AUSTIN, Texas - Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul will end his campaign Thursday night and announce a new effort to help elect libertarian-leaning Republicans to public office around the country.
Did I not just quote a source saying Paul was going to have his own little convention in Minnesota?
Staaaaaaay tuned.
....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.
The Texas Republican has become the Web's favorite dark horse, harnessing the power of the Internet to turn his long-shot candidacy into a powerful rallying cry for disaffected Netizens.[...]
There's just one problem with the Ron Paul story: Ron Paul. Sure, he seems like a decent guy, forthright and honest. Unfortunately, his paleo-libertarian policies make Ayn Rand look like Mother Teresa. I like the gold standard as much as the next guy, but I'm not sure we're ready to overturn three decades of reasonably successful economic policy in order to reinstate it. I don't agree that the minimum wage should be abolished. (Ever work in retail, Ron?) And while I like Paul's stance on Iraq (let's get the hell out), I'm not thrilled with his position on the United Nations (let's get the hell out).
The Ron Paul candidacy is a lot like the first wave of Facebook apps: thrilling as a notion, disappointing as content. If this were a meta-election — an election on how to run an election — I'd happily throw my digg behind Paul. Unfortunately, it's an election about how to run a country.
On Jay Leno:
He sounds so reasonable. Not at all like the rest of the pack.
But even with the great grassroots strides his campaign is making, Ron Paul's bid for the presidency is going to be haunted by the charge that he's a racist, biggoted paranoiac, because of statements written in some old "Ron Paul newsletters."
When Paul was first confronted [with an article in The National Review], Ed Morrisey of the Captain Quarter's blog said he explained them this way: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but the campaign aides said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.' "[...]
Kirchick wrote in his piece, anticipating the "I didn't write it" explanation: "But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him - and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics."
From Ron Paul’s website:
January 8, 2008 5:28 am ESTARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:
“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’
“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
TNR's James Kirchik quotes (correctly or not, I don’t know) various of the “decades worth” of “Ron Paul newsletters”, and they truly are quite nasty. If indeed Mr. Paul did not write these things or hold these views, and yet knew there were newsletters going out under his name, surely he still had a duty to know what was being written in them. I can’t help but like the guy as I see him now, and he sounds both very reasonable and sincere, unlike any of the other candidates from either party. But why didn’t he know what was going out in those newsletters, as he seems to be claiming now? I also can’t help but think this is a very valid, if damning, criticism of a man who would be president. We don’t need any more presidents who don’t read, do we? And, frankly, it does seem rather preposterous that Paul would claim “responsibility”, but deny agreement with the newsletters. In fact, the whole thing seems bizarre. What was he doing all that time they were being published? Why did he not get a reputation for them? He’s been in Congress a long time. Granted, it’s been from Texas, but even here, and maybe especially, this kind of thing would be known. Maybe those views are precisely why he’s a Texas representative (from my district, by the way). I just can’t find much good information on what went on back when those newsletters were being published. At least not with the resources I have at the moment.
Paul's newsletters have carried different titles over the years--Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report--but they generally seem to have been published on a monthly basis since at least 1978. (Paul, an OB-GYN and former U.S. Air Force surgeon, was first elected to Congress in 1976.) During some periods, the newsletters were published by the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a nonprofit Paul founded in 1976; at other times, they were published by Ron Paul & Associates, a now-defunct entity in which Paul owned a minority stake, according to his campaign spokesman. The Freedom Report claimed to have over 100,000 readers in 1984. At one point, Ron Paul & Associates also put out a monthly publication called The Ron Paul Investment Letter.[...]
Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author.
But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views.
[...]
When I asked Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign spokesman, about the newsletters, he said that, over the years, Paul had granted "various levels of approval" to what appeared in his publications--ranging from "no approval" to instances where he "actually wrote it himself." After I read Benton some of the more offensive passages, he said, "A lot of [the newsletters] he did not see. Most of the incendiary stuff, no." He added that he was surprised to hear about the insults hurled at Martin Luther King, because "Ron thinks Martin Luther King is a hero."
Granted, Paul may have trusted the people who were writing the newsletters, and his trust was abused or misplaced. We’ve probably all been deceived or misled by people we thought were trustworthy. Without seeing the set of incriminating newsletters, I have no way of knowing whether the worst of the articles were written over a long period of time or all of the same period, and perhaps when they were discovered by Mr. Paul, they were then stopped. The TNR article quoting them seems to indicate that the racist and homophobic bits were published 1990-1993.
And, unfortunately, Ron Paul’s responses always seem to brush off the accusations. “I denounce small-minded talk and yet I take responsibility for the newsletters” is a pretty vague answer. And his comment that campaign aids told him talking about them would be too confusing doesn't sound like something the video Ron Paul would accept. We have too little information. Or rather, just enough information to be dangerous.
Well, Paul does strike me as a pretty relaxed, hands-off kind of guy. I’m not sure that would work well as president, and I wonder if he’d be paying more attention to what’s happening in his name if he held that position.
So, we’re still where we’ve always been – a lesser of two (or twelve) evils option. Not the greatest spot to be in. But it doesn’t look like we’re be getting out of it any time soon. (As if your vote actually counts anyway. Don't get me started.) And I’m still a pessimistic fatalist. So, I think I’ll just leave you to think about it or not. I’m going to the beach.
And you....
...do what you want. You will anyway.
While displaced people from the Katrina disaster are still waiting for help to rebuild, the State of Mississippi wants to take $600 million from the federal monies it was given in aid to expand the port on the Gulf of Mexico.
An aide to Benazir Bhutto says that on the day she was shot and killed, Bhutto was planning to confirm the rumors that Musharraf has been planning to fix the upcoming parliamentary elections, and furthermore, that US aid money is funding the plans.
Bhutto's 19-year-old son has been declared leader of the Pakistan People's Party, with his father and two others holding control until he comes of age, less like a democratic people's party than a kingdom, prompting Tariq Ali to claim that the Party is being treated like a family heirloom.
Kenyans are rioting over a hotly contested presidential election.
After Ron Paul rose to the top of the heap in polls following a May debate, Fox News has barred him from participating in an upcoming one. Fox says they are simply barring those who fall below a certain polling percentage, but Josh Marshall points out that Fred Thompson, who will be in the debate, is running lower in the polls than Paul.
Privacy International has ranked the US at the bottom of the heap world-wide for respect and support for its citizens' right to privacy, calling it an "endemic surveillance country."
....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.
Raw Story has video of a PBS NOW program on "the Ron Paul Revolution."
NOW has an extended interview with Paul, and Bill Moyers conducted one in 2004.
Update December 17: Way over the top: The Tea Party netted over 6 million dollars.
Congressman Ron Paul and 20/20 host John Stossel have more than a few things in common. Specifically, they both think a lot of libertarian thoughts, and unlike a lot of libertarians, they've both learned to communicate these thoughts so effectively that they have earned the respect of their peers.Paul, in his tenth Congressional term, is known as "Dr. No" for his refusal to vote for bills that cater to special interests, raise taxes, or violate his literal interpretation of the Constitution. Stossel, the Emmy-winning consumer reporter who discovered free-market theory via Reason magazine, has been permitted to air provocative specials such as "Stupid in America," which criticized the government's monopoly in education.
[…]
So what happens when the champion of freedom and free markets from the U.S. Congress sits down for a chat with his counterpart from the mainstream media? That's when we learn that freedom is simply too hot for TV, or at least, too hot for ABC.
That's right, they are only airing this interview on the internet, in pieces.
[…]
ABC does not want its viewers to learn about Ron Paul. What the hell are they afraid of, a Ron Paul presidency?
....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.
Republican Sam Brownback will drop out of the 2008 presidential campaign on Friday, people close to the Kansas senator said Thursday.Trouble raising money was a main reason for his decision, said one person close to Brownback, who requested anonymity because the candidate had not yet announced his plans.
That’s a pretty important reaon, to be sure. Maybe he should go for a name change, if he wants to run again in the future. Whitefront. Or maybe Redneck.
Fox asked [Ron] Paul about a study showing he is the candidate with the most support from members of the US military, even though he is calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq. "We take the traditional position that you should only go to war under a declaration and win and get out," Paul explained. "It's protecting the troops ... and the fact that we get the money from the military more than all the other Republicans put together is a pretty darn good endorsement."
Maybe Fox has the wrong approach to the question. Maybe Paul is the candidate with the most support from members of the US military, because he is calling for immediate withdrawal.
The defense industry this year abandoned its decade-long commitment to the Republican Party, funneling the lion share of its contributions to Democratic presidential candidates, especially to Hillary Clinton who far out-paced all her competitors.
That should alert you to two things: Hillary is considered by the defense industry to be the likely next president, and they are expecting she will act favorably toward them. And at least the latter expectation is a safe bet.
At a breakfast with political reporters, [Mark Penn, the pollster and senior strategist of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign] said his internal polling shows Clinton would win over some 24 percent of Republican women in the 2008 general election because of the “emotional” appeal of electing the country’s first woman president.
Sure, because women can only vote on an emotional basis. That comes from Hillary’s own campaign strategist. He doesn’t think she’s got a good enough platform to win over Republican women, but the emotion thing scores points.
Mitt Romney wants you to look at him and think: strong leader, successful businessman, good father, faithful husband.He does not want you to look at him and think: Mormon.
Why?
Gallup polls found 37 percent of churchgoing Protestants saying they would not vote for a qualified Mormon candidate for president. Churchgoing Protestants did not show similar opposition to voting for either a Catholic or a Jewish presidential candidate.[...]
Also, a recent Newsweek poll found that 28 percent of Americans would not vote for a Mormon for president.
I have a very sinking feeling that if Romney were Protestant, they wouldn’t object to voting for him.
....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.
And since Ron Paul is not going to get any play from the national media, I’ll give him some here from The Raw Story - for all five of my readers. I’m not endorsing him, but I can appreciate some of the things he has to say, and it emphasizes the inequity of our system that only the “front runners” as designated by the powers that be are followed around and reported on widely, so who knows what he's saying elsewhere in his campaign.
"As long as we live beyond our means, we are destined to live beneath our means" Paul had said, citing the financing of an "extravagant" foreign policy and excessive domestic spending that was disproportionately impacting poorer Americans."Everybody doesn't suffer equally, or this wouldn't be so bad," Paul said.
[...]
As the debate's focus transitioned into foreign policy issues, moderator Chris Matthews asked the candidates whether any of them, as president, felt they would have to seek authorization from Congress prior to taking military action against Iran.
"You sit down with your attorneys and tell you what you have have to do," Mitt Romney said, adding that a president had to do whatever it took to protect the country.
Asked if President Bush had needed congressional authority to invade Iraq, Romney again invoked lawyers, saying "We're going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and what he didn't need to do."
"This idea of going and talking to attorneys totally baffles me," Ron Paul shot back later. "Why don't we just open up the constitution and read it."
It’s a little dusty, Ron.
I did hear that clip on NPR, and from the sound of his voice when he said it, he must have been fairly hopping.
Huckabee and McCain said they’d go forth without Congressional approval, so I guess they're not interested in reading the Constitution.
....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.
Several candidates meant to say that you needed security before you could have proper democracy, but wound up actually saying that you can have democracy without voting.
And TPM spotlights a Ron Paul moment (with a Twit Romney comedy bit to boot).
....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.
Rights belong to individuals, not groups.
Property should be owned by people, not government.
All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social.
The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud.
Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.
The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government's.
I'm sure I'd have some arguments, but he must find it difficult to actually be a modern Republican.
Here's a taste of an address regarding Iraq:
Instead of questioning who has the best interests of our troops at heart, we should be debating which policy is best for our country. Defensive wars to preserve our liberties, fought only with proper congressional declarations, are legitimate. Casualties under such circumstances still are heartbreaking, but they are understandable. Casualties that occur in undeclared, unnecessary wars, however, are bewildering. Why must so many Americans be killed or hurt in Iraq when our security and our liberty were not threatened?And here's his February address regarding the threat to attack Iran:Clichés about supporting the troops are designed to distract us from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war. Anything to steer the discussion away from the real reasons the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon.
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
Before the U.S. House of Representatives
February 6, 2007
Don't Do It, Mr. President
It’s a bad idea.
There’s no need for it.
There’s great danger in doing it.
America is against it, and Congress should be.
The United Nations is against it.
The Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, and the Pakistanis are against it.
The whole world is against it.
Our allies are against it.
Our enemies are against it.
The Arabs are against it.
The Europeans are against it.
The Muslims are against it.
We don’t need to do this.
The threat is overblown.
The plan is an hysterical reaction to a problem that does not yet exist.
Hysteria is never a good basis for foreign policy.
Don’t we ever learn?
Have we already forgotten Iraq?
The plan defies common sense.
If it’s carried out, the Middle East, and possibly the world, will explode.
Oil will soar to over $100 a barrel, and gasoline will be over $5 a gallon.
Despite what some think, it won’t serve the interests of Israel.
Besides-- it’s illegal.
It’s unconstitutional.
And you have no moral authority to do it.
We don’t need it.
We don’t want it.
So, Mr. President, don’t do it.
Don’t bomb Iran!
The moral of the story, Mr. Speaker, is this: if you don’t have a nuke, we’ll threaten to attack you. If you do have a nuke, we’ll leave you alone. In fact, we’ll probably subsidize you. What makes us think Iran does not understand this?
....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.
The chairman of the Michigan Republican Party said Wednesday that he will try to bar Ron Paul from future GOP presidential debates because of remarks the Texas congressman made that suggested the Sept. 11 attacks were the fault of U.S. foreign policy.
....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.
Who knew a Texas Republican could be so sensible? On foreign policy, I'd have to put Mr. Paul (from my district, actually, and I'm ashamed to admit I know nothing about him prior to this - I'd like to blame that on having moved here recently) head and shoulders above the top-running Democratic candidates.
Corexit: More toxic than the oil
IVAW: Iraq Veterans Against the War
