He’s Writing About Ron Paul Again??
Yes, I am. I’ve been noticing a lot of activity in the Ron Paul posts, which I’ve been writing off to the puzzling support that Ron Paul has been getting from liberals, but then I looked at my referral logs. Welcome readers from the Ron Paul Forums and Andrew Sullivan’s blog. It seems that half of you are hiding behind strawmen and using narrow, self-serving definitions of the words “freedom” and “constitutional”. The other half just don’t understand the posts at all. Thankfully, Autumn Harvest perfectly summed up the point of my posts in the comments :
It’s clear that all you RP supporters have completely missed Greg’s point. Greg was saying that RP is no friend of liberals. So yeah, John Galt and Sleep Dog, Greg didn’t explain what was wrong with what RP said. But Greg doesn’t need to, because what RP said is self-evidently lunacy to any liberal. If you really think that liberals are an insane collective mass who want to ban Christmas, love Castro, and are like affirmative action because it helps oppress minorities, then fine, support RP; I think these beliefs are crazy, but I don’t particularly want to argue about them with you. But Greg’s point was that RP is not some wonderful blend of great liberal and great conservative positions, but a hard-core, fanatical, Fox-news-loving social conservative, who any intelligent liberal should run screaming from.
That’s the whole point of the quotes compiled in this post. It’s not just that I strongly disagree with statements like “the collectivist Left hates religion” and his contention that the “welfare state” is “the tool used by [the left] to maintain political control over large minority groups willing to be victimized” and his insistence that “Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America” and his claim that “Those who call for the abolition of the electoral college are hostile to liberty.” These statements are not only factually wrong, but they’re bitter, hateful statements that strike at some of my core beliefs. It’s not just what Ron Paul believes, but how he’s chosen to express those beliefs that have convinced me that he’s as hateful towards liberals as Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, or any other wingnut.
On a slightly different note, The American Prospect’s recent article about Ron Paul has an interesting bit of trivia that’s been overlooked :
On Nov. 17, 2005, he introduced H.R. 4379, the We the People Act, which would remove contested cultural issues like abortion from the jurisdiction of federal courts.
Yeah, he sponsored some anti-abortion legislation. He’s one of those conservatives who mentions Nazi’s when discussing abortion, so that shouldn’t be much of a surprise. But calling it the “We the People Act“?? That’s the kind of Orwellian, wrap-yourself-in-the-flag crap I hate about the Bush Administration.
24 comments »
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post or for TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
I agree with you that the statement “the collectivist left hates religion” is wrong.
Christianity is just another collectivism, so there’s no real reason for the left to hate it. The apparent disdain between fundamentalists and leftists is an accident of history and not a matter of essentials.
Paul’s religious fervor is one of his least attractive characteristics. Fortunately, a federal government reduced to Paulian proportions would be so little threat to liberty, religious or otherwise, that I can overlook this little quirk. It’s mainly generational, anyway. It’s funny – he named one of his sons after one of the most militant atheists of the 20th century, but he just can’t let the “faith of his fathers” go. Ca va.
Comment by Fluffy — August 21, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
Since Ron Paul is the biggest defender of the constitution in all of congress you should know that when you attack him you’re attacking the constitution. If you don’t like the constitution the way it is then, by all means, please continue.
Comment by TJ — August 21, 2007 @ 5:19 pm
If you want to return to any semblance of a free Republic, you should vote for Ron Paul. His voting record speaks for itself.
At least you’d have the opportunity to change things in a Paulian style America.
Without Liberty, what do your liberal ideals really mean anyway?
Comment by AntiFed1791 — August 21, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
Absolutely laughing my ass off. That Ron Paul is Orwellian… doesn’t this belong on The Onion?
Nonetheless, it’s good to see someone on the Left blogging about Ron Paul. I feel like all I see are “Ron Paul is Going to Save Us” posts all over the internet. And while I tend to agree with them, it gets a bit repetitive. Keep blogging, I’ll keep reading.
Comment by Nathan Mahan — August 21, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
It’s so sad that people things must be 1 way or another. That the government must control every aspect of your life, and from there it’s only a matter of majority or leaders to choose which way that will be.
The reason Ron Paul generates support in all directions, because rather than ask – should this be 1 way, or should this be another way, he instead ask – should the government even decide the issue for us. And this is why the political parties are against him, not because he is for or against any particular issue, but because he is in favor of removing so much control over your lives from the government and putting those powers into the peoples hands.
This even goes back to JFK and his ask not what your country can do for you quote. He was saying, don’t ask the government to choose for you, choose for yourself. And it just so happens the constitution supports this, and Ron Paul realizes this.
When it comes to social issues, it’s easy to see why so called liberals support him. They aren’t liberals, they are people. And what you are seeing with Ron Paul supporters, and around the world is that PEOPLE, not political parties want the power to choose for themselves.
Comment by badmedia — August 21, 2007 @ 8:06 pm
“Ron Paul’s consistent anti-war position has made him popular, but how many people also understand his rejection of secularism and church/state separation? How many realize that his “states’ rights” rhetoric is a mask concealing a desire to use the government to promote “traditional marriage” and criminalize abortion? Ron Paul is only a “libertarian” where and when it’s convenient. Much of the rest of the time, he’s not merely a social conservative but a religious conservative promoting an agenda very close to that of Christian Nationalists.” – Austin Cline, saying what is apparently not self-evident to some people
Comment by ChrisV82 — August 21, 2007 @ 8:48 pm
Since Ron Paul is the biggest defender of the constitution in all of congress you should know that when you attack him you’re attacking the constitution.
Goddamn! Is that a stretch, or what?
Comment by Doobie — August 22, 2007 @ 3:07 am
Compilation of 13 Republican Straw Polls since June 1, 2007.
Results for Ron Paul:
FIRST (4)
North Carolina, Gaston GOP, August 13, ~ 1st 36.6% (NA)
New Hampshire Taxpayers, July 7 ~ 1st 61.9% (182/294)
New Hampshire, Stafford, NH, August 18~ 1st 72.7% (208/286)
West Alabama, August 18 ~ 1st 81.2% (216/266)
SECOND (4)
Utah GOP, June 12, 2nd 5.4% (70/1295)
LibertyPapers.org conference, June 16 ~ 2nd 16.7% (NA)
Georgia, Cobb Co. GOP, July 4 ~ 2nd 17% (42/247)
South Carolina, Georgetown Co., July 28 ~ 2nd 18% (40/223)
THIRD (2)
National Federation of Republican Assemblies, August 4, St. Louis, MO ~ 3rd 14% (NA)
Illinois, Springfield, August 16 ~ tied 3rd 18.87% (174/922)
FOURTH (1)
California Republican Assembly, July 1 ~ 4th 12% (NA)
FIFTH (1)
Iowa, Ames, August 11 ~ 5th 9.12% (1,305/14,302)
SIXTH (1)
Young Republican National Federation, Ft Lauderdale FL, July 8th ~ 6th 4.5% (11/247)
Sourced in part from:
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=47579
Other data on 14 polls: http://isilion.blogsome.com/2007/08/19/85/
Comment by Brian Horsfield — August 22, 2007 @ 4:04 am
I am an atheist. I am also a Ron Paul supporter. His voting record are NOT based his personal religions beliefs — His voting record is based 100% on the CONSTITUION.
For example, I personally believe abortion is fine. Yet I can appreciate that it is a highly debatable issue. For example, when does life begin. Genetically speaking the zygote (fertilized egg) contains the genetic code of a new distinct human being that has never previously existed and will never again exist on this planet. Still, I believe for practical reasons that humans should be defined as sentient beings with memories. The point is that this issue and many more are very difficult and perhaps philosophically impossible to agree on. There is no absolute truth on some of these issues.
The genius of the Constitution is that every state can have their own debate on these issues and create the environment that best suits the citizens of that state. It is much easier to move to a different state than to move to a different country. Following the Constitution may not be the perfect solution but it’s pretty damn good. Maybe the best in history.
Comment by Ben Frank — August 22, 2007 @ 6:04 am
I am an atheist. I am also a Ron Paul supporter. His voting record are NOT based his personal religions beliefs — His voting record is based 100% on the CONSTITUION.
For example, I personally believe abortion is fine. Yet I can appreciate that it is a highly debatable issue. For example, when does life begin. Genetically speaking the zygote (fertilized egg) contains the genetic code of a new distinct human being that has never previously existed and will never again exist on this planet. Still, I believe for practical reasons that humans should be defined as sentient beings with memories. The point is that this issue and many more are very difficult and perhaps philosophically impossible to agree on. There is no absolute truth on some of these issues.
The genius of the Constitution is that every state can have their own debate on these issues and create the environment that best suits the citizens of that state. It is much easier to move to a different state than to move to a different country. Following the Constitution may not be the perfect solution but it’s pretty damn good. Maybe the best in history.
I should have added to my previous post that Ron Paul is in favor of following the Constitution and allowing the states to decide these difficult issues. Please re-read the constitution if you have any doubt about the limitations placed on federal government by constitution.
It is our obligation as citizens to make sure our elected officials obey the Constitution and do not exceed or abuse their powers.
Comment by Ben Frank — August 22, 2007 @ 6:18 am
I, too, believe it is sad that people things. Where do I sign up?
Comment by Joe — August 22, 2007 @ 7:29 am
I think you guys are wrong to fear Ron Paul being part of some Christian plot. He does not believe in spreading any ideas or morality by force. Look at him on interviews. He says you are free to waste your life or not waste your life. He wants to end the war on drugs. He says people can engage in any voluntary contract that they want that doesn’t hurt others and call it what they want. Finally, he is for separation of church and state in another area where it really counts these days – foreign policy. Free trade and friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.
Comment by Karl — August 22, 2007 @ 8:04 am
Heh. The fun thing about political discourse is that half what a given person says is heavily offensive to someone else. For instance, most of the stuff that comes out of the mouth of a liberal represents a new kind of hell to me. Of late, the neoconservatives have managed to attain an equal level of stupidity to me. As for Ron Paul, yes, I have ought against him, particularly religion, abortion and immigration, being as I am anarcho-capitalist, think that religion is none of the government’s business, and don’t really believe abortion is something to rail against, but the man happens to align more closely than any major candidate in a long time with the rest of my beliefs, to wit, hard money, defensive posture in foreign policy, eliminated trade barriers, reduce laws, basic dignity and liberty for all, so on.
Comment by Perry Munger — August 22, 2007 @ 9:00 am
Yeah, Greg. If you love the Constitution and Liberty so much, why don’t you drink the Kool-Aid. It’s so delicious, Greg.
One of us…one of us…vote Ron Paul…one of us…
Comment by Dr. Pants — August 22, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
joe – the missing word in that sentence was “think”. Which is also, where you sign up. ;)
Comment by badmedia — August 22, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
This is flatly ridiculous. To the people who support Ron Paul, give it the fuck up already. He is a flatly racist, religiously hostile libertarian twerp. I don’t understand this insane notion that somehow your deluded decoding of his rhetoric is somehow accurate just because you want it to be. People don’t just spout off for no reason, without any preconceived notions. If you can’t take someone at their published word, then what the hell good is the English language anyway? Why don’t we all just walk around all day spouting gibberish, because that’s about how much weight you seem to be giving Ron Paul’s repeatedly published, publicly available word.
He is a racist, he is a lunatic, and if he didn’t support ending the war in Iraq, you people wouldn’t give him the time of day. Climb the fuck off your high horse.
Goddamn.
Comment by Damien — August 22, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
from what I have seen, the more traditional freedom loving iberals love ron paul (maybe a hippie type). The liberal socialist hate him. He is definately the anti socialist just like he is the anti neo-con. But socialists and neo-cons are just two sides of the same coin to me. They want to use force to tell us how to live our lives and spend our money, just in different ways. both anti freedom
Comment by joe bozzi — August 22, 2007 @ 8:29 pm
If you agree with Ron Paul please sign the petition to Abolish the Federal Reserve.
Now in August 2007, the world financial systems and investment markets, real estate and the availability of credit are all under direct assault due to past actions of the Federal Reserve in the United States.
Read and sign the Ron Paul Is Right – Abolish the Federal Reserve Petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/fed/petition.html
Please link to the petition and forward this message to your friends and help the general public wake up during the current financial panic conditions to the problems we face from the Federal Reserve and Ron Paul’s solution.
Comment by Ron Holland — August 23, 2007 @ 11:38 am
yeesh – apparently, Ron Paul supporters don’t believe in proofreading their own goddamn comments.
Comment by dAVE — August 23, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
One more thing – if everything gets left up to the states, we’d still have segregation.
Comment by dAVE — August 23, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
Which is why “states’ rights” is one of those dog-whistle phrases. It sounds like a good thing if you interpret it without historical context, especially if you’re a person (like myself) who believes in the integrity of a local economy and a small community. But when do we usually see someone asking us to “leave it up to the states?” Abolition. Desegregation. Civil rights. Gay marriage. Abortion.
I’m not saying ceding power to the states is bad — I think it’s great. But Tenth Amendment fetishists are too often hiding behind small government conservatism to cover their personal bigotry. They don’t want the rest of the country telling them to stop living in the past.
Comment by Cris — August 23, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
Is it just in this particular comments section, or are all Ron Paul supporters borderline illiterate?
Comment by JET — August 27, 2007 @ 7:52 am
I plan to vote for Paul in the Wisconsin Primary for one reason only: a strong showing by Paul sends the message that Repblicans are turning against the war, and that’s an important message to be sending right now. If we want to end the war, we need to increase the number of Republican representatives and Senators willing to oppose Bush, and that means sending a Republican anti-war message. Paul is the only candidate who can do that.
Am I concerned about Paul’s positions on other issues? Absolutely not, because I know that there is no way in hell Ron Paul will ever get the Republican nomination, let alone win the general election.
Paul, for me, is simply message-sending material, and his success, if any, will be chalked up to his opposition to the war, not the wingut-friendly positions he takes on dozens of other issues. Paul taking third place in Wisconsin, say, doesn’t translate into: “Hey everyone! Let’s abolish FEMA!”
What I find most amusing about the debate here between the “Ron Paul will save America!” types and the “Ron Paul will destroy America!” types is how few of you have a firm enough grasp on reality to understand that Ron Paul is never going to get close enough to the driver’s seat to have any effect at all on America.
Comment by SteveB — August 27, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
SteveB – excellent view point, probably the best comment in this entire thread. Good job.
Comment by John — August 29, 2007 @ 9:17 am