Since Paul is going to probably do well in the caucus today, we’ll just turn this over to TNC for the last word on Ron Paul. There are so many things in my opinion that disqualify Ron Paul for President (his anti-abortion views, his statements that we should not have fought Hitler, etc.), but for me it starts and stops with his opposition to the various civil rights acts that have made America a better place. No matter how “pure” his reasoning may be, it falls on deaf ears here. I do wish, frankly, that more candidates would adopt his positions on some issues, but anyone with that big a character flaw is just completely incapable of even being considered for President. It’s a non-starter.
Not to mention, after what I’ve been reading in the newsletters, I think there is a very solid case that Paul is just a racist old crank.
Lit3Bolt
Stop talking about national politics on a political blog, you vile rape apologist. Pay more attention to my manufactured Outrage Drama Bread, baked fresh daily!
sb
One of the weirder aspects of ABL leaving is some of my fellow BJers saying “oh noes, all white people!”
Shit, folk, if you want a better multi-cultural perspective than the ravings of ABL, TNC is a good place to start.
Yutsano
Ron Paul is 76 years old. On that basis alone he is not fit to be President. Full stop.
Mike Goetz
I’m calling it: Iowa goes Santorum-Paul-Romney tonight.
Romney is out there today throwing out buckets of chum on how Obama will make this “no longer one nation under God.” He is terrified of what Iowa is about to do to him.
CT Voter
@sb: In other words, if you want a better multi-cultural perspective go someplace else.
balconesfault
Is today the first step to Santorum being the VP nominee?
Can the GOP have a ticket with no Southerners, assuming one is an over-the-top social conservative, and the Southerners have the Nigerian prince to vote against?
balconesfault
Is today the first step to Santorum being the VP nominee?
Can the GOP have a ticket with no Southerners, assuming one is an over-the-top social conservative, and the Southerners have the Nigerian prince to vote against?
MariedeGournay
None of the candidates get under my skin more than Paul. It’s that whole ‘devil takes a pleasing form’ thing with so many people not seeing his ‘philosophy’ being nothing more than a call for bullies to inherent the earth.
wilfred
“I do wish, frankly, that more candidates would adopt his positions on some issues”
Those being?
gene108
I don’t get why the “racist” inclinations of Paul get all the attention?
Plenty of Presidential candidates, since 1964 have winked and nodded, maybe not so directly as Rep. Paul, to wanting to roll back the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960’s. I don’t think it’s unusual and at some level maybe required for a Republican Presidential candidate, post-1964.
His really daft stance is on monetary policy and the role of central banks in the global economy. He can take some action on these fronts, as President, by not appointing replacements to the Federal Reserve, as terms expire.
Even if Congress approves spending more money, maybe his Secretary of Treasury, can refuse to have the Treasury issue new debt or some such that maybe within the power of the Executive to create a showdown that would make the debt ceiling debate of this past summer look like kids squabbling over Pokemon cards, i.e. it’d destroy global confidence in the global economy, on a scale not seen since 2008 and really hamstring us as a nation.
jl
@Mike Goetz:
buckets of chum>?
Yuk. Whose gonna eat that, even in Iowa.
Romney’s an awful campaigner. Can’t he spring for pizza or something?
cathyx
I agree that several of Paul’s views disqualify him for the office. But I think that’s true for all of the republican candidates. The disqualifying views just differ with each one.
MikeBoyScout
Of course Paul’s a bona fide crank. He’s right up there with Lyndon LaRoche.
That said, I predict the racist old crank wins tonight. That’s the way the GOP rolls in 2012.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@jl: Or maybe salads.
gene108
@sb: Meh…plenty of non-whites regularly post comments on this forum…
Give one or two of them FP status…problem solved…
joes527
I love that Paul is doing well. No I don’t support him, and yes, I agree will all the bad things anyone might say about him. The idea that he would make it to the convention (much less win the general) is laughable.
What I love about him doing well is that he doesn’t just shit on the other candidates like Gingrich. He shits on good parts of the republican project as a matter of principle.
The fact that his principles do a backflip with a twist to stick the landing back in the republican camp doesn’t matter much one way or another. He has less chance of getting elected president than Pat Paulsen. So the part of the show where he disagrees with everything that the Republican party has stood for since at least Nixon is worth the price of the ticket.
EconWatcher
(Semi) serious question:
It’s been remarkable how little the others have attacked Romney. I assume that’s because many would like to be considered for VP.
But what if Romney loses badly in IA, underperforms in NH, and loses badly in SC? Won’t the gloves come off then?
Ken
Holyt hell,John, I’m with you on the Ron Paul-a-laooza. This guy is a civil liberties train-wreck.
Villago Delenda Est
@balconesfault:
OK, when did Mombassa get moved to the Gulf of Benin?
Chris
A lot of people (John included) seem to be in a willful state of denial about why many people are voting for Ron Paul tonight. It’s not because they want him to be President. It’s because, in our lame system, the only way to protest the bipartisan consensus on war and civil liberties is to caucus for a racist old crank. Of course, they could also go to the Democratic caucus and vote for Uncommitted (which I’ll be doing), but which way is most likely to make a ststement that the media will recognize?
To argue with them about why Ron Paul would make a bad president is to completely miss the point.
cathyx
The moneyed interests do not want Ron Paul to win the nomination. It will be interesting to see what happens. My guess is the moneyed interests will win out like usual and Mitt Romney gets the nod.
Mike Goetz
@jl:
“Red meat” I suppose is the usual metaphor. He’s playing the Godless Obama card now, a panic move for the allegedly mature, sober-sided one in the race. I think his pollsters saw some bad numbers.
Gin & Tonic
@EconWatcher:
Who’s got the cash and the boots on the ground to keep it going that long? Also a serious question.
The Sheriff Is A Ni-
I really really want someone to ask Ron Paul if private companies detaining terrorists or using drones is Constitutional or not. Bonus points if they follow-up by asking if it matters if they’re on American soil.
joes527
@Chris:
I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that this isn’t the #1 issue on the mind of the folks caucusing with the Republicans tonight.
Mike Goetz
@Chris:
“It’s because, in our lame system, the only way to protest the bipartisan consensus on war and civil liberties is to caucus for a racist old crank.”
Horseshit.
BO_Bill
Using broad generalizations to attack ‘Newletters’ without linking to them is a red-flag for people who are aware enough to seek transparency and Truth in national debates. This is probably responsible for one-third of Ron Paul’s support.
cathyx
@Chris: But what democratic candidate can you vote for if you protest the war or the assault on civil liberties?
slag
Nicely stated, TNC! It’s about time somebody made this point.
Nellcote
@Chris:
third hand tweet:
“Obama didn’t cure cancer, this time I’m voting for cancer”
CT Voter
@EconWatcher: It’s been remarkable how little the others have attacked Romney.
Not one negative ad.
And he still can’t get above 25%. Amazing.
Roger Moore
@sb:
Especially since we still have Dennis G and Zandar. Maybe they don’t wear their race on their sleeves quite as aggressively as ABL does, but they’re still front pagers here. Not to mention that we have plenty of people of color among the regular posters.
Baron Jrod of Keeblershire
@BO_Bill: You think 1/3rd of Ron Paul’s support comes from people too enfeebled to use Google?
Dave
@The Sheriff Is A Ni-: It must be Constitutional because Greenwald doesn’t seem distressed by this stance from Paul, or that he wants the government to pay mercs billions of dollars to kill terrorists.
Villago Delenda Est
@joes527:
Yup, agreed.
The Iowa GOP is not interested in Paul’s foreign policy positions nearly as much as they’re interested in his economic ideas.
Which are insane.
Like the GOP in general.
lamh35
here’s the thing it’s obviously much easier to ignore or excuse or just choose white wash over Paul’s inherent racism for white people…period.
Racism is not necessarily a personal conflict for ya’ll. I suspect that if a random white person was asked to list issues that affect their lives on a daily basis, racism would not even be listed, it would def NOT make the top of the list.
When you or your livelihood are not personally affected by it, then yeah, you are more willing to look at Paul’s “convictions” and say yeah, I like the anti-drug war, anti-war, anti-whatever that Paul’s embracing. so he’s a lil racist, so what, the bigger issue for you is all the other.
Well fair or not, racism is PERSONAL for me, so yeah I don’t care how great Paul’s “supposedly” feeling I don’t care and I refuse to just put it aside (even for a minute).
if it makes me pigheaded or unfair, then so be it.
Baron Jrod of Keeblershire
@Roger Moore: But, but, if they don’t constantly use their race as a cudgel against any who would dare to disagree with them, we must assume that they’re white! That’s the racially enlightened view.
nancydarling
@sb: I thought Zandar was biracial and mistermix hispanic. Could be wrong.
comrade scott's agenda of rage
What’s so “pure” about Paul’s thoughts? Much of the modern Republican Party would like to take the US back to the Gilded Age. Paul would like to take us back to the Antebellum Age.
Nothing “pure” about 99% of his claptrap.
BO_Bill
From what I have read of the newsletters, they represent Truths, however unpleasant. The funny thing about this is that the majority of America recognizes these Truths to be self-evident. The primary exception to this is white people who developed and accepted the Belief Systems of colleges in the 1980s and 1990s. Tolstoy, nails this phenomena:
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
The population thus described probably consists of around 15 percent of voters. Paid media types would be less than 1%. So Ron Paul’s best bet for electoral success is to clearly articulate simple and obvious Truths in a compassionate manner, instead of ducking them.
kindness
Ron Paul strikes me as someone who really would prefer to live under a government like the Confederacy. Just because the Confederacy allowed some citizens to own other humans doesn’t mean they were all racists. It just means it was very convienent for the racists like Ron Paul.
nancydarling
@gene108: Agreed. Is a covert racist any better than an overt one? Maybe not.
Some Neat Paul Posters
http://mohandasgandhi.tumblr.com/post/15232436727/just-a-few-scumbag-paul-memes-ive-created-since
Cluttered Mind
@nancydarling: ABL is biracial too.
lamh35
I see a few people comparing TNC to ABL but what does it matter? it’s funny, people are always saying that ABL makes everything about herself, well here we are in a thread that has nothing to do with ABL and 2 comments in we are discussing who????
Oh and BTW, @sb: ABL and TNC have 2 very different points of views on things and obviously expressed them in different way. Certain people find like both and some like one but not the other. What is the point of comparing the two other than both are Black?
TNC and ABL are apples and oranges.
ruemara
@nancydarling: They’re the blog equivalent of “I have a [race] friend”, so don’t judge me. And I suppose the fact that they’re all male too, we’ll just sidestep. Now. Since ABL did not show up in this thread to make it “All About Her”, can we agree that for some people the only issue they ever had was that she is, in fact, female and black? Oh, wait, female, black and did not agree with their worldview. Got it.
BO_Bill
Cluttered Mind; It does matter and I will explain why.
It is unclear whether light-skinned people with some African ancestry qualify a blog for Soros Open Borders funding. ABL was the real deal, and will be missed.
lamh35
@Cluttered Mind: not for nothing, but ABL is NOT biracial as I understand it, her ADOPTIVE parents are biracial.
I see a few people comparing TNC to ABL but what does it matter? it’s funny, people are always saying that ABL makes everything about herself, well here we are in a thread that has nothing to do with ABL and 2 comments in we are discussing who????
Oh and BTW, @sb: ABL and TNC have 2 very different points of views on things and obviously expressed them in different way. Certain people find like both and some like one but not the other. What is the point of comparing the two other than both are Black?
TNC and ABL are apples and oranges.
BTW, I have a comment in moderation go ahead and delete it.
Emma
@ruemara: Yep.
SiubhanDuinne
@Yutsano:
I agree (as someone only a few years younger). I would say the same about a 76-year-old Lincoln, Roosevelt (either of them), Obama, or anyone else. I don’t care how good you are or how smart or principled or progressive you are, there’s no denying that some faculties just plain wear out with age.
The Founding Fathers, bless their hearts, took care of the lower age limit in Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution. Too bad they didn’t think to put in an upper limit, but I guess life expectancy was so different back then that they couldn’t foresee a Reagan or a William Henry Harrison or a John McCain or Ron Paul.
Brachiator
@sb:
Seems to me that a more or less liberal, pro Democratic Party blog without a multi-cultural perspective would be a contradictiion in terms. Same as if there were never any women Front pagers.
And, no matter how good he is, if TNC is your only multi-cultural blogger alternative, then this is not much better than “oh noes, all white people.”
@Chris:
Paul offers little more than neo-isolationist fantasies. Not much of a protest vote there.
lamh35
@lamh35:
damn, thought that was deleted…oh well.
Nellcote
Seriously John, what positions? Make the case.
Baron Jrod of Keeblershire
@ruemara: Yeah, really. Just because BJ has non-white frontpagers is no reason to say that BJ has non-white frontpagers! Those guys don’t count, since they don’t have their race as part of their name.
Schlemizel
When I was born Truman was President. There were two black families in my school, no Hispanics and one Chinese family. My folks were liberals who introduced us to many cultures, nationalities and religions. That said I had a lot of racial and gender stereotypes in my thinking & have said some insensitive things because I didn’t know any better.
I have never once however pretended I didn’t say them or I didn’t know who said them. When I recognized my prejudices I have worked to understand and eliminate them.
I could make allowances (although the shit Paul published went way beyond cultural insensitivity – it blew past stupidity nearing the speed of light) if he showed the slightest sign that he understood what he did was wrong & that he could grow and change. My guess is the only thing he thinks are wrong with those screeds is that they might keep him out of the Oval Office.
Redshift
@EconWatcher:
I’ll be interested to see what happens now that Romney has talked up his chances of winning. According to Nate Silver, the effect of Iowa on later races tends to depend more on the difference between expectations and results than just results, so playing up your expectations seems like a bad strategy, and I hope it bites Romney in the ass.
Of course, saying you don’t expect to win, like Newt did, doesn’t seem like a good strategy either. His flip to saying he might pull off an upset would have been genius if he had gone with that first — it helps pump up supporters while still leaving expectations low.
gaz
@gene108:
How about for starters, because Paul intends to run for president in this next election? Unlike those 1964 candidates. That’s a hamfisted deflection on your part. The only response it is worthy of is this: It’s 2012, where the fuck have you been?
Furthermore, you sound like an apologist for Paul’s bigotry. If that’s your intent, fuck you. It *is* in fact, about Paul’s racism whether you like it or not. *HE* made that choice when he offered his name up to a bunch of racist newsletters that he profited from in the ’90s. Whatever happened to personal accountability? Paul owns that.
If being an apologist for Ron Paul, R-Racism is not your intent, then disregard the previous paragraph – since it doesn’t apply to you. Whatever your response to the board, I’m more concerned with how you take this – personally.
Amanda in the South Bay
@Chris:
Jesus, tell me this: does Ron Paul have a problem with states, cities and counties continuing the war on drugs? Or is it only a matter of federal power?
Nellcote
Yet he has support from the “liberal media” like The Nation, Salon and HuffPoo. Ratfucking of the highest order.
d
“No matter how “pure” his reasoning may be, it falls on deaf ears here.”
I’m tired of giving the libertarians credit for ideological consistency – libertarian views on the civil rights act are fundamentally incoherent. Paul’s entire premise against the Civil Rights Act is that property ownership naturally, inherently, means the right to call upon the state’s agents (the police) to remove and exclude people from their property based on race (e.g. for trespassing). Ron Paul sees such a world as the epitome of freedom and lacking any coercive element.
But property, and its definition, is not “Natural.” It doesn’t preexist mankind, it is a creation of mankind. But property is nothing more than the right to exclude a person from whatever it is one “owns.” To say “I own that lunch counter” means, at its core, that I can call upon the state to exclude others from that lunch counter using the state’s coercive power. Libertarians puport to be in favor of a world where coercion is minimized, what they can never get through there heads is that coercion is everywhere. To say I have a right to something is to say that I can ultimately call upon the government to enforce someone else’s to conform to a duty. (My right to property means you have a duty not to use that property without my permission). Our society is a giant interlocking web of rights and duties. I realize this fundamental basic insight is just over the heads of libertarians, but I wish liberals would start to take notice. We don’t need to to give libertarians so much god damn credit for consistency. There entire worldview is incoherent – and its time we start pointing that out.
For more, start at Robert Hale, Coercion in a Non Coercive State for gods sake. Everyone should read it.
Original Lee
John Cole, there are days when I wish polyandry were legal.
Today is one of them. Thanks for a wonderful post!
Cluttered Mind
@lamh35: I must have missed that detail, I was not aware of it. Thanks for the correction!
I’ve tried to avoid weighing in on the ABL vs. GG debate because from what I can tell they’re both absolutely right as far as their own philosophies take them. The problem is I don’t think either of them understand that even the greatest leaders in history who we’ve looked at as idols of liberalism also had dark sides and could be looked at as complete monsters if all you care about is their monstrous aspect. JFK was a hero to many but he also was responsible for the Bay of Pigs disaster and got us started in Vietnam. LBJ was pivotal to getting the civil rights legislation passed, but he also was responsible for getting us even further mired in Vietnam. Even FDR had his dark sides. I don’t think there’s any problem with seeing Barack Obama as both a hero and a monster, depending on which aspect of him you’re looking at. GG focuses on Obama’s monstrous sides, and ABL focuses on his heroic sides. Both of them have legitimate points about the man. I see him for what he is, hate the bad things he’s done, love the good things he’s done, and will vote for him in November knowing that I’ve voted for the best candidate on the ticket. We as liberals/progressives make fun of the Republicans for wanting Conservative Jesus on the ticket, but we’re not doing ourselves any favors by pretending that we’re any different at times. Obama’s just a person, flawed like the rest of us. He may have policies I disagree with, but everyone is going to have some policies I disagree with unless I somehow make enough clones of myself to run the entire government. And no one wants that. GG is right that Obama is a monster as far as civil liberties and drone policy is concerned, and ABL is also right that you can’t judge the man solely on that. If there was a viable candidate running for office whose policies wouldn’t cause mass death, I’d vote for him in a heartbeat, but that candidate is not Ron Paul and never will be. Paul might be interested in stopping our misadventures overseas, but his policies will cause plenty of devastation here in this country. As so many have pointed out, Ron Paul is NOT a libertarian, he just masquerades as one. He has absolutely no problem with tyranny and oppression just so long as the tyranny and oppression is being carried out by a state government or a private business instead of the federal government.
I’ve rambled on a bit too much, hopefully I said something of value in all that.
Capri
@cathyx: I don’t think they wanted McCain in 2008 either. There’s only so much you can buy in the GOP.
What seems to be happening in the Republican party this cycle is that FOX news is playing the role of a greenhouse – keeping these bizarre non-viable candidates like Newt, Bachmann, Caine, Perry, and Santorum alive by providing an artificial environment. Fox does this by giving them as much face-time and gravitas as candidates that have made their way onto the ballots honestly. No one at Fox cares if these candidates have no ground organization – they’re “good TV.” It makes the entire field very weak – which isn’t a bad thing from a Dem’s perspective.
Give Romney and Paul credit – they did it without Fox’s help. Which is why I’m guessing these two will do better than people think.
priscianusjr
@CT Voter:
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
@BO_Bill:
Oh look, it’s Balloon Juice’s favorite bigot, Bowel Obstruction Bill!
CarolDuhart2
@SiubhanDuinne: So true. I imagine that they felt that few men would live to the point that age would be an issue, and those who would be arrogant to contend would be soundly rejected.
gaz
@priscianusjr: No. We’re all cowards and we set our home page to balloon-juice and turn of external linking, just in case.
Get a life, or plz go DIAF.
What a stupid way to troll for blog hits.
Besides your font is crappy and your site was designed by monkeys. Or were you monkeying with WordPress while drunk?
Anyway – your site hurts my eyes. Plenty of good blogs on my feed, and they don’t include yours. Deal with it.
askew
@MariedeGournay:
I feel the same way. I get completely irrational when talking about Ron Paul and his racism. Makes me nuts that so many people view him as “reasonable”.
Schlemizel
@Cluttered Mind:
Well said!
I can defend Obama where I think he is right and blast him where I think he is wrong. That is too complex for some people I guess.
I would like to suggest a one week moratorium on mentioning ABL or GG here. The fight over them has taken on a life of its own & is infecting every thread. Neither is that important in the scheme of things. Both have offered apple evidence that they need to be ignored a bit.
gaz
@Schlemizel: Seconded!*
*With exceptions for especially juicy schadenfreude, like if GG plays hide the winky with someone he shouldn’t, or if ABL gets nicked for knocking over a liquor store. Yeah right, but I have to Cover-My-Ass, you understand – just in case.
Calouste
FTFY. Once you’ve seen the label, there’s no need to open the can to see what’s in it. You know it’s going to stink.
ET
I though TNC’s post was excellent.
I think Sully and Greenwald just have a willful(?) blindspot. I was born and raised in the south and went to college in the south and the state that whites were afraid of may have been the Gov’mint in D.C. but “the state” minorities were afraid of was the city, county, or state. Those were the government entities that were bound and determined though the course of U.S. history to keep them enslaved and otherwise oppressed. Often times it was members of “the state” that either implicitly went after them or turned a blind eye when it was their friends and family that did. The federal government was seen by minorities as a potential equalizer.
For me, this is where I think the Ron Paul is a racist discussion comes into play. He sees the Civil Rights Act as harming civil liberties, whereas minorities and liberals see the Act as fulfilling the promise of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence for those that “the state” did everything in its power to subjugate at best and destroy at worst. TNC articulates this better than I can.
Not for a moment do I feel that Sully or Greenwald are racist or would apologize for those types of actions/words, but I think each (for their own reasons) doesn’t seem to understand what “state rights” (not too far removed from some aspects of libertarianism) means to some and how the use of that phrase touches all sorts sore spots and can be perceived by those of a liberal persuasion as a way to actually remove rights from those that are less politically powerful. Hell I am white and in my 40’s and I know those code words and those hidden meanings, the fact that they don’t (or don’t seem to) puzzles me.
gaz
@Calouste: This.
Pococurante
@lamh35: I don’t understand how someone is not biracial because their parents were biracial.
But then based on my understanding of historical demographics we all are biracial. Race is useless as a predictor of much of anything.
Villago Delenda Est
@ET:
On the Sullivan side, one, he was brought up in the UK so he missed out on a lot of things that Americans experience growing up. That helps the blind spot along. However, given his obsession with the utter crap that is The Bell Curve, I’m not willing to give him a pass on not being a racist. He’s flirting too much with it with that.
Greenwald, I’ll withhold judgement on, but his casual waving away of the racist bedrock of Paul’s positions causes me to not rule it out with any of the finality that you do.
kay
Great quote he found. You won’t find that one featured on The Nation, I bet.
What’s amazing is not that TNC is doing this, what’s amazing is that he’s the only one doing it.
Nerull
@gene108: As a nation? As a planet, you mean. Economies aren’t national anymore, and one big one will take the others down with it. Paul can talk about peace all he wants, but I don’t think global economic chaos is a good way to create it.
cat
@Pococurante:
Especially given we are all the same race.
At most our genectic differences are seperate ‘breeds’, like cats and dogs. I believe there are around 17 major branches of Human DNA and none of them deal with skin color and some of them are due to cross breading with other species.
People who can trace their parents to africa are the most pure blooded so you can imagine it doesn’t get much traction as Europeans are some of the most mixed genetically.
jonas
Here’s the difference between Ron Paul and the rest of the Republican field: Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, et al. believe the job of the federal government should be to place the nation’s tax system and productive capabilities at the service of wealthy white people so that they can become even richer while the poor become poorer. Paul thinks that this should be left to the states.
El Tiburon
@Nellcote:
Where is this support?
cat
@Villago Delenda Est:
Stop giving him a pass, the british had race riots and poor race relations just like the US. If you growing up in the UK you also were exposed to rampant classism as well, so if he can’t understand institutional discrimination its because he is part of the problem.
Villago Delenda Est
@cat:
Nah, but he didn’t grow up with the legacy of slavery, of Jim Crow. That’s a difference.
Like I said, lack of that experience feeds the blind spot. But then there’s the entire obsession with the bullshit of The Bell Curve which makes dismissing the possibility that Sullivan’s a racist impossible to contemplate.
El Tiburon
Is this the support from the Nation:
http://www.thenation.com/article/165373/marginalizing-ron-paul
It is hypocritical that Paul is now depicted as the archenemy of non-white minorities when it was his nemesis, the Federal Reserve, that enabled the banking swindle that wiped out 53 percent of the median wealth of African-Americans and 66 percent for Latinos, according to the Pew Research Center.
or this:
To his credit, Paul marshaled bipartisan support to pass a bill requiring the first-ever public audit of the Federal Reserve. That audit is how readers of the Times first learned of the Fed’s trillions of dollars in secret loans and aid given to the banks as a reward for screwing over the public.
Or is this the straw that broke the racists back:
It should not be difficult for those same editorial writers to treat Ron Paul as a profound and principled contributor to a much-needed national debate on the limits of federal power instead of attempting to marginalize his views beyond recognition.
Go read the entire article. Profound? I think so. Principled? Perhaps so.
But is pointing this out the same as supporting him? I highly doubt the Nation is going to endorse Ron Paul.
Or is this the support from the Nation:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/165392/opinionnation-progressives-and-ron-paul
Scheer, like many other white male commentators, laments that “Paul is being denigrated as a presidential contender even though on the vital issues of the economy, war and peace, and civil liberties, he has made the most sense of the Republican candidates.” His opposition to civil rights and his racist writings should not outweigh the focus of his current campaign, Scheer argues. Remarkably enough, I have yet to see a single person of color make this argument.
More importantly, the argument is false on its own terms. Paul does not make more sense on the economy than his Republican opponents. Eliminating all social programs is not a better alternative to most Republicans’ desire merely to cut or privatize them. And on monetary policy, Paul’s desire to return to the gold standard would be devastating to rich and poor alike. The next time our economy falters, we’d be unable to lower interest rates or engage in quantitative easing to stimulate it
Brachiator
@SiubhanDuinne:
Also, they had the example of Franklin, who just plain got better with age. And they clearly dismissed the idea that age, by itself, could be a disqualifier when they explicitly did not impose a term limit for federal officials, particularly Supreme Court justices.
catclub
@balconesfault: of course, given the kenyan mooslim fascist on the other side, this may be a year in which no southerner is needed for the GOP to carry the south.
On the other hand, just remember that if about 15% of the white voters of Mississippi go for Obama, he will probably win the state. Last time he took 11%.
catclub
@jonas: a variation of the old: Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under socialism it is the converse.
Chris
@gene108:
I agree with this. There’s nothing exceptional about Ron Paul’s stance on the CRA and VRA – I think they’re more or less accepted as a truism throughout the Republican base. Mainstream Republicans might not talk about it as blatantly as Ron Paul did… then again, you’ve got Trent Lott blurting out, in the 21st century, that “if the country had followed Strom Thurmond we wouldn’t have all these problems,” which is as blatant a declaration of allegiance to the old racists’ platform as I’ve heard.
Not that this makes Ron Paul’s stance any less repugnant, just… not at all exceptional. In his party, it’s the norm.
@Chris:
Actually, I believe that. A similar thing happened in France back in 2002, when quite a few people voted for the fascist candidate, Le Pen, as a protest vote, because the status quo sucked, y’know. To everyone’s astonishment, Le Pen ended up second in the first round of elections… as a result, the run-off saw the biggest voter turnout in decades to vote against the bastard.
cckids
My opposition to Paul is also because of his anti-Civil Rights attitude. He’s also against the ADA, which is something that affects me & mine daily. I’ve lived with a son who uses a wheelchair for 28 years. I remember the days of having to sit in the very back of the theater, having to find & bully an usher into getting me whatever metal folding chair/piece of crap to sit beside him. Usually with a garbage can inches from my head. No curb cuts, doorways too narrow, no accessible bathrooms. Every day & every outing made more difficult & more estranging. Whole businesses that didn’t have an elevator. Being the invisible people in the crowd, because no one wants to acknowledge that you need accommodation.
I’m not comparing it to being beaten or lynched, but that feeling of being the forgotten “other” completely sucks. And, to Ron Paul, we, as a country, should have let that continue as long as businesses wanted. I remember the “oh noes” from the business crowd about the ADA, how they’d be bankrupt from all the changes. Funny, I haven’t noticed too many theaters going bankrupt by having wheelchair seating. It is a mostly unnoticed change; over the years, it has just gotten easier to take him places & be together as a family.
Recall
@Calouste: There were sane Libertarians running around at one point:
http://www.drugsense.org/mcwilliams/www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/toc0.htm
Calouste
@Recall:
No, there were not. Libertarianism and sanity are mutually exclusive, because libertarianism is in complete denial about how humans have actually behaved for at least recorded history, but probably going back further than that.
Cris (without an H)
@Calouste: Which is why Libertarians are usually big sci-fi/fantasy fans.
WaterGirl
@Pococurante: I think you may have missed the word ADOPTIVE, as in adoptive parents.
Ruckus
@lamh35:
I think this makes you, if anything, rational.
It’s the folks who argue against their own self interest or for no reason who are irrational, pig-headed and just plain ignorant.
Recall
@Calouste:
What part of Peter McWilliam’s political philosophy do you think is insane?
sparky
thanks for the link, John.
till i read TNC’s piece i was in the camp that thought though Paul was correct the way a stopped clock is right it was important for the bit about the Empire to get out. consequently i tended to separate the message from the messenger more than some others did. i see now that this was a mistake. Ron Paul can no more be an advocate for ending interventions than John Edwards can be an advocate for ending poverty.