Not signed in (Sign In)
This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.
    •  
      CommentAuthoraike
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2007
     (67.101)
    Personally, I don't think Ron Paul is racist and it really hasn't been able to stick, hes got the most straight voting record there is, and hes got enough weird support he might well go somewhere with it. Now, as to whether that is a good thing or not... He would make a fantastically amusing President as he sat in office for four years vetoing every bill and attempting to tear down all the institutions around him. Dr. No with the power of veto is a hilarious idea. If we suffer from a stagnant government now, that would be a total dead in the water scenario. The other side is that the man would damage the government entrenchment and establishment so badly it would be reeling for years, as he prompted the judicial to go after everything and everyone and introduced legislation dismantling every institution known to american politics.

    I honestly dont think he has a realistic shot at office though, which is probably a good thing while I still live here.

    My bets on the GOP are Huckabee, I dont think Rudy can fly anymore, with all the ballast he keeps revealing. Romney is all shiny and polished and a mormon, thats too freaky for too many people. The moderates dont want someone in office that thinks the garden of eden was in missouri ( i live there currently, nice place, but no Eden), and the religious right dont want anything other than a christian. On the democrat side it might fly, on the republican... no.

    Now the Democrats... yeah. Hillary support is basically an entrenched standoff, shes hurting herself with the nasty stuff right now, but who knows. I'd wager Obama pulls ahead in Iowa and then Clinton catches up. I doubt Edwards can really pull it off... too young, too much attachment in the 'he didnt make it last time either' department.

    Wes Clark is actually a valid wild card. If anyone makes that call soon enough, they will grab a lot of support, he is popular, has military credentials, a consistent stance and has been slowly feeding the fires over the last few years with his book and TV appearances and things. Bayh is an extremely valid wild card, though I expect Clarks military experience might trump him. We will see.

    I no doubt will be wrong :)
  1.  (67.102)
    "Apologies for what might be some stupid questions, but I haven't been following things too closely. However, it seems to me that Clinton/Obama would be a dream ticket for the Democrats."

    I think they're going to savage each other to the point where it'd be hopeless, when the running gets tough. But:

    In general -- I've heard people say that they're a tough enough sell on their own that putting a white woman and a black man into the White House at the same time would be impossible.

    The traditional wisdom is that the VP candidate is selected because he can bring a broad swathe of land with him. Lyndon Johnson disturbed the fuck out of JFK, but he could deliver the south. Jimmy Carter needed Fritz Mondale to deliver the north. Al Gore's centrism and Old Party credentials meant he could reach the parts that Bill Clinton couldn't.

    As has recently been seen in California, Obama and Clinton are working pretty much the same demographics in an awful lot of places. Both are divisive enough, as candidates, that they'll need (or be told they need) unifying forces as their VP candidates.
    •  
      CommentAuthorRandy74
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2007
     (67.103)
    Paul is not a crazy racist, ive seen the link Warren posted, hes explained and apologized openily for allowing the writer of those comments to go unchecked and accepted responsability, im sure they are saving that dirt on him and i don't think he has a chance...but im voting for him just to pretend that it matters, had to change my registration to republican from Indipendent to vote in the primarys here, Diebold will take care of the rest.

    I really can't belive anyone would vote after 2000, but i voted for Nader in 04...trying make my statement which is..im not really sure i even care anymore.

    ron Paul is brave for trying to let everyone know how the Fed works, and openly stating his allegiance to the people and the constitution. No one is perfect but he's far from a racist, or kook.
    •  
      CommentAuthorwarrenellis
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2007 edited
     (67.104)
    http://www.realchange.org/ronpaul.htm

    "In 2001, as Paul moved to the mainstream and rejoined the Republican party, he disavowed these comments and blamed them on an unnamed ghostwriter. But when Paul ran for Congress in 1996, as a Libertarian, his opponent brought these up to show that Paul had fringe ideas. At that time, Paul told the Houston Chronicle that he opposed racism and his commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." In other words, he didn't deny writing the Ron Paul column in the Ron Paul newsletter, profits of which go to Ron Paul, until many years later. Then he claimed that his campaign aides thought it would be "too confusing" to tell the truth, so he had to lie and accept responsibility."

    Ron Paul on same-sex marriage: "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty."
    •  
      CommentAuthorRandy74
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2007 edited
     (67.105)
    Either way Warren, that part about him saying that it would be confusing might be true..he has stated thats several times, thats someone was writing for that newsletter/column...

    I don't buy for a minute that hes a bad man, we have had much worse. Obama has no problem with the idea nuking other brown people so maybe hes a racist too.

    Im not a Ron Paul fanatic, but exposing the Federal reserve proves hes not an elitist puppet to me. All the waxing theoretical about wether he actually wrote those statements or not don't mean anything to me. His voting record, stances on imigration, limited government, free trade, and national soveriegnty won me over..ive researched the writings as much as one can on the net, past affiliations ect... i am inclined to belive he may not have even written those words.

    Your right about what opposition might do to use that whole thing against him, but right now he has some really serious momentum akin to what Howard Dean had going.

    I honestly agree with him on almost everything he has a stance on, and thats rare..im not changing my views to fit his ideals, at this point in my life hes the candidate that i can see voting for.

    I know a lot of very enlightened folks can't understand why so many are flocking into backing him and are trying as hard as possible to find flaws in his ideology. Most often pigeo-holing him as an isolationist, super-nationalist, or radical...

    Honestly none of thsoe terms apply to anything hes been proposing in his current campaign..

    The abortion issue will be big, but hes stated his views clearly on that matter as well..on The View he did pretty well with the limited time he had and Whoopi breathing down his neck.He left them confused about how they really feel, but im not even touching that.
  2.  (67.106)
    I'll bet you a dollar Paul lets loose a primal yell and ruins his campaign. (Which is a very sad thing to lose your campaign over...)
  3.  (67.107)
    There's a pretty thorough disemboweling of Paul from Daily Kos over here.

    I had respect for him for about a minute, when I first heard him speak. I disagreed with almost all of his concepts of the use of government, but I respected him for having his own ideas and proclaiming them. After researching him even the slightest bit, though, it was into the bin with him. First the hideous racist newsletter (and, seriously, claiming it was ghostwritten doesn't absolve him - who wants a President who has his opinions ghostwritten?), and then I came up against his intense love of pork-barrel earmarks, which he publicly decries.

    What Paul does is, at first, no different than what most congresspersons do - he inserts amendments and add-ons to legislation which send federal money directly to his district. What he then does, however, is loudly decry the practice of inserting said amendments, and makes a point of voting against the legislation. Of course, being a seasoned congressman who understands the workings of the legislative body, he knows damn well the bill will pass without his vote, and his district gets the money anyway. Thus, he can hypocritically eat his cake and have it too.

    Faith-based devotion to the sanctity of the free market, isolationism except when we can make a profit through trade, Pro-Life and Anti-Gay. The number of ill-informed liberals who get excited when Paul speaks out against the war and pledge devotion to him drives me absolutely up the fucking wall.
    •  
      CommentAuthorRandy74
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2007 edited
     (67.108)
    Neat, placing faith in what website columnists write is almost as bad as the mainstream media...

    Im not gonna defend him, but like i said im not ill-informed, im not a liberal or conservative...

    Im a tax paying, businessman,american citizen and patriot, i love my country, hate politicians

    Its nice to slap a label on everything, but its all about perception, neat little packages work nicely for those who want to argue or ignore something.

    I mean between CFR affiliated hopefuls like Biden and Hillary, The Military Industrial candidates, Rudy and his ties to Quatar thorugh his Security firm... who else is a citizen thats well informed maybe also a paranoid conspriracy factualist gonna vote for?

    im sorry im not into Thomas Friedman's version of Globalism, WTO, Nafta, Gatt, Cafta, ...none of that stuff

    nope
    • CommentAuthorOddcult
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2007 edited
     (67.109)
    In general -- I've heard people say that they're a tough enough sell on their own that putting a white woman and a black man into the White House at the same time would be impossible.


    Understood. I just wonder how much mileage there is in the converse of that and also how it might be enough of a divergence from the norm to get women and black people who wouldn't normally bother to vote to turn out.

    In other words, he didn't deny writing the Ron Paul column in the Ron Paul newsletter, profits of which go to Ron Paul, until many years later. Then he claimed that his campaign aides thought it would be "too confusing" to tell the truth, so he had to lie and accept responsibility."


    Having done a bit of political copy writing I can actually believe this. You get a handful of scribbled notes and maybe a rushed phone conversation, and are expected to turn this into prose that they'll put their name to. They'll probably scan read it, and sign it off, or even have someone else authorised to do so. It was a game to try and insert as much innuendo or double entendres in there as possible - or to just get them to turn statements they'd made in private that expressed their true opinions, which they couldn't later deny, but which they didn't necessarily want made public either, into copy.

    I can well believe that a copy writer might push things fairly far out of mischief or spite and it getting published due to incompetence.

    However, he might well be dodgy enough to have done it in the first place...
    •  
      CommentAuthoraike
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2007
     (67.110)
    Huh, interesting posts... well, it all simply doesn't match up, seems too big a disconnect somehow. Definitely is information missing. Either way, I ain't voting for him... I dont think racism is what disqualifies him (that would disqualify any GOP and many Dems), but the fact he wont actually be able to do anything and if he has power neither will anybody else. Well and the fact hes a republican..

    On that note... isnt it a sad state when racism doesnt even seem to matter as a presidential quality?

    Now the question is... if the GOP wins, do I apply for Albanian, Mongolian or maybe Togoan citizenship? (or does anyone else know any citizenships that are reasonably easy to get without marriage or any drastic measures like that?)
    •  
      CommentAuthorroque
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2007
     (67.111)
    Hillary will get the Dem nomination and then lose the election. the media are telling everyone that this is the way it has to be, and the majority of Americans (whether or not they'll admit to it) apparently still believe the media, so. it doesn't matter who gets the GOP nomination, but I'm guessing Giuliani. whoever it is, he'll win, and then stumble through four years and then get reelected, because we're at war-- and thanks to Dubya, will continue to be at war for a good long time. and we must vote to support our troops.

    do I sound bitter and/or insane? I might; I've had no coffee today.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSarpedon
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2007
     (67.112)
    Which is a very sad thing to lose your campaign over...

    That was really depressing. I was pulling for him in the run up to Iowa, I thought he'd be the Dem to beat Bush out a second term, if anyone could. I was sorely disappointed. I couldn't stomach voting for a man who's face looks like a horse's.

    I, like most Americans, have not been paying terribly close attention. [though I reslove to do so, reading this thread has been at least something of an education, seems like people outside the US know more about our politics than most Americans and I'll be damed if anyone over here can even say who the prime minister of the UK is now, let alone Canada or Australia. people here being an exception.] I didn't pay very close attention last time around either but this whole thing feels like a much bigger clusterfuck than it did in '04.
    I can't get a good feel for anyone except I still lean toward the impossibly un-electable dream that is Kucinich. (+/- Gun control and his blathering about Impeachment over the last couple of years.)
    Obama and Hillary feel too much like they're getting the "anything but Bush, elect a liberal" support at this point and both lack much of a highly mobilized base, like the novelty will perhaps wear off under close analysis of either. They seem too busy taking bites out of each other to take stands on issues, but maybe that's just what early-game presidential races are about? I haven't been watching closely enough to know. I haven't been able to discern any good reasons to vote either for or against either of them. I wouldn't be surprised if it went to John "400 dollar haircut" Edwards. Generally it seems too early to tell, the Democrats may even spoil them mid-term gains by failing to defeat the GOP again, they barely snuck into the House and Senate, if i recall correctly and even then, not much has gotten done in Iraq or at home (people have been kicking around the word recession a lot) and that'll piss off voters I'd guess.
  4.  (67.113)
    Warren,

    Ron Paul did not run for Congress as a Libertarian in 1996 nor in any other year. The only time he was a Libertarian Party candidate for any office was in the Presidential election of 1988. After that disaster he returned to his obstetrics practice for a few years, published a gold-bug newsletter, and then ran for Congress again as a Republican in 1996 and won.

    I find that RealChange.org is not always a reliable source.

    Is Ron a racist? Hard to say -- when I got to know him back in 1980 he didn't strike me that way, but I was 23 and fresh out of college, and not particularly sensitive to subtle cues. In the part of Texas he has represented most of his career, white racism simmers just beneath the surface, and frequently busts out in some unexpected places. His claim that it was a former staffer who wrote the infamous newsletter articles is plausible, but one must ask why he didn't disavow those writings much sooner. His anti-immigrant position certainly does him no credit. (I have long believed that at the bottom of every anti-immigrant argument is the fear that some dark-skinned people are going to move in next door, and their children will date your children.)

    Paul finds himself with enemies on two sides -- the neo-conservatives who hate his anti-war and anti-corporate welfare positions, and the anti-war left who are really pissed off that the most visible public voice against the war is a conservative Republican, not a liberal Democrat. There is a former staffer, Eric Dondero Rittberg, who split with Paul over the Iraq War, is running against him for Congress (in Texas you can run both for Congress and for President, thanks to Lyndon Johnson), and is likely the source of a great deal of whatever dirt on Paul surfaces in the coming months.

    By the way, I've said this before but probably should repeat it now: I'm not supporting Ron Paul or any other candidate for President. As an anarchist, I don't support people who seek to rule over other people, even if I happen to agree with some of their ideas. Furthermore, while I think Paul will make a stronger showing than the opinion polls are projecting, he's not going to win the nomination.
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeDec 10th 2007
     (67.114)
    It'll be interesting to see how the new shortened primary seasons impact on the candidates.

    My understanding (and it may well be totally wrong) is that Democrats opted for a short season with something approaching a national primary on Super Tuesday in the belief that it'd help them choose an "electable" candidate with national appeal. Which I read as "Hillary and the DLC want to provide as few chances as possible for an alternative candidate to strengthen their position and to ensure that the nomination goes to the candidate with the most money and most party machine backing."

    It looks to me as though the Republicans were pretty much forced to match the Democrats to avoid in-fighting amongst Republicans after the Democrat candidate was already nominated.

    I tend to think the early and compressed primary season will favor the early front-runners. Hence my prediction of a Clinton/Giuliani match-up.
    •  
      CommentAuthorbadger
    • CommentTimeDec 10th 2007
     (67.115)
    Ron Paul scares me. He is not a harmless kook. He will not be held in check by Congress. All of this talk about shrinking big government is straight out of the Grover Norquist handbook. It's not about individual liberty. It's about increasing the hegemony of corporations, even if he's trashtalking NAFTA.

    That being said, my brain is bleeding from this blog post declaring that Ron Paul's favorite comic book character is Baruch Wane. Is this a parody or a weak effort to distance himself from Stormfront among the geeks online? The comic itself makes me uncomfortable for reasons i don't care to get deeply into now... equating Nazi Germany with actual socialism. Ack. More Norquist arguments.
    •  
      CommentAuthorRandy74
    • CommentTimeDec 10th 2007 edited
     (67.116)
    He shouldn't scare anyone, and socialism, communism and fascism are more closely related than many colleges and academics care to educate or admit. Many have explored the realtionships these forms of government share, most notable among them is G. Edward Griffin, Eustace Mullins and a few others.To generalize they are scientific dictatorships based on some components of Darwinism and other philosphical hypocrites doctrines or writings like Marx ripping of Victor Considerante, Hegel, Lennin & Stalin, Irving Kristol, hell even the neo-conservatives (trotsky-ites) of this current administration here are inspired by. Ron Paul does espouse and support individualism not unlike the ideals of Ayn Rand, which i still identify and sympathize with even though in her later life she admitted many times that ultimately the theories/ideals are flawed in many cases she made.

    Paul wants to de-regulate corporation which would not be in favor of corporations as your implying but instead would take away the loopholes and corporate welfare they recive which is something like 99.3 percent of welfare, ending the welfare state and trading freely with other nations including Cuba as he has proposed are not radical or scary polcies or ideas. Re-authoring treatises and free trade agreements to be enforced and apllied equally for both trader and tradee, free market capitalism can and will work, but here in the USA as Eisenhower warned us of the Military Industrial Complex's influence, that is what our economy has been based on for the last 50 odd years, oil and industry, arms and conflict working towards the ultimate goal of a Global Socialist Government, call it what you want but the steps have been taking place for years..NWO or not.



    Im not saying that social programs are all bad, or thats some bits of socialism injected into a democratic republic are bad things, or even that our system is the best or the best ever.

    Im just stating my opinion, that i personally belive in individualism above all else, collectivism makes me ill at ease as does globalism as it would exist in favor of the elitists.
  5.  (67.117)
    At which point, we've gone waaaay off the track, and some people are asking to be fitted for tinfoil hats.

    We'll start again in January, I suspect.

    -- W

This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.