A closer look at the Paul candidacy
Ron Paul's naive, extremist views make him don't generate much of a fear response in more rational Americans, because he has no chance of winning the Republican nomination. Even if he did, somehow, the weakest of the Democratic candidates would bury him in November.
But Paul's campaign nevertheless needs to be recognized for what it is. And what it is is pretty ugly.
But Paul's campaign nevertheless needs to be recognized for what it is. And what it is is pretty ugly.
Comments
People who call Paul a Nazi just sound silly.
Jonah Goldberg had this to say: "Ron Paul is getting real money, real attention and, increasingly real poll numbers. It's time he learned how to dance like a pro."
How hard is it to understand that Ron Paul doesn't dance!? Not for Mr. Goldberg, not for Michael Medved, and not for some yahoo who gives some money to his campaign. That is what is different about him. I know other candidates fall over themselves to make empty gestures, and it is surprising to find one who doesn't, but please.
A Ron Paul staffer said, "If people hold views that the candidate doesn't agree with, and they give to us, that's their loss."
I agree. If a neo-Nazi gives $500 to the Paul campaign, that's 500 less dollars he has to make neo-Nazi trouble.
P.S. What are people worried about? Its not like Ron Paul can be bought with that money.
I'm glad Paul can't be bribed- though I doubt Hitler could have been either. Not that I'm comparing Paul to Hitler, but the fact that he attracts Nazis to his campaign really speaks for itself,
Jeff.
Ron Paul and the people who support him are the most serious threat to this country since George Wallace- or would be, if Ron Paul had a snowball's chance of ever polling even as well as Wallace did.
LOL!
This whole thing is one big violation of Godwin's Law.
but the fact that he attracts Nazis to his campaign really speaks for itself
What does it say? Nothing relevant. Ron Paul is the farthest thing from a National Socialist that you can get.
Ron Paul and the people who support him are the most serious threat to this country since George Wallace- or would be, if Ron Paul had a snowball's chance of ever polling even as well as Wallace did.
Now don't get hysterical. I thought IslamoNazi-Muslim-Extremists were the most serious threat to this country ever.
No, Ron Paul goes to the opposite irresponsible extreme.
This went right by me the first time. What are you saying here, the opposite extreme of what? Nazism? Are you admitting that Ron Paul goes to the opposite extreme of Nazism?
If you are saying Ron Paul goes to the opposite extreme of Nazism, what is this all about?
What is it that would make Ron Paul a bad president, the fact that he is too far in the opposite extreme of the Nazis?
What it says is that crackpots are attracted to Ron Paul- to a crackpot candidate.
Ron Paul in the White House would do far more damage than the Islamofascists have done up to this point. Doubtless they'd like to do far more, and have a better chance.
What would make Paul a bad president is that he is disasterously naive extremist whose "solutions," in the real world, would be an unmitigated disaster for this country and for the world at large.
Yes, it does say that some crackpots are attracted to Ron Paul. No, that does not, in itself, mean the person they are attracted to is a crackpot. That is a juvenile argument.
What would make Paul a bad president is that he is disasterously naive extremist whose "solutions," in the real world, would be an unmitigated disaster for this country and for the world at large.
This, on the other hand, is a perfectly fair argument, if someone could step up to the plate and demonstrate why they would be disastrous. Why isn't anyone busy doing that instead of going the guilt-by-association route?
For example, I have not heard one person seriously tackle the question of why we need a Federal Reserve Bank.
Just declaring that his policy "would be an unmitigated disaster" is not good enough. Not when Ron Paul has written extensively backing up all his positions.
Crackpots support him because he is a crackpot. Isolationism is a relic of the Thirties; it was already outmoded when it directly caused World War II by making Hitler possible. For the United States to adopt Paul's foreign policy and abdicate its position in the world would be to turn that world over to every His libertarianism would advance the already overwhelming wave of selfishness and self-centeredness which already dominates our society (and wherein lies libertarianism's appeal). To bug out of Iraq in the manner Paul is suggesting would result in a bloodbath that would make Kosovo look tame. This at a time when the surge has worked and things are looking up there (American casualties have been more than cut in half). If Paul got his way, the
massacre would be infinately worse than anything that proceeded it. Not the least of our role in Iraq is holding the potentially genocidal parties apart.
You can quote Jefferson selectively and out of context (especially historical context) all you want, Jeff; Paul's supporters are the only ones who don't realize that Paul is a crackpot. The very notion of supporting a man for the presidency whose chief claim to fame is being the curmudgeon who always votes "no" on the House floor would be enough to initially raise eyebrows, even if Paul's status as a crackpot were not readily attested by those very things he's written- and also by his status as the guy who attracts the most extreme and marginal fringe of the Right, and pretty much nobody else.
That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, that we directly caused (wow!) WWII because we were isolationist. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for WWII.
For the United States to adopt Paul's foreign policy and abdicate its position in the world would be to turn that world over to every His libertarianism would advance the already overwhelming wave of selfishness and self-centeredness which already dominates our society
Ron Paul is running for chief executive of the United States federal government. Like it or not, Mr. Waters, the United States federal government is inherently self-centered* by design. Presidents take an oath to defend the constitution. The constitution has the stated purpose of:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
You can quote Jefferson in any context you like. Could you give me an idea where he would approve of occupying a foreign country for the purpose of "holding the potentially genocidal parties apart"?
Nobody knows that Iraq would turn into a "bloodbath" if we marched out. As Ron Paul says, the people who tell us it would be a bloodbath are the same people who said the Iraq war would be a cakewalk.
The very notion of supporting a man for the presidency whose chief claim to fame is being the curmudgeon who always votes "no" on the House floor would be enough to initially raise eyebrows
Ron Paul does not "always" vote no. He voted yes on the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists":
"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
Ron Paul voted to defend the nation from the real threat, and would defend the nation again.
*Which does not mean that individual Americans need to be self-centered.
I have no doubt that Jefferson- or any other president who took his oath of office or that preamble you quote seriously- would certainly favor defending the United States, its Constitution, and its people from all enemies, foreign and domestic- something cutting and running in Iran would make difficult if not impossible.
The statement that nobody knows whether a bloodbath would result from our copping out in Iraq is simply disingenuous. And I'm glad that Ron Paul voted "yes-" once.
Jeff, Ron Paul is a naive, extremist dingbat, and a dangerous one at that. You don't do reality, Jeff; you live in a world of your own creation and preferences. You've made that clear over and over again. But the rest of us have to prevent the Republic from having a president who lives in the same dream world. It would be the simply not be possible to forecast the danger to the United States and the world that would result from this naive extremist being elected.
Which, of course, he won't be.
The causes of WWII are complicated. I thought about getting into it deeper but then I just decided to express my shock that you would blame America first for "directly causing" WWII*.
Besides, not every problem is the ghost of Hitler.
You said isolationism was a cause for WWII. I think the massive reparations imposed on Germany after WWI that contributed to economic hardship for Germany as well as bred resentment among the Germans had a greater impact on any isolationism for setting the stage for the Nazis to get off the ground.
Versailles was not a non-interventionist treaty by any means and it failed to keep the peace.
*If you didn't catch it, I was paraphrasing Rudy :)
Sort of like Ron Paul.
That is untrue.
Ron Paul, Dr. September 23, 2002:
"We seem to have forgotten that our primary objective in the war on terror is to capture or kill bin Laden and his henchmen. One year ago, the desire for retribution against bin Laden was tangible. President Bush referred to finding him "dead or alive." And while the hunger for vengeance was understandable, the practical need to destroy al Qaida before it mounted another terror attack was urgent. Yet we have allowed the passage of time and the false specter of an Iraq threat to distract us from our original purpose."
Jeff, you can't be an isolationist when it suits you, and an internationalist when it doesn't.
I suppose you could read the statement you quote as a grudging endorsement of the war in Afghanistan. Is that actually his position?
If so, I guess we can assume it was only the first Gulf War, and the military bases around the world required to defend our interests, and the military expenditures we need to make and the international role necessary to adequately "provide for the common defense" to which Paul objects. Which is plenty.
So is Paul really for the war in Afghanistan- even after blaming the United States for 9/11?
JG: That is untrue...
BW: I suppose you could read the statement you quote as a grudging endorsement of the war in Afghanistan. Is that actually his position?
You asked about the bin Ladens of the world. Ron Paul wanted to eliminate bin Laden and his henchmen as a threat to the USA. Because it was a non-country that responsible his preferred solution was to grant letters of marque and reprisals against those responsible. As a compromise, he voted to let the president go after those responsible for 9/11 as he saw fit.
In fact, Ron Paul was still interested in the objective to capture or kill bin Laden six months after Bush lost interest (which was, in turn six months after Bush declared he wanted bin Laden "dead or alive").
No, Ron Paul does not support the current war in Afghanistan, because it, going by the words of President Bush, is no longer being fought for its intended purpose of capturing or killing bin Laden and his henchmen.
BW: So is Paul really for the war in Afghanistan- even after blaming the United States for 9/11?
Paul did not blame the USA for 9/11 anymore than you blame the USA for WWII, even though you did say it was "directly caused" by US isolationism.
Unless I am way off and you really did mean that the US quite literally "directly caused" WWII.
And to the extent that the United States and Great Britain and France followed a Ron Paul-style foreign policy and allowed Hitler to rearm and retake Europe, certainly we do bear a share of responsibility for what we let happen.
It was inexcusable that we enabled Hitler by doing a Ron Paul in the years between the wars. The difference is that the presence of American troops on Saudi soil, on the other hand, was a necessity to our national security.
Your suggestion that Bush ever lost interest in capturing bin Laden is simply a malicious lie, based on nothing substantial at all. Actually, although our main focus in Afghanistan is the prevention of the reassumption of power by the people who sheltered and shielded bin Laden (and would do so again)- the Taliban- it also continues to be the apprehension of bin Laden, who is probably either in Afghanistan or in Pakistan. Following Dr. Paul's prescription for Afghanistan and Iraq would give him both of those entire countries to serve as sanctuaries.
I accidentally deleted a post from you in which you made the especially silly argument (even for you) of saying that we are not still fighting in Iraq to meet the purposes set forth in the Congressional resolution of authorization. That would be like saying that American forces should have been withdrawn from Europe immmediately following the surrender of Germany in WWII, leaving the Soviets to overrun it.
When you are a party in a war, you have a responsibility to help pick the crushed and damaged people that result from wars up again and help them get on their feet.
The problem is that Dr. Paul is simply not responsible. That's the whole problem. He won't even take responsibility- as you won't take responsibility on his behalf- for his opposition, in practice, to taking actual steps to achieve what he gives lip service to, like the capture of bin Laden (incidentally, the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq have, in fact, greatly damaged al Qaeda).
You and your candidate have the same thing wrong with you, Jeff: you live in an entirely different universe, in which it is necessary to take responsibility neither for one's actions nor for the consequences of what you advocate.
To say that you're in favor of capturing bin Laden and destroying al Qaeda while opposing concrete steps to do so is the way of the moral coward.