Ron Paul: "I didn't write the newsletters. I don't hold those views" I'm starting to really like this guy...

    Jacked directly up by Sean Hannity after the most recent debates, Ron Paul flat out repudiates the disgusting racist crap published in his eponymous newsletter some time ago.

    I'm inclined to take him at his word--He could, after all, only have two acceptable responses:

    To repudiate, and deny authorship

    To repudiate and confess authorship.

    As long has he repudiates, why should I disqualify him from  providing the incalculably valuable service that would be the juxtaposition in debate of his reasoned libertarianism against Obama's corporate statism?

    Isolationism, after all, is good for the rest of the patients in the hospital--you isolate the psychotic. (That would be us, as an international player...)

    I will give him a pass on the repudiated garbage, in view of his exemplary declaration that Bradley Manning is a hero.

    As to the possibility of redemption for a prior racist, we have examples of some who have gone on to do real good in the world.

    Hugo Black. let us recall, rose to the initial political prominance from which FDR plucked him for Supreme Court Greatness, via KKK membership.  Paul's opposition to the genocidal war on people of color (soi-disant "war on drugs"), if vindicated, would do more for civil rights than any legislated mandate, subject to the waxing and waning of enthusiasm for it's enforcement at the various levels of government. 

    Comments

    Dictators tend to make the trains run on time but that does not mean that the rest of their actions are justifiable. Ron Paul would cut educational opportunities for minorities via government grants and stop funding a host of government programs aimed at aiding the poor, so the overall impact might fall on the negative side of the ledger.

    From a tactical standpoint, it is unlikely that Paul could get much of his promised ending of the war on drugs through Congressional legislators in the GOP.

     


    Ta-Nehisi Coates and Reason Magazine do excellent takedowns of Ron Paul's absurd claims of ignorance about his own "Ron Paul Political Letter". While I agree with you about the outlandish drug penalties being levied, I don't agree with you that Ron Paul is the solution. The African-American community is composed of more than just drug felons. Ron Paul would represent a political disaster for the majority of Black Americans.

     


    I have been ranting against this nut and this nut's son for a couple years.

    Get rid of SS and Medicare and Medicaid and unemployment insurance and food stamps and....

    Actually his lust for the gold standard is enough evidence to me that he does not qualify as a Mayor let alone a President.


    I don't look forward to Ron Paul actually serving as president, I look forward to him serving by debating (and discomfiting) his successful opponent.


    Okay, well you've got that.


    actually, after reviewing greenwald, I've gone full tilt crazy-I wish he would win.


    I'm somebody who was pretty interested in Paul's Libertarianism, particularly as a way of uniting Tea Party types with more libertine types on the left like me.  But I'm starting to doubt that Paul is the guy.  I think the best you can say about Paul on social issues (race, same sex marriage, pot smoking.) is that he "doesn't care."  Which is, in a lot of ways just fine. But it's not the kind of credible advocacy I'd be looking for.

    As a guy raised in New Mexico under Gary Johnson's governorship, I'd say that Johnson is far more of a principled Libertarian than Paul and he doesn't have Paul's baggage.  So, with Johnson around, who needs Paul?


    Gary Johnson has some weird ideas of his own however, to me he isn't much different than Crazy Ron Paul, and his civil libertarianism is conditional:

    1. as governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson cut taxes on the rich while cutting social services for the poor

    2. He tried to pluck money out of public schools and funnel it in to private school vouchers

    3. He vetoed a minimum wage bill

    4. He signed in to law a late-term abortion ban (this one to me is just like Ron Paul and not civil libertarian at all, but when it comes to women the so-called civil libertarians don't give a rats ass about us)

    5.  He will not affirm a belief in global warming, and says even if it is happening that the effects are exaggerated and too much money is being wasted on it

    6. he vetoed a bill that would have continued the collective bargaining rights of public employees

    7. Gary Johnson doesn't support same sex marriage, (it seems when it comes to the individual rights of women and gay people Gary Johnson isn't a civil libertarian he is just a fucking Republican, no more, no less)

    He just isn't that different from Ron Paul who other than being anti war subscribes to a whole host of crazy ideas:

    1. no support for women's reproductive freedom, (a theme amongst all Reublicans)

    2. no significant support for environmental protection, educational programs, student loans or public broadcasting,

    3. no measures to address income inequality or to restrain reckless financial institutions, no protection for American workers against unfair trade practices, no amnesty or path to citizenship for undocumented workers, no laws supporting net neutrality, no support for enforcing Federal Civil Rights laws.

    He subscribes to a host of radical ideas, such as allowing younger workers to "opt out" of Social Security, abolition of all progressive taxation, allowing states to determine whether prayer in schools should be mandatory, and removing the people's right to directly elect senators to name a few.

    It seems to me that what Ron Paul's voting record and policy statements show is the policies of a Paleocon Republican, dressed up in Libertarian rationale. If you believe the drug war should end and that wars of choice are immoral and wasteful, you have a friend in Ron Paul. If you believe that the Federal government has a role to play in student loans, keeping our elderly off cat food, addressing income inequality, protecting the environment, or protecting a woman's right to choose her own reproductive freedom, then you have an enemy in Ron Paul.

    When it comes to both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson we should remember, they do not stand by women's right to reproductive freedom, worker's rights to fair trade, nor do either of them propose any measure that would begin to address wealth and income inequality.

     


    It seems that a "principled Libertarian" is just a dude who can't get the Republican nomination.


    "It seems that a "principled Libertarian" is just a dude who can't get the Republican nomination."

    Awesome. :)


    Okay, all righty then, I hereby render unto Mac the Daily Line of the Day Award for this here Dagblog site, given to all of her from all of me for this gem:

    7. Gary Johnson doesn't support same sex marriage, (it seems when it comes to the individual rights of women and gay people Gary Johnson isn't a civil libertarian he is just a fucking Republican, no more, no less)

     

    I mean you have me laughing on this one.

    Merry Christmas. hahahaha


    Haha, thanks Dick!


    Obama/Romney debate:  "There you go again, Mitt. Just another fucking Republican". 


    I would laugh hard if that actually happened.


    hahahahahaahha

    See Oxy, now I am forced to record another 'debate' in the near future.

    GREAT LINE. HAHAHAHA

    What the fuck would FOX  do with something like that?


    Of course your detailed inventory of all the ways in which an actual Ron Paul presidency would be a catastrophe makes me gulp, and I confess to an attack of the giddys upon hearing him declare Bradley Manning a hero.

    Yet and still, suppose we permit ourselves to speculate upon the fiscal impact of abandoning our adventurism abroad (within the sole discretion of the C in C if he wants to do it) and closing our gulag at home.

    That would be lots of resources shaking things up.


     Considering what kind of President Ron Paul would be is just an interesting thought experiment. It is one I have explored with a couple of people. What seems to be a significant part of his appeal is that he has, for everybody, some position that they strongly favor. Most of the things on TMc's list are things that he would not have much effect on as President but each appeals to someone. He might tell his Attorney General to forget trying to penalize suppliers of medical marijuana. He could do that and I'd like it if he did. There are other things too on my list.

     ...suppose we permit ourselves to speculate upon the fiscal impact of abandoning our adventurism abroad (within the sole discretion of the C in C if he wants to do it)...

    I know that pulling back our forces is supposed to be within his discretionary powers but I would like a glimpse into the parallel universe where a Ron Paul actually tried to do it. I do not think he would finish, and possibly not even survive, his first term. I believe that if he, or any President in the foreseeable near future, ordered fifty percent of our foreign based troops home and tried to close most foreign US bases, that it would not happen. I think, though, that it is interesting to think how that would play out.


    I don't know if you picked up the Christopher Edley comment that war crimes prosecutions were ruled out by the transition team out of fear that such would precipitate a coup.

    Why, sure...whaddya think?


    I heard it somewhere but I don't have a good enough memory to remember where. What I recall very distinctly is the many threads back at TPMCAFE about prosecuting Bush for torture and other war crimes. I had the lonely position of saying prosecutions shouldn't only be done only at the bottom and couldn't be done starting at the top by an incoming President, and that even the attempt would cause huge backlash. Most everyone else was a purist for the rule of law back then when it was Bush and Chaney doin' the crime.
     My suggested idea was to have something akin to a truth commission. Start at the various decision making points and do an in-depth investigation in which everybody was given a pre-testimony pardon but with the understanding that perjury would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I felt it was more important to establish what was a crime and that so much of what had been done was a crime and to nail down who had done the crimes, than it was to send a couple people to jail. I don't recall anyone agreeing with me, everyone demanded jail time for the criminals. Of coarse back then the war criminals they had in mind were Republicans. It isn't even an issue nowadays.


    War Criminal-a post partisan position.


    Don't remember the specific posts, but can't imagine thinking people disagreeing.

    We've been down this road with Watergate, Iran-Contra and Scooter Libby. The presidential pardons and the Saturday Night Massacres require care to get anywhere, but shooting for the top guy first has never been good prosecution strategy. And the Supreme Court has shown it's not going to play strict interpreter when it comes to Executive branch excess.

    Anyway, Obama's changed that deal anyway - we've got bi-partisan agreement now that the Administration should go in for torture in the name of terror and targeted assassinations. No harm, no foul.


    Yeah of course you thought it was great that he declared Manning a hero, and in the same breath he would not talk about those Racist Newsletters that he claims he had nothing to do with, that guy is so open and wants all the information we can handle out there, unless of course that info is about him and his organization.

    It is funny to me that you think somehow Ron Paul is significantly different from other whack-job Republicans. He is not.

    And of course who cares about women! They can suck it up, because Manning is just so much more important than women and their bodies.

    Ron Paul is a lying racist and a sexist, he will never be President, not ever.


    Ron Paul is a lying racist...check

    and a sexist,...check

     he will never be President, not ever...check

     

    I don't want him to be president.

    I want him to be the Repugnant nominee.


    Just to note 1 issue, someone can be for "reproductive freedom" and against abortion. They might even be for any kind of contraception plus the morning after pill but against abortion. They might draw the line at when it becomes a fetus or some other reasoned marker. Obviously most people seem to be against abortion at 8 months, correct?

    "Reproductive freedom" is a pretty disingenuous/Orwellian term for the right to suck a growing embryo or fetus out of your body.

    You may be fine with that imagery, but a lot of people seem to have problems with it, and not just for being religious nut jobs.

    We're really talking about sexual freedom tied to the right to a rather bloody mulligan (at least until RU-486). Since I don't have a uterus and the extra hard choices that come with being a female, I don't pretend to condemn, but I also don't find it fashionable to belittle others just because they don't see this as a "right", or somehow think there's something more to consider in a fetus under 3 months.

    And that's just one of a number of issues mentioned here.

    Vetoing a minimum wage bill - horrors of horrors - there's no room to disagree with a minimum wage bill?

    Someone disagrees with gay marriage - does that mean they want a gold star worn around the neck, or just support civil unions - or are they essentially the same positions? 

    While I can see public broadcasting as being good, in the case of Rwanda it didn't work out too well.

    I personally think student loans are evil - that they're a big reason why the public doesn't just rise up and throw government out on its ear. 

    Regarding "removing people's right to directly elect senators", I'm curious who's thought about the reasoning behind this. Obviously typical citizens can't influence Congress very well, which was one of the big losses with Citizen's United. But a State that sponsors a Senator and can withdraw that support has enough funding to make its displeasure stick.

    If a Senator screws his/her own state for funding, or takes a number of other suicidal moves, a State could make sure the axe comes down. With a directly elected model, the Senator just cozies up to the interests with money, and guarantees re-election.

    On and on. This laundry list ain't washed.

     

     


    You made my point very well when you wrote about reproductive freedom as Orwellian, wow really?   You certainly do bring attention to Libertarian ideology which is nothing more than a super conservative Republican ideology.

    Thanks for you support!


    If I understand what PP is saying, it's not "reproductive freedom" per se that's Orwellian, but the double-speak of saying someone's against it if they support birth control and RU-486 (hypothetically here), but not late-term abortion. That's propaganda. If you want to argue about late-term abortion, then argue about it. Don't put it in some catch-all term and then use that term to slur your opponent. (Note: I'm not saying you were doing that. I'm merely saying that's a typical usage of such umbrella terms versus their more concise counterparts.)


    No, Orwellian is "reproductive freedom" as a euphemism for right to feticide.

    Abortion rights is not about the right to reproduce. It's about the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy at will - not at cause.

    I don't think it hypocritical to draw your own line where you think the cutoff should be. For some when it's still an embryo, not a fetus. For some when it's before 3 months specifically. For some within 6 months. For some never. For some, with various conditions. How we reconcile those different viewpoints is complex. And it's certainly not just a male vs. female vortex.

    The part about slurring your opponent is if someone has any basic issues re: global warming, abortion, gay marriage - slam, we treat them as if they were completely denying and anti-. No gradations of scale.


    So no need to twist yourself a pretzel defending what he wrote. He used the term Orwellian to be dismiss of the concept of Reproductive Freedom.

    The fundamental principle of reproductive rights and supporting them means this: I have a right to discuss and receive advice and treatment from my physician, whatever that treatment may be, with out the government, or you, or Ron Paul supporting or not supporting my right to obtain that advice or treatment.

    It should be known that there is no treatment available to men that is subject to  legislative interference. What is discussed, your treatment plans stay between yourself and your physician.  I get that same right.

    Ahh the caveats, just cause he doesn't support late-term abortion doesn't mean he doesn't believe in Reproductive Freedom, sorry man, hate to tell you yes it does, because it means he is willing to limit my access to medical treatment.  The procedures themselves (whether it is late term abortion, an early abortion, the availability of contraceptives or access to RU-486) should not be the issue for a real civil libertarian, because treatment plans are simply not-yours-or-anybodies-business. Right?   If that right is fundamental for you as a man, it is for me too.


    "Treatment" for pregnancy? Again, a funny (strange) euphemism. 

    Guess pointing out ironical or bizarre terms is a waste of time. 

    BTW, I can't go into a doctor and ask him to take off a leg, and so far doctors keep refusing my request to have bi-weekly trepanations and blood lettings. I'm getting tired of them stepping on my civil liberties, man. I call it hole-istic medicine. I demand treatment.

    And did I mention my glaucoma and cancer treatment for which I need to smoke a doob now and then? Well forget that - just asking for a SWAT team to break down ye ol' front door.

    I hear Kim Jong Il was good at treating life and inspiring/perspiring people to the state of adulation. If only I could be so well loved.


     my glaucoma and cancer treatment for which I need to smoke a doob now and then? 

    And me for my blood pressure, but it's obtuse to make the comparison.


    I love me some Gary Johnson, but he is not getting one of the three tickets outta Iowa.  Paul is.


    Why do you think that is?


    $


    Just wandered on to this one again, and as far ad denying any responsibility, in order to accept that one really has to ignore that the offensive bits in the newsletters appeared repeatedly over a span of at least five years. There's only so much plausible deniability I'm willing to give him.

    Thus, to me the only acceptable response was to repudiate and confess direct responsibility, if not authorship. I'm not talking about some hollow confession but one that shows he really has changed.

    His views on reduced military presence are great, but they're just one part of a largely troubling candidate. I welcome his presence in Congress and would even be happy to see him as a the GOP nominee, as long as he doesn't actually win the White House itself. Obama also had many ideas that sounded good on paper, but once he got elected, they either got diluted or dismissed, as is always the case.


    I would not wish to paint myself as so hopelessly credulous as to believe the protestations of ignorance...that said, I suppose I am doomed to wander upon the increasingly thin ice of suspended disbelief (ed note: points for heroic mixing of inconsistent metaphors...)


    Latest Comments