We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, January 6. 2012
To now, Ron Paul has been given prominence due to his poll results. Libertarianism and restraint in foreign involvements appeals to many Republicans as well as to others disillusioned by the overstepping of federal intrusions into our lives and the often bumbling and always difficult implementation of foreign policies. But, Ron Paul is not the answer. Indeed, his simplistic and conspiratorial utterances, his views shared by those who most actively oppose or attack the United States and its allies, place him beyond any pale. This ad takes his foreign policies head on:
Or, Glenn Beck reveals the committee Paul formed with Barney Frank, of all people, to reorganize defense with a $1 trillion cut: 11 out of 14 are funded by George Soros! Oh yeah, Paul has his head screwed on, backwards.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Hmm, surprising that his simplistic, conspiratorial, opposition of the US and allies is making him the most supported candidate by the military with 5x the amount of donations than all other Republican candidates combined.
Yup you just lost a reader.
That America is oscillating between extreme candidates indicates that the system is unstable.
The Constitution is not enough, evidently.
Horrible headline, Bruce, and a very twisted presentation by someone who has an agenda. It doesn't do justice to the cause against Obama's policies.
BTW, Paul does have heavy support from the military and many who are not far right, based on his call for auditing The Fed, who has yet to release all the entities who got "loans" of taxpayer money, and his call for closing the multiple overlapping departments who only serve lobbyists bent toward earmarking and magnifying an over-bloated budget.
Hopefully, over the next few months, the candidates will come together with a platform that combines the best ideas from multiple moderate/conservative viewpoints without totally desecrating an anti-Obama message. It used to be these problems were worked out at the conventions. Now we rely on the media? Bad move.
I don't often disagree with your posts. Gotta on this one, though.
Ron Paul has put much thought into his views, as have Libertarians generally. What's simplistic is sticking to old policies that have brought us to where we are.
Do we need to adopt every and all of Paul's foreign policy? Not necessarily. But when you compare his view to those of all others, his is the only original thinking in the bunch. The rest are just different shades of the same policies that we've endured for the last 60 years, with minor modifications to adapt for the decline of large scale Communism.
The foreign policy which has placed us in so many hot zones may work to 'contain' adversaries and views we disagree with. But it also alienates other countries while putting our citizen soldiers at risk. There are limits to how far we can project our power, militarily and economically, particularly in our current economic situation.
We need new ideas and new ways of approaching things. Or, more likely, we need to revive some old ideas and old ways of approaching things. Certainly the US was much more popular around the world when we were less visible militarily. Is foreign policy a popularity contest? No. But winning hearts and minds is important.
I'm with Bruce here. Paul is a crank, a dishonest crank at that. As president he'd be the same zero he has been in the Congress. And he'd be fighting with everyone all the time while the bureaucracy went its merry way.
I watched with interest to see who made this video. Lo and behold it is an Israel support group! Surprise. Come on, the only reason Ron Paul will not be elected is because Israel doesn't want him to be president. Isolationist? You know what they say, follow the money, who gains from all our efforts in the middle east. Israel, socialist society, being carried by the u.s. to the tune of billions per year. Maybe Paul sounds a little crazy sometimes but that is because we don't know what it means to be free anymore. Talking about independence and freedom is crazy talk these days.
I also literally LOL'd when I saw who paid for this ad.
This video is for all you people who claim Paul is a vicious anti-Israel anti-semite.
Note: This guy is not related to Ron Paul
Which nation’s Constitution is the President sworn to uphold?
A little research shows Paul’s views are not what these bumper-sticker accusations assert. In order to determine he is wrong and/or dangerous it is essential to grasp what he actually advocates.
Did Bauer agree with Reagan’s condemnation of the attack at Osirak? You know, the one where Paul stood against everybody and the U.N., defending Israel’s right to self-defense.
Why a horrible headline, exactly. I've listened to Paul's speeches, read directly his writings. I'd never vote for this man as President of these States. He is insane, no matter his small smatterings of sense.
I'd say the bottom of the barrel has been reached when Paul is considered a 'serious' candidate.
As Obama was a Rorschach Protocol for liberals, so is Ron Paul a projective test for libertarians and conservatives near that pole. They make up a narrative about who Ron Paul is and what he supports, and support that by cherry-picking data and confirmation bias. Things that don't fit are buried, put in closets, explained away.
Then they go on to make up stories about why people don't want to listen to Ron Paul, and the weirdness doubles. Then, when the Ron Paul supporters have patiently explained to us why we aren't listening and they are just right, as if it's everyone else who has a hearing problem, the weirdness doubles again, as in blaming the ISRAEL LOBBY.
As to the military, he has appeal because of his plainspokenness, and a backlash effect (at least in the USMC) that he will only send our soldiers to wars where they can really cut loose and not have to be so politically correct. That is never going to happen again. PC wars are the new normal from now until the crack of doom. Soldiers also have fantasies.
Because Paul has views outside the mainstream, he will have ideas and predictions that are at times spectacularly better than others. Those are real but they are not the norm for him, however. He can also be spectacularly wrong for the same reason.
He is not the person you think he is. Stop looking for political saviors.
I'd disagree with everything you say here. Primarily because, while some of it is 'true', insofar as you could make a case for it, none of it is 'true' because most of his supporters are like me - adequately level headed enough to know he has some flaws, he isn't a savior, and he is who he says he is without having to explain away anything.
Sure, he's got some nuts backing him - who doesn't? But as I pointed out in another comment earlier today, it's almost the curse of the Libertarians that we will attract people who follow an individualistic lifestyle which others perceive as being 'nutty'.
When your supporters range from businesspeople to college students, to the owner of the Moonlight Bunny Ranch and finally out to the far fringe and you find Johnny Rotten (who can't vote, but gave at least a humorous supporting comment for Paul), well....it's hard for anyone in the mainstream to understand what they have to analyze.
Sounds very similar to having to read the market. Either you're in it and can deal with its vagaries, or you're in it and try to rig it (the established Right) or you reject it outright (the Left).
I won't waste my time having to explain Paul's supposed flaws when they are positioned as "insane" or "nuts". These are positions which can never be altered. You mention 'confirmation bias' on the part of his supporters, but you don't account for the fact that you engage it, too.
You've made up his mind he's 'nuts'. Therefore, you spend more time either ignoring him or finding reasons to support your position.
I, on the other hand, am realistic. I support him, would be happy to see him win and will vote for him when or if I get the chance. But I also recognize he's got flaws. Funny, because so does every single other candidate. While I'll vote for him if he gets the nomination, I can't see how Romney is all that different from Obama on many issues. He'll be more friendly to business. That's about it. I think that's a good thing and a reason to vote for him. But it's also dangerous, because it could mean an expansion of crony capitalism, not a contraction.
No saviors. I'm not looking for any in the political ranks. They don't exist. But a little bit of understanding of Austrian Economic policies, an agreement that the Constitution is the primary guiding vehicle of policy, and a recognition that individual rights trump the goals of government social policy-making? I'll vote for that.
As I've said all along, Ron's great benefit is how he has dragged the discussion closer to the real, original Republican goal of individualism.
You're a great guy Rick and you write some great stuff, but there is no way you can defend this.
You can not defend his conspiracy based, racist commentary written under his name for his new letter that he disavows all responsibility for.
You can not defend his "fiscal conservancy" when he earmarks millions for his own district.
He's Lyndon LaRouche only without the felony for mail fraud.
First, Chuck makes one good point: Paul would be 'fighting with everyone all the the time'. I think that's true but I'm reserving judgment on whether it would be a Bad Thing. It may well be that what we need to control the Congress is an obstructionist president who's not afraid to veto bills.
Second, I supported Reagan (and support Republicans in general) because Reagan was more libertarian than the alternatives; not because Reagan was more conservative*. Five will get you ten that there are many (Republican) voters who feel the same way. Mr. Bauer's argument-from-conservatism is wasted on folk like us.
Finally, Bauer claims we can do better. That's often true in general but in this particular case, I notice he doesn't name a better alternative. Who would be a better choice?
Mitt Romney? The man who considers the individual mandate in health care a fundamentally conservative principle?
Rick Santorum? Yet another Big Government Republican? At least when GWB was peddling this line, he fancied it up by calling it compassionate.
Newt Gingrich? The guy who made the ad with Nancy Pelosi calling for government action on climate change? And that's just one of several of Mr. Gingrich's opportunistic moves. (Let me add that I admired what Speaker Gingrich accomplished in the House during Clinton's tenure.)
If Christie (New Jersey) or Daniels (Indiana) were running and doing well, I'd agree with Bauer that we could do better.
But with the current batch? NFW, brother.
*After decades of reading National Review, I'm conviced that 'conservative' means whatever the writer/speaker wants it to mean. What a Humpty Dumpty term.
I agree on the horrible headline. Your brave service to our county (for which, thank you) has more than earned you the right to express your views about any of the jackals running for political office these days. (oops. PETA will come and get me for insulting animals!). But please don't toss around metaphors that put down the mentally ill. Remember how (rightly) excoriated the Big Zero was when he made those Special Olympics "joke" comments about his own terrible bowling skills.
Some of the candidates are far worse than others. But just about anyone will be better than the Big Zero. I hope. To go from the incumbent "constitutional scholar" with little regard for the Constitution (Obama repeatedly talking about getting things done whether Congress likes it or not, like quite a few dictators) to who, tho?
As a wife and mom who is very pro-military and socially conservative, I find the current crop of Republican presidential candidates to be utterly uninspiring and one major objection I have to most of them is that they have not served in the military and yet they talk tough. Paul at least, served, as did Perry. But I agree with AVI's caveats.
God preserve us from yet another bunch of old white men proving their masculinity by sending braver, younger men and women to wars they themselves never would have served in (because they thought of military service as something for other, poorer, or browner or just more reckless or less connected people). The ex-soldiers I've known are braver personally, but more cautious about risking the lives of others needlessly than old civilian codgers who talk tough in the club.
The three bravest, smartest most admirable kids (two male, one female) from my town in the last ten years became military officers instead of the usual money grubbers, and I haven't yet heard a politician speak who I would trust as their Commander in Chief. Anyone worthy of their bravery and their service.
I'm not saying this to whine but in perplexity: I wonder how the fundraisers and plotters in the smoke filled rooms seriously think their money will amount to anything if they can't find figureheads to spend it on who are better than this year's lot. Because saying "Anyone but O" is getting tiresome. I won't be bought. This might be the first election in my adult life I just refuse to vote.
On a more positive note, born a Navy brat, I can't be all gloomy today. Yay, US Navy getting those scummy Somali pirates and rescuing the Iranian sailors!
with Barney Frank, of all people
When I read the comments at Reason I often have the impression that half the writers could be Leftists as easily as Libertarians. The dividing line seems pretty thin.
My wife have had the Charlie Brown/Lucy football experience with Ron Paul many times. We start to listen to Paul thinking we are not falling for this again.
Then he starts to make sense on a few things and I start to nod my head. Then he slams the Fed, which I agree with. Then he talks about our overcommitted military in too many theaters and I am running toward him. Then he says 911 is our fault and there I am in the air looking at the football in Lucy's hand.
Okay folks, put on your wayback hats on and travel back in time with me. We are in the 1960's and the following legislation is being concocted by our liberal legislators: civil rights act, changes to immigration policy, Lyndon Johnson, the Great Society, medicare, medicaid, war on poverty, etc. Those were the seeds planted that have gotten us to where we are now. America the Republic is over. Go to your dresser where you keep the combination to your gun safe, blow off the dust, open it and clean your weapons. Can you and will you use them when the time comes?
To all of you folks that are saying that the military backs the crazy uncle.......COME ON YOU FUGGIN IDIOTS!!!!!!! Of course they are going to agree with the new owners!!!!
Have you ever spoken to the common military person....5th grade at best in their mentality......and if you think the brass backs ron paul......wake up.....they are thinking for themselves only....who do you think is going to run the soros military.....some brand new elite squad of leaders that are waiting in the weeds????
No you dumb s**ts!!!!! The brass that is in place and agreeing to ron paul and soros are going to be the leaders.
Why is Ron Paul considered to be a serious candidate period? The Soros connections certainly go a long way towards explaining where his money comes from.
Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of his positions, "Crazy Uncle" is indeed what he looks and he sounds like, as someone so memorably put it, "like a constipated chicken".
Because of these two facts he loses in the media beauty contest alone against the single most beautiful political figure since JFK.
Good question, El Polacko. Why should Paul be considered a serious candidate for the Republican nomination? I consider him to be what we in Texas call a spoiler. Ross Perot was our most successful spoiler, but we've had others. And generically speaking, I hate them, because they divide the opposition and could keep Mr. Obama in the White House for another term, which would be horrible for our country, and put us deeper in debt than ever.
Additionally, he's not doing his son, Rand Paul, any good either. Actually, I think he's playing with himself, and will withdraw. He's just feeding his ego.
Soros! Koch Brothers! Trilateral Commission!
All y’all seem to be enraptured with conspiracy theories. And there is an obsession with imagining each candidates motives almost to the exclusion of analyzing their policies.
RP should be considered a serious candidate because he is holding 20% support and can attract new factions into the anti-busybody camp. Dismissing him on superficial (and often false) points does not help shrink gov’t. If y’all were concerned about the country, wouldn’t it be smart to acknowledge the good parts of Paul’s platform, and maybe start working them into the platform of a candidate you find pretty enough to vote for?
Never give up an opportunity to explain the moral superiority of liberty.
Anti-busybody? We're talking about a guy whose followers spam online polls and bus in people to skew the vote in meeting. When I think Ron Paul, I think the second coming of Ron Hubbard and Scientology. The chance that we wouldn't be overrun with loud, pushy busybodies in a Luap Nor world is close to zero.
Ron Paul, like democracy, is a poor choice, except for all the others.
Chris Christie is not running, but even if he was, I'm sure we could find something to object to.
So you have a Libertarian with weird views on certain issues (Paul on 9/11 and the Fed) vs. Religious Conservatives (Santorum on contraception).
Do you want the same big-government, religious Republicans or something completely different?