At the Americans for Prosperity Summit

David Weigel | October 5, 2007

I stepped inside the two-day Americans for Prosperity "Defending the American Dream" summit in Washington, D.C. and ran into a guy who'd just hugged Ron Paul.

"It was... pretty awkward!" said Logan Dobson, an 18-year old Republican from the George Washington University. "I got next to him, I gave him a hug, and I said 'You're my hero!'"

Dobson joined a fairly large contingent of young Paul supporters who had hooted and cheered during his short speech to the Summit. Not too large: Most of the Paulites knew each other from other events and from the web. But there were far more lapel buttons for Paul than for Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney, or any other candidate who was speaking. They had signs, too, which cheesed off Americans for Prosperity volunteers who wanted to keep this an ostensibly non-partisan affair.

"He got a pretty good reception during the speech," said Aaron Biterman, a 24-year old American University grad who does some Paul organizing in D.C. "A third of the audience was cheering: I was cheering and jumping up the whole time. A third was pretty neutral, a third didn't really like him."

"I was sitting near one of those people," said Tyler Whitney, an 18-year old from Michigan State. "He just said 'Ron Paul? He supports the terrorists!' and then... didn't pay attention."

I didn't meet that guy but I met Lt. Col Stuart Jolly (Ret.), an AFP organizer from Oklahoma who grimaced when I asked about Paul.

"I can't take him really seriously," Jolly said. "I don't think you can come out of the Army and take him seriously on this war." The war was a deal-breaker for him, but he wasn't buying John McCain's new campaign focus as the candidate who'll "never surrender" in Iraq. "I like Rudy. You listen to him and you know he will never stop until he's gotten the job done."

No one I talked to was crazy about McCain and almost everyone I talk to think Fred Thompson gave an awful, confidence-killing rambler of a speech. (Jim Geraghty has a different take.)

"He looked like he was worried about the Big Bad Wolf catching him on the way to Grandma's house," said Lucie Weaver, a Texas Republican activist.

By far the most opinionated activist I spoke to was Jerry Sawyer, a 67-year old academic from Fort Myer's Beach, Florida and the author of a self-published epistle called Liberalism and the Age of the Woman. Ron Paul was unacceptable because "Libertarianism is an incoherent philosophy. How can you say you'll govern Judeo-Christian principles if you're not willing to enforce them?" George W. Bush is a good president "but I want to choke him for his immigration stance."

They were a minority, but the only truly optimistic people I found were Paul people.

"I think if Ayn Rand was watching Ron Paul right now," said Anthony Baumann, 18, "she'd give him a thumb's up."

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

|10.5.07 @ 3:54PM|#

Even though it probably amounts to a "children's crusade", it's worth noting that Ron Paul is the only Republican who seems to be generating any actual enthusiasm. With everyone else, it's a bunch of "electability" hooey.

|10.5.07 @ 3:55PM|#

Ron Paul is an interesting case. Has there ever been a Presidential candidate that has on one hand been the only person running to advocate a very popular position (get out of Iraq now) combined with a bunch of crazy ideas that almost nobody supports (gold standard, pull out of UN, abolish most of the Federal government)?

|10.5.07 @ 4:00PM|#

Ah, 18-year-old Ayn Rand disciples. If only they ruled the country.

I do have to agree with Jerry Sawyer that libertarianism is incompatible with governing with Judeo-Christian principles, and an unwillingness to enforce them is at least one of the reasons.

|10.5.07 @ 4:01PM|#

They had signs, too, which cheesed off Americans for Prosperity volunteers who wanted to keep this an ostensibly non-partisan affair.

They put a string of candidates currently campaigning for the office of POTUS on their podium, but they expect to keep things "ostensibly non-partisan"? Are they crazy, or just stupid.

RON PAUL 2008

I thought most right-wingers wanted to pull out of the UN. I remember Rudy getting cheered back in the day for saying NYC didn't need the UN and we could use the space for something better. It's it a right-wing (and maybe some others) that the UN is worthless and we don't need it?

|10.5.07 @ 4:02PM|#

I heard that Ron Paul is actually pro life, is that true?

I work with a couple of ardent Paul-supporters. It seems to me they break down into two types: hard-core libertarians, and unfortunately, 9/11-Truth-types.

I'm not sure what it is, but my one co-worker really believes in 9/11 conspiracies, and is totally crazy about Paul. I can't help but think that at least some of the enthusiasm for Paul comes from these types, even though Paul himself has said he doesn't believe it's a conspiracy.

My 9/11 Truther friend also doesn't seem to listen to anything else Paul says (gold standard, small gov't, etc).

Browsing other websites (especially Digg.com), the correlation between 9/11 Truthers and Paul is definitely there, though I'm at a loss how to explain it.

|10.5.07 @ 4:03PM|#

Is it true that they turned the "get off the stage" music on 10 minutes into his speech?

|10.5.07 @ 4:04PM|#

John -
Yes, Ron Paul is pro-life

|10.5.07 @ 4:05PM|#

But pro-life in a devolve the decision to the states kind of way, not a Federal Ban on Abortion kind of way

shecky|10.5.07 @ 4:05PM|#

This sounds like the summit where loony and toons come together to reach accord.

|10.5.07 @ 4:06PM|#

Question for Ron Paul fans: lets say his poll numbers shot up suddenly to where it appeared that he actually had a shot at getting the nomination.

At that point, would you rather him begin to compromise some of his less popular principles in order to move a bit towards the center and get enough votes to win the nomination, or would you rather him stand firm on his libertarian views even if it meant not winning?

Ron Paul is pro life. However like many many issues, his prescription for this is Federalism. He wants to overturn Roe vs Wade because they Constitution provides no authority for the federal government to involve itself one way or the other. This is an issue that belongs with the States. Within that frame work he would be against legalizing abortion in the state. However he would not use any powers of office as President to prevent it.

There are several issues like this where I disagree with Dr. Paul but still support his position because he wouldn't impose his views on the people. That is what I love about the man.

|10.5.07 @ 4:10PM|#

Sawyer was also the only activist I talked to who said he might vote for a third party if Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination. "That'd be a tough choice," he said. "In that case I'd almost have Hillary get elected and shock some sense into this country."

Talk about making the perfect the enemy of the good. He's a libertarian who would really prefer the next 2-3 Supreme Court justices to be picked by Hillary instead of Rudy?

|10.5.07 @ 4:12PM|#

Dan T:
"At that point, would you rather him begin to compromise some of his less popular principles in order to move a bit towards the center and get enough votes to win the nomination, or would you rather him stand firm on his libertarian views even if it meant not winning?"

Moot, because he's not going to budge whether or not anyone would rather he did or not. That's really the beauty of it.

Andrew|10.5.07 @ 4:12PM|#

I'm a Ron Paul supporter (and small donor). My hope is that he doesn't win the nomination, but somehow, some way his candicacy will bring bring the GOP back to its limited government, low tax, leave-me-alone roots of the Goldwater Era -- or even Reagan.

|10.5.07 @ 4:13PM|#

There are several issues like this where I disagree with Dr. Paul but still support his position because he wouldn't impose his views on the people. That is what I love about the man.

Didn't you just tell us that he'd impose his view that women don't have a Constitutional right to abortion?

"""I do have to agree with Jerry Sawyer that libertarianism is incompatible with governing with Judeo-Christian principles, and an unwillingness to enforce them is at least one of the reasons."""

Which principles are you referring?

Ron Paul is pro life. However like many many issues, his prescription for this is Federalism. He wants to overturn Roe vs Wade because they Constitution provides no authority for the federal government to involve itself one way or the other. This is an issue that belongs with the States.

I have said this before (in particular to the currently MIA Donderrooo) that the abortion question with regards to a Paul Presidency is a red herring. Paul's view is Roe v. Wade is an unauthorized power grab by the fed and that abortion should be relegated to the states. As POTUS however, there isn't a damned thing he can do to reverse that grab. It would have to come from Congress and to my knowledge Congress has never given back a power to the states once they claimed the right to it.

IOW, while he may be pro-life, it should not really be a factor in supporting his bid for presidency.

|10.5.07 @ 4:14PM|#

"Ah, 18-year-old Ayn Rand disciples. If only they ruled the country."

You haven't had them living in your basement have you? ;)

Fluffy|10.5.07 @ 4:14PM|#

Dan -

The latter.

Unless his "move to the center" consisted of statements saying he would prioritize his agenda by seeking to do A and B right away, while leaving C and D for later...or if he said words to the effect of "Hey, I probably won't be able to pass half his stuff in the Congress anyway."

|10.5.07 @ 4:15PM|#

"""Didn't you just tell us that he'd impose his view that women don't have a Constitutional right to abortion?"""

That doesn't mean he supports laws to forbid it. He would probably leave it to the states.

|10.5.07 @ 4:17PM|#

...a bunch of crazy ideas that almost nobody supports (gold standard, pull out of UN, abolish most of the Federal government)?

Gold standard, Nah?
Pu;; out of the UN.? Why not. WTF does it accomplish other than allow third world diplomats a chance to visit NYc?

Abolish most of the Federal government? Go

Didn't you just tell us that he'd impose his view that women don't have a Constitutional right to abortion?

No. It is not "imposing one's view" to insist that blue eyed people don't have a Constitutional right to bite the heads off chickens either.

|10.5.07 @ 4:18PM|#

Dan T.
The question you pose is erroneous. Ron Paul stands the best chance of winning by sticking to his principals. It is his principals that makes him attractive as a candidate. If he were seen to compromise for the sake of political gain, he would have no appeal at all.

I don't know about that. Many of Paul's supporters like his anti-war stance and are willing to ignore his more extreme views on small government, etc.

Meanwhile, there are millions of voters like myself who want out of Iraq but are not comfortable with Paul's other positions. So if he were to at least de-emphasize some of his other ideas, he could win more of the anti-war vote, since nobody else seems to want it.

Nash|10.5.07 @ 4:20PM|#

"Browsing other websites (especially Digg.com), the correlation between 9/11 Truthers and Paul is definitely there, though I'm at a loss how to explain it."

It's because of Alex Jones and Prison Planet. He's a truther and hosts a very popular radio show and Ron Paul has been a guest on that show for years. For this particular presidential campaign, that was what got the ball rolling.

I myself had never heard of Alex Jones until this campaign started and I've been reading Ron Paul on Lew Rockwell for years.

Ron Paul's "base" at this point are the truthers, libertarians and paleocons. What's impressive to me is that he's going way beyond that and he's pulling in democrats, anti-war protesters, religious right activists and even reagan republicans. The last pillar to fall will be the various brands of neocons that still infest a large portion of the (dwindling) party, if he can manage to get some of them onboard I think he can take the nomination.

|10.5.07 @ 4:20PM|#

No. It is not "imposing one's view" to insist that blue eyed people don't have a Constitutional right to bite the heads off chickens either.

But the SCOTUS has found that women do indeed have a constitutional right to an abortion. And they're the ones who decide such things.

You may be right in the sense that Paul can't just "impose" his view if President but he does seem to want to take away rights from Americans in this case at least.

|10.5.07 @ 4:21PM|#

He's a libertarian who would really prefer the next 2-3 Supreme Court justices to be picked by Hillary instead of Rudy?

I'm more libertarian than thou, and I say "sure why not" They're both scum that will put statists on the bench. Right now I'd rather see a communist put forward than another fascist.

LoganD|10.5.07 @ 4:21PM|#

I was the one who hugged Ron. He's like... I can't even describe. I felt high for a half hour after meeting him.

|10.5.07 @ 4:22PM|#

"I like Rudy. You listen to him and you know he will never stop until he's gotten the job done."

I keep hearing this and other similar statements. But what, I must ask, is "the job"? A war without an objective, or an ever shifting objective, is a huge moral mistake.

|10.5.07 @ 4:23PM|#

Warren,
Communist, Fascist, you throw these words around as if they mean different things. Have you learned nothing grasshopper?

|10.5.07 @ 4:24PM|#

Damn that slippery muse! Trying again,

...a bunch of crazy ideas that almost nobody supports (gold standard, pull out of UN, abolish most of the Federal government)?

Gold standard, Nah?

Pull out of the UN.? Why not. WTF does it accomplish other than allow third world diplomats a chance to visit NYc?

Abolish most of the Federal government? Go here. for a start. 50% is reasonable.

Nor nutty at all.

|10.5.07 @ 4:25PM|#

Pull out of the UN.? Why not. WTF does it accomplish other than allow third world diplomats a chance to visit NYc?

Eh, you know, it just allows leaders of countries to gather and work out issues peacefully. Preventing world wars, little things like that.

|10.5.07 @ 4:27PM|#

Also, with the meme that the military is solidly conservative, where are the reports that %50 of donations from armed services members are going to Ron Paul?

Hayekian Dreamer|10.5.07 @ 4:28PM|#

Dan T - Ron Paul believes Roe v. Wade was, to use Fox News's word, misadjudicated. Roe v. Wade only legalized abortion in states where it was illegal, overturning it would only make abortion illegal in states that want it to be banned. Essentially, it is the same policy he has on the drug war, he's against the drug war but he doesn't object to state laws banning drug usage.

Hayekian Dreamer|10.5.07 @ 4:30PM|#

He did, however vote for the partial birth abortion ban, if that is important to your criticism of him.

Leland Thomas Faegre|10.5.07 @ 4:30PM|#

Always invoked and never referenced is this argument that only a Republican Chief Executive will nominate so-called 'strict constructionist' jurisprudence to the bench. Some of the worst appointments to the bench in modern history have been made by Republican Presidents such as Justices Blackman, Warren, Souter and Stephens. The late Harry Browne said that a great appointment to the Supreme Court would be one that could 'READ the Constitution...'

|10.5.07 @ 4:31PM|#

I do have to agree with Jerry Sawyer that libertarianism is incompatible with governing with Judeo-Christian principles, and an unwillingness to enforce them is at least one of the reasons.

Which principles are you referring?

I'm thinking that most libertarians would not support that whole "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" thingy.

"At that point, would you rather him begin to compromise some of his less popular principles..."

I would hope that he never compromise his principles. At least he seems to have some.

Most of the rest of those clowns aren't even trying to pretend that they stand for anything but "winning the war" or "health care all around" - and I don't believe that either of those are more plausible than ending the War on Drugs or significantly downsizing the government.

John Tabin|10.5.07 @ 4:32PM|#

"I think if Ayn Rand was watching Ron Paul right now," said Anthony Baumann, 18, "she'd give him a thumb's up."

Spoken like someone who knows nothing about the history of libertarian/Objectivist feuding. (Get him a copy of Doherty's book!)

Nash|10.5.07 @ 4:32PM|#

"Eh, you know, it just allows leaders of countries to gather and work out issues peacefully. Preventing world wars, little things like that."

Pulling out of the UN won't prevent the US from doing that. We are free to talk to whomever we like. For some reason we choose not to do so despite being in the UN now.

Ron Paul doesn't dislike the concept of negotiation, he dislikes the notion that we are supposed to get behind "peacekeeping" missions where we send in troops under UN control to depose dictators who don't play nice with others but in reality aren't really a threat to anyone except maybe their own people.

|10.5.07 @ 4:33PM|#

How can you say you'll govern Judeo-Christian principles if you're not willing to enforce them?

I have to ask what Mr. Sawyer means by this. It is possible for one to have a Judeo-Christian moral compass and use it to guide his/her life without forcing it upon others. Indeed, the teachings of Christ support that acceptance of God by coercion isn't acceptance at all.

I have to wonder if Mr. Sawyer supports government mandated store closings on the Sabbath days. Does he support the public stoning of adulterers by government hired police? What exactly does he mean by "enforcing Judeo-Christian principles"?

|10.5.07 @ 4:34PM|#

Kwix,
Yes, I've learned that communist are sanctimonious entertainers. Fascists are sanctimonious industrialists.

Mad Max|10.5.07 @ 4:34PM|#

"I like Rudy. You listen to him and you know he will never stop until he's gotten the job done."

Ask Donna and the kids about that.

""I think if Ayn Rand was watching Ron Paul right now,' said Anthony Baumann, 18, 'she'd give him a thumb's up.'"

If Rand could read Dr. Paul's "Statement of Faith" (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/87/statement-of-faith/), she would roll over in her grave:

"I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator."

"I work with a couple of ardent Paul-supporters. It seems to me they break down into two types: hard-core libertarians, and unfortunately, 9/11-Truth-types."

And a lot of Barry Goldwater's supporters in 1964 were segregationists. The only states outside Arizona that Goldwater carried were in the Deep South. Yet Goldwater is today honored as a conservative hero. He doesn't seem to have been tainted by his segregationist supporters.

". . . a bunch of crazy ideas that almost nobody supports (gold standard, pull out of UN, abolish most of the Federal government)?"

Just for laughs, I looked up the term "gold standard" in LexisNexis, and I found numerous examples of the term being used as a metaphor for the highest level of reliability and quality:

"A global publishing powerhouse announced Wednesday that it has an agreement to buy Tampa-based Gold Standard Inc., a small but growing high-tech company that provides drug information to thousands of health professionals across the country."

("Drug database publisher to be sold," Knight-Ridder Tribune Business News, by Carol Gentry, April 20, 2006)

"Six organizations have been accredited with the CEO Cancer Gold Standard(TM), joining six others that have earned a second year of Gold Standard accreditation. The CEO Cancer Gold Standard is a workplace initiative that combats cancer by focusing on three objectives: risk reduction, early detection and quality care."

("Six More Companies Awarded 'CEO Cancer Gold Standard(TM)' That Promotes Workplace Wellness," PR Newswire, January 10, 2007).

"And it's still the gold standard. Still the gold standard."

(Anchor Harry Smith, praising the music on Dick Clark's American Bandstand, "Frankie Avalon and Deborah Gibson talk about the 50th anniversary of "American Bandstand," CBS Early Show, August 20, 2007).

[I'm not saying that Dick Clark *is* the gold standard, just that Harry Smith thinks he is]

"Brookfield Properties Corporation (BPO: NYSE, TSX) and its Canadian-based subsidiary, BPO Properties Ltd. (BPP: TSX), today announced that the 2.6 million square foot Bay Adelaide Centre development in Toronto's financial core will be built to a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold standard, as specified by the Canada Green Building Council (CaGBC). . . .
"In achieving a LEED Gold standard, the entire Bay Adelaide Centre complex will produce an estimated 40% energy savings relative to other buildings built to the Canadian Model National Energy Code . . ."
("Brookfield Properties' Bay Adelaide Centre Development to Be Built to LEED Gold Standard; Green Features, Sustainability Top Priorities at 2.6 Million Square Foot Project in Toronto CBD;" Business Wire, October 2, 2007.)

This shows that, in their everyday discourse, many people use the term "gold standard" as a symbol of the best of the best. Make of that what you will.

|10.5.07 @ 4:37PM|#

"Talk about making the perfect the enemy of the good. He's a libertarian who would really prefer the next 2-3 Supreme Court justices to be picked by Hillary instead of Rudy?"

I might be, too. Seven of the current Supremes are Republican appointees. Why would any libertarian prefer them?

|10.5.07 @ 4:38PM|#

Rudy moved his "emergency command bunker" to the WTC after it had been attacked the first time. If Rudy gets elected maybe he'll move to Iraq.

""But what, I must ask, is "the job"? """

The job is 9/11!

I'd bet the average Rudy supporter really don't know crap about him and thinks his "newly found" beliefs are legit.

|10.5.07 @ 4:39PM|#

""""I like Rudy. You listen to him and you know he will never stop until he's gotten the job done."

Ask Donna and the kids about that."""

ROLFLAMO

|10.5.07 @ 4:43PM|#

Eh, you know, it just allows leaders of countries to gather and work out issues peacefully. Preventing world wars, little things like that.

I was going to rebut that statement, but on second thought I'll just leave it out there on its own.

|10.5.07 @ 4:45PM|#

First I am tired of the neo-cons threats of "support us or Hillary will get elected". Screw you, you have been counting on the support of true conservatives or years, using it to get elected, then governing with no thought of conservative ideals. I am 50 years old and a former Republican committee-man in Illinois, not an 18 year old in my parents basement. Ron Paul is the only one on the Republican stage who is not the same old "tax and spend and dish out to my friends" politician.

Warren | October 5, 2007, 4:34pm | #
Kwix,
Yes, I've learned that communist are sanctimonious entertainers. Fascists are sanctimonious industrialists.

Oh, then you clearly missed the front page of Eric Donderrrrooooooo's, Mainstream Libertarian where he clearly shows that Alice Cooper, Johnny Van Zandt and Arnold Schwarzenegger are all respectable Republicans. Why if I didn't know any better I'd almost think that Rudy wasn't an evil, flip-flopping, fascist bastard after all.

|10.5.07 @ 4:46PM|#

As if the UN could stop the US from starting WWIII. Of course, it will be the other guys' fault.

|10.5.07 @ 4:56PM|#

"I'd almost have Hillary get elected and shock some sense into this country."

Jumping Christ on a solid gold pogo stick! What sort of grotesque abomination would that require?
The mind boggles; if BushCo hasn't been able to manage it...

|10.5.07 @ 5:03PM|#

The biggest issues the United States is facing right now is:

- The most systematic corruption of the legistlative branch in any industralized country in the world. Washington DC is a place crawling with corruption and influence peddling of the most unabashed type. Walk around the government core, and you'll find its stink sticking to your clothing.
- Rural stagnation and economic ruin.
- The biggest trade deficit as a percentage of GDP and in sheer mass in the history of the planet.
- A dollar that is less stable than Lindsay Lohan at 3 AM on a Saturday morning.

|10.5.07 @ 5:04PM|#

Adding: What would Hillary do to change any of that? Nothing, really. She is a product of the political process, and has been all of her life. Her growth platform is non-existent. The trade deficit stuff is too indemic in an economy that was built for waste and excess consumption, which also leads to a poor dollar.

|10.5.07 @ 5:30PM|#

The most systematic corruption of the legistlative branch in any industralized country in the world.

Bad as the D.C. is, I bet Moscow's worse. Hell, you want institutionalized corruption, go to Beijing.

|10.5.07 @ 5:31PM|#

Eh, you know, it just allows leaders of countries to gather and work out issues peacefully. Preventing world wars, little things like that.

Oh my, how precious. Yes, the UN has been so effective at letting leaders work things out peacefully, and preventing war. Why, that must be why there haven't been any wars in the world since 1948. Yes, how could us horrid, horrid, libertarians think that organization is a collosal fucking waste? We must be warmongers! That's why we support bloodthirsty Ron Paul!

|10.5.07 @ 5:33PM|#

Talk about making the perfect the enemy of the good. He's a libertarian who would really prefer the next 2-3 Supreme Court justices to be picked by Hillary instead of Rudy?

Papaya, read the article again. The guy you were discussing is no libertarian, not even in name.

Nash|10.5.07 @ 5:35PM|#

"I'd almost have Hillary get elected and shock some sense into this country."

"Jumping Christ on a solid gold pogo stick! What sort of grotesque abomination would that require?
The mind boggles; if BushCo hasn't been able to manage it..."

Unfortunately I think a lot of the country believes that Clinton is somehow different than Bush and that the disaster we've been exposed to during the last 6 years was a result of Bush policies and not policies that have been in place for the last 50+ years (or even 100).

I'd like to think after 8 years of Clinton finally the public would we willing to actually make a change, but at point they'll all be longing for "sensible economic policies" of the Bush administration and proceed to just vote another neocon into office.

Or maybe Ron Paul will win and we can avoid all of that, or at the very least his legacy will inspire real small government republicans to actually get noticed by the media and win the election in 2012 or 2016. Probably not but I can dream.

|10.5.07 @ 5:39PM|#

He's a libertarian who would really prefer the next 2-3 Supreme Court justices to be picked by Hillary instead of Rudy?

Maybe he's one of the libertarians who don't approve of the government disappreaing, torturing, or spying on people. You know, THAT kind of libertarian.

Remember the mayor who passed around the juvenile court records of an innocent security guard who was shot by the police when he objected too vociferously after they tried to get him to buy drugs? Let's have THAT guy pick the next few Supreme Court justices.

JBinMO|10.5.07 @ 5:41PM|#

The problem with pulling out of the UN is that someone else form one that acyually gets things done. The statis quo is fine.

|10.5.07 @ 5:52PM|#

Most of what the UN does is nice church lady work. Food aid and medical clinics and water projects in the world's most desperate hell holes.

As far as geopolitics, the UN only matters to the extent that the United States wields it as an instrument of our foreign policy.

The role it plays as villain in the minds of American conseratives is just baffling.

|10.5.07 @ 6:05PM|#

"That'd be a tough choice," he said. "In that case I'd almost have Hillary get elected and shock some sense into this country."

This guy is so behind the times, that was Reason's 2006 election strategy.

Hayekian Dreamer|10.5.07 @ 6:06PM|#

JBinMO - I'm not sure how it would be a problem if someone else formed a "working" UN. In all honesty the UN IS marginally better than the League of Nations was, and it's somewhat reasonable to assume that any future iteration of world governance would attempt to fix the glaring errors and massive bureaucratic corruptions inherent to the UN. Sometimes you just have to start from scratch to make something "better" that is, assuming your goal IS world government. Not that I'm advocating for world government 3.0, but if it is inevitable then in my opinion the UN is past the reform phase and should be scrapped entirely.

|10.5.07 @ 6:07PM|#

joe - it has a history of not being able to control its peacekeepers, for one thing.

|10.5.07 @ 6:34PM|#

Fred Thompson has the grace of a three legged elephant.

I would of posted earlier but I just woke up after his talk. Wow what a ball of fire.

|10.5.07 @ 6:56PM|#

Ron Paul is all things to all people. For libertarians he's a libertarian. For conservatives he's a conservative. He takes a bit of Mises and tosses in a whole lot of the Birch society ramblings, and Christianist ideas about abortion, the falsehood of separation of church and state, etc.

He even has some people who won't research his views believing his position on abortion is one of state's rights. This in spite of his voting for federal restrictions on abortion and for supporting a constitutional amendment that defines abortion as murder thus making it illegal in the states since that would be violating the civil rights of Americans (the fetus) and would be covered by the 14th Amendment.

Consider one fanatical Paul supporter who posted comments at the libertarian Classically Liberal blog (classicallyliberal.blogspot.com) saying: "Hopefull Ron Paul will get elected so we can finally establish the "robustly Christian, yet religiously tolerant America" the founding fathers intended. We also need to pass Ron Paul's "We the People" act so that we can stop Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, and false-Christians (Papists) from occupying positions of power in our state legislature. Only then will our nation be safe from the people who hate God."

Now why does this guy think Paul sides with him? Why do the White Nationalists think Paul is really one of them? Why is that dozens of fringe groups (libertarians included) all think Paul is one of them yet they all hold very different views? He's a master politician who gives people enough of what they want to form a coalition that benefits himself.

Mad Max|10.5.07 @ 7:12PM|#

weary,

Some of Paul's supporters are crazy - so what? What about the candidate himself? He's not crazy enough to believe that the solution to a failed war is to continue the war. I thought the *definition* of insanity was to do the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.

The good doctor isn't crazy enough to continue to spout medieval science - that a unique individual in the womb isn't human until it mysteriously becomes ensouled at some point in pregnancy. Isn't that the line of many "pro-choicers"? If your idea of cutting-edge science is some stuff concocted by the medieval scientific establishment, how sane are you, really?

|10.5.07 @ 7:25PM|#

Baked Penguin,

Good thing red-blooded American soldiers don't do anything like that.

BTW, there's no such thing as "their peacekeepers." The UN doesn't have a military force. Those are soldiers of the national armies of various countries. There are American military serving in UN commands right now, and I don't think they would appreciate being declared "UN soldiers."

Jackson|10.5.07 @ 9:05PM|#

A lot of Ron Paul's supporters are calling on the truthers and other conspiracy-minded folks within their ranks to chill out and focus on furthering the campaign, not their pet issues which are starting to cause friction between factions of supports and damage Paul in the media.

The same goes for the Paulites out there ravaging bloggers in their comments with link upon link and capital letters galore. They're simply doing more harm than good.

$5.3M in-hand doesn't do a whole hell of a lot of good if you spend it without a return on investment because of your own supporters undermining the campaign's efforts. I'm glad his supporters are finally beginning to realize this and become a bit more professional.

I can't blame them one bit. The more food you give to opponents in the media and other candidates (and their henchmen), the less seriously they're going to take him even if he absolutely disagrees with every single one of those controversial views.

Joe Schembrie|10.5.07 @ 9:11PM|#

"How can you say you'll govern Judeo-Christian principles if you're not willing to enforce them?"

Guess the guy never read the Gospel of John, chapter nine, wherein a crowd brings a woman to Jesus and tells him that she has committed adultery. According to Old Testament Law, an adulterer must be stoned to death. Instead, Jesus says, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." The crowd, humiliated, leaves and Jesus says to the woman, "Go and sin no more."

Hmm, don't see much 'enforcement' there.

John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Fred Thompson are adulterers. Are any of the anti-Paul fundamentalists going to pick up rocks?

|10.5.07 @ 9:44PM|#

Certainly Hillary's and Rudy's supporters are not wacky at all. They are all philosophically principled and consistent. Their positions are all well thought out and reasonable.

|10.5.07 @ 10:30PM|#

I imagine that Jerry Sawyer was from Fort Myers or Fort Myers Beach. I don't think Florida has a Fort Myer, and if it does, I don't think that it has a beach.

|10.5.07 @ 11:55PM|#

I thought the *definition* of insanity was to do the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.

This is such a retarded bromide. Do a quick Google search and you'll find a lot of moron political commentators (Michelle Malkin, David Sirota, etc.) using this made-up and patently false quote.

|10.6.07 @ 2:31AM|#

joe - never said US troops didn't. And I don't recall ever advocating putting US troops in foreign countries. In fact, I think we should take back a lot of the ones we have elsewhere.

|10.6.07 @ 8:09AM|#

BTW, there's no such thing as "their peacekeepers." The UN doesn't have a military force. Those are soldiers of the national armies of various countries. There are American military serving in UN commands right now, and I don't think they would appreciate being declared "UN soldiers."

I believe those soldiers are not in their usual national command structures, but are under the command of the UN, and that the US may be unique in refusing to allow its soldiers to be under UN command.

Given that the UN has command and control of the peacekeepers systematically engaged in rape, extortion, and slavery, I think its not unfair to lay those crimes at its doorstep. If its Bush's fault when a US soldier commits a crime, why isn't it the UN's fault when a UN soldier commits a crime?

Mad Max|10.6.07 @ 9:21AM|#

Graphite,

I bet Michelle Malkin takes showers. Therefore, you ought to quit showering, if you haven't already.

There's nothing made up about the quote, although some people make up attributions for it (Einstein, Kiplling, etc.).

|10.6.07 @ 4:50PM|#

Funny thing. Ron Paul made it clear in the debates, subsequent interviews and in speeches, that the reason 911 happened was because of our Foreign Policy. The U.S. been in the MidEast for 50+ years, sticking our nose into every country, interrupting their internal affairs and often invading with our military. He goes further. He says, "How would we feel if the Chinese set up a military base in the U.S?" Do we wonder that the various Islamic groups attacked us? We've been bombing their countries. And yet, many uninformed citizens still think that Ron Paul is on the side of the terrorists. Well duh.

|10.6.07 @ 6:32PM|#

Baked Penguin,

That's fine, but it really has nothing to do with the UN.

RC Dean,

Once again, solidiers who servce in peacekeeping missions are under the command of officers of their national army, or officers of someone else's national army. There is no such thing as "UN Command." There are commands of various countries which are authorized by the UN, but the UN has never had any command authority. The UN is basically a client, and the countries involved in peacekeeping comparable to its contractors. So, no, the UN doesn't have the command authority and responsibility for soldiers in peacekeeping missions, their commanders (whether from this country or that) do - as opposed to, say, Abu Ghraib, where the soldiers really were under the ultimate command of the White House.

Another relevant detail for your comparison is to note that there is, and never has been, and policy direction from the UN authorizing any behavior remotely comparable to those scandals among peacekeepers. As opposed to the the acts in Baghram and Abu Ghraib, and the famous "Gonzales Memo," as well as the new one we learned about this week.

BTW, just t clear something up for you - the law doesn't forbid American military from being places under "UN Command," because once again, there is no such thing as a "UN Command." The law states that American soldiers sent to serve in a UN-sponsored mission must be under the command of officers from the American national army, as opposed to some other national army.

J Doo|10.6.07 @ 8:16PM|#

I'll happily support this Libertarian-turned-
Republican because of his commitment to his principles. Do I agree with all of his beliefs? No. But at least he puts his votes where his mouth is which is a helluva lot more than anyone else on The Hill can say.

and regarding the Mad Max's comments about the gold standard... huh? are you trying to point out that most Americans would be confused by his Paul's use of that term? He's pretty clear that he wants a return to dollar being backed by gold, i.e. the gold standard.

|10.6.07 @ 8:58PM|#

Well, joe, those blue covers they wear say "UN". I freely admit there is no UN-land anywhere on the planet. But if this fact releases the UN from any responsibility for the actions of those under its auspices, I would suggest that we've gone a long way to figuring out why those conservatives hate the organization so much.

John Coonen|10.7.07 @ 12:12AM|#

THANK YOU for commenting on the AFP conference. I just got back from D.C. this a.m. after a very successful event.

I'm a member of Americans for Prosperity in Illinois. I'm ramping up a chapter NOW in McHenry County, to act as a watchdog group, to give John Q. Public a "bigger stick" to reduce government spending (earmarks AND overall spending).

I was thrilled to see all the enthusiastic folks out there, supporting their candidates. I was PARTICULARLY HAPPY to witness all the folks flood the room when Ron Paul spoke!

While I'm not yet decided in who I'll support, I will say AMERICANS ARE WINNING this electoral round, because SPECIFICS, as opposed to Carl Rovaian GENERALITIES are being discussed!

KUDOS to Ron Paul supporters for being VOCAL supporters of their candidate! AFP IS non-partisan, but we are CERTAINLY NOT ANTI-SUPPORTER! I think it's GREAT that AFP put on this conference to BRING the candidates TO the PEOPLE!

It's wonderful to hear that at least five of the seven candidates gave REAL specific answers to many of our economic policy blunders - calling for an END to earmarks; calling for a REDUCTION in spending; calling for and END of the IRS itself; calling for Congress to STICK TO FEDERALIST principles!

The Republicans probably don't know that the "Gipper" Ronald Reagan clearly credits Libertarian thinking with his LESS GOVERNMENT IS BEST approach. THAT IS THE MESSAGE THAT WAS BEING TOUTED and that is the GOOD NEWS for ALL Americans to spread.

Ron Paul has ENERGIZED the entire party because frankly, they FEAR him, and they are hoping that if the media continues to belittle him, he will go away. That ain't gonna happen.

Fred Thompson? He was the one I was coming to see. He was sadly, a MAJOR disappointment. He was the ONLY candidate to spew the same old Republican rhetoric we've now been hearing for eight years. Perhaps he will change his tune, but not much of a launch for him--in fact, I'd have to characterize this IMPORTANT speech as a total false start. The others left him in the dust.

The winner in my book? Toss up between Rudy Guiliani (a guy I have real troubles with) and Mike Huckabee. Huck's the man to watch

|10.7.07 @ 12:57AM|#

I was at the AFP summit in DC. I've been a Ron Paul following Libertarian for years. I'm so thrilled to have a chance to vote for him for Pres.

My primary disappointment was when the "get off the stage" music interrupted Paul's speech 10 minutes in, after we had all endured 25 minutes of Rudy bashing Hillary.

The second disappointment was the way the candidates treated the whole affair. Ron Paul was the only candidate that after his speech, spent time with reporters and supporters, by hanging out for a couple hours. I was among several who stood outside the press room waiting for Paul to come back out.

I'm amazed for as much time as the press held onto him in their room, how little he was reported on in the press. The man couldn't take 2 steps without someone wanting to shake his hand, get a picture, or get an autograph.

The other candidates, used back doors to escape as fast as possible after their speeches, and had no desire to meet anyone. Ron Paul stickers were everywhere, and really outnumbered the other candidates.

While I was there, I had a yard signed autographed by Dr. Paul. I carried everywhere I went for the rest of my trip. Due to it's size, It was probably one of the oddest carry-on items on my flight.

Dr. Paul was the most exciting part of the whole DC trip. As thrilled as I am to have an autographed yard sign, I'm donating it to be auctioned off at the Ron Paul Rockfest in Atlanta GA.

Why can't more people find positive things to say about their own candidates than to try to tear down some other candidate in order to not make theirs look so bad?

Mad Max|10.7.07 @ 1:01AM|#

"and regarding the Mad Max's comments about the gold standard... huh? are you trying to point out that most Americans would be confused by his Paul's use of that term? He's pretty clear that he wants a return to dollar being backed by gold, i.e. the gold standard."

I was intrigued that, altough the gold standard itself has been abolished in this country, the term "gold standard" continues to be invoked as a metaphor for something excellent and exemplary.

Does this necessarily mean Americans will support the *actual* gold standard? Not necessarily - I just thought it was interesting that the phrase continues to used in such a positive sense long after the thing itself has been abolished.

|10.8.07 @ 3:38AM|#

"Eh, you know, it just allows leaders of countries to gather and work out issues peacefully. Preventing world wars, little things like that."

Yes, Dan T. the U.N. has done such an amazing job of getting the Burmese Junta to reform...why Mr. Gambari's magic wand instantly turned that brutal dictatorship into a liberal democracy with a bill of rights. Ditto for the rest of the hot spots in the world. Why there is no place on earth where slavery, authoritarian cruelty, and other horrors have been visited on this world since the birth of the U.N. and its miraculous negotiatory powers!

Well, that would be a nice fairly tale but most of us who have stopped believing in Santa Claus are informed and thoughtful enough to know that the U.N. is virtually toothless and ineffective. And I don't know if it's so much that opponents all hate the U.N. as that some of us think it's an irrelevant and wasteful bureaucracy - the money thrown down that hole would be so much better spent elsewhere. And it's quite possible that U.N. actions actually make change that much harder. Take Burma - Mr. Gambari is sent in, shakes some hands, but nothing happens. But the 'negotiations (if you can call them that - more like P.R. sessions for both sides) make it look like both sides are at least trying to do something, that at least a little progress has been made.

|10.8.07 @ 9:32AM|#

Baked Penguin,

Obviously, there is some responsibility on the UN's part, but much less than on the part of the national armies who actually have command authority over those soldiers.

Yes, they wear blue covers - so?

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements