Home » Blog » The Problem with Ron Paul
Blog for America
The Problem with Ron Paul
(Note: This post reflects my own views and not an official DFA position)
Lately, there's been a lot of buzz about a candidate picking up steam on the Republican side. A candidate marginalized by the mainstream media and raising large sums on the internet. Some have gone so far as to write him in as an "other" choice in the DFA pulse poll.
Now, DFA prides itself on having no litmus test for candidates running for office. And, Ron Paul has said a lot of the right things about the War in Iraq, federal spending, and protecting the constitution. And, we should work with people in any political party when there is common ground- particularly when our own party is sometimes loathe to take on the conventional wisdom and stand up for the views of the grassroots.
All that being said, just wanted to highlight some of the more radically non-progressive views Ron Paul also holds:
On Social Security:Ron Paul voted against government relief to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Indeed, he was proud of this vote and brashly asked:As for Social Security, "we didn't have it until 1935," Paul says. "I mean, do you read stories about how many people were laying in the streets and dying and didn't have medical treatment? . . . Prices were low and the country was productive and families took care of themselves and churches built hospitals and there was no starvation."
"Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government?" he asks. "Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people on the coast?"
Why Congressman? Because that's what makes us who we are. The sense of community, that we are all Americans and that in times of need we help our neighbors.
On foreign aid:
He is against the government's "delusional, feel-good" policies of giving aid to needy countries in places like Africa; instead, private citizens and private groups should give charity if they want to.
On education:
He'd get rid of the Department of Education and leave the business of schooling to local governments, because he believes that's what the Constitution intended.
On the United Nations
"The UN also wants to confiscate our firearms and impose a global tax. The UN elites want to control the world's oceans with the Law of the Sea Treaty. And they want to use our military to police the world."
Now, if you support leaving people to drown in a hurricane, abolishing the Department of Education, Social Security, and most other government agencies and programs, returning to the gold standard, opposing reproductive freedoms, ignoring GLBT rights, and withdrawing from the UN, Congressman Paul is for you.
Otherwise, please head over to the DFA Pulse Poll and vote for a Democrat to take America forward in a new direction.
Show: Expand All Reply
... oddly, all these things that you want us to fear, Illya couldn't happen without Congress, or even the votes of the States... that is IF Congress had the guts to uphold their obligations under the Constitution.
sheeeez, this constant selling of the Democratic party is sooooo strange. There should be no question there, but sadly THERE IS.
THAT IS NOT OUR FAULT!! The fact that there is those sentiments here, of all places, is why we need Howard back... instead of being muzzled in D.C.
Well, I was visiting the Dep of Ed site this morning and I'm not sure this institution deserves to be funded. While I certainly agree that ignorance (which we all have at birth) needs to be removed and while I agree that it's a national matter, if only because we prize our ability to relocate from state to state at will, without a lot of rigamarole (like JudyforDean seems to be experiencing in Switzerland), public education has long been marred by a concentration on making "good citizens" out of the young, rather than making them competent adults whose talents are enhanced by the skills and information developed in the past.
Howard Dean is first--just in case you forgot.
I'm glad Ron Paul is running on the Republican side. And that he is in their debates. But I'd never vote for him. Extreme Libertarianism is not progressive, IMO.
BTW, Dean is first and he'd be well-advised not to have the DNC sponsor the debate if it excludes candidates because of money.
from a previous thread
"Huckabee came across as a GOP Jimmy Carter (open, honet and saintly), and the evangelicals loved Jimmy until Reagan turned their heads four years later (how, I will never understand).
-- volney"
Under Carter's DOJ/IRS Bob Jones University had their tax exempt status taken away for racial discrimination against AAs, the SCOTUS upheld. The wingnuts went nuts then joined Satan and the Republican party.
Oddly, their god Bob Jones III struck the rules that discriminated to regain the tax exempt status. By then the lust for power and vengence on the Supreme Court kept the fundies in Hell's camp.
*** on the Gravel issue***
Howard should prohibit the other nominee candidates from this debate, or strip their delegetes. period.
Mike wrote "Well Tom, youve pissed off enough people here today.......we dont need to fuel the fire anymore..you are doing fine by yourself."
Is that how you view your role in the blog discussion? Making sure you don’t piss anyone off?
Monica wrote "Howard Dean is first--just in case you forgot."
Mike didn't forget. He never subscribed to the axiom.
I did drive by a group of Ron Paul supporters with signs on the road the other day. And I honked for them. Not because I support Paul but because they were out there standing up for democracy.
Reminded of the old "we are Dean people" days standing by the road.
Indy wrote "Hey. New thread. Clean blog. Don't pollute."
What's this about? I had a question in direct connection with a statement in a post. Are you getting all 1984 on us?
I don't think anyone should give charity to anyone. I think every person, by virtue of being born, is entitled to be sustained to be provided with the skills required to be contributing. I don't think sustenance should be conditioned on subservience.
To the claim that "there is no free lunch," I would respond that lunch is an entitlement--i.e. an obligation that society must satisfy. For any human to starve is a blot on the species--a sign that humans are less "advanced" than the chipmunk or the ant.
Seems MSNBC are moving their offices to NYC today. Maybe that's why Mr. Grouchy at the NJ switchboard is in such a foul mood.
You can call 212-664-4444 and ask to leave a message for Keith Olberman, as Indy suggested, to get Gravel invited to the debate.
The woman who answered the phone at the DNC HQ didn't think Howard would make a statement but she did say she'd let him know. He's in Oregon still - and she laughed that I even knew that :)
Gotta get some work done but I'll be here on and off.
Lovely day to all!
Tom,
It's not only been traditional here for the past four years to leave non-political and personal rude posts on the previous threads.
It's also common courtesy.
You too, Mike.
True moderation versus false centrism...an important difference. Some in the think tank division of our party don't know the difference.
From Dictionary.com:
Obtuse: not quick or alert in perception, feeling, or intellect; not sensitive or observant; dull.
Tom Bearse
Mon, 10/22/07
12:01 pm
Carryng over old posts with attacks from another thread....against blog rules. That's all.
Denise wrote "It's not only been traditional here for the past four years to leave non-political and personal rude posts on the previous threads."
I was not aware of this, but I subscribe to it whole-heartedly.
Bless you, Tom!
************
For anyone who is interested, I left some articles on the last thread.
Now off.
the Holy Trinity (Clinton, Bayh and Bauer) ? --
-- if so, they sound like they've been annoited:
http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071022/News01/710220322
Bayh nominated for vice president?Bauer: Endorsing Clinton could make it possible.
MIKE SMITH
Associated Press Writer
INDIANAPOLIS -- Indiana House Speaker Patrick Bauer said he endorsed Democrat Hillary Clinton for president at the request of Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh and because he believes it could lead to Bayh becoming the vice presidential nominee.
When asked whether Bayh told him that Clinton's nomination would help him become her running mate, Bauer said, "I can't say he said that exactly, but I know that's the case."
When asked exactly what he did say, Bauer said, "I think he says she's going to win and that he is very close to her and they work well together and hope to work very well together in the future."
Bayh endorsed Clinton last month, saying she was a "seasoned, experienced leader who will be ready to lead this country on day one." But he dismissed speculation that part of his motivation for endorsing Clinton was to enhance his odds of being chosen running mate.
...
Several political analysts and observers say Bayh is likely to be considered as Clinton's running mate if she gets the nomination. It would give the ticket a centrist Democrat and a former, popular governor from a Republican-leaning state.
The Clinton campaign announced Oct. 15 that Bauer, former Indiana House Speaker John Gregg, former Indiana first lady Judy O'Bannon and four other big-name Democrats in Indiana had signed up to become co-chairs of her campaign in the state.
...
Indy wrote "Carryng over old posts with attacks from another thread....against blog rules. That's all."
To what attack are you referring?
Ron Paul heading this thread? Good grief.
Gravel excluded? Good grief.
Judy, are you saying you'll vote for any horrible dem just to keep a horrible repug from winning? That's what Pelosi is counting on - total capitulation by us.
Won't work this time on me. It's nice here in Argentina as an ex-pat.
* rdorgan
Mon, 10/22/07
12:10 pm
Clinton / Bayh. That's where we're headed if people agree already to vote for any old yellow dog Dem. The DLC is salivating....I know Bayh. He'll be a great wallflower for the Clintons.
We can do better than that!
IT
What does IT really mean ?
It could mean the Inevitable Train, the one with Hillary as the engineer and Bill the one collecting tickets.
I was doing a crossword puzzle when it pulled into the station, so I missed it.
Drats, there goes my reward as a political operative, staff employee in a Hill/Bill administration.
Just saw your question, sea.
I have a vote. Not using it or writing in someone when that means that the repugnant Republican will win as a result are not options for me.
I'm sorry, but that's the way I see it and I call it. You have to make your own decision for yourself.
I don't see it as *capitulation.* I see it as using my vote to be able to complain about the person I voted against and to hold the person for whom I voted to a standard of conduct, even if that person disappoints me. Then, if they do, I have every right to complain about that person too.
Now really gone.
I don't believe in rewarding a party that prides itself on being not quite as bad as the other guys. In the long run I think the nation will be better off if we wipe the smirks off the faces of DLC-DINOs like Schumer, Emanuel, Nelson, Hoyer, Pelosi, Reid, Feinstein, and many others by letting the party go down to defeat.
I want these smug, condescending bastards to have to come back to their base and erstwhile supporters on their knees, begging for forgiveness, and vowing to reflect the will of the voters in future.
Mike wrote "Well Tom, you’ve pissed off enough people here today.......we don’t need to fuel the fire anymore..you are doing fine by yourself." I wrote "Is that how you view your role in the blog discussion? Making sure you don’t piss anyone off?", meaning if I’m somehow perceived as having pissed people off, is this considered to be some kind of unseemly conduct instead of transacting in the marketplace of ideas? I was previously asking Mike to, in his mind, piss people off by airing instead of suppressing his views about the DNC Chair.
If this is what passes for attacks on the modern day blog, I’m a little concerned for the open expression of ideas on it in the future.
FOR EXAMPLE
http://www.counterpunch.org/cohn10222007.html
The Michael Mukasey Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing has demonstrated that Mukasey cannot be relied upon to function independently as U.S. Attorney General. Nevertheless, Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee seem so thrilled that Mukasey is not Alberto Gonzales that they're willing to vote for him even though he's another loyal Bushie. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, backed down on his promise to hold up the confirmation hearing until the administration turned over material his committee had requested regarding several investigations. Leahy said of Mukasey after the hearing, "He's at least answered the questions, which is better than his predecessor. He's going to be different than Gonzales on all the issues, I think. He will certainly be better than Gonzales on morale."
Some of Mukasey's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee should have raised red flags in the minds of Democratic Senators. Mukasey refused to reject the notion that the President can constitutionally violate FISA. He misread the Supreme Court's recent decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which clearly rejected Bush's claim that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions doesn't protect al-Qaeda prisoners. Common Article 3 prohibits torture and cruel or inhuman treatment of all prisoners. In fact, the Hamdan Court referred to possible liability under the U.S. War Crimes Act for those who violate Common Article 3. And when asked about contempt charges against witnesses who refuse to respond to congressional subpoenas, Mukasey said he would refuse to follow the statute that requires a U.S. attorney to refer contempt citations to a grand jury.
Nonetheless, Mukasey appears to be a shoo-in, with the Senate proceedings resembling a charade. One month before Mukasey was tapped by Bush for AG, the former federal judge penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal complaining about too much due process in terrorism prosecutions and advocating special courts where the Constitution wouldn't get in the way of catching the bad guys.
AND WE'RE SUPPOSED TO RE-ELECT THESE CLOWNS?
Libertarianism = an excuse for negligence
25. Howard Dean, anyone?
Gotta run but I'm missing Howard Dean this election cycle.
Ron Paul voted against government relief to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Indeed, he was proud of this vote and brashly asked:
"Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government?" he asks. "Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people on the coast?"
Why Congressman? Because that's what makes us who we are. The sense of community, that we are all Americans and that in times of need we help our neighbors.
------------
???
Yes, "we all Americans" BUT "people that CHOSE to live on the coastline" DID NOT ASK NEITHER PERMISSION NOR ADVICE FROM THE REST OF US if we DON'T MIND if they'll live in places where natural disasters are almost regularly scheduled events!
"Freedom" to choose place where to live (and then to expect receiving almost regularly home insurance from the rest of us) is a 2-way street.
There is a HUGE(!!!) justification, imo, in such Ron Paul's position!
John wrote "I want these smug, condescending bastards to have to come back to their base and erstwhile supporters on their knees, begging for forgiveness, and vowing to reflect the will of the voters in future."
The vengeance motif is intriguing from a strictly psychological perspective, but what is with this "rewarding a party"? Do you believe I’m calling on people to write in a Republican if they can’t support the Democrat for president in 2008 because the party deserves some sort of reward?
Let me make something clear. I didn’t think Gore or Dean were the ideal candidates. I’m not even sure Wellstone would have been or Feingold would be. I just thought they were, or think they would be, far better than some of the alternative options and I’m a political pragmatist. I want the better option to prevail. In my view, Nader would make an outstanding president, but a vote for him was one vote Gore didn’t get, so I didn’t cast it, thinking Gore was superior to Bush by leagues.
Mukasey is an elitist. It's not an unusual attitude for a judge. Indeed, it's what makes it attractive to be one--the assumption that one is better than, not just different from other people.
Howard and I passed in the air. He on his way to Oregon, and me on my way back from a conference and some vacation time. I was happy to be able to listen to Air America and other progressive talk most of the time in the Northwest on stations either in Oregon or Washington. Saw my first snow of the season (and missed out on seeing Crater Lake because the snow closed the road).
What to do if someone as not-progressive as Hillary gets the Democratic nomination is the question dejour.
I don't have an answer in the short term. I really don't want Mitt Romney, or even Rudy, picking three Supreme Court Justices.
Longer term, we need to take over a political party. The Democrats are the obvious first thought, although any party can be turned. A party's nature as a political and democratic (little d) animal makes it possible if we can assemble and mobilize.
It'll take a more organized effort than we have had so far. DFA has encouraged people to get involved in their local parties, but "take over" hasn't been its primary goal.
So maybe we need another organization, formally affiliated or not, whose goal is the takeover of the Democratic Party by progressive forces. I'd set as a target date, before the 2010 elections.
Why then?
- The 2010 elections pick the state legislatures that will control redistricting based on the 2010 census.
- That's roughly the time the rules for nominating the 2012 Presidential candidates wil be developed within the party
- If Hillary gets elected, all the DLC types will be too busy looking for White House offices to pay attention to the Party.
This needs to be an organization with strategy, tactics, fundraising, boots on the ground, the whole shebang! It needs to be singly focused, although the support of other groups, blogs, etc may be solicited and welcomed.
Discussion?
former wrote "Yes, 'we all Americans' BUT 'people that CHOSE to live on the coastline' DID NOT ASK NEITHER PERMISSION NOR ADVICE FROM THE REST OF US if we DON'T MIND if they'll live in places where natural disasters are almost regularly scheduled events!"
Ha ha. So fuck 'em. You really are a Libertarian. How did Al Gore ever appeal to you as a candidate?
On education:
He'd get rid of the Department of Education and leave the business of schooling to local governments, because he believes that's what the Constitution intended.
--------------
???
Yes he is against ANY Govermental (up-down!!!) intrusion into citizens' life.
But he is NOT against but FOR VOLUNTARY cooperation and agreements BETWEEN citizens in ANY area, including, of course education.
Quite progressive agenda, imo!
rich^kolker
Mon, 10/22/07
12:33 pm
Rich, You were in God's country. I used to fight forest fires just south of Crater Lake. Have hiked all over that country.
The problem with a Dem "takeover" strategy is that we will and have been seen as "outsiders". They, the Dem establishment, has effectively isolated some, marginalized others and coopted a few. That will only happen again.
I think IF Democrats really continue to cave going up against a President with 25% approval rating, and nominate a DLC ticket, we would have better odds of creating a Progressive People's party. It wouldn't take a large number of people to do this in each CD. We could run our own slate of candidates and collaborate with the Dem party WHEN we choose to. If we were able to flex muscle by causing a few Dems to lose elections (but not the majority), we would NOT be taken for granted.
Some might say, "why not the Green party?" IMO, the Greens are always working alone rather than with other progressives. They have not made much progress and generally REFUSE to work with Democrats much.
35.
Tom Bearse
Mon, 10/22/07
12:33 pm
former wrote "Yes, 'we all Americans' BUT 'people that CHOSE to live on the coastline' DID NOT ASK NEITHER PERMISSION NOR ADVICE FROM THE REST OF US if we DON'T MIND if they'll live in places where natural disasters are almost regularly scheduled events!"
Ha ha. So fuck 'em.
---------
No, I did not suggest to "fuck 'em".
I've only suggested to apply justification.
If THEY CHOSE to live there WITHOUT OUR CONSENT then WE CAN'T be RESPONSIBLE to pay regularly!
On Libertarians -- there's plenty wrong w/ Ron Paul, but I don't think the Gov't owes me anything. I'm supposed to earn/kill/harvest it myself. If I choose to procreate, Im supposed to earn/kill/harvest whatever the offspring needs. When the Gov't DOES come through it's a pleasant surprise, eg, FEMA tent giving out FREE water/ice after a hurricane, paramedics doing an admirable job after a car wreck.
On Third Party -- yes we need to do something. I'm not sure we can highjack the Democrats. I think they are the other side of the unlucky coin we found out in the street saying 'Republican.' To me the answer is to get money out of the picture. Gov't financed elections, some ethics rules for lobbyists and lawmakers. The problem is the HENS in the HENHOUSE are making the rules. Don't know what the solution is. A PURPLE ALLIANCE!! I guess.
Ron Paul is my representative on the coastal area of Texas. I can tell you he will 1) Vote EXACTLY as he indicates on his web-site, 2) Always answer your e-mails with detailed answers, 3) He is intelligent and well-respected in what is a quite conservative area
He wil NOT --now, or ever-- change his positions on social programs.
He will NOT support them in any way.
Please DFA'ers, if you care about social programs do not urge either him or his supporters on --put your efforts into your choice of a good Dem field.
Shirlee in Texas
Annilow
Mon, 10/22/07
12:47 pm
That's what makes us at least close to a civilized SOCIETY. That we care about others and are willing to help them in need. Rugged individualism of the kind Ron Paul advocates is regressive. Hopefully, we can see through that and MAKE government work for people again.
Shirlee Murphy
Mon, 10/22/07
12:50 pm
Thanks Shirlee, for your on the ground views. Don't worry -- I don't think DFA is in danger of supporting Ron Paul. Come back and share your insights again.
P.S. Howard was MY MAN in 2004 and supported him hugely--just don't post much--arthritic hands. but I love all the discussions.
former wrote "No, I did not suggest to 'fuck 'em'."
Sorry, my mistake. I could have sworn you did.
41. Ok I care about people in need but I don't OWE people in need. I get bothered by people who have, say, flat screen TVs that don't have car insurance and run into me. I don't have a flat screen TV b/c I'm responsible and spent my $ on car insurance. People who have 4 kids under 4 and look to society to help care for them, feed them, give them free healthcare and foodstamps. Why did they have all those kids? There's civilized and then there's I don't know what -- I believe in self reliance. And I get REALLY bothered by people who don't care for their pets. That has nothing to do with anything except maybe being responsible, I guess.
Shirllee wrote "Howard was MY MAN in 2004 and supported him hugely--just don't post much--arthritic hands. but I love all the discussions."
How cool. I hope you feel the urge to contribute more, anyway.
43. Shirlee -- keep offering your insights -- glad to know you're lurking and speaking out when need be.
Annilow wrote "I get bothered by people who have, say, flat screen TVs that don't have car insurance and run into me."
Ha ha. This would certainly be a different place without your posts, Annilow.
41.
Indy Steve
Mon, 10/22/07
12:53 pm
That's what makes us at least close to a civilized SOCIETY. That we care about others and are willing to help them in need. Rugged individualism of the kind Ron Paul advocates is regressive. Hopefully, we can see through that and MAKE government work for people again.
-----------
There is no need to jump back and force between "Rugged individualism" and "irresponsible/unaccounted collectivism".
Yes, society members are "care about others and are willing to help them in need" HOWEVER if such a "need" is a sequence of almost REGULARLY scheduled disaster then IT IS NOT a "NEED" but a "WASTE"!
In such cases members of society should ask question, IN WHOSE INTERESTS people settle in so dangerous to live places?
48.
Tom Bearse
Mon, 10/22/07
1:05 pm
That's what my Mom would have called a backhanded compliment? But back at ya.
Indy and Rich. I think we do need a 3rd, progressive party. The top draw for me in the Dean Movement was "taking back the Democratic Party". We can all see how well that worked.
Indy, I also agree that the Greens are not the 3rd pary we seek. They're progressive enough on the issues, but are forever being ripped apart by internal dissension. In fact, one of their biggest rifts is over the issue of cooperating with vs competing against Democrats.
"The incredible Mrs.Pritchard" is a wonderful fantasy which worked in large part, because the media covered her and her campaign, which was a grass-roots, bottom-up affair. Rupert Murdoch and his reactionary colleagues are not likely to allow respectful or sympathetic coverage of any progressive third party.
45.
Annilow
Mon, 10/22/07
1:03 pm
Reply to this
41. Ok I care about people in need but I don't OWE people in need. I get bothered by people who have, say, flat screen TVs that don't have car insurance and run into me. I don't have a flat screen TV b/c I'm responsible and spent my $ on car insurance. People who have 4 kids under 4 and look to society to help care for them, feed them, give them free healthcare and foodstamps. Why did they have all those kids? There's civilized and then there's I don't know what -- I believe in self reliance. And I get REALLY bothered by people who don't care for their pets. That has nothing to do with anything except maybe being responsible, I guess.
------------
!!!
Worthy point too!
We may even AGREE to OWE others to support them in case of TRUE unexpected disaster BUT NOT the one which IS EXPECTED and certain to happen!
Annilow
Mon, 10/22/07
1:03 pm
I believe in individual responsibility too. But I wouldn't punish their children for their mistakes. And the notion that poor people are there because they want to be on the "public dole" is a Conservative, right-wing myth for the most part.
We can have social programs for people in need, universal health care and individual responsibility. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Ron Paul wants to eliminate social security (or privatize it). SS is the most important social program to retain. People who have worked all their lives and paid in with their own money should not be abandoned in a civil society.
And I get REALLY bothered by people who don't care for their pets.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
yeah Anni,
What a great post, and THIS is where the Dems have lost many people........and will continue to lose people............and barking dogs left out all day and feral cats crappin all over our yards stinks too.............
Many "old schoolers" are where we are today not by handouts but by good old fashioned hard work and education..............nobody ever asked anything from the state and expected anything from it...........
Drive by. I thought FRED might find this article interesting (and quite scary) concerning high level of chemicals in toddler's bloodstream.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10/...
Also sending good thoughts and vibes to Californians today. The fires are out of control.
44.
Tom Bearse
Mon, 10/22/07
1:02 pm
Reply to this
former wrote "No, I did not suggest to 'fuck 'em'."
Sorry, my mistake. I could have sworn you did.
-----------
To get sworn about OWN impression does not make it factual truth.
former
Mon, 10/22/07
1:14 pm
So let 'em burn or drown. It's their own fault? Not my idea of caring.
I'm not against requiring insurance for those who choose to live in risky areas. But they are human beings and shouldn't be abandoned.
I'm a little more rovian in my "support" of Paul because he points out the no clothes aspect of the emperor on the war and drives away the libertarians from the Republican fascists.
I'm glad to see him have such large support from their side.
I wouldn't want him as my Congressman Shirlee you have my sympathy.
Michael Ellis
Mon, 10/22/07
1:18 pm
Hey, Mike. Newsflash. Education from K-12 is publicly funded. And many people received their College ed from state schools (75% public money) and Federal grants/loans.
Our entire market economy is based upon the state providing the rules and filling in the gaps which the private market doesn't. Noone EVER made it on their own. Well, except for the caveman but even he needed to form into social groups to survive.
-
By Michael Ellis on Oct 22, 2007 11:41 AM EDTIndependent thought is always first....................................