In the following video, Ron Paul says, in his own words, exactly the point I was trying to communicate in my last post and the subsequent comments. You know… in case the video of him saying it in that post wasn’t enough for some people.
Personally, I value the separation of church and state. “Congress shall make no law…” And I think that in oder to keep from prohibiting free exercise of any and all religions, government should completely disassociate itself from any religion. For any relationship between the two is the first step on that slippery slope that the first amendment was written to guard against.
I believe that a woman has a right to choose, because until a fetus becomes able to sustain itself outside of the mother’s body it is merely an extension of the woman - part of her body and under her control.
I believe that some system that provides healthcare for every one of our fellow citizens (though I have no idea exactly how to achieve it) is a worthy and necessary goal.
I think that some federal departments and programs are useful when they are restrained and kept from the abusive power and control that corrupts their intended function.
I believe that people should be able to marry whomever they choose. I don’t think the federal government should care about the ratio of y-chromosomes in the relationship (the church can care their little hearts out), so long as the union is entered into willingly by both parties and without undue pressure or influence.
And I don’t think the so-called “free market” is the answer to every one of our societal ills (Note: even though it’s not an end all be all solution specifically espoused by Ron Paul, it’s a charge he is often leveled with because people like categories and generalizations, and since he is more libertarian than anything else, it’s a label that people choose to give him).
Given that I hold these personal philosophies that are often pigeonholed as ‘liberal’, and the fact that they are almost completely at odds with how some people see Ron Paul’s beliefs, make those people think that I should be afraid of Ron Paul. But as I tried to explain before, I can still wholeheartedly support his candidacy for president precisely because of what he says here…
Again and again, Ron Paul proves that he understands the job of a president better than any other candidate that is running or has run in a long time. Make no mistake, it is absolutely different and separate from his job as a congressman. In case you’ve been confused by all the times that Bush Jr. has redefined his “job” for the American people, please take another look at the promise that these presidents make to the American people before they take office:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
I’ve posted about Ron Paul in the past, and I’m doing it again, damnit. I never thought I’d be quoting a Fox News host to do anything aside from point out the obvious marginalization of reason and rationality, but in the words of Neil Cavuto…
“At first he was just an internet curiosity, then he became an internet phenomenon. Fourteen bands had wrote songs about him… fourteen! Rich and not-so-rich fans raised more than 4 million dollars in one day. They love his IQ, his EQ, and now, apparently his GQ, because he is among that hit publication’s Men of the Year.”
I’m one of those that found him to be a curiosity. But encouraged by the numerous soundbytes I heard of him so intelligently pontificating on the ills of deficit spending, and war-mongering, and unchecked power and growth of government, I read more. I researched his political career, and now I’m one of those not-so-rich fans.
A Fan of Ron Paul
As a fan, I almost wish that I donated on the 5th of November when Ron Paul supporters raised that $4.3 million. To be a part of something so historic would be unforgettable. Alas, the gods (and by gods, i mean people) have smiled upon me and all others that haven’t yet made the leap from future voter to proactive supporter. Marking another historic anniversary that celebrates dissent from authoritarian rule, the grassroots supporters have organized another website for a major donation - Teaparty07.com.
Also as a fan, it’s encouraging to see someone like a self-absorbed host from Fox News almost fawn over Ron Paul when that same host was so eager to interrupt Ron Paul’s explanations in past interviews. You see, Neil hasn’t always been so nice to Ron Paul. Just a few months prior, Cavuto was trying to pigeonhole Paul by marrying his political views to the people that holed up in their homes after not paying their taxes in protest. Near the end of the interview, Cavuto presented Ron Paul with an opportunity that Paul seized, and handled brilliantly…
“If you were president of the United States, would your first statement be on January 20th, ‘look, you don’t have to pay income taxes, nor should you’?”
And Paul’s response is something everyone should listen to, especially those people that are calling him the “worst kind of god-pusher” or preaching that liberals shouldn’t believe the hype because he’s against abortion or doesn’t push hard enough for the separation of church and state, or anybody that thinks he’s someone to be feared. His response to Mr. Cavuto?
“No. But I would certainly work with the Congress, the proper way, and get the Congress to pass a law to change it, and to repeal the 16th amendment. So no, a president… you’re always making the assumption that the President is an authoritarian. The President should be responsive to the government and to the Congress and to the people. But a president like myself, even though I would believe this, I couldn’t do it. But I would try to persuade people to do it, just as I do in the Congress, and just as I do in campaigning for the presidency.”
In case you’re interested, here’s the interview in its entirety…
Now, in this instance Ron Paul was speaking specifically about abolishing the IRS, and related tax issues. But this philosophy can be applied to all of Ron Paul’s positions. All of them. The overarching point that people seem to miss when they preach fear of Ron Paul’s political ideals is that he doesn’t seek to use government the way it’s been used for the past 7 years (and perhaps longer).
By now, it’s no secret that I have been curiously intrigued by Ron Paul. He is running for President, and hasn’t a Jesus’s chance in Hell™ of getting the Republican Neocon party nomination. I continue to follow his thoughts and comments on all of the issues, and I must say that one commenter on my first Ron Paul post was right; the more I learn, the more I like him as a candidate for President.
The video below is an inspirational (at least for me) compilation of Ron Paul moments and quotes. He sincerely understands what so many people ignore in these elections, the role of a President: To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
The completely irrational part of my brain holds onto a small hope that current polling frontrunners, Giuliani and McCain, are 2008’s Howard Deans, while Ron Paul is come-from-behind-Kerry in the primaries. But current polls still put Ron Paul at nothing above 2%, which is behind, at least, a mormon, an actor that hasn’t done any campaigning or debating, and a son of a preacher - living in the 21st century - who thinks evolution is a bunch of crap.
There have been numerous slights against Ron Paul by the media. Comments on message boards deleted, entire pages removed, polls changed after the fact, etc. In explanations of these actions, most of it is blamed on so-called Ron Paul spammers, who allegedly bombard message boards and online polls, and skew the results and the conversation. I mean, these would have to be some highly organized groups of individuals operating with military precision and an empire’s reach. There’s a virtual plethora of conspiracy theories coming from both sides - Ron Paul supporters claiming a conspiracy among Mainstream Media (MSM), political parties/groups, and corporate America, and Neocons and Media claiming a conspiracy among a small group of Ron Paul supporters and campaign lackeys…
One thing is for sure: Ron Paul supporters are effective at coordinating and mobilizing online quickly. For the three GOP debates so far, Paul has won or placed high in most of the unscientific online surveys including ABC’s, MSNBC’s, FOX’s, and unscientific polls conducted on a number of blogs.
Of course!! This is the only explanation. It can’t be that the people who are actually paying more than a fruit fly’s amount of attention to what’s being said are finding Ron Paul to be the clear winner. Scientific polls that survey the willfully ignorant and party faithful (a truly significant statistical sample) will tell us who really articulates the best message in the debates.
While all this is going on, everyone is failing to acknowledge the 800 pound gorilla in the room, in the form of the self-fulfilling prophecy.
Nobody really knew about (or remembered, depending on your age) Ron Paul until his explosive and thought-provoking comments in the first Republican Primary debate. In a field of 10 candidates, he is afforded unequal and minimal time to express those comments by moderators (read: MSM). Why? Well, the scientific polling that is done by organized pollsters shows Ron Paul consistently around 1 or 2 percent. So the MSM debate moderators use this as an excuse to devote more time to those with higher poll numbers. Are you seeing the circle developing?
In an effort to break into mainstream American consciousness and get higher in the polls, candidates need high poll numbers to begin with. You see, in order to get higher poll numbers they need to be covered by the MSM, but in order to be covered more by the MSM, they need higher poll numbers.
So the self-fulfilling prophecy is the idea that they don’t need to cover someone like Ron Paul, because he is not getting very high poll numbers, and when they don’t cover him, less people become aware of him and his message, and his poll numbers stay low. Failing to acknowledge their own role in affecting knowledge, awareness, and ultimately, poll numbers, the MSM simply perpetuates their image as a mouthpiece for the establishment, powerful, and elite.
Barring a catastrophic event, on the order of 9/11, that thrusts Ron Paul into the national consciousness, the MSM can simply wash their hands of him (how dare I suggest that Saint Rudy benefits from “the attacks” more than anyone else). Unless they are forced to cover him, they won’t.
Is Exposure Good for Ron Paul?
That being said, perhaps the scrutiny that comes with more exposure is not what Ron Paul needs or wants. For someone like me, who only started paying real attention to politics shortly before he/she was able to vote, Ron Paul’s run for presidency in 1988 is a virtual non-event. And the relative isolation he has endured (or enjoyed) in a small district in Texas since then is working in his favor, in a way.
He is being attacked from the right, by the likes of hate-monger Michelle Malkin. He is being attacked from the left, by phenry on Daily Kos.
Both sides are misconstruing or misunderstanding Ron Paul’s libertarian bent. And both authors fault Ron Paul for the people that come out in support of his candidacy or ideals, or otherwise find him appealing. Malkin for the “9/11 conspiracy theorists” and phenry on Daily Kos for the likes of Larry Pratt, “secessionists“, and being on the same radio program as Prussian Blue once was.
I say that they are misconstruing his position because they repeatedly equate giving an interview or a speech to questionable or fringe groups as reason to question Ron Paul himself. And yet, people at Daily Kos aren’t at all bashful about attacking BushCo when they do the exact opposite - refuse to allow certain people (read: anyone who might disagree with them) access to them, their speeches, or their interviews. After at least 7 years of that nonsense, pontificating your message in front of any free person willing to listen is, apparently, a wholly unfamiliar concept.
As another example, phenry at Daily Kos, willfully ignores Ron Paul’s reasoning on the Defense of Marriage Act, and unnecessarily simplifies the issue to a fault, by attacking him for supporting it. Phenry doesn’t care that his priority, limiting the power of (federal) government, is a more appropriate concern with regard to that act than changing the definition of marriage as currently recognized by the states. Phenry also uses this as a reason to attack Ron Paul on the issue of gay rights, but oddly, does not applaud Paul for his apparent defense of gay rights when he refused to support the constitutional amendment that would have abolished same-sex marriage. I mean, as long as you’re oversimplifying the issue, it seems that applauding him for this would be the only logical reaction. No?
One thing that is unavoidable is that people will buy the oversimplified crap that these guys are selling. Just like Iraq “had ties” with Al-Qeada, Ron Paul has or had “ties” with some questionable organizations, publications, and people. And when it comes to your image in front of the American people, as we have seen in the past, the frailty of these ties does not seem to matter. The order of magnitude or degree is unimportant, it is a yes or no question, black or white.
And if that’s the case, will Ron Paul be able to hold up under that scrutiny should he become a central figure in the race for President?
It is worth mentioning that some have accused Ron Paul of making some highly questionable racist comments in the past. They cite mostly second or third-hand sources. And the comments seem diametrically opposed to even some comments that appear in the video above. But Ron Paul’s explanation, as given by the people attacking him, doesn’t seem to answer the questions that would undoubtedly grow in number and ferocity should he break through as a candidate to be reckoned with. But it is my suspicion that this may fall into the same category as the other fallacious arguments put forth by those on the attack.
Here’s hoping he reaches a level where the MSM and the people feel it worthwhile to ask him those questions, make him answer, and feel it worthwhile to really listen when he does. We’ll see.
In light of the second, and now somewhat infamous, republican debate in South Carolina, I thought I should revisit my earlier post on Ron Paul. In that post, I mentioned that I didn’t know a whole lot about Ron Paul and his philosophies on issues besides the ones quickly noted on the “About Ron” page on his presidential campaign website. And I wanted to revisit it since neoconservatives are trying desperately to paint him as a quintessential “conspiracy theorist” with regard to 9/11, including everyone’s favorite Patron Saint of Terrorism Aftermath™, Rudy Giuliani.
It seems that, in the debate, Ron Paul made the “controversial” implication that our actions have consequences. And because of that, he is catching a lot of flack from “true republicans” who cheer anyone that threatens a free society and demands that government have the power to do all they can to protect us, even if it is at the expense of that freedom.
Ron Paul made the implication in response to a question about terrorism and 9/11. Here’s the exchange:
REP. PAUL: … Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East — I think Reagan was right.
We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we’re building an embassy in Iraq that’s bigger than the Vatican. We’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us.
MODERATOR: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?
REP. PAUL: I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we’re over there because Osama bin Laden has said, “I am glad you’re over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.
Saint Rudy jumps on this as an opportunity to remind everyone where he was on 9/11:
Wendell, may I comment on that? That’s really an extraordinary statement. That’s an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)
And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that. (Applause.)
Why is it that Saint Rudy suggests he answered the question with a resounding “Yes”, and gets away with it? I’m pretty sure Ron Paul could have said anything besides the word “No” after Wendell’s question, and it wouldn’t have mattered to Rudy.
Anyway, in the wake of the exchange, Ron Paul has given Saint Rudy a reading assignment to help educate him on what he means, instead of telling Rudy he didn’t mean what he said. The assignment includes Chalmers Johnson’s Blowback, Robert A. Pape’s Dying to Win, and Michael Scheuer’s Imperial Hubris, and the 9-11 Commission Report - the very report focused solely on the day Rudy was there to… well… be there (remember??? Remember, damnit!).
He even provided Cliff Notes to make the read a little easier and understandable for Giuliani, including among others:
“The suicidal assassins of September 11, 2001 did not ‘attack America,’ as political leaders and news media in the United States have tried to maintain; they attacked American foreign policy. Employing the strategy of the weak, they killed innocent bystanders, whose innocence is, of course, no different from that of the civilians killed by American bombs in Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.”
Since I admire anyone who suggests we take responsibility for our actions instead of creating an external locus of control for everything except the most desirable consequences, this prompted me to take a closer look at Ron Paul. And after some searching I came across what basically amounts to a blog. It’s called The Ron Paul Library.
So I spent some time reading through the library, and I must say that my original inclinations were correct. I certainly don’t agree with him on everything, but the underlying philosophy on the role of government and all that it implies is something this country has desperately needed for at least 7 years, if not longer.
…a little. But that’s more than I can say for most of the current republican candidates for president.
In the wake of the first republican presidential debate, there are a number of self-proclaimed “true” conservatives decrying the mainstream media’s outright shunning of Ron Paul. Some of them even going so far as to declare that there’s an organized conspiracy by the media against Ron Paul to 1) assure that Hillary Clinton wins the White House or 2) assure that democrat-in-sheep’s-clothing John McCain wins the White House or 3) assure that [take your pick from the a la carte menu offered by the damned liberal media machine].
As someone who didn’t even watch the debate, I hadn’t even heard of Ron Paul until I came across a few people whining about the lack of coverage. Personally, I don’t buy their assumptions about why it’s being done. I’m much more apt to attribute the failure to general incompetence as a news organization. But given some of the polling statistics released after the debate, it’s hard to argue that there isn’t a failure on their part.
According to a rating window on the MSNBC.com website at 8:10 ET on May 4th, Ron Paul was carrying the highest positive rating (with 72,419 votes in at the time)…
And because of that, he is catching a lot of flack from “true republicans” who cheer anyone that threatens a free society and demands that government have the power to do all they can to protect us, even if it is at the expense of that freedom.
Loading ...
