Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
Back to Main

November 13, 2007
The Ron Paul Phenomenon

New Republic writer James Kirchick rants about

all those liberals oddly attracted to the presidential candidacy of Ron Paul

Matthew Yglesias replies:

The people attracted to his candidacy are libertarians and conservatives disgruntled with Bush’s war. Liberals have nothing to do with it.

Duncan Black adds:

I’m sure there are "some" liberals who are on board the Ron Paul train, but there isn’t some big liberals-for-Ron-Paul movement.

I agree with Duncan. There isn’t a big movement – yet. But I can see it coming.

If the progressive voter’s decision has to be between:

  1. a more-of-the-same, ‘moderate’, belicose, democratic candidate fed by lobby interests and
  2. a ‘nutty’, but anti-war and at least principled libertarian

there might be a liberal wave to vote for Ron Paul as president.

Imagine Ron Paul in cohabitation with a democratic congress that prevents him from damaging too much of the social issues.  That might just be the constellation needed to upset the Washington village consensus. It is that consensus and the interests it defends that is harming the U.S. and its people.

Via Glenn Greenwald, who is busy debunking some smears the establishment tries to hang on Paul, here is a video from a Ron Paul talk with voters. Paul is asked who he would endorse if he would not run himself. His answer is Chuck Hagel and Dennis Kucinich, both because of their position on foreign policy issues and for their general principled stands. What is not like with that choice?

Ron Paul’s position on many issues are against a progressive social conscience. But with Hillary Clinton calling for more costly wars and Obama fighting against social security, they don’t seem to be good alternatives.

The republican candidates are mostly certified nuts and war will be a huge issue in the 2008 election. Paul therefore might become the republican candidate. If that happens, many disappointed liberals will likely give him a chance.

Posted by b on November 13, 2007 at 12:50 UTC | Permalink
Comments

ron paul will never be president. although i understand your scenario, i just cannot believe the powers that be will allow a truly anti-war candidate to make it thru. then there are the organized groups which would be decimated under a paul administration- some of them on our side (union education workers) and some on the other side (mercs who make millions by fighting around the globe); i don’t expect either of those groups to by sit quietly if paul starts moving towards front runner status. then there is the media, lapdogs of the corporate interests making money off endless war. they would “dean scream” ron paul the minute he actually became a threat. as many have noted, paul’s positions are ripe fodder for a media that can take any bold or “controversial” statement and turn it into proof a candidate was personally responsible for the holocaust.
bottom line: paul isn’t accepted by the village. he’s tolerate, as he is now, perpetual “kook” candidate and amusing “libertarian” pet who proves republicans are a big tent party. but as a serious voice at the national level, esp opposing the war? no, he won’t be allowed past NH.
if i’m wrong, i will be highly amused to see how political discourse develops during a race with paul prominently in it. highly amused. i’m not sure our media is ready for that. even perot, as wacky as he was, was more suited for our moderated national political discourse. paul is a loose cannon, and it would be like having sharpton or shafley regularly on news programs. the bobbleheads would have a tough time dealing with someone who didn’t stick to script.

Posted by: chicago dyke | Nov 13 2007 13:08 utc | 1

chicago dyke – Ironically, Ron Paul has stuck to the same script since he first came to office. Look up some old videos or old speeches… he could have written them yesterday. Paul’s so principled that you can reasonably accurately guess his response to a question before you ask it of him, as long as you’re well aware of his philosophical stance.
So I’d fully expect Ron Paul to follow that same script regardless. The media are always plowing into it headfirst when they aren’t aware of who and what exactly he is, and then he responds the same way he does every time. It’s absolutely hilarious to watch.
He’ll admit to not knowing everything about an issue. That flummoxes the media, who are used to politicians who portray themselves as godlike. Then he’ll turn around and prove he knows more than the media pundits about everything related to actually making constitutional laws, which further flummoxes them, because most politicians absolutely ignore the constitution (some go so far as to call it “archaic,” as if they hadn’t vowed to uphold and protect it).

Posted by: David | Nov 13 2007 13:19 utc | 2

Unfortunately I have to agree with Chicago Dyke: Paul seems to me to be too dangerous to “received wisdom” to be allowed to surface, and if, as I fervently hope, he makes a really good showing in New Hampshire and/or Iowa, then his violent removal from the campaign is to be expected. Already, if this report is to be believed, the on-line polls are being configured against him. But we still don’t know whether his “virtual” strength will be reflected in the primary races. It is potentially to his advantage that with a large field of contenders in the early races, a relatively low percentage might be sufficient to gain a plurality. Moreover, New Hampshire, with its state motto “Live Free or Die”, would seem to offer fertile ground for his libertarian ideology. No other candidate (except for Kucinich and Gravel who, for all their virtues, still seem not to have ignited the same prairie-fire of support that seems to be building for Paul) is as likely to launch a serious effort to cut the budget and size of the military-intelligence-security complex. Yet, it seems to me, Paul, as an acknowledged “rightist” might prove largely immune to the usualsmears regarding “patriotism”. Indeed, he could well put that sort of rhetoric to devastating use against neo-con approved candidates, be they Republicans or Democrats. Even in the worst case scenario, in which he is rather quickly eclipsed by “approved” candidates, he is already serving a useful purpose by reviving what is essentially a latent but potentially very forceful isolationist current in the heretofore gentle stream of “orthodox” American political thought.
Nor should it be forgotten that the much of the most cogent and acidic criticism of the war party has come from “traditional conservatives”.

Thanks to earlier threads here at MOA we are well aware of the theoretical and practical shortcomings of American libertarianism, but the opportunity for a radical break with the recent past presented by the Paul campaign within the Republican party seems to me to be a breath of fresh air purifying an incense-smoke-filled room. On a flight of optimistic fantasy one can even imagine a successful Paul campaign setting off a split of the Republican party into rival “neocon-fundie” and “libertarian moderate” factions. He may be nutty, but I’ve had my fill of “serious” candidates whose credentials of seriousness are guaranteed by AIPAC, AEI, and their lap-dog media hoplites.

Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Nov 13 2007 14:52 utc | 3

Nice discussion/thread. Thanks!

Posted by: Jake | Nov 13 2007 15:09 utc | 4

Speaking for myself and about 3 people I know personally, I can say we were all life long democrats who recently switched to republican to vote for Paul in the Nevada caucus (one of the earlier ones.) I doubt we are the only ones. Any choice between a libertarian who vigorously condemns a nuclear attack on Iran (the only one of 10 republicans in a debate to do so) and a “progressive” willing to contemplate it is simply no choice at all.
While I agree with CD that the establishment and the media will go after him with everything they have, Ron Paul’s support is real and tangible. He consistently draws crowds above a thousand, with 5000 in Philadelphia this past Saturday, without any effort from his campaign. Giuliani “wows” crowds of a few hundred. John McCain had a rally with where 1 (one) person showed up. Drive around in Las Vegas and you will see a fair amount of RP bumper stickers with hardly any for other candidates. 38000 people just gave him about 110$ each in a single day, again with no effort from the official campaign. Which other candidate has that many ordinary people who support him that much? His internet support is extremely powerful. They will respond instantly to media smears and they will be heard. The anger at the media and the government, the fear over the loss of civil liberties, the disgust about endless war is very palpable among a significant portion of this country.
So while the powers that be will not abide a RP victory, they will have to make an extraordinary effort to stop him. If you are an antiwar American, I would urge you to consider switching to Republican and vote for Ron Paul in your state’s primary. You can always switch back later.
https://electionimpact.votenet.com/lwv/voterreg/index.cfm
Print the form. Fill it out. Mail it. End the War.

Posted by: Lysander | Nov 13 2007 15:14 utc | 5

My first thought was also “Dean scream”. What was that saying? “Give me one line of an honest man and I will find something in it to hang him with”? Something like that.
But apart from being even more internet based (which means direct lines of communication) and having learned from the Dean campaign Paul has another advantage. As far as his media portrait goes he is already a weirdo. That makes it harder to trash him efficiently.

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Nov 13 2007 15:28 utc | 6

On doing in-depth research on his positions, I don’t find him nutty at all, although I may not agree with him on some items. Disagreeing with someone doesn’t make them ‘nutty.’ That’s a separate category I reserve for warmongers and addicts to violence.
My huge diappointment is not finding a single one of the ‘front-runners’ who are willing to take preemptive attacks against other countries off their agenda. That goes for Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney and McCain. It’s just going to be reruns of Iraq. I also am disgusted with any presidential candidate who puts any other country first against the best interests of the US. As we say, that dog don’t hunt.
I have three priorities for a new president:
1. End the war in Iraq and bring home ALL the troops now.
2. State unequivocally that there will be no preemptive attacks on any country.
3. Return the Constitution and the rule of law to the people.
Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who fits these top three. Why would I vote anyone’s else’s priorities other than my own? Why would I vote for candidates who are taking money from the defense industry, drug makers, fundie religious groups, etc., and then expect them as president to be against issues involving the very lobbyists who supported their campaigns? That would be nutty. Ron Paul at least doesn’t take money from lobbyists and therefore doesn’t owe any favors.
As an example of what Paul means about returning power to the states in compliance with the Consitution, a perfect example is California’s medical marijuana provision which state voters approved and went into effect a few years ago. Since then, the Federal govt has raided legitimate licensed growing facilities, arrested patients for whom the drug was prescribed, etc. Under Paul, the Feds would not be able to interfere and people of California will have had the choice of what is best for their state. The same thing goes for other issues now unlawfully vested in the Federal govt.
I am an issue voter, not a personality voter. The best thing about Paul is he has been consistent on his views of the issues for decades rather than spinning in the breeze like all the other candidates as they vie to out-pander each other.

Posted by: Ensley | Nov 13 2007 15:34 utc | 7

@Ensly – I wrote Paul is ‘nutty’ and called the other repub candidates certifed nuts. The quotation marks were meant to designate a difference …
On the ‘constitutional issue’:
The central point here is the constitution’s commerce clause that somewhat justifies a national override of state law based on congress’ right to legislate inter-state trade.
The wide sense of interpretating that clause in favor of Congress made the New Deal possible. The civil rights act of 1964 is largley based on that interpretation too.
A narrow sense of interpretating that clause would allow California to legislate marijhuana as it likes, but it would also have severe disruptive force on many other important social issues.
Paul is certainly for more state rights, i.e. a narrow interpretation of the commerce clause. If he stacks the Supreme Court that is what you might get. But a strong dem congress could counter him on some of the more extreme issues.
One thing is for certain. It would be fun to watch.

Posted by: b | Nov 13 2007 16:27 utc | 8

Ron Paul is a far right extremist. Not a “kook” or a “nut-case”. To point this out by listing the legislation he has sponsored is not a “smear”.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/of-smears-and-facts.html
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html
There are other candidates who are against the war and the ideology that supports it. Kucinich and Gravel come to mind, though there might be others.

Posted by: Bruce F | Nov 13 2007 16:32 utc | 9

Bernhard, I am simplifying this a lot since you can write a whole tome on these decisions.
What you are bringing up are items specifically national in nature, like ‘interstate’ things. Ruling on these items is the job of the Supreme Court of the US, with the Legislature enabling and enforcing the legal decision handed down. It wasn’t Congress that ruled for the Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act came into being on the basis that since ALL members of the community are paying for, for example, the public schools, then ALL members of the community are entitled to equal educational opportunities. At the time, there was a wide disparity between schools segregated by race. Once the Supreme Court ruled that the equal rights required by the Constitution did not provide for segregation and substandard education, Congress then put together the legislation necessary to enforce the Supreme Court’s decision. Because public transportation is paid for by the entire community, then the entire community has the right to equal transportation and can sit anywhere they damn well please on the bus.
These are pure Constitutional issues which have been settled by the court system and have nothing to do with the Executive or Legislative branches of the US Govt. Powers remanded as appropriate to the states, i.e. those which are not specifically outlined in the Constitution as vested in the Federal Govt, would have the same burden of enforcing the law as required by the Constitution. No state can be in outright contradiction with anything specifically covered within the Constitution. If they do legislate and overstep the Constitution, it goes to the Supreme Court, etc.
The government at any level truly only has authority over public issues. What you do in your own home is your own business. I’d like to see that come back.

Posted by: Ensley | Nov 13 2007 17:21 utc | 10

@Ensley – it is not that easy – the question is what Congress can regulate or not:

In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964), the Court ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers; in Katzenbach v. McClung (1964) the Court ruled that the federal government could regulate Ollie’s Barbecue, which served mostly local clientele but sold food that had previously moved across state lines; and in Daniel v. Paul (1969), the Court ruled that the federal government could regulate a recreational facility because three out of the four items sold at its snack bar were purchased from outside the state.

So it’s not the court ordering something but Congress enacting an issue and the court than ruling on its legality. There are lots of things Congress does not have to enact and never touches.
(The judges are not consistent in their ruling anyway – see Scalia and the Marijuhana issue in the link above – it was certainly not a pure constitutional but a social judgement without much of a legal base.)
@Bruce F – of course Paul is extreme on some issues. On others he is not. The electorate will have to decide if it prefers to “pay that price” for getting an anti-war candidate/president. It might decide that it is the right price to pay.
Kucinich and Gravel come to mind, though there might be others. Let us know about the others please …

Posted by: b | Nov 13 2007 17:43 utc | 11

Bernhard, I am not saying I agree with every decision the courts have handed down. In a perfect world, things could be seen differently and, not being a Constitutional lawyer myself and not having actually read the testimony and decision, I really can’t opine on individual cases. There are times when rulings are legislated too far and it remains for the parties in the decision to obtain enough funds to fight further as a test case. The law is not always fair, but the system basically works most of the time if you strictly follow the Constitutional guidelines which don’t allow for decisions based on moral or religious grounds.
Interestingly, the Civil Rights Act did some interesting things. Former all-women colleges like Vassar who accepted public funding in any shape, size or form, now had to admit men, and vice-versa. Former all-black colleges like Grambling now had to admit whites.
Bruce, I like Kucinich for his antiwar stand, Kucinish being a close personal friend of Ron Paul. However, for some reason, although he has a large following, it hasn’t translated into campaign $$$$. To a large degree, I blame his followers who aren’t out pasting up signs and holding rallies for him. Every Saturday here in Pensacola FL, there is a sign-waving group on the sidewalk at the big shopping mall handing out campaign literature. The are Paul signs popping up on lawns throughout the area, and it’s not just here; I have seen them all the way to South Carolina on a last family visit. It’s a pity because Kucinich has a lot to offer.

Posted by: Ensley | Nov 13 2007 18:35 utc | 12

I agree with CD, the powers that be will NEVER accept RP. Although, like b, I think it would be fun to watch if he actually gained traction, it’ll never happen. I still believe we’ll get Clinton/Thompson.

Posted by: Ben | Nov 13 2007 18:43 utc | 13

Bruce F @ #9 —
You may want to read the Glenn Greenwald piece that Bernhard cites in this post, where Glenn takes Niewert to task for misrepresenting Paul’s past record. To whit:

In an otherwise informative and legitimate (and widely-cited) post today about Paul’s record in Congress, Dave Neiwert claims:

Even though he claims to be a “libertarian”, he opposes people’s freedom to burn or destroy their own copies of the design of the U.S. flag.

He then links to two bills which Paul introduced in Congress which would, in essence, amend the Constitution in order to allow prohibitions on flag burning.
But Neiwert’s claim here is, in one respect, completely misleading and, in another respect, outright false (in both cases, I assume the error is unintentional). Unlike Hillary Clinton — the Democratic Party front-runner who, “along with Sen. Robert Bennett, a Utah Republican, introduced a bill that would make flag burning illegal” — Ron Paul was and is vehemently against any and all laws to criminalize flag burning, including the constitutional amendment he introduced. He introduced that amendment solely to make a point — one he makes frequently — that the legislation being offered to criminalize flag burning was plainly unconstitutional, and that the only legitimate way to ban flag burning was to amend the First Amendment.
Indeed, he only introduced those flag-burning amendments in order to dare his colleagues who wanted to pass a law banning flag burning to do it that way — i.e., the constitutional way. When introducing his amendments, he delivered an eloquent and impassioned speech on the floor of the House explaining why he considered anti-flag-burning measures to be “very unnecessary and very dangerous.” And he urged his colleagues to vote against them, including the ones he introduced….

Intellectual honesty is a beautiful thing….

Posted by: Michael Hawkins | Nov 13 2007 18:48 utc | 14

Bruce F —
I just followed your link to Dave Neiwert’s response to Greenwald’s piece. Thanks for the heads-up. Lots of intellectual honesty between those two guys….

Posted by: Michael Hawkins | Nov 13 2007 18:55 utc | 15

Ben, Paul has already distanced himself ahead of Thompson and Huckabee in NH polls. How it will finally turn out remains to be seen.
As for Clinton, she lost every ounce of support from me with her Iraq pro-war vote. And it is not because she merely screwed up. It has finally come out, by her own admission, that she never even bothered to READ the legislation she voted for which ultimately gave Bush the right to make war. She never even READ it! There was a woman at a campaign speech just a few weeks ago who kept yelling at Sen Clinton: ‘DID YOU READ IT?’ over and over. The reply, over and over, was Clinton admitting not reading it and claims to have been ‘briefed’ instead. She has further gone on to say she thought it was something about the UN instead. Hmmmm. The most important piece of legislation so far in this millenium, and she didn’t even bother to READ it!
Now, as for what she was thinking, well, the UN was already in Iraq inspecting so it couldn’t have related to that issue with the UN. The fact that Bush does not have the power to order UN forces into any country and therefore it couldn’t be about that, certainly couldn’t have related to the legislation. And what legislation coming out of an American Congress would have anything to do with the UN’s negotiations escapes me.
So what is it, Clinton; are you admitting to being both ignorant and incompetent, or are you admitting to being a liar and that the war with Iraq was exactly what you voted for? It has to be one or the other.

Posted by: Ensley | Nov 13 2007 19:06 utc | 16

Ron Paul scares me. I see him as a cross between the prev. Texan who similarly mounted a renegade 3rd party campaign – Ross Perot who actually would have helped the country as he ran to shut down the destruction of our manufacturing base which Paul would accelerate – and the emergence of the demagogue moment. But unlike Perot, he isn’t self-financed, rather he’s funded by Silicon Valley, which is full of libertarians, both at the Very Top (head of Sun, etc.) & among some of the young. Though the crash brought many of them back to the reality of what “libertarian” means for americans economically.
In the end, I suspect that he renews the interest of Bloomberg in running. It’s clear that the Elite have chosen Clinton. Never before have the elite chosen one candidate at the outset & shoved them in our face. Well, actually they did choose Carter, but that was a unique moment, or maybe it’s at least related in that it’s clear a Repug. won’t be chosen. As people are fed up w/elite choices, and the sexism in America is pervasive across the political spectrum, if I were betting, I’d bet on Bloomberg. Paul would be a disaster. And Gore has discovered that to be rich is divine, so he’s out. He just made it official, by having the venture capital predators he’s been working w/make him partner. Unfortunately, it looks as though Clinton has threatened both Unions & perhaps Hollywood against supporting Kucinich, although possibly Hollywood bets on image alone. I’m suprised & disappointed that no one has rallied to raising funds for him, as he’s the only actual democrat running. The only candidate whose positions would help us & the country.

Posted by: jj | Nov 13 2007 20:46 utc | 17

Ron Paul is actually from Pittsburgh, PA, so in local parlance, he’s a damn Yankee. He moved down to Texas after being stationed there during his Air Force years as a flight surgeon.
“Hey, John McCain! Ron Paul served in the Air Force saving lives rather than raining death down upon little babies in Vietnam that you are so proud of.”
Ron Paul is funded by individuals from all over the US. He may be funded by people who work in Silicon Valley, but that’s not the same thing as being funded by lobbyists and big corporations. He ain’t out there holding $10,000 a plate dinners for the fat and rich like ALL the other front-running candidates are.

Posted by: Ensley | Nov 13 2007 22:46 utc | 18

If you want to wipe the smirk off these pundits faces…
Then go here:
teaparty07.com
I did.

Posted by: Rick | Nov 14 2007 0:22 utc | 19

Re: Bloomberg
I have some small degree of inside information about Michael Bloomberg, and his thought process, as it has been explained to me, is this:
If Rudy is the Republican nominee, Bloomberg will definitely enter the race. He doesn’t actually think he has any shot at all of winning, and in a way wouldn’t even try. His goal instead would be to peel away one or two big electoral-vote states (think IL, FL or CA) in such a way as to guarantee that NEITHER Rudy nor Hillary (assuming she was the Dem nominee) would garner enough electoral votes to win outright. Bloomberg would then be in a kingmaker position, and his price for pledging his votes to Hillary (he would never, ever, pledge them to Rudy) would be that she agree to adopt some of his pet causes, in particular those dealing with issues like global warming, gun control and a few others.
What was not spelled out to me but seems possible is that if the race is Rudy/Huckabee vs Clinton/Richardson vs Bloomberg/Obama, I do believe Bloomberg might be able to win Illinois, and he might have a fighting chance in Florida as well.

Posted by: mats | Nov 14 2007 1:56 utc | 20

Last weekend, went downtown Seattle and Ron Paul people were all over with signs and fliers and stuff engaging passer-by’s. Pretty cool. While I in no way endorse the Libertarian agenda, out of respect to social programs, should he win the republican nom. I would in a new york second vote for him over all the democrats except Kucinich, Edwards, or Richardson. Because Paul would make ending the occupation wars a priority, and indeed (one would hope) begin rolling back the entire military industrial complex seeing that aggressive empire building is no longer the ticket.

Posted by: anna missed | Nov 14 2007 2:47 utc | 21

I’m with you, b, pretty much up until this sentence:

Imagine Ron Paul in cohabitation with a democratic congress that prevents him from damaging too much of the social issues.

I would NOT any longer trust the Democrats to prevent damage to the social issues. In fact, when in power, they seem to be more effective at rolling back entitlements than the Republicans are. I’m not sure what the reason for that is–could be either overcompensation for their New-Dealist image, better contacts with the upper levels of unions/interest groups which allow them to keep the rank-and-file in line, or actual belief that they are doing good to the disadvantaged by getting them off the “dole” and forcing them to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps”. At any rate, this election really makes one have to face up to some difficult choices. Is one going to make preservation of the social programs a priority and work for the currently flailing, but still viable, Edwards? Or is one going to make peace the priority and reject him for his lack of foreign policy vision and former support for the Iraq war, and therefore work for the structural-change candidates Kucinich, Paul, or Gravel? Forcing us to make this Hobson’s choice is part of the strategy of the PTB, without a doubt.
The first time I faced this choice, earlier this year, I prioritized peace and long-term, structural reform and worked for Gravel. However, the PTB seem to have silenced Gravel by excluding him from future debates, so I am currently uncommitted and struggling with the choice anew. I am at the moment leaning towards working for Paul, not because I delude myself that he would be a “good” President in any real sense (as if we’ve had any of those for the past 60 years!), but because stopping the so-called “Long War” seems like an attainable goal if we raise awareness enough, but the forestalling of the slow dissolution of the social safety net really does not. In the long run, we really need to see people take an interest again in local organizing and political participation, for the common good. I support Gravel’s idea of the National Initiative for Democracy to help bring that change about and will probably continue to work for the NI4D, regardless of Gravel’s personal exclusion from the Presidential campaign. However, realistically, the NI4D has little hope of getting enacted in isolation–we probably need to see a complete stripping down of the social safety net, almost back down to Gilded-Age levels, before Middle-Class Americans will begin to question the brainwashing against social organizing, and start a mass movement for many reforms, including the NI4D. While waiting for that to occur, eventually, making the strategic choice to support the most viable anti-war candidate seems like a painful yet plausible option.

Posted by: heatkernel | Nov 14 2007 3:31 utc | 22

If you stand back and look at the whole picture, you will notice that there are already serious cutbacks in funding for various social programs and aid to local and state govts. They cut the funds to my county which paid for mosquito control leaving us all at significant risk during a West Nile virus epidemic, as just one example. My county took the money out of the school funds rather than risk a public health crisis, and now the schools are that much short, and it’s all because the money has been diverted to the war.
The fact remains that regardless of any candidates promises to fund this or that in their domestic agenda, it is just an empty promise if they don’t immediately stop the drain of money into and illegal and immoral war. There just won’t be any money for their programs, no matter how right and good they are. We are already feeling the crunch, and with the exception of Kucinich, Richardson and Paul, the rest of the candidates on both sides of the aisle want to keep the war going.
The first thing that needs be done, is stop the drain of money by stopping the war. Quit digging the hole deeper. It can’t be done in any other order; the war has to end first.

Posted by: Ensley | Nov 14 2007 4:18 utc | 23

Stopping the war? Share what y’all are smoking. Recall what happened to MLKjr. when he went after the War? If you’ve forgotten, read Wm. Pepper’s An Act of State.
Somebody made an impt. point about the early incarnation of the Warfare State & the new post-Rumbo version. The prev. one was driven by weapons manufacturers. They had no particular stake in hot war, as long as ever new ridiculous systems were ordered. But the post-Rumbo version is built on mercenary outfits who only make money fighting & servicing slaughter. Da mo’ slaughter, carnage & domestic police states, da greater da booty for ’em… Plus it guarantees that Dept. of Mass Slaughter won’t have to dirty their dainty little mits w/Mafia involvement should some upstart slip through & try to kick over their gravy train.

Posted by: jj | Nov 14 2007 6:11 utc | 24

BREAKING NEWS
Late last night watched in dismay a hippie protest against movement of military
equipment through a local town, a military ship off-loading returning Strykers.
There they were, on cell phone and handheld video, with their protest signs,
some sitting with arms linked in the street. The police, in full SWAT battle
gear, batons raised horizontal, punching heads and shoulders, knocking people
to the ground. Unable to stand, each protester was wrestled into a headlock,
then another police removed the protesters’ glasses or goggles, while another
sprayed them with a fog of pepper gas, like a weed burner right in the eyes,
then as the protesters lay gagging and vomiting, their hands were strapped
behind them (if that’s not pure torture, what is?) and they were thrown into
a paddy wagon. No MSM news coverage, just local public TV of cammie clips.
I was at the Chicago Convention, in DC for Cambodia, and stood eye to eye
with bayoneted guardsmen in the Midwest, but other than Kent State, where
US military shot point blank into the crowd, I’ve never seen local police
use such malevolent force, (although I understand it’s SOP now to hold the
protestor down, kneeling on their chest, peel their eyelids back, then drip
pepper toxins directly onto their exposed eyeballs, as they’re arrested.)
That’s a metaphor for their dominant white cultural theocracy. In your eye!
So in New Jersey it’s now legal for police to forceably obtain a blood sample
from an arrest suspect, even if it causes permanent injury to the suspect!
Congress is going to let the AT&T’s and Sprint’s off the hook for collaborating
with illegal NSA domestic espionage, and Congress is preparing to let the banks
and private loan corporations off the hook, with a Federal guarantee bailout.
Their stock markets soared at the news that Americans just got screwed, again.
http://digg.com/politics/Traitors_In_Congress_Who_Voted_For_Thought_Crime_Bill
I mentioned this to some friends, talking about ‘1984’ Thought Crime bill in
Congress right now, and that pre-scripted FEMA news conference, and Hillary
more and more obviously A Neo-Zi Tool(TM), Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush.
Total suppression of Iraq critical commentary, as “the boys are coming home!”
This is just the prologue in Gooper’s Full Spectrum Media Dominance for 2008.
So surprise, surprise, turn on the 10PM Faux News, and there’s the hippies
again, except no face shots, almost like a made-for-TV re-enactment,
no violence, no SWAT gear, police gently lifting the protesters up off the
pavement, no pepper spray, no batons slashing, no cable ties, no paddy wagons,
as the Faux announcer thoughtfully describes their peaceful protest without
saying what about, then it’s in the can, rushed for national TV distribution.
Is it remotely possible the Neo-Zi’s would re-stage the whole thing for MSM?
Or is this a divine intervention, miraculously everyone just getting along?
Which goes towards Ron Paul, being interviewed this weekend by an obviously
adversarial MSM t-head, saying, “So you’re sort of a throwback, aren’t you?”
For Ron Paul to become President will require a second American Revolution,
or an Act of God, cause he sure ain’t gonna make it to the convention floor.

Posted by: Peris Troika | Nov 14 2007 6:56 utc | 25

New Yorker in a short piece on Paul supporters:

“The thing about Ron Paul is, there is nothing spectacular about Ron Paul the man,” Adam Sparks, a bearded senior, said. “He’s the most boring little old man from Texas who has these laughs that make him look like a Muppet sometimes.” He added, “I was completely politically apathetic before Ron Paul.” Sparks is the founder of a Facebook group, Columbians for Ron Paul. “I don’t know why people can’t rally behind someone who actually does want to lower your taxes,” he said.
Unlike most college students, Whitaker, who is forty-one, is a full-time wage earner, and therefore a real taxpayer. He works as a software engineer at Google, in addition to his coursework. “I’m a Navy veteran myself and I think that war sucks,” he said. He considers himself an anarcho-capitalist, although he recently registered as a Republican, so that he could cast a ballot—his first—for Paul in the New York primary next year. “It’s a historical event in my life, but I didn’t really want to go and hang out with Republicans,” Whitaker said. “They’re a little bit too starched and old-boy network for me.” He has been known on occasion to socialize with Hillary Clinton supporters.

Posted by: b | Nov 14 2007 9:33 utc | 26

fwiw.

Posted by: beq | Nov 14 2007 9:59 utc | 27

Justin Raimondo is in fine polemical form on Ron Paul’s behalf in this attack on those denigrating Paul. The Paul campaign, as distinct from the candidate, is becoming an interesting phenomenon in itself. The fact that the “money bomb” success was organized independently of the official campaign staff is striking. It would seem that Paul is being “found” by a people in search of a spokesman with the moral integrity to speak out against the most egregious form of injustice afflicting the United States today, namely the dissipation of hundreds of billions of dollars in the pursuit of brutal neo-colonial imperialism at the expense of those living beyond the confines of the great consumer hog-trough. This is anything but the search for a “man on horseback”: rather, the attempt to roll-back the nascent neo-Orwellian security state is a courageous attempt to restore the constitutional rule of law and a decent respect for the opinions of mankind. There are bound to be tensions and conflicts between the various “souls” of those trying to build a movement
against the military-industrial-security leviathan, a political project which will certainly require a longer committment than the length of a presidential campaign, or even a presidential term. What has been constructed in the half-century of postwar security policy consensus, can not be dismantled in less than a several decades. The Leviathan will be redimensioned only if there arises a new broad consensus of the type which is perhaps emerging from the disparate movements groping towards a common front as they jostle in the ranks assembling under Ron Paul’s antiwar banner. The principles of anti-imperialism abroad, and anti-authoritorianism at home are sanctioned in the opening phrases of the Declaration of Independence. Dare we hope that the already consciously non-partisan peace movement will give rise to a new bipartisanship based on these truths once again being perceived as “self-evident” and but now viewed in a new light? A new consensus based on these values but still allowing ample space for vigorous party-oriented debate on promoting the general welfare seems to me to be the only hope for the kind of enduring broad support necessary
to cure the hypertrophy in the U.S. national security apparatus.
There will surely be ample time and motive for vigorous debate on the organization of social justice and the parameters of public polity within such a broad consensus. The fact that Kucinich and Paul disagree on many things, but engage in civil debate rather than exchanging anathemata is, I hope, a portent, and a building block for the restoration of those laical values of political civility recently lost in the roar of fanatical fulminations.

It will be interesting to see results of the Tea Party Rick mentions in #19. I think the choice of name for the effort is brilliant.

Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Nov 14 2007 10:25 utc | 28

In 55 national elections cycles, the elite have not even come close to losing control of the machine. It won’t happen here.
To believe that change comes from the ballot box is to ignore, marginalize, and denigrate the sacrifices of activists laying down their lives for equality and change over the ages. The elite are happy to do whatever they can to foster this false, disempowering and illusory belief.
To see people who essentially believe in Kucinich’s agenda supporting Paul’s candidacy only underscores the tragic confusion, powerlessness, and mystification which obtains in our marginalized and disenfranchised popular society. The same goes for those who engage in the politics of personality over position. (He’s a nice man who drives an old beat-up car, you can really sit down and have a beer with him, whatever…)
Paul’s function for the right is the same as Kucinich’s function for the left: to draw the disaffected into a valueless process, which by its designed time-consuming nature takes up fully half our society’s time and attention (and the majority of disposable funds), and therefore diverts attention from movements for change and forces all organizational progress to stop and restart from ground-zero every year or so (as well as feel that they must ally themselves with power to effect change). How quickly we forget that Kucinich threw his support behind the worthless “free-fire” criminal “gook”-killer Kerry, who advocated a more efficient genocide in Iraq, based upon his experiences in Vietnam. Should the establishment find itself in deep trouble, Paul will split off and run a third party bid, thus ensuring the election of long-time Bush family friend Hillary Clinton.
Capitalism, by its very competitive nature where there is systemically never enough of anything (jobs, specifically, hence “necessary” eternal growth), runs on a quid pro quo system of pay-offs and beholdenness, which ensures everyone’s general compliance, lest they lose their job, house, credit-rating, etc.
What a complete waste of time and energy it is to follow this gelded horserace instead of spending our time scrutinizing and protesting against the owners of the horses.
I promise to not comment upon an election thread again unless it is to explicate the nature of this process.
Here is the US society today:
A 3-4 Billion dollar financialization system, which ensures everyone and everything is in hock, and therefore in compliance, and functions to criminalize the underclass and transfer funds up the pyramid with great efficiency. It is currently completely out-of control, do to Wall Street’s shark-like appetite for ever increasing profits, as the value of derivative holdings greatly exceeds real asset based wealth many, many, times over, throwing the system from one that is easily controlled to one relentlessly reeling out-of-control — a perpetual Naomi Klein shock therapy slot machine, paying off on a regular basis for its owners.
A two trillion dollar police control state, split evenly between internal and external control. (Bases in 80% of the world’s countries, and the largest jailed and ex-convict, rightless population in the world.) It has methodically irradiated everyone on the planet with both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation, in a never before conducted planetary experiment on all life forms based upon the catastrophic principle. And it actively develops both biological and chemical poisons which it broadcasts and disposes throughout the biosphere to “protect us,” as it spews out ungodly profits for its owners. Currently underperforming, as it cannot even hope to keep pace with population growth.
A one-two trillion dollar corporate food system, commited to complete ownership and control of the food and water stock of the planet, and the production of imbalanced, disease producing, food, where no country produces its own food, but is reduced to unverifiable, adulterated, free-trade mystery food.
A one trillion dollar sickness-causing system (called “healthcare” though it is nothing of the such) which has contributed to the cancer rate rising from one is thirteen to one in two in a hundred or so years, and an epidemic of chronic diseases — heart, diabetes, ms, chronic fatigue, etc.
A media controlled by the overlords profiting from death committed to covering all of this in meaningless feel-good sound bites, alternated with paralyzing fear tactics, fear, fear , fear, fear of otherness, fear of anyone doing anything different from “our” system in the world, fear 24/7, producing a populace almost completely depressed, or limited to day-to-day “getting by” — short horizon, less than single generation, functioning — and not even capable of that low-level existence without the daily imput of lullaby cultural hegemonic fantasy stories called movies and tv, and almost all on legal or illegal consciousness-dulling drugs.
A population consuming several times its ecological footprint in plastic geegaws, plastic cars, large TV screens, plastic bags, plastic animal flesh, and alchohol and drugs.
Obviously, I could go on almost forever in this vein. Unless people wake up and start addressing all of our multiple challenges and pathologies systematically, rather that one-by-one band aid approaches, we are all going to be in deep doo-doo very soon, and a world of exponentially increasing global suffering and pain.
Can Politics do this? Is it the right tool? Can Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich educate the 250 Million, non-illuminati, arthritically inflammed, overweight, over-worked, under-employed, beer-belly, insulin-dependent, dullards in 45 second sound bite actualites on MSNBC and FOX? Or can they quieten the few who are half awake, and insure their compliance with “process,” that is, our national process: critically flawed, pro-forma, representative elections, which at best, cede power to others who have taken the money of those far more powerful than themselves in order to buy the media coverage necessary to secure office. (Again, we must never confuse the horse with the owner. Horses who win races are afforded incredible luxury, but, as Orwell reminds us, only the rare horse ever learns to walk on two feet.)
Politics, by its nature, requires candidates to speak positively, emitting jingoistic nationalistic garbage nonsense phrases like “Mourning Morning in America,” “We’ll fight them there, so we don’t have to fight them here,” etc. Americans are purposely not trained in critical thought, and have no clue about how the world works and who owns it. Americans are driven by fantasy-guided, Hollywood celebrity colored, infantile good vs. evil narratives, and sub rosa, emotional processes designed to meet their hungry-ghost, illusory needs, not their ruthlessly sublimated real needs. As we systematically deny the violence of our capitalistic lives, reducing it to the mental level of video games, war movies, and crime shows, the inner violence is deferred onto onto others, in order to protect ourselves. Only a true prophet can awaken us from our slumber as a nation and a planet, and give us a new narrative to live by. And no populace has ever elected a prophet — a Jeremiah or an Ezekiel — nor will it ever.
Remember, the American lifestyle is non-negotiable. (at least for the ultra-rich, though the suffering and deprivation in store for the poor is suppossed to be non-negotiable , too.)
Politics, like law and medicine, is their game, and the rules are set up to keep all the pieces on the playing board, and all the participants fully entertained so that they don’t cause too much trouble. I’m just not sure that Politics is the right game to play if one wants to awaken others, change and heal the world. Maybe it is and Ron Paul can run the table, but I doubt it, and I’m sure that much valuable momentum will be lost and forgotten in spending too much time watching the meandering progress of this little ant who history will forget in far less than a decade.

Posted by: Malooga | Nov 14 2007 18:30 utc | 29

The police, in full SWAT battle
gear, batons raised horizontal, punching heads and shoulders, knocking people
to the ground. Unable to stand, each protester was wrestled into a headlock,
then another police removed the protesters’ glasses or goggles, while another
sprayed them with a fog of pepper gas, like a weed burner right in the eyes,
then as the protesters lay gagging and vomiting, their hands were strapped
behind them
peris, 25. seattletimes blurb on the protest. hardly a mention other than reporting the protesters poured cement on the train tracks. and this…
Protesters are a frequent presence at that location, where Iraq-bound Army equipment goes through the Port.
i hopped over to michelle malkin (she lives in the seattle area, or used to) knowing she would be screaming about it, and she is. one of her readers
Around 11pm and 12 am, the Police started to clear Franklin Street, running into the center of the Port where the protesters were hanging out. The Strykers and Army personnel used that to race up Swan Town Road a block over (as classic diversion). I saw a few police firing what appeared to be pepper spray from paint guns, but it was limited and intended to keep the protesters from pulling a Rachel Corrie with the Strykers
i’ve watched some videos of the olympia protests, they get out of hand w/frequency but i guess the MO now is to not arrest people because it just gets on the news, which they try to avoid because of the frequency of the protests.

Posted by: annie | Nov 14 2007 19:28 utc | 30

Ron Paul is garnering the “fundamentist christian vote” and the left vote who are sick of the funding $$$$billions in Iraq. Be careful what you wish for. My wish for USA, VOTE FOR HIM.
Cats, Pigeons etc.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Nov 14 2007 21:24 utc | 31

It isn’t that Ron Paul is so great, it’s that the other choices are so bad. But I have to admit he is somewhat better than most of the ‘settle for’ candidates I have had to vote for in the past.
As for the fundie Christian vote, it seems that all the fundie groups have recommended candidates other than Paul, like Giuliani. One of the few religious things he has said is he always thought that Jesus was the Prince of Peace rather than this god of war the fundie Christians are now happy to follow. He also goes on to say he considers his religious beliefs to be private and will not speak about them trying to garner votes. Paul is a strong proponent of the separation of church and state.

Posted by: Ensley | Nov 14 2007 23:09 utc | 32

Ron Paul is a Trojan Horse.
He’s the Stormfront candidate NeoNazis like best. [thanks, cd]
He talks small government and civil liberties. But look at his voting record. His is a Theocratic state where the oligarchs take over, because the government is too weak to even repair the roads.
Glenn Greenwald tastes the Paul Kool-Aid, and likes the flavor. But Greenwald forgets what politicians do. Politicians lie to advance political agendas, and like Orcinus, I’m surprised and disappointed he fell for this one.
But he pretty much believed in Fitzmas, too…

Posted by: kelley b. | Nov 15 2007 2:44 utc | 33

You can’t help what group decides to endorse you as their candidate. But if that is what you think makes Ron Paul a neo-Nazi, an uninvited endorsement, can you just imagine how even more accurate it would be that a candidate who actually INVITES a homophobe hatemonger into his campaign, like Obama has, really has to be a homophobe hatemonger himself! Right? The first situation is out of Paul’s control, but the second was an Obama invitation. How does that fit in with your theory, kelley?
And maybe you need a little civics education to understand that a US Congressman has no power in the state he represents. He is not part of the state govt, so whether Texas is or isn’t a theocratic state as you claim and the roads don’t get fixed, Ron Paul has nothing to do with that. Perhaps you are confused with the duties of the governor of the state?

Posted by: Ensley | Nov 15 2007 3:15 utc | 34

Kelly #33,
Is this kool-aid?
Do you think Ron Paul is lying when he writes this (below)? Are these the words of a ‘neo-nazi’?

Free trade means no sanctions against Iran, or Cuba or anyone else for that matter. Entangling alliances with no one means no foreign aid to Pakistan, or Egypt, or Israel, or anyone else for that matter. If an American citizen determines a foreign country or cause is worthy of their money, let them send it, and encourage their neighbors to send money too, but our government has no authority to use hard-earned American taxpayer dollars to mire us in these nightmarishly complicated, no-win entangling alliances.
When we look at global situations today, the words of our founding fathers are becoming more relevant daily. We need to understand that a simple, humble foreign policy makes us less vulnerable and less targeted on the world stage. Pakistan should not be getting an “allowance” from us and we should not be propping up military dictators that oppress people. We should mind our own business and stop the oppressive taxation of Americans that makes this meddling possible.
– Ron Paul, Nov. 15 2007

Posted by: Rick | Nov 15 2007 7:06 utc | 35

Thanks to Rick @ 35 for the link. It should perhaps be pointed out, that at the side of the text of that link there is a list labeled Archives, all of the links of which are short “position statements” or blog writings by Paul. For those wanting to get an idea of Paul’s “nuttiness” or irrelevance from the horse’s mouth, that Archive might be a good place to start. What little I have read there would easily nestle into a decidedly non-Marxist corner of the MOA dialogue, a comfortable nook for those of us afflicted with problems of perceived “nuttiness” and suspected irrelevance.

Thanks also to Malooga for a moving jeremiad at 29. The old joke about the inveterate gambler who says “I know the [electoral] wheel is fixed, but it’s the only game in town” comes to mind. The work of those selfless citizens who try daily to counteract the presumption and indifference of their society should indeed have prior claim to our solidarity with respect to mere politicians, but I don’t entirely subscribe to the view that

To believe that change comes from the ballot box is to ignore, marginalize, and denigrate the sacrifices of activists laying down their lives for equality and change over the ages.

More precisely, I would submit that it may be that the community ethical values arising from the labors of such laical saints and prophets are best sanctioned institutionally via the ballot box, with all its attendant ambiguities, unsatisfying compromises, and ephemeral solidity. As always with Molooga’s posts, one is left with much for meditation, and an admiration for the brio with which the views are propounded. But this time I think I’ll cast my lot with those (possibly benighted) souls who think they discern a glimmer of light in the coalition that seems to be forming around the Paul campaign. Malooga is right about the political fate of prophets (indeed it is proverbial), but citizens might, I think, rightfully hope that the crosscurrents of electoral contention may, on rare occasions, yield a statesman rather than just another politician.

Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Nov 15 2007 13:53 utc | 36

Ron Paul has the moral migh ground. Not going to be nominated or win the presidncy as an indie, but he’s right as rain about the evils of empire.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22762457-5005961,00.html

Posted by: Wolf DeVoon | Nov 15 2007 15:20 utc | 37

Is this kool-aid?


Absolutely. Read the links at Orcinus, and think about it.
Politicians lie.
Does Ron Paul have the moral high ground? I’m sure the Christian Dominionists absolutely agree with him, and apparently you. I don’t.

Posted by: kelley b. | Nov 15 2007 16:50 utc | 38

There’s also this:
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/dark-side-of-paul-phenomenon.html
The sad thing is that Glenn Greenwald should know better but still seems to be oddly naive about the extreme right and their heroes like Ron Paul. Greenwald was Matt Hale’s attorney in the 1990s and Hale tried to con Greenwald into passing along coded messages for him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald#_note-3
Greenwald’s been burned by these people, yet he still gives them more benefit of the doubt than he does people like Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. He himself says that he’s neither liberal nor conservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald#_note-0) and has appeared at the Cato Institute, so it seems as if he’s personally more comfortable with conservatives, which makes him more willing to cut them slack he’d never cut Harry Reid.
(I’m saying this as someone who would love to see Ron Paul run third-party and siphon off the bigot vote. He does that, and Dennis Kucinich could be the Democratic nominee and still win in a walk.)

Posted by: Chatty Kathy | Nov 15 2007 21:07 utc | 39

Everyone i know is voting for him. All my employees, most relatives nationwide, most neighbors that i speak to and of course myself. I’ve been following his writings and actions for years and given the maximum allowable by law financially to his campaign. The only honest man in politics actually has a chance to win this thing and if you aren’t supporting him you should be…this doesn’t happen often.

Posted by: JasonF | Nov 17 2007 4:03 utc | 40

The Ron Paul campaign is reminding me more and more of the naughtie’s answer to the eighties Reform Party featuring H. Ross Perot (Good Lord, they even share most of the same initials! Just realized that.) Back in the eighties, I thought Perot was something of a whack-job (noun), what with all his talk about GOP whack-jobs (verb). I’ve seen a few election cycles since that time, and more than a few Wellstones (noun and verb, literal and figurative), and I owe a certain diminutive Texas billionaire an apology.
Sorry to trip down memory lane here, but I need to establish that disgust with the American electoral system didn’t begin with the overt theft in 2000 and isn’t exclusively about the Iraq War. There was talk about reforming a broken system before President Peels-Bananas-With-His-Feet came along. The Reform Party wasn’t the only serious pre-2000 talk about how a change was desperately needed. Rest assured, little campers, the hegemony was listening to the chatter and duly changed the rules to exclude the peons. Twenty years later, it’s still a rigged game, it’s still the only game in town, and don’t even think about leaving town.
So why should I get excited about Paul when what he really represents is only the latest and greatest “Dean Scream” that gives the majority of disenfranchised voters the illusion that something’s finally going to change? I’ve been Kucinich’s man (or, according to at least one online quiz, Gravel’s man) for a little over five years now and I’m still waiting for someone who represents me and my interests to bother to mount a serious campaign.
Ron Paul’s November 5th money bomb is what changed. That’s right, kids! Filthy, filthy lucre got the attention of the hegemony. Who’d a thunk it? So… everything’s going to be okay now, right? Money gets you “elected” to high office, right? Sorry, I can’t hear your answer to that question over the sound of a certain short Texas billionaire giggling in the corner.
No, the hegemony has other tricks up his media-and-power monopolizing sleeves to take care of peons, even if those peons happen to be extremely rich. They don’t just own your body and your property. They own your soul. Your emotions are your enemy because they use them against you. They continue to pursue “hearts and minds” campaigns against foreign enemies not because they’ve ever been demonstrated to work against them; they do so because they’ve been demonstrated to work so fucking well against the peons they already own every four years (or two, if you count midterms).
In some versions of the Pandora’s Box myth, the deadliest plague released by that silly, curious idiot was “hope”. Hope allows humankind to endure all manner of crap they’d otherwise be moved to fix or be crushed by outright. Hope, in short, serves the function of prolonging misery. You can talk after the fact about how the Naders and the Perots were part of a clever plot to split up voting blocks or how terrified the Powers That Be are every time a Howard Dean screams, but in the end, they all serve the purpose of keeping folk who would ordinarily opt for something more radical invested in a broken system. They offer hope… evil, evil hope– the one emotion above all others that is used to manipulate and control you, and the one that you just can’t enough of. Your addled and trembling fingers reach out every four years to that crackpipe filled with crackpots because you need a crutch to face the cold, harsh reality that nothing’s gonna change. Okay, enough happy talk. Let’s take a peek at the nitty and the gritty and see how things aren’t going to change this time around.
I’m not saying there was any kind of plot to foist Paul specifically into the role that springs eternal just in time for the 2008 silly season, but here he is. He’s raised a monumental amount of cash (or, rather, his supporters have… Paul, genuinely or not, plays the part of the truly innocent bystander fairly well), and the ball’s now in the Big Damn Court of the PTB. The hegemony’s knee jerk here was to call Paul the equivalent of a terrorist. That may not have been part of any genuine and long-term GOP strategy; they have become so dependent upon the Boogieman meme that a fire can’t break out in a drought without somebody suggesting with enormous solemnity that Al Qaeda did it.
We can expect a garden variety smear campaign. Unfortunately, these smears seem a little hollow since Paul’s public persona of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” means that very little crosses his own desk and most of his PR falls at the feet of his exuberant supporters (Good for him, not so good for the folk who have to bear the brunt of his campaign). Homeland “What is ‘Gestapo’ in English, anyway?” Security might not have cause to round up Paul himself, but there are plenty of little Pauls out there (some of the minted in silver) who are going to feel a wrothful hegemony more directly than the candidate himself ever will. I have very mixed feelings about a man who won’t suffer directly for his art… but I do understand it. One genuine conviction changes Mr. Smith into Eugene Debs or Lyndon LaRouche; that is to say, entirely unelectable no matter what their message is. Before November 5th, this would have been the PTB’s first choice in dealing with this matter. Sadly for them, once a person becomes high profile enough, you can’t just make them go away a la Jose Padilla. Once a person has made a name for themself, the name needs to be tarnished (people without names can sacrifice their bodies… the PTB owns both anyway, and I doubt they have much of a preference).
If Paul were serious about holding high office, he has exactly one chance, and since he decided to change his party affiliation to take a futile stab at receiving the Republican nomination, we can safely bet he won’t pursue it. Paul’s single chance for change, if he is genuine and not simply playing the role of Pandora’s Folly for the 2008 show, would be to make history and call for an Article V convention. I’m not seeing this happening not only because it is unprecedented, but because Paul’s approach so far has been to stand by and allow the grunt work to be done by enthusiastic, hope-filled supporters and by doing excruciatingly little personally. This leads me to conclude that he is this year’s version of Ralph Nader and not cut from the same cloth as H. Ross Perot after all, no matter how much money gets thrown at him.
I’m sorry for being the eternal pessimist, but I can’t shake the feeling that we’ve all watched this movie enough times by now to know how it ends.

Posted by: Monolycus | Nov 18 2007 5:37 utc | 41

mono.. your Article V convention link isn’t working for me. a few comments
since he decided to change his party affiliation to take a futile stab at receiving the Republican nomination
me thinks he’s always been a republican.
So why should I get excited about Paul when what he really represents is only the latest and greatest “Dean Scream” that gives the majority of disenfranchised voters the illusion that something’s finally going to change?
there is, and always had been a dig divide between dean and rp. the main issue is the SOLUTION to our woes. dean, being a dem championed little things like health care and a more socialist vision of protecting the masses. rp is a stripped to the bones feds scenario. there is a similarity however, each one ran on a platform including the essentials of their party. stripped down.
hope… or desperation?
ok, lets face it, what is the numero unoissue facing the masses. is it domestic, or foreign? it’s a hard hard choice because they are so linked. but the bottom line is many many americans (myself included) will say fuckall to to any of our domestic issues just to end this damn genocide. granted many, possibly most rp supporters are young rethugs.. they want to fre themselves of this ball and chain of endless taxes to fund the mayhem. ok, i have no prob paying taxes for the masses but we all know it isn’t going to the masses.
rp isn’t going to win, but he gives people a voice. he’s the rethugs version of kuchinch (who also doesn’t have a chande). what do they have in common? END IRAQ. rp also has the additional benefit of voting for END AID TO ISRAEL.
this is very tempting. even if you know he isn’t going to win, it gives a voice when you go to cast your ballot. and frankly i’m that desperate. it will be interesting at the primaries to see how many people vote for kucinch and paul. the two candidates that want out NOW. damn the domestic politics. really, i know paul has a horrible record on things like abortion but i could sort of give a flying f right no about that. sorry, thats just my preference. it comes down to what? yer gonna get anti abortion w/any rethug except rudi anyway.
many people don’t really understand the ins and outs of politics they are just FED UP, and rp wants to strip it all down. frankly, i would give up all fed domestic funds to end the war because we don’t have those benefits now anyway and we still have the ball and chain of moral and financial bankruotcy w/this damn genocide. the only upside of this war is that it will end the empire. so what difference does it make if we all have to suffer under a no pension/fed/SS/abortion platform??? we’re going to hell in a handbasket anyway. if i had to choose between hillary and paul, i’d choose paul in a heartbeat. but i will never have that choice.
ultimately who are all those rethug young idealistic voters going to choose in the general election? are they going to not vote? vote for julie.. or vote for hil?
end the empire.

Posted by: annie | Nov 18 2007 6:25 utc | 42

@annie:
The link works for me. Anyway, try copying and pasting http://www.progress.org/2007/hirsch31.htm into your browser.
As for the rest, I am most definitely NOT going to say “fuckall” to any and all domestic issues on the off chance that somebody can stop the genocide in Iraq. We’re wiping out a fair number of Afghanis as well (and romping and stomping all over Africa and any other poor nation we can find on a satellite map), but Iraq has turned into the tunnel-vision atrocity for the 2008 voter. Of course Iraq is on my mind, but single-issue voting has led us to this disastrous path in the first place. Christ sake, why don’t I burn down my house because I want toast?
There are serious goddamned domestic issues to be tackled and I have no patience for folk who are only looking at the left corner of the handle on the handbasket we’re all going to hell in. This is a big picture time if there ever was one, and I’m not going to be mollified by bringing the troops home just in time to be domestically surveilled or drown, be burned alive, or starve to death or be imprisoned somewhere in the heartland because we couldn’t care enough about our infrastructure to feed, house or provide medical assistance to our own damned people. The US Army is still missing recruiting goals… but how many sociopaths wouldn’t have signed up in the first place if they had genuine alternatives? It’s the failure to address domestic issues that allow foreign distractions to play themselves into such gigantic catastrophes.
Yes, we need to get out of Iraq. We need to fix a shitload of other things, too. With the pool of candidates I’m seeing here, I have no doubt it will all get backburnered again. “Just wait until 2012! We’ll get it fixed next time, I’m sure! We have other priorities now!” It’s the failure to address domestic issues that guarantees there will always be foreign issues to take care of “first”. So it has gone, so it goes, so it will always go until the situation is entirely irremediable and the country disappears down the swirling drain.

Posted by: Monolycus | Nov 18 2007 7:25 utc | 43

why don’t I burn down my house because I want toast?
lol, ok you have a point!
sorry, what was i thinking. when i said end the genocide i wasn’t speaking only of iraq. i was referring to american intervention all over the globe. face it, there simply won’t be any money for any domestic agenda w/the futuristic ‘phase zero’ plans they have.
whatever. of course i care about domestic issues. i just don’t have any faith anymore dems are going to deliver them because they are dems. sorry, i am just very discouraged. if we aren’t feeding this hungry genocide beast where do you think the money might end up???
It’s the failure to address domestic issues that guarantees there will always be foreign issues to take care of “first”.
i’m not going to play chicken egg. i did a fairly good job avoiding posting on this thread til i had a glass of whiskey last night and read your post. i think it was the ‘hope’ idea that threw me into a tizzy. like i said, desperation seems a much more likely scenario. either way i will defer to your assessment. i have no plans to vote for him anyway, unless hell freezes over or something.

Posted by: annie | Nov 18 2007 16:34 utc | 44

Oh, for goodness sake, Annie. Vote your conscience. I was talked out of doing so in 2004 to throw away a vote on Kerry. I won’t do that again. All I was trying to do in my #41 was to temper the exuberance a little to avoid another crash of depression… looks like my efforts might have been unnecessary. And, to be honest, I was kind of hoping people would dogpile on me again and convince me why things really were going to be different this time. There’s that damned hope again.
Just please tell me you’re not going to support a Repub in Dem’s clothing. *insert a smiling, winking face here*

Posted by: Monolycus | Nov 19 2007 2:59 utc | 45

Mono, that was a great initial post #41. You write beautifully.
W.

Posted by: Wolf DeVoon | Nov 19 2007 18:21 utc | 46

What everyone appears to be saying is quite simple to me on the outside. Paul and Kucinich appear to have one thing going for them that none of the other candidates do.
They seem to be honest – motivated by principle rather than a simple lust for power. Right about now people who live in a liberal democracy, and who normally vote left of centre would rather take a principled far-rightist than an unprincipled ‘centre leftist’. This shouldn’t be surprising.
It seems rational. One feels that a principled person will listen to facts and weigh arguments before deciding. Therefore a well presented argument for health-care or a rise in minimum wage levels could stand a chance.
Unfortunately it doesn’t work like that. As we have seen time and time again pols can only afford principles when they are on the outer. Their act of being an ethical human in a jungle full of predatory animals turns as soon as they actually catch the attention of sufficient voters. For all the talk of that Howard Dean scream, and how it was a deliberate ploy by the elite to derail a principled dem, it seems that amerika didn’t really lose much. Dean has hardly covered himself in glory as chairman of the Democratic National Committee. He was just another pol using the ploy of being on a higher moral ground to get attention.
There is little in either Kucinich or Paul’s past to suggest they will behave differently.
The sad fact is that prez’s only have to listen to voters once every 4 years but they have to listen to the lobbyists and power players every day. An isolated prez can’t do fuck all so they go along with the money, probably with a quiet promise to themselves not to get in too deep at the start.
However they soon come to see that doing the wrong thing can be papered over by throwing money at it and having the mass media tell the world what a wonderful human being you are. Do the right thing and you’ve made enemies who are implacable, they never go away and they never stop chipping away at your standing in the electorate.
NZ is trying again to keep money outta the political process; the govt has the numbers to push through legislation to prevent anonymous donations and massive third party campaigns but they are wavering under sustained and massive pressure from the media and a few rich capitalists.
It may work; people who were outraged at the way that amerika and a few rich fundamentalist religious nuts tried to buy the last election are now worried about the infringement of ‘freedom of speech’. It’s total bullshit but nearly impossible to counter.
So who do we vote for?
It’s problem if you live in a nation with an archaic ‘first past the post’ system such as amerika has. There is only ever two viable candidates for any position. ‘viable’ comes to mean ‘supportive of the status quo’, so anyone looking for the sort of major change to the way their government works that most MoA users are looking for, will never find a suitable candidate using the current process.
The ‘least worst’ in many ways is actually the worst of all possible choices. Next year as the election season heats up MoA’s pages will become crowded with the same voices who pushed the ‘anyone but Bush’ message in ’04. There is no doubt that even Hilary Obama will do a couple of things which seem to take the pressure off poor people who live in amerika. The thing is tho, that when they do, it will be done in such a way that ties amerika even deeper into exploiting people overseas and which reinforces amerikans into poverty. All that will happen is that poverty will be slightly less uncomfortable for concerned citizens, who aren’t impoverished, to view.
The current amerikan political system is incapable of electing an honest pol. Everything works against that proposition.
Really nothing can change until the system changes and that won’t happen as long as people consider Hilary Obama a viable alternative. It may happen when people get sick of the procession of unabashedly violent greedheads, morons and liars such as the chimp, winning office.
However just because pols won’t go for the long game, it doesn’t mean people have to always go for immediate gratification as well.
It would be better to let the rethugs have their Rudy Giuliani. Yes it would hurt short term, but a really sustained period of rethug brutish greedy and intolerant rule would radicalise amerika like nothing else.
Which is why the elites will never let it happen as long as they think straight. They will install Hilary Obama in jan 09 and there is little anyone can do about it except choose not to be part of the circus and keep at playing the long game.
Those who do vote dem in ’08 will end up feeling soiled, betrayed and stupid for not seeing it coming. Setting aside the loss of credibility amongst one’s peers that advocating a dem win will cause when the reality of dem rule bites, the sense of disillusionment from being part of such a cynical scam is very disempowering for people who try and live a principled existence. It is this factor more than anything which makes voting the ‘least worst’ a recipe for self disgust, and the immobility which goes with that. In the end people just give up which is not the best way forward.
Keep informing and educating those around you. Show them the pattern of elite manipulation which spans decades, decades those around you have lived through but have been persuaded to forget. Eventually the curves of citizen awareness vs elite arrogance and the complacency that goes with that, will intersect.
When it does and the numbers of amerikans who understand they have been used and abused, exceeds the ability of the elites to stomp on that understanding, that is when the time will come to take meaningful action.
Until then worrying about whether Kucinich or Paul is the better bet is a distraction. A frustrating and demoralising distraction that is best left for those who enjoy being frustrated and demoralised.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Nov 19 2007 20:24 utc | 47

My cynical side of me wishes to see Kos, Atrios and to a lesser extent TPM delight at the bombiing of Iran on the orders of Clinton/Obama. However, the 9.11 ground would be made for that already, witness the $$$billion “lost” in Iraq.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Nov 19 2007 21:34 utc | 48

What is ‘Gestapo’ in English, anyway?
contraction of Geheime Staatspolizei: “secret state police”
aka NSA, CIA, DEA, NRO, and finally DHS

Posted by: dan of steele | Nov 19 2007 23:17 utc | 49

Thanks, dano’, but I was actually aware (I minored in German in University). The question was 90% rhetorical and 10% snark. I knew I should have gone with “Stasi” (Ministerium für Staatssicherheit) instead, but I couldn’t resist the Godwin.
Anyway, if you’re a paranoid enough freak enjoy belonging to the very organization from the original quote, they would seem to be accepting applications. Obviously, no experience required. Domestic security advisor is latest Bush aide to resign.
If you don’t want to dust off your résumé and join the Party, then just sit back, as Debs appears to be suggesting, and enjoy the ride. Folks here were plenty pissed at Unca $cam, as I recall, for suggesting pretty much the same thing a few years back. He said that the GOP should be given sole ownership of the clusterfuck and run it into the ground. He caught some serious heat, if I remember correctly. Of course, $cam’s an American, and that would seem to make all the difference. Americans can also say we’re damned no matter what we do… we just don’t get the fun of righteously blaming ourselves about it afterwards.
Oh, and thanks for the kind words, Wolf DeVoon @ #46. I’m going to try to let them temper some of the black bile I keep choking back whenever I read a fair number of these enlightened discussions.

Posted by: Monolycus | Nov 20 2007 5:59 utc | 50

Almost certainly a Dem sweep in 2008, WH and solid majority in Congress, because the US economy is in a steep tailspin. The stage is set for a replay of FDR’s New Deal.
W.

Posted by: Wolf DeVoon | Nov 21 2007 14:02 utc | 51

Almost certainly a Dem sweep in 2008, WH and solid majority in Congress, because the US economy is in a steep tailspin.
That doesn’t mean the Dems will win. Don’t you it’s their fault (or Clinton’s)?
Like Lindorff I can see the Dems lose.
Democrats Face a Shock in November ’08: They Could Lose

The dire situation facing Democrats is masked currently by the fake “excitement” being generated by all the corporate media coverage of the so-called “race” for the Democratic presidential nomination—coverage that is artificially skewed towards just two or perhaps three of the candidates, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. This coverage creates the illusion of some kind of groundswell of public excitement about the Democratic candidates. In fact none of them fares particularly well against Republican candidates, At this point, given the disastrous history of seven years of Republican rule in Washington, with the economy staggering, the dollar in freefall, oil prices at record levels, the country $8 trillion in debt, mortgage defaults at depression levels and the war in Iraq still without an end in sight, any Democrat should be trouncing any Republican candidate in the polls. Instead, the so-called “leading” Democrats are all neck-and-neck with their potential Republican opponents.
…
The reason for this disconnect from reality is that while Democratic voters, as always, can be expected to go dutifully to the polls next November and cast their votes for whatever compromised and weak candidate their party puts up to run, the independent vote which put Democrats over the top in the 2006 off-year congressional elections is gone.
Those voters, many of whom have long harbored a powerful antipathy towards both parties, towards the government, and towards the corporations that dominate the political process, came out in record numbers and voted Democratic in November, ’06 because, sick of the Bush/Cheney administration, sick of five years of a phony “war” on terror, and sick of three years of the Iraq War, they turned to the Democrats, even in traditional “red” states and congressional districts, in hopes that the Democrats would do what they were promising to do: end the war and defend the Constitution.
Now they have seen that this hope was misplaced.

The stage is set for a replay of FDR’s New Deal.
If only … but I don’t see that ideology florishing within the Dem party at all.

Posted by: b | Nov 21 2007 15:59 utc | 52

@b
I have the highest respect for you as an investor and econ saavy political thinker (plus super-size gratitude for MoA), however the American polis is fundamentally spoiled and short-sighted. The Dems will win because US voters will punish Repubs for recession. War and waste are acceptable. Declining discretionary income, higher gasoline/food prices, and tight credit are not.
The Fed will cut rates, of course, but to no avail. By November 2008, voters will scream for emergency domestic spending, middle class tax cuts and soak the rich IMO. It’s a done deal.
W.

Posted by: Wolf DeVoon | Nov 22 2007 2:12 utc | 53

see what I mean…
We’re doomed

Posted by: Wolf DeVoon | Nov 22 2007 2:19 utc | 54

b, re 52.
the ptb alway ALWAYS give an adundance of these kinds of pre warnings. why? because they steal elections. they never ever want us to think anything is a done deal. they want us on our toes. the last thing they want is to have to explain AFTER THE FACT how it possibly could have happened.
they are laying the groundwork. they are framing the excuse. they are making us question.
the only way rethugs could win the next election is the same recipe they won last time, and the time befire,
by cheating.
people think the ‘dems won’ on 04. hardly. they won just enough to not have contol. they won just enough to have liebershit change parties if we got out of control. they won by one. by one in the senate. just enough to not have us throw a hissyfit. but not enough to really get anything done.
this is the kind of BS the are prepping us with. if posh come to shove.. the rethugs will steal it again. say for instance for some strange reason the neonuts don’t either get their iran invasion or some guarentee hill will do it for them.. they will take control by hook or by crook.
we can expect many more of these predictions. many many more. it is all they have. and they don’t wnt it ‘coming out of the blue’. they want it believable. hence, the warnings.
Now they have seen that this hope was misplaced.
therefore i’ll vote for gulie? please.

Posted by: annie | Nov 22 2007 4:00 utc | 55

people think the ‘dems won’ on 04
sorry, 06. and all the other usual (from me) typos

Posted by: annie | Nov 22 2007 4:02 utc | 56

@Wolf – I agree the economic situation will really, really be bad in 2008
Still I can see
1. that the Repubs will frame the Dems for that being so
2. that independent voters will stay away from the 2008 ballot boxes because the Dems’s have done nothing since 2006.
You can’t blame the repubs for overspending on a war when the dems allow the budgets for that to pass without any real hinderance.

Posted by: b | Nov 22 2007 5:19 utc | 57

You can’t blame the repubs for overspending on a war when the dems allow the budgets for that to pass without any real hinderance.
lol, sure you can.

Posted by: annie | Nov 22 2007 6:48 utc | 58

You can’t blame the repubs for overspending on a war when the dems allow the budgets for that to pass without any real hinderance.
I agree with annie. Americans aren’t that logical, by a light year or two.

Posted by: anna missed | Nov 22 2007 7:47 utc | 59

Back to Main