone else is done.

    That leaves Romney.

    Tee hee.

  • Grace

    Bob @ 85

    “Well, Democrats have to be smiling big tonight.

    The winner of tonight’s primary: Barack Obama.

    What a circus.”

    No “circus” just the one you appear to be representing.

    “Paul can’t win the nomination, and neither can Ricky. Everyone else is done.

    That leaves Romney.”

    You’re right on first, … Ron Paul cannot win – But Rick Santorum appears will be the next man behind the desk in to OVAL office.

    As for the Rom-mister.. he didn’t have a chance last time, and it’s to his embarrassment that he continues.

    “Tee hee.”

    Bob? …. a girlie two liner? :lol:

  • Grace

    Bob @ 85

    “Well, Democrats have to be smiling big tonight.

    The winner of tonight’s primary: Barack Obama.

    What a circus.”

    No “circus” just the one you appear to be representing.

    “Paul can’t win the nomination, and neither can Ricky. Everyone else is done.

    That leaves Romney.”

    You’re right on first, … Ron Paul cannot win – But Rick Santorum appears will be the next man behind the desk in to OVAL office.

    As for the Rom-mister.. he didn’t have a chance last time, and it’s to his embarrassment that he continues.

    “Tee hee.”

    Bob? …. a girlie two liner? :lol:

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@86):

    Rick Santorum appears will be the next man behind the desk in to OVAL office.

    Indeed. Santorum will join the long list of other Presidents who catapulted to fame after winning the Iowa caucuses:

    President Huckabee (2008)
    President Kerry (2004)
    President Dole (1996)
    President Harkin (1992)
    President Gephardt (1988)
    President Dole (also in 1988; I assume this was a co-regnancy thing)

    Congratulations, former-Senator Santorum, for joining the ranks of these elite men!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@86):

    Rick Santorum appears will be the next man behind the desk in to OVAL office.

    Indeed. Santorum will join the long list of other Presidents who catapulted to fame after winning the Iowa caucuses:

    President Huckabee (2008)
    President Kerry (2004)
    President Dole (1996)
    President Harkin (1992)
    President Gephardt (1988)
    President Dole (also in 1988; I assume this was a co-regnancy thing)

    Congratulations, former-Senator Santorum, for joining the ranks of these elite men!

  • Bob

    Ah, Gracie…

    You indeed have a penchant for missing the boat.

    But in your black-and-white world, if saying “tee hee” makes me less than masculine, well, so be it.

  • Bob

    Ah, Gracie…

    You indeed have a penchant for missing the boat.

    But in your black-and-white world, if saying “tee hee” makes me less than masculine, well, so be it.

  • Cincinnatus

    Bob@85: I suspect you’re right!

  • Cincinnatus

    Bob@85: I suspect you’re right!

  • WebMonk

    Hey all y’all, you’re dealing with Grace. You know how that always ends.

    Anyway, since Ron Paul tends toward longer policy pieces that few people will ever read, here’s a relatively quick interview with him that touches on a lot of the issues we’re discussing.

    http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/01/04/ron-paul-answers-questions-from-freakonomics-readers-encore/

    Dept of Education? Check.
    Military international involvement stance? Check.
    Economic policies? Check.
    Global Warming? Check.
    Gold Standard? Check.

    Just an excerpt on the gold standard:

    Q. Did former Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan really believe in free markets or did he fail to practice what he preached?
    A. In my book The Revolution: A Manifesto I talk about an encounter I had with Greenspan when he was still Fed chairman. I had come across an old Objectivist newsletter Greenspan had written in the 1960′s supporting a real gold standard. It was great stuff!

    At a gathering we both attended, I presented the booklet and asked if he still believed in its subject. He said he remembered the piece and still believed every word. I can’t profess to know what is in Mr. Greenspan’s heart, but his own words lead me to believe that he knew better than to pursue the policies he did.

  • WebMonk

    Hey all y’all, you’re dealing with Grace. You know how that always ends.

    Anyway, since Ron Paul tends toward longer policy pieces that few people will ever read, here’s a relatively quick interview with him that touches on a lot of the issues we’re discussing.

    http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/01/04/ron-paul-answers-questions-from-freakonomics-readers-encore/

    Dept of Education? Check.
    Military international involvement stance? Check.
    Economic policies? Check.
    Global Warming? Check.
    Gold Standard? Check.

    Just an excerpt on the gold standard:

    Q. Did former Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan really believe in free markets or did he fail to practice what he preached?
    A. In my book The Revolution: A Manifesto I talk about an encounter I had with Greenspan when he was still Fed chairman. I had come across an old Objectivist newsletter Greenspan had written in the 1960′s supporting a real gold standard. It was great stuff!

    At a gathering we both attended, I presented the booklet and asked if he still believed in its subject. He said he remembered the piece and still believed every word. I can’t profess to know what is in Mr. Greenspan’s heart, but his own words lead me to believe that he knew better than to pursue the policies he did.

  • WebMonk

    Oh, and since this is Ron Paul, we’re dealing with, there are FOUR PAGES to the question and answers. Yeah, you can put Ron Paul into a format that encourages brevity, and he’ll still take up four pages. :-D

  • WebMonk

    Oh, and since this is Ron Paul, we’re dealing with, there are FOUR PAGES to the question and answers. Yeah, you can put Ron Paul into a format that encourages brevity, and he’ll still take up four pages. :-D

  • Sam

    SKPeterson @ 59, “That right there borders on libel.”

    I’m sorry; I recant my quoting of Mark Steyn. I should have checked Paul’s website. Thank you for pointing that out to me. Lesson learned. From now on I’ll take Reagan’s advice, “Trust, but verify.”

  • Sam

    SKPeterson @ 59, “That right there borders on libel.”

    I’m sorry; I recant my quoting of Mark Steyn. I should have checked Paul’s website. Thank you for pointing that out to me. Lesson learned. From now on I’ll take Reagan’s advice, “Trust, but verify.”

  • SKPeterson

    No problem, Sam, but that was Cincinnatus’ post. :D

  • SKPeterson

    No problem, Sam, but that was Cincinnatus’ post. :D

  • Sam

    Whoops! My bad.

  • Sam

    Whoops! My bad.

  • JH

    wow, the only thing this discussion convinces me of is the utter failure of the 19th amendment. REPEAL!!!

  • JH

    wow, the only thing this discussion convinces me of is the utter failure of the 19th amendment. REPEAL!!!

  • Enzo

    You can’t have it both ways. In any office, there is the office “yes man” who will tell you what you want to hear, pick the most favored routes and answers. He usually ends up in the corner office. Then you have the hardworking idealist who sticks to his guns and will even go against the boss for his ideals. He usually doesn’t last long. Who do you want? The suckup or the principled man? I thought so. Sorry, Dr. Paul doesn’t have a chance in this farged up brown nose country. We need real men. Not just in the WH, but in the POLLING BOOTH!

  • Enzo

    You can’t have it both ways. In any office, there is the office “yes man” who will tell you what you want to hear, pick the most favored routes and answers. He usually ends up in the corner office. Then you have the hardworking idealist who sticks to his guns and will even go against the boss for his ideals. He usually doesn’t last long. Who do you want? The suckup or the principled man? I thought so. Sorry, Dr. Paul doesn’t have a chance in this farged up brown nose country. We need real men. Not just in the WH, but in the POLLING BOOTH!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X