95 Comments

1. Sam_S:

Well, I would jump up and down for respecting the constitution, and I like Paul’s hard-headedness about that. However, long run, I have to go along with you here. I think I already told about my involvement with the Libertarian Party in the days of John Hospers. Some great principles, but geez, the people actually IN the campaign—the kind of people I wouldn’t let in my yard without an armed guard.

I could be talked into a little more isolationism, too.

Sep 6, 2007 - 12:19 am 2. AnnNY:

Boy Roger are you right about religious devotion to a politician.
You see that in some of the Clintonites and some in the Obama crowd are scary as well. Ron Paul is the Pat Buchanan of 2008.

Sep 6, 2007 - 5:45 am 3. LouMinatti:

Prepare to be flooded with messages from Ronpaulians who post copy-n-pasted messages describing how Dr. Paul is our only hope.

Sep 6, 2007 - 6:12 am 4. Dick Stanley:

Paul seems to appeal most to people who hate the political process. But, beyond flooding online polls, how much influence do they have, really?

Sep 6, 2007 - 6:17 am 5. doc disgruntled:

Here, in front of all the internets, I would like to coin a term for those nutjob alien Ron Paul supporters who are mucking up all the online polls:

RONULANS

Gentlemen, set your phasers on hilarious!

Doc Disgruntled

Sep 6, 2007 - 7:20 am 6. Rudersdorf:

AnnNY is perceptive about the Pat Buchanan parallel (with Paul being the Libertarian counterpart of Buchanan’s pseudo-populist stance), but when we’re remembering ‘peculiar’ candidates, let’s not leave out Lyndon LaRouche. Part charimatic huckster, part revolutionary wannabe (he thought himself the “American Lenin”), he managed an odder group of hangers-on than either Ron or Pat. (Remember airport harassment alongside Hari Krishnas!) He seems to be finally over the horizon, off the radar, and his personality cult seems evaporated. Have they gone elsewhere? Self-destructed? Ron Paul doesn’t compare to LL, and a good thing, too.

Sep 6, 2007 - 7:27 am 7. pastorius:

Roger,
While I agree with your analysis in the final paragraph of this fine post, I must say, people were saying similar things about all of us “neoconservative” bloggers.

Sep 6, 2007 - 7:58 am 8. Buddy Larsen:

I just wonder what Paulism would look like in practice. Y’know, the applause lines translated into practical policies.

What sort of people would a Paul admin bring in to do this work?

And re isolationism, our two big experiments with the theme, in the teens and thirties of the 20th century, came real croppers. We can choose disinterest in the world, theoretically, but then how do we respond to the world’s interest in us? Oh, there won’t BE any such, you say?

Sep 6, 2007 - 8:10 am 9. markus:

The wide variety of candidates tolerated in the early stages of the primaries is one of the most attractive parts of our system as it has developed. The second and third tier candidates are the Miramax of the race, bringing the arthouse stuff to the masses. I see no harm in an unscripted, spirited and substantive debate, such as occured between Paul and Huckabee.

Sep 6, 2007 - 8:19 am 10. Roger:

I see no harm in it either, even though Paul spooks me. Huckabee is showing himself to be an interesting, articulate man. In fact, as of now, he is the only surprise on either side for me.

Regarding the Miramax analogy, however, I beg to differ. For many years the Weinsten brothers were anything but outsiders. They were true heavy hitters of the Industry. Now not so much. But times change for all.

Sep 6, 2007 - 9:25 am 11. LarryD:

A RONULAN posting over at Michelle Malkin’s blog kept saying “Bush got us into the Iraq war without congress approval.” As I recall, the Democrats in Congress asked for a vote on attacking Saddam’s regime, and got it (probably not what they wanted). Congress approved the attack on Saddam’s regime.

Legally, since the state of war with Saddam had never been ended, and Saddam kept violating the terms of armistice, that vote wasn’t necessary. But getting Congress on record was a good idea politically.

Sep 6, 2007 - 9:42 am 12. Coisty:

And re isolationism, our two big experiments with the theme, in the teens and thirties of the 20th century, came real croppers

It is now almost universally acknowledged that American entry into WW1 was disastrous for Europe. The stalemate would have eventually resulted in a more equitable settlement instead of the punitive Versailles and the disastrous break-up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

We can choose disinterest in the world, theoretically, but then how do we respond to the world’s interest in us?

Neither the Germans nor Japanese wanted war with the US. It was FDR who wanted war. The US did not need to support China, slap an oil embargo on Japan, or aid the allies in Europe – in violation of US neutrality.

There’s an arrogance to Buddy’s last remark. It is as if the rest of us just sit around thinking about the US all the time just because you are you! It is your presence around the world and interference in the affairs of others that brings you so much attention. Of course, Europeans and Canadians shoot their mouths off about things like the death penalty in Texas, but they have no ability to change things; they are just posing. When the US does intervene it creates change – whether it be forcing affirmative action on Northern Ireland or the ethnic cleansing of Serbs from territories they’d occupied for centuries before US independence. It would not surprise me at all if Sarko’s apparent about-face on Turkish membership of the EU was due to US influence. When the US intervenes there are losers and unsurprisingly they take it rather personally.

Nobody likes being pushed around by an outsider. When Bush and the neocons declare that the whole world must be like the US they are declaring hostility towards much of mankind – or humankind as Americans say. Even to a conservative like myself the US since the end of the Cold War, but especially since 9-11, has come to resemble the old USSR with its ideological rigidity and apparent desire to dominate the world.

Sep 6, 2007 - 10:24 am 13. Lem:

Ron Paul has the political acumen of a tin can.

Actually the comparison is an insult …. to tin cans.

Sep 6, 2007 - 10:43 am 14. Buddy Larsen:

Nice alternate-history finger-painting, Coisty.

Here’s another: USA doesn’t preach isolationism prior to WWI, but sides unequivocably with the free-market democracies.

*Poof* –no 20th century hundred-years’ war at all.

Sep 6, 2007 - 11:02 am 15. Ripper:

Coisty
A staleemate in Europe would not have been the result of our staying out of WWI. The result would have been a German victory and Imperial Germany running roughshod over Europe. The Buchananite nostalgia for the Germany of the Kaiser is terrible. Germany was a fascist nation even before Hitler.
AS for vindictive settlements go look up the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. My only regret was that Germany
was not beaten even more severely and the General Staff should have been the ones signing the armistice treaty instead of the politicians. Germany stole Alsace-Lorraine from Fance n 1871 and the French took it back, Germany stole Schleswig-Hosltein from Denmark and was forced to give it back.

Sep 6, 2007 - 11:04 am 16. Buddy Larsen:

…as far as the arrogance of thinking from one’s own perspective, good point, coisty.

Sep 6, 2007 - 11:23 am 17. Buddy Larsen:

…another thing –stating that Japan and Germany didn’t want war with the USA, that it was all FDR’s machination, sounds sensible until one wonders why then those two nations were running rampant over the rest of the world, up to say where the waves break on USA’s eastern and western shores.

But, “they didn’t want war with the USA”?

Well of course they didn’t, not right away anyway, that would have been stupid, right? First the soup,last the nuts.

Can I prove it? Of course not –but circumstantial evidence is at least something, while rank conjecture that requires one to ignore what the Axis was actually doing in the years leading up to December 1941 is less than nothing, just words strung together for some political effect.

Sep 6, 2007 - 11:48 am 18. ndevors:

Roger! Ron Paul stands for all that is absolutely the opposite of the mid-century fascism and communism. The disastrous erosion of rights in the past six years has put us firmly in the totalitarian mode. Egad, fellow; wake up; face the world.
p.s. bet you don’t run this

Sep 6, 2007 - 12:10 pm 19. dwild:

The need to slander Dr. Paul with insinuations of xenophobia and fascism rather than address his points amuses me. His political philosophy is consistent with mainstream Republicanism as recently as 2000. The great 1994 Republican takeover was engineered on such rhetoric.

(You may notice a trend since Republicans abandoned it: they’re losing.)

Yes, I know, everything changed on 9/11. That’s perfectly correct. Republicans abandoned every one of their principles in exchange for a losing war in Iraq, a stronger al Queda under a Pakistani nuclear umbrella.

If Dr. Paul is a weirdo Republican, thank God for that.

Sep 6, 2007 - 12:11 pm 20. Buddy Larsen:

I’d like to ask ndevors & dwild, what will the Paul supporters do in the general election, if someone other than the congressman gets the nomination? Are you going to boycott –as the anti latter-day GOP rhetoric indicates you might –and thus deliver us into the hands of the Clintons?

Sep 6, 2007 - 12:28 pm 21. Mike K:

The Paul supporters will no doubt flood the comments from here on, once they have discovered them. He is a typical extreme libertarian parasite. They drive on public roads and enjoy peace and freedom earned by the sacrifices of others while denigrating everything they enjoy. You can see it beginning above. I’m not happy with the Republicans since Bush was elected but that is the way with politics. If a bunch of clones of Paul were elected, god forbid, they would be corrupted too. The problem is that I fear which way the corruption would take them. There is more than a whiff of anti-Semitism there, for example.

There is an argument to be made that we might have stayed out of WWI but only if the British had been able to stay out as well. The war devastated their Empire and their economy. The reason we chose to stay engaged with Europe and Japan after 1945 was a reaction to World War II. Versailles was a disaster but Wilson had a lot to do with that. He doublecrossed the Germans and then refused to compromise with Lodge and the Republicans in 1919. The reason England entered WWI was Belgium, the same reason why Marlborough fought Louis XIV. Those who don’t know history, and there are a lot of them among the Paulites, are condemned to repeat it.

Sep 6, 2007 - 12:28 pm 22. RedPhillips:

Calling names such as “kook” and “xenophobe” is a sure sign you are either loosing a debate and/or unwilling to debate. Name calling belongs on a grade school playground, not an intellectual blog.

“tonight he was devastated by Mike Huckabee”

Oh really? So nationalistic and simple-minded calls for “unity” (can’t tolerate any of that dissent) trumps invoking the Constitution? What conservatism are you advocating? American conservatism has always been about divided powers, federalism, localism and regionalism, not nationalism, “unity,” centralization and leader worship. To insinuate that Paul, an advocate of the former, is a fascist when fascism is really all about the latter is simply absurd. It was Benito Huckabee who was skirting close to fascism.

Ron Paul is bringing together and uniting a diverse coalition, but it is wrong to think of this as undue devotion to a leader. It is to some degree dissent from the current regime that is uniting his supporters. This is a far cry from the leader worship of George Bush after 9/11 and when the War first started. Believe me, I know. As a paleoconservative, and hence anti-intervention, I have been fighting the non-intervention battle on websites since before the War started. No dissent from Dear Leader Bush was allowed in the initial phase of the War. That is the kind of “devotion” that should truly scare people.

Sep 6, 2007 - 12:49 pm 23. Barbara Skolaut:

“Neither the Germans nor Japanese wanted war with the US.”

The Japanese just dropped those bombs on the U.S. Navy at Pearl Harbor accidently, eh, coisty?

None are so blind as those with 20-20 hindsight.

Sep 6, 2007 - 12:56 pm 24. Lem:

These people are Paulwellian

Sep 6, 2007 - 1:09 pm 25. dclydew:

While I like some of what Ron Paul has to say, I don’t think he make a very good President.

However, his supporters don’t seem any crazier than the fools I’ve seen praise Bush. In Columbus, maybe 4 years ago (maybe 5?) Bush gave a speech and people in the audience shouted things like “Speak oh Man of God!” and “Hallelujah”.

You want to talk about scary, that was some scary stuff. Anytime people are so confused as to think that a politician is God’s representative on earth, the wheels have gone off the rails.

Some Dems were just as Rabid about Clinton. The real difference is that a large number of computer geeks are libertarians and they like what RP has to say… and as much as people would like to think that the Internet is for everyone, geeks still rule the realm

Sep 6, 2007 - 1:28 pm 26. Neo:

Every guassian distribution has a “normal” region. The area of the distribution outside the “normal” is where Ron Paul and Keith Olbermann dwell.

Sep 6, 2007 - 1:39 pm 27. Roy Lofquist:

Dear Sirs,

Being conservative, not A Conservative, I have a strong aversion to ideology. To appreciate the difference I refer you to

http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html

Perhaps The Bard said it best:

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy”.

Sep 6, 2007 - 1:57 pm 28. Buddy Larsen:

Red, dissent was obviously allowed, if you were dissenting. Here’s the thing, once the war was on, and most folks place that at 9/11/01, what has dissent done but stretch the thing out?

I ask that not to get into yet another endless war debate, but in terms of the current topic, whither Ron Paul.

You’ll admit that right or wrong he scares many people, and perhaps what most scares them is a sort of aloof unwillingness to rise above a secondary principle (isolationism, say) in order to uphold the basic principle of national self-preservation.

Abe Lincoln suspended Habeas, saying something about the Constitution not being a national suicide pact.

I’m sure that USA, Bush, Congress, the people, all, would not have gone into Iraq even after 9/11 has all known that by today, there would’ve been no second, third, or more, such attacks.

But nobody knew that then. And, with our system, and the global trade & financial system, resting as it does on confidence and optimism about the future, a follow-on 911, with the promise then of a third, and so on, would’ve sharply altered the history as it has unfolded the last six years.

What scares people is that a few years into a proud, isolationist, Paul presidency, Israel, abandoned and under existential attack, will have to go nuke in order to survive, and that AQ and the global criminal enterprise (you saw the tip of it in the Oil-for-Food/UN nexus) will be bending smaller weaker governments all over the world to its various ends, Iran & Russia will have the whip hand over OPEC & the global energy system and will be using it to transfer wealth wholesale from west to east, China will have moved from business partner/rival to outright adversary, and the western liberal democracies will be reacting to all this by sliding into a demoralization, distress, and depression deep enough to cause something big and bad to happen.

If Ron Paul is to rise, these sorts of fears need to be addressed, I think.

Sep 6, 2007 - 2:14 pm 29. supagold:

Buddy, what occurs to me is that if you had told “USA, Bush, Congress, the people, all” on 9/12/01 that if we went into Iraq there wouldn’t be another terrorist attack for 6 years, every single one of those entities would have signed on in a second.

Sep 6, 2007 - 3:47 pm 30. aaron:

oooh…freeedom…spoooky.

Sep 6, 2007 - 4:20 pm 31. Buddy Larsen:

LOL –great, great, supagold.

Sep 6, 2007 - 4:23 pm 32. Luther McLeod:

Dang, I agree with Markus. Uh-oh -)

The larger the bandstand the larger the band. Yes, it is good that anyone with enough money and/or positional influence is a part of the debate. But, that doesn’t necessarily confer sanity or realism. We all, likely, think we could do a better job in that little oval office. But power does not equal competence.

I actually work from the obverse, the more someone claims they have the answers, the less likely I am to believe them.

Sep 6, 2007 - 5:36 pm 33. Bostonian:

“It is now almost universally acknowledged that American entry into WW1 was disastrous for Europe.”

When someone starts with the phrase “It is now almost universally acknowledged that,” you can be sure that the commentator is not going to try to prove his case.

When I come across that phrase, I skip the post.

***
As for Ron Paul, well, I absolutely will not vote for anyone who fails to see that western civilization is under attack. The jihadis have made their many declarations of war in plain language any child could understand. I have no use for Paul.

Sep 6, 2007 - 5:48 pm 34. Captain Hate:

“p.s. bet you don’t run this”

ndevors,

You lost, something you and the rest of your kindred Paul-bots have experienced all your lives. Come back if reality ever visits you.

Sep 6, 2007 - 6:16 pm 35. TM Lutas:

I carried petitions for Ron Paul in NY during his run as a Libertarian. I would not vote for the man today and the reason is simple. Libertarians and libertarian Republicans can provide real alternatives to present policy that recognize that the crazy guys spouting off about 72 virgins are serious about their ambitions against us and the rest of dar al harb and need to be dealt with forthwith. Ron Paul has not promoted any of those. Instead he is a wishful thinker and wishful thinkers in time of war do not get my vote, period.

I understand what coming under muslim domination means because the land of my birth is a perfect case study as the dividing line between consistent ottoman domination and occasionally having to bow your head to the Turk between wars against him runs right through the middle of it. The cultural marks a period of muslim domination leaves are not pretty and they take a long time to fade. I don’t want that as a legacy for my children and Ron Paul doesn’t take that seriously.

Ron Paul does not deserve your vote, your time, or your efforts on forums like this.

Sep 6, 2007 - 6:36 pm 36. RedPhillips:

“Red, dissent was obviously allowed, if you were dissenting.”

Just tell that to all the people that got the boot from Free Republic, GOPUSA, etc. for being against the War. The context of my comment was conservative websites. I managed to avoid the axe at FR, but I was called all sorts of vile names. And was normally accused of being a liberal. Of course, I am the farthest thing from a liberal. This inflexible, dichotomous thinking is really scary. People lose all capability for rational thought. Against the war = evil lib. That is just mindless, as paleoconservatives (and paleolibertarians) have been the most consistent in their opposition to interventionism from the start.

“Abe Lincoln suspended Habeas, saying something about the Constitution not being a national suicide pact.”

Of course, Abe Lincoln was a tyrant. The secession of the Confederate States was not a threat to the “basic principle of national self-preservation” unless you a nationalist/centralist/statist which authentic American conservatives are not. (See my comment above.)

Islam is not a threat to our “national self-preservation.” Terrorism is largely a law enforcement, intel and immigration issue, not a military one. No Muslim state has a navy or air force to speak of. None have ICBMs. That is why they have to resort to the criminal act of terrorism. The pro-War “conservatives” are engaging in rank fear mongering. �Be afraid, be very afraid. You need big brother government to protect you.� Statists need an enemy. It justifies their existence and keeps the people compliant. It is a big, transparent scam. The threat of terrorism would go way down if we would quit meddling.

And the “there have been no major terrorist attacks since 9/11″ is the elephant repellent argument and anyone with an IQ above plant life knows it. It could just as easily be asserted that that is proof that the threat was never as bad as the Chicken Little fear mongers said it was.

“I understand what coming under Muslim domination”

Mr. Lutas, this is just the kind of Chicken Little fear mongering I am talking about. Please work that out for me. Explain to me a plausible scenario whereby America comes under “Muslim domination.” This ought to be good.

Sep 6, 2007 - 7:38 pm 37. bwerrell:

You guys are amusingly confused.

How is it that you are threatened by a man who speaks of the Constitution as his guiding principle?

How is it that Huckabee won (in your addled brains) for suggesting that we sacrifice more innocent American servicemen and women, not to mention Iraqi citizens (who you would claim we are “helping”) on the altar of some abstract God of “honor?”

Judgement Day is upon the neoconservative movement, and this site appears to be a nest of that sort. It appears to me to be a dream that one of the “front runners” of the Republican Party or of the Democratic Party will generate any real enthusiasm for the candidate they choose, as they are generally INDISTINGUISHABLE from one another.

Ron Paul offers the voters the distinct possibility of actually opting to use the US Constitution to be our guide. That Lincoln might consider it to be a “suicide pact” if used as written is not relevant. Lincoln presided over the calamity of the War Against Southern Independence which claimed more American lives than any other war in US history, and is recognizably anti-constitutional in his term.

It occurs to me that the greatest problem facing the neoconservative contenders from the Democrats and the Republicans is their failure to energize anyone to their cause. They are boring. They are in a similar state as those of the later day emperors of Rome: when the citizen realizes that the choice between being a citizen of Rome and that of being a barbarian are essentially equivalent; they don’t care who wins, don’t help and the establishment fails.

Barbarism succeeded the empire in Rome.

I think the Constitutionalists will prevail in the U.S., and hope they do. ooo. Boogeyman on the field. Better try to ignore him on the homogenized news media, lest the plebs begin to understand.

Whether or not Ron Paul wins the real interesting element at work here is the creation of a power base that is Constitutionally-based, and is motivated and has the full intention of revolutionizing politics in America. Either way, Time is on Our Side.

The Monarchy will come down.

Sep 6, 2007 - 7:48 pm 38. Captain Hate:

“How is it that you are threatened by a man who speaks of the Constitution as his guiding principle?”

Threatened? Now that’s “amusingly confused”.

Sep 6, 2007 - 7:59 pm 39. bwerrell:

sure;

that is my interpretation of Faux News’ determination not to present the numbers of people who voted in their “post debate” election, and how they insinuate “fraud” on the part of those who voted

If Faux News is unable to control for “fraud” in a cell-phone mediated election, how is it that they can control for “actual content” in news?

This makes no sense, and anyone with a brain can smell it, if they have the brain of a shark or better.

Those who fail to gather the situation appear to be in some form of denial

Sep 6, 2007 - 8:08 pm 40. bwerrell:

of course I could say other than “threatened,” you are “uninterested” in the Constitution as a guiding principle, too.

Perhaps that might ring your bell a bit better.

Sep 6, 2007 - 8:11 pm 41. Mike K:

“Of course, Abe Lincoln was a tyrant. The secession of the Confederate States was not a threat to the “basic principle of national self-preservation” unless you a nationalist/centralist/statist which authentic American conservatives are not. (See my comment above.)”

The nutballs have arrived.

Sep 6, 2007 - 8:17 pm 42. bwerrell:

lost me there Mike K

Sep 6, 2007 - 8:21 pm 43. Buddy Larsen:

Jeez, is it possible to write a post that doesn’t include “amusingly confused” and “anyone with a brain” or “anyone smarter than” a shark, or plant-life, etc?

You guys are doing a very poor job of political persuasion. If this is how Ron Paul leads, then he will definitely have trouble executing policy.

Sep 6, 2007 - 8:22 pm 44. bwerrell:

pardon me for the jabs

a forgiveable offense, I think

I am no politician, and do not claim to be.

I hope you could overlook my inadequacies and tend to the substance of the challenge presented, not the inadequacies of rhetoric.

I will try to be more polite in the future, so as not to upset the conversation.

all apologies

Sep 6, 2007 - 8:26 pm 45. Buddy Larsen:

Well, at least you’re sincere, I can readily see that.

Sep 6, 2007 - 8:29 pm 46. bwerrell:

surely you could respond to the question:

Just how many American servicemen and women are you willing to sacrifice on the Altar of honor?

In other words: how many men and women who are serving in the military would be UNACCEPTABLE to lose in the name of “saving face” and “honor?”

Ron Paul says “enough! they are to come home now”

What do you say?

Sep 6, 2007 - 8:30 pm 47. bwerrell:

thank you Mr. Larsen

yet you fail to respond to the substantial nature of the argument I am presenting….

would be boring if we all agreed on this site, and if that is necessary, I would leave you all alone to homogenate together… eheh

Sep 6, 2007 - 8:33 pm 48. bwerrell:

I won’t comment on Mike K’s mudslinging and non responsiveness

Sep 6, 2007 - 8:34 pm 49. bwerrell:

of course, I think it might not be so bad that Ron Paul have difficulty executing policy.

I am fairly certain that I would pay a premium (financial) if he were NOT to have difficulty enacting his policy choices.

Be that as it may, I am convinced that the opportunity to elect a man with a spotless reputation for Constitutional thinking may not come again in my lifetime. I would dare not pass up the opportunity to support his candidacy.

Sep 6, 2007 - 8:37 pm 50. Buddy Larsen:

Red, I think I understand your “It could just as easily be asserted that that is proof that the threat was never as bad as the Chicken Little fear mongers said it was”.

Correct me if I’m wrong: “It can’t happen again because it already happened” ?

Sep 6, 2007 - 8:40 pm 51. Jono:

Sorry I don’t agree with any of this. Whatever you may think of Ron Paul, one thing should be beyond doubt – the man is the most consistent politician in any debate. He never changes his stance, his approach or his style of debate.

So I find it odd that you anyone now says they are creeped out by him.

I have no doubt that Ron Paul’s supporters have some pretty extreme activists amongst the ranks. They often hyperventilate and over-react to bad PR and negative media reports. But that doesn’t change the fact that Ron Paul is really the only candidate who can take the oath of office seriously and uphold the constitution.

Sep 6, 2007 - 8:44 pm 52. Buddy Larsen:

bwerrel, not to be rude, but I don’t think I can argue with “Just how many American servicemen and women are you willing to sacrifice on the Altar of honor?”. There’s just too much distance between your way of thinking and mine; the only thing we share is English. Sorry –I’m just too tired to tackle that sort of remark, it is just so bad, so wrong, so upside-down from premise onward, that it exhausts and depresses me. Maybe someone else will answer you.

Sep 6, 2007 - 8:47 pm 53. bwerrell:

that is the point that I would find most significant Jono

Ron Paul is what he says he is; He is not making hedging political “promises,” or jockeying for some political gain (”that depends upon what ‘is’ is”)

He is a straight shooter, and will uphold the constitution to an uncomfortable degree, which I think is what we need

The rest are conjoiners interested in the politics of the moment, unrelated to the constitutional basis (or lack thereof) in their actions

Sep 6, 2007 - 8:49 pm 54. bwerrell:

Mr. Larsen,

It is a quite legitimate question.

“honor” is an abstraction, it has no tangibility

The lives of our service men and women is quite tangible and accountable.

Asking them might be the best way to go about it: how many of yourselves are you willing to sacrifice for the conception of “honor” by some politician (safely) in Washington?

What do you think?

Sep 6, 2007 - 8:51 pm 55. Barrett:

The shame of all of this is that Ron Paul and all of the Libertarian party have in many cases forgotten what libertarian governmental philosophy is.

I have what would be called a consequentialist libertarian view of government that does not object to the use of force (i.e. just war) and believes a large scope of political and economic liberty results in both the maximum well-being or efficiency for society. Personal freedom and personal responsibility are central tenets. My type of libertarianism (or classical liberalism) is shared with Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek.

There is nothing in my libertarian view that says we should not engage in aggressively confronting the threat of Islamism, sealing our borders and pursuing the strongest national security policies. I reject the socialistic views of Hillary, Obama and the Democrats who think we should be like Europe.

Out of these principles come obvious policy positions such as smaller government, lower taxes, strong national defense, states rights and so on.

I am reading the Federalist Papers written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. It makes the case for the US Constitution, which along with the Bill of Rights, represents the pinnacle of political accomplishment in history. I feel confident that these great men would summarily reject what is happening in modern politics.

Regarding Ron Paul, he strikes me as rigid, without creativity, intellectually narrow and unable to deal with today’s global realities. He can speak of the Constitution as his guiding principle, but I am do not think he interpretation of the Constitution is right. He is trapped in some prescribed view of what the Constitution is. He’s a bit weird.

Why someone would espouse isolationism and not see that western civilization is under attack by the Islamists is simply frightening. He will get us all killed.

Find me a real libertarian and I will listen.

Sep 6, 2007 - 8:53 pm 56. bwerrell:

Barrett;

appreciate the commentary

do you actually think that the “islamicists” present a “real threat” to western civilization?

I do not.

Dangerous perhaps, but more an annoyance than any kind of “final threat.” The downing of the twin towers was a tragedy, but in now way, shape or form represent a threat to the institution of western civilization, any more than the burial of the pyramids would represent a threat to it.

You seem to fail to grasp the motivations of the people involved. If we pursue a set of policies that annoy them, they increase, and if we pursue a set of policies that are insubstantial to them, they wane. Is that really so hard to fathom?

Sep 6, 2007 - 8:59 pm 57. Buddy Larsen:

So the 90s, when we pursued just that sort of ’soft power’, saw a waning of jihad?

Sep 6, 2007 - 9:06 pm 58. bwerrell:

The final extinction of western culture and values cannot exist absence the final destruction of the individual.

I am confident of the ability of the western individuals to withstand the full weight of islamic onslaught.

Sep 6, 2007 - 9:06 pm 59. bwerrell:

Larsen,

I don’t know what you mean by what you say.

The 90’s was a decade of US intervention in the middle east, with the destruction of countless lives in Iraq. Is this what you mean by “soft power,” or more like the steel fist in the velvet glove, as we are wont to call Soviet intervention in eastern europe in the days of hte iron curtain?

What you call the “soft power” may reasonably be described of as “unacceptable imperialism” by the advocates of “jihad,” to the benefit of their recruiting campaign. THAT is what matters. Can the islamic militant recruiter convince the nice kids of islam that they should destroy themselves upon the rocks of American intervention into their internal affairs. Without such justification, there can be NO jihad against the US.

Sep 6, 2007 - 9:11 pm 60. Barry Dauphin:

Lincoln presided over the calamity of the War Against Southern Independence which claimed more American lives than any other war in US history, and is recognizably anti-constitutional in his term.

Of course, Abe Lincoln was a tyrant. The secession of the Confederate States was not a threat to the “basic principle of national self-preservation” unless you a nationalist/centralist/statist…

Let’s hear Ron Paul say that during halftime of the Superbowl, and then you can find out how much support he’ll have. If Paul actually supports what you say, then why doesn’t he just go ahead and let ‘er rip, since the “monarchy” is doomed? If it is so weak, wouldn’t his “powerful truth” upend it?

I suppose he can stand vitriol; I’ll bet he can handle the laughter. But what about the yawns?

Sep 6, 2007 - 9:11 pm 61. bwerrell:

Mr. Dauphin,

Smiling at you yawning.

Wondering if it would drown out the yawns coming from the 50% of the electorate that is already yawning widely at the current state of affairs.

Sep 6, 2007 - 9:14 pm 62. bwerrell:

yawn on, freaky bro!

Sep 6, 2007 - 9:15 pm 63. bwerrell:

Mr. Dauphin,

You would make a lousy speech writer! eehehe

Sep 6, 2007 - 9:19 pm 64. Buddy Larsen:

Bwerrell, here’s a friendly tip. Statements like

The final extinction of western culture and values cannot exist absence the final destruction of the individual and

I am confident of the ability of the western individuals to withstand the full weight of islamic onslaught

Are grandiose, slightly megalomaniacal, and are less likely to persuade voters than they are to remind them of Charlie Chaplin aping Hitler in “The Great Dictator”.

As Barry D just pointed out, you want to watch those inadvertant laugh lines.

Come down to earth. Read up on what is meant by ’soft power’ –it’s an academic term, historians use it to refer to a very specific foreign policy philosophy.

BTW, Barry Dauphin is a published author. I’m talking high-dollar hard-backs, too. Textbooks. Do a search, then blush at that ‘lousy writer’ remark.

Sep 6, 2007 - 9:26 pm 65. bwerrell:

That he is a published author is taken for granted. No evidence required.

I am merely suggesting that he would not do well by pursuing that particular line of argument for Dr. Paul. Not that he would be interested in assisting the good doctor…

regarding the “laugh lines,” Mr. Larsen, I am afraid I do not know what you are talking about.

Sep 6, 2007 - 9:31 pm 66. bwerrell:

regarding “soft power,” I think it entirely questionable that the US was practicing it in the 90’s as you suggest

the point that the islamic radicals were able to recruit and expand their powers to resist such power as was employed against them must be considered, and that the impression made upon the recruits is what actually mattered, taken into account, which you have entirely failed to do

Sep 6, 2007 - 9:35 pm 67. Buddy Larsen:

Your English is very good, bwerrell, but it’s not your native tongue, is it. No insult intended, your English is far better than my own second language, which is ‘always-present-tense’ Spanish.

Sep 6, 2007 - 9:35 pm 68. Mike K:

“I won’t comment on Mike K’s mudslinging and non responsiveness

Posted by: bwerrell at September 6, 2007 8:34 PM”

I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

There is nothing to debate with the foolishness that comes from Paul and the ahistorical twits who spam blogs with such nonsense. There is a real world. Some of us have spent 50 years and more learning about it and how it works. We have no time to try to explain the workings of a civil society to people who are operating at the level of the folks who refuse to pay income taxes and pretend to have constitutional support for that idiocy.

If you want to discuss Lincoln, show that you know a little history. If you want to discuss Islamic radicalism, show you have read a bit about it. Ron Paul is spouting slogans. Bumper stickers are not history. His support is made up of less than 1% of the population who are ignorant of governing and economics.

Sep 6, 2007 - 9:35 pm 69. bwerrell:

Mr. Larsen,

you are a hoot

Certainly you are good at avoiding engagement, and distraction, but (sighs) what else?

Sep 6, 2007 - 9:36 pm 70. bwerrell:

Mike K.

what have you to say?

Sep 6, 2007 - 9:37 pm 71. Buddy Larsen:

Your 9:35 of course makes my point –that jihadist will be jihadists, whether our policy is 90s ’soft power’ or the current forward stance. During the 90s USA saved and/or freed Muslim populations & nations, at great cost, in both the Persian Gulf and the Balkans. Ask those saved from Saddam & Milosevic whether USA was wrong to intervene.

Sep 6, 2007 - 9:41 pm 72. bwerrell:

are you suggesting that “jihadists” are genetically programmed?

The other alternative is that they are environmentally programmed.

tell me.

Sep 6, 2007 - 9:43 pm 73. Buddy Larsen:

they are environmentally programmed, of course.

Sep 6, 2007 - 9:46 pm 74. bwerrell:

ok, then we would agree on that point

if the environment is programming them, what is the inspiration for their suicidal rage?

Sep 6, 2007 - 9:47 pm 75. Buddy Larsen:

bwerrell, I think you are an Iranian student. Am I right?

Sep 6, 2007 - 9:48 pm 76. bwerrell:

no sir, not at all, all American, I am pleased to tell you

but you digress

Sep 6, 2007 - 9:49 pm 77. bwerrell:

and I will withhold my own judgement for fear of disturbing your fine sensibilities

Sep 6, 2007 - 9:51 pm 78. Buddy Larsen:

“what is the inspiration for their suicidal rage?”

I’d say, bad ideology. You’ll say, the American foreign policy –but you’ll mean “the very existence of America”.

Sep 6, 2007 - 9:52 pm 79. Buddy Larsen:

well, gotta check out, old sport — thanks for the insights — & good luck to ya.

Sep 6, 2007 - 9:54 pm 80. bwerrell:

it is really hard to have a discussion with a man who thinks he knows what is meant before what is said is said, don’t you think

ideology must spring from some IDEA about what is going on

Islamicists don’t hate the existence of America, any more than Americans hate the existence of the English throne. The fact is both hate the boot on the neck, don’t you think?

To think that the hating of the (perceived) boot on the neck is tantamount to hating the existence of the man with the foot in the boot is false. It is the volition to keep the foot in the boot on the neck that is offensive.

Sep 6, 2007 - 9:57 pm 81. bwerrell:

good luck to you to, sir.

And us all.

Sep 6, 2007 - 9:58 pm 82. Buddy Larsen:

ok, one last quickie, then I must needs crash.

Where in the Koran is the mandate to spread Islam made contingent on a perceived foreign boot on the neck of the Ummah?

Sep 6, 2007 - 10:02 pm 83. Barrett:

Buddy,

bwerrel is ignorant about Islam, it’s founder, history and threat to Western Civilization. He speaks in purple platitudes. Just like Ron Paul, he has his box and no idea that is inconsistent with his preconceived ideas and presuppositions are allowed in. To do so would likely destabilize his world view. The RONULANS are not equipped to lead the free world at a time when so much is at stake.

On the other hand, you and I share much in common on this board over time. I appreciate your insight and the willingness to share your views.

It’s time to go make a living.

Sep 7, 2007 - 5:14 am 84. Bostonian:

Ron Paul is not going to win the presidency.

The real question is, if he runs as a third-party candidate, who does he take more votes from?

Sep 7, 2007 - 5:47 am 85. Mike K:

The people who would vote for Paul as a third party candidate are people who have been throwing their votes away on fringe candidates since they were old enough to vote. He is not a factor. The internet acts as a megaphone for a tiny fringe who are not actors in the political world. Actually, in a peculiar way, he is useful as an illustration of why practical libertarians should vote for mainstream Republicans. When he says wild things, they can see why undiluted libertarianism can never govern. They are cousins to anarchists.

Sep 7, 2007 - 6:21 am 86. Ripper:

The Koran and the Haditha (the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, piss be unto him)is the source of all the evil and rage in the Muslim world. Ron Paul needs a straitjacket, he is an appeaser and a coward.

Sep 7, 2007 - 6:49 am 87. Buddy Larsen:

I just hope they don’t cause as much ridicule against the word “Constitution” as the televangelists caused against the word “Bible”.

(& thanks, Barrett –same back atcha!)

Sep 7, 2007 - 6:53 am 88. markus:

I have to admit I am impressed by Huckabee a good bit too, Roger. I thought his rejoinder to Paul -recapitulating Powell’s “you break it you own it” argument, and speaking about the need for national unity – was well spoken. It was forceful without being condescending toward those against the war. Those arguing for continuing the “surge” would do well to speak as he did.

Perhaps a even better analogy for the Ron Paul crowd than the Weinstein Bros. would be The Velvet Underground. The saying was that hardly anyone saw the Velvet Underground back in the sixties, but everyone who did eventually started a band. Not many people will end up voting for Ron Paul, but everyone who will has a blog, or posts frequently on one.

Ron Paul sounds to me not so much a libertarian as a paleoconservative. A total lost cause electorally, but somewhat interesting intellectually. Whatever you say about them Buddy and Bostonian, you can’t accuse them of not caring about the survival of western civilization.

Sep 7, 2007 - 7:25 am 89. Buddy Larsen:

Markus, I hear Ralph Nader also cares about western civilization. Lets support him, too, okay?

Sep 7, 2007 - 7:47 am 90. RedPhillips:

Mike K,

“The nutballs have arrived.”

Wow. That was a really intelligent reply. I’m proud of you.

All,

Jumping up and down and stamping your feet and repeating mantra like “fringe … blah blah … extremist … blah blah … won’t work … blah blah … real world … blah blah” is not an intelligent and coherent argument.

Following the Constitution is NOT OPTIONAL. When do you boys think it became optional? Are some parts optional and some parts not? Which parts?

It is an extremely sad commentary that what masquerades as “conservatism” these days thinks actually following the Constitution is a “fringe” position. If you don’t support following the Constitution, then I don’t see how you can call yourself a conservative with a straight face. What exactly are you trying to conserve? Certainly not the Old Republic.

Please, I really would like to know. When did following the Constitution become optional? 1865? 1913? 1933? 9/11/01? When?

Also, anyone is welcome to answer my question above about how the US is going to come to be under “Muslim domination” if we are not over there fighting aggressive wars. Work that out for me. Is terrorism alone going to do that? Which navy and air force in the Middle East is going to get that done?

Sep 7, 2007 - 8:05 am 91. Buddy Larsen:

hells bells, Red, they’ve already dominated you –you’ve adopted the hear, see, speak no evil posture. Like the French villagers under Vichy who, off the main highways and out of sight of Nazis, pretended that nothing was wrong, even to the point of anger at whomever might mention the situation in public.

Look, get out your maps. Look at the Persian Gulf. There’s at least one Muslim armed force that could put ole Red’s town out of business in a heartbeat, just by taking control of the Straits of Hormuz. And that’s just for starters. What does Ron Paul say about that, inquiring minds want to know.

No, I’m not ringing alarm bells that we’re doomed. What I am trying to say is that the wrong president can do huge harm to the national interests.

Have you ever studied the Carter presidency, viz the middle east?

How things that Carter did–with the best of intentions perhaps, but things he cooked up in his own mind much as Mr. Paul gives the impression of doing–are still to this day damaging the world?

Look at how the current war began –in 1979 with the jihadi toppling of the Shah, aided & abetted by a little abstraction-hypnotized self-righteous zealot from Plains, Georgia, who had somehow got hisself elected President of the United States.

Lastly, you seem to think that nothing past today counts. If USA won’t be in thrall to jihadi zealotry by, y’know, 5:00 pm, then what’s the worry?

Well, some of us –esp those of us with kids –are trying to look down the road 10 or 50 years. We’re still not sure we’re gonna survive Carter, much less another of the sort taking over in 2008.

All due respect, of course, to your emphatic and obviously sincere views.

Sep 7, 2007 - 9:04 am 92. Buddy Larsen:

BTW, we are not “over there fighting aggressive wars”. There’s a difference between opinion & the hard facts of history: we were repeatedly & severely attacked by an enemy, and we’re over there responding–defending ourselves–trying to create conditions whereby the people of the region can & will, by themselves in the future, control that aggressive enemy ideology.

Yes, it’s a grinding, long-term, maddening project. But many apprise the alternative as an irresponsible dice throw, for the luxury of looking the other way, if possible, for as long as we can, yet again –even to the point of minimizing and poo-pooing the insanely, mortally destructive attack on us, the effort to decapitate our military, civilian, and financial headquarters, back just a few years ago.

Sep 7, 2007 - 9:21 am 93. Buddy Larsen:

And another thing, this Ron Paul = The Constitution and everyone else = royalist/commie/ignernt peasant is wearing a little thin.

Especially without any specific foundational attack identified, especially with mainly opinion proferred in support of the assertion.

Yes, I’m aware of what the courts over the years have done to strict constructionism. I abhor it, and want my president to appoint strict constructionalists only. I don’t see how anyone could hate more than I do the damage done by liberal-activist judges.

But you guys are skating perilously close to fetishizing the word, the symbol, of the Constitution as some sort of iconic holy totem, rather than the rolled-up-sleeves working plan of the American experiment.

I don’t want to be governed from an altar, by a self-proclaimed priesthood channeling a holy relic.

I know, this complaint is strictly atmospheric –but it’s real, and I object to the meme the same way I object to Jim Bakker’s Bible-thumping.

Sep 7, 2007 - 9:53 am 94. Henry Bowman:

Roger writes He is the polar antithesis of Ron Paul, who is now starting to scare me. Glenn Reynolds calls him a kook, but that is charitable. He is worse. Paul gives me the willies…

I think your basic fascist ideology is showing, Rog.

Sep 9, 2007 - 6:49 am 95. Silus:

Though I have not concluded which candidate I will support, I have been keenly observing this Ron Paul phenomenon unfold. Its interesting on just the sociological level alone. But what I found most interesting is how those outside the Ron Paul realm have reacted, and how clear the associations became with an old Ghandi quote…

“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”

Ron Paul maybe wont win, but if this is the accurate description of our natural tendencies in dealing with a new, conflicting element interacting with the established structure, the author is operating clearly on the ridicule stage. I believe the point Ghandi made is that those who ignore, ridicule and fight do more to strengthen and unite the cause. What you can take out of his quate is simply that these people, these groups, can only be fragmented by sound logic.

Dec 9, 2007 - 3:34 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: