OK, I know I have said in the past that Ron Paul adds nothing of any value to the intelligent discourse of the presidential race, but I have to recant that statement. After watching the ABC/Facebook debate tonight and watching that nutty backwoods conservative scream over and over about the Iraq War and the welfare state, I have to say, he’s a hell of a lot of fun to watch. I don’t know how much longer he can last, but I almost want to give money to his campaign to watch the fireworks continue.
On domestic issues, I am about as opposed to him as I can be. I think he is a moron to want to cut the federal government as much as he wants to (that’s not to say it couldn’t use a little trim here and there). However, on foreign policy, while I disagree with his isolationist stance as a whole, there are some good and sound messages in there that we should take to heart.
The rest of the field fell all over themselves to say that Al Queda didn’t attack us because we have bases in Muslim countries, while Ron Paul was man enough to say that was the main reason it happened. Of course, none of them were able to say that it could have been a combination of that and the values that we hold dear as a nation (which it of course is).
So, I recant. I hope Ron Paul hangs in there as long as he can.
1 Howie // Jan 05, 2008 at 09:12 PM
I totally agree that Ron Paul makes the GOP debates fun to watch he makes the others look like complete bufoons and they are so busy mocking him that they don’t see it. BTW he’s not an isolationist he believes in free trade, free markets and talking with countries like Cuba and Venezuela. He’s against NAFTA, CAFTA and the UN because they erode our sovereignty. Also, It’s ok that you’re a statist (although you’re wrong, notice I didn’t call you a moron though) but I would invite you to investigate the largess of our Federal Government and ask yourself how long it can continue to leech off the backs of taxpayers, especially when we’re $9 trillion in debt. Then ask yourself which of the candidates out there will reverse the course.
2 Thomas // Jan 05, 2008 at 09:42 PM
“It’s ok that you’re a statist (although you’re wrong, notice I didn’t call you a moron though) but I would invite you to investigate the largess of our Federal Government and ask yourself how long it can continue to leech off the backs of taxpayers, especially when we’re $9 trillion in debt.”
A statist? Wouldn’t that be defined as “someone who is in favor of a state,” which in itself means “someone who believes in the opposite of anarchy”? If that is the case, then, yes, I am most definitely a “statist.” I want law and order, and I think the main job of the government is to provide a better life for its citizens. Hence, I think welfare has a role in this country and every country. If you don’t believe if helping people with your wealth, then you are not much better than Dick Cheney.
3 JohnL // Jan 05, 2008 at 09:55 PM
Be careful about what you’re saying regarding his foreign policy. I think you’ve been sucked in by big media here- he has NEVER advocated for isolationism, although the media has twisted his words so people might interpret it that way. There are two different policies here:
Dr. Paul advocates NON-INTERVENTIONISM: “Isolationism is not to be confused with the non-interventionist philosophy and foreign policy of the libertarian world view, which espouses unrestricted free trade and freedom of travel for individuals to all countries. This “libertarian isolationist” view is best defined as a policy of nonparticipation in foreign political relations, but free trade and affability to all.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism
They are different, in that non-intervention promotes free and open trade, and diplomacy. Isolationism does not.
So in essence, our position on trade and diplomacy wouldn’t be much different than it is today.
4 Thomas // Jan 05, 2008 at 10:19 PM
“So in essence, our position on trade and diplomacy wouldn’t be much different than it is today.”
Then why bother voting for Ron Paul?
We need change, and you have just said he won’t change much despite his rhetoric. How is he any different from any other candidate - especially the Republicans.
You say he is in favor of free trade, but Howie has told us he is against NAFTA and CAFTA, which are - as their names indicate - free trade agreements.
5 aletoledo // Jan 05, 2008 at 10:22 PM
“On domestic issues, I am about as opposed to him as I can be. I think he is a moron to want to cut the federal government as much as he wants to…”
That is a fine opinion to hold, I just hope you’re consistent in this opinion.
How about a president that eliminated all internal taxes (i.e. IRS), put the country onto a gold standard currency, eliminated the navy, reduced the standing army by 95% and then gagged SCOTUS from stopping him.
What a moron right?
6 Lorraine // Jan 05, 2008 at 10:25 PM
a soldier talks about “honour” and honour http://youtube.com/watch?v=I96bWWM93eE
the only choice for honourable people in this country is Paul, Edwards or Kucinich.
The rest are prostituting us to the highest bidder.
7 Thomas // Jan 05, 2008 at 10:46 PM
That is quite a video, Lorraine. Thanks for posting it. While I like Huckabee among the Republicans, that is the kind of stuff I love from Ron Paul.
8 Tim // Jan 06, 2008 at 12:28 AM
Looks like yet another has fallen for the neocon talking points of “isolationism.”
The last nation engaging in ‘Pre-emptive war’ was Fascist Germany.
You need a history lesson boy in the private Federal Reserve. Ron Paul is almost the only man in congress who is not in the pockets of private bankers. He is the only man with the potential to put the power of the dollar back in the hands of congress and out of private ,for profit, welfare, banking corporations.
9 Thomas // Jan 06, 2008 at 01:37 AM
Tim, How in the holy shit did you make the jump to neocon from me referring to Paul as an isolationist? Are you freakin’ kidding me? Did you even read what I wrote, or did you just read the comments?
Let me repeat… “while I disagree with his isolationist stance as a whole, there are some good and sound messages in there that we should take to heart.”
I can think of nothing better than us NOT propping up dictators and toppling democratically elected leaders because they don’t agree with us. I would love for us to close down military bases we have in MANY places in the world.
I have NEVER supported the war in Iraq. Why? Because, as you wonderfully imply, we should not be following in Hitler’s footsteps. War is wrong. It should always, ALWAYS be opposed from the start, and should be opposed until ALL other avenues have been exhausted (which they were not in Iraq), and we have a just reason to go to war.
As for private bankers, I could care less. We are a capitalist country and dreams come true thanks to the help of banks and their money. If you don’t like banks, move to Cuba. And, you, sir, need a lesson in campaign finance if you think financiers don’t have a connection to Ron Paul, as the finance industry is Paul’s sixth largest contributing industry: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.asp?id=N00005906&cycle=2008”
10 Mike Jacobs // Jan 06, 2008 at 08:41 AM
Another blog doing anything for hits…lol….
11 andrew // Jan 06, 2008 at 02:57 PM
“Another blog doing anything for hits…lol….”
Personally, I’m starting to think that maybe we here at S&P should focus ONLY on Ron Paul and the random hilarity that spews from the campaign as a whole (as opposed to our recent articles on music, liquor, Hillary, China, etc etc etc). I’ve haven’t seen such an impassioned, dedicated and blood-thirsty group of political supporters in years…it’s somewhat impressive that Paul is able to pull such solid support, but frankly, the passion and, dare I say, fanaticism are also a bit scary.
I’m pretty sure that Thomas here was simply commenting on one of the few things that anyone took away from this debate (personally, I’m getting pretty sick of these scripted debates…we need to find some new way to do this), and wasn’t even very negative towards Paul. “[D]oing anything for hits”? I’m not so sure.
In fact, I think it’s really just the opposite: I’m pretty sure the Ron Paul Truthers will do anything for attention. With reader rates jumping through the roof on all blogs at just the mention of his name, I think the Paul campaign is proving itself as nothing more than an overly-fervent, blood-thirsty pack that is more concerned with insulting critics than actually encouraging change.
Until I see something, hell, ANYTHING, constructive come from the Ron Paul camp, I know that I will continue to view him as little more than a comedic outsider. And I agree with Thomas…I hope he sticks around as long as he can for this very reason.